Critiques of nihilist communism?

392 posts / 0 new
Last post
ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Apr 30 2012 16:37

*sigh* roll eyes

I said:

Quote:
It depends what you mean by "make a difference". Certainly the activity of revolutionaries and militants changes the course of history constantly, without necessarily bringing "that glorious day" any closer.

you said

Quote:
it's besides the point, as revisionist or not that doesn't move us closer or further from communism

In other words, you rephrase what I already said as a challenge to what I said. It's difficult to think of any positive way to engage with that, to be frank.

Quote:
"(...) our role also allows this to exist and to keep it going and being bearable to its detractors and also teaching our rulers how to change and mutate to accommodate organic (your spontaneous) reactions."
Or in other words, the outcome of the Poll Tax movement and the kick racism out of football, while good for the working class involved in that precise time and place, helped diffuse the tensions that existed and improve the system.

Not just in that time and place, but for subsequent times and places. Honestly this is just what someone already said, the non-plus-ultra pastiche of ultraleftism. "The worse the better". Seriously, it sometimes appears to me that there's ultras on here that think the world really was a better place when Ireland, India, half of Africa, etc were colonies of the British empire. But why stop there? Bring back slavery, why the hell not? Given that decolonisation, the end of slavery, etc., etc, did not bring the downfall of capitalism, then ipso facto, all the blood sweat and tears of the struggles of centuries past, have simply been making capitalism better and are therefore objectively counter-revolutionary! Such impressive logic. Such inane reactionary right-wing rubbish posing as the most sophisticated anti-capitalism. I see no point in engaging with Daily Mail readers masquerading as communists.

bonobo
Offline
Joined: 27-07-11
Apr 30 2012 16:38

For me, NihCom means that communism has no positive meaning. Outside of apocalyptic times communism must remain to be a total negation, otherwise ‘communism’ is just a self-managed capitalism. NihCom is loser discourse, since every success is only reinforcing capitalism – the bigger your organisation, the more it resembles capitalist structures. Hence the rejection of organisationalism, activism, consciousness-rising, solutions etc.

From the objective point of view, NihCom is the articulation of despair and disappointment in revolutionary milieu, it’s a voice of dead souls (who knows what happened with hundreds of abandoned libcom accounts?). Nihilism exposes milieu’s incompatibility with communism, its filthy nature and function during crises. NihCom starts with talking about the farleft and then moves onto everything else – from work experience to delicious lunch in the backyard – but nothing can be said about communism, about itself.

This reading of Nihilism Communism is mine solely, and I’m sure Monsieur Dupont wouldn’t agree with me much. There are some ideas in the book that I find doubtful too, such as ‘essential proletariat’, refusing to fight (in Camus’ meaning of the word) and particularly the need for organizing new ‘Kronstadters’. There are many discussions of nihcom ideas over here, I would recommend to track the posts of fort-da game, there are some decent conversations, though there are much miscommunication.

KriegPhilosophy's picture
KriegPhilosophy
Offline
Joined: 10-10-10
Apr 30 2012 17:41
Quote:
But this isn't capitalism...it's not even historically (let alone theoretically) correct.....

Yeah I know your right, but it seems that humanity has been dominated by class and the concept of wealth for most of it's existence and it would be interesting to see an analysis of the implications (psychologically and physically) of this. For instance everyday I feel disconnected from actual reality, I think that these "irrational" riots that occur are more over a highly rational reaction (whether conscious or not) to the absolutely absurd existence that we all lead (i.e our lives are consumer shit). People laugh at nihilism but they are essentially laughing at themselves and they're absurdity.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Apr 30 2012 18:15
ocelot wrote:
It depends what you mean by "make a difference". Certainly the activity of revolutionaries and militants changes the course of history constantly, without necessarily bringing "that glorious day" any closer.

Had the anarchists not intervened in the Poll Tax movement, for e.g., it would have remained a Militant front to get "Independent Labour" councillors elected. There would have never been a mass non-payment movement of 14 million households refusing to pay the tax, the riots, the fall of Thatcher, etc. If the then anarchist movement of 1988 (which was when we started in England & Wales, the Scottish comrades were a year earlier, and in fact won the most important battle over non-payment, pretty much on their own) had decided that political activity was all pointless and bird-watching was a more appropriate activity (the nicom line) none of that would have happened. Reforms are not won by the victories of reformists, but by the defeats of revolutionaries (see also, kicking racism out of football, which despite the revisionist history, the actual initial spadework was done by volunteer militant anti-racist and anti-fascist activists, again many of whom being anarchists). So you tell me, who are the real losers? The ones who try and fail, but in the process make the world a better place for ordinary workers? Or the ones who say, best not to try at all, so as to never have to defend their fragile ego from the possibility of not winning every time? The way of the warrior or the way of the wanker? - you pays yer money and you takes yer choice...

The first example isnae a very good example of nihilist communism being wrong. The poll tax was 'defeated' only to be replaced with council tax a year later, that wasn't dramatically different anyhow. Perhaps some of us are bored with winning by losing.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Apr 30 2012 18:40

Wasn't there talk of some NihCommers engaging in active "counter-revolution"?

Wasn't it lettersjournal or what his name was who tried to disrupt meetings or something similar because of the nihilist line of non-organization?

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
May 1 2012 08:52
ocelot wrote:
It depends what you mean by "make a difference". Certainly the activity of revolutionaries and militants changes the course of history constantly, without necessarily bringing "that glorious day" any closer.

Had the anarchists not intervened in the Poll Tax movement, for e.g., it would have remained a Militant front to get "Independent Labour" councillors elected. There would have never been a mass non-payment movement of 14 million households refusing to pay the tax, the riots, the fall of Thatcher, etc. If the then anarchist movement of 1988 (which was when we started in England & Wales, the Scottish comrades were a year earlier, and in fact won the most important battle over non-payment, pretty much on their own) had decided that political activity was all pointless and bird-watching was a more appropriate activity (the nicom line) none of that would have happened. Reforms are not won by the victories of reformists, but by the defeats of revolutionaries (see also, kicking racism out of football, which despite the revisionist history, the actual initial spadework was done by volunteer militant anti-racist and anti-fascist activists, again many of whom being anarchists). So you tell me, who are the real losers? The ones who try and fail, but in the process make the world a better place for ordinary workers? Or the ones who say, best not to try at all, so as to never have to defend their fragile ego from the possibility of not winning every time? The way of the warrior or the way of the wanker? - you pays yer money and you takes yer choice...

I agree with your position mostly, but I have to add, that there is certainly something if someone characterizes the struggles of the proletariat for immediate goals as not communist activity per se. I mean, kicking out racists from football is important, as much as kicking racists in general, but this "survival"/defensive behaviour which is necessary but not enough for an offensive class movement.

These authors are expressing a resentment which, for many reasons I can really understand, however I can't identify with it. But as Melancholy told, it is important to listen to these comrades too, because they can, or IMHO they do contribute communist perspective, exactly by their "puritanism" (lacking of better word). Also, I wonder how significant part of this resentment stems from the fact that most communist organisation are pursuing rather reformist agenda to the point that the revolutionary perspective becomes quite dim.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 1 2012 09:01
flaneur wrote:
The first example isnae a very good example of nihilist communism being wrong. The poll tax was 'defeated' only to be replaced with council tax a year later, that wasn't dramatically different anyhow. Perhaps some of us are bored with winning by losing.

Sure, to the extent that anything with the word "tax" in it isn't "dramatically different" from each other. Wealth tax, VAT, Income tax, water tax - all completely equivalent, no difference in political or class content, whatsoever...

Honestly, this kind of historical revisionism is the death of all critical thought. The poll tax was a replacement for rates, which were based on the (notional and very out of date) value of the property. The poll tax itself was a per capita flat rate tax - with no link to ability to pay, same rate for billionaire and beggar. The council tax was a household tax based on the (notional, but updated compared to rates) value of the property. The council tax is not dramatically different from rates (which continue in NI, in fact). Get it right.

Finally. The poll tax was defeated, not 'defeated'. Ask Thatcher. Stop swallowing and regurgitating this ultra revisionist tosh, it'll rot your teeth and your brain.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
May 1 2012 09:14
KriegPhilosophy wrote:
Quote:
But this isn't capitalism...it's not even historically (let alone theoretically) correct.....

Yeah I know your right, but it seems that humanity has been dominated by class and the concept of wealth for most of it's existence and it would be interesting to see an analysis of the implications (psychologically and physically) of this. For instance everyday I feel disconnected from actual reality, I think that these "irrational" riots that occur are more over a highly rational reaction (whether conscious or not) to the absolutely absurd existence that we all lead (i.e our lives are consumer shit). People laugh at nihilism but they are essentially laughing at themselves and they're absurdity.

I'm not that convinced that the concept of wealth dominated the human existence for most of the time. I mean, we know so little about our ancestors before they've started to write, and all we know that the epoch when humans have started to keep records of history, the concept of power and wealth was in a completely different context (it's speculation to talk about what those slaves and peasants were thinking thousands, or even some hundreds of years before, but I can't imagine that they had much of wealth to gain in mind, rather than the notion of freedom itself, which stands in contrast the modern day notion of wealth, which practically means freedom).

Communism means the conscious organisation of human existence as opposed to "spontaneity" of the markets and alienated dictatorship of wealth/Capital. And communism therefore must be imposed over the society (revolution), which needs active engagement and organisation.

I think this is a powerful line which fits here:

The Coming Insurrection wrote:
"An encounter, a discovery, a vast wave of strikes, an earthquake: every event produces truth by changing our way of being in the world. Conversely, any observation that leaves us indifferent, doesn’t affect us, doesn’t commit us to anything, no longer deserves the name truth. There’s a truth beneath every gesture, every practice, every relationship, and every situation."
ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 1 2012 09:35

Back to clause 7 from As We See It, again:

Quote:
7. Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others [or deus ex machinae like 'history'] to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf.
KriegPhilosophy's picture
KriegPhilosophy
Offline
Joined: 10-10-10
May 1 2012 14:50
Quote:
I'm not that convinced that the concept of wealth dominated the human existence for most of the time. I mean, we know so little about our ancestors before they've started to write, and all we know that the epoch when humans have started to keep records of history, the concept of power and wealth was in a completely different context (it's speculation to talk about what those slaves and peasants were thinking thousands, or even some hundreds of years before, but I can't imagine that they had much of wealth to gain in mind, rather than the notion of freedom itself, which stands in contrast the modern day notion of wealth, which practically means freedom).

I never thought of it that way cheers. tbh I generally view human history as one big suicidal fuck fest. The reason I ask for a critique nihilist communism is because most of us are losing hope (southwest) and turning towards an anarchistic/communistic active nihilism as the only goal in mind, rather than the pursuit of revolution and the fundamental transformation of society into communism. Which is probably why you've seen the threads or comments that I've created which must come off incredibly hateful, this is mainly because of the frustration that nothing has been achieved even in the reformist sense except for symbolic acts.

Melancholy of Resistance's picture
Melancholy of R...
Offline
Joined: 2-11-11
May 1 2012 16:04

David Graeber's book on debt certainly is very enlightening about these concepts of private property and wealth before more contemporary times.

I think that if we accept that capitalism, wealth, private property, selfish greed and all that have been with humanity forever, then we must accept that those are overwhelming human traits, that they will surface in every social relationship. As a communist I can't accept that and there's both an historical record of societies built on different principles and my own experiences which disprove it.

It's been a nice thread, hope Krieg got something to think about although I have no idea how you can be an active nihilist short of suicide or trying to blow up a nuclear reactor.

KriegPhilosophy's picture
KriegPhilosophy
Offline
Joined: 10-10-10
May 1 2012 16:43

active nihilist = Red Brigades, Al Qaeda, Waffen SS etc
"The passion for destruction is also a creative passion." - Bakunin

Quote:
Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in spiritual power. the active nihilist sees freedom where the passive nihilist sees absurdity or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of truth motivates self created standards and criteria. The active nihilist is not active despite the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that hes is the source and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.
lettersjournal
Offline
Joined: 12-12-11
May 1 2012 16:47
Railyon wrote:
Wasn't there talk of some NihCommers engaging in active "counter-revolution"?

Wasn't it lettersjournal or what his name was who tried to disrupt meetings or something similar because of the nihilist line of non-organization?

Hello Railyon,

What do you mean by active "counter-revolution"?

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
May 1 2012 17:06
ocelot wrote:
Honestly, this kind of historical revisionism is the death of all critical thought.

That sounds a bit exciting.

Quote:
By the time of the 1992 general election, legislation had been passed replacing Community Charge with the Council Tax from the start of the 1993/94 financial year, but the VAT rate of 17.5% remained despite abolition of the Community Charge. The Council Tax strongly resembled the rating system that the Community Charge had replaced. The main differences were that properties were placed in bands thereby capping the maximum amount, and it was levied on capital value rather than notional rental value of a property. Households with only one occupant were also entitled to a 25% discount.

That doesn't sound dramatically different to me. And after Thatcher, came Major. Same shit, different day. I don't really have much truck with nihilist communism though I am sympathetic but I'd certainly rather them than your wooly progressivism all the time nonsense.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
May 1 2012 18:05
lettersjournal wrote:
Hello Railyon,

What do you mean by active "counter-revolution"?

Well, I put counter-revolution in quotation marks because the actions themselves were of course not revolutionary in any sense.

What I meant by it is more of a shorthand for trying to interfere in the active organization among the proletariat, and I think that was something you were against, right?

I mean, I can see the justification in that if one thinks that our actions run contrary to our goals but it clashes with our views so it's not exactly an easy situation to resolve...

lettersjournal
Offline
Joined: 12-12-11
May 1 2012 19:45
Railyon wrote:
lettersjournal wrote:
Hello Railyon,

What do you mean by active "counter-revolution"?

Well, I put counter-revolution in quotation marks because the actions themselves were of course not revolutionary in any sense.

What I meant by it is more of a shorthand for trying to interfere in the active organization among the proletariat, and I think that was something you were against, right?

I mean, I can see the justification in that if one thinks that our actions run contrary to our goals but it clashes with our views so it's not exactly an easy situation to resolve...

I am still confused. What "active organization among the proletariat" do you think I disrupted or interfered with?

What are "our actions", "our goals", and "our views"? I think it's curious that you leave open the possibility that your actions, goals, and views are all in conflict with each other.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
May 1 2012 20:43
flaneur wrote:
Quote:
By the time of the 1992 general election, legislation had been passed replacing Community Charge with the Council Tax from the start of the 1993/94 financial year, but the VAT rate of 17.5% remained despite abolition of the Community Charge. The Council Tax strongly resembled the rating system that the Community Charge had replaced. The main differences were that properties were placed in bands thereby capping the maximum amount, and it was levied on capital value rather than notional rental value of a property. Households with only one occupant were also entitled to a 25% discount.

That doesn't sound dramatically different to me. And after Thatcher, came Major. Same shit, different day. I don't really have much truck with nihilist communism though I am sympathetic but I'd certainly rather them than your wooly progressivism all the time nonsense.

Emphasis added for those with reading difficulties.

As for "wooly [sic] progressivism all the time nonsense" I think that sounds like a great t-shirt. Must get one made.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
May 1 2012 23:42

I absolutely no idea if the nihcommunists actually do disrupt the meetings of other groups but anyone doing that is really dumb. You won't destroy the group but you will embroil yourself in the worst kind of fight, one where you will not advance people's understanding of communism one iota. I mean the last group that I know tried this was the Larauchites.

What I do know the Nihcommunists do is begin with the logic of communism, which is a strategic logic not a moral logic and somewhere along the line shift back to a moral position, use some otherwise interesting deductions to decide who is bad and thus go after them, not considering that this breaks down the whole strategic logic that brought them to their understanding.

Frere Dupont intervenes on Libcom and claims that everyone who posts here can lumped into the category libcom without noticing that by this logic, he, too, is "libcom". Why doesn't organizing to intervene versus communists make one just one more organization?

I would freely say that the condition of this society presents us with paradoxes. You can indeed say that a large portion of the ostensible opposition to this order in many ways defends it. Oddly, that isn't a argument for stopping activity. Politicians in general probably do harm, even progressive or radical politicians. But even if I somehow knew I could, I wouldn't have a reason to stop someone from being a politician - they'd just be replaced by another one and they probably wouldn't do good in their later activity. Now, I might try to convince some they shouldn't be a leftist but only if I thought there was some room somewhere for them to engage in a positive, useful communist practice. The leftist role my friend might leave behind would be taken up by some other fool no doubt.

See, that's the point. This society generates all of the roles we see about us and to a fair degree we are stuck with. Communists see the working class as being in the position where the naturally extension of its role, its demand for more wages, more space, more etc actually will bring it closer to negating its role and all roles. In that relative sense, the communist position might be that the working class has the most freedom in this unfree regime. But oddly enough, Nihcommunists seem to imply leftists have the most freedom since the Nihcommunists expect that leftists will step out of their role when confronted with whiny Nihcommunist propaganda. Indeed, the Nihcommunists continually project a choice onto the conventional communist milieu while denying anyone else has any, pretty telling really.

I suppose everyone gets stuck somewhere and it seems like perhaps the Nihcommunists are stuck with their anger that the left isn't what they want it to be (I've been there but its not a good place to stay).

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
May 2 2012 00:05
KriegPhilosophy wrote:
active nihilist = Red Brigades, Al Qaeda, Waffen SS etc
"The passion for destruction is also a creative passion." - Bakunin
Quote:
Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in spiritual power. the active nihilist sees freedom where the passive nihilist sees absurdity or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of truth motivates self created standards and criteria. The active nihilist is not active despite the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that hes is the source and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.

Wait so the Red Brigades, Al Qaeda, Waffen SS=active nihilists=good??? WTF??

Also I don't understand how the above groups are nihilist at all. All of them were motivated by fanatical ideologies which left no room for doubt or meaninglessness.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
May 2 2012 00:43
ocelot wrote:
Quote:
"(...) our role also allows this to exist and to keep it going and being bearable to its detractors and also teaching our rulers how to change and mutate to accommodate organic (your spontaneous) reactions."
Or in other words, the outcome of the Poll Tax movement and the kick racism out of football, while good for the working class involved in that precise time and place, helped diffuse the tensions that existed and improve the system.

Not just in that time and place, but for subsequent times and places. Honestly this is just what someone already said, the non-plus-ultra pastiche of ultraleftism. "The worse the better".

this is a bit tangential, but to comment on this 'worse is the better-ism,' i think that's a massive problem with some strands of the 'ultraleft.' And it applies not just to 'nihcom', but to Theorie Communiste and their fellow groups (with their 'historicist, structuralist, objectivist, immiseration theory' as TPTG argue), and the 'ultraleftists' who have become post-Marxists too. The continuing defeat and retreat of the last 20-30 has produced some theories i just find bizarre eg. lo and behold, us proles are not the revolutionary subject, but capital itself is the subject!!! Unfortunately this strand of communism seems to be the currently fashionable one.

But there are still many communists who stress agency and self-activity and dare i say it self-organisation, and look at and even get involved in various struggles eg. how precarious workers are organising themselves today, to see how this struggle might be extended, links made other workers etc. As Martin Glaberman wrote, 'the workers are engaged today in a process of reorganisation, corresponding to the capitalist reorganisation of production, in a search for new forms of organisation that are adequate for their needs.’ I see this search is still continuing, and constantly evolving, it's a neverending process. Call me an invariant essentialist or a hopeless subjectivist or a programmatist trapped in the fordist era or an empty optimist or the delightful phrase 'woolly all the time progressivist' etc etc, but give me this anytime over trying to somehow turn defeat and retreat into the basis for communism.

Melancholy of Resistance's picture
Melancholy of R...
Offline
Joined: 2-11-11
May 2 2012 09:13

The red brigades, al qaeda, waffen ss all share a 'standard of truth' as you mentioned whether it's an interpretation of the Quran or the supremacy of the aryan race through the 3rd Reich. The sort of active nihilism you quote sounds like Nietzsche to me.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
May 2 2012 15:24

that 'active nihilism' list looks more like a liberal list of 'bad stuffs'. They are all totally different.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
May 2 2012 18:16
RedHughs wrote:
I'll admit I have considerable contempt for the nihcom folks - I feel like they've raised passive aggressive whining to new heights as well as engaging in a variety of disingenuous stunts.

I should clarify that I'm speaking of the two authors of Nihilist Communism and not of Lettersjournal, who seems to be being as forthright as possible here.

doam
Offline
Joined: 3-05-12
May 3 2012 03:28
lettersjournal wrote:
Railyon wrote:
Wasn't there talk of some NihCommers engaging in active "counter-revolution"?

Wasn't it lettersjournal or what his name was who tried to disrupt meetings or something similar because of the nihilist line of non-organization?

Hello Railyon,

What do you mean by active "counter-revolution"?

Hi lettersjournal,

I think Railyon may, perhaps, be referring to a passage from the first issue of your journal (accessed here: http://zinelibrary.info/letters-journal-1 ) that states:

"Sometimes in conversations I propose the idea of attacking the Left now while the Left is relatively weak. What better time to disband organizations and disrupt movement? I cannot do this where I live, but it would interest me if others tried it . . . attacking the Left could be approached as a game, not a political strategy."

The answer to one of Railyon's original questions ("Wasn't it lettersjournal or what his name was who tried to disrupt meetings or something similar because of the nihilist line of non-organization?") is that you didn't actively try but it is maybe "something similar." As for the second other question, which used the phrase "counter revolutionary," that seems up for grabs as I don't know what that label means.

doam
Offline
Joined: 3-05-12
May 3 2012 03:33
KriegPhilosophy wrote:
Apart from the fact that it seems incredibly Puritan. Does anyone have any strong critiques they are willing to share?

The answer so far seems to be "no." None of the critiques offered so far could be seen as "strong." RedHughs proposed that "whatever one might say about him, I thought Bob Black's review in Anarchy Magazine was a fine overview of Nihcom's ridiculousness" but I haven't been able to find it in any archive. (Do you, RedHughs, have a link or know what issue it is in?) Other than that there seem to be a lot of one-liners about the individuals involved, does anyone have a critique of the ideas?

This is in earnest. I'd like someone to say something that might get me out of my own nihilism.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
May 3 2012 10:43

It must be a tribute to our Nihilist Communist comrades that even after they have largely abandoned active involvement in these discussion threads, or otherwise ended up banned by the admins, that their thoughts can still cause so much irritation here!

Certainly their amended booklet is worth a read - much to both agree and disagree with - after reading it rather than before that is.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
May 3 2012 12:52

Trying to critique nihilism is absurd [sic]. Just let them get on with it...

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
May 3 2012 13:03
doam wrote:
lettersjournal wrote:
Railyon wrote:
Wasn't there talk of some NihCommers engaging in active "counter-revolution"?

Wasn't it lettersjournal or what his name was who tried to disrupt meetings or something similar because of the nihilist line of non-organization?

Hello Railyon,

What do you mean by active "counter-revolution"?

Hi lettersjournal,

I think Railyon may, perhaps, be referring to a passage from the first issue of your journal (accessed here: http://zinelibrary.info/letters-journal-1 ) that states:

"Sometimes in conversations I propose the idea of attacking the Left now while the Left is relatively weak. What better time to disband organizations and disrupt movement? I cannot do this where I live, but it would interest me if others tried it . . . attacking the Left could be approached as a game, not a political strategy."

The answer to one of Railyon's original questions ("Wasn't it lettersjournal or what his name was who tried to disrupt meetings or something similar because of the nihilist line of non-organization?") is that you didn't actively try but it is maybe "something similar." As for the second other question, which used the phrase "counter revolutionary," that seems up for grabs as I don't know what that label means.

Personally I see nothing wrong with that statement. In fact, I was trying to advocate such a position in Hungary in the times when the "Left" was on historical low in terms of acceptance. And this is nothing like "the worse is better" argument since for at least a decade, the left conducted biggest privatization, casualization of the working class, the dismantling of the social solidarity, and even directly contributed to the proliferation of racism. OK, many would say, this is the "mainstream Left". But all other groupings of the left (anarchism/communism is not left by any means!!!!), like trots, Stalinist and co. are either cover organisations to gain votes for the mainstream left party, or they are even worse, such as the Stalinist/Kadarist workers' parties. There's nothing we can do better with the left than with the right. Communism and the Left is arch enemies, not just in the sense that the Left is capitalist only, but even more because the Left advocates the "friendly capitalism", that is, the lie that we need to fight most of our times.

One can not emphasize enough, that the historical statement of the communist movement should be nothing short of destroying the Left and thus create the conditions against Capitalism, where no reformism could ever raise its ugly head. I can see that nowadays the radical = social democrat, where democratism apparently destroys every critical thought that could take the form of a revolutionary movement.

Sorry for the tangent, but I think if anything, the idea of a direct attack against the Left is a true sign of a revolutionary perspective. In fact, I think this would be the most active revolutionary act of a movement if it would be done.

RedHughs
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
May 3 2012 23:49

Well,

I think that it is good to attack the left in the realm of ideas and in the realm of collective process and similar reasonable venues.

But physically attacking leftists or disrupting private leftists meetings in other fashions seems, uh, rather daft and dangerous. This seems obvious just on the level of "you will just start to look like gangerster and not only will proletarians want nothing to do with you but they'll want to beat you up".

One can reasonably see leftist organizations as indeed something like gangsters. But this isn't simply because of their ideas but of their social position - competing for power with other leftists. Now, if you too want to destroy other groups, then your social dynamic quite likely will be leftist even if you quote Nihcom, Theorie Communiste or the Situationists backwards and forwards.

It is similar to the situation of the "Black Bloc", whose error isn't that it breaks windows but that it substitutes a small number of "the committed" for the collective action of a significant portion of the proletariat as a whole.

Edit: And yes, I think anti-fascist organizing is just as problematic for revolutionaries.

doam
Offline
Joined: 3-05-12
May 7 2012 02:02
doam wrote:
RedHughs proposed that "whatever one might say about him, I thought Bob Black's review in Anarchy Magazine was a fine overview of Nihcom's ridiculousness" but I haven't been able to find it in any archive. (Do you, RedHughs, have a link or know what issue it is in?) Other than that there seem to be a lot of one-liners about the individuals involved, does anyone have a critique of the ideas?

I still wait and hope for, at the least, an answer to my first question.