Is "The Coming Insurrection" a Hoax?

Admin: no flaming

Nobody is saying that we should burn or refuse to read the writings of non anti-authoritarians. However, I can't see exactly what we are supposed to take from any of the above that could be of any possible value to the proletariat's struggle against capitalism.

The question is: how do you win a war?

The answer: Look at how past wars were fought.

The fact that Mosby's Rangers were not anarchists is totally besides the point.

Right, except for the fact that communist revolution is not a war between states.

And were it a war between states (which it isn't) I hardly think that an analysis of how past wars were fought would lead us to the conclusions of TCI and other Insurrectionists.

This is how wars are currently fought: US gunship killing journalists If anyone thinks that they can make a successful communist revolution conceptualized in the same terms as a war between states or between states and para-state forces by such "invisible, fluid, organic and dynamic" means, well, you can go ahead but count me out.

Which has no bearing on the original discussion, which is that in any conflict it is a tactical necessity to deceive the enemy. Therefore it is wrong claim invisibility as a tactic is only ever embraced in moments of tactical weakness.

What's your point? No one is questioning that the US behaves unethically. Again you're confusing tactical science with ethics.

d/p

I'll have to check the context of that of course, but if it is relevant to the context that I'm talking about, then my opinion of them is even lower. I can't take that seriously at all.

But whatever, I've already participated in arguments (on forums, over email, person to person and at gatherings) about these points before. It's not worth the time or energy that some dedicate to it. Even in my mere 3 years involved in anarchist groups and projects I've seen where those who advocate these positions end up. The majority just drop out of anarchism altogether. Some of them come to the conclusions I have and try to become involved in something more substantial. Some move to the Northwest to find themselves. The rest become traveler kids for anarchy, starting small scenes in cities than leaving, ultimately becoming 'attack' tourists, following whatever student struggle or broken window in Ashville that happens to occur. No thanks.

No, that's not my point at all. My point is that we need an organized revolutionary proletariat which is capable of halting production and mobilizing mass defection in the military, not a bunch of disorganized "organic and fluid" attacks.

Basically, you can study all of the tactics you want but an "invisible" insurgency will still get pwned.

And in any case the examples listed aren't examples of "organic and fluid organisation" at all (the point Vlad was making that hasn't at all been engaged with), less so than even the Makhnovschina who are presumably bad organisationist types.

I didn't say that, Dead End did. If you read more about the War of 1812 and the Seminole War you'd understand why he's right.

Also, Bubba Hotep, about the US Civil War as useful for communists... I think this is a crucial era for communists in the US to understand but not in a "how do you win a war" sense, I think you sound really specious here and would like to see you elaborate on this. Until you do, I'll stick w/ the view that your argument is specious.

If anything, the north's military victory is a case of states making use of struggles to advance their own agendas -- the north used emancipation militarily in order to undermine the south's access to labor, to sow further unease and perhaps disruption, and to recruit more soldiers out of slaves. The results for enslaved african americans were obviously beneficial in an important sense (ie, emancipation) but once the war was won in relatively short order the northern political leaders and southern political leaders made a tacit deal to allow the restoration of african americans to a position of relatively immobilized labor force.

Two other historical examples you might find productive for your political interests would probably be the Haitian revolution, and the relationships between maroon colonies and slave resistance/rebellion throughout the Americas.

A better example for what you're trying to do w/r/t the stuff in this thread would be to look at abolitionists in Kansas in the 1850s up through John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. That basically became a type of civil war around 1853 or 1855. There's more evidence in all that for the kind of thing you seem to be trying to do here, way more than in the official civil war.

Yes, and that task would be impossible if, for example, one sought to organize soldiers in a manner similar to the strategies and tactics of NEFAC or the modern-day IWW. The military police would almost instantly crush it.

Just to clarify I am not arguing against "organization" but rather a specific method of organization.

The reason that neo-platformists, neo-syndicalists, et. al are never "pwned" is because they offer no challenge to state hegemony. In fact they are quite useful as channels of official dissent - they can be easily infiltrated and manipulated by agents of the state, participating in such groups also alleviates a "pressure valve" of pent-up frustration for the underclasses, (much like the "spectacular violence" often correctly criticized by such groups) they basically serve the same purpose to counter-intelligence forces as a Facebook group on anarchism

To be fair I'm quite critical of aspects of the modern IWW but it's not like they aren't aware that organising is often a covert activity and 'coming out' as a union should only done when you think you can survive the inevitable repression. I mean that's pretty basic organising stuff, not an innovation discovered by fusing poetc nothings with abstract Sun Tzuisms.

Nice strawman there!

several members of my organisation recently spent four months in a Serbian jail on fabricated international terrorism charges while IWA members in Berlin are being threatened with jail for their organising efforts.

I mean I outright reject the idea that state repression is an indicator of worthwhile activity (slave morality par excellence), but just pointing out you're not even factually correct.

You are still viewing the US Civil War from the lens of bourgeois propaganda. The war had more than two sides, I was attempting to invoke the example of African "land pirates" and Maroons, the Underground Railroad, the radical abolitionists, (whose actions were indeed a part of the US Civil War regardless of official chronology) as well as Confederate guerrillas who fought off a technologically superior force much longer than they could have if they had used less fluid and more "orthodox" tactics.

I agree with your analysis of the Civil War's political ramifications, however, again, this is an entirely separate subject. Another example of the libcomista confusion over what it means to discuss tactics as. Your statement that communists should not study past conflicts "in a 'how do you win a war' sense" is telling, it implies that you view the class conflict incorrectly as something other than a war.

State repression is not an indicator of worthwhile activity, however it is an indicator of how much of a threat the state views one as.

Obviously I know nothing about your specific organization, which could be politically effective, however, I still maintain that my statements are a legitimate criticism of many groups claiming to uphold "platformism" or "syndicalism" but are in fact just going through the motions of social-democracy.

I should also clarify that I was never insinuating that these groups are never targeted for state repression, but it is evident that they face less repression because they are not as effectively antagonistic to the state

It's probably more to do with the fact they don't run around setting things on fire, and that mature capitalist states have learned repression of workers organisations is often counter-productive. I mean don't get me wrong, were hardly a threat to the state at present. but then nor are the ALF/ELF (who incidentally despite being 'invisible' are infiltrated to fuck).

A boring train of anecdotal evidence to be sure.

As far as we're sharing anecdotes here, it is obvious regarding the situation in Asheville that the insipid complaints regarding the rioters' geographical residence outside of the city of Asheville are rooted in petit-bourgeois sentimentality which ignores the harsh reality of life under capitalism. In fact it's the same sentimentality that inspires working-class whites to denounce "illegals"...

As a matter of fact they spend the majority of their time hypocritically criticizing and denouncing their class-brethren for doing so, under any circumstance.

Again I am not talking generally about "workers organizations", we both agree that there must be organization among the workplace. The real question is, what kind of organization?

If you admit that "mature capitalist states" have learned that repression of "workers organizations" (a.k.a. above-ground organizations with formalized membership, principles of ideological position, etc.) is "counter-productive", there must be a reason for that...

Do you sincerely believe that it is because repression of such groups would result in a retaliation that would be disastrous for the state? If not, it must be because the state realizes such groups are not a threat, and in fact, allowing them to operate under their own faulty tactical proceedings is actually a benefit from the perspective of counter-insurgency intelligence gathering and general social pacification.

Well those groups are also tactically incompetent but that's another rant entirely

it's so clear you have no idea what you're talking about here it would be comical if it weren't real life serious. in the example jk gave above the people in his org were in prison precisely because they wouldn't sell-out the actual perpetrators (note to admin: if this needs deleted fine but this poster should understand the level of his/her ignorance)

it is telling but in such a way to show that you don't understand what class war is. instead of mass mobilization as a class, direct action, and solidarity you are implying a minority of the class can somehow 'blow up' capitalism.

Again I'm not commenting on that specific group but the general shitty ideological tendency among groups in the US and Canada who see themselves as holding a monopoly on the correct way to "organize" to on hypocritical denunciations of "terrorism" whenever any sort of actual conflict occurs between the oppressors and the oppressed.

A good example would be the IWW's response to the arrest of Marie Mason...or the essay We need a mass movement not a black bloc whining against the destruction of property in Vancouver by proletarian youths. Or Anarchist Common Cause's statement on the RBC bombing. There are plenty of examples of how the Invisible Committee's criticism can easily be applied to the American situation which is my only point.

In this context these are empty catch-phrases. "Mass mobilization"? "Direct action"? "Solidarity"? Wow, that's specific!

I'm implying that the material circumstances in the US are correct for he communist minority of the working-class to begin directly contributing to both the positive and negative aspects of directly abolishing capitalism and creating communism, and, in doing so, improve our chances of, rather than damage our chances of, "mass-mobilization" among the class. In contrast there stand the anarcho-social democrats who will always stand with the state in denouncing "terrorism", the "vandalism" of rowdy and impatient youth, etc.

so you don't see the counter-productive nature of the bombing of a bank because it was a sponsor of olympics held on "stolen native land?" honest to god, please tell me you don't think this was either strategically or tactically a good move.

I personally cannot endorse any act of violence since it goes against my personal spiritual values, however the attack did not seem to weaken the tactical position of the anarchists. Given the populist resentment of banks it likely generated good publicity among those who, while not yet totally politicized towards communism, have the requisite attitude to develop such an orientation in the future. (Some segments of the working-class will stand firmly with the state towards the end...)

I think this is a good example of how certain anarchists will not stand up for anyone who launches any sort of violent offensive against the state regardless of its nature. Which to me indicates a de facto allegiance with law enforcement.

Sorry if you feel put off by my snarkiness but seriously, vague comments about "solidarity", "direct action" and "mass mobilization" are not that helpful.

jesus. i'm done with this for now.

Right, your argument *is* specious. Thanks for confirming that.

Yes, the war was multi-faceted. Because wars occur within social reality, which is multifaceted. The end result of the US civil war, however, was not particularly positive for the groups you name. It was ambivalent at best and, as I said, the overriding theme I see in the relationship between some of these groups and the state powers that were in conflict is that of states making use of struggles. Sometimes our class gets roped into being an engine of development for capitalists and states. It sucks, but it's what happens sometimes.

As for Confederate guerillas lasting longer and so on, umm. Okay. Yes. Guerilla war tactics prolonged their defeat. You're right on that one. Let me be the first to say that I would like to hear you expound further on your program of prolonging defeat.

Alright. Come back to it any time you want. Remember that arguing with people on the Internet just for fun

Again this is a confusion of strategy and tactics. In the case of the African proletariat the strategy of allying with the federal state was a mistake, therefore the end result was disastrous. Tactically speaking though the groups were successful.

In regards to the example of Confederate guerrillas, the point isn't that they lost the war, the point is that they fared better than they should have given the circumstances.

Exactly. This is an important point to make in any discussion of political strategy. But for what feels like the fiftieth time I am talking about tactics. Tactically speaking the "invisible dictatorship" / "affinity group" / informal cadre has proven itself to be an effective method of military organization.

For example I mentioned the Maoists and the NLF who were both bureaucratic centralist political movements. The reason was because their overall strategy was the co-option of the communist current away from liberatory abolition of the state and towards a centralized capitalist bureaucracy under the banner of socialism - on this we can all agree. Thus the fact that such political movements had to adopt under certain circumstances informal, decentralized, direct and fluid rather than bureaucratic and hierarchical military tactics despite their overarching strategic interest in preserving capitalism via centralized organization is in no way some sort of devaluation of these tactics as "authoritarian" or "statist" but rather illustrates that they are indeed effective and necessary when waging war, and in fact such tactics have been the deciding factors in most major wars.

Agreed, as I said this is a mistake of political strategy.

Talk about specious arguments...

Hey motherfucker fuck you. You're a piece of shit. Marie Mason belongs to my fucking IWW branch. What the fuck do you know what people here have and haven't done to support her in her prison time? You fucking prick. You get off on scoring what are for you cheap rhetorical points on shit that you don't know a fucking thing about and haven't bothered to learn about the actual situation. That's a fine internet hobby when it comes to lame pulp fiction horror writers, but it's appalling and disgusting when you use actual people's lives and hard work in struggle as chips in your fucking ego poker game. Grow up or fuck off.