‘Nihilist Communism’ — A Postscript for the book by ‘the other Dupont’

[This postscript is now included as a pamphlet in the book, Nihilist Communism, when sold by Little Black Cart — the publishers —until the current run of printed book runs out. After that they have said that it will be included in the text of the book.]

I

Sometimes it seems funny how things go, but often, if one looks hard enough, one can see why.

In 2020, elaborating Giorgio Agamben’s pandemic perspectives, one of the two authors of Nihilist Communism wrote, without a hint of irony (indeed, one should understand that what he wrote was not meant as a joke, no matter how hilarious, overwrought, and excessive it appears):

“The function of the mask at an interpersonal level is equivalent to the enclosure of common land in the Seventeenth Century.”

(Frère Dupont, ‘I Am Not Chuang,’ published online at lettersjournal.org; can also be found online at the Anarchist Library)

It was upon reading this line, at least a year after it was published, that I realized that the whole Monsieur Dupont project, which I no longer had anything to do with, had literally fallen into the toilet and gone beyond the S-trap. I will now attempt to retrace the steps that led to Monsieur Dupont becoming lost in this eternal sewer.

Nihilist Communism (NC) was originally produced in ring-bound form, at a main-street print and copying store, at my own expense, and then mailed out to various people and bookshops, in 2003. There are some textual differences between this Ardent/Little Black Cart edition (2009) — which I had nothing to do with — and the original version, but they are probably insignificant. The text is a compilation of correspondences and writings, some produced specifically for the book, by the two people who chose for themselves the name Monsieur Dupont at the Tate Modern Art Gallery café on London’s South Bank, one long-gone balmy afternoon (and where one can still purchase “a family-friendly range of sandwiches, soups and sweet and savory snacks”).

2003 edition and 2009 edition

The vast majority of the text is written by the person who ended up calling himself Frère Dupont. Only a few pages are my own writing. I decided to produce the book as ‘a last word’ from me, and in homage to the writing of Frère Dupont. The ideas in the book are prefigured in my own writings from before our association, and which can be found online, for example, Death to Rank and Filism!1 , the little ‘zine’ Proletarian Gob, and other essays, such as DAM Rank and Filists! The Communication Worker’s Group. It might also be useful, if one is interested, to look at What’s it all about, Comrade?2 and the 2009 text, A Seasonal Message from the Other Dupont3 . I have to state, however, that, although these essays contain interesting perspectives, I have now come to realize that the millenarianism (revolutionism) that fuels the writing demonstrates a disastrous or, rather, counter-productive, misunderstanding of our society (see The Enervating Quality of Appeals to ‘the Communist Life,’4 on Medium). I therefore disown all these texts, and would really prefer it if they disappeared, but I have no control of the places they are published in, along with the book itself (when I, as a co-author of the book, requested that Little Black Cart cease selling the book on account of the turn made by Frère Dupont, they instead asked me to write a postscript, which they would include in future editions). My reversal of perspective is explained and elaborated through an empirical, historical analysis in Nihil Evadere: How We Are Created is How We Create. This book reveals the ‘age-old’ millenarianism that forms the core of ‘the desire for communism’ and how the trajectory of anti-politics, the ultra-left, the post-left, and Continental Philosophy itself, has ended in a place quite opposite to where it all may have ‘thought’ it was heading.

II

Our correspondence continued after the ring-bound version was published, after I had ‘retired from it all’ and moved continents. In a 2008 email to me he wrote:

“I’ve been reading our old correspondence recently and I’m amazed at how all my ideas come from you. Thanks a bunch for landing me with some weird intellectual contraption which everybody else refuses to acknowledge! I feel like some fertized insect whose sole object in life is to fertilize someone else, ie pass on this stuff and get the hell out, it’s like a curse because I cannot refuse the impetus of MD dna. Really I’m very happy, it was my great good fortune to meet you at the crossroads and strike that faustian pact — knowledge at a knockdown price.”

So, yes (one has to laugh), the blame for a lot of this lies at my door. But, at this late hour (to reference a story by Dickens concerning another reversal of perspective), I have had good fortune: the spirits have done their work! Though I cannot sponge away the writing that is set in stone, there are many back-payments included in this postscript and my other recent writing; and though nothing may come of it, as is the way of things, this is quite enough for me.

The ideas and perspectives contained in NC came together for me around the mid-1980s and found clearer expression by the end of that decade, long before I came in contact with Frère Dupont. It is hard to tell exactly how I picked up the ‘anti-politics’ that is core to the book. But if one looks at journals and tendencies, particularly in the UK, in the 1970s and 80s one can see where it must have come from. We are all products and functions of our time and environment, within the parameters set by our epoch, and if we choose, or are driven towards, particular paths, then those paths shape us in even more particular ways, so I would have picked all this up on my journey by some kind of osmotic process, which I will attempt to indicate in succinct form below.

There was a consolidation of the anti-left philosophy and ‘strategizing’ that had begun with Socialisme ou Barbarie in France after WW2, which was transferred to the UK by Solidarity. There was the journal Echanges et Mouvement. From the London Workers Group, emerged the journal Workers’ Playtime. There was [i]Wildcat (UK)[i]. There was New Ultra-Left Review which quickly became Intercom and involved various individuals from groups such as Wildcat, Careless Talk, the ICC, and the future Anarchist Communist Federation5 . Later there was Subversion (I’m not doing a chronology here, by-the-way, and nor will it be complete). All these groups shared people, ideas, and discussion. Of course, there was also the Situationist International, particularly The Revolution of Everyday Life. BM Blob; the text LIP and the Self-Managed Counter Revolution; etc. There was the famous graffiti that welcomed commuters into West London: Good Morning Lemmings.

I don’t have enough space, or interest, to analyze the history of all these UK groups to trace the trajectory of their ideas, where it would lead, and how their ideas were formed. So I will take one group as a kind-of broad and superficial case study.

Solidarity. This group, begun around 1960, was inspired by the work of Socialisme ou Barbarie, and imported many of its ideas and perspectives from France to the UK. It is interesting to note how the full title of the journal changed over the years. It went from Solidarity: For Workers’ Power in the 1960s and 70s; to Solidarity: For Social Revolution from 1978 to 1981; to its final incarnation, Solidarity: For Libertarian Socialism, from 1982 to its demise in 1991. Interesting to note the arc revealed in the name changes: beginning with promoting workers’ power, abandoning that in favor of social revolution, and then moving onto libertarian socialism.

The group was, of course, ‘revolutionary’ from the beginning, but even this change of banner heading on their journal indicates a drift away from ‘working-class politics’ to a notion of ‘revolution’ as a form of individualism or libertarianism. Of course, the term ‘libertarian socialism’ also represents what, at the time, appeared to be a necessary distancing from the ‘authoritarian socialisms’ existing in other regions of the globe, but this recognition should not obscure the fact that Solidarity, like all of us at the time (as is anyone in any era), were the porous fibers for an idea or, rather, a shift in tone, that began to assimilate through all levels of society. That shift in tone was the establishment of the notion of libertarianism. This concept is, ultimately, derived from the Enlightenment, and was put to use by revolutionaries in appeals to the ‘flourishing’ of the human being. For example, Emma Goldman wrote: “[Anarchism’s] goal is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual.” This theme was brought into our own era by, among other tendencies, the Situationist (following the Surrealists’) insistence on ‘subjectivity.’ So, the notion of libertarianism had echoes across society prior to Thatcher. In mainstream political discourse, in the UK at least, the libertarianism that was introduced by Thatcher found final, triumphant, expression in its take-over of the Labour Party in the figure of Tony Blair.

Thanks in great part to Margaret Thatcher we all, in the UK, became our own little neo-libertarians. Later this global trend would find full expression in the work of Giorgio Agamben; those who became ‘anti-political’; and those who went the next step, into either post-leftism or a variation of right-wing, individualist, Christianity (which brings it back to Agamben, of course). On top of this there are, in the US at least, the neo-conservative “pro-natalist,” “critical of progress,” “reactionary feminist,’ and rural-inclined homesteaders. This section of the new libertarian demographic contains significant polemicists who thank NC for developing an ‘anti-political’ attitude (one that began in more basic anarchism) and CrimethInc for encouraging a self-sustaining, anti-governmental lifestyle. They champion the work of such writers as Martin Heidegger, Ezra Pound, Leo Strauss, and Wendell Berry… though I do not know if Wendell Berry knows that a major portion of his fanbase is now amongst the neo-conservatives, or if he approves of this development.

III

Since 1918 the working-class had become increasingly identified as agents of their own oppression, particularly through their loyalty to the trade-union form, they had become identified as factors of the capitalist system. The council communists and the ultra-left, in a strange way, had come back round to confirming what Lenin had argued about the working-class only ever being able to achieve a trade-union consciousness on their own. But instead of following Lenin by promoting the establishment of a central party organ of middle-class intellectuals, the council communists, unawares, preferred to go back to the perspective of Bakunin. A perspective that stated that the working-class would achieve revolutionary consciousness through action, which, for the council communists, meant passing through the tumult of large-scale industrial action to the setting up of revolutionary councils. The council communist groupings themselves, which were groups of committed individuals who attempted to intervene in industrial struggle were, ironically, exactly what Bakunin envisaged when he wrote his Letter to (or Rebuke of) Nechayev in 1870:

“The sole aim of a secret society [Bakunin’s term for a revolutionary group; in Europe in 1870 a revolutionary organization had to be a secret society] must be, not the creation of an artificial power outside the people, but the rousing, uniting and organizing of the spontaneous power of the people; therefore, the only possible, the only real revolutionary army is not outside the people, it is the people itself. It is impossible to arouse the people artificially. People’s revolutions are born from the course of events…. What would be the main purpose and task of the organization? To help the people achieve self-determination on a basis of complete and comprehensive human liberty, without the slightest interference from even temporary or transitional power…”

But the council communists always (following Marx) disdained the anarchists, so they never looked properly at the history of the First International (see Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice) and were unable to acknowledge the fact that Bakunin pre-empted them by 50 years.

So, the historical ‘touchstones’ for the council communists and ultra-leftists became the revolutionary workers’ councils, perhaps starting with the Paris Commune. Then there were the early days of the soviets (councils) in the Russian revolution, The Shop-Stewards Movement in the UK, and worker and soldier councils across Europe, particularly in Germany, at the end of WWI. These phenomena failed of course, but the ‘legacy,’ as Paul Mattick wrote in 1939:

“found its organizational expression in various anti-parliamentarian and anti-trade union groups in a number of countries. In its beginnings and despite all its inconsistencies, this movement was from the outset strictly opposed to the whole of capitalism, as well as to the whole of the labor movement that was a part of the system.”

The next really big event for the development of the ultra-left that we have today were the events of May 1968, in France. The interpretations of these events by many proved beyond doubt that the working-class as the working-class had become an agent of its own oppression. Some decided that this was the ‘official’ end of the working-class as a ‘revolutionary subject,’ and some decided that this was just the final proof that the working-class was a factor of capital, a fact that had been made clear in 1918. The Frankfurt School had also, long before this, of course, decided that the old ‘proletarian-as-revolutionary-subject’ road-to-revolution had been terminated in 1918. The consequences of such thinking were an estrangement from the working-class and a seeking for other means by which revolution might happen. It was a long goodbye to the working-class. Why is this interesting? Because it was a hello to libertarianism and individualism. And this, for example, ended in one variant (for example, Tiqqun), that championed only groups of (usually) young rioters, who appeared then disappeared, generally wore black, read Endnotes (and later, Ill Will Editions), and were committed to the notion of the non-movement. Obviously, this is, in part, just a joke, but...

At the end of the 70s and through the 80s there were defeats galore for the UK working-class. One could argue that the banner headings of the Solidarity journal reflect a withdrawal from the working-class by the ultra-left synchronous with the eventual victory of Margaret Thatcher. The abandonment of the unions and ‘the left’ by the public was exactly what the British Conservative Party had been planning since Edward Heath had first tried to contain the unions in the early 1970s: actions which led to two national miners’ strikes and a national railways strike, leading to power shortages and the Three-Day Week which, in turn, led to Heath resigning. The new Labour government couldn’t dig the country out of the mess, and the IMF worked simultaneously with them and against them. At the end of the 70s Margaret Thatcher was elected. By the middle of the 80s she had destroyed the miners and their communities. The left was disoriented, in disarray, dispirited, and was tending to soak up the new individualist and ‘free-market’ ethos. The ultra-left and the anarchists didn’t help matters. They had already been focusing their energies more on the ‘treacherous’ left than the right. A core concept of the ultra-left was to be ‘outside and against the unions.’ I fully endorsed this, even though in practice, like some others, I was always in a union, involved in various levels of activity.

The ultra-left that we have today, the one that is distant from the unions, that resides mostly in academia, and that is anti-leftist… is as much a child of the pioneering work of Thatcher as it is of Socialisme ou Barbarie’s earlier theoretical work (which itself built on the work of the council communists who, as Mattick notes above, became “anti-parliamentary and anti-union”). When we abandoned the left and the unions, and thereby the notion of the working-class itself, we were just doing what Thatcher wanted. We should have stayed in, we should have tried harder. But, of course, on top of the ultra-left ‘falling’ for the anti-union propaganda of the Conservatives, we were also concerned that the left and the unions were not ‘revolutionary’ and, by being institutions that were, for us, not revolutionary, they were actively counter-, or anti-revolutionary. Therefore, they were our enemies. The working-class was almost of no ‘use’ anymore (they had become agents of capital). In NC ‘the working-class’ could be reduced to one single person working in some kind of imaginary power facility who was able to turn off a switch, thereby halting the economy.

This idea, which I shared, is the heart of the Red Robbie leaflet (Some Notes Concerning Future Proletarian Insurgency6 ) — which indicated an ‘abandonment’ of ‘the working-class’ in favor of anything that caused a halting of the economy (in this case, truck driver-owners). I now realize, to my shame of course, that I did not properly understand that leaflet when it was written (by Frère Dupont, co-signed by me) — but I do now, and I see how it fed directly into Frère Dupont’s perspective on the pandemic (also shared by Ill Will Editions, for example). It was the precursor of the Twitter Frère Dupont (@A_Certain_Plume/@Pon_or_Gong and @glowwormsalon) who enthusiastically repeated far-right ‘anti-vax’ propaganda concerning anti-lockdown protests as “a fragment of the real” (a deliberate echo of Walter Benjamin’s messianic “shards/splinters”) around September and October 2021.

It is interesting to note, by the way, that at one point during this period, Frère Dupont appears to backtrack by claiming he doesn’t support “the anti-vax ideology,” but this claim is out of nowhere. He writes:

“As communist responses to the strikes are not circulating, maybe I should make it clear I do not support strikes, or the ‘antivax’ ideology. Strikes, occupations and self-organization are also ideological fetishes, and must be exceeded. But first throw off leftism!”

There are questions he does not answer here, or anywhere else, regarding his claim. Why does he so assiduously copy the perspective of Agamben; and what was his position on the MMR vaccine in the late 1990s, when many became ‘anti-vax’ due to the ‘scare’ around that vaccine? His claim is unsupported, except by his misunderstanding of the motivations of most anti-lockdown demonstrations and strikes. After all his pronouncements on the events of the pandemic it does not make sense or explain his regurgitation of far-right propaganda. Perhaps Frère Dupont is confused by his own ‘genius’? He refers to himself as “the last of the surrealists” — but, amusingly, this only serves to remind one of the notorious ‘apolitical’ associations of Salvador Dali that began in the early 1930s. Indeed, in the sentence that he makes this claim, far more interestingly and tellingly, the Thatcherist dream-made-real in ‘anti-politics’ is revealed: we must unite against leftism. In the quote above, it seems to me that Thatcher coagulates in the mouth of Frère Dupont — garbling, confusing, and subverting any good intentions he might have — like a corpse poking its head out.

IV

At the heart of my reversal of perspective is the understanding of what society is, and what the limits of our abilities to change things are. NC, to its credit, always argued that genuine revolution would always be delivered on a level not directed by ‘revolutionary will.’ (This insistence was partly derived from my study of how capitalism emerged in the mode of production known as feudalism in Europe.) The revolutionaries could not ‘make it happen’ because there was no way mass consciousness could be raised prior to events happening themselves. The role of the revolutionary, then, as prescribed by NC, was to warn the insurgents of the traps and pitfalls that awaited them. But if one thinks about this enough it simply dovetails with a theory of revolutionary consciousness and vanguardism. If the Nihilist Communists (revolutionaries) were listened to, and believed, then that would be a moment of consciousness-raising beyond the instruction of events (the dynamics of ‘the dialectic’ — consciousness, by the way, never precedes events, it is the material reality of our daily existence that decides our consciousness, to believe that you can create a [i]whole new worldwhole new world, one that revolutionizes the economy, is to be very deluded; these things can happen, but they don’t happen because of human will). And it would also mean that the Nihilist Communists would have become the [i]de factowhole new world leaders and ideologues of the new situation. But it gets more confusing. The Nihilist Communists (the true revolutionaries) would be obliged to also purge themselves before they had taken any form of control. Ideally, in fact, they would have disappeared before they were able to enact the role NC had given itself for the revolutionary event. This may sound kind-of crazy, but it is, in fact, the essence of the program of all ultra-left groupings and individuals today. It is also the much older strategy of Bakunin and the anarchists — who realized the perilous position of acting as a guide, of intervening to raise awareness — but who never had an adequate answer for how this would look in practice: because, of course, such a strategy is unrealistic and impossible.

So, NC, along with the council communists and the ultra-left, never got any further than the anarchists. The ‘novelty’ of the book was that it was exceptionally hardline against trying to convince ‘the masses’ — and therefore went much further in its [i]respect for ‘the masseswhole new world.’ We pointed to no ‘veils’ that had to be removed, as Marx did, and we did not think, as Bakunin did, that “the working-class is still very ignorant [and] lacks every theory” ([i]The Policy of the Internationalwhole new world, 1869). Nor did we agree with Bakunin in this statement from the same essay, which could have been written fifty years later by the council communists:

“This is the quintessence of the Socialist idea, whose germs can be found in the instinct of every serious thinking worker. Our object, therefore, is to make him conscious of what he [really] wants, to awaken in him a clear idea that corresponds to his instincts: for the moment the class consciousness of the proletariat has lifted itself up to the level of their instinctive feeling, their intention will have developed into determination, and their power will be irresistible.”

In fact, our intention was not to appeal the ‘the working-class’ at all, of course — we simply wanted to point out that we and the (increasingly university-oriented) revolutionaries around us did not know what we/they were doing, and that much of what was going on in revolutionary discourse was pointless, actively counter-productive, or just quite stupid. Essentially, since no genuine revolution has ever succeeded, and therefore communism has never been established on earth, we were pointing out that no one knew anything; no one had any genuine revolutionary experience, particularly our so-certain contemporaries. Even the experience of Nestor Makhno, dazzling as it is, was very far from complete.

Dr Jasper Bernes, of Endnotes Journal, like a preacher losing faith in the gospel, writes, “We do not know what a successful communist revolution looks like…” But then follows it up almost immediately with: “The successful revolution unfolds…”, “In the successful revolution…” and then offers an array of certainties about how communism will be achieved and what it looks like. He insists three times, in a Boy’s Own manner, that we are going to have to “hijack trucks” (‘Revolutionary Motives,’ Endnotes 5, 2019). These ‘certainties’ are further elaborated in his 2021 text, The Test of Communism. But the feeling one ultimately takes from Dr Bernes and [i]Endnotes[i] is that they don’t really believe anymore, everything is looking-back-at-history, talking about inscrutable ‘horizons,’ and one is left with the feeling that the whole Endnotes presentation, following, as it does, from the Aufheben debacle, has descended into irony. As I write this I cannot help thinking of the ‘Father Paul Hill’ character in the US television miniseries, Midnight Mass.

One might wonder why I criticize Endnotes, the council communists, the ultra-left, and the anarchists, and not, for example, other nearby ‘revolutionary’ tendencies, such as Cosmonaut? Well, since Cosmonaut are simply more complete Leninists, they exist slightly outside this narrative. But perhaps it is useful to contextualize some of their position. Firstly, Cosmonaut criticize ‘the ultra-left’ and “academic marxism” for not being Leninist enough, whereas I criticize the ultra-left for, among other things, harboring an “incipient Leninism,” or being representative of an “infant Leninism.” For example, I argue that everything Dr Bernes, et al, has written on ‘revolution’ was written by Lenin, more astutely, more comprehensively and more self-reflexively in 1906, in his essay, Guerrilla Warfare. And secondly, Cosmonaut is the neo-Leninist/neo-Koba, new zombie-Bolshevik cult that wants, as they write, to “Make socialism scientific again!” via standard entryist tactics and the mass sacrifice of countless student drones who believe in the prospect of a bountiful corn harvest under the smiling Cosmonaut sun. Are they already planning the locations of their gulags? When will Donald Parkinson be trudging despairingly towards the Central Committee purge-machinery that, like Bukharin before him, he will have helped build? (For an insightful account of the millenarian cultism of the Bolsheviks, a phenomenon applicable, more alarmingly, to any revolutionary, read The House of Government, by Yuri Slezkine.)

V

The libertarianism (that I too, unconsciously, shared), and that has found its way into every discourse, became evident to me (far too late!) for what it really is, in the dreadful response to the pandemic that Frère Dupont made. Aligned with his anti-leftism (“But first throw off leftism!”), his anti-lockdown and anti-mask commitments revealed the essence of the error and its consequences. Frère Dupont mistakes the solidarity and mutual aid that is the core of what is good about the ‘socialist’ impulse at the ground level for the way ‘leftism’ has developed at the governmental level, he writes: “What is leftism but corporations anticipating potential equal rights litigation?”

Frère Dupont’s lacuna on the question of solidarity and mutual aid and the continual challenges these phenomena pose to democracy, life in civilization, and leftism itself, is perhaps further revealed, in another pandemic comment, by what appears to be a capitulation to the reactionary discourse on ‘freedom’ as ‘the right of the individual’:

“The beneficial element of neo-reaction is articulated precisely in its exercise of freely speaking, causing offense and transgressing against institutionalized value sets.”

(Frère Dupont, I Am Not Chuang, 2020)

Moreover, Frère Dupont writes: “Instead of ceding the idea of freedom to the right as the left wing of capital demands, it is necessary to contest its meaning, and so seize it back.” This sentence a) presumes that ‘freedom’ is some kind of transhistorical concept in regard to the biology of the human (a social being); b) indicates nothing about what the ‘contestation’ might be founded upon; and c) fails to recognize that the calling for solidarity has not only come from medical professionals: it has come, far more massively, from those ‘ordinary’ people (the vast majority worldwide) who want to keep their loved ones, and the people around them, safe.

This is the strange and interesting situation someone like Frère Dupont is unable to grasp, and it is because he, like many others, needs to find ‘the enemy’ in the same specific place as always: the mythical, personified, evil State (see Nihil Evadere). What has in fact happened is that notions of socialist solidarity and mutual aid (not infecting others) have aligned with the medical profession’s concern to treat and contain the virus. Not only this — ‘socialistic solidarity’ has also aligned with those governments that have followed, or felt forced to follow, the medical advice. Reality is both more simple and more complex than Frère Dupont imagines.

In a larger sense, what Frère Dupont misses — what NC misses — is that to be ‘on the left’ (at whatever level) is to be in constant dialogue and antagonism with ‘the left’ and with one’s own impulse to do good in the world. To be ‘outside of the left,’ as Jacques Camatte, Agamben, and Monsieur Dupont have proved, is to open space for reaction through whatever variety of red-brown confusionism that attaches itself (see Nihil Evadere for a full account of this phenomenon).

And maybe the whole concept of ‘freedom,’ if it is always to end up being associated with the right to do one’s own thing with no regard for the other — that is, leading a selfish life — should be abandoned? The more one thinks about the word ‘freedom’ in a philosophical, social, or political — or as related to ‘the individual’ — sense, the more one should realize how limited and stupid it is. The word shouldn’t be ‘seized back’… it should be discarded. And perhaps this also goes for the word ‘emancipatory,’ but I write this with a caveat. In the United States this word is umbilically linked to the specific progressive change that ended slavery there and, as such, it has a noble value and can be used to inspire challenges to the order of things. Still, we should be careful not to deploy these words in a manner that indicates the impossible possibility of some kind of absolute freedom that can be achieved by an equally impossible absolute revolution. We can only ever be emancipated, or emancipate ourselves, to a certain extent. But this extent is almost certainly, as the example of the ending of slavery demonstrates, far greater than the current conditions in which we endure. It is better to know this so we can be more effective, and less counter-productive.

So, what to do with this book, that was once a labor of love for me, but has led to such a silly and ignominious end, one that, if I had been cleverer, could have been avoided from the beginning? What to do with it? Throw it in the trash.

Mickey Moosenhauer

3rd January 2023

[My great thanks to Ezri, whose advice, suggestions, and encouragement were crucial in improving the coherence of the text.]

When they heard the line: “The function of the mask at an interpersonal level is equivalent to the enclosure of common land in the Seventeenth Century.”

More detail can be found on Twitter here: @nihil_evadere

Also here: Nihil Evadere: How We Are Created Is How We Create — An Empirical Journey to the End of Marxist, Anarchist, and Ultra-leftist Millenarianism, Mickey Moosenhauer, 2022.

Libcom note: Test from https://medium.com/contrahistorical/nihilist-communism-a-postscript-for-the-book-by-the-other-dupont-ea811865d9ae

• 1Libcom note https://libcom.org/article/death-rank-and-filism
• 2Libcom note: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/red-robbie-some-notes-concerning-future-proletarian-insurgency
• 3Libcom note: https://libcom.org/article/seasonal-message-other-dupont-le-garcon-dupont
• 4Libcom note: https://medium.com/contrahistorical/the-enervating-quality-of-appeals-to-the-communist-life-36ef16574273
• 5Libcom note: use the search box to find our excellent archives of all these and subsequent tendencies/texts.
• 6Libcom note: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/red-robbie-some-notes-concerning-future-proletarian-insurgency