'If I can't talk about crows for 67 posts, its not my revolution'
If the world we have inherited was made in such a way to allow exploration, to allow us to speak of crows and what it means to be a human being, instead of merely designed to ease and enforce our entrance into productive forces, I would be pleased. We could have human lives.
So yes, if I can't talk about crows it's not my revolution. Of course, if you think we have just been talking about crows then you missed the point, though it might have been more interesting to talk about real crows.
Did you know they are one of only a few bird species to use tools?
Wow... now we're in an alternate universe where talking about nothing but Marxist value theory and workerist organizing, or refusing to look at anything from an unexpected angle, makes you a hit at parties, and where having the patience to explore seemingly purposeless threads of conversation rather than ultra-pragmatically insisting on maximum revolutionary use-value from every thread makes you cynical! Crazy.
And nobody schemes to be the department chair, except in the movies. It's more the type of position that goes to the person not quick enough to take a step back.
Conversation seems to of shifted. While I enjoyed the parable of the crow and others didn't as much, it seemed easy to see that the nihilist communist crow does not matter to the crow dropping stones unless that crow wanted to bicker with the nihilist communist crow.
If a rain does come and the water in the jug rises, the nihilist communist crow may attempt to stop the crow dropping stones so that both could take a drink of the water. Otherwise, they will pile up and no crow would be able to drink from the jug.
This seems to be the only time the nihilist communist crow and the crow dropping stones would interact unless the crow dropping stones wanted to interact before this. This would mean that the nihilist communist crow can be ignored unless the crow dropping stones finds their nay-saying from the shade annoying.
If they do have a conflict within the confines of the parable, it would not affect the rising of the water. If my narrative of the parable is rejected, that the rain will also not cause the water in the jug to rise, then does any of this matter?
Anyways, the allegories would have to be re-narrated to include the many other actors in this parable, if that is what is wanted. The science of the matter would still stand on the side that certain birds, some related to the crow and perhaps certain types of crow do drop stones in human made containers to get water because dropping stones does raise the water level.
This might mean another parable would probably be better to describe the situation if a parable is wanted.
As for who's an academic and all that jazz, these ideas aren't attractive just to academics. I'm not an academic yet I find some of their viewpoints attractive enough to consider. I do at times clash with their use of academic jargon as it doesn't speak to me very well. If I wanted to go through the trouble of learning the nuances of their jargon, I might as well make another attempt at university.
But this would leave me in the same position I am now: Unsatisfied with the lack of communication of academic ideas into laymen terms. It would also leave me questioning if any new insights are being discovered or if much of it is an exercise to make a purpose to have a professional career. Obviously I am wrong about much of this, as academic insights do help give supporting evidence to old ideas and influence the ways old ideas are communicated when otherwise these older ideas might be dismissed.
Perhaps instead of attacking the academic, there might be another way of engaging them so we can understand them, if that is what is desired. The flip side is perhaps there is another way they can engage the non-academic so our dialogues aren't beyond the layman's scope of understanding?
Why does the trick of pebbles not work? It has worked in the past (Archimedes in the bathtub thinking of the crown, etc). It should work. How is a law suspended?
Why has their not been a large-scale raising of consciousness if it is in fact a law?
Engels wrote in his The Condition of the Working Class in England of the
“absurd freedom from anxiety, with which the middle class dwells upon a soil that is honeycombed, and may any day collapse, the speedy collapse of which is as certain as a mathematical or mechanical demonstration”.
The year of this writing was 1844, the year in which Marx wrote his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Here Marx, in reference to communism, wrote that
“It is the solution to the riddle of history and it knows itself to be the solution. The entire movement of history is therefore both the actual act of the creation of communism – the birth of its empirical existence – and, for its thinking consciousness, the comprehended and known movement of its becoming […]”
Both of these statements indicate that history has a knowable structure; that fundamental, radically consequential historical developments can be anticipated in advance, because one not only knows what the current situation is, one knows what the laws of development are.
In my opinion, there is value to the understanding of capitalism and the novelty of its historical conditions advanced in the work of Marx and Engels. Furthermore, I do not think that the idea of communism following capitalism in a quite natural manner was something that they produced entirely from thin air. Their understanding of the freedom from necessity, and the development of social interconnections and capacities, which are provided by capitalism, provides us with an interesting and novel way of thinking about the potential transition to a new form of social organisation. What is clear, however, is that in no sense does any such transition proceed in the mechanical fashion which, at least in their early days, these writers argued for.
Sometimes a correct understanding of a physical law leads one to believe that a certain material result will occur, when in fact the result in question will not occur. When one analyses things theoretically, it is possible to reduce them to what Marx described as the “ideal average”. Obstinate reality, however, does not always conform to the ideal average. It is true that by the crow putting stones in the jar, the level of the water did rise. The crow did have a correct understanding of a physical law. The crow, however, was driven by desires grounded in its material existence. Its biological needs come before its abstract theoretical reflections. The world in which the crow lives became harsh, refusing to provide it with water. When the crow finally, after such a long search in such desperate heat, found some water, the chance was too good to pass up. The water, alas, is inaccessible to the crow. – But never mind, for the crow is acquainted with a law. It knows, with the certainty of a mathematical demonstration, that a stone and a quantity of water cannot occupy the same space as each other. This is a fact: the one must necessarily displace the other. Further, a stone dropped into water will sink. Thus, the crow can convincingly demonstrate, by means only of already known physical laws, that it can satisfy its thirst. – But wait, this is to go too fast. Material reality is not always as easy to conduce as theory. In go the stones, but they do not form an homogeneous block. There are gaps between the stones. Once the bottom of the jar is covered by a layer of stones, it is true that the level of the water has risen, but there is still some water on the bottom layer occupying the gaps between the stones. That water cannot be made to rise unless, by a precise operation, more, smaller stones are inserted into the gaps. For this, alas, the crow has neither the theoretical tools nor the technical abilities. And so the crow continues with what it knows, it piles more and more stones onto the layer already formed, and it forms new layers of stones. With each new layer, there are new gaps, and more water is lost to the project. So attached to its preconceived theoretical framework is the crow, so zealously does it cling to its clearly demonstrable truth that two objects cannot occupy the same space, that what is really going on never occurs to it.
Marx and Engels are the crow. The stones are Bataille's base materialism. The water is the Nietzschean affirmation in which Bataille bathes, and which Marx and Engels cannot get near.
The crow is historical materialism. The stones are material reality. The water is Hegel's Absolute Idea.
I am pretty sure 'academic careerists' are similar to you and I and the rest of the commenters here, Hieronymous, in that they strive to be happy.
As long as you're talking about happiness, the nihilist communist thing seems to me quite obviously driven by the individuals' involved striving to be happy. Through their writing they're trying to meet their intellectual and emotional needs. The problem is that their striving to happy is parasitic on the striving of others (in the sense of relying on others in a way that is destructive for those others). That is to say, nihilist communists need others who are not nihilist communists and the nihilist communists' need is a one-way street, nihilist communists are not beneficial to people who are not nihilist communists.
I also think that some of the nihilist communist thing is a form of small business niche marketing, as I said, and simultaneously a form of small avante gardist artistic/literary production. (To be clear I suspect it's more a small business in the sense of a vanity project or hobby rather than a small business that's actually profitable, except for the distributors that the nihilist communists work with.) The nihilist communists write material that they distribute online in part to try to build some cred in some scenes/milieus, and they put their work on in print for sale through distributors that make money selling such niche market avante garde literary commodities. None of that is a big deal, but... Nihilist communists are happy to make critical comments about others (and their happiness derives in part from criticizing). Like I said that criticism is driven largely by the nihilist communists' striving for happiness, and it acts in such a way that makes others unhappy. And the especially frustrating part is that as much as the nihilist communists are happy to criticize others vigorously, I've yet to see them criticize the forms of practice and informal organization they engage in - writing material for distribution on blogs and so on, creating books and pamphlets and magazines for sale through distributors like Little Black Cart etc. And of course, not, because that would mean criticizing their own activities and the things they do to meet their own intellectual and emotional needs, sabotaging the things they do to make themselves happy. Which strikes me as bad faith.
Sorry doam, I don't strive to be happy with my living conditions -- and those of my class across the globe -- under attack.
I find that highly implausible.
And no one in higher education is unaware that the Supreme Court decision in NRLB vs. Yeshiva University in 1980 ruled that tenured faculty are managerial employees, putting them on the wrong side of the class divide.
I never heard of that, not that that fact is to my credit.
They can only recommend hip consumerism, spinning the yarn that capital is invincible and eternal. I wholeheartedly disagree. Better to go down fighting that to be defined by the hip commodities you consume.
I'm not sure who that description applies to, um... "Dude."
As long as you're talking about happiness, the nihilist communist thing seems to me quite obviously driven by the individuals' involved striving to be happy.
Which is incredibly similar to all other human activities, even the activities of self-proclaimed martyrs.
Nate
I also think that some of the nihilist communist thing is a form of small business niche marketing, as I said, and simultaneously a form of small avante gardist artistic/literary production...
Bollocks. This hobby or industry you're talking about is done through 1 (one) book published ages ago which has no copyright. It could be published by anybody tomorrow if they wanted to (and could make money off it). Since that one book one of the writers hasn't written anything that's been published as a book and the other has only written one book which uses none of the nih-com branding or even attempts to trade on that notoriety. The latter also has several blogs which are very hard to find and have no ads on them nor any books or products that can be bought.
If there's any bad faith in this, is if at that one point in time the writers of nih-com were looking to 'troll' the milieu and wrote a book just to take the piss out of it. Make money? This is not crimethinc, buddy.
1 (one) book published ages ago which has no copyright. It could be published by anybody tomorrow if they wanted to (and could make money off it). (...) Make money? This is not crimethinc, buddy.
You're agreeing with what I said:
Nate
it's more a small business in the sense of a vanity project or hobby rather than a small business that's actually profitable, except for the distributors that the nihilist communists work with.
As for the 'just the one book' thing, I was counting Letters as nihilist communist, and I know the dupont stuff is distributed in pamphlet form as well.
It is time to begin again because after a diversion by means of the crow parable we have returned to a critique (valid or invalid) of the people "behind" the book and not the book itself. Instead of a critique of Nihilist Communism we have found a critique of supposed "nihilist communists".
[EDIT: hpwombat and jonglier's comments above are exceptions and perhaps we can renew our search for a critique by looking to their comments]
I know Letters and he is not posting in bad faith, and he does think nihilism is awful (and he is NOT Insipidities!).
Just because someone annoys you doesn't mean they are posting in bad faith. There was an entire thread where Letters asked why he was accused of trolling, and not one person came up with a coherent answer. It's time to put up or shut up--what evidence do you have that Letters is a troll? Is it because he says things that are so unreasonable that he must not believe them? Does he contradict himself and say random things? Or what?
EIther put up or shut up--demonstrate that Letters is a troll or shut the fuck up about it.
If anyone would like to discuss Nihilist Communism with me I am open to continuing or establishing private correspondence with individuals, however, in light of the above I am refraining from any further public discussion until the environment of this thread has changed.
Bzfgt, I'd put you in the same camp as lettersjournal, but have to qualify that by saying you're more of a vapid troll who simply makes posts that are the internet equivalent of small talk.
The rest of this may be true but I'm not a troll...
I've seen you posting on the internet for nearly a decade and you haven't made a single post demonstrating original thought. Just mindless little quips and sycophantic defenses of lettersjournal.
That may be true, I rarely get to the point on these boards where I feel like a real conversation is happening, especially here where the environment isn't exactly nurturing when it comes to trying to express original ideas, if I were to have any.
And what does "know" mean? Are you her/his professor? Do you have some kind of business partnership? A little truth in advertising is necessary here.
I have encountered Letters Journal on the internet for several years now, and about a year ago he moved to my town. We hang out together, and during the fall and winter we have been involved in a Marx reading group together. Sometimes we talk on the phone. That's it, I'm not his professor and I have no "business" ties with him.
Secondly, this is a website where at best we share radical ideas. You and lettersjournal aren't radicals, but seem to be on a mission to convince us that capitalism and all the manifestations of contemporary life, including a slew of homicidal oppressions, aren't worth bothering with as you pose instead that we should be birdwatching, doing tea ceremonies and marveling at the wonders of our own intestines.
Where have I ever said that? Do you have a quote? I ask for a quote because I'm fairly certain I've never said any of that, never recommended (or even mentioned) birdwatching or told anyone here what to not bother with. I'm not 100% sure what qualifies one as a "radical" or if I am one...I mean that genuinely, not in "bad faith."
Oh yeah, and doing painfully banal and narcissistic interviews with yourselves. And perhaps the worst crime to humanity, calling that self-absorbed drivel that you write and publish "poetry."
I've never interviewed myself, and I'm pretty sure LJ never has either. I have never written anything that I call "poetry," or that anyone else would, except maybe in grammar school for an assignment.
And it's the latter advice for "communists" that lettersjournal shows themself at their most passive-aggressive. Egypt exploded with a general strike of mostly women textile workers in 2006, which continued year-after-year and was then rocked with massive riots in 2008 when the price of bread increased five to tenfold. Your advice: communists ignore this because all these Egyptian "Jew haters" want is "bourgeois democracy." No, dumbfuck, they don't want to starve, they don't want their kids to starve, and they begin to see that Hosni Mubarak, his son Gamal, and all their Western educated (with professors like bzfgt?) cronies were literally looting everything in the country, literally everything, with their neoliberal "reforms." Let me say that again, dumbfuck, people who face food shortages during the biggest bumper crop of wheat in human history, start rioting so as not to starve, so that their kids don't starve, not because they want "bourgeois democracy."
Now you seem to be addressing LJ more than me, but I don't see what's "passive-aggressive" about his comments on Egypt, and I'm pretty sure they were made in "good faith." I refrained from making any arguments about that situation at all, so maybe we're back in paragraph one and that's a sign of my vapidity.
So while a wave of strikes has continued in Egypt (up to this day) and even influenced class struggle elsewhere, like in Wisconsin with the wildcat of teachers, lettersjournal, bzfgt and the other anti-radical reactionaries kept droning on and on and on about how all this meant nothing for "communists."
I don't remember ever saying what those things did or did not mean for ""communists.""
That is the statement of a trolling dumbfuck. When called out on their trolling in bad faith, lettersjournal cried foul and claimed other posters weren't being "fair." You bunch of fucking crybabies!
Why is a statement you disagree with or find stupid or offensive "trolling"? Maybe LJ is just stupid, offensive, or wrong. If I were you I'd accuse you of making these accusations of trolling in "bad faith" since you are giving evidence for one thing (stupidness, wrongheadedness, or non-radicalness), then trying to use it to establish another (trolling). But I don't actually think you're in bad faith, I think you're just confused.
Back to you, bzfgt, knock off the classless angel schtick. You either truly don't have any skin in the game, for whatever reason, or you are actively in denial that we live in a class society -- where we in the working class are facing drastic attacks on our living conditions.
I'm probably more of a lumpen than working class per se, technically. I've never claimed to be a classless angel and to the extent I seem to be one it probably is a function of my class position.
You, on the other hand, may not be a classless angel, but your recent posts here do make you seem like a classless douchebag--using "class" in an entirely different sense, i.e. the thing you don't have. I hope that isn't construed as passive-agressive.
Not only that, but in the U.S. we are witness to a drastically increasing number of racist lynchings, from the media-spectacularized killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida, to LAPD doubling the number of cop shootings (of mostly young black men) in a single year, to the execution of Kenneth Harding by transit cops last year in San Francisco, to other wanton killing everywhere every single day. You either callously live on the other side of the class divide in reality (inherited wealth) and ignore all this -- or you chose to maintain a fantasy that none of it matters to "communists," covering up your own declining wages and increasing mountain of debt. Whatever it is, your posts are in bad faith too. So either continue as an anonymous classless troll and subject yourselves to my class hatred, or purge your mind of that garbage they taught you in school (and that you regurgitate in the lecture hall), try to self-educate yourself about the world, and stop being so fucking lame.
I'm not sure why you think I have somewhere indicated that none of this matters to ""communists,"" or how this pretense could cover up my declining wages and increasing mountain of debt (accurate enough, vs., alas, my fictitious inherited wealth). It seems like you're just raving now, I don't recall LJ saying any of that either. Now I am also a "troll" and in "bad faith"...I can see your eye twitching like the commissioner in the Pink Panther movies when you type these things. Get a grip on yourself, "troll" actually means something, and, although you keep using the word, I do not think it means what you seem to think it does.
Nice try. That's all the posters on the other thread did too, post definitions of trolling. Nobody is asking what a troll is, the question is why you accuse LJ of being one. The question you still haven't answered.
I don't know why you think I am trying to create controversy or provoke an angry response, either. I'm not. Sometimes I disagree with people, but I don't arbitrarily adopt positions for the sake of creating controversy. I don't think LJ does either, since his comments here are fairly consistent with his remarks in this here real life of ours.
Perhaps I shouldn't have called you a douchebag, I wanted to just say your pixels have been arranging themselves in douchebaggy configurations lately, but I didn't want to be accused of being passive-aggressive. I'm sure if I met you in "real life" you are a perfectly nice guy, LJ says you are and I have no reason to doubt him. But you have been displaying a lot of rage in your posts over the past year and a half, and the reasons for this rage are not entirely clear to me. It almost seems in "bad faith" to make imputations about my maturity after I have been entirely civil to your angry posts for such a long time, until today. But again, I assume you are simply confused and not in bad faith.
You are certainly passive-aggressive, however. It seems rather passive-aggressive to send me pseudo-friendly PMs whose real purpose is to inform me you know who I am and what I do for a living, and to continually make references to that in your posts (at least today you were a little more clear and forthright about the purpose of those references, although I'm not certain we've touched bottom yet). It seems passive-aggressive to make cryptic references to Ezra Pound since you know LJ enjoys his poetry, and if you are not specific you can cook up a smear that can't really be answered. Is that an example of your "maturity"? Do you deny that these things are passive-aggressive? Are they undertaken in good faith? Can one be passive-aggressive while remaining in good faith? If not, I suppose you are in bad faith after all. But maybe there are two separate issues here, I'm not sure. Luckily I don't have to sort it out since I'm not the one who constantly makes these accusations and then fails to defend them.
I'm really not sure what all your rage and frustration is about or why you feel it is most productively directed against those people on message boards you deem insufficiently "radical." I don't criticize your ideas or praxis (what I know of them), and if people do you would probably be better off seeing if there's anything you can learn from such criticisms rather than working yourself into a lather over the intentions of the people making them.
Are your imputations of bad faith in good faith? Do you really think we are trolls or do you just hate what we say (I imagine mostly LJ, and I'm more collateral damage) so much that you want to discredit it?
I don't assume you are in bad faith, and in general I try to avoid thinking others are until all other interpretations are exhausted, but as you see, if I wanted to hurl this accusation at you I could make a much better case for it than you have done against LJ or me.
Hiero's butthurt that a topic he tried to shut down and derail in the very first replies has now gone to be one of the most popular in libcom. Who's the troll, now?
To me, the conversation on nihilist communism might be better if I posed some theories that seem to be in line with the logic of nihilist communism. If they seem in bad faith or too inaccurate, please inform me and I'll attempt to rectify. It is not my intention to be against nihilist communism and I'm more often in favor of such ideas being spread as I feel it is the 21st Century's Hegel and if we are to be relevant, we must respond to it and become the next Young Hegalians and perhaps the next Marx or Bakunin. Pardon if insulted by the comparison, but hopefully the gist is understood.
1. Those for revolution have little to no impact on initiating revolutionary moments.
2. Those for revolution have the potential to be an obstacle to the birth of revolutionary moments, keeping situations stuck in either pre-revolutionary ruptures or reformist growth.
3. The essential proletariat, being part of the primary or secondary sectors of the economy, are the potential control point of revolutionary potential.
4. Propaganda and ideology may only have a disruptive effect on the essential proletariat. They could have extreme right wing views and still hold the true potential of revolution in its hands. In fact, the conservative views of the essential proletariat may hold more potential for revolution because only when they are willing to act in favor of a revolution will a revolution potentially occur.
5. The disruption of propaganda, left wing ideology, civil unrest and other pre-revolutionary attempts and/or situations often force the essential proletariat to withdraw or even side with capitalism.
Can this thread just be locked, binned or thrown in libcommunity already? Jesus.
I PMed Hieronymous after the last one, so our back and forth has ended. I see nothing in Wombat's latest attempt to put the thread back on topic that warrants any of the actions you've suggested.
1. Those for revolution have little to no impact on initiating revolutionary moments.
I think that is accurate from the perspective of Nihilist Communism. I do not know if it is true, but it is certainly a claim worth considering if we unpack it as follows: current conditions do not necessarily determine our consciousness in every case in a transparent way, but they allow a range of possibilities. Under current conditions, a pro-revolutionary consciousness is not only a minority position but it has increasingly been marginalized throughout the 20th century (say, 100 years ago compared to now). Thus, a core of people already in place trying to spread rev consciousness 100 years ago has actually shrunk, therefore the spread of rev consciousness is dependent on conditions independent of its own programmatic aims and strategies for increasing itself, much less fomenting revolution. This necessitates a "step back" on the part of pro-revs from their accustomed consciousness raising and organizing theory and practice in order to accept that their activity is conditioned on factors not under their control, in order to evaluate their position (both material and theoretical) accordingly.
Certainly, if a revolutionary moment, as you put it, occurs, it will involve an increase in revolutionary consciousness and activity, but this increase will not be a direct result of the conscious attempts of pro-revs to increase this consciousness and activity. However, if this moment occurs the people who have considered themselves pro-rev all along will doubtlessly be at the center of it, at least those who are materially proletarians, hence the critique of pro-rev consciousness is necessary in order to render it more fluid and responsive to a reality that will not allow itself to be programmed, rather than holding a hard line in such a way that will doubtless result in violence and refusal to accept the desires of people not inculcated in the program. I don't think anything I've said above is at odds with the claims in Nihilist Communism and this seems like a position worth considering.
2. Those for revolution have the potential to be an obstacle to the birth of revolutionary moments, keeping situations stuck in either pre-revolutionary ruptures or reformist growth.
This follows from my remarks on 1.
3. The essential proletariat, being part of the primary or secondary sectors of the economy, are the potential control point of revolutionary potential.
This means those positioned in such a way to affect wide sectors of economic activity have more potential to alter, disrupt or halt economic functioning.
4. Propaganda and ideology may only have a disruptive effect on the essential proletariat.
This depends on the sense of "may." "May" as in "may be true," or "may" as in "this is the only effect these things can have?" The latter is a much more sweeping claim and would be hard to defend for that reason, although a clearer notion of what is meant by propaganda and ideology, and what "disrupt" means, would be required for me to have an opinion.
They could have extreme right wing views and still hold the true potential of revolution in its hands.
If you accept my interpretation of 3., then of course it doesn't matter what their views are for them to have this "potential." But a major point of Nihilist Communism is that revolution cannot result from a war of opinions, in any given epoch a range of opinions is enabled, and its basic statistical distribution more or less conditioned, by material realities. A change in conditions such that pro-communist perspectives increase is thus more realistic than a spread in pro-communist perspectives leading to a change in conditions. This is one point where I think, however, that a dialectical perspective is useful, and Nihilist Communism may go too far in its absolute rejection of dialectics. In other words, although N-C recognizes the possibility of a feedback loop, the determining role goes to material conditions at any point in that loop, and any possible leeway for consciousness in its role as an intensifier of revolutionary conditions is consequently minimized by that text. This is the point where Red sees the Achilles heel of N-C and it is a very important and difficult question that is worth considering. It would be nice if we got to the point on threads like this where we could discuss such things.
In fact, the conservative views of the essential proletariat may hold more potential for revolution because only when they are willing to act in favor of a revolution will a revolution potentially occur.
This I do not follow.
5. The disruption of propaganda, left wing ideology, civil unrest and other pre-revolutionary attempts and/or situations often force the essential proletariat to withdraw or even side with capitalism.
I'm not sure if this sort of negative agency can be attributed to pro-revs, this may occur in local situations but I doubt (both from the perspective of N-C as I understand it and from my own) that it is a very significant phenomenon. N-C doesn't criticize pro-revs for stymying the spread of pro-rev consciousness, it tries to criticize the left for its potential role in a revolution.
It would probably be good if my responses to Hiero were also moved to Libcommunity so the conversation is not split in half in two places, and also I have no idea where in Libcommunity this stuff can be found, maybe a link would be good. Sorry, I know the admins are busy and I don't mean to be too demanding.
Excuse me if I bring up something already brought up (many responses and without them boiiiled down, I don't care to read through all).
"However, if you aim to remove all leadership struc-
tures and instigate mechanisms by which people begin
to think and act for themselves then it becomes almost
impossible to motivate more than a few thousand indi-
viduals from a wide geographical area; and even within
the most optimised conditions the specifics of the action
will be undertaken by a relatively small number of young
men with the majority content to look on.
As the numbers of protesters increase, as with an
anti-war march for example, so the action taken and the
reason for the actions become more and more simplified.
To cut a long story short, it seems to us that the fewer
people there are participating in political actions the more
the acts conform to a defined set of ideas, but the less real
the action is felt to be – because the numbers involved are
so small. Contrariwise, the larger the numbers of people
involved, the more restricted are the possible actions
and the less defined the ideas. With the participation of
a million people acting against capital, the actions open
to them appear to us to be primarily negative, namely
the withdrawal of labour. The only other option is that of
the mass demonstration (which when boiled down to its
essence is a gathering together in one place of many peo-
ple for a set period of time beneath a one- or two-word
slogan).
"
My thoughts on this here: http://persistencesociety.com/papers/aPersistenceSociety/#implementation-failureOfActivism
The issue is, it is not a matter of inciting a revolution, and the whole topic on how to do it or whether it is even possible (which the paper indicates it is not - at least by those mindful of doing so) is meaningless because the concern is not starting a revolution, it is changing the minds of the masses, and consequently changing the arrangement of power. The simplification of cause when scaled up into simple slogans represents a failure to change the minds of any mass and instead a resetting of the concept to some generality which a mass already agrees upon like "greed bad".
As to anarchism, agorism, minarchism, etc -> these are failed religions and they will never catch on. They are failed not only because of their failure to catch, but their failure to provide sound systems or even obtainable systems.
I found the paper insightful but, for me at least, not noteworthy excepting one thing: it is the participation in work and the generation of capital that promotes the existing system. And so, your best option for protest is to contribute as little as possible to this capital/progress and potentially even sabotage it in minor unnoticed ways.
But, from the many books I've read on the subjects of government and from my long time in forums posting, I fail to see any ideal model of society and have encountered an utter lack of people willing to debate on my own ideas of a model for society. And so, resisting the current system is fairly pointless as you (the reader) have no sound alternative.
It would probably be good if my responses to Hiero were also moved to Libcommunity
I don't think his posts were actually moved, I think he went back and edited all of them to delete what he wrote and make a joke about how the thread should be moved.
It would probably be good if my responses to Hiero were also moved to Libcommunity
I don't think his posts were actually moved, I think he went back and edited all of them to delete what he wrote and make a joke about how the thread should be moved.
I moved my own posts that weren't germane to the discussion of Nihilist Communism here. Jonglier, I didn't do it as a joke. .
In fact, the conservative views of the essential proletariat may hold more potential for revolution because only when they are willing to act in favor of a revolution will a revolution potentially occur.
I suppose this would need more explanation. As ideology does not seem to have a direct impact on if people rebel or not, the essential proletariat could hold views that are contrary or even reactionary to the potential for revolution. This could be ideological conservatism or it could be conservative as in views that "tend to resist change", which includes non-ideological apathy and dismissive views.
As you described, the views of the essential proletariat are independent of consciousness raising efforts by those for revolution. They are shaped by their circumstances and may be free of an understanding of revolutionary ideology and revolutionary language.
Though this is not an instance of essential proletariat, the Lucasville prison riot shows an uprising of prisoners that breaks most leftist understandings of ideology with white supremacists uniting with black muslims in the riot.
Another example could be the events tied to the Arab Spring, which might prove to be more reliable in showing that right wing views and ideology, which may more often be in favor of operating within typical understandings of liberal democracy, rising up in violent revolt. While some have placed the Muslim Brotherhood movement on an extreme right wing, this seems somewhat incorrect. it seems that its comparison with contemporary Western interpretations of Christian Fundamentalism don't correspond in the same way. But my point still is that these views are not views that are for insurrections and social upheaval, yet such things occurred.
hpwombat
The disruption of propaganda, left wing ideology, civil unrest and other pre-revolutionary attempts and/or situations often force the essential proletariat to withdraw or even side with capitalism.
The essential proletariat, before, during and after any instance of revolt could do more than reject and/or dismiss an attempt at consciousness raising. Such attempts to raise consciousness or when exposed to other events where people were raising their consciousness might not spread throughout the proletariat. I'd say more likely such attempts are seen with fear and are usually dismissed and the relationship to the job and to capitalism is reinforced rather than challenged.
Say a riot happens in Los Angeles and spreads into a situation of civil unrest with small business owners, gang members, third sector workers, low level government workers and university students making up the majority of the assemblies that are created during the period of civil unrest. The essential proletariat of the surrounding area, like fishers, farmers and manufacturers may opt to instead reject this revolt and side more strongly with the social order.
---
While I was considering these ideas, I also started considering the role of infrastructure workers. Dock workers, train workers, busing,electrical workers, public works, sewage workers and how their participation in a revolt could be just as essential and perhaps more so in a developed economy. I'll develop this thought more as we discuss.
Some of the ideas expressed in this thread (or on the Egypt threads) resulted in hysteria and accusations, calls for and threats of banning, and so on. I think it is interesting to compare that to the non-response to the unapologetic Leninism in the 'Lenin's WITBD' thread:
The implication is that Lenin and his left communist defenders are understandable (if confused), but Camatte or Cajo Brendel or Dupont are monsters.
When libcom started, there was a lot of hostility to Leninism. Why has this changed? I think it is connected both to the push for populism (the popular blogger on this site like 'working class self-organization' are politically indistinguishable from the SWP and has a history of posting, then 'unpublishing', conspiracist videos) and to the turn towards close/academic readings of Marx. The Leninists in the WITDB thread are some of the most "serious" Marxologists here, and their Marx knowledge trumps their politics.
Or, perhaps it is the case that libcom has very little real participation of any sort anymore, so the lack of response to Leninism is primarily due to the fact that the Leninists are some of the few active posters left on the site. If they were gone, there wouldn't be much discussion left.
Some of the ideas expressed in this thread (or on the Egypt threads) resulted in hysteria and accusations, calls for and threats of banning, and so on. I think it is interesting to compare that to the non-response to the unapologetic Leninism in the 'Lenin's WITBD' thread:
The historicising, academic tone make it difficult to see the politics and make even the flames seem harmless. A certain brand of annoying self pitying and passive agressive trolling that seriously pisses people off is also missing...
But it's a fair comment. I haven't been around this forum for that long, but marxism of various forms seems to be more prominent now.
The thing about the Lenin thread is that those ostensibly arguing the "anti-Lenin" position are also injecting things like "the Russian Revolution was just the result of German Gold, the Soviets were worthless (with the further implication that all organizations are rackets)", so I suspect the majority of those against Leninism (including myself) don't want to jump on that "side".
I agree that there are a lot of Marxologists here whose encyclopedic knowledge of categorical minutia is matched by rather pallid politics.
However, the dismissal of all organizations as rackets doesn't seem an effective "rhetorical strategy" for bringing out the contradictions of these folks.
There are "usual suspects" arguing on both sides. The thing is, if someone wanted to argue that all organizations are rackets, they should start with the best-seeming, not the worst seeming, examples. That the usual anti-organization suspect all jump on the worst example to prove their general point strengthens neither the particular point under discussion (that Lenin's authoritarianism would make him not a communist) nor the general argument (that all organizations are rackets). It just make you'll look like dicks.
In the case of Letters, I want don't want to say that in a hostile way. Even if someone arguing a position means well, that someone looks opportunistic and insincere if they pick the ugliest example for their general formulation. And the German gold part pretty specifically defines "conspiracy theory" - the problem with conspiracy isn't that conspiracies don't happen, states constantly engage in conspiracies, the problem with conspiracy theory is that even state engage in conspiracies to 'cause things and even succeed, actual events still have multiple causes, actual player have multiple motivations, etc.
Honestly, one really kind of destructive thing that the Nihcom ideology seems to cultivate is this "we reserve the right to make up myths about people and stick to them regardless of whether these myths have a basis in reality, in fact, even when we're confronted with these myths being wrong, it is totally OK to just ignore the situation in favor of the myths that satisfy us". Basically, it's come up to someone and saying, "Hi, I'm a liar and I'm going to insult you..." You won't make friends that way. I know that Pere Dupont has these complex justifications for this kind of thing but it boils down to really probablematic behavior in my opinion. The most obvious example is the "I reserve the right to talk about 'Libcom' and talk to 'libcom' without regard to what anyone on this thread is actually say" position of Pere Dupont. Again, when someone says that, they crawled miles and miles down the hole of self-discrediting.
I don't mean this even as an attack but to illustrate the psychological dynamic. No one wants to argue on the same side as someone who's taking that kind of position.
I have, in fact, had some of people you might consider more "pro-Lenin" private-message me with more conciliatory (less pro-Lenin) positions. But it seem like they don't want to make those public because the thread is so polarized. I don't really like either the Marx-minutia-masters-with-pallid-politics (which may not be all of one side) or the bonkers-with-anti-organization-fervor positions (which may not be all of the other side). I'd prefer the sides on the side on Lenin thread stopped shouting at each other so the more idiotic of their positions could appear in a clear and distinct glory and so hopefully wither away. But I'm not holding my breath.
to the turn towards close/academic readings of Marx. The Leninists in the WITDB thread are some of the most "serious" Marxologists here, and their Marx knowledge trumps their politics.
"Let us tear out rubinshchina by the roots! Death to menshevizing idealism with its scholastic readings of Marx!"
I have, in fact, had some of people you might consider more "pro-Lenin" private-message me with more conciliatory (less pro-Lenin) positions. But it seem like they don't want to make those public because the thread is so polarized. I don't really like either the Marx-minutia-masters-with-pallid-politics (which may not be all of one side) or the bonkers-with-anti-organization-fervor positions (which may not be all of the other side). I'd prefer the sides on the side on Lenin thread stopped shouting at each other so the more idiotic of their positions could appear in a clear and distinct glory and so hopefully wither away. But I'm not holding my breath.
Well, the fact that the thread is polarized is what is interesting. One of the poles did not exist here previously. Of course, I do not think it is only a two-sided argument. I have not argued anything about rackets or gold conspiracies or anything like that.
One of the people in that thread asserts that the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 is the 'greatest moment in human history'. Another is a member of Die Linke, a German parliamentary party.
However, the dismissal of all organizations as rackets doesn't seem an effective "rhetorical strategy" for bringing out the contradictions of these folks.
I agree, though I am skeptical of both rhetoric and strategy. There is also something to be said for speaking the truth, even when the effects are disastrous.
Well, the fact that the thread is polarized is what is interesting. One of the poles did not exist here previously. Of course, I do not think it is only a two-sided argument. I have not argued anything about rackets or gold conspiracies or anything like that.
And neither did I...
But thing about polarized arguments in general is that people tend to stop listening. They get carried on by their own dynamic. Which kind of means it is hard to draw any more extensive conclusion about the situation. The situation is specifically uninteresting because you can find emotional reactions like that at any drunken party.
Indeed, it is annoying when someone tries to draw some kind of conclusion from someone's reaction.
X: "You are a blah, blah..."
Y: "I am not" (angry)
X: "See your reaction shows I'm on the right track"
Y: "No, I'm angry 'cause I don't like being called names" (even angrier)
X: "Hah! Look at that!"
This isn't what I'd call a reasonable approach to argumentation, even if a given X might find some critique which has some validity.
However, the dismissal of all organizations as rackets doesn't seem an effective "rhetorical strategy" for bringing out the contradictions of these folks.
I agree, though I am skeptical of both rhetoric and strategy. There is also something to be said for speaking the truth, even when the effects are disastrous.
It kind of depends on the situation. It is quite possible to speak the truth with motivations which are disingenuous and wind-up following an approach which merely "proves" to you that the other person isn't interested in hearing you. See above.
There are situations where it is good to push "hard truths" on people regardless of whether the person can hear them.
But the existence of these situations can give rise to the urge to always push the hard truth on people. We kind of want a situationally-aware balance rather than either always spoon-feeding people or always confronting them. To take this full circle, I feel like leftism could be seen as the ideology of always spoon-feeding people and avant-gardism could be seen as the ideology of always confronting people.
This thread is about nihilist communism, Nihilist Communism, things related and so on. Please stop bringing some other thread into this thread. I avoided reading the entire Lenin thread because I knew it was bullshit without touching it. Please keep that thread within itself and not branch to another one. Start a new thread if it must mix that shit with nihilist communism.
To me, Letter's Journal does not speak for nihilist communism. They contribute as do the Duponts to the associated theories, but their theory on whatever Red is talking about seems to be very off topic and not something I was aware of. I'd rather it be spelled out on a thread outside of this one, if possible.
To take this full circle, I feel like leftism could be seen as the ideology of always spoon-feeding people and avant-gardism could be seen as the ideology of always confronting people.
I find this line to be interesting but I think it is too simplistic. Here are some general ideas that I think are likely too general but are relevant:
When leftists (or people who generally follow the 'consciousness raising model') speak to 'others', to the 'public', they often spoon-feed because this way they think they can recruit. And yet, when leftists speak to people they think are 'like them' it often turns to a confrontation, a bullying, where there is contention. The dissenter with consciousness is a 'traitor' to the 'cause'. This is part of what being a 'racket' means.
"If you do not know Jesus it is unfortunate that still you may be condemned for your sins, but you who know and mock God surely deserve hell."
'avant-gardism' is interesting because it is often confrontation with both the public and peers. Guy Debord's films insult the viewers just as often as his texts insult other filmmakers and vulgar politicians.
Where does Nihilist Communism fit into this schema?
What is curious here is that the authors of NC do not seem to care about addressing the 'public' at all. The critique and texts are aimed and presented within the scene and not as an attempt to recruit or a 'I have created this work to make you think for yourself.' It does not fit easily, at least on the surface, with either of the above.
1. Those for revolution have little to no impact on initiating revolutionary moments.
I always thought this was ridiculous but my experience in the Occupy Oakland has only made this seem more ridiculous. When the possibility of change appears, lots of "ordinary people" embrace all sort of revolutionary ideas, including ideas we might think are ridiculous. Ghetto youth joining the black bloc? This is a reality in Oakland, for good or for ill.
I mean, believe revolutionary upsurges are and will be explosive, non-linear and not driven by any single conscious plan. But they won't be instantaneous, they won't be unconscious and the people engaged in them will be "for revolution" (duh!).
2. Those for revolution have the potential to be an obstacle to the birth of revolutionary moments, keeping situations stuck in either pre-revolutionary ruptures or reformist growth.
That many ostensible revolutionaries can be counter-revolutionaries in practice is a pretty standard position among anarchists and left-communists.
3. The essential proletariat, being part of the primary or secondary sectors of the economy, are the potential control point of revolutionary potential.
The potential control point?
I think everyone would agree that essential workers are an important factor. Along with factory workers in general, along with "action on the street", along with the armed forces etc.
Essential workers aren't the decisive force. They can be replaced by the armed forces, for example.
Back the "Samuel-Johnson-apocryphal-effect" - they say things that are both good and original but the parts that are good aren't original and the parts that are original aren't good. Take a useful insight, push it beyond what's rational, shove in people faces, act hurt when people reject it, gather together with other passive aggressive people to commiserate.
4. Propaganda and ideology may only have a disruptive effect on the essential proletariat. They could have extreme right wing views and still hold the true potential of revolution in its hands. In fact, the conservative views of the essential proletariat may hold more potential for revolution because only when they are willing to act in favor of a revolution will a revolution potentially occur.
Sure, all sorts of leftoid crap is out there and serves to justify lots of right-wing crap and vice-versa. But we're not really going to stop either of those factors. The degree to which revolutionaries influence the working class is very limited indeed but so is the degree to which we might influence liberals.
5. The disruption of propaganda, left wing ideology, civil unrest and other pre-revolutionary attempts and/or situations often force the essential proletariat to withdraw or even side with capitalism.
This is sort-of retreating into a glorify the reactionary working class sort of position. The left "forces" the working class to embrace the right. Embracing or justifying the ideas of reactionary white workers is as problematic as embracing reverse-racist-essentialism or other ideology "'cause the people support it".
Sure, in normal times it is that unusual for "average people" to react to the right against the seemingly bizaare displays of leftists and/or counter-culture types. But that is the horrific and corrosive quality of normal life itself. Won't create a coalition with reactionaries by not seeming weird.
And in less ordinary times, when the need for revolt gets more pressing, it is not unusual for these same average people to embrace more radical ideas and for the radicals to get off their crazy hobby-horses a bit. At least that is what I noticed in the best parts of Occupy Oakland.
In the US, a good portion of this "essential proletariat" are non-white and they get propelled in somewhat distinct directions by dominant and alternative cultures. I mention that just to say this whole chasing a would be revolutionary cultural mix is kind of a waste of time. We won't create that.
When the possibility of change appears, lots of "ordinary people" embrace all sort of revolutionary ideas, including ideas we might think are ridiculous.
We could debate whether occupy was a revolutionary moment but let's leave it aside. This above quote seems accurate to me but what the N-C quote was you raised concerned events that happen before this. At least in my reading. I would rewrite it as "those for revolution have little impact on whether the possibility of change appears." The possibility arises and then those for revolution may have an impact.
That is to say: if occupy was a possibility of change events outside of pro-revolutionary influence led to it occurring, even if pro-revs influenced it afterwards.
But what is the possibility for (revolutionary) change?
3. The essential proletariat, being part of the primary or secondary sectors of the economy, are the potential control point of revolutionary potential.
Your critique of this does not make sense to me. If we grant that the economy must collapse or be destroyed or whatever for revolutionary ideas to have a space to be said and heard then the 'essential proletariat', those without whom the economy would cease to function, are that control point.
The insurrectionist dream is to reach this control point through blockades and smashing stuff. Eventually the riot may spread further and inspire the 'essential proletariat' to exercise its power, or the mechanisms will be destroyed and the flows disrupted enough that there is no longer an essential proletariat. It is too late to go back.
This seems impossible to me. What is of note, however, is that the essential proletariat as a control point for the economy still exists in this schema.
I am not certain what about the army you are referencing. They would all become the workers? They would force people to do work? The 'essential proletariat' is the potential control point of revolution but also the control point of terrible things, one might say.
Occupy called for a general strike and failed. This is a failure of potentially revolutionary events to come about from radicals (whether in Oakland or Wall Street).
3. The essential proletariat, being part of the primary or secondary sectors of the economy, are the potential control point of revolutionary potential.
Your critique of this does not make sense to me. If we grant that the economy must collapse or be destroyed or whatever for revolutionary ideas to have a space to be said and heard then the 'essential proletariat', those without whom the economy would cease to function, are that control point.
Let be more specific (but still sufficiently genera). The actions that are more or less needed for a revolution to be successful is:
1) Some degree of space for collective activity. These could anything from traditional factory councils to Occupation-style general assemblies to
2) The destruction of the state and power - that is the end of the police and the armed forces, etc
The economy at that point would be destroyed by some definitions given that the impetus to wage labor would end and whatever production happened would be through collective activity.
The seizure of crucial parts of the production system would likely be part of this. Collective seizure of utilities, transportion hubs and so-forth. Having the workers who operate these things on-board would be helpful here, a desirable thing and something we should aim for. Would it be absolutely crucial? No. Further, would it be sufficient? Again no. Utility workers and port workers by themselves can't "shutdown the economy". Again, the military and the police there to prevent this. In fact, if by some strange coincidence, our "essential proletarians" were to just "turn out the lights" without any explanation, the mass of ordinary people would simply be annoyed and help Capital keep its production going. What else do you expect them do?
A plausible scenario for revolution is a series of explosions where the mass of ordinary people incrementally gain collective power, confidence and ability to act. Consciousness and activity would be going on-average hand-in-hand through this chaotic process. Eventually, some sort of final conflict would have occur once this series of circumstances gave the proletariat the ability to act collectively. Until then, it is useful for would-be revolutionaries to encourage collective empowerment, discourage them from buying the various pig-in-a-poke solutions peddled by leftist ideologues and attempt themselves to learn from the process underway.
This whole angle in Nihcom just isn't even credible on its own terms. It's more like a counter-myth to leftist myths than anything someone can believe if they investigate how social change has happened in the past.
Also, the economy doesn't have to collapse to create collective social space. A crisis can and most likely will be a factor in impelling people to act. But people will not have collective social space unless they seize it (as people have seized it in previous revolts by occupying public areas and sometime factories). Oppositely, a situation of "collapse", of total misery or starvation say, doesn't automatically create space. The last thing the capitalists give up is their police (why is that, you think?). As I mentioned on another thread, the important thing is to realize a revolt involves many things happening at once.
(I'm not an "insurrectionist" so I didn't answer the questions about them)
I appreciate your comments and I think I better understand your argument and where I find difficulty in agreeing.
Having the workers who operate these things on-board would be helpful here, a desirable thing and something we should aim for. Would it be absolutely crucial? No. Further, would it be sufficient? Again no. Utility workers and port workers by themselves can't "shutdown the economy". Again, the military and the police there to prevent this. In fact, if by some strange coincidence, our "essential proletarians" were to just "turn out the lights" without any explanation, the mass of ordinary people would simply be annoyed and help Capital keep its production going. What else do you expect them do?
There are two ideas in here that do not necessarily complement each other. You point to the military and police that would prevent the action of utility and port workers and then also to 'the mass of ordinary people who would . . . help Capital.' I think this second part undermines the first because if we take it seriously, this idea that ordinary people would help Capitalism, then the military and police become irrelevant. Why are those forces necessary to impose order if the 'mass of ordinary people' would do it themselves?
It is easy, and horrifying, to imagine a world where there is no State force, no police or military, but everything continues to function in a way closely resembling the present. In fact, much of the daily lives of the world's population do function without direct State involvement. Certainly the state intervenes, with some populations targeted much more than others, but it is possible to imagine these interventions made unnecessary.
The question is whether we do the bidding of men with guns or whether we do the bidding of Capital. I lean towards the latter and think that, in many ways, the State is controlled by Capital and thus the wrong 'target' (if I, who am not convinced in the need or efficacy of 'resistance', can speak of a target at all).
A plausible scenario for revolution is a series of explosions where the mass of ordinary people incrementally gain collective power, confidence and ability to act. Consciousness and activity would be going on-average hand-in-hand through this chaotic process. Eventually, some sort of final conflict would have occur once this series of circumstances gave the proletariat the ability to act collectively. Until then, it is useful for would-be revolutionaries to encourage collective empowerment, discourage them from buying the various pig-in-a-poke solutions peddled by leftist ideologues and attempt themselves to learn from the process underway.
Concerning the creation of 'collective space' and ways in which people can act otherwise:
I find the possibility for the creation of space to be a beautiful idea. That somehow in this world of damaged people who are trained (this is not to say they are trained by someone) to use each other as commodities and to be used, for a space to open that allows other relations seems a worthwhile effort. Nihilist Communism, as well as other works, have argued that certain things do not allow that space to be opened. Unions, newspapers, punk records, the romantic couple, revolutionary organisations, nationalist movements, leftists, etc., are just some of these things that were once tried and failed.
We are at a wall. Everything we try is turned back against us.
You describe a plausible scenario to be 'a series of explosions' but no one knows how to bring those explosions about. The world seems ripe for revolt (the misery, the death, the shame) but nothing happens. What can be the lightening to cause the fire?
It is possible it is not human actions that will bring about the opportunity. It may be we need a force outside to stop the economy, to stop Capital, and then we can attempt to find a new path. Once it is impossible to continue on the current one. Of course there is a fear we might misstep into something worse. This is why it is worthwhile to discuss pro-revolutionary ideas now, though it is possible (probable?) we will all die.
(I brought up insurrectionists solely as an example of another sect using the 'essential proletariat' though not recognizing it as such.)
I hope that my remarks here are not taken as speaking from a 'nihilist communist" position (whatever that might mean) or that I wish to somehow speak for the authors of the text. I submit the above as someone who read Nihilist Communism and felt like I had finally taken a breath that would allow me to speak. The text is not something I base my thoughts upon, more something that opened the way for my thoughts be spoken.
There are two ideas in here that do not necessarily complement each other. You point to the military and police that would prevent the action of utility and port workers and then also to 'the mass of ordinary people who would . . . help Capital.' I think this second part undermines the first because if we take it seriously, this idea that ordinary people would help Capitalism, then the military and police become irrelevant. Why are those forces necessary to impose order if the 'mass of ordinary people' would do it themselves?
It seems you're not getting the context of what I'm sketching out.
Ordinary people are neither inherently revolutionary nor inherently counter-revolutionary. They will however, get pissed if you do something like turn off their electricity without explanation. Wouldn't you? Seems simple enough.
Your comments make it seem you're trying to look ordinary people deep in their eyes and decide whether they're good or bad, rebellious or bought-off. It is not like that. If a circumstance allow the dispossessed to seize stuff in a fashion that increases their collective power, they have a reasonable chance of going for it. If circumstances offer a dark house after coming from a hard day of work because some smaller group of proles cut off the electricity, they aren't going be happy with the situation.
Communist revolution would have to be a process of expanding collective power. It would have to articulate what the new order would be like and would inherently be a difficult and messy dialog. It wouldn't be driven by consciousness but an expansive of collective understanding would a crucial ingredient.
Just for further clarification, the scenario of people with capital is the scenario of what happens without expanding collective power.
doam
It is easy, and horrifying, to imagine a world where there is no State force, no police or military, but everything continues to function in a way closely resembling the present. In fact, much of the daily lives of the world's population do function without direct State involvement. Certainly the state intervenes, with some populations targeted much more than others, but it is possible to imagine these interventions made unnecessary.
The economy is what maintains the discipline of the present world. It is an intertwined process, a whirl pool that we caught-in. People go to work to pay their rent and buy food. The state, the military and the cops are the emergency protection for the system but not the ordinary force maintaining things.
The question is whether we do the bidding of men with guns or whether we do the bidding of Capital. I lean towards the latter and think that, in many ways, the State is controlled by Capital and thus the wrong 'target' (if I, who am not convinced in the need or efficacy of 'resistance', can speak of a target at all).
The market is a unified system but isn't a single thing issuing orders to us so you are right that it isn't a static target and can't be attacked as a static target (you can't "smash capitalism" by smashing bank windows, not that this is utterly effective, just relatively ineffective). The system can be attacked however - attacks on the system involve groups seizing power and inviting others to join them - strikes, seizing space, riots, etc..
doam
Concerning the creation of 'collective space' and ways in which people can act otherwise:
I find the possibility for the creation of space to be a beautiful idea. That somehow in this world of damaged people who are trained (this is not to say they are trained by someone) to use each other as commodities and to be used, for a space to open that allows other relations seems a worthwhile effort. Nihilist Communism, as well as other works, have argued that certain things do not allow that space to be opened. Unions, newspapers, punk records, the romantic couple, revolutionary organisations, nationalist movements, leftists, etc., are just some of these things that were once tried and failed.
OK, now is where the argument goes from a reasonable dialogue to claims that kind of make me mad, sorry.
First, the nihcom incantation "It has been tried and it failed" just pisses me off, it's moronic. Capitalist society has existed for several hundred quite chaotic years, a drop in the historical bucket. It has encountered more resistance per year than any previous form of civilization. All forms of resistance to capitalist society have failed, so-fucking-far, so what? Obviously this proves capital last till the sun goes out!
Second, space is being opened right now guys. Open your fucking eyes. It's small at times, it's pathetic, it's confused but the resistance in the US, Quebec, Greece, Egypt, Spain, China, Bangladesh, Chile, etc, etc. still involves more movement altogether than has been in forty or so years and it has involved resistance outside institutionalized order. I don't think the punk record has been reject but I see these event palpably going out of the hands of nationalist, unionist and any variety of institutional operator (in the US, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Bangladesh... I mean there is concrete evidence of this all these place, it's far, far from complete or coherent or whatever but also far from some sham, OK).
Third, all of the arguments really mean that the creation of collective space is hard, not impossible, just hard.
We are at a wall. Everything we try is turned back against us.
You describe a plausible scenario to be 'a series of explosions' but no one knows how to bring those explosions about.
OK, is that your problem? You can only accept a possibility if you know how to bring it about?
If we "pro-revolutionaries" have a job, it is to be aware, fluid and Ok with not having the recipe that will create revolution.
The world seems ripe for revolt (the misery, the death, the shame) but nothing happens.
Two years ago you could have said nothing and it would have been plausible. Now? Get your head out of your ass! Lots is happening.
Two years ago you could have said nothing and it would have been plausible. Now? Get your head out of your ass! Lots is happening.
I have been thinking about this, but it does not make sense to me. By what measure is more happening today than was happening two years ago? Even if you are right, why is more happening better than less happening?
Second, space is being opened right now guys. Open your fucking eyes. It's small at times, it's pathetic, it's confused but the resistance in the US, Quebec, Greece, Egypt, Spain, China, Bangladesh, Chile, etc, etc. still involves more movement altogether than has been in forty or so years and it has involved resistance outside institutionalized order. I don't think the punk record has been reject but I see these event palpably going out of the hands of nationalist, unionist and any variety of institutional operator (in the US, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Bangladesh... I mean there is concrete evidence of this all these place, it's far, far from complete or coherent or whatever but also far from some sham, OK).
Social conflagration, civil war, rioting, strikes, genocide, and war have been constant for the past three centuries at least. The only change in the last 40 years is the nature of television and internet coverage. I don't think any of the events you mention are "shams" - for the people involved they are often a matter of life or death - but I do not understand what any of these events have to do with communism (or specifically, why events today are more communistic than events 4 years ago or 20 years ago). None of the things you mention seem communistic at all, whatever 'communistic might mean' (tending towards communism?). In all cases, the events express changes in the economy and are, I think, unconscious (actually, often conscious) attempts to overcome perceived crises in national political leadership, relative power of different industries (Occupy expressed tech/green/small business vs. financial), wealth distribution, et cetera. The connection of any of these events to communism is the invention of communists, who remain just as numerically insignificant today as they were 10 years ago (certainly far less numerically signification than 30 years ago, and they weren't significant then) and whose ideas have failed to resonate in any noticeable or mass way anywhere.
Every case of 'resistance outside institutionalized order' has produced or reproduced 'institutionalized order'.
... the events express changes in the economy and are, I think, unconscious (actually, often conscious) attempts to overcome perceived crises in national political leadership, relative power of different industries (Occupy expressed tech/green/small business vs. financial), wealth distribution, et cetera.
Unless you can support this, it's another example of your post in bad faith.
Is it true for the Occupy events where you live? If so, please post something to support it. If not, what are you basing this on? Interviewing yourself? Divination based on careful examination of your intestines?
Monsieur Letter, it's necessary for some of us to call bullshit and point out your anti-intellectual habit of posting fabrications, based on nothing more than your opinion, as fact.
At worst, most Occupy sites had Ron Paul supporters, LaRouchites, and Alex Jones fans around the fringes. I spent considerable time at 4 Occupy sites (San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and UC Berkeley) and the encampments were heavy populated by homeless people, many of whom welcomed the solidarity of sharing food and the security of sleeping in collective groups. At times, I could tell many were better able to cope with their addiction demons and started to show signs of healing from extreme mental illness. NO ONE was advocating patronizing the local mom-'n-pop business, getting the latest hi-tech gadget, or going "green" (unless it involved smoking copious amounts of marijuana); Only a marginalized few ranted about the Fed, Wall Street or any kind of anti-Semitic "international Jewish banking conspiracy." Anyone attempting to do the latter was confronted and, in a few cases, were driven out.
I don't doubt that conspiracy bugs and shop-local liberals dominated some Occupy sites; it's disingenuous to flatten all of the 1,000+ Occupy actions to the simple binary of the petty bourgeois vs. finance capital.
Hieronymous is correct that the Bay Area Occupy sites were pretty much anti-capitalist more or less in how we'd understand anti-capitalism or rather were engaged in a sincere process of trying to discover what this capitalist system was and how to oppose it.
Social conflagration, civil war, rioting, strikes, genocide, and war have been constant for the past three centuries at least. The only change in the last 40 years is the nature of television and internet coverage. I don't think any of the events you mention are "shams" - for the people involved they are often a matter of life or death - but I do not understand what any of these events have to do with communism (or specifically, why events today are more communistic than events 4 years ago or 20 years ago).
The events among this wide list which involved people seizing control of space, resources and productive processes had to do with communism because communism would be a fabric of just that. That pretty much the answer to all your questions, really. The process of creating communism will neither be a step-by-step planned process nor will it involve communism appearing full-formed. It will be a messy, difficult dialog since it will inherently involve people coming out of our present world.
Of course, wars and riots may both involve violence but some riots would qualify as communistic but rather few wars would be and no genocides would be, of course (jeesh). etc.
I wouldn't try to prove things moving more communistically over the last 300 years. In the last five years there seem to be more movement than previously but the only point really is that there is some movement now. The messy dialog has begun - and may soon end, then begin again stronger or who know what. Nothing I'm saying implies the least guarantee of goodness. Certainly, given the accelerated rate of change we see, it seems plausible this order will end reasonably soon, in a pleasant way or in a horrific way. Certainly, communist theory tries to track things more closely than that but we must also acknowledge how uncertain things are.
I don't care how "communistic" struggles or conditions are. In the U.S. we suffer from intense class denial and the beauty of the movement around Occupy was that, at best, it was a form of anti-capitalist class struggle -- especially in the Bay Area -- and seen by a plurality of participants as such.
Contrast this with another more negative movement, which would be the dispossessed continuously filling the tent cities and shantytowns that dot the American landscape. The irony is that these often sit side-by-side with brand new housing stock that sits empty. Contrast the self-described Oakland Commune tent encampment with the massively squalid homeless camps around downtown Fresno (probably the largest in the U.S.). The former glowed withhope; the latter continues to reek of hopelessness, divided by the postmodern Jim Crow segregation of crack cocaine vs. crystal meth, intensely racially coded, with the heroin junkies dying like flies on the margins. This is the reality of working class conditions in the U.S. today.
Fuck all this dilettante parlor talk of how "communistic" anything is.
The events among this wide list which involved people seizing control of space, resources and productive processes had to do with communism because communism would be a fabric of just that. That pretty much the answer to all your questions, really. The process of creating communism will neither be a step-by-step planned process nor will it involve communism appearing full-formed. It will be a messy, difficult dialog since it will inherently involve people coming out of our present world.
The difference seems to be whether we see the necessary ingredients present for moving towards communism in these phenomena, or whether we see them as phenomena that could be part of a movement toward communism but are not sufficient in themselves for us to conclude that such a movement is present, or that it could arise from such things. I prefer not to kid myself that I know which way history is going, or that I can diagnose a properly communist movement when I see it, but we all have to do the best we can to make such judgments at times.
I agree with Hieronymous that this is a sort of armchair speculation that remains at arm's length from events, but I don't agree that it's irrelevant--we are are all sitting in our armchairs in front of computers on a nominally communist web site. "How 'communistic' struggles or conditions are" seems like a big part of what we're here to discuss.
But it's possible that I don't understand the objection. I do understand the frustration at nay-saying when things are happening that we find promising or exciting, but I think that nay-sayers are generally useful. And I think that the usefulness of nay-saying will increase, rather than decrease, as events move toward a rupture with the present order.
We're talking past each other. Occupy wasn't "communistic," at least not in practice -- but rhetorically there were places where it was anti-capitalist. If a "nay-sayer" position is used in argument, it isn't asking too much to demand honesty and for assertions to be supported (like which places "Occupy expressed tech/green/small business vs. financial"). Otherwise it's back to the macho chest-thumping of "I'm right, you're wrong."
I have been considering your post for the past few days, specifically the below:
OK, is that your problem? You can only accept a possibility if you know how to bring it about?
If we "pro-revolutionaries" have a job, it is to be aware, fluid and Ok with not having the recipe that will create revolution.
The world seems ripe for revolt (the misery, the death, the shame) but nothing happens.
Two years ago you could have said nothing and it would have been plausible. Now? Get your head out of your ass! Lots is happening.
I have decided my difficulty is not what you have suggested. I think I accept the possibility of widespread revolt, though I do not know how to bring it about. I would even go so far as to grant that small revolts happen here and now. Shoplifting, working slow, organizing with coworkers, not speaking to police, riots, vandalism, even Occupy. All of these can be seen as examples of revolt and, for the sake of this argument, I will concede it (which is not to say that you accept all these as forms, I just want to define revolt widely, even if some actions may be disputed).
My difficulty in supporting these revolts is that many are directed towards others, towards human beings in authority. I organize with my coworkers to 'take power' from my boss. I break windows at night of a building where people enact terrible things in the day. (I actually do neither of these but you get the idea). Many Occupy camps also directed themselves towards authority (the 1 percent slogan, for example). I do not issue my support, as a communist, to revolts that take this 'us vs. them' tactic because I do not think it gets to the root of things. Perhaps they are worthwhile projects. An end to police getting away with shooting people of color, higher wages, etc. It is just not clear to me that these revolts lead to communism. In fact, it seems obvious that they do not.
I agree with you that 'things are happening' and it was reductive to say 'nothing' was, but I meant that nothing clearly linked to communism has occurred. I take it that you agree, as you reference things being messy and chaotic. The question is what a communist is to do.
A line that struck me when I first read Nihilist Communism was "We think the first impulse should always be to do nothing, to watch the turning of the world and keep our powder dry." The authors do not explain what keeping our powder dry might mean, at least not that I can remember or find after a brief skim. What is the communist powder and how does one not waste it?
Surely it is a waste to sacrifice our bodies at the summit protest. Is it a waste to go to the Occupy encampment? Is it worthwhile to write newspapers and give them away? Where is the communist, as communist, most effective and happy? This is what I seek to answer and I remain unconvinced that the place is in the work place or in the streets underneath banners, whether they say 'death to capitalism' or 'Ron Paul 2012'.
[I am not sure I am satisfied with what I have written and I may add more later but I wanted to reply before too much time had passed.]
Perhaps we might not have been quite so ruthless if we had found some already-initiated project that seemed to merit our support. But there was no such project. The only cause we supported we had to define and launch ourselves. There was nothing above us that we could respect.
From Guy Debord's In girum. An idea I return to from time to time and that seems relevant for this place. The difficulty is that the 'new project' has not been found and, perhaps, does not even exist.
If I were to get you to admit your relationship to rebellion is so rigid and purist that it has no relation to anything but your own neuroses, then we would be done, right?
Edit: Also, summit hoping is a waste but that's not everything on-offer.
I was hoping to refine something before you had responded because already I realize something I said was problematic. Since you did not respond with something of substance I will continue on as if you had not responded.
Really I am attempting to think with you and not proposing something as a position.
On taking power:
Of course there is something about self-organization and 'taking power' away from authority that is beautiful. The difficulty for me is when this is framed as an us vs. them (whether a friend vs. enemy or a more specific 99% vs 1%). Something I find interesting is that the smaller the group attempting to organize themselves (think of a group of coworkers for instance), the less is becomes an us vs them. When I have been in situations where my coworkers (informally) organize it is directed at us gaining power and not as an antagonism against our boss exactly. We organized ourselves to do our jobs and aid one another without looking to the outside.
It appears to me that the larger the group attempting to 'organize themselves' the more the rhetoric turns into an us vs them. This, I think, is especially evident with Occupy. I think it both misses the point and is dangerous.
Look, I already said the point is for people to have the space to collectively work out their ideas and make mistakes. If you're only answer is "I think this and this are mistakes", it just seems like you're not listening and just want revolution to appear without any effort on your part and satisfy all of your preconceived notions .
After all, each of us could be mistaken ourselves. The only way we'll find is by taking our into the world seeing what happens.
It is not that I want revolution to appear without my effort. It is that I want my effort to help revolution appear, if that is possible at all, and because of this it is important to discuss what is worth support and what is not. Questions in this line using your kind of terms would be:
What is a space that allows the kind of activity you propose?
What does it mean to open a space?
How does the communist intervene?
I think what was attractive about Nihilist Communism for me when I first read it years ago was that it pointed to things that were tried and (to be fair to your earlier objection) had yet to work. There is even an argument given for why different things have not worked. It is also true that there was no positive project proposed, there is no proposed place of departure.
And yet, though I do not wish to stop at the 'do nothing' proposal (and clearly have not, at least not completely, if I am participating in communist message boards), this latter part was not as big a turn off for me as it seems to have been for you. I continue use to Nihilist Communism as a clearing of the ground and a way to look at other things.
I think looking at Occupy (since that what this thread has turned to most recently) and saying 'this is a mistake' about parts of it is necessary. And allowing the space to do that is worthwhile. In my above post comparing occupy and my work I was trying to point to a potential source of mistakes, or at least an area of difficulty when it comes to communist intervention in large 'social movements'.
It may not be fruitful for us to continue and you seem more frustrated with me than anything. You gave a critique of Nihilist Communism that made comments like it wasn't credible on its own terms and pointed to psychological factors (including my own 'neuroses') and I really just wanted to respond in a human way. To say 'this is my personal experience of the work and why I think it is valuable' though I can see why it would not convince you (and also why referring to my 'personal experience' of a text might just strengthen your desire to write it off as a result of psychological dysfunction).
In essence I agree with you that freeing up space for people to make moves outside of their daily routines and processes is important.
The discussion you guys are having above is really interesting, but can someone tell me (imagine talking to a total newb) why and how a nihilist would be a communist? Seems like an oxymoron to me... nihilism is anti-ideology and communist is an ideology. How can one mind combine two opposites and not suffer complete breakdown?
Just throwing this question out there... if someone can pm me a couple links or articles I'd appreciate it.
The obstacle you're hitting is that communism may be an ideology, but it isn't just an ideology- it's also (and more fundamentally) a practice, a mode of collective self-reproduction. When Monsieur Dupont declare themselves "nihilist communists", what they are asserting is that there are interested only in this concrete, unadorned practice of communism, and totally reject what they see as the performativity of most self-described "communist" activity.
(That is not, of course, a line of thought unique to the Duponts, they just take it to its most extreme conclusions.)
How can one mind combine two opposites and not suffer complete breakdown?
Mind-blowing, isn't it - it's called dialectics. Then again I don't see communism as ideological. It can become such if it is made so, like in the case of Marxism-Leninism - but few would argue that has anything to do with communism but I digress...
Alright, Alright, Alright
I really get you and at first I tried to like you Hiero
But can't you quote somethin else, maybe Finding Nemo?
Now I'm gonna start out by givin you the spoiler downlo
Donny doesn't make it, it turns out he ain't no hero.
It's clear you like the fun fun
And when shit hits the fan you run run
And you know it's no fun to falter
So you always fall back on Walter
You got the crude
You got the rude
You got the brood that makes you shrewd
If I wasn't seein double I'd think your Mom went out and fucked The Dude
It's obvious Libcom doesn't like us quotin out Marx taking him down with Cain and Abel
And that's fine, of course, of course, we don't want to reveal your seats at the table
I promise I won't bring her up again, your dear mother Mabel
But does she not sing to you, still rockin in yo cradle
Now I know there're two mics around here, pullin strings for your fable
You stepped out, so why you back? I know, you must be here to fix the cable!
Fuck me! Nihilists. I can already hear you scream and tug
Fuck me! Indeed. Unchecked aggression and in turn I peed on your rug
What you didn't reckon on was a nihilist with some humour
But here I am little bro, pointing out your big ass old tumour
You talk about class as if all your buddies died face down in the muck
Then when the story comes out about your roots you weave and you duck
When I'm done here all Libcom will have is occasional acid flashbacks
But what you gonna do, throw molotovs into shit cars and hatchbacks?
Now everyone knows you're not communist reuters
You're just a bunch of pricks mistakin shit for coitus
Who changes your sheets, young man, matricidal Nero?
This can't be easy for you, it's like ashes blowing back in your ear, yo.
Next time you think to bitch, be kind Comrade Brother
It's time you stay out, now get shitted on, nihilised with flavour.
People should be discouraged from posting while tweaking. Unless meth is the official party favor of nihilist communism™ (sorry if that offends the straight edge fraction).
The difference seems to be whether we see the necessary ingredients present for moving towards communism in these phenomena, or whether we see them as phenomena that could be part of a movement toward communism but are not sufficient in themselves for us to conclude that such a movement is present, or that it could arise from such things.
I started replying to a bunch of stuff but I'm looking at this quote as being most illustrative of, well, something... The paragraph really stumbles all over itself. And think that's because it's trying to make a contrast between, more or less, nothing.
I see a number of the "necessary ingredients of communism" in the various events that have started to appear lately. I don't think I ever said these were "sufficient in themselves for us to conclude that" a movement towards communism was present. ("movement" in the sense of a unified, cohesive series of actions).
What I would claim is we now have a "ferment" (only in a few places and even there occasionally but still... ). Dispossessed people have been acting, to various degrees, outside of any institutional framework in developing their own ideas and their own practices.
It useful to be a part of such things, not to "inject" our ideas but be part of a dialogue; provide the ideas we think are important and listen and learn from the ideas that other dispossessed people put forward. We should be part of such a dialog exactly when they involve collective action escaping the control of the powers-that-be.
Yeah, it's stumbly because I'm always trying to scale back your exaggerations of the nih-com positions and get at what the substantive differences are, but I am losing interest in the whole thing. What you've just written is reasonable enough and I am certainly not trying to argue with it.
To me it just seems strange to use these hyphenated terms with regard to nihilism. For example, would you say that someone is a "nihilist capitalist"? Or "nihilist statist"? These terms would be just as meaningless as "nihilist ice-cream lover" or "nihilist homosexual".
But then again, maybe I am oversimplifying.
As for dialectics - I have always seen it as a type of mysticism. Every time I logically break down the theories of some theologian (usually I come in contact with Catholics), he/she says to me that at the bottom of it we can't really know because "it's a mystery". The "mystery" forms the fabric of things and we can't know how or why it is so, it just is. Similarly, all kinds of Hegelians (usually) when their theories reach a logical impass out of which they cannot climb say "it's the dialectic". As if just by saying that they have solved their problem and their entire theory that night is day and day is night (to quote their master, Heraclitus) suddenly makes sense. My answer to both types of excuse (the theological and the dialectic) is "it seem to be bullshit"...
And in a way, that makes me a nihilist... although I've always been more of a skeptic/cynic :)
Comrade, the only reason we/re using this hyphenated term is because it's the title of the book in question. The initial question "what do you guys think of Nihilism Communism?" seems to have been lost in 13 pages of discussion :)
To me it just seems strange to use these hyphenated terms with regard to nihilism. For example, would you say that someone is a "nihilist capitalist"? Or "nihilist statist"? These terms would be just as meaningless as "nihilist ice-cream lover" or "nihilist homosexual".
Those both seem like valid descriptors to me. A bit unwieldy, mebbe, but usable. Only if you assume that the practices of market and state must necessarily spring from ideology would either of them be problematic.
Those both seem like valid descriptors to me. A bit unwieldy, mebbe, but usable. Only if you assume that the practices of market and state must necessarily spring from ideology would either of them be problematic.
I agree with this. I guess I may have ignored the non-ideological aspect of communism due to my own distaste for that system of social relations... I just always thought nihilism was too "dashing" and self-expressive to get bogged down with extra adjectives. After all a nihilist communist could turn away from commnism overnight and it would not make him any less of a nihilist.
People should be discouraged from posting while tweaking. Unless meth is the official party favor of nihilist communism™ (sorry if that offends the straight edge fraction).
It may not offend the edge kids, however it should offend people who call themselves communists, considering that your words imply that people who write rap lyrics are drug addicts.
This is all quite hard to believe really, the extent of your wit comes down to quoting videos of "The Big Lebowski" and when that's taken from you there's nothing left but adding "™" symbols to book titles? I'm impressed. I will extend my hand to you and let you nobly accept defeat. And in appreciation of your reappropriation of artistic value I took the liberty of finding you a gift. Let the cosmos be communised through the hieroglyphs of the communist masters. Let the syndicalist masters rage and command until the stargazers can no longer even think. Let the Nihist Communists™ attach themselves to machines as dead labour, just like good communist know-how has always taught us. Let every constellation of the future read "1917."
Now, I already know what you're thinking, "Nihilist Communists™ are a bunch of stargazers! Trololololololo." And it's not original, not funny at all. In fact the "Family Guy" manatees come up with better jokes than you lot. Any excommunication of your sins you come up with, I can turn it around. Just remember that. In fact, it's most likely already in that poem I humbly wrote for you, and you threw it away as if it were nothing. Just one question, if we the enemy have such bad poetry, why can't you critique it?
Time for a poetry lesson it seems:
"Alright, Alright, Alright
I really get you and at first I tried to like you Hiero
But can't you quote somethin else, maybe Finding Nemo?
Now I'm gonna start out by givin you the spoiler downlo
Donny doesn't make it, it turns out he ain't no hero."
I'd like 500 words on these first lines by Monday. As a hint, the first class will be entitled: "At Least it's an Ethos - The Redundancy of Redundancy."
People should be discouraged from posting while tweaking. Unless meth is the official party favor of nihilist communism™ (sorry if that offends the straight edge fraction).
It may not offend the edge kids, however it should offend people who call themselves communists, considering that your words imply that people who write rap lyrics are drug addicts.
DeadStrare, I won't mince my words. I think it's telling that you call that infantile gibberish "rap lyrics." Rather, it's clearly the result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxic damage to your dopaminergic neurons, based on your chronic abuse of this substance. Your methamphetamine-fueled drivel reveals a psychosis resembling schizophrenia.
deadstareforlife
Now, I already know what you're thinking, "Nihilist Communists™ are a bunch of stargazers! Trololololololo." And it's not original, not funny at all. In fact the "Family Guy" manatees come up with better jokes than you lot. Any excommunication of your sins you come up with, I can turn it around. Just remember that. In fact, it's most likely already in that poem I humbly wrote for you, and you threw it away as if it were nothing. Just one question, if we the enemy have such bad poetry, why can't you critique it?
Time for a poetry lesson it seems:
"Alright, Alright, Alright
I really get you and at first I tried to like you Hiero
But can't you quote somethin else, maybe Finding Nemo?
Now I'm gonna start out by givin you the spoiler downlo
Donny doesn't make it, it turns out he ain't no hero."
I'd like 500 words on these first lines by Monday. As a hint, the first class will be entitled: "At Least it's an Ethos - The Redundancy of Redundancy."
So here's some unsolicited advice: put down the glass pipe, forget your juvenile fantasies of being the nihilist-communist-poet-laureate™, and get your parents to drive you to the nearest chemical dependency recovery hospital. You'll thank me when the chlorpromazine starts taking effect and the hallucinations stop.
Lastly, aren't you ashamed that you posted a graphic that you urinated on? Isn't that a little too Big Lebowski (you know, the rug that tied the room together but was micturated on by the Chinese American) for you? But I remember kids like DeadStare in school, the ones who went around with rusty zippers and yellow shoe laces. They grew up, like DeadStare, to have methamphetamine-driven fantasies of greatness. For them it was usually having the Harley with the shiniest hand-polished engine in the trailer park. For DeadStare, it's to be the nihilist-communist Milli Vanilli.
Hiero don't have basic common courtesy
Too much talk of cumulative currency
You need to know the frequency?
It's called human decency
I got slow flows droppin
You a rug and I'm BIG poppin (get it?)
Say I'm a poorboy meth-hop
Hell, you a paperboy outside a dress shop (huh?)
I came in here, peed on his rug
He cried out and I offered him a hug
Don't like that shit, a bully-type that kid
Offered a handoff, he backed off, then I beat it out of him (remember?)
Got the Drexler old-school flowin
You a heckler versus Joe Rogan
Takin out the smoke I be blowin?
Pissin into the wind the only joke you be knowin
Hiero don't run with the Lumpenproles
He with a commie crew, wouldn't stoop to dole
Libcom worried they might lose control
Cause I'm like Jesus, you know that dude can fuckin roll (Fuckin Quintana!)
Cheap tricks, weak hits, online shit rackets
Classist and anti-rappist, preppin future class hits
Creepin up the tax brackets
Only prole you know rollin in Holly flicks (Which Lebowski?)
Quote The Big Lebowski, I riff off o Big L (who?)
By rights you should be spinnin off in a dumb spell
Don't know what this be, a brain swell?
You laughin at kids when they livin in hell
If you got a better story then do tell
For now though it seems you in a commie shell
How many times you watch that flick, still don't know the main sell?
Well I got another one for you dipshits, you don't have the fucking girl. (What?)
Wow! If you're not currently collecting it, all you would have to do is submit your juvenilia to a government head shrinker and you'd be instantly qualified for S.S.I. Good luck.
Doam's posts explore different new directions, and fresh ways to apprehend reality.
In contrast, RedHughs's remain trapped by ideologies of the 19C and there's little in his posts worth responding to, including his inane caricatures of the rackets critique and of the evidence of 'German gold' in 1917. The pretence of sober equanimity and fairness hardly conceals populist apologetics. Neither are his attempts to dismiss differences imputing mental dysfunction inspiring.
The following 'clarification' is hardly helpful, but flows from the populism: "Of course, wars and riots may both involve violence but some riots would qualify as communistic but rather few wars [!] would be and no genocides would be, of course (jeesh). etc." (post 365)
And what label is used when a 'communistic war' engages in a bit of genocide, as many tend to? Would that be an example of life's 'messiness' (or more likely, of a messy thought process)?
It's an art to sense when there's nothing to say, as the boundaries and chasms are already defined by historic experience.
On another topic, raised on the above posts. This is in Nihilist Communism:
Lenin belongs in world history books because he was deployed by Germany as a weapon in the Great War, without that aid he would be another Herzen, so what can he say to us now? (38)
We are not Lenin, the vari-determined Lenin, (who was only Lenin because of a long-lived Russian pro-revolutionary milieu which gave him his meaning and status, and, who was only Lenin because of the intervention of the German state). (40)
http://nihilistcommunism.blogspot.co.uk/
'German gold' isn't mentioned in these quotes, but even the travel costs of the 'sealed train' across the 2nd Reich -- if that's implied in Nihilist Communism -- represented some 'German gold'. If not through funding as 'aid', in what way did Germany intervene to deploy Lenin as a 'weapon'? (Any reply to this may be more pertinent to the question of 'German gold' on the thread 'analysing' Lenin's What is To Be Done?)
deadstareforlife's 'Organize' cartoon of an early Dave Spart on post 387 is hilarious and instructive, not like the trollpegs by Angelus Novus. Hopefully the next one will be funny.
This should be the least worst place for this question of mine.
Years ago, I read a 'text' (whatever you'd like to call it) and in it the author tells a story about going to work at a plant, or factory, and that he would go there on his bike, crying, having drunk a lot of whisky. He wrote, though, that those worst times were past, and mentioned being married. Since, I haven't been able to recall whether that was something Dupont. Or perhaps that I am only remembering the bicycle (from watching the motorway haulage episode).
So that is my question: who might have had text put on the internet about crying going to work.
The confessional tone was pitiful and familiar and encouraged me to feel pitiable as I read it, which frankly was a luxury and I appreciated it. It was not in the style of a wikipedia article or sad community church pamphlet, such is the militant tendency; which is shit, and a shame.
I hope the worst of it has passed for you, too.
ocelot wrote: Stone
ocelot
That comment totally rocks.
Quote: 'If I can't talk about
If the world we have inherited was made in such a way to allow exploration, to allow us to speak of crows and what it means to be a human being, instead of merely designed to ease and enforce our entrance into productive forces, I would be pleased. We could have human lives.
So yes, if I can't talk about crows it's not my revolution. Of course, if you think we have just been talking about crows then you missed the point, though it might have been more interesting to talk about real crows.
Did you know they are one of only a few bird species to use tools?
You people must be a blast at
You people must be a blast at social gatherings.
[moved]
[moved]
Wow... now we're in an
Wow... now we're in an alternate universe where talking about nothing but Marxist value theory and workerist organizing, or refusing to look at anything from an unexpected angle, makes you a hit at parties, and where having the patience to explore seemingly purposeless threads of conversation rather than ultra-pragmatically insisting on maximum revolutionary use-value from every thread makes you cynical! Crazy.
And nobody schemes to be the department chair, except in the movies. It's more the type of position that goes to the person not quick enough to take a step back.
[moved]
[moved]
I am pretty sure 'academic
I am pretty sure 'academic careerists' are similar to you and I and the rest of the commenters here, Hieronymous, in that they strive to be happy.
Conversation seems to of
Conversation seems to of shifted. While I enjoyed the parable of the crow and others didn't as much, it seemed easy to see that the nihilist communist crow does not matter to the crow dropping stones unless that crow wanted to bicker with the nihilist communist crow.
If a rain does come and the water in the jug rises, the nihilist communist crow may attempt to stop the crow dropping stones so that both could take a drink of the water. Otherwise, they will pile up and no crow would be able to drink from the jug.
This seems to be the only time the nihilist communist crow and the crow dropping stones would interact unless the crow dropping stones wanted to interact before this. This would mean that the nihilist communist crow can be ignored unless the crow dropping stones finds their nay-saying from the shade annoying.
If they do have a conflict within the confines of the parable, it would not affect the rising of the water. If my narrative of the parable is rejected, that the rain will also not cause the water in the jug to rise, then does any of this matter?
Anyways, the allegories would have to be re-narrated to include the many other actors in this parable, if that is what is wanted. The science of the matter would still stand on the side that certain birds, some related to the crow and perhaps certain types of crow do drop stones in human made containers to get water because dropping stones does raise the water level.
This might mean another parable would probably be better to describe the situation if a parable is wanted.
As for who's an academic and all that jazz, these ideas aren't attractive just to academics. I'm not an academic yet I find some of their viewpoints attractive enough to consider. I do at times clash with their use of academic jargon as it doesn't speak to me very well. If I wanted to go through the trouble of learning the nuances of their jargon, I might as well make another attempt at university.
But this would leave me in the same position I am now: Unsatisfied with the lack of communication of academic ideas into laymen terms. It would also leave me questioning if any new insights are being discovered or if much of it is an exercise to make a purpose to have a professional career. Obviously I am wrong about much of this, as academic insights do help give supporting evidence to old ideas and influence the ways old ideas are communicated when otherwise these older ideas might be dismissed.
Perhaps instead of attacking the academic, there might be another way of engaging them so we can understand them, if that is what is desired. The flip side is perhaps there is another way they can engage the non-academic so our dialogues aren't beyond the layman's scope of understanding?
doam wrote: Why does the
doam
Engels wrote in his The Condition of the Working Class in England of the
“absurd freedom from anxiety, with which the middle class dwells upon a soil that is honeycombed, and may any day collapse, the speedy collapse of which is as certain as a mathematical or mechanical demonstration”.
The year of this writing was 1844, the year in which Marx wrote his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Here Marx, in reference to communism, wrote that
“It is the solution to the riddle of history and it knows itself to be the solution. The entire movement of history is therefore both the actual act of the creation of communism – the birth of its empirical existence – and, for its thinking consciousness, the comprehended and known movement of its becoming […]”
Both of these statements indicate that history has a knowable structure; that fundamental, radically consequential historical developments can be anticipated in advance, because one not only knows what the current situation is, one knows what the laws of development are.
In my opinion, there is value to the understanding of capitalism and the novelty of its historical conditions advanced in the work of Marx and Engels. Furthermore, I do not think that the idea of communism following capitalism in a quite natural manner was something that they produced entirely from thin air. Their understanding of the freedom from necessity, and the development of social interconnections and capacities, which are provided by capitalism, provides us with an interesting and novel way of thinking about the potential transition to a new form of social organisation. What is clear, however, is that in no sense does any such transition proceed in the mechanical fashion which, at least in their early days, these writers argued for.
Sometimes a correct understanding of a physical law leads one to believe that a certain material result will occur, when in fact the result in question will not occur. When one analyses things theoretically, it is possible to reduce them to what Marx described as the “ideal average”. Obstinate reality, however, does not always conform to the ideal average. It is true that by the crow putting stones in the jar, the level of the water did rise. The crow did have a correct understanding of a physical law. The crow, however, was driven by desires grounded in its material existence. Its biological needs come before its abstract theoretical reflections. The world in which the crow lives became harsh, refusing to provide it with water. When the crow finally, after such a long search in such desperate heat, found some water, the chance was too good to pass up. The water, alas, is inaccessible to the crow. – But never mind, for the crow is acquainted with a law. It knows, with the certainty of a mathematical demonstration, that a stone and a quantity of water cannot occupy the same space as each other. This is a fact: the one must necessarily displace the other. Further, a stone dropped into water will sink. Thus, the crow can convincingly demonstrate, by means only of already known physical laws, that it can satisfy its thirst. – But wait, this is to go too fast. Material reality is not always as easy to conduce as theory. In go the stones, but they do not form an homogeneous block. There are gaps between the stones. Once the bottom of the jar is covered by a layer of stones, it is true that the level of the water has risen, but there is still some water on the bottom layer occupying the gaps between the stones. That water cannot be made to rise unless, by a precise operation, more, smaller stones are inserted into the gaps. For this, alas, the crow has neither the theoretical tools nor the technical abilities. And so the crow continues with what it knows, it piles more and more stones onto the layer already formed, and it forms new layers of stones. With each new layer, there are new gaps, and more water is lost to the project. So attached to its preconceived theoretical framework is the crow, so zealously does it cling to its clearly demonstrable truth that two objects cannot occupy the same space, that what is really going on never occurs to it.
Marx and Engels are the crow. The stones are Bataille's base materialism. The water is the Nietzschean affirmation in which Bataille bathes, and which Marx and Engels cannot get near.
The crow is historical materialism. The stones are material reality. The water is Hegel's Absolute Idea.
doam wrote: I am pretty sure
doam
As long as you're talking about happiness, the nihilist communist thing seems to me quite obviously driven by the individuals' involved striving to be happy. Through their writing they're trying to meet their intellectual and emotional needs. The problem is that their striving to happy is parasitic on the striving of others (in the sense of relying on others in a way that is destructive for those others). That is to say, nihilist communists need others who are not nihilist communists and the nihilist communists' need is a one-way street, nihilist communists are not beneficial to people who are not nihilist communists.
I also think that some of the nihilist communist thing is a form of small business niche marketing, as I said, and simultaneously a form of small avante gardist artistic/literary production. (To be clear I suspect it's more a small business in the sense of a vanity project or hobby rather than a small business that's actually profitable, except for the distributors that the nihilist communists work with.) The nihilist communists write material that they distribute online in part to try to build some cred in some scenes/milieus, and they put their work on in print for sale through distributors that make money selling such niche market avante garde literary commodities. None of that is a big deal, but... Nihilist communists are happy to make critical comments about others (and their happiness derives in part from criticizing). Like I said that criticism is driven largely by the nihilist communists' striving for happiness, and it acts in such a way that makes others unhappy. And the especially frustrating part is that as much as the nihilist communists are happy to criticize others vigorously, I've yet to see them criticize the forms of practice and informal organization they engage in - writing material for distribution on blogs and so on, creating books and pamphlets and magazines for sale through distributors like Little Black Cart etc. And of course, not, because that would mean criticizing their own activities and the things they do to meet their own intellectual and emotional needs, sabotaging the things they do to make themselves happy. Which strikes me as bad faith.
[moved]
[moved]
Quote: Sorry doam, I don't
I find that highly implausible.
I never heard of that, not that that fact is to my credit.
I'm not sure who that description applies to, um... "Dude."
[moved]
[moved]
Quote: When you're clueless
Um, I'm not tenured faculty.
Nate wrote: As long as
Nate
Which is incredibly similar to all other human activities, even the activities of self-proclaimed martyrs.
Nate
Bollocks. This hobby or industry you're talking about is done through 1 (one) book published ages ago which has no copyright. It could be published by anybody tomorrow if they wanted to (and could make money off it). Since that one book one of the writers hasn't written anything that's been published as a book and the other has only written one book which uses none of the nih-com branding or even attempts to trade on that notoriety. The latter also has several blogs which are very hard to find and have no ads on them nor any books or products that can be bought.
If there's any bad faith in this, is if at that one point in time the writers of nih-com were looking to 'troll' the milieu and wrote a book just to take the piss out of it. Make money? This is not crimethinc, buddy.
Melancholy of Resistance
Melancholy of Resistance
You're agreeing with what I said:
Nate
As for the 'just the one book' thing, I was counting Letters as nihilist communist, and I know the dupont stuff is distributed in pamphlet form as well.
It is time to begin again
It is time to begin again because after a diversion by means of the crow parable we have returned to a critique (valid or invalid) of the people "behind" the book and not the book itself. Instead of a critique of Nihilist Communism we have found a critique of supposed "nihilist communists".
[EDIT: hpwombat and jonglier's comments above are exceptions and perhaps we can renew our search for a critique by looking to their comments]
For the toothless critique of
For the toothless critique of all that exists.
Nate wrote: For the toothless
Nate
Meaning what?
I think nihilism is awful.
I think nihilism is awful.
[moved]
[moved]
lettersjournal wrote: I think
lettersjournal
This is hilarious! You got two down votes for saying that...obviously the votes have nothing at all to do with content....
I know Letters and he is not
I know Letters and he is not posting in bad faith, and he does think nihilism is awful (and he is NOT Insipidities!).
Just because someone annoys you doesn't mean they are posting in bad faith. There was an entire thread where Letters asked why he was accused of trolling, and not one person came up with a coherent answer. It's time to put up or shut up--what evidence do you have that Letters is a troll? Is it because he says things that are so unreasonable that he must not believe them? Does he contradict himself and say random things? Or what?
EIther put up or shut up--demonstrate that Letters is a troll or shut the fuck up about it.
[moved]
[moved]
If anyone would like to
If anyone would like to discuss Nihilist Communism with me I am open to continuing or establishing private correspondence with individuals, however, in light of the above I am refraining from any further public discussion until the environment of this thread has changed.
Hieronymous wrote: Bzfgt, I'd
Hieronymous
The rest of this may be true but I'm not a troll...
That may be true, I rarely get to the point on these boards where I feel like a real conversation is happening, especially here where the environment isn't exactly nurturing when it comes to trying to express original ideas, if I were to have any.
I have encountered Letters Journal on the internet for several years now, and about a year ago he moved to my town. We hang out together, and during the fall and winter we have been involved in a Marx reading group together. Sometimes we talk on the phone. That's it, I'm not his professor and I have no "business" ties with him.
Where have I ever said that? Do you have a quote? I ask for a quote because I'm fairly certain I've never said any of that, never recommended (or even mentioned) birdwatching or told anyone here what to not bother with. I'm not 100% sure what qualifies one as a "radical" or if I am one...I mean that genuinely, not in "bad faith."
I've never interviewed myself, and I'm pretty sure LJ never has either. I have never written anything that I call "poetry," or that anyone else would, except maybe in grammar school for an assignment.
Now you seem to be addressing LJ more than me, but I don't see what's "passive-aggressive" about his comments on Egypt, and I'm pretty sure they were made in "good faith." I refrained from making any arguments about that situation at all, so maybe we're back in paragraph one and that's a sign of my vapidity.
I don't remember ever saying what those things did or did not mean for ""communists.""
Why is a statement you disagree with or find stupid or offensive "trolling"? Maybe LJ is just stupid, offensive, or wrong. If I were you I'd accuse you of making these accusations of trolling in "bad faith" since you are giving evidence for one thing (stupidness, wrongheadedness, or non-radicalness), then trying to use it to establish another (trolling). But I don't actually think you're in bad faith, I think you're just confused.
I'm probably more of a lumpen than working class per se, technically. I've never claimed to be a classless angel and to the extent I seem to be one it probably is a function of my class position.
You, on the other hand, may not be a classless angel, but your recent posts here do make you seem like a classless douchebag--using "class" in an entirely different sense, i.e. the thing you don't have. I hope that isn't construed as passive-agressive.
I'm not sure why you think I have somewhere indicated that none of this matters to ""communists,"" or how this pretense could cover up my declining wages and increasing mountain of debt (accurate enough, vs., alas, my fictitious inherited wealth). It seems like you're just raving now, I don't recall LJ saying any of that either. Now I am also a "troll" and in "bad faith"...I can see your eye twitching like the commissioner in the Pink Panther movies when you type these things. Get a grip on yourself, "troll" actually means something, and, although you keep using the word, I do not think it means what you seem to think it does.
So put up or shut up, douchebag.
[moved]
[moved]
Nice try. That's all the
Nice try. That's all the posters on the other thread did too, post definitions of trolling. Nobody is asking what a troll is, the question is why you accuse LJ of being one. The question you still haven't answered.
I don't know why you think I am trying to create controversy or provoke an angry response, either. I'm not. Sometimes I disagree with people, but I don't arbitrarily adopt positions for the sake of creating controversy. I don't think LJ does either, since his comments here are fairly consistent with his remarks in this here real life of ours.
Perhaps I shouldn't have called you a douchebag, I wanted to just say your pixels have been arranging themselves in douchebaggy configurations lately, but I didn't want to be accused of being passive-aggressive. I'm sure if I met you in "real life" you are a perfectly nice guy, LJ says you are and I have no reason to doubt him. But you have been displaying a lot of rage in your posts over the past year and a half, and the reasons for this rage are not entirely clear to me. It almost seems in "bad faith" to make imputations about my maturity after I have been entirely civil to your angry posts for such a long time, until today. But again, I assume you are simply confused and not in bad faith.
You are certainly passive-aggressive, however. It seems rather passive-aggressive to send me pseudo-friendly PMs whose real purpose is to inform me you know who I am and what I do for a living, and to continually make references to that in your posts (at least today you were a little more clear and forthright about the purpose of those references, although I'm not certain we've touched bottom yet). It seems passive-aggressive to make cryptic references to Ezra Pound since you know LJ enjoys his poetry, and if you are not specific you can cook up a smear that can't really be answered. Is that an example of your "maturity"? Do you deny that these things are passive-aggressive? Are they undertaken in good faith? Can one be passive-aggressive while remaining in good faith? If not, I suppose you are in bad faith after all. But maybe there are two separate issues here, I'm not sure. Luckily I don't have to sort it out since I'm not the one who constantly makes these accusations and then fails to defend them.
I'm really not sure what all your rage and frustration is about or why you feel it is most productively directed against those people on message boards you deem insufficiently "radical." I don't criticize your ideas or praxis (what I know of them), and if people do you would probably be better off seeing if there's anything you can learn from such criticisms rather than working yourself into a lather over the intentions of the people making them.
Are your imputations of bad faith in good faith? Do you really think we are trolls or do you just hate what we say (I imagine mostly LJ, and I'm more collateral damage) so much that you want to discredit it?
I don't assume you are in bad faith, and in general I try to avoid thinking others are until all other interpretations are exhausted, but as you see, if I wanted to hurl this accusation at you I could make a much better case for it than you have done against LJ or me.
.
.
Hiero's butthurt that a topic
Hiero's butthurt that a topic he tried to shut down and derail in the very first replies has now gone to be one of the most popular in libcom. Who's the troll, now?
To me, the conversation on
To me, the conversation on nihilist communism might be better if I posed some theories that seem to be in line with the logic of nihilist communism. If they seem in bad faith or too inaccurate, please inform me and I'll attempt to rectify. It is not my intention to be against nihilist communism and I'm more often in favor of such ideas being spread as I feel it is the 21st Century's Hegel and if we are to be relevant, we must respond to it and become the next Young Hegalians and perhaps the next Marx or Bakunin. Pardon if insulted by the comparison, but hopefully the gist is understood.
1. Those for revolution have little to no impact on initiating revolutionary moments.
2. Those for revolution have the potential to be an obstacle to the birth of revolutionary moments, keeping situations stuck in either pre-revolutionary ruptures or reformist growth.
3. The essential proletariat, being part of the primary or secondary sectors of the economy, are the potential control point of revolutionary potential.
4. Propaganda and ideology may only have a disruptive effect on the essential proletariat. They could have extreme right wing views and still hold the true potential of revolution in its hands. In fact, the conservative views of the essential proletariat may hold more potential for revolution because only when they are willing to act in favor of a revolution will a revolution potentially occur.
5. The disruption of propaganda, left wing ideology, civil unrest and other pre-revolutionary attempts and/or situations often force the essential proletariat to withdraw or even side with capitalism.
Can this thread just be
Can this thread just be locked, binned or thrown in libcommunity already? Jesus.
I am glad that HPWombat has
I am glad that HPWombat has tried to move things forward, thanks.
Please let this thread continue, dont punish the people interested in it just cause some people are behaving badly.
Juan Conatz wrote: Can this
Juan Conatz
I PMed Hieronymous after the last one, so our back and forth has ended. I see nothing in Wombat's latest attempt to put the thread back on topic that warrants any of the actions you've suggested.
hpwombat wrote: 1. Those for
hpwombat
I think that is accurate from the perspective of Nihilist Communism. I do not know if it is true, but it is certainly a claim worth considering if we unpack it as follows: current conditions do not necessarily determine our consciousness in every case in a transparent way, but they allow a range of possibilities. Under current conditions, a pro-revolutionary consciousness is not only a minority position but it has increasingly been marginalized throughout the 20th century (say, 100 years ago compared to now). Thus, a core of people already in place trying to spread rev consciousness 100 years ago has actually shrunk, therefore the spread of rev consciousness is dependent on conditions independent of its own programmatic aims and strategies for increasing itself, much less fomenting revolution. This necessitates a "step back" on the part of pro-revs from their accustomed consciousness raising and organizing theory and practice in order to accept that their activity is conditioned on factors not under their control, in order to evaluate their position (both material and theoretical) accordingly.
Certainly, if a revolutionary moment, as you put it, occurs, it will involve an increase in revolutionary consciousness and activity, but this increase will not be a direct result of the conscious attempts of pro-revs to increase this consciousness and activity. However, if this moment occurs the people who have considered themselves pro-rev all along will doubtlessly be at the center of it, at least those who are materially proletarians, hence the critique of pro-rev consciousness is necessary in order to render it more fluid and responsive to a reality that will not allow itself to be programmed, rather than holding a hard line in such a way that will doubtless result in violence and refusal to accept the desires of people not inculcated in the program. I don't think anything I've said above is at odds with the claims in Nihilist Communism and this seems like a position worth considering.
This follows from my remarks on 1.
This means those positioned in such a way to affect wide sectors of economic activity have more potential to alter, disrupt or halt economic functioning.
This depends on the sense of "may." "May" as in "may be true," or "may" as in "this is the only effect these things can have?" The latter is a much more sweeping claim and would be hard to defend for that reason, although a clearer notion of what is meant by propaganda and ideology, and what "disrupt" means, would be required for me to have an opinion.
If you accept my interpretation of 3., then of course it doesn't matter what their views are for them to have this "potential." But a major point of Nihilist Communism is that revolution cannot result from a war of opinions, in any given epoch a range of opinions is enabled, and its basic statistical distribution more or less conditioned, by material realities. A change in conditions such that pro-communist perspectives increase is thus more realistic than a spread in pro-communist perspectives leading to a change in conditions. This is one point where I think, however, that a dialectical perspective is useful, and Nihilist Communism may go too far in its absolute rejection of dialectics. In other words, although N-C recognizes the possibility of a feedback loop, the determining role goes to material conditions at any point in that loop, and any possible leeway for consciousness in its role as an intensifier of revolutionary conditions is consequently minimized by that text. This is the point where Red sees the Achilles heel of N-C and it is a very important and difficult question that is worth considering. It would be nice if we got to the point on threads like this where we could discuss such things.
This I do not follow.
I'm not sure if this sort of negative agency can be attributed to pro-revs, this may occur in local situations but I doubt (both from the perspective of N-C as I understand it and from my own) that it is a very significant phenomenon. N-C doesn't criticize pro-revs for stymying the spread of pro-rev consciousness, it tries to criticize the left for its potential role in a revolution.
It would probably be good if
It would probably be good if my responses to Hiero were also moved to Libcommunity so the conversation is not split in half in two places, and also I have no idea where in Libcommunity this stuff can be found, maybe a link would be good. Sorry, I know the admins are busy and I don't mean to be too demanding.
Excuse me if I bring up
Excuse me if I bring up something already brought up (many responses and without them boiiiled down, I don't care to read through all).
"However, if you aim to remove all leadership struc-
tures and instigate mechanisms by which people begin
to think and act for themselves then it becomes almost
impossible to motivate more than a few thousand indi-
viduals from a wide geographical area; and even within
the most optimised conditions the specifics of the action
will be undertaken by a relatively small number of young
men with the majority content to look on.
As the numbers of protesters increase, as with an
anti-war march for example, so the action taken and the
reason for the actions become more and more simplified.
To cut a long story short, it seems to us that the fewer
people there are participating in political actions the more
the acts conform to a defined set of ideas, but the less real
the action is felt to be – because the numbers involved are
so small. Contrariwise, the larger the numbers of people
involved, the more restricted are the possible actions
and the less defined the ideas. With the participation of
a million people acting against capital, the actions open
to them appear to us to be primarily negative, namely
the withdrawal of labour. The only other option is that of
the mass demonstration (which when boiled down to its
essence is a gathering together in one place of many peo-
ple for a set period of time beneath a one- or two-word
slogan).
"
My thoughts on this here: http://persistencesociety.com/papers/aPersistenceSociety/#implementation-failureOfActivism
The issue is, it is not a matter of inciting a revolution, and the whole topic on how to do it or whether it is even possible (which the paper indicates it is not - at least by those mindful of doing so) is meaningless because the concern is not starting a revolution, it is changing the minds of the masses, and consequently changing the arrangement of power. The simplification of cause when scaled up into simple slogans represents a failure to change the minds of any mass and instead a resetting of the concept to some generality which a mass already agrees upon like "greed bad".
As to anarchism, agorism, minarchism, etc -> these are failed religions and they will never catch on. They are failed not only because of their failure to catch, but their failure to provide sound systems or even obtainable systems.
I found the paper insightful but, for me at least, not noteworthy excepting one thing: it is the participation in work and the generation of capital that promotes the existing system. And so, your best option for protest is to contribute as little as possible to this capital/progress and potentially even sabotage it in minor unnoticed ways.
But, from the many books I've read on the subjects of government and from my long time in forums posting, I fail to see any ideal model of society and have encountered an utter lack of people willing to debate on my own ideas of a model for society. And so, resisting the current system is fairly pointless as you (the reader) have no sound alternative.
Quote: It would probably be
I don't think his posts were actually moved, I think he went back and edited all of them to delete what he wrote and make a joke about how the thread should be moved.
jonglier wrote: Quote: It
jonglier
I moved my own posts that weren't germane to the discussion of Nihilist Communism here. Jonglier, I didn't do it as a joke. .
hpwombat wrote: In fact, the
hpwombat
I suppose this would need more explanation. As ideology does not seem to have a direct impact on if people rebel or not, the essential proletariat could hold views that are contrary or even reactionary to the potential for revolution. This could be ideological conservatism or it could be conservative as in views that "tend to resist change", which includes non-ideological apathy and dismissive views.
As you described, the views of the essential proletariat are independent of consciousness raising efforts by those for revolution. They are shaped by their circumstances and may be free of an understanding of revolutionary ideology and revolutionary language.
Though this is not an instance of essential proletariat, the Lucasville prison riot shows an uprising of prisoners that breaks most leftist understandings of ideology with white supremacists uniting with black muslims in the riot.
Another example could be the events tied to the Arab Spring, which might prove to be more reliable in showing that right wing views and ideology, which may more often be in favor of operating within typical understandings of liberal democracy, rising up in violent revolt. While some have placed the Muslim Brotherhood movement on an extreme right wing, this seems somewhat incorrect. it seems that its comparison with contemporary Western interpretations of Christian Fundamentalism don't correspond in the same way. But my point still is that these views are not views that are for insurrections and social upheaval, yet such things occurred.
hpwombat
The essential proletariat, before, during and after any instance of revolt could do more than reject and/or dismiss an attempt at consciousness raising. Such attempts to raise consciousness or when exposed to other events where people were raising their consciousness might not spread throughout the proletariat. I'd say more likely such attempts are seen with fear and are usually dismissed and the relationship to the job and to capitalism is reinforced rather than challenged.
Say a riot happens in Los Angeles and spreads into a situation of civil unrest with small business owners, gang members, third sector workers, low level government workers and university students making up the majority of the assemblies that are created during the period of civil unrest. The essential proletariat of the surrounding area, like fishers, farmers and manufacturers may opt to instead reject this revolt and side more strongly with the social order.
---
While I was considering these ideas, I also started considering the role of infrastructure workers. Dock workers, train workers, busing,electrical workers, public works, sewage workers and how their participation in a revolt could be just as essential and perhaps more so in a developed economy. I'll develop this thought more as we discuss.
Some of the ideas expressed
Some of the ideas expressed in this thread (or on the Egypt threads) resulted in hysteria and accusations, calls for and threats of banning, and so on. I think it is interesting to compare that to the non-response to the unapologetic Leninism in the 'Lenin's WITBD' thread:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenins-what-be-done-analysis-28072012
The implication is that Lenin and his left communist defenders are understandable (if confused), but Camatte or Cajo Brendel or Dupont are monsters.
When libcom started, there was a lot of hostility to Leninism. Why has this changed? I think it is connected both to the push for populism (the popular blogger on this site like 'working class self-organization' are politically indistinguishable from the SWP and has a history of posting, then 'unpublishing', conspiracist videos) and to the turn towards close/academic readings of Marx. The Leninists in the WITDB thread are some of the most "serious" Marxologists here, and their Marx knowledge trumps their politics.
Or, perhaps it is the case that libcom has very little real participation of any sort anymore, so the lack of response to Leninism is primarily due to the fact that the Leninists are some of the few active posters left on the site. If they were gone, there wouldn't be much discussion left.
Bla,bla, bla. Libcom is the
Bla,bla, bla. Libcom is the BBC.
lettersjournal wrote: Some of
lettersjournal
The historicising, academic tone make it difficult to see the politics and make even the flames seem harmless. A certain brand of annoying self pitying and passive agressive trolling that seriously pisses people off is also missing...
But it's a fair comment. I haven't been around this forum for that long, but marxism of various forms seems to be more prominent now.
[deleted]
[deleted]
the what is to be done thread
the what is to be done thread is fucking stupid and i cant be bothered with it
Edit: RadicalGraffitti above
Edit: RadicalGraffitti above has the TL;RD;
The thing about the Lenin thread is that those ostensibly arguing the "anti-Lenin" position are also injecting things like "the Russian Revolution was just the result of German Gold, the Soviets were worthless (with the further implication that all organizations are rackets)", so I suspect the majority of those against Leninism (including myself) don't want to jump on that "side".
I agree that there are a lot of Marxologists here whose encyclopedic knowledge of categorical minutia is matched by rather pallid politics.
However, the dismissal of all organizations as rackets doesn't seem an effective "rhetorical strategy" for bringing out the contradictions of these folks.
There are "usual suspects" arguing on both sides. The thing is, if someone wanted to argue that all organizations are rackets, they should start with the best-seeming, not the worst seeming, examples. That the usual anti-organization suspect all jump on the worst example to prove their general point strengthens neither the particular point under discussion (that Lenin's authoritarianism would make him not a communist) nor the general argument (that all organizations are rackets). It just make you'll look like dicks.
In the case of Letters, I want don't want to say that in a hostile way. Even if someone arguing a position means well, that someone looks opportunistic and insincere if they pick the ugliest example for their general formulation. And the German gold part pretty specifically defines "conspiracy theory" - the problem with conspiracy isn't that conspiracies don't happen, states constantly engage in conspiracies, the problem with conspiracy theory is that even state engage in conspiracies to 'cause things and even succeed, actual events still have multiple causes, actual player have multiple motivations, etc.
Honestly, one really kind of destructive thing that the Nihcom ideology seems to cultivate is this "we reserve the right to make up myths about people and stick to them regardless of whether these myths have a basis in reality, in fact, even when we're confronted with these myths being wrong, it is totally OK to just ignore the situation in favor of the myths that satisfy us". Basically, it's come up to someone and saying, "Hi, I'm a liar and I'm going to insult you..." You won't make friends that way. I know that Pere Dupont has these complex justifications for this kind of thing but it boils down to really probablematic behavior in my opinion. The most obvious example is the "I reserve the right to talk about 'Libcom' and talk to 'libcom' without regard to what anyone on this thread is actually say" position of Pere Dupont. Again, when someone says that, they crawled miles and miles down the hole of self-discrediting.
I don't mean this even as an attack but to illustrate the psychological dynamic. No one wants to argue on the same side as someone who's taking that kind of position.
I have, in fact, had some of people you might consider more "pro-Lenin" private-message me with more conciliatory (less pro-Lenin) positions. But it seem like they don't want to make those public because the thread is so polarized. I don't really like either the Marx-minutia-masters-with-pallid-politics (which may not be all of one side) or the bonkers-with-anti-organization-fervor positions (which may not be all of the other side). I'd prefer the sides on the side on Lenin thread stopped shouting at each other so the more idiotic of their positions could appear in a clear and distinct glory and so hopefully wither away. But I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, it would, like, kinda
Yeah, it would, like, kinda help if it wasn't sidetracked by all kinds of silly shenanigans, 'namean.
inb4 mciver
I haven't said a word about
I haven't said a word about 'German gold'.
Quote: to the turn towards
"Let us tear out rubinshchina by the roots! Death to menshevizing idealism with its scholastic readings of Marx!"
RedHughs wrote: I have, in
RedHughs
Well, the fact that the thread is polarized is what is interesting. One of the poles did not exist here previously. Of course, I do not think it is only a two-sided argument. I have not argued anything about rackets or gold conspiracies or anything like that.
One of the people in that thread asserts that the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917 is the 'greatest moment in human history'. Another is a member of Die Linke, a German parliamentary party.
I agree, though I am skeptical of both rhetoric and strategy. There is also something to be said for speaking the truth, even when the effects are disastrous.
lettersjournal wrote: Well,
lettersjournal
And neither did I...
But thing about polarized arguments in general is that people tend to stop listening. They get carried on by their own dynamic. Which kind of means it is hard to draw any more extensive conclusion about the situation. The situation is specifically uninteresting because you can find emotional reactions like that at any drunken party.
Indeed, it is annoying when someone tries to draw some kind of conclusion from someone's reaction.
X: "You are a blah, blah..."
Y: "I am not" (angry)
X: "See your reaction shows I'm on the right track"
Y: "No, I'm angry 'cause I don't like being called names" (even angrier)
X: "Hah! Look at that!"
This isn't what I'd call a reasonable approach to argumentation, even if a given X might find some critique which has some validity.
lettersjournal
lettersjournal
It kind of depends on the situation. It is quite possible to speak the truth with motivations which are disingenuous and wind-up following an approach which merely "proves" to you that the other person isn't interested in hearing you. See above.
There are situations where it is good to push "hard truths" on people regardless of whether the person can hear them.
But the existence of these situations can give rise to the urge to always push the hard truth on people. We kind of want a situationally-aware balance rather than either always spoon-feeding people or always confronting them. To take this full circle, I feel like leftism could be seen as the ideology of always spoon-feeding people and avant-gardism could be seen as the ideology of always confronting people.
This thread is about nihilist
This thread is about nihilist communism, Nihilist Communism, things related and so on. Please stop bringing some other thread into this thread. I avoided reading the entire Lenin thread because I knew it was bullshit without touching it. Please keep that thread within itself and not branch to another one. Start a new thread if it must mix that shit with nihilist communism.
To me, Letter's Journal does not speak for nihilist communism. They contribute as do the Duponts to the associated theories, but their theory on whatever Red is talking about seems to be very off topic and not something I was aware of. I'd rather it be spelled out on a thread outside of this one, if possible.
Red Hughs wrote: To take this
Red Hughs
I find this line to be interesting but I think it is too simplistic. Here are some general ideas that I think are likely too general but are relevant:
When leftists (or people who generally follow the 'consciousness raising model') speak to 'others', to the 'public', they often spoon-feed because this way they think they can recruit. And yet, when leftists speak to people they think are 'like them' it often turns to a confrontation, a bullying, where there is contention. The dissenter with consciousness is a 'traitor' to the 'cause'. This is part of what being a 'racket' means.
"If you do not know Jesus it is unfortunate that still you may be condemned for your sins, but you who know and mock God surely deserve hell."
'avant-gardism' is interesting because it is often confrontation with both the public and peers. Guy Debord's films insult the viewers just as often as his texts insult other filmmakers and vulgar politicians.
Where does Nihilist Communism fit into this schema?
What is curious here is that the authors of NC do not seem to care about addressing the 'public' at all. The critique and texts are aimed and presented within the scene and not as an attempt to recruit or a 'I have created this work to make you think for yourself.' It does not fit easily, at least on the surface, with either of the above.
Quote: 1. Those for
I always thought this was ridiculous but my experience in the Occupy Oakland has only made this seem more ridiculous. When the possibility of change appears, lots of "ordinary people" embrace all sort of revolutionary ideas, including ideas we might think are ridiculous. Ghetto youth joining the black bloc? This is a reality in Oakland, for good or for ill.
I mean, believe revolutionary upsurges are and will be explosive, non-linear and not driven by any single conscious plan. But they won't be instantaneous, they won't be unconscious and the people engaged in them will be "for revolution" (duh!).
That many ostensible revolutionaries can be counter-revolutionaries in practice is a pretty standard position among anarchists and left-communists.
The potential control point?
I think everyone would agree that essential workers are an important factor. Along with factory workers in general, along with "action on the street", along with the armed forces etc.
Essential workers aren't the decisive force. They can be replaced by the armed forces, for example.
Back the "Samuel-Johnson-apocryphal-effect" - they say things that are both good and original but the parts that are good aren't original and the parts that are original aren't good. Take a useful insight, push it beyond what's rational, shove in people faces, act hurt when people reject it, gather together with other passive aggressive people to commiserate.
Sure, all sorts of leftoid crap is out there and serves to justify lots of right-wing crap and vice-versa. But we're not really going to stop either of those factors. The degree to which revolutionaries influence the working class is very limited indeed but so is the degree to which we might influence liberals.
This is sort-of retreating into a glorify the reactionary working class sort of position. The left "forces" the working class to embrace the right. Embracing or justifying the ideas of reactionary white workers is as problematic as embracing reverse-racist-essentialism or other ideology "'cause the people support it".
Sure, in normal times it is that unusual for "average people" to react to the right against the seemingly bizaare displays of leftists and/or counter-culture types. But that is the horrific and corrosive quality of normal life itself. Won't create a coalition with reactionaries by not seeming weird.
And in less ordinary times, when the need for revolt gets more pressing, it is not unusual for these same average people to embrace more radical ideas and for the radicals to get off their crazy hobby-horses a bit. At least that is what I noticed in the best parts of Occupy Oakland.
In the US, a good portion of this "essential proletariat" are non-white and they get propelled in somewhat distinct directions by dominant and alternative cultures. I mention that just to say this whole chasing a would be revolutionary cultural mix is kind of a waste of time. We won't create that.
Comments on the avant guard later...
Quote: When the possibility
We could debate whether occupy was a revolutionary moment but let's leave it aside. This above quote seems accurate to me but what the N-C quote was you raised concerned events that happen before this. At least in my reading. I would rewrite it as "those for revolution have little impact on whether the possibility of change appears." The possibility arises and then those for revolution may have an impact.
That is to say: if occupy was a possibility of change events outside of pro-revolutionary influence led to it occurring, even if pro-revs influenced it afterwards.
But what is the possibility for (revolutionary) change?
Your critique of this does not make sense to me. If we grant that the economy must collapse or be destroyed or whatever for revolutionary ideas to have a space to be said and heard then the 'essential proletariat', those without whom the economy would cease to function, are that control point.
The insurrectionist dream is to reach this control point through blockades and smashing stuff. Eventually the riot may spread further and inspire the 'essential proletariat' to exercise its power, or the mechanisms will be destroyed and the flows disrupted enough that there is no longer an essential proletariat. It is too late to go back.
This seems impossible to me. What is of note, however, is that the essential proletariat as a control point for the economy still exists in this schema.
I am not certain what about the army you are referencing. They would all become the workers? They would force people to do work? The 'essential proletariat' is the potential control point of revolution but also the control point of terrible things, one might say.
Occupy called for a general strike and failed. This is a failure of potentially revolutionary events to come about from radicals (whether in Oakland or Wall Street).
doam wrote: Quote: 3. The
doam
Let be more specific (but still sufficiently genera). The actions that are more or less needed for a revolution to be successful is:
1) Some degree of space for collective activity. These could anything from traditional factory councils to Occupation-style general assemblies to
2) The destruction of the state and power - that is the end of the police and the armed forces, etc
The economy at that point would be destroyed by some definitions given that the impetus to wage labor would end and whatever production happened would be through collective activity.
The seizure of crucial parts of the production system would likely be part of this. Collective seizure of utilities, transportion hubs and so-forth. Having the workers who operate these things on-board would be helpful here, a desirable thing and something we should aim for. Would it be absolutely crucial? No. Further, would it be sufficient? Again no. Utility workers and port workers by themselves can't "shutdown the economy". Again, the military and the police there to prevent this. In fact, if by some strange coincidence, our "essential proletarians" were to just "turn out the lights" without any explanation, the mass of ordinary people would simply be annoyed and help Capital keep its production going. What else do you expect them do?
A plausible scenario for revolution is a series of explosions where the mass of ordinary people incrementally gain collective power, confidence and ability to act. Consciousness and activity would be going on-average hand-in-hand through this chaotic process. Eventually, some sort of final conflict would have occur once this series of circumstances gave the proletariat the ability to act collectively. Until then, it is useful for would-be revolutionaries to encourage collective empowerment, discourage them from buying the various pig-in-a-poke solutions peddled by leftist ideologues and attempt themselves to learn from the process underway.
This whole angle in Nihcom just isn't even credible on its own terms. It's more like a counter-myth to leftist myths than anything someone can believe if they investigate how social change has happened in the past.
Also, the economy doesn't have to collapse to create collective social space. A crisis can and most likely will be a factor in impelling people to act. But people will not have collective social space unless they seize it (as people have seized it in previous revolts by occupying public areas and sometime factories). Oppositely, a situation of "collapse", of total misery or starvation say, doesn't automatically create space. The last thing the capitalists give up is their police (why is that, you think?). As I mentioned on another thread, the important thing is to realize a revolt involves many things happening at once.
(I'm not an "insurrectionist" so I didn't answer the questions about them)
Red, I appreciate your
Red,
I appreciate your comments and I think I better understand your argument and where I find difficulty in agreeing.
There are two ideas in here that do not necessarily complement each other. You point to the military and police that would prevent the action of utility and port workers and then also to 'the mass of ordinary people who would . . . help Capital.' I think this second part undermines the first because if we take it seriously, this idea that ordinary people would help Capitalism, then the military and police become irrelevant. Why are those forces necessary to impose order if the 'mass of ordinary people' would do it themselves?
It is easy, and horrifying, to imagine a world where there is no State force, no police or military, but everything continues to function in a way closely resembling the present. In fact, much of the daily lives of the world's population do function without direct State involvement. Certainly the state intervenes, with some populations targeted much more than others, but it is possible to imagine these interventions made unnecessary.
The question is whether we do the bidding of men with guns or whether we do the bidding of Capital. I lean towards the latter and think that, in many ways, the State is controlled by Capital and thus the wrong 'target' (if I, who am not convinced in the need or efficacy of 'resistance', can speak of a target at all).
Concerning the creation of 'collective space' and ways in which people can act otherwise:
I find the possibility for the creation of space to be a beautiful idea. That somehow in this world of damaged people who are trained (this is not to say they are trained by someone) to use each other as commodities and to be used, for a space to open that allows other relations seems a worthwhile effort. Nihilist Communism, as well as other works, have argued that certain things do not allow that space to be opened. Unions, newspapers, punk records, the romantic couple, revolutionary organisations, nationalist movements, leftists, etc., are just some of these things that were once tried and failed.
We are at a wall. Everything we try is turned back against us.
You describe a plausible scenario to be 'a series of explosions' but no one knows how to bring those explosions about. The world seems ripe for revolt (the misery, the death, the shame) but nothing happens. What can be the lightening to cause the fire?
It is possible it is not human actions that will bring about the opportunity. It may be we need a force outside to stop the economy, to stop Capital, and then we can attempt to find a new path. Once it is impossible to continue on the current one. Of course there is a fear we might misstep into something worse. This is why it is worthwhile to discuss pro-revolutionary ideas now, though it is possible (probable?) we will all die.
(I brought up insurrectionists solely as an example of another sect using the 'essential proletariat' though not recognizing it as such.)
For the record: I hope that
For the record:
I hope that my remarks here are not taken as speaking from a 'nihilist communist" position (whatever that might mean) or that I wish to somehow speak for the authors of the text. I submit the above as someone who read Nihilist Communism and felt like I had finally taken a breath that would allow me to speak. The text is not something I base my thoughts upon, more something that opened the way for my thoughts be spoken.
doam wrote: There are two
doam
It seems you're not getting the context of what I'm sketching out.
Ordinary people are neither inherently revolutionary nor inherently counter-revolutionary. They will however, get pissed if you do something like turn off their electricity without explanation. Wouldn't you? Seems simple enough.
Your comments make it seem you're trying to look ordinary people deep in their eyes and decide whether they're good or bad, rebellious or bought-off. It is not like that. If a circumstance allow the dispossessed to seize stuff in a fashion that increases their collective power, they have a reasonable chance of going for it. If circumstances offer a dark house after coming from a hard day of work because some smaller group of proles cut off the electricity, they aren't going be happy with the situation.
Communist revolution would have to be a process of expanding collective power. It would have to articulate what the new order would be like and would inherently be a difficult and messy dialog. It wouldn't be driven by consciousness but an expansive of collective understanding would a crucial ingredient.
Just for further clarification, the scenario of people with capital is the scenario of what happens without expanding collective power.
doam
The economy is what maintains the discipline of the present world. It is an intertwined process, a whirl pool that we caught-in. People go to work to pay their rent and buy food. The state, the military and the cops are the emergency protection for the system but not the ordinary force maintaining things.
The market is a unified system but isn't a single thing issuing orders to us so you are right that it isn't a static target and can't be attacked as a static target (you can't "smash capitalism" by smashing bank windows, not that this is utterly effective, just relatively ineffective). The system can be attacked however - attacks on the system involve groups seizing power and inviting others to join them - strikes, seizing space, riots, etc..
doam
OK, now is where the argument goes from a reasonable dialogue to claims that kind of make me mad, sorry.
First, the nihcom incantation "It has been tried and it failed" just pisses me off, it's moronic. Capitalist society has existed for several hundred quite chaotic years, a drop in the historical bucket. It has encountered more resistance per year than any previous form of civilization. All forms of resistance to capitalist society have failed, so-fucking-far, so what? Obviously this proves capital last till the sun goes out!
Second, space is being opened right now guys. Open your fucking eyes. It's small at times, it's pathetic, it's confused but the resistance in the US, Quebec, Greece, Egypt, Spain, China, Bangladesh, Chile, etc, etc. still involves more movement altogether than has been in forty or so years and it has involved resistance outside institutionalized order. I don't think the punk record has been reject but I see these event palpably going out of the hands of nationalist, unionist and any variety of institutional operator (in the US, Spain, Greece, Egypt, Bangladesh... I mean there is concrete evidence of this all these place, it's far, far from complete or coherent or whatever but also far from some sham, OK).
Third, all of the arguments really mean that the creation of collective space is hard, not impossible, just hard.
OK, is that your problem? You can only accept a possibility if you know how to bring it about?
If we "pro-revolutionaries" have a job, it is to be aware, fluid and Ok with not having the recipe that will create revolution.
Two years ago you could have said nothing and it would have been plausible. Now? Get your head out of your ass! Lots is happening.
RedHughs wrote: Two years ago
RedHughs
I have been thinking about this, but it does not make sense to me. By what measure is more happening today than was happening two years ago? Even if you are right, why is more happening better than less happening?
Social conflagration, civil war, rioting, strikes, genocide, and war have been constant for the past three centuries at least. The only change in the last 40 years is the nature of television and internet coverage. I don't think any of the events you mention are "shams" - for the people involved they are often a matter of life or death - but I do not understand what any of these events have to do with communism (or specifically, why events today are more communistic than events 4 years ago or 20 years ago). None of the things you mention seem communistic at all, whatever 'communistic might mean' (tending towards communism?). In all cases, the events express changes in the economy and are, I think, unconscious (actually, often conscious) attempts to overcome perceived crises in national political leadership, relative power of different industries (Occupy expressed tech/green/small business vs. financial), wealth distribution, et cetera. The connection of any of these events to communism is the invention of communists, who remain just as numerically insignificant today as they were 10 years ago (certainly far less numerically signification than 30 years ago, and they weren't significant then) and whose ideas have failed to resonate in any noticeable or mass way anywhere.
Every case of 'resistance outside institutionalized order' has produced or reproduced 'institutionalized order'.
lettersjournal wrote: ... the
lettersjournal
Unless you can support this, it's another example of your post in bad faith.
Is it true for the Occupy events where you live? If so, please post something to support it. If not, what are you basing this on? Interviewing yourself? Divination based on careful examination of your intestines?
Monsieur Letter, it's necessary for some of us to call bullshit and point out your anti-intellectual habit of posting fabrications, based on nothing more than your opinion, as fact.
At worst, most Occupy sites
At worst, most Occupy sites had Ron Paul supporters, LaRouchites, and Alex Jones fans around the fringes. I spent considerable time at 4 Occupy sites (San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and UC Berkeley) and the encampments were heavy populated by homeless people, many of whom welcomed the solidarity of sharing food and the security of sleeping in collective groups. At times, I could tell many were better able to cope with their addiction demons and started to show signs of healing from extreme mental illness. NO ONE was advocating patronizing the local mom-'n-pop business, getting the latest hi-tech gadget, or going "green" (unless it involved smoking copious amounts of marijuana); Only a marginalized few ranted about the Fed, Wall Street or any kind of anti-Semitic "international Jewish banking conspiracy." Anyone attempting to do the latter was confronted and, in a few cases, were driven out.
I don't doubt that conspiracy bugs and shop-local liberals dominated some Occupy sites; it's disingenuous to flatten all of the 1,000+ Occupy actions to the simple binary of the petty bourgeois vs. finance capital.
Hieronymous is correct that
Hieronymous is correct that the Bay Area Occupy sites were pretty much anti-capitalist more or less in how we'd understand anti-capitalism or rather were engaged in a sincere process of trying to discover what this capitalist system was and how to oppose it.
The events among this wide list which involved people seizing control of space, resources and productive processes had to do with communism because communism would be a fabric of just that. That pretty much the answer to all your questions, really. The process of creating communism will neither be a step-by-step planned process nor will it involve communism appearing full-formed. It will be a messy, difficult dialog since it will inherently involve people coming out of our present world.
Of course, wars and riots may both involve violence but some riots would qualify as communistic but rather few wars would be and no genocides would be, of course (jeesh). etc.
I wouldn't try to prove things moving more communistically over the last 300 years. In the last five years there seem to be more movement than previously but the only point really is that there is some movement now. The messy dialog has begun - and may soon end, then begin again stronger or who know what. Nothing I'm saying implies the least guarantee of goodness. Certainly, given the accelerated rate of change we see, it seems plausible this order will end reasonably soon, in a pleasant way or in a horrific way. Certainly, communist theory tries to track things more closely than that but we must also acknowledge how uncertain things are.
I agree with Red. I don't
I agree with Red.
I don't care how "communistic" struggles or conditions are. In the U.S. we suffer from intense class denial and the beauty of the movement around Occupy was that, at best, it was a form of anti-capitalist class struggle -- especially in the Bay Area -- and seen by a plurality of participants as such.
Contrast this with another more negative movement, which would be the dispossessed continuously filling the tent cities and shantytowns that dot the American landscape. The irony is that these often sit side-by-side with brand new housing stock that sits empty. Contrast the self-described Oakland Commune tent encampment with the massively squalid homeless camps around downtown Fresno (probably the largest in the U.S.). The former glowed with hope; the latter continues to reek of hopelessness, divided by the postmodern Jim Crow segregation of crack cocaine vs. crystal meth, intensely racially coded, with the heroin junkies dying like flies on the margins. This is the reality of working class conditions in the U.S. today.
Fuck all this dilettante parlor talk of how "communistic" anything is.
Quote: The events among this
The difference seems to be whether we see the necessary ingredients present for moving towards communism in these phenomena, or whether we see them as phenomena that could be part of a movement toward communism but are not sufficient in themselves for us to conclude that such a movement is present, or that it could arise from such things. I prefer not to kid myself that I know which way history is going, or that I can diagnose a properly communist movement when I see it, but we all have to do the best we can to make such judgments at times.
I agree with Hieronymous that this is a sort of armchair speculation that remains at arm's length from events, but I don't agree that it's irrelevant--we are are all sitting in our armchairs in front of computers on a nominally communist web site. "How 'communistic' struggles or conditions are" seems like a big part of what we're here to discuss.
But it's possible that I don't understand the objection. I do understand the frustration at nay-saying when things are happening that we find promising or exciting, but I think that nay-sayers are generally useful. And I think that the usefulness of nay-saying will increase, rather than decrease, as events move toward a rupture with the present order.
We're talking past each
We're talking past each other. Occupy wasn't "communistic," at least not in practice -- but rhetorically there were places where it was anti-capitalist. If a "nay-sayer" position is used in argument, it isn't asking too much to demand honesty and for assertions to be supported (like which places "Occupy expressed tech/green/small business vs. financial"). Otherwise it's back to the macho chest-thumping of "I'm right, you're wrong."
I see where you're coming
I see where you're coming from now...Letters characterizaton of Occupy is not something I can address...
Red, I have been considering
Red,
I have been considering your post for the past few days, specifically the below:
I have decided my difficulty is not what you have suggested. I think I accept the possibility of widespread revolt, though I do not know how to bring it about. I would even go so far as to grant that small revolts happen here and now. Shoplifting, working slow, organizing with coworkers, not speaking to police, riots, vandalism, even Occupy. All of these can be seen as examples of revolt and, for the sake of this argument, I will concede it (which is not to say that you accept all these as forms, I just want to define revolt widely, even if some actions may be disputed).
My difficulty in supporting these revolts is that many are directed towards others, towards human beings in authority. I organize with my coworkers to 'take power' from my boss. I break windows at night of a building where people enact terrible things in the day. (I actually do neither of these but you get the idea). Many Occupy camps also directed themselves towards authority (the 1 percent slogan, for example). I do not issue my support, as a communist, to revolts that take this 'us vs. them' tactic because I do not think it gets to the root of things. Perhaps they are worthwhile projects. An end to police getting away with shooting people of color, higher wages, etc. It is just not clear to me that these revolts lead to communism. In fact, it seems obvious that they do not.
I agree with you that 'things are happening' and it was reductive to say 'nothing' was, but I meant that nothing clearly linked to communism has occurred. I take it that you agree, as you reference things being messy and chaotic. The question is what a communist is to do.
A line that struck me when I first read Nihilist Communism was "We think the first impulse should always be to do nothing, to watch the turning of the world and keep our powder dry." The authors do not explain what keeping our powder dry might mean, at least not that I can remember or find after a brief skim. What is the communist powder and how does one not waste it?
Surely it is a waste to sacrifice our bodies at the summit protest. Is it a waste to go to the Occupy encampment? Is it worthwhile to write newspapers and give them away? Where is the communist, as communist, most effective and happy? This is what I seek to answer and I remain unconvinced that the place is in the work place or in the streets underneath banners, whether they say 'death to capitalism' or 'Ron Paul 2012'.
[I am not sure I am satisfied with what I have written and I may add more later but I wanted to reply before too much time had passed.]
Quote: Perhaps we might not
From Guy Debord's In girum. An idea I return to from time to time and that seems relevant for this place. The difficulty is that the 'new project' has not been found and, perhaps, does not even exist.
Doam, If I were to get you
Doam,
If I were to get you to admit your relationship to rebellion is so rigid and purist that it has no relation to anything but your own neuroses, then we would be done, right?
Edit: Also, summit hoping is a waste but that's not everything on-offer.
I was hoping to refine
I was hoping to refine something before you had responded because already I realize something I said was problematic. Since you did not respond with something of substance I will continue on as if you had not responded.
Really I am attempting to think with you and not proposing something as a position.
On taking power:
Of course there is something about self-organization and 'taking power' away from authority that is beautiful. The difficulty for me is when this is framed as an us vs. them (whether a friend vs. enemy or a more specific 99% vs 1%). Something I find interesting is that the smaller the group attempting to organize themselves (think of a group of coworkers for instance), the less is becomes an us vs them. When I have been in situations where my coworkers (informally) organize it is directed at us gaining power and not as an antagonism against our boss exactly. We organized ourselves to do our jobs and aid one another without looking to the outside.
It appears to me that the larger the group attempting to 'organize themselves' the more the rhetoric turns into an us vs them. This, I think, is especially evident with Occupy. I think it both misses the point and is dangerous.
We are then caught in a difficult place.
Look, I already said the
Look, I already said the point is for people to have the space to collectively work out their ideas and make mistakes. If you're only answer is "I think this and this are mistakes", it just seems like you're not listening and just want revolution to appear without any effort on your part and satisfy all of your preconceived notions .
After all, each of us could be mistaken ourselves. The only way we'll find is by taking our into the world seeing what happens.
Red, It is not that I want
Red,
It is not that I want revolution to appear without my effort. It is that I want my effort to help revolution appear, if that is possible at all, and because of this it is important to discuss what is worth support and what is not. Questions in this line using your kind of terms would be:
What is a space that allows the kind of activity you propose?
What does it mean to open a space?
How does the communist intervene?
I think what was attractive about Nihilist Communism for me when I first read it years ago was that it pointed to things that were tried and (to be fair to your earlier objection) had yet to work. There is even an argument given for why different things have not worked. It is also true that there was no positive project proposed, there is no proposed place of departure.
And yet, though I do not wish to stop at the 'do nothing' proposal (and clearly have not, at least not completely, if I am participating in communist message boards), this latter part was not as big a turn off for me as it seems to have been for you. I continue use to Nihilist Communism as a clearing of the ground and a way to look at other things.
I think looking at Occupy (since that what this thread has turned to most recently) and saying 'this is a mistake' about parts of it is necessary. And allowing the space to do that is worthwhile. In my above post comparing occupy and my work I was trying to point to a potential source of mistakes, or at least an area of difficulty when it comes to communist intervention in large 'social movements'.
It may not be fruitful for us to continue and you seem more frustrated with me than anything. You gave a critique of Nihilist Communism that made comments like it wasn't credible on its own terms and pointed to psychological factors (including my own 'neuroses') and I really just wanted to respond in a human way. To say 'this is my personal experience of the work and why I think it is valuable' though I can see why it would not convince you (and also why referring to my 'personal experience' of a text might just strengthen your desire to write it off as a result of psychological dysfunction).
In essence I agree with you that freeing up space for people to make moves outside of their daily routines and processes is important.
Best,
d
The discussion you guys are
The discussion you guys are having above is really interesting, but can someone tell me (imagine talking to a total newb) why and how a nihilist would be a communist? Seems like an oxymoron to me... nihilism is anti-ideology and communist is an ideology. How can one mind combine two opposites and not suffer complete breakdown?
Just throwing this question out there... if someone can pm me a couple links or articles I'd appreciate it.
The obstacle you're hitting
The obstacle you're hitting is that communism may be an ideology, but it isn't just an ideology- it's also (and more fundamentally) a practice, a mode of collective self-reproduction. When Monsieur Dupont declare themselves "nihilist communists", what they are asserting is that there are interested only in this concrete, unadorned practice of communism, and totally reject what they see as the performativity of most self-described "communist" activity.
(That is not, of course, a line of thought unique to the Duponts, they just take it to its most extreme conclusions.)
ComradeAppleton wrote: How
ComradeAppleton
Mind-blowing, isn't it - it's called dialectics. Then again I don't see communism as ideological. It can become such if it is made so, like in the case of Marxism-Leninism - but few would argue that has anything to do with communism but I digress...
Hiero
Hiero said:
http://youtu.be/1M6oW6a0iAw
Alright, Alright, Alright
I really get you and at first I tried to like you Hiero
But can't you quote somethin else, maybe Finding Nemo?
Now I'm gonna start out by givin you the spoiler downlo
Donny doesn't make it, it turns out he ain't no hero.
It's clear you like the fun fun
And when shit hits the fan you run run
And you know it's no fun to falter
So you always fall back on Walter
You got the crude
You got the rude
You got the brood that makes you shrewd
If I wasn't seein double I'd think your Mom went out and fucked The Dude
It's obvious Libcom doesn't like us quotin out Marx taking him down with Cain and Abel
And that's fine, of course, of course, we don't want to reveal your seats at the table
I promise I won't bring her up again, your dear mother Mabel
But does she not sing to you, still rockin in yo cradle
Now I know there're two mics around here, pullin strings for your fable
You stepped out, so why you back? I know, you must be here to fix the cable!
Fuck me! Nihilists. I can already hear you scream and tug
Fuck me! Indeed. Unchecked aggression and in turn I peed on your rug
What you didn't reckon on was a nihilist with some humour
But here I am little bro, pointing out your big ass old tumour
You talk about class as if all your buddies died face down in the muck
Then when the story comes out about your roots you weave and you duck
When I'm done here all Libcom will have is occasional acid flashbacks
But what you gonna do, throw molotovs into shit cars and hatchbacks?
Now everyone knows you're not communist reuters
You're just a bunch of pricks mistakin shit for coitus
Who changes your sheets, young man, matricidal Nero?
This can't be easy for you, it's like ashes blowing back in your ear, yo.
Next time you think to bitch, be kind Comrade Brother
It's time you stay out, now get shitted on, nihilised with flavour.
People should be discouraged
People should be discouraged from posting while tweaking. Unless meth is the official party favor of nihilist communism™ (sorry if that offends the straight edge fraction).
Buzzy wrote: The difference
Buzzy
I started replying to a bunch of stuff but I'm looking at this quote as being most illustrative of, well, something... The paragraph really stumbles all over itself. And think that's because it's trying to make a contrast between, more or less, nothing.
I see a number of the "necessary ingredients of communism" in the various events that have started to appear lately. I don't think I ever said these were "sufficient in themselves for us to conclude that" a movement towards communism was present. ("movement" in the sense of a unified, cohesive series of actions).
What I would claim is we now have a "ferment" (only in a few places and even there occasionally but still... ). Dispossessed people have been acting, to various degrees, outside of any institutional framework in developing their own ideas and their own practices.
It useful to be a part of such things, not to "inject" our ideas but be part of a dialogue; provide the ideas we think are important and listen and learn from the ideas that other dispossessed people put forward. We should be part of such a dialog exactly when they involve collective action escaping the control of the powers-that-be.
Yeah, it's stumbly because
Yeah, it's stumbly because I'm always trying to scale back your exaggerations of the nih-com positions and get at what the substantive differences are, but I am losing interest in the whole thing. What you've just written is reasonable enough and I am certainly not trying to argue with it.
To me it just seems strange
To me it just seems strange to use these hyphenated terms with regard to nihilism. For example, would you say that someone is a "nihilist capitalist"? Or "nihilist statist"? These terms would be just as meaningless as "nihilist ice-cream lover" or "nihilist homosexual".
But then again, maybe I am oversimplifying.
As for dialectics - I have always seen it as a type of mysticism. Every time I logically break down the theories of some theologian (usually I come in contact with Catholics), he/she says to me that at the bottom of it we can't really know because "it's a mystery". The "mystery" forms the fabric of things and we can't know how or why it is so, it just is. Similarly, all kinds of Hegelians (usually) when their theories reach a logical impass out of which they cannot climb say "it's the dialectic". As if just by saying that they have solved their problem and their entire theory that night is day and day is night (to quote their master, Heraclitus) suddenly makes sense. My answer to both types of excuse (the theological and the dialectic) is "it seem to be bullshit"...
And in a way, that makes me a nihilist... although I've always been more of a skeptic/cynic :)
Comrade, the only reason
Comrade, the only reason we/re using this hyphenated term is because it's the title of the book in question. The initial question "what do you guys think of Nihilism Communism?" seems to have been lost in 13 pages of discussion :)
ComradeAppleton wrote: To me
ComradeAppleton
Those both seem like valid descriptors to me. A bit unwieldy, mebbe, but usable. Only if you assume that the practices of market and state must necessarily spring from ideology would either of them be problematic.
Tim Finnegan wrote: Those
Tim Finnegan
I agree with this. I guess I may have ignored the non-ideological aspect of communism due to my own distaste for that system of social relations... I just always thought nihilism was too "dashing" and self-expressive to get bogged down with extra adjectives. After all a nihilist communist could turn away from commnism overnight and it would not make him any less of a nihilist.
Hieronymous wrote: People
Hieronymous
It may not offend the edge kids, however it should offend people who call themselves communists, considering that your words imply that people who write rap lyrics are drug addicts.
This is all quite hard to believe really, the extent of your wit comes down to quoting videos of "The Big Lebowski" and when that's taken from you there's nothing left but adding "™" symbols to book titles? I'm impressed. I will extend my hand to you and let you nobly accept defeat. And in appreciation of your reappropriation of artistic value I took the liberty of finding you a gift. Let the cosmos be communised through the hieroglyphs of the communist masters. Let the syndicalist masters rage and command until the stargazers can no longer even think. Let the Nihist Communists™ attach themselves to machines as dead labour, just like good communist know-how has always taught us. Let every constellation of the future read "1917."
Now, I already know what you're thinking, "Nihilist Communists™ are a bunch of stargazers! Trololololololo." And it's not original, not funny at all. In fact the "Family Guy" manatees come up with better jokes than you lot. Any excommunication of your sins you come up with, I can turn it around. Just remember that. In fact, it's most likely already in that poem I humbly wrote for you, and you threw it away as if it were nothing. Just one question, if we the enemy have such bad poetry, why can't you critique it?
Time for a poetry lesson it seems:
"Alright, Alright, Alright
I really get you and at first I tried to like you Hiero
But can't you quote somethin else, maybe Finding Nemo?
Now I'm gonna start out by givin you the spoiler downlo
Donny doesn't make it, it turns out he ain't no hero."
I'd like 500 words on these first lines by Monday. As a hint, the first class will be entitled: "At Least it's an Ethos - The Redundancy of Redundancy."
deadstareforlife
deadstareforlife
DeadStrare, I won't mince my words. I think it's telling that you call that infantile gibberish "rap lyrics." Rather, it's clearly the result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxic damage to your dopaminergic neurons, based on your chronic abuse of this substance. Your methamphetamine-fueled drivel reveals a psychosis resembling schizophrenia.
deadstareforlife
So here's some unsolicited advice: put down the glass pipe, forget your juvenile fantasies of being the nihilist-communist-poet-laureate™, and get your parents to drive you to the nearest chemical dependency recovery hospital. You'll thank me when the chlorpromazine starts taking effect and the hallucinations stop.
Lastly, aren't you ashamed that you posted a graphic that you urinated on? Isn't that a little too Big Lebowski (you know, the rug that tied the room together but was micturated on by the Chinese American) for you? But I remember kids like DeadStare in school, the ones who went around with rusty zippers and yellow shoe laces. They grew up, like DeadStare, to have methamphetamine-driven fantasies of greatness. For them it was usually having the Harley with the shiniest hand-polished engine in the trailer park. For DeadStare, it's to be the nihilist-communist Milli Vanilli.
Hiero don't have basic common
Hiero don't have basic common courtesy
Too much talk of cumulative currency
You need to know the frequency?
It's called human decency
I got slow flows droppin
You a rug and I'm BIG poppin (get it?)
Say I'm a poorboy meth-hop
Hell, you a paperboy outside a dress shop (huh?)
I came in here, peed on his rug
He cried out and I offered him a hug
Don't like that shit, a bully-type that kid
Offered a handoff, he backed off, then I beat it out of him (remember?)
Got the Drexler old-school flowin
You a heckler versus Joe Rogan
Takin out the smoke I be blowin?
Pissin into the wind the only joke you be knowin
Hiero don't run with the Lumpenproles
He with a commie crew, wouldn't stoop to dole
Libcom worried they might lose control
Cause I'm like Jesus, you know that dude can fuckin roll (Fuckin Quintana!)
Cheap tricks, weak hits, online shit rackets
Classist and anti-rappist, preppin future class hits
Creepin up the tax brackets
Only prole you know rollin in Holly flicks (Which Lebowski?)
Quote The Big Lebowski, I riff off o Big L (who?)
By rights you should be spinnin off in a dumb spell
Don't know what this be, a brain swell?
You laughin at kids when they livin in hell
If you got a better story then do tell
For now though it seems you in a commie shell
How many times you watch that flick, still don't know the main sell?
Well I got another one for you dipshits, you don't have the fucking girl. (What?)
Wow! If you're not currently
Wow! If you're not currently collecting it, all you would have to do is submit your juvenilia to a government head shrinker and you'd be instantly qualified for S.S.I. Good luck.
Doam's posts explore
Doam's posts explore different new directions, and fresh ways to apprehend reality.
In contrast, RedHughs's remain trapped by ideologies of the 19C and there's little in his posts worth responding to, including his inane caricatures of the rackets critique and of the evidence of 'German gold' in 1917. The pretence of sober equanimity and fairness hardly conceals populist apologetics. Neither are his attempts to dismiss differences imputing mental dysfunction inspiring.
The following 'clarification' is hardly helpful, but flows from the populism: "Of course, wars and riots may both involve violence but some riots would qualify as communistic but rather few wars [!] would be and no genocides would be, of course (jeesh). etc." (post 365)
And what label is used when a 'communistic war' engages in a bit of genocide, as many tend to? Would that be an example of life's 'messiness' (or more likely, of a messy thought process)?
It's an art to sense when there's nothing to say, as the boundaries and chasms are already defined by historic experience.
On another topic, raised on the above posts. This is in Nihilist Communism:
http://nihilistcommunism.blogspot.co.uk/
'German gold' isn't mentioned in these quotes, but even the travel costs of the 'sealed train' across the 2nd Reich -- if that's implied in Nihilist Communism -- represented some 'German gold'. If not through funding as 'aid', in what way did Germany intervene to deploy Lenin as a 'weapon'? (Any reply to this may be more pertinent to the question of 'German gold' on the thread 'analysing' Lenin's What is To Be Done?)
deadstareforlife's 'Organize' cartoon of an early Dave Spart on post 387 is hilarious and instructive, not like the trollpegs by Angelus Novus. Hopefully the next one will be funny.
This should be the least
This should be the least worst place for this question of mine.
Years ago, I read a 'text' (whatever you'd like to call it) and in it the author tells a story about going to work at a plant, or factory, and that he would go there on his bike, crying, having drunk a lot of whisky. He wrote, though, that those worst times were past, and mentioned being married. Since, I haven't been able to recall whether that was something Dupont. Or perhaps that I am only remembering the bicycle (from watching the motorway haulage episode).
So that is my question: who might have had text put on the internet about crying going to work.
The confessional tone was pitiful and familiar and encouraged me to feel pitiable as I read it, which frankly was a luxury and I appreciated it. It was not in the style of a wikipedia article or sad community church pamphlet, such is the militant tendency; which is shit, and a shame.
I hope the worst of it has passed for you, too.