Review: The coming insurrection

From BAAM

The Coming Insurrection, a new book on revolutionary theory, may be the best marketed book in radical history, mostly thanks to the French government. First published in 2007, the book was dubbed "a manual for terrorism" by the French Interior Minister. As if that weren't enough, Julien Coupat, one of the Tarnac 9, was held in prison for several extra months on suspicion of having written it, generating even more publicity.

This review originally appeared in the BAAM Newsletter September 2009 edition. The Coming Insurrection, a new book on revolutionary theory, may be the best marketed book in radical history, mostly thanks to the French government. First published in 2007, the book was dubbed "a manual for terrorism" by the French Interior Minister. As if that weren't enough, Julien Coupat, one of the Tarnac 9, was held in prison for several extra months on suspicion of having written it, generating even more publicity. On this side of the Atlantic, Glenn Beck, Fox News' paleo-reactionary genocide apologist, contributed a hilarious foaming-at-the-mouth "review" that became an instant Youtube classic. Even some anarchists have gotten in on the act. Anti-authoritarians in New York City staged an unauthorized reading at a Barnes and Noble, which was covered by none other than The New York Times.

After so much hype, I was prepared to dislike the actual book, but The Coming Insurrection is definitely worth reading. The authors, who call themselves The Invisible Committee, were obviously inspired by Situationist writers, but the English translation I read mostly avoids the abuses of the language too often associated with that style. This makes the occasional exceptions (such as a State that "constitutes the subjectivities that people it") all the more jarring, but overall The Coming Insurrection is clearly and even elegantly written.

The first part of the book is devoted to analyzing today's society from various perspectives. The alienating effects of consumerism, the economic and cultural bankruptcy of our civilization, the emptiness of literature and philosophy, the subterfuges used by the state to hoodwink and pacify its subjects, all these and more are combined and dissected to show that the existing order offers no hope, and that our only option is to destroy it and start from scratch.

How to do this is discussed in the rest of the book. The authors make a number of recommendations, most of which are uncontroversial. Things like forming communes, making personal connections with revolutionaries in other countries and establishing autonomous spaces are all fairly obvious tactics. The basic strategy is one of insurrection and sabotage, escalating until the ruling system is consumed. Propaganda and outreach are purposely neglected, indeed the book makes a specific call to "Flee visibility. Turn anonymity into an offensive position." This seems dubious. Propaganda by the deed has a spotty history at best, and today's most effective resistance movements do plenty of overt outreach. The Zapatistas, for example, have embraced visibility as the heart of their strategy (although they remain anonymous). By using the internet, as well as holding countless community meetings and press conferences, they have exposed their struggle to a worldwide audience. Without the pressure on the Mexican government generated by international sympathizers, the Zapatistas would probably have been overwhelmed years ago.

Flawed strategy or not, it's nice to see a book favoring insurrection that focuses on the big picture and offers a coherent strategic vision. The debate on this subject has been mostly dominated by liberals and pacifists, who seem to think that if we just hold hands and sing Kumbayah loud enough the ruling class will see the error of its ways and peacefully dissolve itself. Insurrectionists and revolutionaries, by contrast, tend not to write much until after they get out of prison, and then it's usually stories of their individual struggles. Hopefully The Coming Insurrection, assisted by its right-wing-generated media barrage, will establish a countervailing trend and ignite further debate and discussion about the best way to accomplish a revolution.

The Coming Insurrection can be downloaded for free at http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/, or in podcast format at http://anotherworldispossible.podbean.com/. For the old fashioned, the printed version is available at bookstores and is small enough to slip easily into a pocket.

this reminds me, does anyone

this reminds me, does anyone reading this have a link to an imposed pdf of "The Call"? i would like to print it

Yep.

Yep. http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf

and

and here:

http://www.anti-politics.net/distro/2009/call-imposed.pdf

or here:

http://www.zinelibrary.info/files/call1-pam-copyready.pdf

And don't forget The

And don't forget The Anarchist Library version in a4 & letter (this is the recent Anarchy magazine translation btw)

thank you 3

thank you 3

Did we really need yet

Did we really need yet another review?

A better review would be

A better review would be more awesome. I've started a discussion on TCI on the anarchist international forums. Perhaps we could understand more of what TCI is about if we don't just approach it in a blase` manner? IMO TCI will continue to be discussed for quite some time and these early reviews have merely skimmed on what TCI is about. What does The Coming Insurrection mean to people living in the U.S. and Canada? Elsewhere? The language is a barrier and the translations nor reviews don't do it justice in exposing how much is context specific and how TCI could be applied outside. The "uncontroversial" aspects of TCI that BAAM touches on aren't practiced in the U.S. so I don't see how they could pretend it is something that could be written off as not important. Perhaps they are just responding to hype by underplaying it? I've yet to read a detailed review that challenges TCI.

thanks for this

thanks for this comment!

-ghanburighan

the coming insurrection does

the coming insurrection does not neglect propaganda as an important tactic. one of the skills specifically mentioned in the text as being of use to revolutionaries is the ability to operate and maintain a pirate radio station. one can remain anonymous and still be a propagandist, as the author[s] of the book itself illustrates.

also, why constantly fall back on the zapatistas as an example when there are dozens of social movements across the globe equally as promising? the zapatista movemement's self-proclaimed leadership has actually sabotaged the zapatista movement since the uprisings of the 90s, it's been very discouraging and demoralizing to those involved. but rather than looking at the real picture and addressing the real situation, gringos would rather paint other peoples' struggles with a rose-tint, thus perpetuating cultural romanticism and cultural appropriation as a substitution for genuine critical analysis.

-ghan buri ghan

Both greatpoints

Both greatpoints

agreed

agreed

I would hope this 'new' book

I would hope this 'new' book would mention things the state obviously fears... such as DDoS attacks and prediction markets...otherwise they would be lying by ommission. I suspect there is nothing post-68 that is really new to see hear because the Sits expired by purge soon after 1968. A souffle doesn't rise twice.

BTW - what do you call a council-communist?

An anarchist who spits on the graves of all those who died in combat in the five decades pre ceding the discovery that Marxism was really anarchism. A fool for short.

How the fuck is Marxism

How the fuck is Marxism anarchism? Anarchists should vehemently reject all Marxist ideology and its leftist trappings.

Does this mean we shouldn't

Does this mean we shouldn't read Marxists? What does "reject all Marxist ideology" mean? I wouldn't be too pleased to answer your call if it is a call for more ignorance.

"How the fuck is Marxism

"How the fuck is Marxism anarchism?"

because marx (at least later in life) was an anarchist who wanted to directly overthrow the capitalist state and immediately bring about the conditions of communism.

"leftist trappings", in this context, is better than nihilist po-mo third positionist trappings.

Thanx for the insight, but

Thanx for the insight, but you create another false dichotomy. It helps to not make blanket assumptions. Marx and Marxists have much to offer discourse as do nihilists and those associated with post modernism and post structuralism. It helps to enter the 21st century rather than maintain the divides of the 19th. This statement is directed at both you and WWWA.

"Thanx for the insight, but

"Thanx for the insight, but you create another false dichotomy. It helps to not make blanket assumptions. Marx and Marxists have much to offer discourse as do nihilists and those associated with post modernism and post structuralism. It helps to enter the 21st century rather than maintain the divides of the 19th. This statement is directed at both you and WWWA."

true that. i find marx's writing style lamentable, to say the least (then again, i am not from marx's time or place), and i take a shit on his determinist notions of social evolution as such things are to me inherently a road of civilized imperialism. that, however, doesn't take away from the fact that he was good at critiquing capitalism and it's functions. if we are going to read we might as well be doing so without our ideological blinders on and of course critically with everything. use whats useable, scrap the rest, as in just about everything else in life.

How was Marx ever an

How was Marx ever an Anarchist? He may have been less authoritarian, but never an anarchist. He certainly never went into a critique of morality as such, division of labour as such, industrialism as such, culture as such or society as such.

"morality" there are

"morality"

there are criticisms of morality featured even in the communist manifesto

"division of labour"

is the name of a chapter in das kapital

"industrialism"

"In primitive communities in which, e.g., means of livelihood are produced communally and distributed amongst the members of the community, the common product directly satisfies the vital needs of each community member, of each producer; the social character of the product, of the use-value, here lies in its (common) communal character. [...] Mr. Rodbertus has the measure of the magnitude of value from Ricardo; but he himself has neither examined nor grasped the substance of value any more than Ricardo did; e.g. the 'communal' character of the [labour process] in the primitive community as the common organism of the labour-powers belonging together, and hence that of their labour, i.e. the expenditure of these powers."

- marx, notes on wagner

"culture as such or society as such"

the whole point of marx's work was to explore culture and society. maybe the answers he found were not to your satisfaction - mail me your scientific analysis of the situation and i'll consider it.

it's called reading, motherfucka

-ghanburighan

"there are criticisms of

"there are criticisms of morality featured even in the communist manifesto"

But he didn't argue that there was no such thing as morality.

"is the name of a chapter in das kapital"

But he didn't argue that everyone should make everything they need for themselves.

"'In primitive communities in which, e.g., means of livelihood are produced communally and distributed amongst the members of the community, the common product directly satisfies the vital needs of each community member, of each producer; the social character of the product, of the use-value, here lies in its (common) communal character. [...] Mr. Rodbertus has the measure of the magnitude of value from Ricardo; but he himself has neither examined nor grasped the substance of value any more than Ricardo did; e.g. the 'communal' character of the [labour process] in the primitive community as the common organism of the labour-powers belonging together, and hence that of their labour, i.e. the expenditure of these powers.'

- marx, notes on wagner"

But he didn't argue against the production of goods or the existence of factories.

"the whole point of marx's work was to explore culture and society. maybe the answers he found were not to your satisfaction - mail me your scientific analysis of the situation and i'll consider it."

This probably one the best, most compact calls to abolish culture. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/running-emptiness-failure-symbolic-thought

Your particular philosophy

Your particular philosophy is not "anarchism." At best it is a sub-sub-subdivision within anarchism, with its own little subcultural clique around it. The litmus tests you postulate are not relevant to the question of whether Marx was an anarchist or not.

Anarchism doesn't just belong to whoever is against the most stuff.

"Your particular philosophy

"Your particular philosophy is not "anarchism." At best it is a sub-sub-subdivision within anarchism, with its own little subcultural clique around it. The litmus tests you postulate are not relevant to the question of whether Marx was an anarchist or not.

Anarchism doesn't just belong to whoever is against the most stuff."

what particular philosophy, i may ask, IS anarchism? last time i checked anarchism was a philosophy of the negation of the state and capital (i would add also their basis: civilization) and most of us who call ourselves this also hold mutual aid as an ethic...other than those generalities i don't see a such thing as any hegemonic philosophy that is or isn't anarchism (be it anything from platformism to primitivism). are you trying to go for history or something? well, ideas change with circumstances, at least on the part of those who bother to observe the world around them. not shit talk, i am just curious...do we share the same vision of what anarchism is or do you have something more specific in mind (sounds like something more specific)?

I think you and the anon you

I think you and the anon you are replying to are making the same point. It is WWWA that was trying to exclude Marx and Marxists from the literary canon of anarchism. Ideas do change and the Marxists shouldn't be ignorantly ignored, but rather read, compared and contrasted to our own ideas. Many Marxists are libertarian. Also, ultra left Marxists and anarchists have combined efforts since the 60s in Europe in the worker, youth and student autonomy movements, which often clashed with the state and the forces of capitalism. WWWA fails to mention that his own cited author is heavily influenced by Marxism. This argument is a pointless dichotomy and TCI was written by people influenced by Marxism.

-Some other anon

on second reading it does

on second reading it does look like me and the anon were making the same point so yeah, a little redundant. i am just so used to hearing the petty battles over what is or isn't anarchism that perhaps my mind freezes there sometimes. yeah, i am not a huge fan of marx, which is the understatement of the year, and even less a fan of "his followers" but, none the less, that doesn't mean i can't use marxist anylsis to my own purpose, shit, i can use pyschology to my own purpose and i am very well read in it though it has about my strongest level of personal contempt given my life history. i can also work with marxists....or anyone: again, it all comes back to what the goals and approaches are, i care fuck all about ideology other than being critical of any and every ideology and realizing that my own ideas are mine and not a panacea, advice at best, when not this, nothing but my own ideas and whatever influenced them.

Every book in the world

Every book in the world should be burned, along with ever last writing utensil. ;)

"Every book in the world

"Every book in the world should be burned, along with ever last writing utensil. ;)"

can't say i necessarily disagree...but there are other things to set fire to first and, hey, the feds are watching, keep it in your pants LOL.

True, but if you want to get

True, but if you want to get rid of even some stuff, you have to say you want to get rid of everything, so the others look sane and moderate by comparison.

Not a fan of po-mo, but I am

Not a fan of po-mo, but I am a nihilist. I take as my starting presuppositions that 1. all things are nothing to me and 2. meaningless destruction (not that anything has meaning in the first place) is the highest achievement.

"that must be

"that must be exhausting"

-ghan buri ghan

Exhausting, but damn fun.

Exhausting, but damn fun.

the problem with spouting

the problem with spouting off your newly-formed opinion on the issue, without even reading the text that you're attempting to discuss, is that anyone who's even remotely aware of the matter at hand will realize quite immediately that you're full of b.s.

comite invisible / tiqqin / parti imaginaire was less inspired by "the sits" than by debord's writings, which continued (and, arguably, got better) after "the sits" deflated. comite invisible has a bunch of other sources besides debord, but nice job pretending like you understand all this french stuff by throwing in the word "souffle".

btw - what do you call an anarchist?

a left-communist who likes shitty music and hates bathing.

-ghan buri ghan

what are DDoS attacks

what are DDoS attacks anyway? have not heard of these, assuming this is an acronym for something...

Distributed Denial of

Distributed Denial of Service

The attack confuses the router, server, ISP or whatever into thinking a huge number of people are trying to gain access, flooding the target and effectively slowing or crashing service.

- some other anon

"Distributed Denial of

"Distributed Denial of Service

The attack confuses the router, server, ISP or whatever into thinking a huge number of people are trying to gain access, flooding the target and effectively slowing or crashing service."

- some other anon

okay, i have heard of that...a hacker did it to someone i know once. never heard the acronym before though so was confused.

Gringo is a racist

Gringo is a racist word!!

"gringos would rather paint other peoples' struggles with a rose-tint, thus perpetuating cultural romanticism and cultural appropriation as a substitution for genuine critical analysis."

i up that! -laozi

i up that!

-laozi

Cooperation of the Masses If

Cooperation of the Masses

If we anarchists collectively organize with non-anarchist movements we will have the numbers necessary to bring down capitalism. Many people who were only against corporations have turned against capitalism all together since the recession began making them one step further to anarchy land. There are many things that can be done to bring it all down but it isn't going to work unless we use every tactic of resistance on the table:

The following is yet to be organized by a coalition of movements fighting for a common issues pertaining to anti-war and anti-globalization:

-nationwide boss nap
-nationwide factory occupation
-nationwide general strike
-nationwide student walk-out
-nationwide teach-in
-nationwide boycott
-nationwide breakaway rally, march, black bloc, direct action & sabotage

No insurrection will work with out everybody coming together using mass civil-disobedience; their only friend in the world right now. All activists must be involved; "ALL" being the environmentalists, labor unions, anarchists, anti-capitalists, insurrectionary anarchists, socialists, communists, communalists and anti-war activists.

We will not win the Class War battle unless we can stop everyone from cooperating with the system.

Even though we have different ideas about how to world should be run I think it would be much easier with each other to reach a consensus than say with the people in government or the people running the economy, hahahaha!
Can we all agree there?

"United we stand divided we fall" is something we have learned and forgotten. The only way we'll ever be able to transform society into a self-governing collective locally on a national level world wide for everyone’s needs is if we open our minds a little bit.

Can we live with out government?

Yes, but only if we anarchists work with other organizations who are willing to cooperate with us. With out mass cooperation, anarchy will never see the light of day.

I do believe that anarchy with triumph one of these days only because rational common sense cooperation as opposed to mass obedience to fear mongering tyrants is something desired by all anarchists.

"We cannot go it alone." If you want victory you’re gonna need a coalition; something George W. Bush didn’t understand too well.

Let’s not follow into his footsteps.

this makes me want to

this makes me want to vomit.

I love how people use the term Insurrection without understanding anything even resembling it's actual meaning or use in these circles.

Also, when we talk about revolution, we're talking about a qualitative change, not a quantitative one. Shut the fuck up about the masses. BORED.

Bush? Fucking really?

we shouldn't be so critical

we shouldn't be so critical of each other. all of us anarchists are here for the same thing. we should focus more on what we have in common.

"we shouldn't be so critical

"we shouldn't be so critical of each other. all of us anarchists are here for the same thing. we should focus more on what we have in common."

i disagree (sharp toothy smile). this is the internet and we are just sitting here writing on it. if there is a better place to hash out our differences i dunno, but i think this place works pretty well. we are not, at any rate, all for the same thing. i would like to think we are all for the end of this society but even that can become questionalbe (some people simply fetish small temporary enclaves of freedom till they are flushed out, such is the fetish of the TAZ [temporary autonomous zone], and otherwise possibly very useful concept) but positive visions are certainly all over the map, they are not a universal sentiment (and what is?). at any rate, through such debate you may be able to find who you can work with and who you can't (i know from long and bitter personal experience that we can't all always work together and trying to do so tends to lead to a stalemate), whether or not you find their views annoying, to me it being a question not so much of views but of shared goals and agreed upon approaches to said goals, beyond this ideology ultimately means absolutely nothing to me, honestly, but i do have a big mouth about it soooo....

Go complain about your

Go complain about your boredom to you mommy.

Politics is not about entertaining you.

indeed. Racism=dividing

indeed. Racism=dividing people by race.

it is the gringo anarchists

it is the gringo anarchists who are "dividing people by race" in their obsessive and grandiose fetishization and idealization of the "struggle of the mestizo farmer" or whatever instead of focusing on their own personal local struggles (instead of ignoring them as if they were somehow less important) and offering genuine, critical, practical international solidarity (which would entail denouncing the co-option perpetrated by third positionist bureaucrats such as "Delegate Zero", or at least it would if they were consistent with their alleged "anti-authoritarianism")

-ghan buri ghan

racism is not simply

racism is not simply dividing people by race, it has to do with ascribing superior attributes to particular ethnic groups while ascribing attributes of inferiority to others.

recognizing the reality of culture and ethnicity is not racist. saying one culture or ethnicity is superior to others is.

i can say "this person is 'white' and that person is 'black'." this could be said to be "dividing people by race" (i would use the term ethnicity) but i would argue that there's nothing "racist" about that observation regarding ethnic categorization based upon varying melanin levels.

Gringo is a derogatory word

Gringo is a derogatory word used on white people by spanish descended peoples, like cracker or honkey from a black person.
It is equivalent to a white person saying nigger to a black person in my book; therefore it is racist!

point taken, but of course,

point taken, but of course, i would argue that there's a difference between something coming from the traditional oppressor as opposed to the traditionally oppressed. not that i think anti-white slurs are acceptable, but it's important to recognize the difference between a slur aimed at the oppressed and coming from the oppressor as opposed to a slur aimed at the oppressor and coming from the oppressed. kinda like how calls for "black power" and "red power" (etc.) have very different connotations than calls for "white power." the former calls for the empowerment of the oppressed while that latter calls for the continued empowerment of the oppressor.

I could argue that any

I could argue that any derogatory speech or words, is considered a form of oppression and racism irregardless of a persons race, color, creed, origin, gender, age, disability.........

It is the intent inherent in words.

I could also argue that being white should not make one automatically lumped into the "oppressor" category; That is simply a short cut an already exhausted worn out means.
Oppressors come in all, races, colors, creeds, genders, ages, disabilities......

In short "traditional" is bullshit.

"I could argue that any

"I could argue that any derogatory speech or words, is considered a form of oppression and racism irregardless of a persons race, color, creed, origin, gender, age, disability.........

It is the intent inherent in words.

I could also argue that being white should not make one automatically lumped into the "oppressor" category; That is simply a short cut an already exhausted worn out means.
Oppressors come in all, races, colors, creeds, genders, ages, disabilities......

In short "traditional" is bullshit."

agreed to some extent but, then, words are nothing but tools and we can use them in a variety of ways given things like idiom and semantics. that is why i get so uppity about people getting so uppity about words....but then again i have a strange fixation for words myself, which i suppose can be traced to the fact that volcabulary, believe it or not, is one of my strong suits (though spelling, clearly, is not).

go to hell, yanqui! -ghan

go to hell, yanqui!

-ghan buri ghan

Hey Paco, don't you have

Hey Paco, don't you have some drugs to run, kids to kidnap, trash and beer bottles to toss anywhere, some clothes to dry on top of your cheveeeeee, your wifes sister to thump or some other mamacita instead of worrying about politics; go help your twelve children sell chicle's.

See I can be racially stereotypical insulting also!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.