Totality Is Not Total - A Critique of Insurrectionist Logic

I've heard activists, mostly insurrectionists, say that every aspect in our society is touched by capitalism and because this is true nothing in our society is valuable or worth keeping if an anti-capitalist social movement were to succeed.

While non-insurrectionists might agree with this statement, I suspect this idea plays a supportive role in the insurrectionist position against doing anything but inciting a revolution through attack.

While I believe the idea that everything in our society is affected by capitalism, I believe this truth misleads one to believe that everything is primarily capitalist and therefore unworthy of being reformed.

When someone asserts that everything in society is affected by capitalism they might be challenged by someone who says something along the lines of 'well what about X'? They then generally go on to defend their assertion by claiming that this variable X exists within an environment where everything is private property (public property to me = state property & state property = private property) and therefore is a capitalist product. As a result they claim that the totality of society is capitalist, and therefore everything must be discarded, and any attempt to reform variables of society will be pointless because they will always be within a system of private property therefore they will be capitalist.

Let me offer two examples of the capitalist totality argument; one about objects and a second about relationships. Google maps and Facebook are capitalist products, but an online mapping application & social network can exist in a non-capitalist society -- I don't really think this needs to be explained. Yes Google & Facebook have capitalist aspects like selling our data, but that doesn't mean that everything about mapping applications or social networks is specific to capitalism. To say that social networks are specific to capitalism is to say that they can not exist under communism, to say that is to argue that communism is a society where it is impossible for computers to be used to create virtual networks. Since this is true we can conclude that objects are not specific to capitalism, but are hijacked by capitalism; even though they might emerge in the capitalist context doesn't mean they are inherently capitalist. To argue that non-capitalist social networks like Diaspora are still affected by capitalism misleads one to believe that what an object is is determined by one environmental variable - in this case private property. If this were true then everything that happens in California is inherently Californian and could not exist in Arizona. While this might be true taking into consideration space & time, this does not mean objects can only emerge in an exact space & time, a few supporting examples include calculus, domestication, slavery, etc. The totality of capitalism does not create specific objects but simply alters them into being specific subjects

Since the totality of capitalism does not create specific objects but simply alters them into being specific subjects, relations between people also simultaneously have one foot outside of capitalism and one foot inside of capitalism - in other words they simultaneously consist of objective and subjective qualities. Remember that a single environmental variable, in this case private property, does not determine the nature of an object or a subject, if it did objects and relations would be specific to time & place and therefore not capable of emerging unless every single variable was identical. Since this is true all of our relations are not specific to capitalism, but fall somewhere on a spectrum of capitalist to non-capitalist. For example, a relationship where two people exchange information while shaped by capitalism is not specific to capitalism. Relationships characterized by the exchange of information can and have existed outside of capitalism, e.g. I assume hunters shared information with each other during hunts. So for example under capitalism, the teacher student relationship consists of an objective information sharing relationship and a subjective hierarchical/capitalist relationship.

Objective objects and objective relationships do exist and are altered by conditions that create subjective objects and subjective relationships. Subjectivities are only altered objectivities. These subjectivities are not characterized or determined by single environmental variables unique to space & time, but are determined by their relationship to other objects/subjects in society. As a result the claim that capitalism has created capitalist objects is false, it has only altered objects into capitalist subjectivities, and even that is misleading. Claiming that everything is a capitalist subject misleads one to believe that all objects & relationships are primarily capitalist. The truth instead is that objects & relationships that have become subjectivites fall on a continuum & are best characterized by their relationship to capitalism, in other words they can only be accurately characterized by whether they reproduce capitalism or function to reduce capitalist subjectivites.

If it is true that objects and relationships are not simply capitalist or non-capitalist, but instead fall somewhere on a continuum of capitalist & non-capitalist that strengthen or erode capitalism, then the insurrectionist position that everything reproduces capitalism and therefore must be thrown out or objected to is wrong. As a result objects & relationships should be supported and opposed based on whether they strengthen or erode capitalism. For example claims that worker owned cooperatives are capitalist and therefore should be opposed, regards the single environmental variable of private property as the defining characteristic of objects & relationships instead of how they relate to reproducing or reducing capitalism.To take my position to the extreme logical conclusion even capitalist subjectivities are capable of subverting capitalism, e.g. Facebook collecting data and selling it can move people to decentralized communist-esque social networks.

In conclusion, the inactive position of insurrectionists falls between reproducing and eroding capitalism, it is perhaps the weakest anti-capitalist position one can take because its neutral position against capitalism does nothing to reduce it.

Category: 

Comments

please don't generalize

please stop saying please don't generalize

you do realize that makes people want to say it more

please don't generalize

"you do realize that makes people want to say it more" and then WHAMMO the guy says it again.

please don't say see, I told you so!

capitalism isn't the only thing tainting stuff ya know

capitalism did it!

Is it just me or is this hilarious?

Jesus christ, who wrote this? Did they just discover anarchism from Infoshop.org?

generally when i read stuff like this on anarchistnews, i assume the author didn't actually post it, but rather worker or someone else trying to get content during a slow period.

that or whoever wrote this was naive in their understanding of the anarchistnews audience.

Or, as is often the case, someone who read it and had a good laugh about it decided to post it here for the trolls.

then i guess that you must want for everyone to discover anarchism through riot porn sites and Alfredo Bonanno

First, I madturpated to dis. Second, it'd fell goot.

It's good to read books about the things you're writing critiques about instead of basing your critique on half-understood facebook discussions.

It is not clear to me that you are refuting the insurrectionist claim that: ‘the totality of society is capitalist, and therefore everything must be discarded, and any attempt to reform variables of society will be pointless because they will always be within a system of private property therefore they will be capitalist.” It is not clear to me also that one is here being inactive. Must one be into reform to be active?

To counter this argument in some fashion you claim that:
1. Subjectivities are only altered objectivities.
2. These subjectivities are not characterized or determined by single environmental variables unique to space & time, (like private property) but
3. Subjectivities are determined by their relationship to other objects/subjects in society.
4. therefore, ‘the claim that capitalism has created capitalist objects is false, it has only altered objects into capitalist subjectivities, and even that is misleading.
5. Claiming that everything is a capitalist subject misleads one to believe that all objects & relationships are primarily capitalist.
6. ‘Objects & relationships that have become (capitalist) subjectivites fall on a continuum & are best characterized by their relationship to capitalism’; ‘they can only be accurately characterized by whether they reproduce capitalism or function to reduce capitalist subjectivites.
If it is true that 6 then
7. the insurrectionist position that everything (social) reproduces capitalism and therefore must be thrown out or objected to is wrong.
8. Therefore ‘objects & relationships should be supported and opposed based on whether they strengthen or erode capitalism’.
9. For example claims that worker owned cooperatives are capitalist and therefore should be opposed, regards the single environmental variable of private property as the defining characteristic of objects & relationships instead of how they relate to reproducing or reducing capitalism.
10 To take my position (?) to the extreme logical conclusion even capitalist subjectivities are capable of subverting capitalism, e.g. Facebook collecting data and selling it can move people to decentralized communist-esque social networks.
11 Therefore: the inactive (?) position of insurrectionists falls between reproducing and eroding capitalism.
12. therefore, it is perhaps the weakest anti-capitalist position one can take because its neutral position against capitalism does nothing to reduce it.
On the contrary. Hardly neutral because oppositional to everything social. Must it be neutral? How did you get there?
I don’t take issue with
1. Subjectivities are only altered objectivities. Objects are always prior and unique; they become capitalized upon, and they hardly consent, but are coerced into the capitalist apparatus.
I don’t know if I take issue with 2
2. These subjectivities are not characterized or determined by single environmental variables unique to space & time, (like private property)
because it seems to me that the previous attempt at clarity is muddled. (You say ‘a single environmental variable, in this case private property, does not determine the nature of an object or a subject’ for if a single environmental variable did determine a nature, ‘objects and relations would be specific to time & place’ and therefore not capable of emerging unless every single variable was identical. Two objections. Subjects are specific to time and place, ideologies and rules. If property is included in the rules of ones being--as in how one is to EXIST in society, it seems we have a single environmental factor. In this we make ourselves each others property. Second, it is not clear that everything being identical precipitates the conditions for emergence because neither emergence, nor identity in this context makes sense. If everything is identical during emergence nothing could be perceived to have emerged.)

3. Subjectivities are determined by their relationship to other objects/subjects in society. (See 1)
4. therefore (?), ‘the claim that capitalism has created capitalist objects is false, it has only altered objects into capitalist subjectivities, and even that is misleading.
5. Claiming that everything (social) is a capitalist subject misleads one to believe that all (social) objects & relationships are primarily capitalist. (This is only a problem if you make a strict definition of capitalism in opposition to communism. Communism depends on my being willing to compromise with folks in society: on my being, being someone elses to dictate. I order my desires according to mass society. Society and Capital go hand in hand because in society I am not my own. But not everything is society; it is just the ontology of the city)
6. ‘Objects & relationships that have become (capitalist) subjectivites fall on a continuum & are best characterized by their relationship to capitalism’; ‘they can only be accurately characterized by whether they reproduce capitalism or function to reduce capitalist subjectivites.
This is a premise from out of field. You haven’t argued this point. It is not clear what makes a capitalist subjectivity? It is also not clear why everything in society has become everything there is. It is not clear that one is necessarily a capitalist subjectivity, or that one only operates as such. The claim is that one does if one is reformist.

I find that this is responding to an idea which is more of a straw man of a nihilist position. If insurrectionists say stuff like this, it's because of a nihilist influence.

The crux of this essay, or the stronger points of this essay that is, could be summarized thusly:

Reality is not capitalist. Communism is possible at all times. What is needed is a decision: how will this civilization be undone? What tools will we use to do it?

Then how do you explain the idea that only attack will work? Won't nihilist believe this is also useless? The totality therefore only attack argument can't be nihilist bc nihilist would also see attack as useless, it has to be a bulls hit argument specific to insurrectionist to excuse their poser ass politics

You sound like a negation of a negation of a negation of a negation...

(Vote KoA best commenter in 2015!)

ultimately pointless for everyone (it would seem) but useful to make space for oneself in the present. Passive nihilism suggests that since there is no point, one might as well remain complicit and consume. Active nihilism predicts that there is value in destruction because it yields qualitative living, whatever to the glorious afterlife/post-rev.

Why are these (insurrection and nihilist) distinct? Why is insurrection not necessarily nihilist? Are the two so easy to distinguish? Is it helpful to do so?

Nihilism has a lot of play and possibility. It quickly lines up with insurrection. There is no need to disarm either concept; there is no need to distinguish them. The author clearly has a weird audience in mind.

Why shouldn't nihilism just mean nothing, and so, the total negation of all. Or, if you prefer, the negation of all claimed to be meaninglessness. I think nihilism gives an extra push to creative destruction.

Because insurrectionaries are vanguardists by any other name and nihilists are entirely ineffective douchebags whose position begins and ends at "against" on every issue and whose praxis never begins in the first place.

lol sounds like someone is buttmad that their little article isn't being taken seriously.

Actually I didnt write or read the article but I am sure it is stupid. I dont need to read it to say what I know from experience: insurrectionaries are pitifully optimistic self loathing activists and nihilists are sad dorks who have nothing to say and less to do. In america at least.

what about the russian nihilists? See attentat: the black banner.

I meant in America today, where nihilism is one more throw away identity for people who like to read fanzines and pseudo academic dribbling like attentat.

use what you can. the black banner is lovely

What do you mean weird audience? The intended audience is anarchists

come on communism doesn't involve capital? The first distinction is pretty poor; prolly for anarcho-syndicalists or @communists. WEirdos! I agre though. Since the only real anarchism is anarcho-syndicalism, it is obvious that the weird predicate is misplaced.

I love how someone thinks they can critique Insurrectionary anarchism without even knowing anything about it.

Full LOLz

tiqqun on acid?! That's all I've got!

Actually, the real author is Mark Rubio. It's funny cuz his first name could just be a regular non proper noun, a noun as such or you could say a noun proper :P

"capitalism does not create specific objects but simply alters them into being specific subjects"

Actually, capitalism DID create online mapping and Facebook. Hell, it, along with an integrated, massive state mechanism, created the very possibility of "online." Capitalism didnt pick these things up along the roadside like a virgin forest or some iron ore--they are the direct products of specific needs and functions within this large network of structures and interests (which, as one commenter already pointed out, ought to be understood in a much broader sense than just 'capitalism'). With the two examples chosen by the author, this should be more than obvious. The proposal that we might use certain aspects of this world against itself is equally obvious, but its only really useful taken on a case by case basis. We cant state as one giant abstraction that, because word of the anti cop riot spread via FB for example, that then means workers coops producing for a capitalist market are a good strategy for destroying capitalism.

Part of the value of having this more totalizing critique of the world we live in--which the author seems to project only onto insurrectionary tendencies, like a hastily printed dissertation thesis placed at the foot of a smirking straw man, when it really should just be a helpful addition to general anarchist thought--is precisely to understand how things that many people find banal or normal, like census data or urban planning or marriage or whatever, all emerged in precise contexts serving certain functions for the systems we despise. The question of whether or not a post-rev world would have maps or the internet or long-term romantic coupling is irrelevant to this observation.

The reason this is important is precisely to arm us with a better understanding of how things that seem like answers from within this world, for example the authors workers' coop built from within the capitalist economy, typically end up reinforcing and reproducing the social relationships of capitalism. Not coincidentally, this theoretical or analytical basis intersects quite well with many of our direct lived experiences of such proposed "alternatives" built "in the shell of the old." It also deals earnestly with bigger questions, like explaining the role of the Left and its institutions in a world that continues to explode even as it becomes clear that social democracy will remain an elusive phantom from the past, never to return. The politics of people like this author have had no answer for this contemporary situation, and so they have been casually discarded.

Again, the point of this deeper critique of "the totality" or whatever we may call it, is not to arrive at despair, or inactivity, as this author suggests, but to honestly interrogate what a deeper rupture looks and feels like, that which is truly more difficult or impossible to subsume within the logic of capital and the state. As anarchists we reject various reforms and attempts at alternatives not because we fatalistically believe it impossible to develop subversive social relationships while living in this world, but because the reforms and alternatives proposed by such an author are recuperative. We understand the necessity of focusing on an insurrectionary break because any attempt to have liberating social relationships disconnected from the project of destruction is a dead in the water project, in which those relationships will lose their substance; we want communism as it is an immediate expression of these relationships in their best form; we see this is both an individualistic and social project beecause we are complicated, weird, contradictory, paradoxical, and dynamic creatures.

If u paid attention you would have realized objects and relations are not specific to capitalism. Just because they have emerged in our context does not mean they cannot exist and emerge alone in a communist anarchist society.

of course theyre not...but the commenter points out correctly that the author presents facebook and online mapping as things not created by capitalism, which is patently false.

No that's not correct. Author says social networks and mapping apps aren't objects created by capitalism, they are objects that can exist and be created in any system, Facebook and Google maps are subjectivity e's created by capitalism which are alterations of the objects.

New commenter here.

"social networks and mapping apps... are objects that can exist and be created in any system"

That's the problem with this analysis. It attempts to conceive of objects (it would be better to say "functions") ahistorically. On the contrary, to defend social networks and mapping apps TODAY, IN THIS CONTEXT, has the effect of defending the historical notions of efficacy and priority imposed by our present capitalist context. Certainly, we need to work out what we can do today that will equip us to fight harder (Tiqqun has pointed to this, though their French social democratic setting makes them much too optimistic about what are effectively DIY business ventures, whatever rhetoric they are dressed in)--but that's very much distinct from defending the good name of current technologies.

And I say this despite my full agreement with the author that the nihilist position (which s/he wrongly calls "insurrectionist") is useless on account of being overly reductive.

There is not totality is something my insurrectionist communards always say to me...so...idk if this is like...really a critique of anarcho-insurrection...i mean like if some workerist wrote this you should like read malatesta...or something.

I appreciate your effort to engage in critique, but if you actually want to demolish this "insurrectionist" position, you'll have to dig deeper. Honestly, this stuff about totality is often from Marx, Lukacs, Debord and (in a very different vein) Foucault. Dispute "History and Class Consciousness," and then you'll have the tools to criticize the categories underlying "totality."

the concepts of totality and capitalism are Marxist-Hegelian ones.

Yes but the totality therefore only insurrection works isnt. Marx said it was possible to end capitalism via parliament

Indeed they did. What a champ, huh?

Yes, and not all insurrectionists, like others have said, have or do use the language of totality (or the "existent" as that god awful "At dagger drawn" zine calls it...) ... mostly it's the "hipster Marxists"/ structuralist insurrectionists / negative (trans)feminists etc that do so.

a lot of primitivists do as well - as is not surprising, as they are for the most part heavily influenced by Marixsm, romanticism, Frankfurt school... look at all the marcuse and adorno quotes in papa zerzan's snoozefeasts... kevin tucker too, wrote an essay "what is the totality" or something. "civilization"

tiqquin's concept of empire sometimes is used this way, in their texts and by others, as the totality, and they employ the concept of totality in other forms as well, but empire can and be used in others way as well, to the point where I wouldn't conflate the two ideas... not that they aren't other stupid things about the idea of empire.

I think ppl r misreading this piece. This a critique of totality therefore only insurrectionist logic - it is critique of totality but more a critique of the misuse of the term by smashy smashy posers.

the article sucked. i'm trying to make some good trollery come out of it by critiquing not only the "misuse" of the term totality to imply one must total destroy, as you say, but the use of the term at all.

marx wanted revolution not insurrection
there's a difference

um. for the hell of it - ill bite - a non marxist anarchist of the insurrectionary and communist persuasion here....and id absolutely love to see a revolution. insurrection makes sense, semantically, as something to orient ourselves towards, referencing a more specific opening move on a playing field that might lead towards something revolutionary. Im tired and not being articulate. but the two arent counterposed - thats ridiculous. (an example perhaps: thousands build barricades in a metropolis, fight the police, and beging expropriating capitalist property - an insurrection. Their struggle deepens and spreads further, the state collapses and efforts to prevent its reformation succeed, social relationship around everything from production to reproduction radically change, and all of society in a territory or area looks totally different - a social revolution. If one DID want to counterpose an anarchist (whether or IA , nihlist, collectivist, communist or whatever) vision of revolution with a marxist one, the emphasis would be on the social revolution vs. the political one. That is historically where the substantive disagreement has taken place, backed up by practical, fundamentally different approaches on the ground.)

just sayin

>>40831

>Yes, and not all insurrectionists, like others have said, have or do use the language of totality (or the "existent" as that god awful "At dagger drawn" zine calls it...)

Huh? Aren't you taking the existent too... literally

At Daggers Drawn with the Existent, its Defenders and its False Critics

Eye I wouldn't say they used the existent as synonymous with `totality'. English `totality' might have been sugested as an alternative to words like `everything' so as not to recourse to `things' in english speech, but it may even be that `totality' is given by the linguistic patterns of `things', and in linguistic patterns without exactly `things', you wouldn't have `totality' either.

Also,

Shuzan Oshõ held up his shippei [staff of office] before his disciples and said, "You monks! If you call this a shippei, you oppose its reality.
If you do not call it a shippei, you ignore the fact.
Tell me, you monks, what will you call it?"

Nihilists = everything is pointless. Insurrectionist = everything but attack is useless.

except no
but you saying that makes a lot of them want to say yes

This is a critique of the coming insurrect in / theory of the young girl

1) There are some nihilists/insurrectionists/ nihilist insurrectionists who think everything except "negation" is pointless because "power" is all encompassing. black and pink attack, nihilistic "anti-opression" activists (gender must be destroyed, race must be destroyed), bash back, gender mutinty, and negativistic commuization theorists. i find these peeps to be jokes most of the time, and basically the equilvent to radfems oftentimes...

2) there are others who think all is "pointless", and attack is merely a personal pleasure.

3) and then there are those, often times who who forgo the word insurrectionist all together, who distance themselves from the entire problematic of "point" "power" and "totality"

4) then there are those insurrectionists (often times they have a problem with nihilism, seeing it as unproductive, reductive, or passive) who remove themselves from the question of totality, without doing the same for the ideas of "power" "resistance" "revolution" "insurrection" "point" and "change". this post-structuralism leads to a sort of disgusting activism and those of us who detest the the concept of totality must make our attacks broader, attack the entire field of thought, to avoid empowering these activists...

see "Reality is not capitalist. Communism is possible at all times. What is needed is a decision: how will this civilization be undone? What tools will we use to do it?"

gross. an activism based on the continental theories of the decision "(carl schmitt, walter benjamin, agamben) and the encounter, the event (louis a, badiou, derrida in some places, zizek, jean luc nancy, tiqquin)

I dig Agamben and his intepretations of Carl Schmitt a lot and i am not an insurrectionist. But in fact the criticism that Toni Negri has directed to Agamben i tend to agree. He said that:

"A second major stream, which centers on the interpretation of
Giorgio Agamben (and emerges to some extent from the work of
Jacques Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy), accepts that biopolitics is an
ambiguous and conflictive terrain but sees resistance acting only at
its most extreme limit, on the margins of a totalitarian form of power, on the brink o f impossibility. Here such authors could easily
be interpreting the famous lines from Holderlin's poem "Patmos":
"Wo aber Gefahr ist, wachst / Das Rettende auch" (Where there is
danger, / The rescue grows as well). This stream of interpretation
thus does to a certain extent distinguish biopolitics from biopower
but leaves biopolitics powerless and without subjectivity.These authors
seek in Foucault a definition o f biopolitics that strips it o f every
possibility o f autonomous, creative action, but really they fall
back on Heidegger in these points o f the analysis to negate any
constructive capacity of biopolitical resistance. Agamben transposes
biopolitics in a theological-political key, claiming that the only possibility
o f rupture with biopower resides in "inoperative" activity
(inoperosita), a blank refusal that recalls Heidegger's notion o f Gelassenheit,
completely incapable of constructing an alternative."

As an alternative Negri proposes this reading of biopolitics:

"None of these interpretations captures what for us is most i m portant
in Foucault's notion o f biopolitics. Our reading not only
identifies biopolitics w i th the localized productive powers of life—
that is, the production o f affects and languages through social cooperation
and the interaction of bodies and desires, the invention of
new forms of the relation to the self and others, and so forth—but
also affirms biopolitics as the creation of new subjectivities that are
presented at once as resistance and de-subjectification. If we remain
too closely tied to a philological analysis of Foucault s texts, we
might miss this central point: his analyses of biopower are aimed
not merely at an empirical description o f how power works for and
through subjects but also at the potential for the production of alternative
subjectivities, thus designating a distinction between qualitatively
different forms of power. This point is implicit in Foucault's
claim that freedom and resistance are necessary preconditions for
the exercise of power. "When one defines the exercise of power as a
mode of action upon the actions o f others, when one characterizes
these actions by the government of men by other men—in the
broadest sense of the term—one includes an important element:
freedom. Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar
as they are free.... At the very heart of the power relationship, and
constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will and the i n transigence
of freedom."7 2 Biopolitics appears i n this light as an
event or, really, as a tightly woven fabric of events o f freedom.
Biopolitics, i n contrast to biopower, has the character of an
event first o f all in the sense that the "intransigence of freedom" disrupts
the normative system.The biopolitical event comes from the
outside insofar as it ruptures the continuity o f history and the existing
order, but it should be understood not only negatively, as rupture,
but also as innovation, which emerges, so to speak, from the
inside. Foucault grasps the creative character of the event in his earlier
work on linguistics: la parole intervenes in and disrupts la langue
as an event that also extends beyond it as a moment of linguistic invention."

Negri and Hardt. "Commonwealth" pgs. 58-59

Agamben, nice philospher. Yet in the end if you follow him up to a certain point you will only end up either bored or committing suicide.

negri understanding of biopolitics is so interesting, cause they claim merely to be quoting focault but i think negri is aware on some level that is not the case...

like negri distinguishes biopower and biopolitics and sez this is how m.f does it, when with foucault, what foucault "actually sez is 1) the split is between biopolitics and the disciplines, both which are forms of BIOPOWER, the macro and micro to be simplistic and 2) biopower is always bad, which implies obviously that biopolitics, being a form of biopower, is always bad...

the game that negri plays becomes much trickier and a bit nefarious when looked at that from that perspective...

also: i'm not trying to shit on you too hard, but given what you're quoting and how you're talking,i think you definitly haven't read any foucault, at least not history of sexuality or discpline and punish, and probably not much agamben either...

obviously biopolitics still gives rise to resistance and it a terrain upon which combat or innovation occur, according to that foucault - i mean "Bad" as in, once again according to foucault, it is something that must always be opposed or never utilized, even if revolt happens "within" it, using to a certain extent the terms and conditions...

neither biopower or sovereignty but a tactical reversal of the mechanisms of sexuality - a creation of new bodies and pleasures...

(but foucault can suck my clit, so yeah...)

yeah. then as far as biopolitcs i declare myself negrist and unfoucaultian and unagambenian

negri tries to make it an inside/outside issue, like there's 'wiggle room' when there is no inside and outside in fact, ie agamben and foucault are right

Agamben did first-rate work on his elaboration of the State of exception,
that the entire course of 20th century "progress"(influenced by Walter Benjamin)
he takes as the progressive striping down of the individual to his
bare-ness of abject helpless exposure , as homo sacer, by the Power structure.
This used to be reserved for "exceptional" situations such as the ww2 concentration camps,
but the ever-growing technical competence of the Sur-veillance State's Biopower
is leading us more and more to to what I now call: the "catastrophe of everyday life".
Foucault's Micro/ biopolitics, Agamben's elaboration of zoe, the molecular politics
of Delueze and Guattari all lead , if you think about it, to the Hardt/Negri concept of
the multitude . they all interweave with each other. Not an either or,
situation ; with instead an and… and… and… so that
Especially using the concepts of D& G's post structural rhizomatics lead us to a "all for one and one for
all " 21st Century praxis. The abomination recently in Durham , then last week in Albuquerque ,
and tonight in Denver are indications of the where it is all heading.
Decolonizing and multiplying are one and the same process: be-coming those that we want to- be , dis-closing truth to Power,
and finally, going to where we want to go .now, of course: the when.
these theorists and many others not mentioned here, are all first rate. I am proud of them. they are an inspiration to us.
now as you know, the rest of the story is to unfold.

oh and 5) those who find all to be pointless, and find attack to be personally digusting or unnerving, impossible as anything but activism, always motivated by a desire for power, or worse then doing nothing.

see nihilistic communism, monisuer dupont.

so: there is not one insurrection, there is not one nihilism. ah the pleasures of organization and classification, of delineation and citation, theoretical cartography me amour, what an intellectual delight - a rigidity, a firmness, a sort of erect turgidity! :D :D :D!!!

Each of these tendencies has between 1 and 5 adherents and they all lead sad lives for various reasons. Mostly because they have not read Stirner close enough so they dont know about owning away the spooks.

Capitalism is really just become a placemarker for human evil. Is human evil total and unescapable? That is what we are really asking.

When I read a comment like this I just fart.

Oh, you must be a real nihilist then. The kind who smells like bad farts. Because the real nihilists arent the ones who attack 'the system', which is indeed merely human evil in play, they are the ones who completely evade this question and behave as if full communism or whatever can be had by simply changing one world system for another. This is also the main difference between marxists and anarchists. This question is the main theme of anarchism-beginning w Stirner/Nietzsche...

The question of "evil" is the "main difference between marxists and anarchists" and the "main theme of anarchism" beginning with "Stiner/Nietzsche"....

Your posting is itself much like a fart. Hot air, brief and ugly, unwanted, stinky. Literally nothing you posted here makes sense at all. I don't think you have understood evil, marxism, anarchists, anarchism, Stirner, or Nietzsche in the least. You do have a good list of things to go look up at the library, though, so don't despair.

Clearly the author of this article is pointin to the effects of staying withing a merely negative worldview without affirming anything and with a mentality only for "destruction". A mentality to "break stuff".

As such the great individualist anarchist Emile Armand called for building "camaraderie amorouse" and also dedicated an entire book on utopian and intentional communities from the past. Following Armand and others spanish individualist anarchist did precisely this and also published newspapers and magazines which ended being read by CNT workers and peasants as well as maintaining "atenoeso libertarios" or as they also call them "infoshops" participating in rural communes. Read Xavier Diez. El anarquismo individualista en España (1923-1938).
http://www.viruseditorial.net/pdf/anarquismo%20individualista.pdf In the end spanish individualist anarchists emphasized propaganda, thought and building what Hakim Beys called Temporary Autonomous Zones.

The individualist anarchism that the riot porn publications and collectives sell is a mutilated punk rock version who dreams of one day being real illegalists such as the Bande de Bonnot or Horst Fantazzinni. Since american insurrectionists haven´t had the courage to really be insurrectionists/illegalists in the Fantazzinni/banda de bonnot way they end up only doing small acts of vandalism and pass them as "insurrection" and in this way not even understanding properly the stirnerist concept of insurrection which clearly is not about just "breaking stuff". Stirnerist insurrections should lead to building "unions of egoists" and higer levels of creative self affirmation, not just staying on mere insurrection.

And now of course i also will want to distance myself from the closet leninists, the platformists who want to build parties and build bolchevik revolutions. In the end both insurrectionists and platformists fetishize revolution and insurrection

I was excited about reading this based on the title and then I read it. Facebook and google, seriously?

Your comment makes no sense. They are examples.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
B
i
q
P
b
n
U
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Totality Is Not Total - A Critique of Insurrectionist Logic "