Raoul Vaneigem's Autobiography

  • Posted on: 24 January 2015
  • By: worker

From Not Bored

To date, though there have been dozens of detailed histories written about the development of the Situationist International (the “SI”), which went through three overlapping phases between 1957 and 1972, none of them were written by a former member. Furthermore, none of the historians of the SI have been personally acquainted with the most important situationists (Michèle Bernstein, Guy Debord, Asger Jorn, Mustapha Khayati, René Viénet and Raoul Vaneigem), and so they weren’t able to offer accurate portraits of what these semi-legendary revolutionaries were like as people.

Always the exception, Guy Debord – the only co-founder of the organization still a member of it when it disbanded – commented often and extensively about certain moments in the SI’s history (cf. “Notes to serve towards the history of the SI from 1969 to 1971”) and told his readers a good deal about what he himself was like (cf. Panegyric). And so, for a great many years, those who are interested in the situationists as both historical actors and as people have really only been acquainted with Debord and Debord’s evaluations of the others, about whom we’ve known little or nothing other than what Debord himself said about them. Almost unavoidably, Debord has become the face of the SI and the SI has been semi-successfully presented as just one of Debord’s many artistic creations.

With the very recent arrival of what amounts to Raoul Vaneigem’s autobiography – Rien n’est fini, tout commence (“Nothing has ended, everything begins”), published by Editions Allia in October 2014 – all this will have to change. Thanks to Vaneigem, who has given a few interviews before, but has never spoken at such great length about the SI or such “personal” subjects as his parents, his ex-wife, his alcoholism, and so forth, readers can now not only get a sense of what he’s like as a person, but Debord, Bernstein, Khayati and Viénet, as well.

In its original form, this book is credited to both Raoul Vaneigem and Gérard Berréby, who put it together “with the help of Sébastien Coffy and Fabienne Lesage.” Indeed, Rien n’est fini presents itself as a kind of collaboration between Vaneigem and Berréby, as if the two men were equals with respect to the subject at hand. In addition to asking Vaneigem questions and recording and transcribing his answers, Berréby speaks about his own life and opines on a large number of subjects; he footnotes his own remarks (as well as those of Vaneigem); and he adds a large number of photographs and supplementary texts, some of them by Vaneigem himself or others members of the SI, others by people who were close to the situs but not members of the organization (Pierre Lotrous, Jacques Le Glou, Yves Raynaud, Clairette Schock, and Thèrése Dubrule, aka the former Mrs. Raoul Vaneigem), and still others by authors who weren’t situationists and sometimes had little or no relevance to them. As a result, Rien n’est fini ends up being 393 pages long, with every page and every margin stuffed with something.

And yet, despite this great length, density and apparent comprehensiveness, the book’s chronology stops in the mid-1970s, even though Vaneigem wrote and published the vast majority of his 25-odd books since the 1990s. Furthermore, the book lacks most of the standard or traditional elements: there’s no preface, no bibliography and no index. In short, Rien n’est fini is a deformed creation – deformed by the ego of Gérard Berréby, who, it would seem, is ready to rest on his laurels for having published 15 situationist-related titles (as well as dozens of others) over the course of the last 30 years.

My translation tries to ameliorate this deformity. On the one hand, I have removed – that is to say, I have declined to translate – everything that is not relevant to Raoul Vaneigem himself and/or the SI as a whole. Here the reader should not worry: there were no gray areas; no texts that I had reservations about deleting. (As for the texts by the other situationists, they, too, have been translated, but have been posted as separate texts on the NOT BORED! website. Via hypertext links, my footnotes point the reader towards these texts at appropriate moments in the interview.) On the other hand, I have provided an index, a bibliography and this preface. As a result, Vaneigem: Self-Portraits and Caricatures of the Situationist International is shorter, leaner and easier to use than Rien n’est fini.

I’m sorry to say that, despite these improvements, this remains a deformed work, precisely because Vaneigem’s own testimony runs in two different directions. On the one hand, as he recounts his life from his childhood to his decision to join in the SI in 1961 and beyond (as late as 1967, when the book for which he is best known, Traité de savoir-vivre à l’usage des jeunes generations, was published), he is focused, perceptive, interesting and informative, and solidly in favor and proud of what the SI said and did while he was a member of it. But on the other hand, when the chronology crosses 1967 into 1968, he goes back over this same ground and – in remarks that sometimes seem distracted, shallow, tedious and politically correct – condemns not only particular texts (the denunciation of Henri Lefebvre in 1963, the illustrations for “España en el corazón” in 1964, and even the Traité itself, which was completed in 1965), but also the situationist movement as a whole, which he alleges, fell victim to the ideology of “situationism” as early as 1963.

At the end of this rather peculiar, contradictory back and forth, all that is left is Vaneigem himself and the promises that he made to himself “with an unshakeable conviction” when he resigned from the SI in November 1970: “Never again in a group, never again in a community. I will pursue my work alone”; “I focus on individual autonomy, on the creativity of each person.” For his part, Gérard Berréby agrees with the appropriateness of this simultaneous rejection of “community” and embrace of the autonomous “individual” as a strategy. The last lines of his interview with Frédérque Roussel, published by Libération on 1 October 2014, are, “For me, there is no other outcome than an individual solution, which will go against all that these movements have developed. In these times, one only thinks of the collective.”

But the people who are interested in Vaneigem and his books today are interested in him and them because he was a situationist (indeed, one of the most important ones). Generally speaking – and the decision to end the chronology in the 1970s supports the assertion that – people are not particularly interested in what Vaneigem has done on his own since then (even though a couple of his books from the 1980s and 1990s are as good as, if not better than, the texts he published in the 1960s).

And so, to ameliorate the various deformities within Vaneigem’s testimony – his patent rejection of the SI post-1963 and his concomitant rejection of collective engagement as such – I have used dozens of “translator’s notes” to show what unstunted growth might have looked like (especially during and after 1967). I have also used these footnotes to provide directly relevant, accurate and useful information; to clear up or point out potential ambiguities; and to indicate some of what Vaneigem has accomplished since the 1970s.

As a result of all this meddling, this book isn’t so much my translation of Rien n’est fini into English, but a détournement of it. To paraphrase Lautréamont’s Poésies (and Thesis 207 of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle), I have held tightly to the text of Rien n’est fini, used its expressions, erased its false ideas, and replaced them with the correct ones. The final result has been called Self-Portraits and Caricatures because that is exactly what Vaneigem offers in it: portraits of himself and caricatures of the others.

http://www.notbored.org/caricatures.pdf

category: 

Comments

"The eyes made for the love of loving
Are the reflection of a world of objects.
Without dreams, without reality
To the images we are condemned"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utNyayqDzpQ

"Burn, lairs of priests,
Nests of merchants, of cops,
Brûlez, repaires de curés,
From the wind that seeds the storm
The days of partying are harvested"

from Vaneigem's song "La vie s'écoule"

"Directed at us, the guns.
Against the leaders, they will be turned back"
No more rulers, no more State
To profit from our struggles"

"I put that brick in yo' face.
Now watcha gon' do wit it?
Now watcha gon' do wit it?
Betta have my money before I come to collect.
Betta have my money before I come to collect.
Pay up pay up pay up."

True revolutionary from Miami bruh

Yall gotta watch this video. It's hilar
http://youtu.be/XtW6HW8jO_U

Where were you last year when this was still funny?

Going to the school for the uncool.
Broseph.

Yeah, you should try being cool like me

you a scared motherfucker go to church
you a gutter motherfucker do your dirt
you down motherfucker put in work
you a crazy motherfucker go bezerk

you scared motherfucker you scared
you scared motherfucker you scared

Old revolutionaries don't die, they just become contradictory before fading away.

These men knew noting about dragging paper boxes into the street!

And Vaneigem was not much of a revolutionary.

Signed, Kevin Keating

Maybe I've got this wrong but having just glanced at this version of Vaneigem's book, I notice that he doesn't seem to mention his best, in my opinion, book since leaving the SI: A cavalier history of surrealism, probably because he claimed not to think much of it himself when it was published about 5 years after he wrote it. It's available here: http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/postsi/cavalier00.html and is an excellent critique of art. But I imagine by the time he wrote it he was probably moving around in circles that wouldn't have appreciated such a contribution to the subversion of art. Of course, not knowing him, this is pure speculation, but I can't see why he would be so dismissive of this really good read.

Having said all that, whenever I read something from BillNotBored's obsessive one-track pro-situ mind, I reach for this quote from Denevert (written over 40 years ago):

The organized theoretical effort (the most advanced since Marx) carried out by the members of the Situationist International has not only burned itself out, it seems content to accept a place among the curiosities in the museum of revolutionary history. Rather than trying to get back on its feet, this fallen theoretical dragon prefers to pride itself on the still-impressive reverberations from its past exploits — exploits that are becoming distant enough to take on a comfortingly legendary character.

The misadventures of the situationists’ theory and those to which comparable movements of revolutionary intellectuals in the past succumbed are finally reunited in the very nature of their failures. Just as with Marxist thought and other later efforts to develop a revolutionary critique, all the achievements of the real situationist theoretico-practical effort ended up undergoing a total inversion of their meaning. They now constitute nothing more than one particular form of cultural verbiage within the general pseudocommunication imposed by existing conditions, a pseudocommunication that is as prevalent among those who revolt against those conditions as among those who accept them.

The real situationist spirit, the spirit that (to those capable of grasping undertakings of this order) was so clearly at the origin of the situationist adventure, no longer has any choice but to turn without mercy against the edifice of its own petrified theory, against its entire past and its former values, or else be swept from the revolutionary battlefield as a source of useless and antiquated verbosity.

From now on no new development of revolutionary thought will be possible unless the situationist critical power is applied not only to the old SI organization but to situationist theory itself. The project of developing a theory of combat that contains its own critique must be taken up again from scratch.

To accomplish this, the situationists’ theory must no longer be judged on the terrain where it wants to be judged, namely on its theoretical intentions, its scientific validity, its program, etc. To hesitate to go beyond this terrain and make a more vital critique — whether out of some unwarranted concern for intellectual objectivity or out of respect, because so far no one else has done any better (1917 Russia didn’t come up with any theory better than Lenin’s) — would at best amount to assuming the drawbacks of a disembodied orthodoxy à la Korsch or the sort of illusion characteristic of Lukács. If the situationists’ theory still directly interests the revolutionary movement, it is as an object-lesson of what such a theory could become: one more ideology of revolution, one more system of representation expressing something other than what it intends and serving ends other than its explicit ends.

from here: http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/misery.htm

But I guess this obsession of BillNotBored is an improvement on the obsession he had back in the early 1990s that managed to get him arrested....

Yeah man.
Wait, tell me more about bill, always wondered what his deal was.

Did he get arrested for doing some illegal grain elevator shit? Please tell me there's a juicy grain elevator scandal here.

He got busted harrassing women anonymously over the phone. He was one of those "creepy breather no talking" repeat callers.

big fucking deal, getting outraged over pranks

Silly really - shouldn't have hinted at gossip/scandal - really shouldn't have mentioned this (or rather half-mentioned it), since it just ends up in pointless speculation, but I guessed it would put him off responding, which is what I wanted.

So, Bill NotBored - if you haven't retreated under the covers of your bed for a few weeks and actually manage to pluck up the nerve to read this, don't worry - your 20 year old secret is safe........Probably....But I suggest you start thinking of doing something better than being a curator of a museum. Being dominated by the past can take many forms. But only contributing to present struggles begins to overcome the nightmarish weight of this past.

Stop acting like a child Bill! You are an old pompous windbag! Like the dude said, actually participate with everyone instead of acting like you are separated from everyone. You might not be an academic, but your standoffish overinflated sense of self, your narcissism transforms you into the very enemy you wish to destroy. The fake situationism, the one focused on inane nonsense and not revolution, you are a participant in today!

You used to rail against situationism and the post-situationists, their ignorance of the S.I. and so on. Today, your over-focus has become mere trivia! You are the Alex Trebek of the S.I.! We've always noticed this about you which is why we've always held back from embracing your ideas. You can't even get anyone to test your ideas out anymore! So old and uncompromising. So friendless that you pile over old texts remembering when you were punk rock. So perverted you can't be allowed around other people's children. Get over yourself, nobody cares about this dumb shit.

How's the mobile ice cream parlor business goin', Hakim? We didn't hear about your pedo antics for a while...

Not really my thing, but whatever. Don't have an ice cream parlor, but I do participate as a director of the local high school play. Some of the boys are really good actors. I hope to groom them towards joining me in Moorish Science. One of them is real pretty. My love is poetic terror to you.

I threw up in my mouth a bit … it was just coffee and bile. Acid reflux.

What about your nightmarish battle with gravity? You gonna throw newspaper boxes onto the street?

"... they weren’t able to offer accurate portraits of what these semi-legendary revolutionaries were like as people."

I was in Spain for eleven weeks last spring and early summer. Through a friend of a friend I was put in contact with an excellent guy, a retired Barcelona port employee, and without knowing me from Adam this fellow very graciously and generously had me as a guest in his home in Poublenou for seven weeks.

During the earlier part of my visit Raoul Vaneigem was also staying there. My knees weren't knocking with awe at the thought of meeting this "semi-legendary" fellow. The little I'd read of 'The Revolution of Everyday Life' struck me as Viagra for trustifarians and the people in the S.I. who I felt were on a more useful track were Debord and Reisel, but, here's the great Vaneigem at the breakfast table in front of me, so why not chat and see if we are on the same page.

My attempt at a political discussion did not go well -- admittedly this happens frequently. At one point discussing Spanish anarchism I used the phrase libertarian communism, and the venerable Vaneigem went into high dudgeon. Vaneigem insisted that the Spanish anarchists never used this term; why, I do believe that 'comunismo libertaria' is that exact phrase and you'll find that used plenty. Vaneigem went on to make it clear that to him communism was that stuff they used to have in Russia, and that libertarian always meant the right-wing rampant market kind. These was the most minor of minor points but with him displaying such astounding expertise and ignorance I didn't pursue the matter. I was a guest in the home of someone who didn't know me, I've been in a phenomenal number of pointless political quarrels going back more than forty years, and I had no need to get into a thumb-wresting match with an infirm septuagenarian, whose specific contribution to the Situationist project has never appealed to me anyway.

During the next week and a half or so, Vaneigem was accompanied by a small supportive retinue as he made public presentations about a small book he'd recently gotten published at self-managed social centers around Barcelona; in Sants, in Poble Sec, and at the big one that dates back to the late 19th century in Poblenou. My Spanish is terrible and my French is worse, but from thirty years of parsing ultra-left and anarchist texts in both languages I can more or less follow the bouncing ball in political discussions if I can grab hold of a verb. Unless I am more mistaken than I think I am, Vaneigem's presentations were all along the lines of harmless wool-gathering utopianism; there were nothing, or at least nothing much, pertaining to contemporary real-world social struggles, how they are emerging, or why they are not emerging, and of tactics that enemies of the global capitalist order can use now.

Some of Vaneigem's retinue also crashed in the Barcelona comrade's place. They included Vaneigem's ex-wife, who I believe had two sons with Raoul. She's a sixty-something grumpy French lady who is actually quite a nice person once you get past her grumpy-French-lady exterior. Also Vaneigem's twenty-something Greek girlfriend. If this woman has a single idea that is hers and not Vaneigem's she was doing an excellent job of concealing it. Others who hung around included a stereotypical rude Frenchman named Mark. Mark wears a costume that is a combination of the ones worn by Batman and Count Dracula, and he gets his hair done at the same styling salon as the evil bikers in 'The Road Warrior.' If Mark would just lose the hair he'd be the hands-down winner of the Michel Foucault look-alike-contest at SF's Folsom Street Fair. Also a dude named Sergio, who is Ambrose Bierce's shorter and stockier identical twin and plays a wicked gypsy folk guitar. A young woman from Paris attended the presentations by Vaneigem and performed old songs of the revolutionary movement; it was cool to wake up from a nap on a balmy afternoon in an apartment in Barcelona and hear her soaring voice singing of the Makhnovists. A couple from the middle east who appeared to be trapped in the death-grip of a secure long-term unhappy bond dutifully trudged along to every R.V. presentation. Aside from the Count Dracula/Batman costume guy, whose specific contribution to historical inaccuracies about Spanish history regarded the POUM, most of these folks were very nice people, but the general atmosphere seemed identical to what you might find among attendees at the annual San Francisco anarchist bookfair of people seeing themselves as a grave threat to the social order by simply cleaving to radical ideas rather than by consistently doing something in the world around us with those ideas. Vaneigem is a very nice person but my impression is that since the halcyon days of May '68 he has been diligently learning nothing that would make his heartfelt sentiments useful in social conflicts. Vaneigem struck me as a somewhat less foolish version of the elder Verkhovensky in Dostoyevsky's "Devils." Raoul Vaneigem is an extremely nice person, but there are a lot of extremely nice people around and being nice doesn't seem to get anyone anywhere.

The retired Barcelona port worker was by far the most interesting person in the group; he was involved in a totally off-the-rails eighteen month long dockworker's wildcat strike in the early 1980's. The stories he told of this and a hardback folio bound collection he showed me of almost twenty years worth of a Barcelona port worker's publication called 'La Estiba' were the most interesting and useful authentic subversive phenomena in evidence.

One thing Vaneigem said in his presentation at the space in Poble Sec was outstandingly stupid. He said that the only role for armed violence in a revolutionary struggle was defensive -- strictly defensive -- "to defend our spaces" was his exact wording.

I can't improve on the Daniel Denevert insights quoted above; here Denevert is spot-on. The insights of the Situationists are central to the best larger-world-around-us efforts I've been involved in. In communist subversive terms the Situationists mean everything to me. The Situationists were something new under the sun a half-century ago, but for their insights to continue to be of any use they have to be taken up by combative individuals in a context of real-world direct action social struggles. This almost never happens.

Unfortunately most of what you get with people who are big into the S.I., in my experience since the early 1980's in the English-speaking world, is passive, disengaged, extremely ardent fans of the Situationists.

Kevin Keating

I actually agree with the old fucker there Kev. If you turn things into an offensive assault via armed combat you are flirting with means-ends split instrumentality. Dupont makes the point very well that the more your revolutionary activity is structured on violence the more it will reflect and recreate the old world. Resilience is better then resistance and defending is better then attack. It's what all great martial arts understand.

Dupont also said that anarchists are only good for suicide, so fuck that reactionary naysayer, again and again and again and again.

Offensive violence can be empowering, assuming it's being carried by anybody with a proper ense of calculating the consequences.

DuPont said anarchists must say what only anarchists can say. That means suicide to you?

I've read a number of the quotes from that part of NC and even Bob Black who gave him one of his patented reviews duly noted that part of the book.

No, he did say, black on white, that anarchists are only good for suicide. Which is consistent with the rest of Dupont's badly written reactionary garbage.

Exactly! Finally someone sees it for what it is! Ugh! I hate this reactionary garbage! Always trying to speak like the system is a magical machine built to serve the working class. Yet, this machine only moves when the very last of them does, determining success or failure at the last instance. MD is a failed sociological experiment in stream lining the past.

I'm not even a fanboy of MD by any means, I think his writing is useful to a post leftist project. That you idiots are throwing about the term reactionary to describe him simply demonstrates your idiocy. I suspect that the sucide quote is decontextualized given that I have read enough of his writings to know that he simply wants anarchic thinking to be more consistently non ideological and anti org and work, things any serious post leftist can agree with.

Clearly, Dupont isn't a respected clown on this site for his "writings". And yes, his convoluted, incoherent pseudo-academic drivel is reactionary.

You are mistaken on his relevance to anarchists, as much as you are overestimating your credibility here.

so you clearly haven't read nihilist communism.

Don't know if you are referring to me or the idiot above Cli though in my case I am talking about MD and Friere as one. The meat of the writing tends to come from the latter anyway as I actually keep up with his writing. The idiot above probably isn't capable of reading him anyway. But yes they are two people and he probably hasn't read the basic stuff in NC let alone Species Being and the stuff that came afterwords.

I would love to see him define what a reactionary is in his mind.

Due to my past knowledge of some people who claimed themselves to be both nihilists and Red commies while actually being just the same old phallocratic bearbed despots with their own glossary redefining the entire universe, I'm not very tempted to read more on "nihilist" Marxism.

Nihilism is also a trendy negatively-appealing word used as passe-partout to stylistically many authoritarian tendencies and behaviors. The people on the board of Goldman Sachs or Bill Gates could effectively claim being "nihilists" as well. I'm still apprehensive by such an blurry term that can be twisted in so many ways for so many diverging interests.

Considering that he identifies with the ultra left analysis(he called him self 'left communist' on the now defunct anti-politics board). I think he likes red commies a bit more then this guy so long as the are non statist.

His view on nihilism wrong for the simple fact that nihilism can have different operatives and orientations depending on the individual from passive to active. Nihilism is not everything and as Bob Black says if you take to far then you stop half way at going beyond good and evil.

Nihilism is a pleomorphic form one must take in a world of moral-ethical mediation. It is good as a cleansing and regurgitative process and no more. What atheism was to classical religion before their ideological successors built on elective positions and proposed solutions.

Take away empathy and you have nihilism pure and simple, meaning that's nothing for nobody, a return to fundamentalist natural attrition by barn-storming sensitive environments, destroying infrastructure, and burning all computers and books. Destroying diabolical constructs is good in some cases, Dadaism destroyed the traditional perspective of 'art' as a beneficial social institution, Nietzsche destroyed the God fetish, and Baudrillard fragmented the confidence of democratic rule. These were all positive outcomes to a negative methodology.

It's high time that that mono(theist based) method religion was turned into a useful post institutional surrogate activity free from state/institutional sanctioned commissions and propaganda.

You have your method, I have mine.

You really are a pompous case aren't you? I hung out with Raoul for a couple of weeks in 2005 in Brussels, I wont go into the details as you did about how this meeting took place, I don't want to sound like a vane hipster pseudo-anarchist, but we had many conversations concerning the diffusion of power by acts of civil disobedience. I suspect Raoul wasn't flamboyant enough to find any place in your radical revolutionary membership, likewise he probably saw through your whole facade posing as an anarchist, its ironic, when I left he said in English- Farewell enigmatic esoteric anarchist and may your journey continue to be free.
Its a pity you never got to know him, his mind is multifaceted.

Defense might me the strongest position, generally, in a battle. But in a war (or contest of any kind), its commonly accepted martial art and military theory that if you never take the offensive, you never win. To use a football analogy, if you never take control of the ball and try to score, you'll never win. So we should take territory (in the broadest sense) and defend it. But we should also attack. The strongest attack move is one that shrinks the enemy's territory while expanding our own.

Yes but how do we deflate the ball so we have the advantage?

the taoist-anarchist concept of wu wei implies 'action in non-action'. attack is incorporated in defense. attack and defense are not two separate things.

“Central to Taoist teaching is the concept of wu-wei. It is often translated as merely non-action [or, 'action in non-action']. In fact there are striking philological similarities between ‘anarchism’ and ‘wu-wei‘. Just as ‘an-archos‘ in Greek means absence of a ruler, wu-wei means lack of wei, where wei refers to ‘artificial, contrived activity that interferes with natural and spontaneous development’. From a political point of view, wei refers to the imposition of authority. To do something in accordance with wu-wei is therefore considered natural; it leads to natural and spontaneous order. It has nothing to do with all forms of imposed authority.” – Peter Marshall, ‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism

One could understand it this way [not sure how Vaneigem intends it]. One should follow one's natural course; e.g. as the EZLN has done, and if one is attacked, defend oneself, and defense incorporates attack in Taoist martial art. the EZLN did not attack the Mexican government, which would have departed from wu wei. their attacking was part of their defense. furthermore, in spite of being attacked by government troops, they did not say; 'we are going to have to set aside our incubating of a bioregional anarchist community for a while, while we go on the attack against, and defeat the government troops'.

many indigenous anarchists, for example, have concluded that it is futile to pursue indigenous rights through the avenues of the colonial state, and they must turn instead to their own authentic pathways of action and struggle; i.e. through their own language, ethical framework, laws and institutions. They must transcend the structures of colonialism by "thinking, speaking, and acting with the conscious intent of regenerating one's indigeneity." In this sense, they will never be in pure 'attack mode'. They will be turning their back on the colonizing authorities and walking their own path. If the colonizers grab them from behind and command them to stop, they will be in defensive mode, but so long as they respond naturally and spontaneously [which may include attack within defense as in the martial arts], they need not depart from the principle of wu wei, 'action in non-action'.

perhaps this is the sort of 'defense' that Vaneigem is intending.

Isn't seizing and holding territory what states do or prefunctory state-like organizations like tribes do?

Even ignoring that, trying to act out such a macho bombastic armed campaign will end up really bad. Not even .5% of the world is anarchist. Anarchists generally consider anyone who claims to be an anarchist, an anarchist. Meanwhile every serious state has a rigorous selection process to train and maintain elite units of soldiers which most applicants flunk out of. Those who proceed on receive top notch training. But on the net anarchyists hype up those who can throw rocks and molotovs against police forces that as a tactic maintain the facade of liberal democracy. Deep down anarchyists don't want to see what happens if a state threatens them enough to totally dispense with pseudo-democractic processes.

Have to agree with your last point Niko. Most anarchists in north america are woefully unprepared for a real fight.

Because throwing rocks and ritual rioting is good training to actually combat police, anti-riot police(MAT) and the military when bullets fly as pretenses of liberal democracy are abandoned by a threatened capitalist order, that calls in the full force of the state!

I would love to see the face of insurrectionist mama's boys in such a scenario. Perhaps the face of their mothers, whose skirts they will hide behind will be more of a spectacle.

This is great! Will it ever be a book? Looks too long to print out. Maybe LBC will publish it. That would be great!

LBC publishing an amateur translation that admittedly took out the "false" parts and replaced them with "truth" by a Situationist fanboy.Yeah, that looks great. Definitely should hold our breath for an English release of the actual book done by a professional translator.

Yes please hold your breath until you turn blue and die you stupid hater. meanwhile someone will put this book out so people can read it. If not LBC then AK Press or whatever.

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.
CAPTCHA
Human?
8
d
f
Z
U
4
M
Enter the code without spaces.