Red is not Dead: The Resurrection of and Subsequent Take over by the Left

For starters, I am not an academic, nor a very good writer. With that in mind, I hope to minimize the amount of grammer errors, run on sentences and other issues that could distract readers from the point. The point of this writing is to uncover a leftism that calls itself anarchist, sometimes calls itself post-left, and also calls itself anti-political. But this leftism is in fact, leftist, anti-individual (anarchist) and is taking over anarchist circles with its political programs.

Am I the only one who goes to an event and sees a small group of college kids who talk about insurrection and anti-politics are having an hour long discussion on how to build communes? Am I the only one who sees these same college kids tabling Tiqqun, The Invisible Committee and acting like the new vanguard of "the revolution"? I used to hear the word "autonomy" represent individuality- individuality against external governing forces of institutional and social control. Now, I hear autonomy being used as something built hand in hand with "zones" and "communes". What the fuck happened? Who are these people and where the fuck did they come from? Who vouched them in? Since when do anarchists give a fuck about college, the educational-industrial complex and organizing the masses? I mean, I know anarcho-communists probably, but these other folks are different.

These college folks make declarations of predicting revolts and then, despite their claims, politicizing these revolts in a way that makes it seem like they know about the revolts all along. Kinda like, they are sitting somewhere back stage pulling strings and make revolts happen. The literature put out by these folks is, I must admit, very captivating, poetic, articulate- a leftists mass revolt wet dream. So lots of people are reading it and getting sucked into it, reproducing more of this literature and allowing these kinda folks to come to events.

How about individuality?

I have also noticed a strong but subtle tendency to hate individualism. Of course, we are not talking about capitalist individualism. We are talking about anarchist individuality which rejects all aspects of the left, remaining hostile to the idea of organization over the individual. Almost every piece of literature related to The Invisible Committee includes something talking shit about individualists. Also, are these folks even anarchists? or communalists who are trying to communize anarchy? Ask yourself, have you seen these type of people and literature in your anarchist community? Were they as prominant a few years ago?

Last but not least, did anyone pay attention to all the communiques from La Zad?

I have seen article after article talking about these SAME PEOPLE infiltrating La Zad and trying to communalize the whole thing. I am talking about: formal organization. Coopted communication with the outside world. VIOLENT ATTACKS ON ANARCHISTS for doing anti-civ related actions? A KIDNAPPING?

There are many links to this shit on this site. My main question is, why despite how much these Tiqqun/Invisible Committee/"Autonomy Builders" have taken over anarchist circles city after city, why is nobody talking about it? Has everyone become mere "subjects" of "The Invisible Committee"?

There can be several answers to the "why". And a few of those may involve handing out highly-sensitive infos to authorities to further clamp down on a perhaps weakening anarchist milieu. But Tiqqunians despite being " everywhere" are also much hated by everyone else except the liberal uppie-middle-class, articulate and artsy academics they're appealing to. It's comparable to the IPs in more Westerrn countries.

Furthermore I did witness French anarchos and even commies criticize them IRL... This ain't just a reaction confined to the online outlets. But the whole story with the ZAD lies in the fact that the Appelistas have quickly gained some domination in the Zone, due to their occupations of "solid" houses and industrial development projects. They started to build a rather creepy camp in the West of thr ZAD, not knowing any shit about how to build anything in the wild, coming up with their prefab houses and sert plans (lol), then at some point moved right next to their anti-civ enemies, as an act of bolchevik conquest.

There were too few people to oppose them upfront, most of the time. You had several cars burned, and a permanent present of 1-2 rogue encampments on the D281, but that's pretty much it. Do you know what it's like to be in a scarce-minority position? That's what it ususally means to be anarchist.

"Do you know what it's like to be in a scarce-minority position? That's what it ususally means to be anarchist."

Yes I do know. I feel that right now. I have been to 3 different cities in the us and each city was being represented by Tiqqunians. They were the ones who hosted people, they are the ones who are financing these "autonomous zone" projects, they are literally taking over otherwise spontaneous events and trying to structure them as a regular, programmed social event. And almost every anarchist I know is listening and fully engaged with them.

My first vibe of them is this really over-accomodating, condescending sales-person vibe. And that stood out to me. And to most other radicals it is seen as mere mutual aid and friendliness. But then the zines...the fucking invisible committee, metaphysics as apparatus etc wack academic zines come along. And everyone is reading them. Reading groups, potlucks, long discussions about "defining "the commune"".... and all I can think is wtf is goin on. Myself and a handful of others are individualist, anti-civ and the tiqqunists are buddy buddy with us, but in a condescending manner...

Groups like RCP and shit dont bother me. But that is because they are not welcomed to host events, potlucks and distribute their literature in anarchist spaces. But the Tiqqunists? Full access. When does it stop? When are they exposed in full and stomped out before anarchy becomes another word for "Commune".

Your thinking seems to have a pretty toxic us vs them binary running through it ...

me vs fascists or any other line drawn between myself and those who propagate the subjugation of individuality. Assimilation for "the greater good" is pretty toxic thinking.

ok but the whole problem is that you're making huge assumptions about huge groups of people with almost no evidence that they're conspiring to "subjugate" you.

I promise I wouldnt have written this if I didnt experience "the group" telling me that "individualism is not welcomed here. We are a collective."

But it's all good. I don't know how much experience at radical gatherings, bookfairs etc you have but this is all nothing new. Folks in ZAD fought this shit with burning cars after an anarchist had his arm and leg broken by these type of people. Not trying to convince anyone here of anything. I just wanna see if others are noticing it as well. You have not. Note taken.

It's just bad logic. You know what's more dangerous to you than a few isolated authoritarian commies? You making everyone who uses certain words in to THE ENEMY.

And its not about words. It's about their practices. I get it. You need to feel a sense of belonging to this homogenized idea of "the movement". It's not bad logic. It's experience and the refusal to let those with different objectives come over and take over as the new vanguard with crypto-commie shit. It must be nice not caring about this. It must be nice doing the duty of sit down and shut up to protect the continuity of the "great anarchist movement". Fall in line soldier.

You don't get shit. You're just grinding your axe.

The commune is calling you back to your duties. Ill grind my axe while you build the new anarchist (communist) order.

the commune needs your axe and toothbrush comrade!

wooden toothbrushes for the commune!

Primitive communist hunter gatherers chew on small fibrous branches they break off shrubs growing beside their beds dude.k

Dude, you're so full of shit you make SE look at least midly entertainning.

1- Yiqqunians aren't a few isolated commies. They got Friends preying over most NA anarcho milieus just like it used to be in France, and also got their books published through bourgeois mainstream houses like MIT Press and FNAC. Where do you find Bonnano at the public library?

2- Anyone who partakes in repressing individuals over some made-up religious bullshit is the Enemy, yes. It's not just about alt-right fascists, Scientology or the Westborough Baptist Church. You think people are socially oppressed due to their belonging to some politicized social identity? You're an authoritarian dimwit yourself, that's all.

Go get a real job, or get fucked.

'Yiqqunians" >>> "Tiqqunians"

"They got Friends preying over most NA anarcho milieus just like it used to be in France, and also got their books published through bourgeois mainstream houses like MIT Press and FNAC. Where do you find Bonnano at the public library?"

Good points that I didn't even think of.

I wasn't defending Tiqquians … as we clarified down near the bottom of the thread. It's the mccarthy leap that I'm worried about, lumping in everyone who talks alike. And yes, they ARE isolated, to a marginal radical milieu in France, as opposed to having any chance of seizing state power any time soon. Your sense of proportion seems to be limited to the radical milieu itself.

As for your last comments … *facepalm*

what cities in the us are "represented by Tiqqunians"? spill!

I don't agree with the author but I have seen I.C. followers hosting events in Indiana and Atlanta. Atlanta has quite a few I.C. who got called out for gentrifying and trying to hijack projects. That's it though. Not as big of a deal as author is making it out to be.

ive been out of the activist loop for a while and sort of interested in what all this is about. the coming insurrection was one of the last texts that i felt like really spoke to me, in part because it seemed like a big part of their project was to reinterpret communism/communes into a very anarchist, anti-authoritarian framework, that seemed to me to have a lot of potential for moving beyond leftist authoritarianism and incoherent nihilism at once. i could have been mistaken because i never was around any big groups whose practices were really reading it or influenced by that line of thinking. and yes i've read about the zad. im just wondering what i missed in those texts - what did their 'followers' miss? how did they get it so wrong? not that i want to really dig into revisiting and analyzing the whole tiqqun ouevre but still. it doesn't seem like authoritarianism was what they were pushing at all. even though they talked about e.g. 'the party' it was put as a deliberately almost satirical reappropriation of the term, like not at all a top-down arborescent organized party but a way of talking about a spreading network of solidarity on the insurrectionary side. idk...

The tiqqunists were provocateurs and actors of an intellectual nihilist bent, appealing to angry youth, I forget the title, something like bloom and no dream for the future were good texts superior to the coming insurrection but I moved after the tarnac farm wine sampling club planning to derail a passenger train and the courtcase and letters from prison made it all so boring and petty, a high speed car chase and heist would have been more entertaining from these melodramatic posing actors.

https://anarchistnews.org/content/appelistes-playing-filth-filth

"On March 20th, 5 masked people, armed with baseball bats and teargas sprays, raided a squat on the ZAD. This squat opposed the divide-and-rule compromise with the state, which involved legalising some people’s land and houses, but not others. These scum beat up people at the squat and then kidnapped the most outspoken opponent of the compromise, tied up his hands and legs, blindfolded him and gagged him with duct tape. They put him in the boot of their car and drove off. Later, they beat him again, broke one of his legs and arms, finally abandoning him in the night next to a psychiatric hospital. The most vociferous defenders of the compromise in the assemblies there have been the Invisible Committee, the “Appelistes”. They’ve done this kind of thing before, though less brutal (gagged and bound a guy who’d burnt out a tractor, bundled him into a carboot and left him in the middle of the woods). So most people are 99.99% sure that it was the “invisible committee” who’d done this red-fascist shit. They’ve always sat on the fence, playing revolutionary anarchists to the revolutionary anarchists, reformists to the reformists, leninists to the leninists. In this instance they were playing the filth to the filth. And not the kind of “playing” that’s fun."

If anyone is good at translating French, here is a more detailed account of Invisible Committee trying to take over ZAD.

https://www.non-fides.fr/?Vivre-le-pouvoir-repandre-les-barbouzeries-Cec...

This whole post reeks of hysterical made-in-America anti-commie paranoia.

I'm guessing the writer's admission that they're "not an academic" can be translated as "unwilling to accept" that anarchism's origins are all mixed up with the theory of the commune.

I say all this as an individualist anarchist. Obviously, in the case of the ZAD, those scumbags were basically red fash BUT, it's a huge leap to equate all the theory with the actions of a few belligerents in a specific context.

The "evil conspiracy of the collectivists" that you're so quick to demonize is an inevitable reaction to capitalism by thousands and thousands of people, most of whom aren't plotting against you. This writing feels conspicuously like far-right conspiracy narrative.

Everyone who's interested in the commune is basically a mini-Stalinist?! Fuck off. Put down the pipe.

"I say all this as an individualist anarchist." "Everyone who's interested in the commune is basically a mini-Stalinist?!"

Communism/communes represent an order which places group over the individual. Fuck communism. Twice. There, I said it.

but I don't know if this word -commune- means what you think it means.

*facepalm* I guarantee you haven't managed to exist on this planet as a completely isolated individual. Nobody is advocated authoritarian communism right now. Looks like the word triggers you.

even the way you structure that post suggests you barely read the important parts of what someone else is saying and just bash away on your commie strawman.

But it's only fair.

Any *formal* group that collectivizes resources, subjugates individuality for productive reinforcement of the group and establishes itself as a long-term zone (nation, state etc.). I am an individualist. I am against formal organizations or mass society etc. These invisible committee type in person will tell you flat-out they are not anarchist, nor individualist. Nothing about Tiqqunist writing is anarchist. But they go around propagating in anarchist circles and most anarchists are so leftist they don't notice or care, and link up arms. Just as alot of anarchists link up arms with communists. As an individualist yourself, how do you not take issue with all of this?

I DO take issue with it. When I encounter it, I have a similar reaction. But my point here is that you seem to be painting in very broad strokes. Handing out pamphlets is pretty fucking different from beating and kidnapping people.

AND, no matter what a few red fash scumbags in western europe do, they'll always be an extremely small minority of all the regular people who are and will be reacting to the late-stage disintegration of neoliberal capitalism. Most of those people aren't your enemy and going along with all this virulent anti-commie rhetoric is a very dark road.

I have been encountering it more and more. My strokes arnt broad. I hope I am wrong. But I feel like this will escalate as I see more and more anarchists materializing events, social projects, more than just literature. Again, I dont know how many events you have been to lately but its not just a small group in my opinion.

The anti-commie rhetoric is just me. And despite such, I have a few anarcho-commie friends. But they know how I feel about communism. We have good debates and discussions. But that is as far as I go with communists. I work with those whose attack is armed by a fun and joy not blue-printed by the idea of a communist future utopia.

Appreciate your perspective nevertheless.

ha! Ok so you just sound off like a 60s era FBI agent from time to time?! That's unsettling!

But anyway, I do go to the events and I agree with you about the trend but not what it means. Perhaps I can reassure you that there won't be any Tiqqunist bullshit on my watch. They'll have to graduate from pamphlets and then we can see who's the baddest.

"Perhaps I can reassure you that there won't be any Tiqqunist bullshit on my watch."

Awesome. Like I said, I hope I am wrong.

Communizers are the latest in a series that includes " Council-communists", " Situationists", " Autonomen" ( maybe also " Luxemburgists" - all three of them! ) They are basically year-late-dollar-short MARXISTS trying to colonize anarchism.
After a while they should join their extinct brethren and if we get some post-leftism going one day we'll be free of all the Marxist communists entirely. FREE at LAST! THANK FUCK ALLMIGHTY FREE AT LAST!

They'll always recuperate via the neo-liberal Christian morality, as if YOU could ever be free of the fundamentalist paradigm which has controlled Western society for 2 millenium. Pipe dreams of the Almighty, you'll never be rid of them! You are no better off than the Situationists, your only hope is to become an individualist maverick!

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.
CAPTCHA
Human?
Z
n
r
q
q
R
4
Enter the code without spaces.