The Coming Insurrection

Joycey

Anyone heard of this book?
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/

Someone told me about it and my initial reaction can be summed up by this smiley face: :rolleyes:.

Then I searched it and got interested by this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyi2qNskJc. Priceless.

Im a bit into it at the moment and its intelligently written and seems to me to be more than just a simple propaganda piece (well im hoping it will live up to its promise anyway). It deals with the riots in France 2005 as pretty much its starting point. They are a phenomenon that I (probably due to not digging deep enough) havent found adequately dealt with anywhere else.

Id be interested in discussing it on here with (somewhat) like minded people, if there are enough to be found :pac:.

“WHAT AM I,” then? Since childhood, I’ve passed through a flow of milk, smells, stories, sounds, emotions, nursery rhymes, substances, gestures, ideas, impressions, gazes, songs, and foods. What am I? Tied in every way to places, sufferings, ancestors, friends, loves, events, languages, memories, to all kinds of things that obviously are not me. Everything that attaches me to the world, all the links that constitute me, all the forces that compose me don’t form an identity, a thing displayable on cue, but a singular, shared, living existence, from which emerges – at certain times and places – that being which says “I.” Our feeling of inconsistency is simply the consequence of this foolish belief in the permanence of the self and of the little care we give to what makes us what we are.


It’s dizzying to see Reebok’s “I AM WHAT I AM” enthroned atop a Shanghai skyscraper. The West everywhere rolls out its favorite Trojan horse: the exasperating antimony between the self and the world, the individual and the group, between attachment and freedom. Freedom isn’t the act of shedding our attachments, but the practical capacity to work on them, to move around in their space, to form or dissolve them. The family only exists as a family, that is, as a hell, for those who’ve quit trying to alter its debilitating mechanisms, or don’t know how to. The freedom to uproot oneself has always been a phantasmic freedom. We can’t rid ourselves of what binds us without at the same time losing the very thing to which our forces would be applied.


“I AM WHAT I AM,” then, is not simply a lie, a simple advertising campaign, but a military campaign, a war cry directed against everything that exists between beings, against everything that circulates indistinctly, everything that invisibly links them, everything that prevents complete desolation, against everything that makes us exist, and ensures that the whole world doesn’t everywhere have the look and feel of a highway, an amusement park or a new town: pure boredom, passionless but well-ordered, empty, frozen space, where nothing moves apart from registered bodies, molecular automobiles, and ideal commodities.

Edit: PLEASE, try to refrain from posting stuff that is not at all relevant to the thread/text. I know that the issues raised are ones that people feel strongly about, but im hoping for a discussion of the merits of the book itself and the ideas it raises, rather than hackneyed arguments about soviet russia or any other such irrelevant and overly controversial topic that has been argued endlessly in other threads. Thank you

silverharp

Might not be relevent but there is a book called the Forth Turning where the author tries to show that society isnt a linear extension of the last. I'd like to think that the worst excesses will be compensated for naturally. If I got the gist of your qoute the "revolutionaries" are reacting against the excesses of a vacuous consumer society, which is fair enough but there has always been some group or other calling for a revolution, I cant see why it should get any particular traction now. Isnt it par for the course for the campus marxists to suggest that the shop keepers will be shot in the up and coming revolution



http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=11062

NEIL HOWE: We think that generations move history along and prevent society from suffering too long under the excesses of any particular generation. People often assume that every new generation will be a linear extension of the last one. You know, that after Generation X comes Generation Y. They might further expect Generation Y to be like Gen X on steroids – even more willing to take risk and with even more edginess in the culture. Yet the Millennial Generation that followed Gen X is not like that at all. In fact, no generation is like the generation that immediately precedes it.

Instead, every generation turns the corner and to some extent compensates for the excesses and mistakes of the midlife generation that is in charge when they come of age. This is necessary, because if generations kept on going in the same direction as their predecessors, civilization would have gone off a cliff thousands of years ago.

So this is a necessary process, a process that is particularly important in modern nontraditional societies, where generations are free to transform institutions according to their own styles and proclivities.

In our research we have found that, in modern societies, four basic types of generations tend to recur in the same order......

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

Might not be relevent but there is a book called the Forth Turning where the author tries to show that society isnt a linear extension of the last. I'd like to think that the worst excesses will be compensated for naturally.

Unfortunately (depending on your point of view), even were it the case that history progressed in a rational, linear fashion (which it clearly doesnt), this kind of linear progression, perhaps "progress", is no longer possible in a world where we are heading at an ever increasing speed towards the breaking point of the physical system which we inhabit.

If I got the gist of your qoute the "revolutionaries" are reacting against the excesses of a vacuous consumer society,

But they are not the "excesses", they are its essence.

which is fair enough but there has always been some group or other calling for a revolution, I cant see why it should get any particular traction now. Isnt it par for the course for the campus marxists to suggest that the shop keepers will be shot in the up and coming revolution

It is very true that this book is absolutely in the tradition of the radical left, with all the trademarks of the 'genre', if you like. However to simply reduce it to "yet another overly radical revolutionary text" is to deny its specific historicity. It comes at a time of massive social disquietude and economic 'uncertainty' (in financial analyst speak), and accounts, or seeks to account for the specific social relations and the situation of its time.

Having been involved with, and to some extent having become disenchanted by traditional trotskyist socialist groups due to a certain degree of dogmatism (which I was never able to properly isolate and refute in argument, mind), a contemporary text which seeks to push a more radical and up to date program and account of the processes at work in society is a welcome breath of fresh air, for me anyway. I am perfectly prepared to critique the text, and take only what is worthwhile for my purposes from it, even if that means rejecting the great majority of its proposals for action. That is essentially the reason im posting it here, to find either proponants or oponants of it and through discussion comb out exactly what my own feelings towards it are.

Eliot Rosewater

The problem with these kind of movements is that they only ever bring tyranny. Everytime communism has been attempted, or capitalism has been overthrown, death and hunger and shortages have come. Ive read that c. 54 million people were killed in Soviet Russia during their spell of communism. As we speak, censorship is rampant in "socialistic" countries such as China and Cuba. And lets not even talk about North Korea.

In a different context (ie when discussing the merits of theoretical communism) the above is correctly disregarded. However you cant ignore the fact that any attempt to create a communistic state invariably results in dictatorship. Unemployment and poverty in a capitalistic system are bad. However you can always come onto Boards.ie, or write to the papers, or contact your rep, discussing your problems. In communism freedom of speech and expression and dissent are all restricted.

The proof of the pudding is that were the roles reversed; were I living in a communist state; I would be unable to criticize it in the same way that communists criticize capitalism. Theres something inherently wrong with a system that has to kill people and hurt people and restrict people to keep on working.

Joycey

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The problem with these kind of movements is that they only ever bring tyranny. Everytime communism has been attempted, or capitalism has been overthrown, death and hunger and shortages have come. Ive read that c. 54 million people were killed in Soviet Russia during their spell of communism. As we speak, censorship is rampant in "socialistic" countries such as China and Cuba. And lets not even talk about North Korea.

In a different context (ie when discussing the merits of theoretical communism) the above is correctly disregarded. However you cant ignore the fact that any attempt to create a communistic state invariably results in dictatorship. Unemployment and poverty in a capitalistic system are bad. However you can always come onto Boards.ie, or write to the papers, or contact your rep, discussing your problems. In communism freedom of speech and expression and dissent are all restricted.

The proof of the pudding is that were the roles reversed; were I living in a communist state; I would be unable to criticize it in the same way that communists criticize capitalism. Theres something inherently wrong with a system that has to kill people and hurt people and restrict people to keep on working.

Im now going to add something to the OP, basically saying that no discussion (except in the unlikely event that it is actually relevant) of Soviet Russia/Cuba etc are permitted in the thread, and that people should discuss the text itself rather than their prejudices against what they believe the text is.

I dont mean to be rude, and I really dont want to sidetrack the discussion, but im about a third of the way through the book now and not only has there been no mention whatsoever of any of the things which you attack above, but there havent been any positive proposals at all. How you can surmise that there is a support for authoritarian regimes from the text I quoted, or from any of the first third of the book, I really dont understand.

So please, in the interests of enlightened discussion, I beseech you all, please keep the discussion relevant to the thread and leave discussion of Soviet Russia etc etc etc to other threads, where they may be more suited.

Thank you

Joycey

To begin:

The police and the army are evolving in parallel and in lock-step. A criminologist requests that the national riot police reorganize itself into small, professionalized, mobile units. The military academy, cradle of disciplinary methods, is rethinking its own hierarchical organization. For his infantry battalion a NATO officer employs a “participatory method that involves everyone in the analysis, preparation, execution, and evaluation of an action. The plan is considered and reconsidered for days, right through the training phase and according to the latest intelligence [...] There is nothing like group planning for building team cohesion and morale.”

The irony of the fact that the avant-garde of the reactionary forces in society are forced to adopt the anti-heirarchical forms of organisation that those they are reacting against are attempting to institute is a hard one to face. I am reminded by the above paragraph of this article (sorry for the annoying typeface, the original source seems to have gone down). Its about the IDF employing twentieth century french (radical left) philosophy for its own oppresive purposes. I find it unbelievably hard to come to terms with the possibility that you can read those texts and somehow skim ovem or subvert its political nature and use it for the perpetuation of hegemony.

The next paragraph in the book actually quotes from the article I linked to above, here is the paragraph:

The armed forces don’t simply adapt themselves to the metropolis, they produce it. Thus, since the battle of Nablus, Israeli soldiers have become interior designers. Forced by Palestinian guerrillas to abandon the streets, which had become too dangerous, they learned to advance vertically and horizontally into the heart of the urban architecture, poking holes in walls and ceilings in order to move through them. An officer in the Israel Defense Forces, and a graduate in philosophy, explains: “the enemy interprets space in a traditional, classical manner, and I do not want to obey this interpretation and fall into his traps. [...] I want to surprise him! This is the essence of war. I need to win [...] This is why that we opted for the methodology of moving through walls [...] Like a worm that eats its way forward.” Urban space is more than just the theater of confrontation, it is also the means. This echoes the advice of Blanqui who recommended (in this case for the party of insurrection) that the future insurgents of Paris take over the houses on the barricaded streets to protect their positions, that they should bore holes in the walls to allow passage between houses, break down the ground floor stairwells and poke holes in the ceilings to defend themselves against potential attackers, rip out the doors and use them to barricade the windows, and turn each floor into a gun turret.

This makes explicit the justification (or at least part of it) which the authors of the book clearly feel exists for their acceptance of violence as a means to their ends. The military apparatus of the state has adopted these methods in the repression of forces antithetical to their domination, so why should not those forces react in like manner?

I come from a position where I would need to hear very strong arguments to concede that violence is justified in revolution, however the above case certainly rings true, at least to a certain extent, for me.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

This makes explicit the justification (or at least part of it) which the authors of the book clearly feel exists for their acceptance of violence as a means to their ends. The military apparatus of the state has adopted these methods in the repression of forces antithetical to their domination, so why should not those forces react in like manner?

I come from a position where I would need to hear very strong arguments to concede that violence is justified in revolution, however the above case certainly rings true, at least to a certain extent, for me.

Why would the situation in an occupied area have any general relevance? if and when any state would act in such a barbaric way towards its population then for sure people should rebel, but I would have an issue with a group that would try to create the situation where this is necessary. Nobody in France is oppressed in such a way that demands a physical response. At most I'd condone civil disobediance and ignoring certain laws if they are non crimes but huge leaps after that

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

Why would the situation in an occupied area have any general relevance? if and when any state would act in such a barbaric way towards its population then for sure people should rebel, but I would have an issue with a group that would try to create the situation where this is necessary. Nobody in France is oppressed in such a way that demands a physical response. At most I'd condone civil disobediance and ignoring certain laws if they are non crimes but huge leaps after that

Well clearly the authors feel that the least 'priveledged', shall we say, in French society are most certainly treated barbarically enough that such violence is justified. I certainly have some sympathy with that view, though as i mentioned im still on the fence about the legitimacy of their militancy.

While large-scale civil disobedience would certainly be preferable to burning neighbours cars and houses, the people who are the ones who have cause to rebel are not necessarily aware, or interested in the tradition of civil disobedience which is more commonly put into practice by the type of people I think you referred to as "campus Marxists" earlier.

I am here reminded of a first year sociology lecture I had on a concept called "class anger", which rang true on a massive level for me at the time, but which I havent looked into at all since then.
(When I wikipediad it this is what I came up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_theory_%28sociology%29. Not sure if its exactly the same but certainly related.)
Essentially the notion is one which seeks to explain why it is that it tends to be those who are at the bottom of the 'societal ladder', in terms of social status, economic remuneration, level of 'wellbeing' etc are those who chronically engage in self destructive behaviour and behaviour which is destructive to society as a whole.

It is exactly this class of people, who more usually express their dissatisfaction with the society they live in through self-destruction or crime that are now rebelling in a more explicitly anti-societal way. It is important to understand that the violence being commited to property and the system which they perceive as opressive is a new manifestation of the barely articulated anger which has always been present, but now (or certainly in the summer of 2005) has reached boiling point.

Given the authors of this text are calling for out and out revolution, it becomes explicable why they would call for adoption of those methods employed by states who are faced with populaces who are somewhat more used to articulation of their dissatisfaction in other parts of the world.

silverharp

By definition based on your particular measure there will always be people in the bottom 5%, if you want to label them as a class so be it but there is the choice of saying "ok i'm in the bottom 5% but I'll make damn sure my kids will not be" surely this is a better message then presumably outside provocateurs coming in and trying to whip up a revolution which I'll argue are trying to take advantage of the disadvantaged rather then having any genuine concern for the people concerned.

Joycey

silverharp wrote: »

By definition based on your particular measure there will always be people in the bottom 5%, if you want to label them as a class so be it but there is the choice of saying "ok i'm in the bottom 5% but I'll make damn sure my kids will not be" surely this is a better message then presumably outside provocateurs coming in and trying to whip up a revolution which I'll argue are trying to take advantage of the disadvantaged rather then having any genuine concern for the people concerned.

This is exactly the kind of individualistic view which allows the perpetuation of the barbarism they are attempting to revoke. While the riots of 2005 may very well be the most humble of origins for a sense of solidarity among the youth who have no prospects in French society, at least it is a start. Not only is the position that you are advocating for the inhabitants of the society not one which is open unless its possible to find a job, raise kids away from the drugs and the violence, get education and a change of adress, all of which are virtually impossible for the people living there, but there is absolutely no sense of watching out for your neighbours; those who are in the same boat as you, who you live with, and who to a large extent constitute your being.

Again, it seems like a line of action akin to civil disobedience; preferable perhaps, but not something which is going to be taken up by young, uneducated angry people who live in grey, concrete prisons.

rinty

I suppose 1968 was a catylist for many countries,depending on their situation. Not much happened in Dublin except middle class students looking for more rights and better college facilities. However when the 1968 protest wave got to Belfast it was riots, just like America and eastern Europe (Prague). So maybe with today the dicontent is far less sporadic as back then.. The economic downturn and the sub prime mortgage and dried up consumerism etc could be laying the base for mass discontent. Not just 5 % of the population but much more. Loose your job and in huge negative equity could turn you from a member of the Waltons to full on rioter in a matter of days.

silverharp

Joycey wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of individualistic view which allows the perpetuation of the barbarism they are attempting to revoke. While the riots of 2005 may very well be the most humble of origins for a sense of solidarity among the youth who have no prospects in French society, at least it is a start. Not only is the position that you are advocating for the inhabitants of the society not one which is open unless its possible to find a job, raise kids away from the drugs and the violence, get education and a change of adress, all of which are virtually impossible for the people living there, but there is absolutely no sense of watching out for your neighbours; those who are in the same boat as you, who you live with, and who to a large extent constitute your being.

Again, it seems like a line of action akin to civil disobedience; preferable perhaps, but not something which is going to be taken up by young, uneducated angry people who live in grey, concrete prisons.

I just dont think they have a case. Any legimitate "insurrections" would have to be based on extreme political opression or extreme racism. As we are talking about France here the demand for a lifestyle, job or pretty surroundings is not a legitimate cause to be pursued by violence and is not deliverable in any event.
The welfare system itself must be partially to blame here. Once a number of people depend on state welfare and housing it is faily axiomatic to assume that the ethics of those people and the next generation will be dimished and so the problem snowballs.