Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

another_i wrote

Insurrection > revolution

7

_caspar_ wrote

agreed, I tend toward Stirner's formulation: "revolution aimed at new arrangements, the insurrection leads us to no longer let ourselves be arranged, but rather to arrange ourselves” (emphasis mine)

8

celebratedrecluse wrote

would you define your terms? i'd like to have a discussion around this, because i think it has become dogma over time in spaces like ours

4

[deleted] wrote

4

another_i wrote

Hard disagree.

Revolution implies a replacement in power structure. It is planned and implies some form of control.

Insurrection is the opposition, resistance, and/or destruction to any power structure. It happens in the here and now. It is unplanned and implies emergence

4

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

another_i wrote

I don't know what Wolfi meant in the time and place they said that, but I know what I meant when I said it at the time and place above. With all that said, I still say revolutionary, revolution, et al...cuz I just don't give AF. :)

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

how can things emerge in many fields, without planning?

For example, it is good to destroy the cop car, but it is better to not go to prison. So, it is good to plan how you do it.

It is good to respect people's autonomy, but it is better to have food. If the supermarkets are closed, you have to be able to count on yourself and others to help plant and harvest the crops.

This requires consent, and your point is well taken. But this framework you outline here still seems reductive, a binary form of thinking which has tangible limits. So what are the limits of insurrection, in your view?

2

another_i wrote

IMO, revolution as implied above, is the domain of leftists, who seek to control the outcome.

Insurrection sows a seed and waits for the harvest.

So, it is not without planning, whether it is a direct action or harvest from a field. it is the difference between sowing a seed in a field versus indoor hydroponic growing, with a specific yield in mind.

I believe insurrection is limitless.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Nothing is without its limits, that is the logic of infinite growth, in our context it is derived from capitalism.

Let's get beyond metaphors, and define insurrection more tangibly. I think this will be helpful to the discussion.

If you are to plant a field for growing the food for your affinity group or others, within an insurrectionary perspective, what aspects would be unplanned? Is it not the whole purpose, to control the outcome, and generate food? Farming is hard labour especially, and having a crop failure is quite dire unless you have other options to fall back upon.

2

another_i wrote

Nothing is without its limits, that is the logic of infinite growth, in our context it is derived from capitalism.

OK fine, I don't think you can build a country or a company or prison with insurrection. Such things require control, and such things are the antithesis to insurrection.

Let's get beyond metaphors, and define insurrection more tangibly. I think this will be helpful to the discussion.

Alright. I've defined what insurrection is to me - what is your definition?

plant a field for growing the food for your affinity group or others, within an insurrectionary perspective, what aspects would be unplanned?

The environment and context in which the plants grow.

Is it not the whole purpose, to control the outcome, and generate food?

Food is the destination, but whether I get there, is beyond my control.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

OK fine, I don't think you can build a country or a company or prison with insurrection. Such things require control, and such things are the antithesis to insurrection.

Alright. I've defined what insurrection is to me - what is your definition?

I think you've only defined it in generalities, which is where an ideology can grow strongly. I want you to contextualize it in terms of the transformations you want to see...as many of them as you can.

The environment and context in which the plants grow.

You mean, the things that are collapsing around us? Which cannot be counted on, increasingly, due to the control system?

Food is the destination, but whether I get there, is beyond my control.

Well, I will be definitely controlling whether or not me and my friend starve. To the extent that is within my ability to control, that is. This is a bit too cynical even for me, on the face of it, a total abdication of agency. Perhaps you would like to clarify?

2

another_i wrote

I think you've only defined it in generalities

That's all I can do, anything more would be expecting a specific outcome.

contextualize it in terms of the transformations you want to see...

I want to see people to destroy what destroys, oppresses, represses, coerces - seemingly both "externally" and "internally".

You mean, the things that are collapsing around us? Which cannot be counted on,

You don't think you can count on nature? Do you believe nature has to be controlled?

a total abdication of agency.

Not at all. I am all of it. I am not separate from nature - I am nature. As are "you"

Honestly dear raddle friend, this conversation is a bit long and the tooth, and I don't believe you'll ever get what you're after from me. So forgive me if I politely bow out of the conversation. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, dive into pre-religious daoism, non-duality, egoism, post-civ, animism, paganism, and the like concepts. And remember, they're just concepts.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

That's all I can do, anything more would be expecting a specific outcome.

At the risk of being a little rude... all you have are vague platitudes? That's all I read so far. Generalities get us nowhere, if I believe like that I'd be talking to you about justified hierarchies and Chomsky's metaphor of a child running into the street.

You don't think you can count on nature? Do you believe nature has to be controlled?

Oh yeah, absolutely, if one wants to feed yourself and others, if one wants to farm in a climate changed world, food gatherers and farmers are going to have to find ways to cope with a very unstable weather pattern, the destabilization of traditional knowledge and conventional techniques both, a totally unprecedented situation. We may need to find ways to construct large greenhouses, train ourselves in foraging techniques, motivating people to create alternatives when the food markets dissolve, and various other problems, just to survive on a comparatively low standard of living. It's a huge challenge and demands a serious engagement with the ontological reality, rather than an ideological norm around ignoring it. Those who ignore this, will probably die first once the food system strains and collapses under the weight of its pressures, but engaging with it isn't even a guarantee of success either.

"Nature" in the grand european sense is dead, human have destroyed it. What exists now, is a finite desert. I see no reason not to do whatever I can to survive as long as I can, as is the principle underneath ecology, but the options for agency are limited and we will need to be creative and cooperative, playing to our strengths and adapting without fear of dogma.

Not at all. I am all of it. I am not separate from nature - I am nature. As are "you"

I quite disagree... you are you, and I am me. You aren't literally everything. This is the whole undergirding of a feminist idea of consent, for example: you need to interact with respect with that which is outside your individual self. So what does this really mean, we are all nature? On the face of it, it seems like mystification by eliding distinct entities together under a biologically essentialist and historically loaded framework which ignores the internal tensions and dynamic processes therein, and is so plainly opposed to the material phenomenology we all experience as to be dismissed by most people unless the person citing it provides further explanation.

In other words, if everyone and everything is Nature, then it's an unhelpful and undefinable concept. Things are only useful when they are defined specifically, otherwise anyone can twist it to mean what they want.

Plus, you said you want me to read more about egoism. How can all people be reduced to an equivalent Nature, if you take that perspective as your own? It's not satisfactory to me, to hear that I simply need to read more about egoism to understand why everyone is the same essence. I'm not discounting this, but an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof, and this appears quite contradictory if left without further explanation.

Honestly dear raddle friend, this conversation is a bit long and the tooth, and I don't believe you'll ever get what you're after from me. So forgive me if I politely bow out of the conversation. If you want to understand where I'm coming from, dive into pre-religious daoism, non-duality, egoism, post-civ, animism, paganism, and the like concepts. And remember, they're just concepts.

A bunch of disconnected ideological shorthand does not make a coherently communicated worldview. In isolation, I know what all of this refers to, but if you cannot or will not apply them in a practical shared circumstance then what is the use of any of it?

If I wouldn't explain my perspective to you, then I'd encourage you to disregard whatever I say. However, you seem to feel no obligation to communicate your perspective, instead relying on not even a set of sanctified texts but just a bunch of disembodied jargon. At least tanks and ancoms usually have specific shit they tell you to read...then you can actually respond to it, take from it what is useful, and deconstruct it. This, however, it just evades all discourse, which implies to a skeptic a lack of ability to engage in the first place.

But, if you want to leave the thread, that's fine...I was just hoping for a conversation, where we both challenge our perspective and grow from it.

2

another_i wrote

At the risk of being a little rude...

I don't think you mind being rude at all - most of your responses to me have had an air of superiority and condescension. IMO, you should reflect on that.

all you have are vague platitudes?

That's your judgement, and may be the judgement of others like you , that's fine with me. I want ya'll to be free.

My point is that I can't offer specific, contextualized examples of what insurrection means, because "defining" and "being specific "is the opposite of what I want. I don't want to "know" or "have control" or "have specifics" - I want to allow events to unfold as they do. It isn't up to my self.

With that said, my experience is up to my self - and in that, I have the freedom to create whatever the fuck I want, right then and there.

Maybe today I want to plant a garden. Maybe the next day, I want to put up a fence, whatever. It doesn't' fucking matter. It's not happening, here and now.

Side note - I grow food and I have a fence. I have bees. Shit happens though, I don't control it. Sometimes deer eat my food. Sometimes I eat the deer.

Do you believe nature has to be controlled? Oh yeah, absolutely.

Again, we are at polar opposites here. I don't believe that you are able to "control nature". That impetus is at the root of the same ideology that needs to control people. I do believe that you can respond and be in the flow of nature though.

"Nature" in the grand european sense is dead, human have destroyed it.

Not sure what exactly you're pointing at here. I'm fairly certain, that if the earth's balances shift enough, it will cause earth to become Venus, and humans and all life will be destroyed on it. I think you are giving humans too much credit.

I believe we do agree that humans are destroying the quality of life on this planet. I liked how you described it - "just to survive on a comparatively low standard of living."

I quite disagree... you are you, and I am me. You aren't literally everything.

[...]

In other words, if everyone and everything is Nature, then it's an unhelpful and undefinable concept. Things are only useful when they are defined specifically, otherwise anyone can twist it to mean what they want.

Again, we disagree. You can accept that, or you can come to try to understand my perspective. I've seen the world in the way that you've seen it, and my understanding has shifted. I see the duality that you speak of - the self, and the other.... but I also recognize I am the full force of nature unfolding, as are you. My belief is that separation is illusion, it is a non-dual perspective.

Consider if we take a purely materialist view of the world where the big bang is the origin of our universe. It is no different than a seed of a tree that fruits. The seed expands and then fruits. Is the fruit not just a part of the life of the tree? It is in the same way the universe "peoples" the same way a tree makes fruit.

you need to interact with respect with that which is outside your individual self

This isn't at odds with my perspective. In recognizing we are everything, then why wouldn't you interact with respect with the other? With that said, if the other is using oppressive force against my self, why wouldn't I defend the self?

When daoists and practitioners of Advaita Vedanta talk about duality (or nondual), they are pointing at the same truth - although there is the illusion of separation (self and other), they can't exist without each other, and therefor are one. The same as you can't have a front without a back, or an inside without an outside.

Plus, you said you want me to read more about egoism. How can all people be reduced to an equivalent Nature, if you take that perspective as your own? It's not satisfactory to me, to hear that I simply need to read more about egoism to understand why everyone is the same essence.

Not sure why you chose to pick at egoism of all the things I mentioned to read about it. It's just one aspect of what shapes my perspective. Most of what I'm discussing with you is coming from a daoist or non-dual perspective. Egoism coincide and dovetails well with my understanding of the self. The egoist perspective liberates me from the limitation of labels and points to the experience of the ego and Self.

I'm not discounting this, but an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof, and this appears quite contradictory if left without further explanation.

I feel like I've addressed this above. This is something that you can validate in your own experience. It's not intuitive though and in our experience, we experience something separate, definable, specific. That is the illusion of duality.

You are a centrality of experience, known as the self or the ego - it feels like "I". That is the only experience that we all share that is exactly the same. That experience of "I" is awareness. Your ego, your self, is the culmination of your traumas, identities, conditioning, and beliefs. It is your unique experience, the same way an apple on a tree has it's own color, shape, and maybe taste. That apple is just part of the process of the tree.

A bunch of disconnected ideological shorthand does not make a coherently communicated worldview.

but if you cannot or will not apply them in a practical shared circumstance then what is the use of any of it

However, you seem to feel no obligation to communicate your perspective, instead relying on not even a set of sanctified texts but just a bunch of disembodied jargon.

which implies to a skeptic a lack of ability to engage in the first place

A lot of this is pretty judgemental, fellow human.

I don't dispute that I have a lack of ability to engage, but probably not in the way that you intended that statement to mean.

Amongst many others, my identities include - worker, parent, gardener. I've got a lot more shit to do than explain shit that has been articulated by many others over thousands of years.

There's a lot more out there that has been beautifully said/described, then I would ever have the capacity or ability to communicate to you. It is not my responsibility to educate you on another perspective, although I'm happy to share with you, even though it may be abbreviated and disjointed.

At least tanks and ancoms usually have specific shit they tell you

And I'll end where I started. This is the heart of the problem - these folks, as well as fascists, seek to control the outcome. There is a "specific" end goal, and the ends justify the means to them.

The alternative is to know that power over an other (or nature) is a threat to your own power and autonomy, and where "power over" exists, and isn't justifiable to your self, it should be destroyed - vis a vie, insurrection.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

This is riddled with internal contradictions, no?

2

another_i wrote

Paradoxes.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

Honestly, it just doesn't seem to me like you have clear ideas of what you're trying to do or say, and so you've transmuted this into an ideological virtue through the use of disconnected vocabulary, then get defensive when people point it out or try to discuss the resolution of these contradictions...even on your own terms.

2

another_i wrote

Nothing to respond to here. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't give AF about it.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

I mean, isn't that literally what you just did? Reply, as well as simply elide a lot of inconsistency away with vocabulary, without the faintest desire to define it in context?

I think what I have said above is quite accurate, regardless of how mean you think I am. Perhaps it is you who might benefit from reflection, on why your views are so incoherent to people who do not already share them. My rudeness is in this particular case an effort to be direct and learn more, while your polite civility seems to at least several people, a veil for evasiveness.

2

another_i wrote

No, I don't think that's what I did. That's what you think I did. From my point of view, I was clear as I could be communicating a paradox. I believe there are plenty of others who are more articulate about the same ideas that I've shared with you. I encourage you to explore those concepts, if you want specific texts, I can share, but why trust me? I know you don't. Figure it out for yourself, and I don't say that with any malice.

I don't give a fuck what you think. Nor do I care what anyone else thinks. Y'all are welcome to your own experience. I hope you enjoy it.

What you perceive as evasion, I believe is a lack of your understanding. My belief is that insurrection is mutually exclusive of something definable, specific, and controllable. I'm sorry that isn't acceptable to you. I wish it was.

Good luck fellow human.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote

If something cannot be specific, but only vague, and cannot be defined, then it is a word with no meaning whose only use is to politicians who use it as a cudgel to confuse and obfuscate while pursuing ulterior motives.

2

another_i wrote (edited )

Have you ever listened to any of Alan Watt's lectures? There was a great lecture about the problem of definition, where something starts and ends. Would you like me to find that for you? He's very eloquent and well respected by many.

word with no meaning whose only use is to politicians who use it as a cudgel to confuse and obfuscate while pursuing ulterior motives

This immediately makes me think of the word "terrorism", which I agree with you whole-heartedly. It makes me smirk, if you really believe that I am a politician with an ulterior motive. I have my doubts that you believe that to be the case.

I decided to look up the definition of insurrection in the dictionary today:

insurrection noun

in·​sur·​rec·​tion | \ ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

I think that's an overly simplistic definition, but some think Merriam-Websters is some kind of authority of words.

So, I really tried to think of a definition that would encourage you to have a conversation with genuine intrigue, instead of insults.

I believe insurrection is an emergent process of disrupting definition, control, or order. Whereas revolution seeks to impose a new definition, control, and order.

I don't know. What do you think?

[EDIT: added "a new" to a definition of revolution"]

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Would you like me to find that for you?

Sure, I can also look myself, I don't want you to feel demanded of to provide it to me without me putting reasonable effort myself. I do want to understand what you mean, how you see things,

It makes me smirk, if you really believe that I am a politician with an ulterior motive.

No, I don't think you are, but I do think that the unspecific has this tendency to reinforce rather than undermine hierarchies. Entropy is constantly being suppressed by emergent processes, and unless there is some kind of effort to disrupt these emergent processes, many social processes actually reinforce power imbalances and other forms of order.

To ground what i mean in a real scenario, maybe a good example is the way that many politicians will try to rally their base with some slogan or another, which because it's not specific is easy to support and difficult to oppose. But when the vote is cast, when people commit to this course of action and there's no specifics, it's that much more difficult to have any accountability for the person who made those promises, or even convince many people that there is anything wrong.

What is even more extreme and negative, is the outcome of applying this unspecificity to insurrectionary actions. So there is a moment of rupture, let's say people commit to an insurrectionary act without a broader plan, perhaps merely because something is politically desired but without regard to how advisable the tactics are. There is a great likelihood that these actors will be caught in a web laid for them, and even if not, that there is a limited potential for action proportionate to the degree which there is no broader cooperation.

Let's say, there are massive street actions, the parliaments are stormed. What of when these people go home? Or let's say it is a successful propaganda of the deed campaign, various buildings are attacked, levelled, occupied for a time. Even if our protagonists might evade the law, somehow, it is not easy to engage in a pattern of attack without some form of restoration.

This requires support from the populace, who at least support and may participate in other ways with the insurrectionary project, which in the context of an alienated capitalist subject means creating an emergent process of creating structure because you're connecting these until-now isolated subjects with each other to form a social network resilient enough to support insurrectionary activity.

Since this has not been done in many places, anarchists and other radicals go through a boom-bust cycle that mimics the business cycle, waves of "revolution" and "reaction" that basically replicate itself forever without actually making a radical break.

I believe we are both trying to find some way out of this trap, to get away from revolution and towards a liberated future. But how to do this...it will involve specifics, it must. Anything else is too imprecise and will be used against those who try to wield it.

I believe insurrection is an emergent process of disrupting definition, control, or order. What do you think?

I think that is a reasonable definition, but needs to be applied to context. It can be multiple contexts, that might be more helpful in fact.

For example, perhaps insurrection is like a transitive verb. that is, it needs both a subject and an object, to make sense? otherwise, like boiling water vapor, it is too gaseous and dangerous to drink?

2

another_i wrote

I would like to respond with more, but I'm leaving town and the internet for a few weeks, and its crunch time getting out the door.

I searched for an Alan Watts lecture I wanted to send to you, but I just don't have time to find the right one. I'd recommend heading over to https://yewtu.be and searching his name and one that appeals to you.

I also think its worth reading a critique on him, so you know what I had referenced.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-out-of-order-order-liber-aaa-the-art-of-anarchic-artha

One of the points I like that Watts makes about the English language is that it tricks us into believing in the separation between subject and object, the knower and the known. And that a noun can start a verb.

Disclaimer: I'm not a writer, or good with language by any means. I'm more inclined to engineering, and I'm a hack at that as well.

I also think Hakim Bey's works are fun and point at some of the concepts that I referenced -

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-immediatism

When I'm back, I'll try to pick it up and offer a more genuine and better written response.

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

thanks for your effort, i appreciate the sources, i will write back with a response to the pieces you mentioned. look forward to talking to you later~

3

ziq wrote

Any texts about this I can give to someone on reddit?

2

willow wrote (edited )

i'd say neither for nor against, which i guess is a bit of a cop out position, but maybe what i mean is i think revolution is given too much importance in leftism.

i'm generally in favour of the idea of revolution but the track record of revolutions in history suggests they're a bit pointless. less "revolution as in overthrowing the establishment" and more "revolution as in a revolving door of more or less equally shit states".

a lot of Internet anarcho-preppers seem to think that revolution in the US today would lead to a glorious era of true anarchism and liberty. i think it's more likely to lead to a bunch of armed fascists massacring Black people then establishing a white ethno-state (again).

this is something i've been thinking about quite a bit recently and i'm not really sure where i stand, or how strongly i believe any of that. interested to read what other people have to say.

5

OdiousOutlaw wrote (edited )

I have no reason to believe that any Revolution™ will come to "save me and my people" from the conditions that I suffer under. I have no reason to believe that any Revolution™ would be successful and lead to better conditions for myself and my loved ones.

Can a nonheirarcal army be formed and is it worth doing?

No on both counts. An "army" in this case would have to be a large mob of people; unless this is some spontaneous mass action that will quickly fizzle away into a bunch of smaller groups, I can't really conceive of some massive swarm of people fighting for one explicit purpose with the same tacitics without some form of hierarchy/governance.

How bad do conditions have to be for revolution?

Most people seem to be willing to endure a lot for the sake of security. I have no reason to believe that Nat Turner had different conditions from any of the slaves that chose to escape instead of fight; so I can't really chalk up how bad one has to suffer in order to attempt a revolution. Too many individual variables.

If against revolution what are some of your main reasons?

Can't say I'm against it; I just don't believe that it's inevitable or that it'll make anything better by virtue of being called a Revolution™. Lefties that hearken to it uncritically come across as seeing the idea of The Revolution™ as this sacred thing or inevitable event that arises as a result of set conditions like some sort of chemical reaction.

How can a revolution be used to distribute power rather than put key military officials or different politicians at the top of the hierarchy?

Yeah, I don't think it can really do that.

What would you have to gain for revolution to be worth it?

I'm no utilitarian; I've never heard of an effective, bloodless revolution and I can't really put myself through the "moral calculus" of utilitarianism to tell you how much blood is worth spilling for a chance at a better life.

How should individuals such as capitalists, politicians, cops, landlords and other similar groups be reintegrated into society after a revolution?

The ideal is that they're stripped of power and won't try to get it back. If they group up and try to reinstate their preferred government; we'd either have to kill, imprison, or exile them. I can't really reconcile any of those options with the idea that it won't lead to repression and hierarchy again. Even when I was an Ancom I pretty much thought that we'd have to kill them in order to achieve anarcho-communism.

Does environmental destruction contribute to you opinion on revolution?

Not at all. I wasn't under any pretense that any socialist revolution (save maybe an overtly green one) would give a shit about the environment.

If a revolution would happen how would you deal with the problem of other workers or minorities being against the revolution?

"I" wouldn't be able to do anything, I don't see myself having any power over any kind of "revolutionary movement"; though I will say that my goals are my goals and that regardless of shared ethnic groupings or class, I'll pursue what I believe to be my best interests. I'm opposed to Black conservatives, liberals, authoritarians, and centrists; and they'd throw me under the bus for pursuing insurrectionist goals and desires. They're my opponents, plain and simple. The same goes for any other minority or worker that seeks to defend the status quo.

3

_caspar_ wrote

revolution exists within the logic of both spectacular thinking and mass society. in the realm of spectacle, its actors (budding revolutionaries) view themselves and act as if on the grand stage of history. this leads to conflating actual people with essentialized conceptual categories: "capitalists, politicians, cops, landlords."

in the realm of mass society, revolution is conceived as one would conceive a game of RISK on a gameboard (or these days, simulation based strategy games on a screen), or playing with toys in a sandbox: concerned with sculpting/managing the lives of thousands to millions of people.

2

existential1 wrote

I tend toward not attaching myself to conceptions of what could be in these matters. For myself, I do what I can to live out the values I hold. I believe if others held similar values and did the same, there would be nothing to revolt against...the system as it currently stand would just cease to exist. However, I have no illusion that many people will ever hold the values I have. And I have no desire to spend the little time I have afforded in this life to convince them otherwise. I simply will do my part, and I may find like-minded folks along the way. But to me, obsessing over things like the conception of the revolution is a waste of vital life energy. I would have spent my time better removing the radish seeds from their pods so i can store them for winter than thinking about such things. And when I simplify my life in this way, the need for revolution disappears. It only makes sense when I view myself and my actions in the language and organization of human conceptions.

2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Your questions generally involve a framing that I reject, they give a sense that revolution is an armed uprising where a group is defeated and a new set of relations are instantiated thereafter. While I think that anarchist action will often involved armed uprisings, I think that they have to happen together with long-term, multigenerational processes of unlearning the things this world has set in our bodies.

I made a post in f/CritiqueThis in relation to the framing.

Rather than what many might imagine when thinking of a nonhierarchical army, which I'm ok with existing in an ad hoc manner, what inspires me is more permanent guerilla-style, nomadic war machine type action, one nice example what you can read about in CrimethInc.'s piece on affinity groups, with really broad but decentralised affinity allowing for things like swarming, I'll quote the relevant bit here:

This leaderless format has proven effective for guerrilla activities of all kinds, as well as what the RAND Corporation calls "swarming" tactics in which many unpredictable autonomous groups overwhelm a centralized adversary. You should go to every demonstration in an affinity group, with a shared sense of your goals and capabilities. If you are in an affinity group that has experience taking action together, you will be much better prepared to deal with emergencies and make the most of unexpected opportunities.

I really like the idea of such a decentralised affinity that it takes only a minimal of coordination to quite safely (in terms of security culture) destroy an enemy. The SHAC model is an interesting example of that.

I'm also impressed by guerilla attacks on infrastructure of this sort that we've seen in the Niger Delta.

I'm surprised about how much I'm relying on CrimethInc here, but to answer your question about "How individuals such as capitalists, politicians, cops, landlords and other similar groups should be reintegrated into society after a revolution", the easiest short answer comes from Against The Logic of The Guillotine, which I really love, for reasons I listed here.

I have an even longer answer talking about the intergenerational elements and pedagogy, how that relates to insurrection and the dis-enclosure of the world, but I'll leave it here.

1

Sillystring wrote

How exactly does a leftist be against revolution? Are you fucked in the head?

−2

[deleted] wrote

2

[deleted] wrote

2

Sillystring wrote

I'm proud to be a tankie, you say it like tankies aren't fucking hot. What's a lettuce leafer anyway? Eat real food.

−4

[deleted] wrote

2

Sillystring wrote

What kind of meal is that? That's like a bowl of vomit. Add some cheese and sausage to it at least lol.

−2

hirao wrote

Mayyyyybbbe you shouldnt base your theory on how to have a socialist revolution on whether certain philosophers were antisemitic in the 1700s/1800s, because pretty much all of them were. Just a helpful suggestion.

−1

Sillystring wrote

Who are you talking about? Trump?

−2

[deleted] wrote

1

Sillystring wrote

Marx was a jew you parody of an anarkiddie.

−3

celebratedrecluse wrote

There are both white and non-white jewish people, what does this even mean...? Clearly, a German ashkenazi like Marx was a white jewish person, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

2