Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Meeeeehhh, I think TCI went over Wolfi's head.

Wolfi's problem is like so many American anarchists, he thinks in terms of the individual/collectivist divide where the individualists need to sing the glory of the individual against the collectivists. But this is a false dichotomy to begin with and both individual and collective can be used to serve statist ends.

4

selver wrote (edited )

Well, Wolfi's about as egoist as it gets. What are your thoughts on the IC's take on the individual & agency then? Is Wolfi misrepresenting their position?

It's been a long time since I read TCI, but I can't say I was much more impressed with it at the time than Wolfi.

3

amongstclouds wrote

His take on their meaning of 'individuality'. Wolfi confuses this to mean flesh and blood people but that's not what individual means in this instance. Stirner's "unique" being or Deleuze's singularity would be more in tune with what wolfi is looking for. But none of those terms are synonymous with the "individual" - a liberal fiction.

I think Wolfi totally missed it on this one.

3

selver wrote

What's the difference for IC between the unique & the individual/self then? What place does the unique have in their book?

I would describe the process they refer to as "individualization" as "atomization" instead. I don't quite get what they mean by individual in any way that wouldn't make Wolfi right. But I'm pretty comfortable using the word individual as a synonym for unique.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Individual=/=Unique

2

selver wrote

Good discussion. Very illuminating.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Your sarcasm doesn't change my point. The Unique isn't the same thing as the 'individual' which is a liberal marketing creation.

Edit: actually this isn't worth the time. Good conversation. Very illuminating.

2

selver wrote (edited )

The individual as a concept was around before marketing even existed. Centuries before.

If you think "unique =/= individual" is a helpful answer to my question, then I don't need anymore of your points thanks.

4

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

The unique ISN'T the same thing as the 'individual'.

Read this.

Stirner explicitly states that the unique is something that cannot be named through language since language is a form of representation.

2

selver wrote

But do you think that the IC is using Stirner's definition of individual? Are they making an egoist critique of the individual, or a marxist one? Given that Wolfi translated that, I don't think he is confusing the two, but is making a criticism of the IC's treatment of the unique (which they might name the individual?).

I wasn't being sarcastic because I disagree with you, but because your answer didn't explain anything about your interpretation of IC.

3

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Because my answer was in response to your point:

But I'm pretty comfortable using the word individual as a synonym for unique.

Wolfi suffers from the same problem and I think it's why he misread TIC. TIC isn't interested in preserving the individual/collective dichotomy because it is a FALSE dichotomy.

Individuality as an ideological stance is a very modern creation and is a capitalist trap to keep us forever bound within the apparatus of the state. The 'individual' is a liberal myth and TIC don't use it in the sense of 'flesh and blood bodies,' as Wolfi seems to suggest they are really implying.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Even you are stuck in the idea that TIC is either making an 'egoist' or a 'marxist' argument, but are those the ONLY TWO options?

2

selver wrote

I'm not stuck, they are communists. Individualism being liberalism is a common Marxist argument, and they very often do not mean anything people influenced by Stirner would like.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Try reading Blumenfields new book on Stirner -- he posits good reasons as to why TIC is something of a heir of his thought.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Also, I decided not to take you seriously because of your sarcasm. So here you go:

The "individual" tic are talking about is the effect of a process of individuation, a violent realisation of the fictive individual of capitalist ideology by severing us from the ties that constitute our real individuality (as distinct-but-not-separate self-conscious moments of the world).

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Imo individual is a messy word because it seems to imply an entity that exists separate from it's causes and conditions. Show me something that can exist apart from everything else and maybe I'll take the term 'individual' more serious.

1

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

They never said they weren't communists. Lol.

Wolfi pointing out they aren't communist should either make you laugh or feel offended. He's either pointing out the obvious in an attempt to seem intelligent or he's insulting the reader and assuming their too ignorant to deduce this themselves.

2

amongstclouds wrote

I'm also unsure of why he's calling this a sales pitch because TIC isn't asking the "masses" to do anything. They've also never claimed to be anarchists so to be fair I can only assume Wolfi skimmed through the book.

2

selver wrote

" In addition, the scribes of The Coming Insurrection promote sabotage, “invisible” night actions, the self-defense of the “communes,” continued confrontations with cops, alternative forms of social welfare, blockades, etc. People who call themselves radical already do these things. The Invisible Committee offers nothing new, either theoretically or practically while what it does offer has been said before many times and with much more substance. But the Committee, like a good sales representative, says it in a way that makes us feel good. We have nothing to worry about. What we’re doing is fine. All we have to do is go with the flow, give ourselves over to the truth of the commune, and the Insurrection™ will come to us. The Coming Insurrection is selling a feel-good ideology that rids us of any responsibility for our lives or our rebellion. It is an empty book, with no more content than any other sales pitch."

3

alex_ wrote

i agree with Wolfi that TCI is full of "emotionladen language." i read it as impassioned vague directions and shallow critiques, not unenjoyable but i can't recall a thing i might've gleaned from it.

If you are looking for publicity slogans, for fiery political propaganda, for emotional ultra-left platitudes, it’s all here. On the other hand, if you are looking for well-reasoned arguments, well-constructed theoretical analyses, significant examinations and inquiries into the world we face today and how we might confront it, forget it.

3

selver wrote

"However, this doesn’t mean that there is nothing of interest here, at least for exposing the agenda of the Invisible Committee. For example, in the second circle, the “imaginary collective” gives its first description of what the state does[7] when they mention “the relentless, age-old work of individualization by the power of the state, that classifies, compares, disciplines and separates its subjects starting from a very young age, that instinctively grinds down any solidarities that escape it until nothing remains accept citizenship – a pure phantasmic sense of belonging to the Republic” (36; emphasis added). So we learn that it is state power that individualizes us. How? By categorizing, comparing, disciplining, and separating us, until we are nothing but citizens. Having assumed that the only individuality is alienation, the Invisible Committee cannot help but resort to absurdities of this sort. You do not create yourself as an individual; rather the state individualizes you by forcing you into a category (a group identity, comparing you to others – thus denying your uniqueness), disciplining you (forcing you to conform to its required standard of behavior), and separating you into those categories by means of the comparisons it has forced upon you. This false – wholly state-powered – individualization reduces everyone to citizens. Like Orwell’s newspeak in 1984, this is (in oldspeak) bullshit. To be more specific, leftist bullshit, the same old, tired leftist critique of individualism we’ve been hearing for decades. The saddest thing is that this is about as deep as the book gets in its analysis of the state, and it is a false, shallow, and anti-anarchist analysis. "

2

selver wrote (edited )

Oh hell yes, new Wolfi essay critiquing The Invisible Committee.