lucky for everyone i reposted the first one onto @news.

i can't really stomach reading, well, pretty much anything crimethinc puts out in its entirety, but i would add that industrial capitalism is not destroying everything, anymore than anarchists want to destroy everything, and that the deliberate misreading of anarchist nihilism as "against everything [including air, trees, water, fluffy bunny rabbits, etc]" rather than as its obviously intended, "against everything [about this society as we know it]" is so disingenuous, it's almost funny. but not really.

Authored by: its w/e w/e on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 06:49 PM CST
Where does the usage of the term insurrectionist come from? After looking at a cursory overview of pro-insurrectionary or self identified insurrectionary anarchist writings, we can hardly find but a few examples of its use. When it is used, it is as a pejorative, as a means to create a specter which haunts the anarchist "community" defined by exclusion. In the same way the language of terrorism is used by the cultural discourse surrounding state strategy, the insurrecionist is the abyss that contains all that is wrong with anarchism, all that doesn't focus on community, all that cums in their pants when another window is broken, that is both too stupid and too smart, that is violence, wears tight pants and isn't punk, that has a critique, etc. Is the anarchist milieu simply the extreme form of the transition to control based societies, which Foucault and others talked about? Is this direction that we are heading in, this hell we call self management just another technique of the self?

This tired critique is nothing new. The cries of those who built the cultural capital of anarchism in the past only become louder the more they sense their irrelevancy. Oh those aching bones!

We would also like to stress that the purpose of this is certainly not to defend the ideological position of the anarchist or the insurrectionary. More than a simple list grievances, this is primarily against this trend which affirms the insurrectionary, anarchist or whatever, as the sovereign subject of their own reification (regarding both the haters and those who foolishly consume the identity).

Now that that's out of the way... (just a few initial responses)

1) "we can't simply study insurrectionist theory in a vacuum; we have to look at the activities with it in the US context"

What if we were to study crimethinc, not within the vacuum of its writing, but by the activities of those who read it. There's the hardcore kid who has read Evasion, but still beats their girlfriend or every scum fuck who has read Days of War Nights of Love, but has no war or love between beating their dog and being continually incapacitated.

What is an insurrectionary activity?

It's a trick question.

As with rest of this article, nearly everything can be seen as an attempt to create the towering straw man of the insurrectionist, then easily defeat it. The actions of the insurrectionist are limited to those that create this straw man. The insurrectionist breaks windows... And it's not that the insurrectist in actuality does more than break windows, it's that breaking windows is limited to the insurrectionist and also the absurdity that there could be list of actions the encompass some form of being in conflict in everyday life.

2) The argument is made that insurrectionary practices in the US have led to greater repression. Upon the tiniest of examinations of this point, the opposite (or what is alternatively proposed), that of the open activist model, seems to receive the harshest repression. Some of the most blatant examples being the hundreds of cases stemming from the RNC protests in 2008 (including the high profile conspiracy and terrorism charges of the RNC 8) and the lockdown against I-69 in Indiana.

But again, what is an insurrectionary activity? Do we find the clues in the communiques of social rupture, or is I@ sprayed on the wall of an action?

One of its main examples for this argument is based on a rumor that this article spreads by stating that a Grand Jury is/was happening in Milwaukee relating to the riot last May Day and that this has had a toll on the anarchist community there. To our knowledge and to those who live in Milwaukee, this has never been true. The very basis of information is conveniently uncorroborated. This is perhaps an instance of that popular anti-globalization era call to "become the media" in which that which appears is true. Be the spectacle!

3) Another aspect of this writing we find particularly annoying is its consistent paternalistic position and voice, as if the failure of experiencing the past gave us any more reason to listen to you.

4) The article starts by referencing a Beatles song...

There's more, much more where this came from.

Thanks. I have it saved on my computer as well.

 "if it involves the beatles, its not my revolution"

Don't you know it's gonna be alright?

 oh... thats the only part i wrote, and it was before i read most of the article. i've at least skimmed it all by now. i was addressing a part that says "insurrectionists want to destroy everything, that is sooo fucked up to environmentalists and indigenous people!!!" and its just an absurd misreading. i dont know, what's not clear about that?

Deleted comment which inaccurately argues that Crimethinc is a "small business." Come on people, let's use our brains and get our facts straight. And as we mentioned earlier, general sniping about Crimethinc will be deleted. We're tired of that shit, so address the content of the above article.

1. Correcting some misinformation -



First, I think it is really important to address the allusion to a grand jury in Wisconsin. This rumor originated with off-hand speculation between two lawyers months ago. Since that point, the person who made the original speculation has been adamant that there is no evidence to indicate that there is any reason to believe a grand jury is happening or is imminent. There is absolutely no evidence to support claims of a grand jury happening in Wisconsin. Obviously, nobody can predict what the State has in store for us in the future, and everyone would do well to prepare for everything they can throw at us. But there is no grand jury happening now. In the case of a grand jury in Wisconsin, you will hear it from us first. To perpetuate such entirely unfounded rumors in one of the most widely read anarchist publications is really troubling. While we obviously believe our friends to be well-intentioned, the use of this misinformation for the purpose of critique seems in poor-taste at best. This should be removed from the online version of the text as well as from any future printings of Rolling Thunder. 

Beyond that, it is strange to hear that our community is ‘starting to feel the toll’. Obviously two plea agreements in the course of the last year have been hard, but anyone who’d ask would know that people in our city are more connected to each other and have more confidence in eachother than at any point in the recent past. Things are hardly strained. I’d say things are looking-up. For the authors of this text, all of this could have been corrected with a phone call or an email. I’m not sure why this made its way into print.

2. Fatal Omissions -

Toward the beginning of this article the authors tell us ‘Much of what we will discuss below is not so much a matter of what insurrectionists say but of what they do.’Were this the case, I would be more excited to read this article. And while the authors make plenty of comments on what ‘insurrectionists’ say, what they read, how they speak and even what they wear (!!!)there is almost little discussion or analysis of what they actuallydo. While the text is saturated with references to window smashings (I’ve counted 15 such references!) there is NO mention of the vast majority of ‘insurrectional projects’ worked on in the states over the last year.

to name a few:

-Participation in the unrest following the murder of Oscar Grant in Oakland

-The seemingly countless school occupations on both coasts.

-Developing more sophisticated methods and networks for expropriation and communization (see: ‘the team’)

-Maintaining social centers in many cities throughout the country

- Looting and sharing of food and other necessities

- Organizing self-defense (especially among queerz and ladies)

- Urban or ‘guerilla’ gardening

- Squatting, staying in foreclosed homes and helping others to do so

- Sabotage of just about everything from parking meters to security cameras to front doors .

- Most of the cool stuff that came out of Bash Back! (In fairness, the online version of the text is linked to the BB! website)

- Efforts to undermine gentrification and the development of green capitalism in our cities.

- Not to mention the unreported and ineffable work of putting our lives in common and finding new ways to share ourselves with eachother.

I could understand missing one or two of these happenings. But to claim to advance a critique or insurrection, it would probably be necessary to mention even a handful of these things. Seriously, how can there be a critique of insurrectionists in the United States without any textual mention of school occupations, bash back!, looting or sabotage? These things are so common place that it is almost impossible to avoid conversations about occupations or pepperspray. I can only read these omissions as deliberate. This brings about the question: why?

3. Living and Fighting -



“Unfortunately, the insurrectionist imagination is often limited by the most well-known models for attack. Imagine an insurrectionist who goes to work or school during the week but smashes bank windows on the weekends—hesitating to create a rupture in the fabric of her own daily life while willingly risking felonies to destroy things outside it.” 



With reference to the above list of omissions, it is completely absurd to make a statement like this. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that insurrectionists are hesitant to create rupture in their daily lives in a world where insurrectionists participate in occupations of their schools, refuse to leave their foreclosed homes, fight back against queerbashers, and expropriate just about everything they can. It seems that it isn’t the ‘insurrectionist imaginary’ that is limited, but rather the frail strawman constructed by the writers of Rolling Thunder. The project of insurrection has nothing to do with abstract militancy. If it is anything, its the constitution of a living-and-fighting warmachine for communism/anarchy that is oriented on the terrain of daily life. 

(it is interesting to note that many of the projects missing from this portrayal of “what insurrectionists do” are later proposed by crimethinc as “what insurrectionists should be doing”. Again: why? What is the logic of deliberately ignoring what people do, and then suggesting that they do the very things ignored. Puzzling.)

4. Image / Militancy -



Lacking any analysis of the vast majority of goings-on in the country, we are left with a critique of an image. While it may be easy to criticize the image of american-apparel-wearing, fancy-talking window-fetishists, this image (strawman) has little to nothing to do with reality. Constantly the authors of this article invoke the image of ever-escalating militancy and even armed struggle. This is obviously absurd. In a world where image is privileged and substance is obscured, this critique was fatally wounded from the start. While this seems to be the ONLY critique of insurrection that goes deeper than “omg, I can’t understand what the IEF says!! lol!! and why are those pants so tight?!?” it ends up being really disappointing. With crimethinc’s history of being on the receiving end of such critiques of image (bagel-eating crust punks or whatever) it seems bizarre to repeat such mistakes.

5. Safety -



A common theme in the article is the seemingly inverse relationship between insurrection and ‘security’. The authors point out the case of the RNC8 as a shining example of how above-ground public organizing creates safety nets for those involved. What the article ignores is that without welcoming committee style organizing (espoused by crimethinc, critiqued by ‘insurrectionists’) there wouldn’t be an RNC8 to speak of. Those who faced jail time because of the RNC (including many who weren’t even in the welcoming committee) were trapped or convicted due in large part to this style of organizing (“Panda” after all, couldn’t have entrapped his victims were there not a formal organization for him to infiltrate. His testimony is crucial in the State’s cases against Matt DePalma, the Texas 2, and the only non-WC RNC8 defendant. To emphasize: the damage this scumbag did to our communities wouldn’t have been nearly so easy in a world w/o the welcoming committee. A large part of the cases against the Milwaukee 3 were based on evidence gathered against the three during raids on the houses of known WC members. Compare this to Pittsburgh, where friendship networks without names or members were able to pull off substantially more exciting street action with drastically fewer arrests. Considering the insane amount of time (nearly two years) that went into RNC organizing, and the horrible consequences, it seems crazy (from the perspective of someone living in the midwest) to applaud this strategy. If there truly is a strain on midwest cities, as the article claims, it is because of the RNC - not because of May Day.

In the article, the arrest of one person in connection with the events of May Day is used as evidence of the dangers of insurrectional organizing. This person was arrested and later released without any charges. When looked at together, the feats accomplished on May Day without a single charge offers a much more wonderful model than the nightmare that was (and continues to be) the RNC. Obviously things were gained because of the RNC - (networks, experience, affinities) but these benefits are not exclusive to above ground organizing. I’d counter that the insurrectional alternative offers these benefits without the devastating pricetag.

There is something to be said for legal campaigns. Obviously we need to have the funds and support when people are arrested, but campaigns do not need to model the RNC8’s defense to be successful. The defense campaign for Ariel Attack in Denver is particularly exciting; rather than portraying ourselves as liberal social justice activists, it shows that we can avoid jail time without watering-down our politics or our intentions. I’d offer this as a counter-example, that even those who break windows under cover of darkness can be supported and can win. This isn’t to say that what we have is enough, but people all over the country are experimenting with new ways of protecting ourselves and having the resources to defend ourselves in court, if necessary.

6. Anarchy without adjectives -

”If we have never called ourselves insurrectionists, it is not because we do not wish for insurrection, but because our own temperament predisposes us to an anarchism without adjectives. The important thing is to fight for freedom and against hierarchy; we imagine that this will demand different approaches in different situations, and that these approaches may need one another to succeed. We are anarcho-syndicalists on the shop floor, green anarchists in the woods, social anarchists in our communities, individualists when you catch us alone, anarcho-communists when there’s something to share, insurrectionists when we strike a blow.”

This sentiment creates a lot of interesting problems. First of which is that of naming. The authors of the crimethinc article claim to have never called themselves insurrectionists. Coincidentally, most of the people they’re critiquing probably haven’t either. Over the last year, “insurrectionist / insurrectionism” have become yet another choice in the marketplace of ideas that is ideology. While those responsible for these ideas are partly to blame, critiques such as this have played a major part in cementing a rigid (yet poorly defined) position on a false dichotomy that does not matter. The insurrection question and the entire debate that has ensued over the last year has been one of the most embarrassing things about 2009. Many of the arguments made against this critique will be dismissed by saying “the critique isn’t of <i>all</i> insurrectionists, only some.” But hasty generalizations cannot excuse the deployment of such silly strawman arguments or critiques-of-image.

That we desire insurrection doesn’t need to be an ideology or an identity. That I go to work or spend time by the river or with friends doesn’t make me a syndicalist, green or social anarchist. I want insurrection and it informs my living and my fighting - at work, by the river, during sex, on the streets, while sharing, while breaking, on solitary evenings. What’s key isn’t to define or defend these shifting and arbitrary positions, but to refuse these of separations.

As I said before (before the deletion), I think that people who freak out defensively about this article are overreacting. It's a critique of certain excesses and deficiencies associated with self-identified insurrectionist tendencies, not an attempt to slander the whole milieu--this much should be clear from the use of long-running insurrectionist principles as the basis of the critique. If some of what is said doesn't resonate in reference to the insurrectionism you know, no problem. And if it does, then there's reason for reflection.

Unfortunately, I think there is plenty of stuff that is worth looking at in light of these critiques. (Social rupture, anyone?) Critique is meant to strengthen, not weaken, a tendency. If you want to discredit something completely, you attack it at its strongest points. If you think it has validity and value, you try to cut away the weak parts. The point is not that all insurrectionists are single-tactic window breakers, but that if there is a tendency toward that attitude in some insurrectionist circles, it deserves attention--for the sake of insurrections, if not "insurrectionism."

In reference to "1.", what you're saying sounds totally valid. Presumably that story is presented as a sort of parable, rather than as careful journalistic reporting, because it was only based on rumors. In any case, people make mistakes, and this seems to be one.

As for the stuff about safety--seriously, do you think the G20 could have gone down the way it did without organizing work from the Pittsburgh G20 Resistance Project very much along the lines of what the RNC Welcoming Committee was doing? If they didn't get the same charges as the RNC 8, it is presumably not because they read the right French text and turned invisible, but because the RNC 8 case is going badly for the state (and probably a million other factors, all worthy of study). This is one of the big debates of our era, with a lot to be said from both sides. But if the insurrectionist critique means doing without public organizing groups like the RNC WC, the Pittsburgh G20 is not the best example for you to bring up.

One more note on critique--it's true that CrimethInc. projects have been on the receiving end of a lot of hostility and criticism over the years. Lots of it was ridiculous. But perhaps it pushed those involved to avoid the "lifestylist" pitfalls and other short-sighted tendencies in the early projects. If critiques like this push people in the insurrectionist current to tighten up what they're doing, that would not be the worst thing.

And... whatever people are saying about what's NOT in the text, there is a LOT in it that no one is addressing.

I've hardly been able to read a criticism of this article here without an already present response to it deriding the criticism as "defensive", "overreactions", or "freak outs". One has to wonder, which posters are actually defensive about this article...

Biofilo what are some of the parts of the text that you would apreciate to hear criticism or praise of, I would really love to have folks maybe go deeper into the topics that you think are of more concern as your statements obviously show you don't fully agree with everything said in the article.

 A fair question.

For one thing, I'd like to see insurrectionists (or those who don't call themselves insurrectionists, but are clearly drawing from texts associated with the tendency) engage seriously with the issue of subculture, which comes up fairly often but is never seriously considered. [Even The Coming Insurrection, which is nuanced and intelligent on other issues, is quite vague here.] There's a lot of rhetoric about zones of indistinction, "becoming whatever," and so on, but not a lot of concrete analysis of what factors enable an uprising to transcend subculture (and which ones can prevent it from doing so!). If insurrectionists really have found a route leading beyond the current identity politics, we all need it--but it would have to be something more than "riot and the poor people will join in."

The insurrectionist milieu, meanwhile, seems quite homogenous--it's a subculture all its own, with liturgical texts and everything. This, too, demands consideration. It's not a problem, necessarily, but if their critique doesn't go beyond "subcultures are bad," how will they avoid ending up like the punks? 

Oh, fucking hell, I could go on--there's so much--but what's the use?

so why does crimethinc need to get so defensive about anarcho-punk subculture?

Personally I am tired of A) expecting to be dirty B) expecting to wear patches. I like punk music, I hate to say it but anti-flag is the reason why I am here, my partner is here because they love bikini kill and as I say this i may be listening to good luck but debating puting on catharsis or maybe sick fix.  

I think anarchy land needs to be more inviting and I think attempting to at least break down subcultural tendencies within our communities is a GOOD thing. I mean wouldn't it be awesome if more folks were in the 30's plus out there and my mom I want my mom to be an anarchist, also fighting for our lives made that hard for her, cause she thought it was stupid...even though fighting for our lives was a part of me becoming an anarchist.  We need to bring our mom's out to the a-team.

 

It's funny cause you say this to awkward ass straightedge kid.

I mean if crews started to do it, I'd probably think it was funny as hell! 

My mom is waitress though she is really loveing the people's history of the united states and I am proud to say she might be signing up to be a wob, ironic cause like i don't know if unions are all that revolutionary, I think i might bring her to the NYC anarchist bookfair, I've heard mommy stories coming from there...

Ok, I'm not gonna type a long drawn out thing anymore, I got shit to do, but here are the basics of what I would like to see the current insurrectionary discussing:

- a more collective struggle, that goes beyond night-time fun - one that actually changes the isolation & routine of normalacy in capitalist life - the occupations seem to be heading in that direction, and should continue to be repeated (not that the smashy smashy shouldn't)

- propaganda that is written for outside our circles (or even for the ones IN our circles please), and gives more strategy than "break shit, state will fall" - I must admit, I have personally preferred the writings of "A Murder of Crows", "Killing King Abacus", "Willful Disobedience", "War On Misery", "Vengeance" & old school "Insurrection", to what some think dominates every insurrectionaries reading material.

- I think intervention is still one of the best things we have going for us, trying to push certain struggles in an anti-authoritarian / anti-capitalist direction, but I still think we limit ourselves to what we intervene in, or perhaps don't have our ear close enough to the ground to listen for potential situations to intervene in.

OK, that's all for now...

You know, for all the articles I see about infighting on who is what and what that is, HOW MUCH outreach material do we see on our websites? How many old school anarchist pamphlets exist? If so, could we even find them on here? Besides Prole.info who is even trying to bust their asses and put resources like that out there???

Less Talk More Rock? Try, Less Talk, More Work (if you really wanna see social change)

Pathology -  yes, there are people busting their asses to make a definitive archive for anarchists: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

"Kristallnacht was a riot, too"

                                     -Rolling Thunder

The article quotes Alfredo Bonanno, who writes, “we are insurrectionalist anarchists… because rather than wait, we have decided to proceed to action, even if the time is not ripe.” This is a reference to the marxist tendency of economic determinism—a position that revolution is entirely dependent upon the economic conditions for revolt. It is not by any means “a moral obligation or axiom to govern every decision.” It is an attack on such truisms.

Anarchists that I find inspiring throughout history have been strong critics of economic determinism. Taken out of context, the article insinuates that the Bonanno quote denies the importance of strategy. History is full of political parties, organizations, unions, and individuals who took it upon themselves to deny the revolt as an improper moment for revolution.

I am interested in working with my communities, friends, and comrades to make such decisions. This is the point of affinity. We do not need a committee to tell us when to act.

The article continues, “there is no such thing as a zone free of cultural identifiers—efforts to stay free of cultural limitations must begin by integrating multiple cultural contexts rather than pretending to be outside all of them.” I do not think that anyone is denying culture. I am interested in working with the communities that I touch. It happens that for me this is not punk kids. People who are more connected to punk kids should work with them. Judging by some past publications from Crimethinc, it seems like this particular subculture may be a point of reference for the authors. It is not for me, and that is just fine. One single subculture is not going to bring down capital. This is the reason why some of us are critical of homogenous subculture.

The articles notes, “over the past half century, insurrectionists overseas have frequently been subculturally identified—for example, the Italian insurrectionist milieu of the 1980s and ’90s was based in a network of autonomous social centers. In criticizing long-term infrastructural projects and countercultural milieus, some US insurrectionists reveal that they are unaware of the context behind the overseas rioting that inspires them.” The point is missed here. It is not that building infrastructure is an opposing approach to insurrectionary practice in the US. The problem is when infrastructure becomes an end in itself, and it is not challenging or confrontational. In the case of Italy during the 1980s and '90s, people from the autonomous social centers were active in confrontational practice. The issue is when infrastructural projects no longer play a role in confrontation.

The issues surrounding language and propaganda are brought up numerous times in the article. Communiques, journals, and articles may all have a tone intended for a specific readership. It is interesting that the author writes, “we’re not qualified to critique insurrectionist writing from France or Italy, where presumably every dishwasher enjoys Foucault and Negri—but in the US, words like “projectuality” make a lot of people stop listening.” When I was younger and first showing up in anarchist spaces, I tried to read Evasion, and I put it down the same day that I started. I found it impossible to identify with the tone of the author. I never even made it to the most controversial parts of the book. I did not pick it up again, and I have no plans to do so. I am not trying to start the tired argument surrounding Evasion once again, but I want to point out that different things are going to cause people to stop listening. In any case, I know quite a few service workers in the US who are reading Foucault and Negri. Everyone has her thing.

As the author states, “of course, some people are attracted to exclusive language—especially people who desire to see themselves as part of an elect in-group. A milieu that attracts a lot of this kind of energy is not likely to make a welcoming space for a broad range of participants; it also might not have a lot of staying power.” Again, as a young person approaching anarchist spaces for the first time, I felt excluded by the language in travel journals like Evasion. I also felt left out by a domineering attitude around lifestyle choices in a small subculture. In my experience, those people definitely lacked social skills, and I have heard numerous stories from people who left radical spaces as a result. People might feel excluded by different things.

The article also brings up the issue of violence and imagery. The authors write, “By and large, people in the US—particularly white people—have an especially mediated relationship to violence. This is not to say that we are never exposed to violence, but that proportionately, we witness representations of it more often than we experience it directly.” This is a complicated statement to make. Yes, mass media often contain countless representations of violence. However, it is unfair to assume who is experiencing violence and to what degree. I consider abuse, sexual assault, and bashing to be violence. The economic reality of capitalism is also violent. The articles continues, “small wonder if radicals who attempt to integrate violence into their resistance find themselves acting out programmed roles.” It is difficult to analyze the psychology of an entire tendency. The point is not always a photographic moment. Some people might just be tired of being pushed around and ready to defend themselves. This is what self-determination is all about. As it is so often said solidarity means attack.

 Not to be tiresome, but you're totally missing the point about the Bonanno quote. The critique starts by making the same point that you do, in the very first section ("starting from revolt"). Nothing is insinuated about Bonanno lacking sense about how and when to act. The point is that some younger folks who are drawn to insurrectionist ideas have not given this enough thought themselves, hence some of the strategies that seem to put the cart before the horse. It's this kind of lazy reading that makes it difficult to discuss anything over the internet.

This is the relevant paragraph from the CrimethInc. text:

"When Bonanno originally formulated his analysis in the 1970s, Italy was in the midst of an upheaval that threatened the entire social order; authoritarian and anti-authoritarian currents intermingled and contended in the course of struggling against the government. He was not making an argument for precipitating clashes where there were none so much as proposing an organizational strategy to ensure that ongoing clashes would promote liberty and autonomy. Contemporary US anarchists reading texts such as Armed Joy do not always understand this, interpreting them instead as a challenge to escalate tactics on a personal basis."

It is true that my response to the Bonanno quote was not as developed as it should have been. The issue was not a lazy reading, but instead, the time put into developing my response. I agree that the article mentions the issue of economic determinism. I recognize that you are commenting on people who may be reading the quote as “a challenge to escalate tactics on a personal basis.” I am not sure what the author of the article is basing this statement on; it may be personal experience.

I am interested in promoting a critique of restrictive tendencies within radical movements. Some people might want to escalate their tactics, because it is strategic. Our victory in the social war necessitates strategy, and it will not be developed by any one person or group.

More relevant than the paragraph that you cited is:

“It is an article of faith among most insurrectionists that one should not wait for the appropriate material conditions, but should attack immediately. As a defense against the sort of postponement described above, this makes perfect sense; as a moral obligation or an axiom to govern every decision, it can be dangerously counterproductive.”

I am not convinced that insurrectionary anarchists are driven by a disposition more than anyone else. I could easily say that Crimethinc is a disposition for some. I could continue down the list to declare the same about union organizing and activism.

The article asks, “If 'proceeding to action even if the time is not ripe' doesn’t mean picking up the closest heavy object and attacking the nearest person in a uniform, what does it mean? How do we decide what kinds of action are most worthwhile?” Once again, I respond that it means a critique of economic determinism. It does not mean occupying a building when the cops are already inside. It also means that we can occupy buildings, even though the managers of revolution have not called for insurrection. I see value in individual action and affinity. The catalyst for insurrection will be driven by actions and not predetermined conditions. I trust people from their own communities to decide what actions are most worthwhile. I presume that comrades who happen to be students are the most qualified to know when the time is right to occupy their campuses.

Also, I do not see “insurrectionism as a program with concrete goals.” It is a method.

There is not a large scale revolt like when The Armed Joy was written. Our goal is to create such a climate! Even though an insurrection has not been handed to us, it is just as relevant to question economic determinism. I am interested in the role of individuals, affinity groups, and communities in inspiring revolt; we can make insurrection.

I hope that this clarifies my commentary. The Bonanno quote is not where I prefer to focus my participation in this debate.

Freedom for comrade Bonanno!

"i feel like many in the IA milieu attack crimethinc for being sub-culturally focused on punk sometimes, and i wonder why it is that it is okay for other people to focus on inserting revolutionary ideas into their own sub-culture (hipsters, queers, whatever) but criticize crimethinc for doing the same thing."

There is a difference between using subculture to expand anarchism and using subulture to marginalize it.  The criticism of crimethinc's subculturalism isn't that subcultures are inherently counter-revolutionary or anything, but that groups like crimethinc tend to promote anarchism AS subulture instead of promoting anarchism IN subculture.

There's a difference between presenting the notion that, whatever subculture you're in, you can be an anarchist and implying that, to be an anarchist, you must be in our subculture.

Anarchism as its own subculture (dirt-farming, bike riding, dred mullet growing, accordianplaying, hitchiking, etc) is self limiting.  Anarchism as a social tendency that permeates multiple subcultures is self expanding.

 I defy you to point to a CrimethInc. text within the past few years that argues that "dirt-farming," etc. is necessary for anarchism. There's no need to try to be insulting, either--it just weakens your case.

The primary exhibit people always bring up about this stuff is Evasion, which appeared in 1999 and was published in 2001. That's seriously NINE YEAR AGO now. CrimethInc. has produced a whole lot of material since then, and if all of it has been less useful to your case than Evasion, you're already acknowledging something.

"ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?"

-johnny rotten 2010

Biofilo, ya'll put out DIY guides about "putting out records", "patch making", "how to give directions to touring bands", etc.  I remember articles a few years back (in Harbinger, among other places) talking about dropping out, reading zines, the value of making things out of bicycle parts, hitchiking, and shit about "of course everyone can drop out of society, if they couldn't we'd be crazy to suggest it" (paraphrased from an article in a Harbinger from early 2004).   Either way, it's not only what you say in writing but also the culture you promote in action (I've been to a Crimethinc convergence and plan to go in the future, I had an amazing time, but let's not pretend that their isn't a very strong subcultural current). 

This tendency isn't a huge problem, but it does exist and should be considered honestly, not just denied.  We all should think about ways the anarchist movement becomes self-containing, and strive to transcend those barriers.

In this article you state that, in regards to ideas, "in all likelihood, the proponents will share subcultural reference points—how else would they have encountered the idea?".  What kind of sense does that make?  People can't talk to each other if Blackbird Raum isn't playing that night?

It's not like crimethinc is particularly guilty of promoting anarchism as a subculture, anarchists everywhere do it, it's a difficult routine to break out of.  Like I said before, the problem lies not with subcultures themselves but with the conflation of social struggle with subculture, of action with aesthetic.

I remember the old days, 2002 or 2003 or so, being young and reading Days of War, Nights of Love, Inside Front and Fighting for Our Lives, every word evoking a newfound excitement.  Crimethinc was publishing lots of quality work but at all sides was being maligned for being "lifestylist" or "privileged" or "white" or whatever other relatively empty criticisms were leveled your way.  I remember getting the first Rolling Thunders in 2006 and enjoying them, but I couldn't help but feel that the publication was in large part a response to the aforementioned weak criticisms.

It seems that your response to the aspersions that have been leveled your way has been an apologist route of taking up a sort of anarcho-populism: watering down your position in order to appease the broadest section of anarchists.  "Look we don't steal anymore, we write long ass articles about summits and being serious".

I guess I miss the days when Crimethinc literature was more contentious among anarchists.  Then, it seemed like you were saying exactly what you felt, whether or not it was going to be popular in the scene.  Now, I can't help but feel that you will say anything to avoid being derided by all the wingnuts that plague anarchism ("black people can't steal so you're racist"/"how does this relate to a one-legged gender queer single parent of color"/"you are a fucked up pale face and need to work on your shit" etc).  It's eerily reminiscent of a politician who will hide what he truly feels in order to appeal to more positions.

It's interesting that you mention Evasion.  I read that book years ago and my only problem with it was that it was a bit boring at times.  I couldn't help but feel that "Mack" could have gotten a little more adventurous. 

"In a sense, Evasion represented the pinnacle of proletarian self-activity, a concrete manifestation of the self negation of the working class through the refusal to reproduce itself as such.  The book chronicled one man's campaign to transcend commodity relations while trapped firmly in a world dominated by the commodity, a Sisyphean attempt to subvert an economy that encompasses everything."      -Crudo

If something is going to be subcultural, at least let the subculture be hard!

I would like to see more offensive and controversial material from Crimethinc, more train hopping, CD stealing, trash digging, a-fuck-not-giving low life shit.  I can read the "we're moderate anarchists, wer're so sensible" shit anywhere these days. 

I sentimentally remember that uninhibited passion.