By Mirasol. This article is related to an other, published on FEVER, here.
The tremendous social uprising in the USA, the way it is
playing out in the rest of the world, encouraged us to publish this text
in haste. The events, as often happens, are unfolding faster and
stronger than we expected. So much the better!
In this text,
we ask a simple question: how can we win? The first wave of uprising
that spread around the world in 2018-2019 was the premise of a new
revolutionary cycle. Today, this cycle has reopened, right in the belly
of world capitalism: the USA.
If the revolution takes a direction
dictated by the legalistic, democratic fringe of the movement, or even
the so-called “radical” fringe, if what is at stake is a change in the
constitution, reform of the state, or more democratic waffling, defeat
is guaranteed.
The very practices of the movement confirm this. Here is the content of the hegemony of the proletarians over their movement: attack, take and share. Putting an end to pompous declarations and starting to change life, here and now.
Seizing property, housing, everything. Sharing food and organizing this redistribution on the basis of the population’s needs. Attacking the state.
In short, communist measures. Revolutionary proletarians will find the police confronting them. But they will also find community leaders. They’ll find organizers, those who call for negotiation. Those who still believe that they can be “taken into account”.
From Kim Kardashian to Jeff Bezos, the liberal bourgeoisie, frightened by the social conflagration and rage, promises black people they’ll be given consideration. They promise an end to racism and they lie. No representation, no affirmative action, no police reform is enough. Only force can defeat force. American insurgents know it: to end police racism, they must end the police. The magnificent movement that is taking off in the United States cannot be limited to the conviction of a few cops, to a few crumbs and promises of reform.
Promises of a slice of the American dream, of integration in the capitalist world, the carrot that makes us believe that we too can get rich, is rightly denounced as a racist nightmare.
Today, what we’re witnessing is the awakening of our class.
From the USA to Lebanon, Algeria, Chile, Brazil, Hong Kong, the world
wave that is surging forward is synonymous with experimentation,
battles and advances, both in practice and in the understanding of this
practice. Thousands, millions of comrades are involved everywhere in the
assault on the capitalist social order.
In this new cycle, we need
to resituate the revolutionary question at the center of our
discussions. We need theories, exchange, and debate that are free of all
academicism, speculative communism, postural anarchism.
This text
should therefore be read as an invitation. To collective effort, deeper,
more contradictory, more controversial. We will suggest some
indications of paths to follow and explore. Here is our central
proposal. Let’s talk strategy. Let’s discuss insurrection. Let’s put
this problem, vital for whoever wants the victory of revolutionaries, on
the table : how can we bring down the State before it represses,
crushes, tortures and kills us ?
This was the steel wall that the
movements of the previous years came up against, fell into the trap of
the RIC (citizens’ initiative referendum), the Constituent Assembly and
other democratic magic charms. With the pathetic call to reform the
state, which is merely the white flag of defeat, the moment when the
movement admits its defeat as a movement, the initiative is left to the
state.
We need to go further. We need to talk about what brings a
revolution into the open, about what, historically, has always been its
birth certificate, from July 1789 to February 1917, from February 1848
to the Paris Commune of 1871: the disempowerment of the State.
The
term insurgency refers to a set of practices for a specific objective,
the overthrow of the state. It also refers to the use of force to
achieve that goal. Since this force is not that of the State but of the
population or a part of the population, the State uses the term
“collective violence”, particularly in laws aimed at repressing those
practices and thus at defining the framework within which sentences can
be pronounced. For States, e.g. the French State, insurgency is a crime.
Insurgency as defined above has no political color.
Both the
political and the practical definitions of insurgency refer back to the
definition of the state, of which insurgency is the negative.
Since
it is a question of overthrowing the state, it is precisely by defining
what makes up the foundation of the state that potential target sites
for its overthrow can be identified.
Materially speaking, the
foundation of the State is formed of the armed groups who defend it, of
their ability to anticipate threats and to communicate with each other
and with the population. Since the State is a pyramid-like hierarchical
structure, attacking the top and breaking the chain of command can
effect a profound disruption of the entire structure.
Yet, and
perhaps this is where we may make a political distinction: an insurgency
that serves only to break the chain of command is simply a coup d’état,
where the foundations of the state are not shaken. It is not the State
that is overthrown, but a certain functioning of its institutions. It is
in reality merely the violent overthrow of a government. For the state
is also defined by the continuity of its power beyond the tenure of any
specific group of leaders.
Overthrowing the state itself therefore
requires that it be overthrown in a lasting way. Though the starting
point may be similar, and may indeed involve breaking the chain of
command, we might say that the goal would not be to break one link in
that chain but to smash the whole thing.
Overthrowing the state
itself therefore requires the material destruction of the sites of power
and the control by the insurgent population1 of communication channels, transport routes, but also more widely of the energy supply.
Given
these distinctions, one might think that the term insurrection is too
ambiguous. Yet it evokes an essential notion: speed of execution. An
insurrection that fails or only partially succeeds in overthrowing the
state turns into a war, a coup d’état, an overthrow of government. And
so we arrive at the last point in this attempt at definition: the total
aspect of the insurrection is never quite achieved, because total
insurrection is synonymous with going beyond itself and being subsumed
into the communist revolution.
The idea of “going beyond” is
important here because it signposts us to the resolution of the
contradictions posed by the term “insurrection” as well as “revolution”.
To speak of total insurrection, which goes further than a coup d’état
or the replacement of order, which completely breaks the state
apparatus, is to speak of social and political revolution. It means
going beyond regime change to attack the totality of social relations.
If
we refer more specifically to insurgency, it is because we consider the
collapse of the state to be a crucial revolutionary necessity that
deserves to be discussed in depth, a set of countermeasures
indispensable to the development of the revolution. Let us be clear:
this is not so much to prioritize the insurrection as to affirm that it
cannot be circumvented. For the idea exists within the current discourse
around the revolution that it would be possible for a mass
revolutionary movement to grow without reference to confrontation with
the state. We are opposed to this strategy of burying our heads in the
sand, which is at best naive, at worst reformist.
For the revolution
is above all an insurrectional event. Or to put it another way,
insurrection is a set of initiatives through which revolution imposes
itself and defends itself, the two being inseparable. The example of
recent uprisings— this analysis is valid in all corners of the world—
shows this: where the state stands, it will strike hard, and continue to
strike until the opponent is crushed, not recoiling from any atrocity
to ensure its own survival and that of the class it defends. Think of
Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq. Where the state is temporarily beheaded, as is
the case with the fall of regimes, it gives in for a time, but only in
exchange for the partial surrender of the insurgents, who then see
parties that are supposed to represent them co-opted to lead the state.
This usually takes the form of a provisional government. Think of
Tunisia, Egypt. Where the state is facing a low-intensity insurgency, a
pre-insurgency mass protest, it uses these two weapons together,
democratic co-optation and repression, by trial and error: think of
Chile, or Hong Kong.
In all the cases we have just mentioned, the
issue at stake is that of decay, or getting stuck in a rut. It is clear
that the State has on its side an operational continuity, a constancy in
time and space that insurgents often lack. The insurgents stand every
chance of losing if they do not triumph without delay.
How long does an insurrection last? That’s a big question. As we
wrote earlier, an insurrection that lasts becomes a revolution. But that
becoming itself is conditioned by a prior victory. What matters to us,
therefore, is the window of opportunity, the moment when, in full
flight, an insurrection can win or die.
This is the time during which
the insurrectional movement is in progress and can take the state by
surprise with its initiatives, or grow and expand. We will not rush to
give precise figures, as such a measure also depends on the
disorganization of the State. Indeed, what is decisive is when the
initiative changes.
Can there be several insurgent episodes within a
few months of each other? We don’t know. For now, it may be best to
speak in terms of weeks, or even days.
In an attempt to paint a
tentative picture of the insurgent moment: an indeterminate time is the
front. It is composed of micro-crises, local or latent conflicts, which
trace the weak signals of the rise of anger. When this anger explodes,
it modifies temporality. It produces a social event, which generalizes
very quickly, centralizes around it the attention, the social time.
Everybody’s
talking about it. Practices work by example, and we will try to
reproduce and surpass what we see happening elsewhere. The model is one
of trial and error, and what works is reproduced. Hence the need for
rapid information sharing. Everything then moves very quickly, until the
confrontation reaches a certain point, when power itself is called into
question. At that point, everything can turn upside down. For the
moment we have only seen the collapse of the movements at this precise
moment, and their political-military, even social, defeats. Military
defeat through the victory of repression. Political defeat, which will
see the movement rush into the sidetrack of constituent assemblies,
borderline forms of integration into the State.
And finally social
defeat, when the social initiative leaves the movement to be confiscated
by trade union bureaucracies. The latter then call for a general
strike, a strike controlled from one end to the other by them, or we are
summoned, without leaving us any initiative autonomy? Thus, a takeover,
a cooptation.
Next, on what space does an insurrection unfold? For
the time being, the face-to-face with the State is within the framework
of the national territory in which that State is deployed. There is no
indication, however, that this remains so.
Think in particular of the
evolution of the current crisis, one of the major characteristics of
which is global simultaneity. Within the territory, there is also a need
to reflect on the particular areas where the movement is unfolding, and
how these areas are evolving as the movement takes the shape of the
conflict with the State? For example, often one starts by deploying near
one’s home, then focusing on blocking more strategic targets, before
finally striking the head.
But let’s go further. The movement, in gaining and in order to gain
power, raises the question of an economic, social and local
reorganization conducted in accordance with the needs of the struggle.
It is not a question of a program or a project, but of measures to be
taken by which the movement may reinforce itself. It is also a hegemonic
dynamic, that of the proletarians, who, in order to remain in the
struggle, are confronted with the need to act against the social
constraints implied by the condition of the exploited.
What is formed
in the struggle is a movement confronted by forces that want to
maintain a social order which crushes this very movement. Only offensive
action can liberate. But as in any movement, a struggle rages.
There
are two opposing forces. On the one hand, that of the continually
density of the movement. On the other, that which seeks the return to
order. Win or negotiate. We propose to call this conflict, sometimes
open, sometimes hidden, the struggle for hegemony.
We use this term
keeping in mind the Italian revolutionary A. Gramsci, who used the
concept of hegemony to circumvent the censorship of his prison, which
forbade him to speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but also
because this term allowed him to name the struggle within the capitalist
social order itself to define the orientation of the movement that
challenges this social order.
Gramsci himself had reused a concept
first developed by Lenin in the book “Two Tactics of Social Democracy in
the Democratic Revolution. In this book, Lenin criticized, among other
things, the constitutional ideology of the right-wing currents of the
workers’ movement of his time. He argues that the revolution to bring
down the tsarist dictatorship cannot be left in the hands of the
democratic bourgeoisie, which will hasten to make a compromise with the
tsar because it fears the forces of a revolutionary proletariat more
than monarchical power.
This analysis, as we can see, bears some
similarity to the positions we are proposing here. The main difference
is that for Lenin, the proletarian hegemony is in fact that of the
Bolshevik party which is supposed to represent the proletariat.
That
is where our agreement ends, because it is clear to us that the model of
the separate party leading the movement is a dead end from a communist
point of view. This position is inscribed in the perspective of the
leadership of the movement not by the self-organized proletariat, but by
a ruling elite, which fulfills the function left vacant by the
bourgeoisie: intellectuals (whose origin is a matter of indifference,
even if they are former workers), who then go on in the name of
revolution and social progress to establish a state capitalism that has
nothing to do with communism.
In the same way, it is not a question
of taking up the Gramscian concept of cultural hegemony as it stands. We
divert these terms of struggle for proletarian hegemony to name the
struggle for the orientation of the movement in the direction of the
production of communism. This production is thought as the activity of
the revolutionary class, that is to say based on its own tools of
organization, which will be called in different ways depending on the
place, action committees, workers’ commission, assembly of struggle,
roundabout meeting etc. Such a force organizes from the bottom up the
implementation of communist measures as a means of struggle against the
social order. That is to say, the destruction of private property and
merchandise, the dismantling of companies, of the state, and the total
reorganization of society in order to live as we decide to, and not as
misery, merchandise and exploitation impose on us.
The term
dictatorship of the proletariat is so confused with the dictatorship of
states that it should be used with caution. Let us recall that at the
center of the proposals of this series of texts is the will to end the
state as the first act of the revolution. We are fiercely opposed to any
period of state transition. Furthermore, the concept of proletarian
hegemony seems adequate: rule by those who have nothing for those who
have nothing and thus for everyone.
The dynamics which deepen the
revolution, the victorious dynamics, are those which have nothing to
gain for themselves, nothing to scratch for the corporation whom
continue to exercise a hold over them2.
The hegemony of these dynamics is the only one that allows, or that
even aspires to a social offensive. This hegemony is based on a refusal,
a repudiation of an unbearable condition of poverty and exploitation.
This refusal becomes more radical as those who conduct it realize that
it is common by so many of our fellow human beings. It represents an
exhaustion with coercion, coercion to sell oneself; the compulsion to
exist only as commodities, sold on the labor market in order to get a
little money to buy other commodities, and so on until death.
This
hegemony of refusal, then, is the hegemony of proletarians. Those who
only have to lose their chains – their revolving credit, their rotten
car, a house on the outskirts or a flat in the suburbs, temporary work,
the building site, the job of delivery boy, cashier, care assistant. The
revolution is carried out by those who have the greatest interest in
seeing the current state of things defeated, those who do not seek to
extend their condition, but, on the contrary to attack it, as one would
attack an external constraint. We must stress that if this movement
starts from the proletarians, it is a universal dynamic, which comes
immediately to attack the social class divisions with communist
measures, and not simply with words.
But a movement has other
potentials beside growth. It can diminish. It can shrink to a political
movement, a party, one which seeks to govern and to reform the state. It
is in the combined names of the people and realism that this political
shadow comes forward; it wears the national emblem, it speaks of
sovereignty, and above all it thrives on fear.
This defeat of the
real movement is the victory of the other available political hegemony,
the other side of the movement: the democratic petit and medium
bourgeoisie. The precise referents for these terms may be very different
in different places around the globe (variants of political Islam as in
Egypt or Tunisia, Peronism in Argentina, calls for a better
representation of blacks and a more democratic state in the USA) as
ideological nuances reflect local history but the content is the same –
the self-limiting of a the movement to a reform of the state and its
police, another constitution, the fight against corruption and for a
redistribution of wealth.
Such a situation is the bitter victory of
the status quo, which is just one more defeat, one more surrender. The
victory of those who still have something to gain by negotiating, or at
least who think they do. Those who have something good, that is to say a
business, a small trade.
Those who, if the movement grows in
intensity, will be ready to side with a provisional government promising
to represent the movement and reform the state. And in the meantime, to
get rid of the disorder.
We have seen this happen. We have seen other revolutions lost.
In
order for the direction, or at least the impetus, of the struggle to
belong to those who have nothing, these people must win. May life be
transformed. Otherwise, these same people are condemned to return to
work at short notice, a position from which they cannot afford to remain
in the daily struggle.
This presupposes that, in the short term, our
living conditions, our housing, our access to food, to everything that
allows us to live, will be transformed by the struggle itself, in the
service of rendering this struggle more profound. It is in this type of
practice, above all in its extension to all spheres of society, that we
can imagine what a movement of struggle is, in and for itself, and not
for the State. This struggle forms and perpetuates itself around the
need for to equip ourselves with everything we need to live, to
struggle, and to continue to live and struggle, both as a means and as
an end, to live as ammunition against the social order and as a
community in struggle that expands instead of closing itself off3.
Take
the housing, take the gas, take the clothes. Don’t pay rent, groceries,
bills. Connect free gas, electricity, water. Organize the distribution,
and start organizing the production, of what we need. Use it where we
find it – on the building sites, in the factories. In short enact a
general reorganization of society.
In the confrontation and the constitution of the movement, it is the future society that begins.
]]]Mirasol
Länk: https://feverstruggle.net/2020/06/09/insurgency-and-revolution/
Feed