Tuesday, August 3, 2010

post mortem

hey, in case anyone is still looking at this, here is what i have to say, nearly a year on.

i have resigned from all politics, 'radical' or otherwise, in disgust. (boo! sell-out!) whatever. there was a convergence of two factors: a growing personal toll and a sharpening sense of dissatisfaction with the paucity of both ideas and potential, a disinclination to play anymore don quixote games, that could only be put at bay so long by any series of new, sexy 'actions' or fairweather rebels.

what i know now is not different from what i knew before, it has only been beaten into my head by a longer string of appalling experiences. unfortunately, i have always apparently had a fondness for learning things the hard way, by attrition you might say. and this is in fact really what connects my personal experience to the bigger picture: because people are like this, not just me. people want to talk about communism and anarchy but rarely transform out of their conditioned roles as leaders, followers, workers, etc, simply because they are not conditioned to. it is too hard; all their experience teaches them otherwise. so we have little megaphone-wielding napoleons hopped up on self-righteousness leading their gangs of bright little idealistic peons, we have the even more self-righteous 'lumpen' dropouts hailing a 'nihilism' that is simply more intense and mindless activism (purely destructive) because apparently the mindless hard work of the activists wasn't mindless or hard enough for them. one of the most amazing things to me about the mercurial explosion of the 'cali student movement' is how so many people started out with this critique of 'activism' (which i sometimes prefer to call 'do-somethingism') and came completely 360 degrees with it. (one can only imagine what disgusting careerist capitalizations will be rationalized by the more explicitly authoritarian crowd, bolsheviks and identity politicians working on their academic tracks and NGO resumes.)

(another particularly embarrassing theme to note in hindsight is all the chest-beating about being the 'futureless youth in revolt' and comparisons to other times and places - as though the least objective reading of this wouldn't have turned up the equally obvious point that we were just students doing what radical students always do in capitalist societies, which is to pioneer new forms of politics, that is to say recuperation; and as if we all haven't always been fucking futureless and this too has yet to provide any particular widespread motivation to destroy capitalism. ah, and so i succumbed to the long tradition of anti-authoritarian entanglements with social movements which is so well known to always end badly...)

whatever, if this needs to be exposed any further it's probably pointless. read some dupont and maybe a little more tiqqun if you want to read politics. you will not find exhortations to start committees and blogs, to hoist banners, organize black blocs and the like. you will not find suggestions that the symptoms of struggle are to be confused with the unfolding of the dialectical processes which are really the only endgame in sight for capitalism. get a job and drag your feet, say dupont. plant a garden and get a gun, say tiqqun. fine advice. we cannot fight the flow of the world on our own, we need to live our lives or we become even more crazy than the 'norms'. the world is most likely totally fucked anyway.

as far as the personal allegations about me - since fuck it, some people who read this know who i am - fuck your gullibility, your scene and your game of telephone, and fuck the conniving, manipulative bolshevik snakes who orchestrated this show of thuggery. why is it that certain keywords like 'patriarchy' allow people to forget everything we know about the authoritarian left? was it not under the similar magic word of 'anti-fascism' that anti-authoritarian militia units were sent to the slaughter by the soviet-controlled republican army in spain? under 'anti-imperialism' that the anti-war bureaucrats have secured support for any number of nationalist gangsters and tyrants? isn't this exactly why they say these words; isn't it reason enough? since their whole ideology and methodology dictates that their first duty is the leashing of radical 'uncontrollables'. 'anarchists must say what only anarchists can say', as dupont have eloquently pointed out, and equally eloquently how disappointingly rare this is. too often we only toe the lines set up by our supposed 'comrades' who are actually our worst enemies, who take us more seriously than we take ourselves. as some looked to expand the struggle outside of the schools, others looked to purge internal 'enemies'. anarchists thrash downtown, an anarchist is beaten by 'feminist' authoritarian marxists. you figure it the fuck out.

anyway, i just used a first person pronoun regarding anarchists, and i guess i philosophically retain a lot of the same views, but i emphatically insist on cutting my ties to any movement, any ism. all 'radical movements' existing within capitalism are symptoms of capitalism and fully contained within its logic; they are only more delusional than most components of the machine, whose only 'revolution' will be the ultimate material failure of the machine itself. this is why i've decided to return to life as a 'private citizen', as a truly autonomous, invisible, whatever. good luck tyrannizing or rioting your way to utopia. my utopia, to paraphrase welcome the plague year, will to be surround myself with the ones i love and hope for the best.

to my friends, you know where to find me. to my enemies, you will most likely never find me, and if you do you will wish you hadn't. it's not in your interest anyway since we no longer have a common field of life and action. good bye.