đŸ’Ÿ Archived View for library.inu.red â€ș file â€ș peter-gelderloos-charting-revolt.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:16:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

âžĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Charting Revolt
Author: Peter Gelderloos
Date: January 19, 2021
Language: en
Topics: sociology, revolution
Source: Retrieved on January 20, 2021 from https://anarchistnews.org/content/charting-revolt-resisting-tendency-towards-reactionary-sociology

Peter Gelderloos

Charting Revolt

In the eventuality capitalism maintains its stranglehold on the planet,

the official histories of the present moment of resistance, decades from

now, will claim that the battles raging around us began with the

economic recession of 2008 and were further exacerbated by a second

recession in 2020. The reason for this framing is fairly obvious: it

obscures longer histories of revolt, particularly the exact forerunners

of greater rebellions; and it portrays us, the plebes, as simple

mechanical accessories that only enter into dysfunction when the economy

fails to produce abundance, as though we were just puppets dancing on

the strings of finance.

It is more unsettling, though far from surprising, when such framings of

our history come from within the movement, although nearly always, the

academic wing thereof.

What revolts do we miss out on with this framing? In fact, we exclude

all the important revolts that successfully broke with the Cold War

logic that had suffocated social struggle for decades and developed the

very logics and practices that would be deployed so forcefully after

2008. The Oka Standoff in 1990, the Los Angeles riots of 1992, the

Zapatista uprising in 1994, the Seattle riots of 1999, the Second

Intifada of 2000–2005, the Black Spring in Kabylie in 2001, the

Argentine general strike and riots of 2001, the Bolivian Gas War of

2005, the French banlieue uprising of 2005 and anti-CPE riots of 2006,

to name just a few.

What revolutionary developments do we excise when we do not view these

movements as the originators of our current wave of rebellions?

Practically everything important:

capitalist system to its knees

organizations

insistence on disrupting their summits and their managerial dominance

intervene after police murders

deaths after police encounters—including those who commit suicide after

being humiliated by the police—with massive riots

following the theory of insurrectionary generalization

specifically anti-vanguardist, that seeks to create spaces of dialogue

across social movements rather than controlling such movements, and that

breaks with the statist practice of subsuming revolution to a military

contest

assembly-based decision-making structures as more legitimate and more

liberatory than state structures

Interestingly, we can find a few of these features in the movements that

occurred during the Cold War, such as wildcat strikes and antiracist

urban rebellions, but all of them—from Paris ’68 to Watts—were quickly

marginalized, coopted, or stifled by the more formally organized forces

that were dominant in those movements. Additionally, the vast majority

of movements in that time period took seriously the fictions of

neoliberal freedom in the NATO bloc or democratic centralism in the

anticolonial movements of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Such fictions

hold little water today.

Without the developments described above, the revolts that come after

2008 can be scarcely understood, and explaining them as byproducts of an

economic recession is disingenuous, not least of which because it’s a

sloppy explanation: the insurrection in Greece in December 2008 came

before the recession was really felt in the streets; the plaza

occupation movement in Spain began after austerity measures were

announced but before they took effect, and major rebellions in Turkey

and Brazil took place when those countries were in moments of rapid

economic growth.

Even more importantly, the first major victories against

neoliberalism—in Bolivia in 2003 and 2005, in France in 2006—occurred

before our current rebellions supposedly began. Is there not the shadow

of a possibility that our fierce resistance, by marking a hard limit to

financial expansion, was a factor in triggering the economic recession,

rather than being a mere product of it? It makes perfect sense why

capitalist economists would never want to consider the possibility that

we the plebes might become movers of history and wreckers of economies,

but why would supposed anticapitalists insist on ignoring that

possibility? Just to continue spoon-feeding a decrepit theory that goes

from clownish to macabre when it continues to insist, after 150 years of

disasters and bad calls, that it constitutes a scientific approach to

revolution?

The economistic, quantitative analysis that claims our resistance begins

with economic downturns shares more in common with the gaze of those

hired to dissect revolt than with the gaze of those who participate in

it. As summarized in 23 Theses Concerning Revolt, “Today all belong to

the ruling class who view their own lives from above.”

— Distri Josep Gardenyes

23 Theses Concerning Revolt

Which movements are unduly emphasized by claiming a starting date of

2008 to the current wave of resistance? The plaza occupation movement in

southern Europe and Occupy Wall Street in the US certainly benefit from

this framing. Both of these movements explicitly spoke the language of

anti-austerity and positioned themselves as popular responses to the

economic crisis, even though they both constituted, if not the outright

astroturfing of a movement, then certainly academic interventions whose

real revolutionary potential arose in those moments they were subverted

by their own participants.

In the Spanish state, the plaza occupation movement arose at a time when

neighborhood assemblies, affinity groups, and independent labor unions

were already developing a popular, combative response to the outrages of

capitalism, specifically breaking with the major “yellow” unions that

had successfully operated as the managers of the working class since the

end of the fascist regime. The “Indignados” movement specifically

attempted to capture that terrain, strip it of an anticapitalist

analysis, pacify it, and shift it to the terrain of politics, where it

led to the formation of a new political party that now forms part of the

ruling coalition. All the revolutionary developments of this movement

came from those cities where radicals defeated the pacifying efforts of

would-be movement leaders. As for Occupy Wall Street, the most radical

developments came from Oakland and, on a smaller scale, other cities

that embraced the importance of an antiracist analysis over the populism

of the 99%, and that rejected the pacifism and democratic strictures

against freedom of action imposed by the organizers.

Here we glimpse another reactionary tendency of the quantitative

approach: a reticence to acknowledge the centrality of white supremacy

to capitalism. When the mainstream media analyze the rise of the far

Right—or at least what passes for analysis with them—they often code it

as sympathy for the “working class”. However, many sociological

anticapitalists have done the same thing, which is, again, sloppy. In

the US, it was Black workers who were most hurt by the forms of

deindustrialization that actually did occur, whereas largely white areas

of the South experienced an increasing industrialization. Explaining

white supremacy through an economic white anxiety is a canard that plays

into a normalization of said white supremacy. Yet some go even further,

decentering the antiracist character of the wave of rebellions that

swept the US, the UK, France, and other countries in 2020, portraying it

as a proletarian revolt in which questions of Blackness and

anti-Blackness were mere identity. (Obviously, class conflicts did run

white hot through the middle of that rebellion, but they cannot be

addressed except from the standpoint and history of Black revolt without

unwittingly aiding the efforts of the pacifiers.)

They reduce vast social conflicts stemming from oppressions that predate

capitalism to identity and claim identities are a mere product of class,

the only identity that they choose to naturalize, excising all of

history that cannot be told by the quantitative flow of capital. This is

the same white universalism of earlier generations of

revolutionaries-turned-reactionaries, such as the disgruntled white

Marxists who, no longer allowed to be the default revolutionary subject

due to the outrages of “identity politics,” joined the Republican Party

to become the architects of the Culture War in the 1970s.

By identifying the roots of the ongoing rebellions in the earlier

experiences, from 1990 to 2006, that I just mentioned, the fact that the

smartest and fiercest resistance to capitalism is reacting largely to

capitalism’s colonial, white supremacist nature becomes undeniable.

Again, we see this distance between what people are insisting and

experiencing in the streets, and the objective explanation others try to

impose on the streets from outside and above. Of course, ideology is

strong enough that one could even venture into the streets and see only

what one wants, but what use is this to those who want to learn from and

extend revolts? What use is an insurrection if we don’t feel its rage

and learn its secret history, if we strap it down, hook it up to an

engine, and harness its tremors to shake all the people who passed

through that crucible into their proper categories?

Ultimately, this is a failure we have already suffered from. Comrades of

the autonomous movements of the ‘60s and ‘70s have already told us that

their scientific assurance that capitalism was inevitably, mechanically

on its last legs contributed to their defeat and their inability to

pivot around their disappointments. We have read a similar decay of

assurance into disappointment in the revolutionary chronicles of the

early 20^(th) century. Shall we now theorize a post-late capitalism?

When does the millennium arrive this time, brother?

Historical memory can make the difference between a robust struggle and

one that is manipulated and waylaid. When we tell our history, we must

be sure to construct it in a way that makes it useful to us, that

reflects our own needs and experiences, rather than conforming to

ideologies that are incompatible with the reality in the streets.