#post-left

Coercion is the forcing of a decision of someone who doesn't agree with it. Anarchism doesn't believe in it because it means that someone has power over someone, also known as a hierarchy.

Democracy is a form of governance, this means it is a form of coercion. It is a form of imposing collective decisions and norms onto non-conformist individuals. Direct democracy is no better.

By : Santiago "Weebu" Pemo

As a French reader, I am much more impacted and attached to French philosophy and its theorists than most people. I feel a deep connection to the language I grew up with and these theories that so deeply resonate with my being, some ideas and vague concepts I have had since the dawn of my political consciousness, that also appear to be fundamental for these intellectuals, way before my time. There is something truly eye opening about finding deeply avant-garde theory in your language, that has also pretty directly impacted the politics of your own country, to a certain degree. Tiqqun for me is the representation of the search for ideals, the insatiable pursuit of knowledge that I experience, and will experience. Dense and complicated, pretentious and critical, Tiqqun's works have everything to be categorized a million times by fruitless adjectives, but the only one truly fitting for such a titan of theory is "impressive".

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Tiqqun was a French philosophical journal, even if i would categorize it more as a periodic publication and recollection of intellectual texts. It was actively published between 1999 and 2001, supposedly dissolving after the 9/11 attacks for fear of repression and a needed break from the political world, as some claim. Why would they do that? Well, Tiqqun was THE most radical publication France ever got a hold of, but specially because the tradition it subscribed into was not a typical one. Insurectionary Anarchism, Situationism and Communization (In both a general and specific manner, we will go over that later), as well as the large French school of Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism, Tiqqun is a beacon of modern French radical philosophy. And for how complex what the journal propositions can be, It is no surprise that this lovely piece of theory has gone severely unnoticed for the average "leftist". It's a literary piece at heart, a several hundred pages long poem, it's a work of passion to the world of philosophy and theoretical politics. And that is what makes the publication one of the most beautiful yet disheartening concepts to read, as well as being absolutely groundbreaking, and a read that will challenge anyone's unprepared views about many topics, since it introduces complex notions of the "Invisible Party", "Metaphysical Critique Exercices", "The Theory Of Bloom" and of course, their own spin on "Communization Theory".

"Communization" is a complicated topic, a theory not for the weak minded, something pretty much existent in the own confines of our exhausted and depressed intellectual capacities, but it still manages to be fresh enough to be adaptable to everyone. The lack of dogmatism in the writing, the synthesis of concepts and the post-post modernity of its analysis is unlike anything you can currently get your hands on. But the core concepts are understandable, and can make you rethink your own base ideology from the ground up. At least that is what happened to me. Communization, as the theory that rejects the DOTP from a marxist understanding of revolutionary action and procedures, is not a common piece of thought even in online discourse. Im not here to explain in depth this concept (as it is the case for another article of mine), but what Is important here is how Tiqqun took this theory, very marginal Left Communist piece of theory, and built it, almost single-handedly, from the ground up once again. The revolution that Tiqqun brought by explicitly importing Insurrectionary Anarchist ideas, as well as a general anarchist ethos too, to a concept that wouldn't necessarily hold it, was the stepping stone towards the erasure of "Anarchist"and "Statist" labels in the ultra left, leading to a much more fluid interaction and development of ideas, breaking the dogmas that can follow the Meta-Narratives of certain strains of "left wing" ideology. Meta-Narratives that still hold a lot of theorists back when it comes to the full liberation of their brain, towards a greater understanding of the world, even if that might come with far greater consequences, like absolutely breaking your hope and desire for the world, but not in a very Nihilist way, but a purely emotional sense. Tiqqun is very emotional, and more than anything, it appeals to the individual's understanding of them, and what that said individual wants to take for their own personal benefit. It's what I would call some kind of very well executed decentralized communal thought process.

And this is key In my personal development, as I originally came from a much more orthodox Anarcho-Communist conception of ideology, with its own dogmatism and ingrained fallacies that even back then bothered me, this fluidity and lack of strict structure that the ideas of Tiqqun have allowed me to break down the walls I imposed on myself. And that is what makes their version of Communization so specific. Not only they detail and talk about the general concept that an author like Dauvé could have, but they go further than him. They always do. That is the magic of the journal, going as far as it is possible to think. Their analysis is clean, including some fairly (and sadly) forgotten theories like Situationism at the heart of their vision, specially when they mention anything to do with the "invisible party". Avant-Gardism is the core ethos of what Tiqqun wanted. They did not want to be comprehended by the general population, they didn't write for us to use our texts as proof of the subjective validity of our ideology, but a job. They had a specific vision of the world, a ruthless one, one that did not spare any badmouthing of any concept as long as it fit their worldview, one that is marvelously constructed. A worldview Guy Debord would have been proud to read.

But you simply cannot just read Tiqqun for enjoyment, as that would be too complicated for anyone with less than 50 degrees on philosophy. You read Tiqqun to experience the whole thought of the "Invisible Party", and you do so with an aim : to criticize your ideas. Tiqqun, for the more well read and fundamentally built reader is primarily an exercise for contrasting metaphysics. The variety of the texts, and the diversity of what they are able to deal with in those gives a complexity to their thought I have barely seen anywhere else. Tiqqun is not a manifesto, Tiqqun is a collection of the greatest thoughts of the french ultra-left of the 90's, one very much involved with all the social movements of its time but retaining its "armchair" critique typical of other strains of Left Communism. But why would anyone listen to them? Why care for Tiqqun? Because the modernity of their ideas is something that will put you in a state of "intellectual depression".

No, this is not a Deleuze reference (even if it might as well be). It is simply a statement to the greatness of Tiqqun's writings, ones that challenges you so much, you stay in a state of perplexity that is hard to achieve with most theory collections. Tiqqun made me depressed, because it challenged my traditional views so much, that I could never conceive traditional modern theory the same way. It radically affected my relationship with not only political and philosophical texts, but also with the politics that affect my day to day life : parliamentary politics, for example. I no longer trust what I used to, I no longer want what I wanted, and I no longer seek what I tried to find when i first embarked on the world of politics. Nothing feels enough, I want more. Satisfaction became a secondary need, but reflection and constant upgrading of my own ideas is what I aspired to, like I mentioned at the beginning of this article. Even my actions, at the scale of my fairly boring small town changed, the discourse I have with people interested or not on politics has changed so much, to the point that I feel as my ideas are exclusive to me. Exactly what Tiqqun is all about, but that does not mean it's a concept full of positives, specially living In a world where our action is necessary and important, even if at times fully pointless.

Holding radical positions in pretty much any aspect of thought is exhausting in the stage of deceiving and worse than before social democratic compromise reformist policies of the present day, one that does not even serve the petty bourgeois it sought to protect to begin with. Repeating the same things, same concepts, theories and ideas over and over again to people oblivious to them is the greatest challenge an active militant or passionate anti-capitalist can face. But the breath of fresh air Tiqqun's expression and interpretation of the classics, as well as an introduction to the newer theories that SHOULD take a larger part in our new theoretical and practical developments is very much needed in the modern day landscape. It's the best of both worlds, In a style you can hardly dislike. Why? Because of the variety of it.

As I mentioned at the beginning, Tiqqun is a collection of texts, but it didn't exactly end in 2001. The publication of several and very complex, pretty much full scale books around 2004-2010 revitalized the scene, specially taking into account how un-finished their work can seem to some. It is not a fully developed program, a truly new political ideology or thought model, but simply good theory, and these newer additions completed an already rich project. But what was important about Tiqqun's post-mortem publications is not anything published under their name, but more so an associate group that can very much be the same people that conformed the original secret council of the Tiqqun redaction, that being "The Invisible Committee". As many of you know, this neo-Tiqqunist collective made one of the most important works out of the modern french scene, named "The Insurrection To Come", a book so popular, it was the object of all the far right moral panics on an international scale, doing ravages to the brain of Fox News redactors. But what really mattered there was how it affected my perspective, as it was one of the first texts of the sort that i ever had the opportunity to read, and is considered a cornerstone of the insurrectionary movement as a whole, revered globally and by a large variety of individuals, on and outside of internet discourse. Yes, it is not Tiqqun, but its closeness with the original intellectual group makes it a product of the original thought of the Invisible Party.

Game changing, In every aspect, even on terms of rights and politics, on domains of repression of radical thought, even. In November 2008, Julien Copat, one of the known members of Tiqqun's redaction was arrested by french authorities under pretext of "Participating on a terrorist action that derailed a train" In a small locality in the rural center of the nation (Tarnac, hence giving its name to the "Tarnac Affair"). And this case, that lasted until around 4-5 years ago, caught enough traction for my young and impressionable brain to know about it, years later when the case resumed after a long break. And this was the first case I ever saw where radical thought leaders were attacked falsely based purely on the radicality of their writings, something pretty much without precedent at that time. And it was the reason why I even know about the publication to begin with, and so was the case for a large amount of young teenagers, who got a newly ignited passion towards these ideas, brewing ever since the intellectual rebellion of May 68, bringing more air to the scene than any other project before. It has been one of the few judicial cases I went deep in, and that exposed more clearly than any other case in modern times, how the punishment great thinkers receive under the rule of the bourgeoisie. It was an event that radicalized me indirectly.

The reason why I consider Tiqqun to be so heavy on my brain is because of how real it is. Never had I seen a fusion of extremely theoretical and technical philosophical theory mixed with a focus on praxis without precedents, specially in a time where political actions from the proletariat are ramping up in power, intensity and frequency once again, like a clock. Tiqqun represents the non-nihilistic view of revolutionary action, with the sadness that comes with knowing the truths behind the movements and the ideas that power them. That is what brings sadness to my soul. It was a necessary step in my development, and I feel as if it's just a reflection of what the general population can feel about the exploding liberal status quo, but the people on our side of theory know the reasons why. Tiqqun gave me the keys to understand better the world but also the revolutionary thought that i wholeheartedly stick to, and at the same time, Tiqqun amplified my Capitalist Realism to levels I had barely ever seen before. Tiqqun, In all its greatness, doomed me to intellectual depression, and I will not recover this time.

By : Santiago "Weebu" Pemo

December 1st, 2018 marks the day one can pinpoint the exact moment the mass "anti-establishment" left wing in Latin America effectively died. By the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the world saw in it the opportunity for the indigenous population alongside the large working class to re-ignite an era of progress in the country, in hand with the immense discontent the majority of the population had with the country's personalities and institutions. A groundbreaking moment? Not in the end. AMLO's election happened out of pure anger and desperation from the people, a population so neglected by its technocratic ruling class and actively threatened and oppressed by the global capital holders up north the Rio Bravo, that they chose him simply because he was the big face of it all. An opportunist of monumental capacities. With the Movement For National Regeneration, known as MORENA in Spanish (and totally not a fascist sounding name), the "left wing" in Mexico knew its first victory ever since revolutionary times, and it was worse than expected.

His tendency is nothing more than what can be qualified as your typical reactionary, in all aspects. In typical Mexican fashion, AMLO not only did not comply with his agenda and propositions, but held an immense campaign to support his in-action in pretty much anything. His radical anti-liberalism had the good line, and was followed by a correct stance against the state of the country post-NAFTA. 3 elections of training his discourse and it stuck into the Mexican popular consciousness. For how populist and demagogical his speech was, he held the right ideas : the direct attack of the Mexican bourgeoisie in all aspects of society and claiming an alleged "anti-american" posture is the correct stance to have, but it didn't even end up being that his official posture.

AMLO, for how delusional the right wing in Mexico claims him to be a "Communist Monster coming after your kid's education" and other usual moronic moral panics, he is nothing more but your average PRI technocrat, getting a name inside the party around the 70's, a time when the big tent adjective that they claim was, at the very least, somewhat true. He sided with the "social" fraction of the party, that had as much social comprehension as Mussolini, until the eventual creation of the PRD, a party so corrupt that it overshadowed the PRI at its own game. An impressive track record for someone claiming to be the "new face of Mexico", a bold title considering his social positions and his complete inaction in any matters other than "goblins" and "COVID curing image patches". A ridiculous man he is, and has the smartest strategy out of any president in functions today. He used all the needs of the Mexican people mixed with populist religious conservative talking points, and you got yourself a winner. No social progress beyond basic social democratic positions, no ecological consciousness and no radicality whatsoever : the perfect way to take advantage of politically alienated and disadvantaged Mexican rural voters.

For the longest time, the middle class was the focus of Mexican politics, whether it was with Christian conservative cultural talking points of the financial gain of the newly and growing petty-bourgeois owners of new lands on the cities with aid of international capital, the electoral system turned around people with this profile. No amount of class representatives ever truly got the chamber of deputies or senate, and that has not changed. But what changed was the focus of these elections. The middle class, the one proposed with globalisation, turned out to be unsustainable. The filthy game that capitalism led all around the country pushed for furthering inequalities and the crumbling of the cultural identity of a middle class. The shift appealed to the populists, the one preying on the people not only falling into these precarious situations, but the ones already familiar with the bottom of the barrel of Mexican hierarchical society.

Because after the total and absolute ruckus that completely covered the Neoliberal era of Mexico, starting around the 80's with the global dominance of the Reagan-Thatcher administrations, no one would ever endorse the hell those reforms entailed. Coinciding with the presidency of La Madrid, an ironically named neo-liberal reformer who, just like his peers, was educated in the highest and most elitist schools of the American administrative system. All with a glamourous bourgeois view of the new train of thought that modern ultra-liberalism, one with a total and contrary ethos to the almost-established revolutionary Mexican ideal. All of these people ended up being the architects of their absolute electoral defeat years down the line. Going on until now, the Neo-Liberalism that Mexico faced put the country's proletariat at the mercy of international finance groups, in total cooperation with the government, at the height of its corruption and establishing technocratic rule. The 80's and 90's were not too kind for the average Mexican, but it's really not like they ever were. Debt crisis, mass privatization and disregard for workers well being destroyed completely the mass proletariat of the country. President Portillo continued this stance, and that lasted well into the change of parties with Fox and Calderon, the two large scapegoats for the current government. And yes, for how guilty these last administrations were of completely and violently liberalizing the country, this continuous process never ended, even under the administration of the man who stands against all of these people. And what did all of this cost? The radicality of any movement seeking to liberate Mexico from the grip of Canadian water companies hoarding the resources of an arguably dying country.

This period, regarded as either the "Shining period" for conservative white people, or just hell for anyone else involved in the process of these reforms, has had THE central role of the rejection of these ideas for the average Mexican. In this part of the world, the left does generally win the poor's vote, but it never finishes in a victory for them due to the extreme ammount of issolation that these people face, and the disregard the political elites have for the poorest and least advantaged Mexicans. Never has a trully revolutionary (Marxist or other) party had relevance in Mexico ever since the dirty wars, a series of guerilla conflicts from revolutionary (and quite opportunistic) groups on the countryside and the surounding areas of dense yet rural areas of the mountains of Guerrero. And ever since then, the leading (mostly finantial) bougeoisie has put down any opposition to the neo-liberal reforms as a form of rehabilitation of these revolts that had never the less class struggle at its core. And well, since the trully anti-establishement left wing had either been killed back in 68 or demoralized by the 2000's, its exactly at this point that the hopes of some poorly optimistic reformists was poured into the PRD candidacy of the old man apparently 60% of Mexico adores, AMLO. A candidacy that went on for 18 years, and that found its way to Palacio Nacional, but not without hiccups. Allegations of stolen elections and a sentiment of unfairness regarding the elections, especially high around the 2012 election of president Calderon (A.K.A, the Devil). Largely using his arguably smooth talk, he managed to turn this unfairness, coupled with a disastrous last president, that being Peña Nieto (basically a puppet for the dying PRI party to stay relevant after being de-throwned but the PAN as the leading right wing party), you got yourself a once in a lifetime election result, and that was enough to sadly appease the proletariat. The opportunistic nature of his politics, using other parties and coalitions in his benefit, was an absolute loss for the working class, and that effect of appeasement will be felt for longer than many can imagine.

So opportunistic that the bolshevik vanguard feels rightful in that place, this man never held any kind of real political positions besides opposing this controversial neo-liberal era the country went through while he gathered bourgeois power inside the party that dictated the country's direction for 60+ years. No radical background or desire to reform or even change the system, just a mindless return to the status quo that went before his ripe time : state run corporatism. There is, in no sense, a social character to AMLO's presidency. His state-powered economic policy is the exact same economic ideas that directed the early bourgeoisie in Mexico's post-1910 history. Consisting of mere and mindless nationalisation at the benefit of his own group of prescribed industrialists and populistic welfare ideas that re-enforce women's submisive role, such as the pink-credit given to families. The kind of class colaboration he so proposes, in addition to the policies implemented to comply with the social truce he needs to govern off of the people who have everything to win in case of a radical change for the future of the Mexican nation. For how much he claims the legacy of Cardenas, In no way does he even come close to that role, and I doubt he even wanted to fill it. The same way trade unions in Mexico have been the largest and most disastrous proletarian organization mode, AMLO comes in a non-glorious second place.

He, effectievely, managed to institutionalize the anti-establishement feeling that got rallied around him, and that sentiment became the only justification of his defenders for his political legitimacy. No matter how reactionary his social policy is, people will like him, because they see in him the change this overly capitalist nation needs. His idea of an ideal nation is nothing short of a nationalist's one. And, besides the obvious reasons why that concept in a multinational state like Mexico is, his foreign policy is not much better. He sought to break with "yankee imperialism" yet complied with all of Trump's suggestions. He sought to oppose "bourgeois" capital buildings, yet commanded the construction of newer ones with his selected clique of bureaucrats at his service. He claimed to fight the narco-state in a way the neo-liberals failed, yet has connexions to those groups for monetary profit. For how much anyone can claim this man to be the start of the change towards a fairer system, the deeply putrid Mexican system will never, ever, be close to reform.

This feeling is not exclusive to Mexico, but something we can see in any county that has a populist "anti-establishment" movement. Chile knew a massive electoral upset, with a young and apparently radical president, the Left wing returned in pure Allende fashion, and just like him, the dream of Democratic Socialism In the "wea" country was exterminated the moment the bourgeois constitution was sought to be changed for a fairly less bourgeois yet proletariat "friendly" one. Certainly, this change was not going to bring Communism to Chile, but it aimed at attacking a core tenant of Pinochet's Neo-Liberal regime, and it flopped the moment it saw the opportunity to disrupt it ever so slightly. For how flawed the actual text was, the result it got was unwarranted. But why did this happen? Because the moment you attack bourgeois society, it is going to go against you with full force, purely out of cultural dominance. And for another reason : an anti-establishment movement that wants to become the ruling object of bourgeois society, (even of compared to Mexico, the Chilean left wing had much sincere and real intentions of reformism) it will serve but one purpose, that being the ruling class. Or what about France, a country with the most unapologetic Neoliberal leader on earth that knew a Left-Wing victory in the last legislative elections. A broad coalition of reformists and some reactionary reformists (the French Communist Party) that with this power sought to disrupt the perpetual destruction of Macron's regime. The result? The immense rise in power of reactionaries and fascists seeking to become a legitimate party for the bourgeois state and well, Macron is still in quite the comfortable position. Even after months of pretty radical proletariat action (one that I personally participated in), the ones who sold the movement was the institutional Left Wing, purely out of rejecting outright Insurrection out of fear of backlash, such is the nature of the bourgeois parliament.

Not only is any movement incapable of reforming capitalism by any means possible, but specially, a radical-ish minded movement fails at the thought of establishing itself as a correct, bourgeois party. MORENA is not the vanguard of the revolution, and for how much they claim that to be correct in their hypocritical crusade against neo-liberalism, it is completely opposite to it : it has now become the party representing the oppression of the proletariat and the indigenous populations. In no world will Mexico destroy the liberalism it so much fought for most of it's history by electing a reactionary bureaucrat, and nowdays, the only defense this crumbling state has is the military. Yes, really. AMLO is far from being the equivalent of Sun Yat Sen, but his autocratic beliefs are not shy from reality. Yes, the bourgeois myth of "benevolent left wing rule" is a total destroyer of revolutionary fervor, but in this case, the rule of AMLO is not only legitimized by his absurd popular support, but also his grip on the country's right hand : the new and reformed national guard.

You see, ever since 2019 the police was officially militarized. Something quite unprecedented for a country presenting fundamental issues with both police and military institutions. The argument? Beat the narcos that most likely fueled his campaign, but the repression aspect of them was never shy. With direct control by both the "Civil defense secretary" and the head of the actual military institution of the federation, this newfound army has repressed movements down in Guerrero, as well as the Zapatistas (even if I do not endorse that group directly) and other free movements of the area of Chiapas and Oaxaca. And even after the disastrous administration of the metro failures, most likely due to bureaucratic corruption and the will to neglect the public services of the capital city, the national guard was deployed to "ensure the safety" of the passangers, yet it stayed well until this day to act as a reinforced watchdog for the bourgeoisie in power of the City-State.

Impossible it is to deny his behaviour has been nothing but repressive and contrary to the benefit of the overly beaten up Mexican working class. Is this a failure for the MORENA movement? Not at all. In nature, besides the obvious realization that reforming bourgeois society without disrupting the foundations of it via total and absolute insurection and revolutionary war, the MORENA movement, as well as the whole "Pink Wave" in Latin America lacked the analytical side of it : the petty bourgeois aspect of these movements come from the populistic and opportunistic elites that pretend being disruptive of liberalism at all, without an actual through analysis. Is it purely because the leading heads of these movements lack that understanding? Well no, it is purely normal. They never sought to disrupt capitalism, they are not anti-capitalist and populist movements never trully will. Using popular support and radical talking points to gather power inside the current system is in no way disruptive of the bourgeoisie : they are the bourgeoisie. Nothing has changed since the 70's, and everything got worse since the 80's. The only chance for anything is to reject all notions of "radical electoralism" and embrace the revolt. This was never a failure : these practices have only kept the system going, and the only good call for it is its destruction, an absolute one at that. Wether it is the Mexican, Chilean or French proletariat, the stage that capitalism is on right now calls for revolt, and you should join it. For the end of bourgeois tyrants, no matter of how red they try to appear. Fighting capitalism is not a matter of morals or elections, it's about liberation of all those whose oppression allows parasites like this to keep on running off of false hopes and shed tears. My home country has a lot of issues, and the technocratic bourgeoisie is the key one. Absolute fight, absolute revolt and absolute liberation, now and tomorrow.

MORENA, and all the opportunist reactionaries will be the death of Capitalism, but from the blood on our blades and effort the proletariat will put towards ridding itself from it. The proletariat does not need guidance from old corporatist men, it needs itself.