A blog post originally written Carbure & published on Médiapart on May 7th, 2019. We have translated other pieces by Carbure in the past and we share this translation since it echos sentiments we fell when it comes to our ideas, radical media & mass media.
Far-Left circles have recently been annoyed by criticisms of [Juan] Branco1“Close adviser to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, he has worked for the Criminal Special Court of Central Africa and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.” (Source:Wikipedia), [Frédéric] Lordon2“He is an influential figure in France’s Nuit debout movement.” (Source:Wikipedia), [François] Ruffin3“He is the founder and editor-in-chief of the satirical quarterly Fakir; Ruffin is best-known for directing the film Merci patron! (2016), as well as for playing an instrumental role in the formation of the Nuit debout movement in France.” (Source:Wikipedia), and other media radicals, blaming those who critiqued them for a supposed elitism that is responsible for the fact that our ideas – mainly our communist and anarchist ideas – are not “present” throughout the population and are only discussed in restricted circles. But it must be clearly stated: if these people [Branco, Lordon, Ruffin, etc.] occupy the top billing on media posters it is precisely because they are not revolutionaries. Despite being not being very radical, they are also quite accessible and help “people” think, which should then help lead these “people” towards more radical ideas: though as soon as they are present the question of revolution is rejected from the get-go; being not-very-radical is the condition of access to public debate.
The following is a collectively-written, anonymous statement on the fiasco with the Maoist-turn within Defend Boyle Heights and their antagonism towards las O.V.A.S.4Overthrowing Vendidos, Authority & the State, the Psyco Brigrade & the radical space La Conxa in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles.
First published here: https://mediarevolt.tumblr.com/ Here we re-publish it in solidarity with these projects. Please feel free to re-share & re-publish this statement.
As pro-revolutionists committed to cultivating revolution, many often look to coalitions to do the work of collaboration and moving with the the oppressed towards revolutionary practice. In actuality, when we work together it’s important to not only iron where we agree and have affinity, but where we disagree and where our affinity diverges, where our strategies might actually be counter to one another: i.e. antagonisms. So that we are not surprised in the future, and we don’t flatten struggles for the sake of false unity.
This text was originally published on Jan. 22nd 2019 on Carbure Blog, written by AC & LG in France. A translation was sent to us from Carel Wexler, we merely edited a few things. What follows is the translation.
This contribution can be read as a set of preliminary reflections, which we think are necessary to understand the movement in progress.In the heat of the moment, one cannot immediately settle the important questions that arise.However, to take the situation seriously, it seemed to us necessary to lay the groundwork by first qualifying these questions and the theoretical place in which they arise.This contribution will be followed by a second part, tackling certain limits of the theory of communization, which prevent us from dealing with this movement in its uniqueness and, more generally, which limit the understanding of the unfolding episode in which we find ourselves.It is therefore an introductory effort and we hope to be able to answer, as soon as possible, the questions we are trying to ask here.
Ni de aquí, ni de allá. Neither from here, nor there. An old Chicanx saying that still rings true but tired, with a Chicano-Studies dullness…like Gloria Anzaldúa speaking to us from the other side telling us that the border is a wound, but paraphrasing Cesar Miguel we rather maintain that instead the border is the knife. We also have Corky Gonzales telling us of the great hope of José Vasconcelo‘s raza cósmica for Chicanxs: a hope that is but an inversion of Social Darwinism, infused with anti-blackness & anti-Native erasure and sold as a sort of metaphysical eugenics. It seems we’re in need of some rhetorical updating.
Originally published in French on Paris-Luttes.info on Jan. 11th 2019. Translated by our collaborator in French, Otto Mattik and edited by us at Ediciones Inéditos. It is a glimpse at the looming capitalist crisis to come and how the writer in France figures the Yellow Vests movement within it and what antagonistic developments the movement can bring. What follows is the translation.
Originally published in French by Agitations on Jan. 6th 2019, this is an introduction to communization theory. What follows is our translation and suggested further reading at the end.
According to communization theory, born in the 1970s, the worker’s movement first knew how to positively affirm itself, but then little by little began to decompose during the 1960s, and that this whole cycle of struggle was known as “programmatism.5A term used to describe when the broader Left put forth political programs as part of their strategy where a definitive pathway to socialism would be listed.”
Some exchanges published in the comment section of Des Nouvelles du Front, a French-language website which serves as a clearinghouse for texts of interest to the communization current. The comments are lifted from here. Translated by our collaborator in France, Otto Mattick; edited by us at Ediciones inéditos in Los Angeles, CA.