The birth of the commodity market marked the formation of capital, the passage from feudal forms of production to the capitalist one. With the entrance of production into its spectacular phase the commodity form has extended to everything that exists: love, science, feelings, consciousness, etc. The spectacle has widened. The second phase does not, as the marxists maintain, constitute a corruption of the first. It is a different phase altogether. Capital devours everything, even the revolution. If the latter does not break from the model of production, if it merely claims to impose alternative forms, capitalism will swallow it up within the commodity spectacle.
Only the struggle cannot be swallowed up. Some of its forms, crystallising in precise organisational entities, can end up being drawn into the spectacle. But when they break away from the deep significance that capital gives to production this becomes extremely difficult.
In the second phase questions of arithmetic and revenge do not make sense. If they are mentioned, they take on a metaphorical significance.
The illusory game of capital (the commodity spectacle) must be substituted with the real game of the armed attack against it for the destruction of the unreal and the spectacle.
Alfredo Maria Bonanno, Armed Joy, Chapter 8 (via insurrectionsociale)
Genuine question for fellow anarchists who identify with this current:
Given that The Spectacle is ”a social relation between people that is mediated by images” (Debord), how do you go about mounting an armed attack on it?
From my time spent with pro-situs…the answer seems to be not to attack directly the spectacle but attack what produces it: such as it is not possible to attack capitalism directly, it is still indeed possible to attack directly that which reproduces it.
But don’t we all reproduce capitalism daily? At work, in our home life, we reproduce the social relation that is capital… it’s diffuse among the social body, like Tronti says: “To struggle against capital, the working class must fight against itself insofar as it is capital.”
Absolutely we do! Hence why the insurrectionists point to the necessity of a rupture with the day-to-day activity of Capitalism as a way out (or how syndicalists would point to a general strike). What’s that R. Vaneigem that says something like the daily activity of the slave reproduces the reality of the slave. I think this is something where @ists generally differ from Orthodox Marxists (that are into periodisation) because @ists generally hold radical subjectivity to be very important, whereas some Marxists are just waiting for the contradictions of Capital to do the work.
Right, so if we are fighting against ourselves insofar as we are capital, it’s not exactly a direct armed attack is it? An armed attack on authority can only target the functionaries of capitalism, not the reproducers of it, because that’s everybody. That Bonanno quote implies that “the illusory game of capital” is something which can be attacked and destroyed from the outside, which for me goes against the key insight of “refusal of work” strategies - Our own productive labour is the power we need to confront - Capital (or the spectacle) is not an external enemy you can point a gun at. You can refuse work and resist the productive and disciplinary regimes that come with it in daily life, but you can’t blow it up, as much as i’d like to.
Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop (via supersmashthestatebros)
You mean that when you pass a law with a specific purpose yet leaves room for interpretation future leaders will abuse it? No shit.
It’s not like libertarians haven’t been warning people of that since the beginning of time.