Article

The Coming Insurrection

The Coming Insurrection

The Tarnac 9 were once just nine individuals who had withdrawn from the capitalist paradigm to live a quiet, communal life in an isolated French mountain village. They grew their own food, opened a small grocery store and started a movie club where they screened films for their rural neighbors. The group, nearly all of whom hailed from affluent Paris suburbs, were highly educated and, by all accounts, friendly, helpful and generous. It was an idyllic existence, far from the consumer spectacle of modern urban existence.

But then someone – it has yet to be determined who – sabotaged railways in the surrounding countryside, injuring no one but delaying thousands of passengers for several hours.

Suddenly the commune became a cell. The isolated farmhouse became a base, the store became a front and the absence of mobile phones became evidence of an effort to avoid detection. Tarnac’s native population became unwitting accomplices to terrorism. Nine became 9.

In a terrifying show of force, French authorities raided the farmhouse in the predawn hours of November 11, 2008 and tore its sleeping inhabitants from their beds. The balaclava-clad police handled their wards not as alleged vandals or even saboteurs but as high-level enemies of the state: terrorists.

The ensuing investigation centered mainly around Julien Coupat, a 34-year-old activist who was described by French Interior Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie as the leader of the “anarcho-autonomist cell.” He had drawn the attention of the FBI for attending a protest outside an Army recruitment center in New York City which was later targeted in a bomb attack. French authorities were focused on his “ultra-leftist” activities, namely his communal lifestyle and alleged authorship of The Coming Insurrection.

Officially authored by “The Invisible Committee,” an anonymous group of activists and intellectuals, The Coming Insurrection is a slim manual that predicts the imminent collapse of capitalist culture and outlines a plan for the regeneration of collectivist values. Written in the wake of widespread riots that gripped French suburbs in 2005, the text is interpreted by some as an anarchist manifesto, a situationist-inspired call to arms. The French government sees it as a “manual for terrorism.” The move against Coupat and the rest of the Tarnac 9 was intended as a preemptive strike against the burgeoning anti-capitalist movement in France. While the others were released with relative speed, Coupat was held under “preventative arrest” until May of 2009 and labeled by the government as a “pre-terrorist.”

And there, buried within the idiom of conservative fear – leftist, anarcho, collectivist, commune – is the word that points to the real danger in this story: pre. Preemptive. Preventative. Pre-terrorist. The French government, fearing the societal upheaval that a mass rethink of capitalism would spawn, exercised the principles of preventive medicine as the doctrine of law. It suspected the presence of renegade cells, mutating into malignant tumors of dissent and threatening the health of the entire body politic, so the government acted preemptively by swiftly excising the tissue in question.

The one ray of hope shining down on this brave new world – in which people can be detained for transgressions they have yet to commit – is the massive show of solidarity that has grown around Coupat and the others. Groups have sprung up across France, Spain, the US and Greece. In Moscow, supporters marched in protest outside the French embassy. And in June an unauthorized reading of The Coming Insurrection at a Barnes & Noble in New York City sparked a spontaneous – albeit brief – insurgency that flowed through the streets and nearby shops. As the crowd pushed into a Union Square Starbucks, patrons closed their laptops and lowered their lattes. For a moment they were transfixed by the infidel who leapt onto a table and passionately recited passages from the book. As he assailed the very paradigm of which they were each implicitly a part, the customers – just for a moment – seemed to listen.

“I have no idea what’s going on,” said one. “But I like the excitement.”

Sarah Nardi

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

Adbusters #85 Sep/Oct 2009

Thought Control in Economics

All Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
October
28, 2009
03:44 pm
Link

bollocks

October
17, 2009
03:37 pm
Link

Wow. Never have I seen so many people misunderstand anarchist philosophy as when I have ventured to read the comments on an adbusters article.

Let me make it easy for you:
Why do anarchists oppose the current system?
http://infoshop.org/faq/secBcon.html

What are the myths of capitalist economics?
http://infoshop.org/faq/secCcon.html

Anarcho-capitalism literally means the unabated freedom to devour scarce natural resources and protect it with violence. Where anarcho-capitalism has been tried in the "Wild West" it resulted in violent crime and hegemony. Where social anarchist ideas have been put into practice what was created was a culture of solidarity, mutual aid, and liberatory resistance against fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Of note is the fact that several economic systems co-existed and supported each other.

A hallmark of anarchist philosophy is the desire for diversity; and individualism and freedom is not lost on social anarchists. Instead social anarchists see individualism and collectivism as supporting each other and equally necessary. It is impossible for individualism to thrive if the monopolization of productive capacities induces people to become wage slaves; and if a society denies individual possession and autonomy in the work place it is impossible for a community to thrive. It goes both ways, strong communities need strong individuals and strong individuals are best served by strong communities.

Above all, anarchists seek a society where people consent to the terms of their lives, free from coercion, domination, and exploitation.

Also, something new initiates to the ideas of anarchism should be aware of is the changing class analysis of contemporary anarchists. Traditionally anarchists have offered pluralist additions (anarcha-feminism) to class analysis in attempts to make up for a rather dull and one dimensional Marxist analysis that puts class above all other types of oppression. Many have suggested that pluralism is a good start but not comprehensive enough and now Complimentary Holism offers a new conceptual framework for understanding oppression wherein each form textures another but no clear hierarchy of oppression exists. Also, social anarchists have proposed a variety of economic models because we share a variety of concerns when it comes to the exploitation of the worker. Mutualists are concerned with the exploitation of individuals by communities; communists are concerned by the inequalities of wealth which have historically led to exploitation of communities; and collectivists are concerned with the exploitation of a work place by slackers. We can see this by the various forms of remunerative systems they employ. Now, many anarchists are being attracted to Participatory Economics because it focuses on designing solutions to economic issues that are consistent with a social justice philosophy and anti-authoritarian principles - it has remunerative concepts that respect the individual without exploiting the community and ownership/decision making concepts that respect the community without exploiting the individual.

Among French anarchists lately, there also seems to be a trend in reanalyzing communization but most of the stuff that's been translated to English I still cannot read without getting a headache.

The moral of the story here is that if you think you know enough about anarchism you've already lost the battle. Keep reading and join discussion groups whenever possible. Go on late night wikipedia/internet search rabbit trail fests. Read the FAQ, poke around libcom.org, checkout zcommunications.org. Read! Speak! And think!

July
23, 2009
03:00 pm
Link
ANARCHISM V.S LIBERTARIANISM: ON A VERY BASIC LEVEL There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about libertarianism vs. anarchism in response to The Coming Insurrection. First, there needs to be a distinction made between social policy and economic policy. When talking about social philosophy, this will make your lives a lot easier. Libertarianism and anarchism have something in common: they believe in complete democracy on a social level. Meaning they would like their collective actions to be rendered out of a democratic structure. It is on an economic level that they disagree: anarchism endorses a collective form of economics. Through the formulation of a localized democracy, out of that comes Many people, mostly Marxists, will say that there isn’t a difference between the social and the economic. I however disagree, a capitalist society feeds heavily on that distinction and has created a disjunction between the social and economic realm that we must realize in order to create unity. As actors within this system, we must realize that our social system and our economic system both reflect that work to perpetuate and buttress on another- but no social or economic system alone is tantamount to “freedom.” Without the right From a sociological standpoint this is the place that the libertarian capitalists rise from, they recognize the juxtaposition between large government and the threat it presents to personal freedom (represented by democracy). However, they also recognize and laud the social philosophical seed that spurred capitalism: humans are self interested. Capitalism is a system that rewards that self interest, a meritocracy, so it only makes sense. This is a very judeo-christian standpoint that has many historical challenges. Anarchists, for the most part, believe something quite different. They believe that humans are the architects of their own “nature.” Humans can change, through the creation social and economic democracy, their nature. Humans aren’t benevolent, but instead are easily manipulated through social bonds and relationships with one another. Anarchists, essentially libertarian socialists, see the need for a harmony between social and economic freedom. Through capitalism human’s are rewarding self interest and therefor manipulating human “nature” to the detriment of the collective species. There are many different types of anarchists and libertarian capitalists, so I’m not speaking on anyone’s behalf. I just wanted a simple accessible overview to lay the foundation of how to have discourse about these things instead of a rhetorical conversation. -Hali Vik
September
21, 2009
07:34 pm
Link

Very cool- Noam Chomsky II what is the seperation of work -free time does a bee divide its day into sections-work-leisure-life flows in perpetuity with work rest evening morning it all is living we may say" lf I had that laptop I'd be happy,if I had that pizza I'd be happy wanting more than enough food,water air sheltar than is needed is encumberance. (Destroys the soul) working living loving peace all is one. giving up all stuggle for power-humility and peace is all-love-we are all one-Meta-Agape love without ego is the way? bless you all who read.

July
23, 2009
01:35 pm
Link
All we have to do is trust people that he can do his job.And we need to stop the ethic war in various country try set aside religious and cultural believe and act like a human being. josephspark107 mohel
July
21, 2009
03:35 am
Link
go outside and do something with you hands. pretend your a kid again, go into the forest, build yourself a fort from fallen branches, and pretend you are knight living in a castle. some say simple, i say revolutionary. you’ll understand when you feel it opening up. or, go throw a brick through a window and end your hypocrisy.
July
18, 2009
08:33 pm
Link
Just as a contribution to the exchange of ideas here I offer this little piece I recently submitted to a rather peculiar article on the “Energy and Capital” site, a place where those in favor of absolute self-interest and profit at the expense of all but the individual (a rather self-defeating concept in the long run so long as the individual is not totally and completely self-sufficient, (an impossibility, as interdependence is the true nature of life.) I offer this in support of a stated goal in one of the above comments that advocates at least a rethinking of the concept of “money” and at best the abolition of “money” as it is commonly understood today. more (to “Energy and Capital”) There is much that I could respond to regarding your article. However I will limit my remarks to what you wrote here: “Instead of realizing that the energy is the only real currency, the shortage of which is the source of our economic stall-out, we play wildly reckless games with fictitious fiat currencies, like printing $2 trillion out of thin air, without creating any new energy.” While I don’t disagree that there have been “wildly reckless games” going on within the ranks of the greed-set, it should be pointed out that in a very real sense “money” has always had a fictitious aspect to it. You can assign value base on many tangibles and/or intangibles. You can manipulate supply and demand. You can create false value based on imaginary substance. Pet rocks and beanie-babies come to mind. Where your remarks fail to follow the laws of physics is more problematic. It bothers you that $2 trillion cannot legitimately be created “out of thin air” because no new energy has been created (in an equivalent measure), when in reality all money is essentially created “out of thin air”. One of the basic laws of physics dictates that you can neither create nor destroy matter (which is just energy in another form). Therefore it is inaccurate to state that the problem has to do with a disconnect between $2 trillion and energy that hasn’t (yet) been “created”. Energy like its counterpart, matter exists in a state of potential but not always in a manifest form. Regardless of what arbitrary monetary “value” you choose to assign to anything existing, having existed, or presumed to be coming into existence at some future time, the value assigned is still arbitrary. And just as an aside while on the subject, from an existential point of view time and money really have very little to do with each other and are certainly not synonymous.
July
18, 2009
10:30 am
Link
It all begins with refusal. Refusal of work, refusal of money, refusal of marriage, refusal of religion, refusal of voting, refusal of military service, refusal of consumerism, refusal of associating with of associating with people associated with the government or corporate culture. As The Coming Insurrection says, “Don’t back away from what is political in friendship.”
July
18, 2009
12:21 pm
Link
Refusal of mortgage, refusal of credit, refusal to pay income and property taxes, refusal to procreate, refusal to refuse.
July
19, 2009
09:15 pm
Link
Refusal to pay for anything.
July
16, 2009
06:51 pm
Link
Where did all these libertarians crawl in from? The people being lauded in this article are anarchists. Anarchists are quite opposed to centralized control. We don’t want the government to have it nor do we want a handful of corporations to have it. You completely misunderstand what anarchism is. When libertarians talk about freedom, they are almost exclusively talking about corporate freedom. If the corporation want to limit personal freedom, the libertarians with their incessant squawking about freedom are nowhere to be found. Sell your free market hogwash somewhere else. Nobody here is buying it. We see through you. You only want the “freedom” to help your stocks grow in value. And that is perfectly fine. Just quit trying to make it sound idealistic or honorable. It’s sickening. Quit using the word “freedom”. It lost all meaning long ago. And, to the first person to post the first comment, who on earth are you talking about? You have read far too much Ayn Rand and now you think creating a ridiculous character sketch of the person you disagree with is a form of argument. It isn’t.
July
23, 2009
05:09 am
Link
I’m afraid, I’m not familiar with Ayn Rand oeuvre but Richard Buckminster Fuller still rocks for me >> http://www.bfi.org
July
16, 2009
11:40 pm
Link
You clearly have very little understanding of the free market. Not surprising being you’re on this site. What is a corporation? A corporation is intervention by the government in the marketplace. Period. Full stop. Don’t believe me? Go form a corporation…I’ll save the suspense and tell you what happens. You hire a lawyer and he files paperwork with the government which also requires a fee to the government and then you are now incorporated. This distinction now allows the court and taxing bodies to see the corporation as a human entity, a total fiction created by the state. Tah dah! Government intervention = corporation = anti-capitalism. Sorry. Real libertarians like Rothbard and Mises will tell you this if you actually read real anarchists, not this Chomsky bs that wants the U.N. to regulate whats in your refrigerator anarchy. Grow up. Your flying your black flags for state control. State mandated collectivism never works, is a revolt against nature and is frankly immoral. Voluntary collectivism can work and thrive when placed in the context of a society that respects the individuals rights for political self expression. The only political philosophy i see endorsing individual rights is a libertarian one.
July
19, 2009
09:22 pm
Link
Real libertarians like Rothbard and Mises will tell you this if you actually read real anarchists, not this Chomsky bs that wants the U.N. to regulate whats in your refrigerator anarchy.” Are there any non-American AnCaps?? How about these reasonably well known anti-capitalist anarchists: Pierre Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Malatesta, Nestor Maknho, Buenaventura Durruti, Ricardo Flores Magnon, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Paul Goodman, Hakim Bey, Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan, Fredy Perlman, Kevin Tucker. Well, you get the picture. The vast majority of Anarchists are and always have been anti-capitalist. A boss in the workplace is a ruler. Not to get into Work itself being a ruler.
July
20, 2009
12:14 pm
Link
What I think the commenter was trying to say was that at least anarcho-capitalists are philosophically consistent. Pretty much every name mentioned above advocates collectivized ownership of property. This is coup de grace of state control. And by the way, it doesn’t have to have a flag or an army to be a state, it just needs a bureaucracy. So how does one reconcile being an anarchist while advocating state control of property? How do you spell hypocritical? Oh and the boss and work are not rulers, i know it makes for a great bumpersticker on your fixed gear, but these are free associations recognized thru contract. Think your boss is a ruler?…then leave and work at a democratically owned coop. Think work is a ruler?…then live parasitically off other people who recognize natural law. That is real anarchy. Choice and freedom. It doesn’t wax poetic about having sex with children like Hakim Bey. It is actually achievable by engendering a society that values the individual.
July
20, 2009
02:06 pm
Link
As long is there is still work, especially for the profit of others, individual freedom is impossible.
September
21, 2009
07:26 pm
Link

yes I agree

July
20, 2009
06:14 pm
Link
More dreamy nonsense…blah, blah. Many people work for themselves or for people they like. Many people enjoy the satisfaction derived from work. Freedom is about outcome not just income. Being able to affect one’s outcome is freedom. That is why the individual is the highest ideal.
August
15, 2009
10:21 pm
Link
Many people enjoy the satisfaction derived from work.” That’s the problem! Some people actually find work satisfying. How sad for them.
July
21, 2009
11:44 pm
Link
You may want to consider whether what capitalism provides and what a person needs are, in fact, two different things. You may believe that the outcome of one’s life can be measured within our system; with careers and consumption and these things, but we simply do not. Besides, I think a real anarchist doesn’t want communal property, but no property and a community.
July
23, 2009
12:03 pm
Link
Capitalism has provided those needs (water, food, shelter, kinship) in abundance for myself, and i suspect it has for you (see: leisure time and personal computer use required for your post.) What you don’t understand is that free market system allows you to create whatever metric of well being you want. Happy with a bicycle and a guitar. Sure. Want a family and a two door garage for projects with your hands? Great. Want nothing at all? Fine. The individual, once basic needs are met, is allowed to create whatever existence he fancies in a truly market system. Basic needs are never met when when you have centralized planning, and then the imagination is killed when envisioning a life outside of just survival (see: every collectivized top down, economic system in history.) Also, you really don’t believe in eliminating personal property. Why? Because philosophically, personal property is derived from the understanding that you body is personal property and no one has domain over your body. Therefore you DO believe in personal property! If you don’t then you are a robot that has no greater value than a public toilet. Think. Read. Reflect.
July
23, 2009
01:38 pm
Link
Please put away your disdain for me, I lose respect for your ideas each time I see it. I would agree that a market system provides an excess of material things; should I want to work for them, but these do not consist a meaningful realm of human needs. In fact we end up striving and sacrificing for things which satisfy us only in my delusion. Besides I do think that the idea of property is illegitimate. Obviously considering myself as my own does not and cannot lead me to believe that I can deem other things my own also; shouldn’t they, then, be their own? I’m imagining that you may immediately remember Locke’s concept that putting work into something (i.e. gathering apples) places some form of myself into them and thus some form of ownership. This train of thought seems very logical, and difficult to argue with, but the assumption that you are yours alone is entirely theoretical. This assumption considers an individual as separate from all other systems and beings around and affecting it. It comes from a really archaic view of reality; that humans were created separate and everything else is meant for them. What of the sun, whose energy grew those apples; does the sun then not own them? And if you were to eat them, transferring the energy to yourself, do you not too become the sun’s? And isn’t the sun the result of the energy of the whole universe? So are we the property of it? Somehow when these things put their energy into creating something they earn nothing, but when we put our energy into taking anything we call that work and it gives us rights over it. This is not to say if you gather apples you shouldn’t eat them or if you build a house you shouldn’t live in it. Nor do I accept the argument that choice makes our actions somehow different. I also think that you may believe I argue for a “collectivized top down economic system” which is a misunderstanding.
July
16, 2009
07:57 pm
Link
You are so wrong. Go research libertarianism. Libertarians want individual freedom. And that means protecting individuals from fraudulent, monopolistic, lobbying corporations. You clearly have no idea what libertarianism is about. Corporations currently get help from big government. Libertarians are against that. Ant freedom has NEVER lost it’s meaning to ME. I will NEVER ‘quit’ using the word ‘freedom’ as long as people like you tell me I shouldn’t.
July
16, 2009
03:13 pm
Link
thanks adbusters for publishing this. now even more self-hating hipsters can read up on the newest hot anti-commodity. maybe a good quote from the coming insurrection would healp: “A graphic designer wearing a handmade sweater is drinking a fruity cocktail with some friends on the terrace of an “ethnic” café. They’re chatty and cordial, they joke around a bit, they make sure not to be too loud or too quiet, they smile at each other, a little blissfully: we are so civilized. Afterwards, some of them will go work in the neighborhood community garden, while others will dabble in pottery, some Zen Buddhism, or in the making of an animated film. They find communion in the smug feeling that they constitute a new humanity, wiser and more refined than the previous one. And they are right. There is a curious agreement between Apple and the degrowth movement about the civilization of the future. Some people’s idea of returning to the economy of yesteryear offers others the convenient screen behind which a great technological leap forward can be launched. For in history there is no going back. Any exhortation to return to the past is only the expression of one form of consciousness of the present, and rarely the least modern. It is not by chance that degrowth is the banner of the dissident advertisers of the magazine Casseurs de Pub*. The inventors of zero growth-the Club of Rome in 1972-were themselves a group of industrialists and bureaucrats who relied on a research paper written by cyberneticians at MIT.” *Casseurs de Pub = “The French Adbusters”
July
16, 2009
05:59 am
Link
How is wanting to remove yourself some consumerist society…”conservative”. Please adbusters, break free from the ubiquitous nonsense revolving around party politics. The differences between political parties these days is so minute that it doesn’t warrant talking about.
July
22, 2009
03:56 pm
Link
so true
July
16, 2009
07:57 pm
Link
Agreed. Soahc
July
16, 2009
12:47 am
Link
parasites are getting agitated as the host species become aware of their activities and attempt a response
July
25, 2009
10:43 am
Link
No no no no no. You poor thing.
July
15, 2009
08:57 pm
Link
i am confused also, so-called anarchists that want socialism? capitalism is the friend of the individual, socialism is the friend of statists. global socialism will make a prision planet. and adolf will have won.

We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.

Now 84,899 strong!

Join Us >>

TOOLS FOR ACTIVISTS

What's This?

RECENT ADBUSTERS MAGAZINES

Logo Small