Format

• We're reading 2-3 chapters a week (some are very short). I'm going to be shooting for 50-60 pages a week, give or take. I'm going to be getting page counts from the libgen ebook, so that's why readings will be done by chapter.
• Hopefully we'll be done in 7 or 8 weeks
• Feel free to get whatever copy you wish, I'll also post onto Perusall for your convenience and highlighting.
• I'll plan to post on Wednesday each week with the readings we're discussing and our future schedule as I work it out. I'll also @ mention anyone who posts in this thread in future weeks.

Resources

• Libgen link to an ebook here
• Here's Bevins' appearance on Trueanon, which is part of why I wanted to do this book club
• Perusall – if you want to flag passages for discussion, I'll do my best to check this before I post my weekly post. If people would prefer, I can also make weekly assignments here, but I've opened up the book for access in an assignment or whatever.

Finally, please feel free to drop in at any point. We're well along, but the old discussions remain open and I'd still love to have anyone who wishes to join.

Previous Posts

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Chapter 9

• So, overview, this seems like a great examination of the protests in Brasil in 2013. In particular, we're going to see some strategic/tacital wins by the MPL, but also some big L's and the shadows of reactionary stuff to come. I think the biggest question I had reading this was "where are the hinge points" in this movement? Where could the MPL have done something differently?
• I do think p. 137 gives us an interesting potential historical comparison to student loans - the "onramp" is giving a lot of lead time to potential action, but is the Debt Collective (or other orgs) planning something strategic here? Feels like when you know when the government is going to do a bad thing, there is a potential window...
• I also just want to give the anarchists in MPL credit - radical consensus is work, and I think Bevins gets that across as well.
  • I do think rotating spokespeople is not a bad thing, but it's also like, I feel like division of labor could be good here, instead of constantly cycling spokespeople. I see the allure of "prefigurative organization" but the chapter really brings out the work that goes into this, and it sure as hell feels like a real lift.
• The whole "put us in meetings" attitude feels very Graeber - instead of doing something, call a committee.
• Meanwhile, I do think the MPL's recognition that chaos in the city can lead to openings is good. This isn't pure adventurism – it's a strategic opening of a contested space. The trouble is, as we'll see, you aren't the only ones contesting.…
• 139 – letting violence happen is of course a strategy by the reactionary forces to build pressure from "outside" any zone of conflict to "resolve" it through state violence. Obviously this is just a music festival, but this feels especially relevant with "crime panics" in the imperial core…
• The initial protest action accomplisehs a very direct goal - getting their desired image on the front page of the papers - but the consent machine comes in here hard ("vandalism" and the like - p.141). Is this the best that can be done absent a left-wing consent factory? Or is there a way to ensure that you can go beyond just producing images for the media?
• Good news is that this worked – the "chaos remained within the levels they desired" is as hell of a description. I wonder what sorts of contingencies MPL had for chaos that got "out of control" (either too much reactionary boot, or too much violence from their affiliates)…
• I also think this strategy of chaos has a key parallel in the recent freeway protests in LA over Gaza. Shutting down traffic was great, but it feels like there wasn't any potential place to further rally/build the disruption into a broader movement – however, perhaps that's just because of the limits of imperial core action.
• I do love the left punching "gut instincts" of both the media and PT here. I feel like I'm not qualified to speak to the PT's bonafides, but is it possible that an early embrace of MPL by the PT might have helped here? Obviously that's wishcasting (would be like dems capitulating to gaza protestors - it's probably not happening, which is all the more tragic), but unlike the dems, the PT is ostensibly a workers party? My marginal note is simply "libification".
• We do have some slinging of adventurism here. I get the concern of the organizers around the assault of the cop (though ironically, probably vindicated by the reaction), but also isn't this the moment where you really push? I'm conflicted, to say the least, since it's so easy for media to rally around an injured/killed officer, so until the violence really kicks off and you have a true mass movement, it's a very dangerous game.
  • I do get the position of the PT members and institutional forces on an intellectual level here, but I'm just very sympathetic to the ACAB attitude
• So interestingly, even though the assault of the officer was priming the pump for the movement to get gutted, somehow the over-reaction of the cops and violent attack really undo the sympathy that the cops had.
  • I'm very empathetic to Mayara here – feeling like you failed and lost all control of the protest/organization. The fact that the people back home could have a better view of things was good, and I think one thing that we can all take from this is it helps to have org members who aren't on the streets so that they can get a different picture (i.e. how's it playing on cable news). Not to say the consent machine is something we shoukld listen to, but it feels like there's an important role to play here?
  • We sort of see this in the reactionary presenter being forced to support the protests. The action in the streets matters, and knowing when to tell your members to disengage and just try to survive, rather than try to rebuild ranks, I think is an important judgment
• I don't have much to say about Bevins' posting, but the "global connection" here feels like an extension of the general media connection?

Chapter 10

• I think I like the MPL rejecting good/bad protest distinction, but it's kind of tragic they had to have so many meetings after such a brutal crackdown. There's moments where these meetings come up that feel almost farcical. Of course, that's not to say there's not a role for strategy meetings, but radical consensus among group members feels like a brutal ask, especially after getting tear gassed. Is this where perhaps the horizontal structure needs to give way? I get that they're anarchists committed to prefigurative politics, but I think just even a small select committee on riot tactics might help?
  • Again, I'm far more ML, and I'm trying to be sympathetic to our anarchist comrades – I almost think Bevins is kind of pillorying them a bit with the meetings thing – maybe a bit unfair?
• Here, I think we're running into a huge hinge point – the growth of the protests and the addition of reactionary sports fans (not the "ultras")
• What is to be done here, I think, is my big question. The MPL members tried to educate these guys, they didn't give a fuck. What is the next step? Was a chance missed?
• 155 – Bevins with a key passage on the fact that the meaning of these protests is up to debate. How do you secure your narrative over the consent machine/reactionaries? Bevins, himself, is obviously contributing to this history/narrative as well.
  • I'll just note – Hannah Arendt has a passage in The Human Condition that's especially relevant here: he who acts never quite knows what he is doing, that he always becomes 'guilty' of consequences he never intended or even foresaw, that no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of his deed he can never undo it, that the process he starts is never consummated unequivocally in one single deed or event, and that its very meaning never discloses itself to the actor but only to the backward glance of the historian who himself does not act" (233).
    • How do we fight for our narrative – especially in the journalistic/immediate aftermath of an event? The long term picture will always be contested, but how do you prevent the movement from becoming about something else?
• I love how MPL was ready with people who had done the reading and homework – how do we foster that kind of attitude here, so when you get in a position to speak, you can do so effectively? More book clubs?
• I guess another question I have here – what's more important? How do we grow a movement while avoiding the cooption/dilution of the message? I feel like MLM thought has some disciplinary apparatuses unavaialble to a group like MPL, but the question of how to stay on message/purpose when the movement is decentralized is, I think, a key weakness of horizontalism here. How do you deal with wreckers?
• 157 – Bevins is of course aware of the constructed nature of all these narratives. Being clear-eyed and non-precious about this is important – it's not about "truth" here, it's about winning, right? I'm thinking of @chicory@hexbear.net's comment about veganism from last week, coming more and more down on "results are more important than means."
• A real line up of sicko groups here – we can see the state department/reactionary capital influence at play as well. Bevins picking up on some real bad vibes.
  • And of course these reactionary groups are going to try and promote their message as well - the MBL->MPL thing is especially gross, but typical of these types.
• I still wonder what is to be done about the police strategic withdrawl. CHAZ might have had some possibilities (though I think here, having a disciplined core of armed members of a vanguard is probably important), but it's really a huge issue – the strategic evacuation of state power to try and reinscribe the state feels like a big obstacle for all groups trying to do prefigurative OR revolutionary politics.
• Brief detour to Turkey and the potential state department fingerprints. Ironically, it's not fully wrong, but also, at least Bevins seems to make the argument the Brazil movement (until the addition of right wing groups to the protests, at least) was organic left wing sentiment from the ground up. I'm inclined to believe, but any thoughts otherwise?
  • The outcome, as we know, probably served the State Department and the blob.
• The MPL won! This feels very "at what cost" though. Also, what do you do after?
• Was the final demonstration a mistake? The reactionaries coming out here seems like another big hinge point.

Chapter 11

• The role of digital shit here is especially weird – spoiler alert, this anonymous dude has zero ideology and is just scraping some random shit from Facebook. Again, how do you anti-message/discipline against this?
  • Of course, none of the demands are material politics. Is this an area to perhaps push on?
  • Reminded of Donna Haraway in "Modest Witness@Second Millenium" where she cites Tarawek's idea of the "culture of no culture" and its privelege.
• The message muddling continues. How does a horizontally organized movement stop the incorporation of some of this crazy reactionary stuff. The "extensions" of the material politics (hospitals, schools) need to somehow get adopted, but then stuff like "anti-corrpution" probably needs to go, by my reckoning. Is it about returning to a crude materialism, perhaps?
• 166 - Bevins seems to agree as well.
• Big bungle in messaging – I feel like the left now is better about not giving reactionaries fuel, but it's still always a danger – feels like again, it sucks having a division of labor, but it also feels like so much energy is spent building consensus in this movement you have unforced errors. At least, that's how Bevins is painting it.
• The claim of a "conservative" origin to the MPL movement must have felt brutal. I think in these past two chapters, we've seen that narrative (unfortunately?) does matter to these movements and you have to have the means to take control.
• A quick turn to Turkey, and the state dictated "resolution" of Gezi park.
• And Egypt - here we do see the role of international actors very clearly in the end of Morsi.
  • I appreciate the admission from Gehad "we were played." I'm not sure if they did much "wrong" though. Would a consolidation with the Muslim Brotherhood have perhaps changed the outcome here after the coup?
• I think again, returning to the MPL on 171, we have a real question of "agility" in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, and 12 hour meetings feel like a brutal ask on top of rapidly changing narrative, protest, and political conditions.
• The coalition always fractures– trying to reorganize was too Leninist, and this, unfortunately, feels like the moment where as a ML I'm just screaming. I would love input from Anarchist comrades here though - what is to be done in this kind of scenario? Is Bevins painting you all into a corner unfairly? I feel like when blood's in the streets and there's reactionaries claiming your movement, you can't be in a 12 hour struggle session, you gotta get people out there (either with a message, or with fists in the streets).
• Left unity is very hard, is what this book is showing.
• 172-3 – the uploader of the Anonymous video is just a totally empty vessel.
• Voters don't act rationally of course, but I do feel like there's a real question of how to push a regime left through protest without opening up the door to really reactionary forces.

Next Reading (2/21) -- Chapter 12, 13, 14 (edited -- I'm working through my notes right now, 2/20, see you folks all in a day!)

I'll be taking a week and a half off - I have the paper I'm writing due next week, and also have a bunch of other stuff happening next week. I'll see you all on the 16th to continue with Part 2!

@MF_COOM@hexbear.net @chicory@hexbear.net @Maoo@hexbear.net @Vampire@hexbear.net