Schedule Announcement

Decided to take an extra week since I didn’t realize my tagging needed to be done in a top-level comment. Needless to say, sorting that out here.

Since we’re almost done, and since I’m finally done re-applying to my current job (contingent labor is hell folks), I think things should be smooth sailing from here. My current plan is to have two more weeks – next week will be Chapter 18 and 19, and then 3/20 will be 19 and 20. The reasoning is that while we could blast it all out in one week, I don’t want to run into issues with finals and so I’m giving myself a bit of a cushion to finish this up alongside my actual work.

It’s been a really interesting read, and I hope some of you have been encouraged to pick up/catch up on this reading series.

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.

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

Previous Posts

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Chapter 15

• So we’re starting to get some direct links between Syria and Brazil as we move into 2015. Twilight of the Obama era, and we’ve got the consequences of this foreign policy rippling into other countries.
• Interesting that Brazil, at least at this point, doesn’t have the typical reactionary response to migration. I’m worried, however, this may change.
• Was the anti-immigrant reaction of the mid 10’s really particularly unique? Obviously it’s in part due to the blowback of imperial policies in the Mideast or Latin America, but is there really anything “new” about this era? I don’t feel like Bevins has a clear distinction between this and the 40-50 year history of panic at the US border, for instance.
• On this (70) year history - Bevins does note that most countries that decolonized are, by and large, not in wildly better positions.
• Is the “problem with Kansas” or “Brexit will hurt the country” just a liberal cope (ideology is trumping material interests because people want to stick it to the man)? I like that Bevins notes this is a common trend, back to 2003 and Schwarzenegger winning the governorship.
• I feel like as leftists, we want to resist anti-politics, even if we recognize electoralism isn’t the only form of politics out there. How do we present this in a way that doesn’t allow us to be painted as “anti-political” though, since the one thing I’ll hand to prefigurative politics is it is a politics. Making the commune happen is, after all, a form of politics (one I hope we can all do together someday), so how do we disentangle ourselves from those who reject politics entirely even if we’re not going to vote or vote for West/Stein/etc?
• I feel like the contradictory attitudes of citizens are simultaneously wildly frustrating and all too common, but there’s always an opportunity there too (I’m thinking of the attitude on 225 - isn’t there a chance to intervene when someone has this contradictory position?)
• Bevins again with some salient media criticism on 226.
• I think the example of the MPL here is really good – it’s just a slow-moving disaster as a great movement is slowly being lost in a sea of reaction, and the members (at least according to Bevins) see it happening.
• The ease with which reactionary forces “fit” the anti-politics void also makes me feel like we should always try to insist on politics, even if we’re opposed to electoralism, but I’m curious if others have thoughts here?
  • I’m just struck by how Bolsonaro easily slid into the gap created by the MPL protest’s slow collapse.
• I feel like vague signifiers are a huge issue here (“corruption” as a problem is something you can fill with your own opinion, after all). On the one hand, they do allow for a mass movement, but it just seems incredibly dangerous as well…
• I distinctly remember hearing about Lava Jato on NPR uncritically, as a “corruption” scandal with very little context, so it’s interesting how there’s a very clear media angle in Brazil here
• Bevins trying to redefine corruption, I think, is a good move, but how do we give this kind of cognitive flip legs when it serves our purposes? I know when I teach, I joke about how I don’t want to be free to decide between 6 different brands of black beans, but when is this move effective and when is it perhaps a fool’s errand?
• I think this turn to the question of representation (231) is especially interesting - it’s a real question, when is representation “valid” or legitimate? Whe can we speak for each other, as it were? Or is it just direct democracy time all the time now?
• Of course, Bevins is also right that politicians just usually don’t represent their constitutents
• Even China is in crisis w/r/t “representation” it appears - I have no idea if Bevins’s source is accurate on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised (just the continual abstraction/alienation that bureaucracy creates).
• Thoughts on Roy’s argument (234) that the NGO has more and more taken on the role of a contracting state?
• The move to declare the movement over without the rest of the movement – ballsy move, but also, one I respect. Still, this feels like something to attend to – recognizing when the movement is dead and new directions need to be taken, yes?
• Realistically, representation feels like a powerful tool we should never reject out of hand, but I sympathize with the MPL members who feel betrayed (even as a ML myself!).
• I really think Bevins’s pessimism is pretty warranted here, and it does feel like nearly every movement either died or was co-opted due to the issues that faced the MPL. I think it’s a really good comparison, but any thoughts otherwise?

Chapter 16

• OK, this is crazy. South Korea and psychic advisors to the president – Nancy Reagan joke here.
• Pretty blatant corruption here, and the connections to the dictatorship are gross too, of course.
• OK, this is interesting - Bevins is associating this blatant shit with the Dilma situation in Brazil. Also, personal memory kicking in again, I remember a ton about Dilma, but this Korean thing I don’t, which is interesting.
• Bevins is trying hard to give a sense for the kind of corruption that exists, and I do appreciate this. Reminds me of Christman’s Hell of Presidents where old corruption was basically a redistributive mechanism by other means.
• While perhaps this isn’t useful (we’re in this to think about protest/organizing), would things have been better for Dilma if she had caved to this dude’s demands?
• I think the other thing here – this whole time, the right wing MBL has been organizing, simmering, and keeping the energy going, and use the protests that had started as left-wing to enact their right-wing impeachment agenda. I think this really shows how protest isn’t just a “left-wing” or even “populist” thing - and perhaps we need to valorize it less?
  • Yet, at the same time, you have real bravery from anti-Israel activists at the moment, and I don’t want to take anything away from them, or people like Aaron Bushnell. But seriously, it hurts to think that left-wing protests haven’t gotten anything while right-wingers have gotten so much from co-opting those protests.
• Police supporting the demonstration is obviously a huge red flag.
• I do appreciate Bevins being very clear about the stakes of these things. Weird governmental arcana are important when it calls into question your power: “how can you govern a country if a rival faction within the state is recording and leaking your calls in order to weaken you?” (243)
  • Also, the role of golpe/coup here is interesting. The fact that right-wingers overthrew a more left government makes me sympathetic, but he’s right this is a different/new “mechanism.”
• I do like the reminder that aesthetics don’t really matter - the MBL ghouls changing their look on a dime from “indie rockers” to be where they need to be.
• Protests calcifying into a kind of game with “obvious rules” I think is key here (247) - I feel like this kind of “expectation” also undercuts the power/potential in protest. Of course, how to renew the energy/novelty of a protest is also a real open question…
• Bevins: “No one is imposing any costs on anyone in power. They are showing up to be counted” (247) – yeah, this isn’t protest, this is just “showing face” (as a student of mine once said after skipping 90% of classes, showing up in Week 10).…
• Bevins’s arguments that these are all very performative is great - “who can afford a ticket” could also be “who can afford to take time off…”
• The role of culture-war and anti-trans shit is really gross – I do feel like this was a moment though back in 2016 and way less explosive now (the anti-trans shit has been losing.)
• Media really taking a central role here, and the spectacle nature of politics rears its head
• Sexism, clowning, etc – this all feels like the right wing playbook, and really there’s a question of what was to be done? Obviously we can appreciate the rage of someone like Jean Wyllys trying to accost Bolsonaro, but was the problem here perhaps they didn’t go far enough (perhaps my ML stripes showing a bit hard here…)
• What could have been done to make the MBL sickos more obviously painted as fascists? What can we do, as leftists (Anarchists and ML(M, etc.)s I think this applies to left unity here in a big way) to prevent this kind of disgusting co-option?
• The “parlaimentary coup” language is tortured, but also perhaps correct? However, the media’s role shouldn’t be understated…
• Aaaand we’re back to Korea. I’ve been listening to Blowback Season 3 recently (getting hype for Season 5) and this summary is familiar to me. Bevins does a great job giving the cliffs notes here.
• It’s interesting to see protests adopted by subjects of all these different systems (various “democracies,” dictatorships, etc.)
• Is this one a “W”? Even though it just leads to the removal of the daughter of a dictator, it feels good (especially since it led to a rapproachment with NK).

Chapter 17

• I do like reading this in 2024, as Trump is coming for America again. It’s funny, since you’d think at this point more could be done in opposition, but there’s a steady crawl towards a Marxian “first as tragedy, then as farce” sense of this year.
• The role of technology has taken a bit of a backseat, but I do like Bevins returning to it. There is a materiality to the internet and its technologies (and especially their effects on the world) that I think is important to attend to.
• Blowback? In my America? I like how Bevins connects the foreign policy of the Obama administration in the early 10/11 years to 2016.
• Jakarta protests – we get a mini Jakarta Method here it seems.
• I think the parallel to Brazil is interesting and relevant, but I’m interested in how things go differently
• Interesting role of ethnic/racial tensions that Bevins is establishing. Parallel to the sexism in Brazil, perhaps? (I’ll admit, I’m not sure where this is going, since I don’t remember the Jakarta protests Bevins is talking about here)
• Edited video, viral attacks and outrage – this is the new right wing playbook, and I’m curious if we have thoughts as to how to counter it?
• OK, so we have dualing protests again, which seems to be the par for the course now. I wonder where the “counterprogramming” meme came from, especially since early in the 10’s, it was always reactionaries emerging from within the protests. What changed?
• Bevins argues this isn’t a movement(258), I think to emphasize the strategic/planned nature of all this (to elect someone other than Ahok, I guess?). However, what should we say of these sorts of strategic actions? How do they diverge from our own praxis? Do they?
• However, on the next page, this is a confluence of movements (“an almost complete overlap between the radical anticommunist movement and the radical Islamist movement”) - what’s the tipping point here, Bevins?
• Right wing digital soldiers – I do think this presages the Q movement in some key ways, and it’s definitely worth paying attention to, but I wish Bevins had some more material from these groups (I know it’s probably not possible, but interviews, etc. would have been nice).
• Red baiting, riots, and murder – what could have gone different? I feel like to some degree this whole chapter reads like there was nothing to be done – there aren’t really key strategic mistakes/failures like with Brazil, so I’m curious why Bevins includes it (aside from, perhaps, foreshadowing his own work in The Jakarta Method)?

Next Reading 3/13 – Chapter 18 and 19