I actually haven't read Call, but this is the only full fledged critique of Call that I've ever seen. So don't nag me if you think it sucks. I had to reformat the text to make it look more orderly after I copy/pasted it from the source; hence all of the awkward spaces between some sentences (it was tedious and kept me up into the wee hours of the morning, which is another reason why you shouldn't nag me). Enjoy!
I c/p this from a Portuguese zine, Saltar Para O Desconhecido (issue #2). Here's a description of the zine. And the english articles are in the center pages, in case you're too lazy to click on the second link.
______________________________
[“Call”/”Appel” is a text that has been being spoken about in many places. Sometimes, these discussions tend to be non-critical, and
there’s an acceptation or rejection without people really knowing what they’re accepting/rejecting, and why. In the midst of all this confusion, it becomes necessary to break with the lures and see what is really being said. This critique was born from the need that a
few comrades have felt to put the discussion on the table, instead of pretending that “Call” doesn’t exist or that no one speaks about it. A
few passionate discussions have contributed in all the making of this critique.]
According to Call, the main problem is capitalism. The State is a mere accessory that we can ignore. So, don’t expect to find anything in this text pointing to suggestions for an attack on the State. And don’t even bother looking for an analysis of any other structures and institutions of domination. In fact, for Call the latter are desirable and even necessary. So long as they are managed by the “political force” they call “the party”, of course – “What would be of a political force, under empire, that didn’t have its farms, its schools, its arms, its medicines, its collective houses, its editing desks, its printers, its covered trucks and its bridgeheads in the
metropolis?” (pg. 67). We realise on reading the whole of Call that a critique of production, technology, industrialization, the submission of the individual will to the collective will, militarization, politics, etc… is totally absent from the interests of its authors.
But, what about capitalism? What is the analysis and proposal of the Call? According to the authors of Call, the objective and method of capitalism is “to ruin all community” (pg 30). And we’re given some
examples of communities persecuted by capitalism: sects, revolutionary parties, secret societies… If we had already recognized the individual misery existent wherever the reproduction of a group feeds on the theft of the individual's capacity to decide over his/her own life for some time now, the authors of Call seem to see a problem precisely in the disappearance of alternative societies. What they don’t seem to understand is that those alternative societies
reproduce the same individual domination existent in mainstream society: only the form changes. Everything is about an image of
radicality. But perhaps they are not concerned about this: their analysis doesn’t come from the individual. The autonomy they’re sorry about having lost is the autonomy of communities. Obviously, for those for whom capitalism isn’t the reproduction of forced social relations not chosen by the individuals who reproduce them, but rather a formality where it seems to be sufficient to cast aside a symbol (the capitalists) for everything to be alright, that which is
reproduced will be ok, if those who reproduce it are seen as the revolutionary subjects of the modern times. “[…]communisation means
depriving only the agents of the empire from it” (pg. 69).
So, if the problem is the disaggregation of all community, the solution will logically be the aggregation and constitution of new communities. And this is the way that, in opposition to capitalism, the Call proposes communism. But what is Call’s conception of communism? “So, communism starts from the experience of sharing. […]The practice of communism, as we live it, we call “the Party” (pgs. 64/65). And, somewhere else: “[…]everyone has access to a certain amount of resources and knowledge made available by the simple fact of living in these lands of the old world; and can communize them.” (pg. 33). What is proposed is the sharing of that which we have and generate; the goal is the sharing of structures and resources, and the flux of experiences, knowledge and emotions of the “worlds” involved in those structures (pg. 66). And this is their communism. Along with “In a way it is existential liberalism itself that pushes us to communism, by the very excess of its triumph.” (pg. 63), you can see Marxism is just around the corner; even if they explicitly discard Marx. As in the past, dialectical materialism will
find a way.
What the authors of the call intend is to live in communism in the midst of capitalism, “to start from the situation and not dismiss it. To take sides within it.” (pg. 9). Therefore, their project is one of building and managing infrastructures which, they hope, will aggregate “the deserters” and let them survive outside
capitalism. But it seems to me that there are some things its authors don’t recognize: in this world, there is nowhere outside capitalism. If, instead of being destroyed, the technological and productive resources of this social order were to be occupied/taken/shared and managed without the intervention of capitalists, the exploitation
and domination of individuals would continue the same as now, but without the intervention of capitalists.
If at some point one can read in the Call that “those who pretend to split material autonomy from the sabotage of the imperial machine show that they want neither” (pg 70), it seems to me that those who claim to build an autonomous community in the midst of this society are simply perpetuating the reproduction of this society. After all, if their desires are met through the sharing of existent infra-structures, why should they preoccupy themselves with organizing the attack on and destruction of those same infra-structures? That attack would be an attack on the very things they are proposing. An example as to how something like the Call’s “party” would look like are the Black Panthers. A Marxist-Leninist armed party, hierarchical, authoritarian, vanguardist. The goal was to set up the conditions for a future rising up of the black community. In the meantime, they
served 10 thousand breakfasts daily, among other services provided. One could be a militant or a “client”. Or both! Working for the
organization and depending of it were perpetuated with each singular act the organization did. Rebellion was strongly discouraged, and the value of “individuals” was measured by how much they could give to the
organization, or how much they needed to receive from it. Because sometimes the State isn’t the most effective structure to control
people. “Until the time is ripe”, of course! Maybe it’s this that the authors of the Call mean when they write “That it might take a generation to build a victorious revolutionary movement in all its breadth does not cause us to waver. We envisage this with serenity.” (pg. 25) Maybe this is the communism they want to live, but for
sure it isn’t anarchy.
Some years ago a comrade said that our goal should not be the defense of interests, but the attack on interests. Also, from my own experience, and from other comrades’, I feel that
“in order to be strong at the points of attack, it is almost indispensable to be weak at those you are defending”. It’s not an ideological matter, but a logical one: if you’re preoccupied with building and defending, it’s illogical to be occupied with attacking and destroying. To this goal of building “the party”, this material community, the Call provides something new, an appealing justification: in this context it is possible to live communism. And it’s in this way that you give a positive project a revolutionary appearance. Here we can see why is that that the only
time they speak of insurrection is to say that “insurrection itself is just an accelerator” (pg.66). Like it’s more of the same: defense,
certainty, community, construction, agglomeration. But an alternative built in this world doesn’t need to come from activists or militants to be a limitation on the desires of the rebels; it only needs to be an alternative built in this world. And I think that here we can make a connection with one other fundamental point of Call: it considers that the individual was built by existential liberalism (and, consequently, that the individual is bad and the collective is good). On this conception they rest their premise that everything must start from the collective. This totally ideological position, based upon
collectivist conceptions, reduces the individual to the liberal “individual”. “Liberalism may have invented the individual, but it was born mutilated.” (pg. 38). The individual wasn’t “created” by any one, or by any system; the individual has always existed! Even if this simple fact surprises or embarrasses the collectivists and the Marxists. If civilization has always based itself on the theft
of the capacity of each person to decide how and with whom to live her life, wherever there are rebels fighting against that theft there are individuals taking back their individuality. But it seems that the individual is an obstacle for the goals of the authors of Call. The material community they want is reached “when affects and thoughts are no longer ascribable to one or the other, when a circulation seems to be restored in which affects, ideas, impressions and emotions transmit indifferently among individuals.” (pg. 45). I’m sorry, but for me it seems that it is individuals that have ideas,
affections and emotions, and I don’t feel it is desirable that these start flowing independently of the individuals who feel, develop or discard them. It sounds as though we should be getting rid of something that afflicts us and at the same time that we want to “circulate” the good things it produces/communizes…
The authors of Call, intentionally and ideologically, turn the individual into something he never was (the so-called liberal individual), and attack her on the basis of that transformation. But the critique of a caricature is the caricature of a critique… It’s not hard to see that every revolt, large or small, known or not,
has started and starts from the action of individuals and groups of individuals rising up against a specific aspect of their lives. But precisely because rebel individuals are something that those who want the creation of an alternative society would prefer not to hear
about, they imagine things right from the start in such a way that they don't have to think about them again. After all, rebellion is intrinsically related to destruction; and I don’t think that is
what they want. For those who recognize as enemies not only capitalism, but every structure of exploitation, oppression and dominion, our critique is directed against all of them; and far
from proposing the autonomous self-management of those structures, we propose their destruction in an autonomous and informal
way of individual and collective struggle. For those who see the necessary characteristic of capitalism to be not the ruining of communities, but the theft of the individual’s vital activity, the logical consequence is not the constitution of communities (nor of one big community), but the attack on what robs us of our lives. Instead of an autonomous community, we desire individual autonomy.
For those who see and desire communism as nothing less than complete access to the conditions of our existence, a conception that immediately puts us in confrontation with all the structures and institutions that prevent that access, insurrection is not an accelerator, it is the physical and necessary step that can give
everyone involved an opportunity to go elsewhere, to live as each one desires. The insurrectionary act breaks the present context
and creates new ones, offering no certainties at all. For those who want to live anarchy now, who struggle for individual autonomy and
freedom to live as we want with those we want, the autonomous community/party that the Call claims to create is as limiting and oppressive as the existing society, which in many ways possesses autonomous characteristics! Even if that is not what its authors intend, it seems to me that all Call is offering are new
limits disguised as radicality, expressed in a sea of confusing and ambiguous words; and this is not different from what others that we know well already tried to do before.
here is a link to the source
here is a link to the source text in case anyone is interested:
http://www.bloom0101.org/call.pdf
i've read most of the call.
i've read most of the call. but i am going to read it full over again and then comment what my thoughts are in regard to this critique. also i need to get a username.
again, eyedea i think you
again, eyedea i think you should really just read the call instead of hearing what others have to say about it, i think a bunch of people are totally misinterpreting the piece. one of the craziest things being that this critique thinks they are in support of the party and the state, which is simply not so. they use the word party, but in a very different sense. here is some thought on it from "human strike after human strike":
If our forms-of-life are the parties to a world civil war, then how do they communicate without becoming identities, without mimicking the state-form? It is here that the force of the imaginary party and the invisible committee comes through. For in the collective drowning of one’s own assignable qualities, zones of opacity emerge which, being empty of all predicates, effectively constitute the common. Rendering oneself inoperative alongside others—that is, engaging in the human strike—reveals the possibility of communication across bodies with no names.
I've never made any
I've never made any judgments of Call; or have I? I posted this critique so I could see peoples responses to it. Obviously, people are either reluctant to engage in a critical discussion of Call or this critique sucks so bad that it's undeserving of a response.
Though, I could sense some pretension in the words of the critique, as I've read discussions about Call. I'm also attempting to read The Coming Insurrection right now, although, I'm not sure if the Invisible Committee wrote Call; but I am sure that the writers of Call share theoretical similarities with Tiqqun (if in fact, Tiqqun did not write Call).
If anything, it's apparent to me that the French communists share an affinity for the theories of writers such as Georgio Agamben, Antonio Negri, and others. I've only had glances at the theory of Agamben and Negri (mostly through Wikipedia) but I can see themes and concepts that they use in the writings of the French communists (perhaps I'm mistaken?). But they have an incredibly dense aphoristic style. And that is where, in my opinion, Tiqqun and Co. trip over themselves with their writings. This is evident by the fact that so many people have such a hard time comprehending what they're talking about. What's Empire? What's a Whatever Singularity? What's Global Civil War? Etc. They're obviously trying to formulate a coherent theory but their writing style impedes the comprehension and translation of their ideas. Meanwhile, insurrectionalists in America are beginning to use the themes and ideas of the French communists, but it mostly sputters out as complete nonsense. Are people expected to study post-situ and post-marxist theory just so they can begin to understand what the French communists are trying to get across? Should we flip through the anthology of Michel Foucault in order to understand what biopower and biopolitics are? While reading the works of the aforementioned authors may be recommended, it shouldn't be a requisite. We aren't in the midst of academia.
Anyways...I would appreciate it if you could respond to the critique itself and lay out some clarity for those who are new or confused to writings such as Call. Critique the critique.
sorry eyedea i was being
sorry eyedea i was being sort of a douchebag unintelligently so...you haven't really made any judgements on the call. and it is enlightening to know you were looking for a critique of the critique. i was taking your posting of the critique as a de facto support of what lay within, and then that really confused me because that would not seem to fit with what i've seen of some of the rest of your thinking. i also just can't communicate clearly because i have internet crushes on all of you anti-politics folks. i am going to post my critique of the critique soon, as well as my own analysis of the call on both here and the anti-politics board. plus i shall be getting a username. fuck. ;) <3
Don't worry about being
Don't worry about being confused as to my 'position'. I'm very nebulous with my theory so I can understand if you, and anyone else, see's contradictions and novice points in my comments. I've seen complimentary remarks on my thoughts rise recently and I don't want anyone to start thinking that I'll produce wonders with my words. Although, it's good that I'm making presentable arguments and ideas. I try not to respond to complimentary comments, as I don't want to become overtly arrogant and pompous.
The point I'm trying to make is that, I'm just trying to develop my knowledge of pro-revolutionary theory. I'm a student, not a teacher. And I also appreciate it that you're attempting to make Tiqqun's ideas comprehensible on a general level. Honestly, I'm starting to enjoy communist theory more than anarchist theory. So if there's something useful and valid to be found in their writings, then I would welcome it.
So good luck!
"Don't worry about being
"Don't worry about being confused as to my 'position'. I'm very nebulous with my theory so I can understand if you, and anyone else, see's contradictions and novice points in my comments. I've seen complimentary remarks on my thoughts rise recently and I don't want anyone to start thinking that I'll produce wonders with my words. Although, it's good that I'm making presentable arguments and ideas. I try not to respond to complimentary comments, as I don't want to become overtly arrogant and pompous.
The point I'm trying to make is that, I'm just trying to develop my knowledge of pro-revolutionary theory. I'm a student, not a teacher. And I also appreciate it that you're attempting to make Tiqqun's ideas comprehensible on a general level. Honestly, I'm starting to enjoy communist theory more than anarchist theory. So if there's something useful and valid to be found in their writings, then I would welcome it.
So good luck!"
eyedea your progress has impressed the MGT very much, we are very pleased with you and think you well on your way to purity, soon you will obtain your place and maybe you are even the chosen one legend has spoken of. i kid of course though i am really surprised i can right now, not really in a laughing mood but i guess if you got it you got it even when you are off (isn't patting yourself on the back a fun sport? sigh).
anyway though in all seriousness eyedea, but not to feed any potentail hubris, i am quite impressed with the changes i have seen in your thought over the course of you posting here, keep up the good work. you'll probably find as you get older (shit, i say again, if i had the level of intellegence you do at your age...but then i probably would have been even more depressed at that age and that is hard to imagine, i mean i was in fucking high school, i think you know what i mean man), if you keep following the ideas your chasing right now, that everything becomes more and more fluid and there really is no definite position: there is your own thought and the situation it is presented with (clumsy way of putting it but the best i got tonight).
anyway i am visiting, at least for a little bit tonight, so thought i would say hello to you.
ps: i also agree with you on
ps: i also agree with you on this "Are people expected to study post-situ and post-marxist theory just so they can begin to understand what the French communists are trying to get across? Should we flip through the anthology of Michel Foucault in order to understand what biopower and biopolitics are? While reading the works of the aforementioned authors may be recommended, it shouldn't be a requisite. We aren't in the midst of academia."
as much as i enjoy studying post-situ/post-marxist/post-anarchist, etc blah blah blah theory, a lot of folks don't especially many traditional anarchists, and the whole anti-intellectual milieu that seems increasingly popular within the north american anarchist "scene"
for that reason i am taking the time to hopefully sit through ridiculous language and make per se the TIQQUN/INVISIBLE COMMITTEE FOR DUMMIES... there is probably still some residual commie bull shit that is less than to be desired but there are many great ideas to be stolen, that might be helpful for more post-ideological perspectives.
go back to school and learn
go back to school and learn how to read: you're not going to dumb the rest of us down.
okay i agree. let's keep it
okay i agree. let's keep it quality then. but it would be cool to have a fairly clear grasp of this stuff available for people. maybe not a "dummies version" as i said, that was seriously mostly a joke.
Don't feed the troll.
Don't feed the troll.
shit didn't even think
shit didn't even think that...(anon without a name)
oh and enjoy the coming
oh and enjoy the coming insurrection it is really good. i need to re-read it, the new version, but i read the the older version two months ago and it was one of the most "practical" things i had actually read in a while.
nationalism, the perlman
nationalism, the perlman writing, looks pretty good, don't know why i am saying that (as in how realated to these writings it can be said to be) but i guess people were talking about writings worth reading, stuff to recommend but i just read the first few paragraphs and i am going to have to devoure that (pick through it and see what i think is spot on and where i think it is full of shit, i like to compare writing to eating, swallowing and digesting...so keep what gives you sustenence and you know what happens to the rest kids) when i have some substantile free time and feel like being online and not posting. i feel like being alone with my thoughts most of the time right now when i am not busy but perhaps i will have something come to mind when i get around to reading that and even make a new post if i feel like popping out of my shell for a minute. i think eyedea recommended that one to me but it might have been worker.
Yeah, Perlman is always
Yeah, Perlman is always refreshing to read.
I can totally agree. Here is
I can totally agree. Here is what Agamben says on the "Whatever Singularity":
"Whatever singularity, which wants to appropriate belonging itself, its own being-in-language, and thus rejects all identity and every condition of belonging, is the principle enemy of the State. Wherever these singularities peacefully demonstrate their being in common there will be Tiananmen, and, sooner or later, the tanks will appear"
In other words a group of outsiders doing what outsiders do.
Continental theory wouldn't be half bad if it wasn't for jargonists talking a bunch of shit about things that I could care less about.
"In other words a group of
"In other words a group of outsiders doing what outsiders do"
We've raised the level of discussion, it seems.
Maybe this isn't worth it?
Socio-political theory
Socio-political theory itself is more and more becoming "not worth it." A spontaneous burst of destruction for destruction's sake would get us further towards Anarchy than the past 20 years of political theory.
"Socio-political theory
"Socio-political theory itself is more and more becoming "not worth it." A spontaneous burst of destruction for destruction's sake would get us further towards Anarchy than the past 20 years of political theory."
my current frame of mind says i would have to agree with you though i really have never been a big fan of destruction for its own sake simply because that could be any form of destruction, perhaps one i wasn't too cool with like me or one of my friends getting the shit smacked out of us or killed by some random sociopath created by this necropolis, this home sweet home of ours where we are born to die without one fulfilled dream after our slavery is done.
i guess i say this given what i feel to be the pathetic and insular nature of anarchist theory (well, really of theory, and no i am not saying there is never a use theory can be put to, just that it is generally something people sort of toss around seemingly in the vein of sounding like they know the answer). of course most of my problems with this have already been expressed by people in this thread so why be long winded?
anyway though how i actuality feel about destruction wouldn't really relate to it's own sake, it would relate to destroying what destroys the life you wish you had (however vauge or clear that may be) every time the chance presents itself or you can somehow create the chance and in every way you can (the things i say are meant to destroy peoples moral preconceptions and get them to think about what it is they may really want deep inside from themselves and within their context, and that would be my personal afformentioned use for theory since i can do a decent job with it, but it is like scatter shot i'll have to admit with many people just getting offended but the occasional and very appreciated person understands what i am really trying to do here).
but given where we are now with our really, really free markets and unconventional actions (am i really harping on that again? i guess i am), and haraunging of political marginals at various tables or if they wish to have a demo, i am going to have to sadly agree that what you are saying is basically correct.
Hi everyone! First of all,
Hi everyone!
First of all, thank you eyedea for posting here the critique on Call.
I just want to clarify one or two things,concerning comments on this critique (one of many, I hope).
When I said that a few comrades felt "call" wasn't being discussed at all, but rather accepted or rejected without discussion, obviously I wasn't refering to everyone, but only to the realities and people we know. And, once again, it's obvious that even in those realities a few people were really discussing it in a deep way.
Then, it's important to note that I'm no anarchist writer/author at all. I'm just an anarchist, trying to develop my own struggle and connecting it with others'. So, with this critique I intended to express and point out some of the main reasons why I and others, as anarchists, would never support the main points of Call.
the other "anon": I just don't get it where you took the idea that I think they are in support of the party and the state. I honestly don't understand why to call something something that is to be interpreted in another way, it seems it just adds to the confusion. But for me their party is no more that an international material community made by deserters, and it's on that basis that the critique is written. Not on the basis of it being The Party... Besides, I also didn't say they support the state; if I thought that, I would never waste my time writing a critique on this, also because I would hope other anarchists would notice that simple fact. But not supporting the state isn't the same as considering it as a fundamental enemy, having the will to attack it, discussing how to do it and finding the ways how to carry on with that attack. There's many ways of avoiding something, and I think we shouldn't avoid some things.
saltar
I think the entire
I think the entire Tiqqun/Call/Invisible Committee question is very complex. It is clear that there is quite a difference in terms of philosophical "references" even between the two issues of the journal Tiqqun, for example. But Tiqqun was written in and for a very different context than both Call and The Coming Insurrection. Many of the more important conceptual innovations from the Tiqqun period are entirely missing--or referred to only in passing--in these latter two texts, though not necessarily in the name of some sort of accessibility. Whatever the case may be, both Call and CI belong to a very different space than Tiqqun, whatever the lineages.
As for "whatever singularities," the important text here is Giorgio Agamben's The Coming Community. "Whatever" is a slightly awkward translation, however, of qualunque. One can speak of a "uomo qualunque," to speak of an ordinary, average, everyday man on the street; the expression qualunquismo refers to this man without qualities who has a contempt for politics, who is apathetic politically. All of that is going on in Agamben's use of whatever, which could just as well be translated in certain contexts as "some singularity," "any singularity," or soething like that, as long as the tension between an existence without qualities and the idea of singularity is held in place.
Tiqqun's Theory of Bloom--the title refers to Leopold Bloom, the character from Joyce's Ulysses--takes over this concept from Agamben and develops it in a much different direction.
[It should also be pointed out that Agamben's use of "qualunque" is also echoing a use found in Deleuze and Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus, where they borrow a French military strategist's use of the expression "ennemi quelconque," rendered "unspecified enemy" by Massumi].
All imperial strategies,
All imperial strategies, whether they are the spectacle's attracting bodies to various absences or the constant terror THEY doggedly keep in place, have as their goal that Empire never appear for what it is, namely, a party. This strange kind of peace, this armed peace characteristic of imperial order, is felt to be all the more oppressive because it is itself the result of a total, mute, and continuous war. The stakes of the offensive are not to win a certain confrontation, but to make it so the confrontation does not take place, to eliminate the event at the source, to prevent any surge of intensity in the play of forms-of-life in which the political could happen. It is a huge victory for Empire if nothing happens. For, in the face of the "whatever enemy" [ennemi quelconque], in the face of the Imaginary Party, its strategy is to "replace the events that we would like to be decisive but which remain unpredictable (i.e. battle) with a series of minor but statistically consistent actions that we call, by contrast, non-battle" (Guy Brossollet, Essai sur la non-bataille, 1975)
from
Tiqqun, "Introduction to Civil War"
sounds like you could write
sounds like you could write a dissertation on the subject.
Simply want to de-mystify
Simply want to de-mystify the language a bit, so that it doesn't seem like pure jargon. Call does not, as I recall, use "whatever singularity" (one finds this expression used especially in the writings of Claire Fontaine, it seems to me, and in "Comment Faire?" from the second issue of the journal) and largely avoids this level of philosophical articulation, and that is both its merit and its weakness. And at some point it will be necessary to read that text in the context of a larger project that will begin with Tiqqun and which has now taken other turns (though I have heard there will be a third issue of the journal Tiqqun at some point).
That said, I don't think the critique proposed by Saltar is of much value at all. It might be best to have an intelligent, thoughtful, self-reflective discussion of some of these propositions, rather than immediately falling prey to the criticism reflex. This is fairly significant intervention in the discourse and conceptual framework of communist theory and should be taken seriously, I think, so seriously that a totally confused criticism it is not the first response--reaction, irritable and mechanical--generated.
You say: "And at some point
You say: "And at some point it will be necessary to read that text in the context of a larger project."
But who will be your dissertation advisor?
Probably Herr Professor
Probably Herr Professor BillBoard. He will teach me French syntax.
Now, again, anyone want to have a serious discussion? Or degenerate into our usual anarchist slobber. I think I know the answer.
Fuck off, ubertroll.
Nail, West Millford Black/Red Divisions
I agree with you but how do
I agree with you but how do you know this isn't some assistant professor trying to get tenure instead of one of his grad students trying to get a PhD?
Could care less. Don't want
Could care less. Don't want to know who anyone is. The idea grosses me out.
I want to talk about Call. Anybody interested, let's do it. Otherwise, let's all just go back to living life in a situationist manner, as we've been counseled.
C.Retz
Don't feed the troll.
Don't feed the troll.
post-ideological
post-ideological anarcho-communist insurrectionists?
Clearly the best kind.
Clearly the best kind.
Communist, to be sure. But
Communist, to be sure. But in the sense of the Paris Commune, finally.
It is interesting that the word "commune" is used extensively; in the early work from Tiqqun, however, it is "form-of-life" that seems to be the most important term, but it is meant not simply in political terms, in terms of organization, but has an ontological kind of weight to it.
or in the sense of what we
or in the sense of what we hold material in common, like the british idea of "the commons"
the elongated label above was meant mostly as a joke, but also eluding to the nature of what the writers of the call are meditating on.
post-left communist might be a better and shorter way of describing what they are, but really labels are bullshit and there is more to it than that.
as it says in call "on the one hand we want to live communism; on the other, to spread anarchy"