“Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war.”- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will To Power
I
In light of the Zapatistas' 20th anniversary, there appears to be a fundamental shift in what is perceived as prefigurative politics.
II
The apogee of the ecological movements, the EZLN's fight against neoliberalism, or the alter-globalization movement, could easily be described as prefigurative politics by what they held in common both theoretically as well as tactically: theoretically, all embraced a democratic structure, while putting those “marginalized” (animals, the environment, indigenous peoples, the poor) at the forefront of the struggle. Tactically, they embraced a stagnant, protective, strategy. Namely, to prefigure their society they protected a single point (a tree, a village, a metropolis) and used it as a focal point for a democratic body, in hopes that this democratic body could act as a contagion, thus manifesting other protected focal points of democracy. Consequently this led into the alter-globalization movement, where the act of prefigurative politics became more nomadic, while simultaneously using defensive tactics.
Hence, with the alter-globalization movement, prefigurative politics (as with the Zapatistas or the eco-warriors of the 90's) became a means to organize, but never a means to construct. It attempted a defensive exodus, rather than an offensive exodus out of capital.
III
“Revolutionary movements do not spread by contamination but by resonance. Something that is constituted here resonates with the shock wave emitted by something constituted over there. A body that resonates does so according to its own mode. An insurrection is not like a plague or a forest fire – a linear process which spreads from place to place after an initial spark. It rather takes the shape of a music, whose focal points, though dispersed in time and space, succeed in imposing the rhythm of their own vibrations, always taking on more density. To the point that any return to normal is no longer desirable or even imaginable.”- The Invisible Comittee, The Coming Insurrection
IV
Thus we must distinguish between prefigurative politics and cultivating insurrection.
V
Prefigurative politics is now a vestige of the past. The Occupy movement created a situation that illuminated the financialization of capitalism, or as some say, of everyday life. Therefore, to respond appropriately, we must communize on the scale of everyday life.
To prefigure what we desire in the world is to presume a utopia or a predetermined form of being. Some will argue that to prefigure a society on democratic ideals does not have to be understood as an end, but it seems as if the stagnant movements listed above exhibit that historically these democratic ideals did not go much farther than a General Assembly or some form of an organizational methodology. Prefigurative politics, therefore, does not decompose our current drives within Empire, but rather assumes that we already have the linguistic and social aptitude to constitute a different society, via a leap rather than a process, more akin to the molecular biological theory of “punctuated equilibrium” rather than slow, gradual evolution. (In Hardt and Negri's terms, prefigurative politics constitutes, whereas what we propose, cultivating insurrection, or “communizing,” is the act of constituting.)
VI
Hence, despite what Graeber might argue, the Occupy movement was not the exemplar of prefigurative politics, on the contrary, it was the paradigmatic transition away from prefigurative politics. The act of direct democracy is not only the agent of exemplifying a more democratic society; it can just simply be the insurrectional situation in which we hash out what the hell a “more democratic society” is, and how we transcend the topology of capital.
VII
The distinction between prefigurative politics and cultivating insurrection promulgates two types of being—two ontologies.
For the prefigurativist, we are just in a shitty situation, changed by what we already carry in our hearts. We demand a change in what we carry. Perhaps a change in hearts?
I
In light of the Zapatistas' 20th anniversary, there appears to be a fundamental shift in what is perceived as prefigurative politics.
II
The apogee of the ecological movements, the EZLN's fight against neoliberalism, or the alter-globalization movement, could easily be described as prefigurative politics by what they held in common both theoretically as well as tactically: theoretically, all embraced a democratic structure, while putting those “marginalized” (animals, the environment, indigenous peoples, the poor) at the forefront of the struggle. Tactically, they embraced a stagnant, protective, strategy. Namely, to prefigure their society they protected a single point (a tree, a village, a metropolis) and used it as a focal point for a democratic body, in hopes that this democratic body could act as a contagion, thus manifesting other protected focal points of democracy. Consequently this led into the alter-globalization movement, where the act of prefigurative politics became more nomadic, while simultaneously using defensive tactics.
Hence, with the alter-globalization movement, prefigurative politics (as with the Zapatistas or the eco-warriors of the 90's) became a means to organize, but never a means to construct. It attempted a defensive exodus, rather than an offensive exodus out of capital.
III
“Revolutionary movements do not spread by contamination but by resonance. Something that is constituted here resonates with the shock wave emitted by something constituted over there. A body that resonates does so according to its own mode. An insurrection is not like a plague or a forest fire – a linear process which spreads from place to place after an initial spark. It rather takes the shape of a music, whose focal points, though dispersed in time and space, succeed in imposing the rhythm of their own vibrations, always taking on more density. To the point that any return to normal is no longer desirable or even imaginable.”- The Invisible Comittee, The Coming Insurrection
IV
Thus we must distinguish between prefigurative politics and cultivating insurrection.
V
Prefigurative politics is now a vestige of the past. The Occupy movement created a situation that illuminated the financialization of capitalism, or as some say, of everyday life. Therefore, to respond appropriately, we must communize on the scale of everyday life.
To prefigure what we desire in the world is to presume a utopia or a predetermined form of being. Some will argue that to prefigure a society on democratic ideals does not have to be understood as an end, but it seems as if the stagnant movements listed above exhibit that historically these democratic ideals did not go much farther than a General Assembly or some form of an organizational methodology. Prefigurative politics, therefore, does not decompose our current drives within Empire, but rather assumes that we already have the linguistic and social aptitude to constitute a different society, via a leap rather than a process, more akin to the molecular biological theory of “punctuated equilibrium” rather than slow, gradual evolution. (In Hardt and Negri's terms, prefigurative politics constitutes, whereas what we propose, cultivating insurrection, or “communizing,” is the act of constituting.)
VI
Hence, despite what Graeber might argue, the Occupy movement was not the exemplar of prefigurative politics, on the contrary, it was the paradigmatic transition away from prefigurative politics. The act of direct democracy is not only the agent of exemplifying a more democratic society; it can just simply be the insurrectional situation in which we hash out what the hell a “more democratic society” is, and how we transcend the topology of capital.
VII
The distinction between prefigurative politics and cultivating insurrection promulgates two types of being—two ontologies.
For the prefigurativist, we are just in a shitty situation, changed by what we already carry in our hearts. We demand a change in what we carry. Perhaps a change in hearts?