Neoliberal Counterrevolution and Anarchist History

The New Right’s neoliberal counterrevolution dramatically reshaped American society. Neoliberal economics remade the system of production and decimated the labor movement, in part by recuperating struggles against the Fordist factory. This counterrevolution set the stage upon which much of the radical left moved towards anarchism in the late twentieth century.

Reactionary masculine individualism was reinscribed as the welfare system was attacked and the liberal wing of the women’s movement was absorbed into the capitalist system. Formal legal equality was granted to Black people while the radical wings of the civil rights and national liberation movements were violently repressed. The expansion of the prison system served both to contain the radical left and to address an economic crisis.

The shifting terrain of late twentieth century society produced a crisis for the left that destabilized Marxism-Leninism and gave rise to an anti-state socialist politics. The state launched an all-out assault on radical organizations and revolutionary fighters. From FBI infiltration and disruption to long term imprisonment and even outright assassination, the state reacted violently to the threat that it perceived from revolutionary forces. By the late 1970s, the state had essentially defeated the revolutionary wing of the New Left, from the Black Panthers to the Weather Underground.

Alongside this frontal assault, the changing nature of capitalist production and state power destabilized the analysis and program of the Marxist-Leninist left. Offshoring production to the global south decimated the industrial working-class base of the Old Left while repression disoriented the national liberation movements that had provided the locus of struggle for anti-imperialists in the long 1960s. Traditional approaches to organizing factory workers under the direction of a communist party no longer appeared viable to many militants.

Further, capturing the state no longer appeared to be a sufficient condition for building socialism—and was increasingly seen as undesirable in the first place, echoing the critique of the state formulated by earlier generations of anarchists in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The decline and fall of the Soviet Union, the capitalist turn of post-Maoist China, the “betrayal” of the French Socialist President François Mitterrand’s 1983 “turn to austerity,” the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in 1990, and the failure of national liberation movements to build socialism in the decolonizing world all contributed to a global re-evaluation of the state-centric mode of politics.

A new generation of radicals critiqued the failures of Marxism-Leninism and turned towards anarchism. Marxism-Leninism certainly did not disappear, but anarchism grew more quickly and recaptured the imagination of the radical left and broader social movements. This was driven both by the neoliberal counterrevolution’s decimation of the Marxist left and the development of new theory and practice in the anarchist movement.

After decades of subterranean development, the turn-of-the-century global justice/anti-globalization movement marked the renaissance of anarchist politics. Beyond the growing popularity of formal anarchist ideology and organizations, an anarchist ethos had spread across the radical left. As David Graeber put it in 2010, “for activists, ‘anarchist process’ has become synonymous with the basic principles of how one facilitates a meeting or organizes street actions.” This anarchist process includes consensus-based decision making, organizing in horizontal and non-hierarchical fashions, coalescing in networks and bottom-up federations rather than democratic centralist parties, and a commitment to direct action in many forms.

Ultimately, anarchism was reborn because it provided compelling answers to the new problems posed by the counterrevolution and the crisis of state socialism in a way that Marxism-Leninism could not.

Read more in my article “From the Ashes of the Old: Anarchism Reborn in a Counterrevolutionary Age (1970s-1990s)” (email me at scb274@cornell.edu for a PDF).

Lessons from the History of Chinese Anarchism

In 1995, Love and Rage militant Joel Olson wrote an article called “The History of Chinese Anarchism” that drew lessons from the defeat of anarchism and the ascendance of communism (Marxism-Leninism) in China in the 1920s.

Marxists sometimes present this transition as an inevitable evolution from the supposed adolescent phase of anarchism into the maturity of Marxism. Not so, says Olson; as in Europe, this “was not an ‘evolution’ but a political struggle—one that the anarchists lost” due to “the anarchists’ failure to come up with a revolutionary strategy that could build a mass movement without violating their principles of autonomy and freedom.”

The problem for the Chinese anarchists was their faith in the spontaneity of the masses—so long as they were properly educated in the “new morality” which would “bring out the ‘natural’ anarchist inclinations in people.” They did not believe in class struggle or movement building. Indeed, Olson explains that “their anti-political stance led them to be skeptical of any attempts at organizing larger than the local level. […] Most Chinese anarchists believed in an ‘organic’ revolution. They saw social change not as class struggle but in terms of alternative forms of social organization such as communes, study societies, and other free spaces that would replicate themselves, spreading anarchism and anarchist ideas throughout society until eventually the state and capitalism were overthrown.”

In the final section of the article, aptly titled “Learning the Lessons,” Olson argues that:

“Before anarchism can be viable it must be able to effectively organize a democratic political movement that is based on the idea that humans built this world and thus humans are the ones who will have to change it, not on some apolitical belief in the power of ‘spontaneous’ or ‘organic’ local actions to spread throughout a society. This has to be done not by abandoning politics, but by creating a new, participatory, nonhierarchical democratic politics. […] The task now is to make that democracy eminently political, and bridge the gap between democracy and organization.”

This captures the essence of what Love and Rage was attempting in this period: to create new forms of mass, democratic, participatory politics that would be grounded in anarchism but resolute in the search for mass politics beyond radical subcultures and alternative spaces.

A Year of Anarchist History

I published a lot this year!

My writing on anarcha-feminist abortion struggles was kicked off with my first piece in the Washington Post, “The model for mobilizing to protect abortion rights beyond voting” (May 17)

That same week, I published “‘We’re Pro-Choice and We Riot!’: How Anarcha-Feminists Built Dual Power in Struggles for Reproductive Freedom” (May 19) in It’s Going Down

I was then interviewed with Suzy Subways for the It’s Going Down podcast episode “Lessons From the Fight to Protect Abortion Clinics in the 1990s: A Discussion” (June 17)

My last piece on anarcha-feminist abortion struggle was “Abortion Struggles Beyond Voting: Women’s Liberation, Reproductive Care, and Dual Power” (August 30) for Hard Crackers: Chronicles of Everyday Life’s excellent series on Reproductive Freedom. You can also find me reading this on Youtube here.

I also published a longer piece on the German Autonomen and the Invisible Committee, “Living Communism: Theory & Practice of Autonomy & Attack” (July 29) in Perspectives on Anarchist Theory

I published a short essay, first written in the early covid days, in Perspectives on Anarchist Theory’s Pandemics from the Bottom Up series, “The Quarantine Commune” (September 11). You can also find me reading this on Youtube here.

Finally, I published my first peer reviewed academic journal article “From the Ashes of the Old: Anarchism Reborn in a Counterrevolutionary Age (1970s-1990s),” in the Anarchist Studies journal (email me for a PDF of my article!)

I’m looking forward to writing and sharing more in the coming year! My new year’s resolution is to finish my dissertation, titled “Love and Rage: Revolutionary Anarchism in the Late Twentieth Century.”

Spread Anarchy, Live Communism: A Revolutionary Tradition [Syllabus]

The real communist question is not ‘how to produce,’ but ‘how to live.’

The Invisible Committee

People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth.

Raoul Vaneigem

What is communism? Can it mean anything beyond either a future mode of production or a repressive ideology disproved by history? What might it look like to pursue a communist politics and communist “form-of-life” today? This course traces a revolutionary communist orientation through a broad history of subversive European thought and practice. Putting classic Marxist and anarchist texts in conversation with contemporary revolutionary theory, we will follow a line from the medieval commune’s “passionate intensity of life” to the present-day call from the Invisible Committee to “spread anarchy, live communism.” Particular attention will be paid to the concept of alienation, the daily practice of radicals, and what became known as the “revolution of everyday life.” The first half of the course offers a grounding in classical anti-capitalist thought and practice, from Marx and Kropotkin to Lenin, with inflection points in the Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution. The remainder of the semester explores the post-WWII revolutionary praxis of the Situationists, Autonomist Marxism, and what we might call a rhizomatic Deleuzian communism. Authors include Marx, Kropotkin, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lukács, Benjamin, Debord, Vaneigem, Deleuze, Guattari, Bifo, Federici, Hardt, Negri, Ross, Agamben, Tiqqun, the Invisible Committee, and more.

Unit One: Historical Groundings: A Medieval Commune/ism?

Week 1: The Passionate Intensity of Medieval Life and the Use of History

  • Johan Huizinga, “The Passionate Intensity of Life” from The Autumn of the Middle Ages (1919)
  • Mikhail Bakhtin, short excerpt from the Introduction to Rabelais and His World (1965)
  • Peter Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid in the Medieval City” from Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902)
  • CrimethInc., “The Brethren of the Free Spirt” from Days of War, Nights of Love (2001)
  • Friedrich Nietzsche, short excerpt from “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life,” in Untimely Considerations (1874)

Week 2: Modernity and the Capitalist Counterrevolution

  • Silvia Federici, “All the World Needs a Jolt” and “The Accumulation of Labor and the Degradation of Women,” from Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation (1998)
  • Stephen Toulmin, excerpt from “What Is the Problem About Modernity?” from Cosmopolis (1990)

Unit 2: Marxism and Anarchism: The Communist Imaginary

Week 3: Marxism

  • Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)
  • Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (1844)
  • Karl Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (1852)

Week 4: Anarchist Communism

  • Peter Kropotkin, The Conquest of Bread (1892)
  • An alternative vision: Sergey Nechayev, “Catechism of a Revolutionary” (1869)

Week 5: The Paris Commune

  • Kristin Ross, Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune (2016)

Week 6: What Is to Be Done? Two Answers

  • Michael R. Katz and William G. Wagner, “Introduction” to Nikolai Chernyshevsky, What Is to Be Done? (1989)
  • Nikolai Chernyshevsky, “Ch 4: Second Marriage; xvi: Vera Pavlovna’s Fourth Dream” from What Is to Be Done? (1863)
  • Vladimir Lenin, What Is to Be Done? (1902)

Unit 3: The Russian Revolution and Beyond: the Leninist Vision

Week 7: The Russian Revolution and the Leninist Vision of Communism

  • Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917)
  • Antonio Gramsci, “Notes on Machiavelli’s Politics” from The Modern Prince & Other Writings (1957)

Week 8: Marxist Alternatives to Lenin?

  • Rosa Luxemburg, “The Mass Strike” (1906)
  • Leon Trotsky, “Results and Prospects” (1906)

Week 9: Selected Insights from The Frankfurt School

  • Gyorgy Lukács, excerpt from “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat” in History and Class Consciousness (1923)
  • Walter Benjamin, “Theses on the Philosophy of History” (1942)

Unit 4: The Situationists and Autonomism: The Revolution of Everyday Life

Week 10: The Situationists and May ‘68

  • Guy Debord, chapters 1-4 and 8-9 from The Society of the Spectacle (1967)
  • Raoul Vaneigem, Introduction, chapters 1-2 and 12-25 from The Revolution of Everyday Life (1967)

Week 11: Autonomist Marxism

  • Michael Hardt, “Introduction: Laboratory Italy,” in Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential Politics
  • Franco “Bifo” Berardi, “Labor and Alienation in the Philosophy of the 60s” from The Soul at Work: From Alienation to Autonomy (2009)

Week 12: Italian Autonomia and German Autonome

  • George Katsiaficas, “From 1968 to Autonomy,” “Italian Autonomia,” “Sources of Spontaneous Politics in Germany,” and excerpts from “The (Anti)Politics of Autonomy” and “The Theory of Autonomy” from The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life (2006)
  • Geronimo, “Appendix: ‘Autonomous Theses 1981’” from Fire and Flames: A History of the German Autonomist Movement (2012)

Unit 5: Rhizomatic Communism: The Communist Form-of-Life

Week 13: The Rhizome and the Nomadic War Machine

  • Michel Foucault, “Method” and excerpt from “Right of Death and Power over Life” from History of Sexuality, Vol. 1 (1976)
  • Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, “Introduction: Rhizome” and excerpt from “1227: Treatise on Nomadology:—the War Machine” in A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (1980)
  • Aragorn Eloff, “Children of the new Earth – Deleuze, Guattari and anarchism” (2015)

Week 14: Communists Like Us

  • Felix Guattari and Toni Negri, Communists Like Us: New Spaces of Liberty, New Lines of Alliance (1990)

Week 15: Empire and Multitude

  • Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, introduction to Empire (2000) and “Democracy of the Multitude” from Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (2004)

Week 16: A Communist “Form-of-Life”?

  • Giorgio Agamben, Means Without End: Notes on Politics (2000)
  • Tiqqun, Introduction to Civil War (2010)

Week 17: Spread Anarchy, Live Communism

  • The Invisible Committee, “Spread Anarchy, Live Communism” (2011)
  • The Invisible Committee, “Get Going!” “Find Each Other,” “Get Organized,” and “Insurrection,” from The Coming Insurrection (2007)
  • The Invisible Committee, chapters 2 and 5-8 from To Our Friends (2014)
  • The Invisible Committee, chapters 2-4 and 7 from Now (2017)

Living Communism: Theory & Practice of Autonomy & Attack

I just published an article in Perspectives on Anarchist Theory called “Living Communism: Theory & Practice of Autonomy & Attack.

This article combines historical insights from the Autonomen with theoretical interventions from the Invisible Committee in order to make several related arguments. First, the commune form creates alternative worlds in which liberalism is combatted and collective struggle against alienation takes place. Second, communes operate according to a unique spatial logic that ruptures capitalist geography, promotes new spatial practices, and establishes non-alienated inhabitation of territory.

Third, the Autonomen and the Invisible Committee theorize and act upon a new conception of communism as a collective practice of living the “good life” in revolutionary struggle rather than as solely a (future) economic system. Fourth, alternative infrastructure provides the means to practice this in daily life. Finally, revolutionary practice entails networks of autonomous communes seceding from the capitalist system to form liberated territories that function as bases from which to attack capitalist state power.

You can read the article for free online at Perspectives on Anarchist Theory!

Living Communism: Theory and Practice of Autonomy and Attack


“So the revolutionary gesture no longer consists in a simple violent appropriation of this world; it divides into two. On the one hand, there are worlds to be made, forms of life made to grow apart from what reigns, including by salvaging what can be salvaged from the present state of things, and on the other, there is the imperative to attack, to simply destroy the world of capital… it’s clear that the worlds one constructs can maintain their apartness from capital only together with the fact of attacking it and conspiring against it… Only an affirmation has the potential for accomplishing the work of destruction. The destituent gesture is thus desertion and attack, creation and wrecking, and all at once, in the same gesture.”

The Invisible Committee[1]

I wrote this piece after I read Now (2017) when all I could think and write about was the Invisible Committee. I’m revisiting it to decide if I want to do anything with it. It still feels useful to me. Here’s the introduction:

May Day, 1987: thousands of Autonomen, the mysterious masked and black-clad “unruly youth” who are the terror of West Germany, riot in West Berlin. After a decade spent honing their street-fighting tactics, the revolutionaries stage an offensive against state repression by blocking streets, occupying buildings, and fighting a low-intensity urban guerrilla war against state forces. Continually expanding their liberated zone throughout the night, the Autonomen eventually control much of Kreuzberg, the dilapidated neighborhood that is their base. After a night of violent jubilation, they return to their numerous squatted houses and social centers to nurse their wounds, curse the police, and celebrate a temporary victory. Although the German media depicted the Autonomen as little more than violent mobs whose only motivation was destruction,[2] the radicals had also spent the previous decade painstakingly constructing—and fighting to defend—an extensive network of squatted alternative infrastructure across West Berlin and throughout West Germany.

Throughout the 1980s, the Autonomen squatted hundreds of abandoned buildings and turned them into group housing, social centers, movement bars, and cultural spaces used by the thousands of squatters and tens of thousands of supporters. They constructed rich networks of autonomous spaces meant to provide both alternative forms of living and bases of attack. At their best, these networks of alternative spaces and infrastructure functioned as dual power and urban liberated territory in which the revolution was lived through a communism of everyday life.

More recently, the Invisible Committee has theorized the commune as a space of everyday communism that constructs counter-infrastructure, transforms our relationship to each other and the territory we inhabit, and destitutes state power. The Invisible Committee is a collective of French post-autonomist communists (formerly operating under the moniker Tiqqun) who trace their intellectual lineage through Italian Autonomia and the German Autonomen, among others.[3] The collective is the best known of the contemporary theorists of post-autonomist communization.[4]

Though born in the Parisian squatting scene, the collective grew disillusioned with the radical subcultural milieu in the capital and moved to the tiny town of Tarnac, where they live communally and collectively run a farm, bar, and general store.[5] Introduced to the American popular imagination primarily through the controversy surrounding their book The Coming Insurrection (2007, 2009) and their sensational trial for domestic terrorism beginning in 2008 which finally concluded with acquittals earlier this year, the Invisible Committee has greatly influenced the contemporary ultra-Left in the United States.[6]

The Invisible Committee continued to develop their particular variety of post-autonomist communization theory in To Our Friends (2014), which reflects on the European movements of the squares and associated spectacular abortive insurrections (especially in Greece), and their latest work, Now (2017), which explores the possibilities and practices of communism present within the fragmented world of late capitalism. Although the collective is relatively widely read (sometimes even beyond the academic post-autonomist ultra-Left!), their historical and theoretical background is less well-known in the United States. This paper in part attempts to connect the collective’s theoretical work with the history and praxis of European autonomous movements that it draws from.

This paper will combine historical insights from the Autonomen with theoretical interventions from the Invisible Committee in order to make several related arguments. First, the commune form creates alternative worlds in which liberalism is combatted and collective struggle against alienation takes place. Second, communes operate according to a unique spatial logic that ruptures capitalist geography, promotes new spatial practices, and establishes non-alienated inhabitation of territory. Third, the Autonomen and the Invisible Committee theorize and act upon a new conception of communism as a collective practice of living the “good life” in revolutionary struggle rather than as solely a (future) economic system of organizing production. Fourth, alternative infrastructure provides the means to practice this everyday lived communism. Finally, revolutionary insurrectionary practice takes the form of networks of communes seceding from the capitalist system to form liberated territory that functions as a base from which to attack and destitute capitalist state power.


[1] The Invisible Committee, Now, 86-88.

[2] A stereotype that many within the movement cared little to contest; indeed, some Autonomen went so far as to believe that “freedom is the short moment between throwing a rock and the rock hitting its target. However, we all agree that, in the first place, we want to dismantle and to destroy—to formulate affirmative ideals is not our priority.” “Autonomous Theses 1981,” Fire and Flames, 174. I take some issue with this intentionally provocative statement though: as this paper details, it is clear that the Autonomen did indeed formulate affirmative ideals and act on them.

[3] In an early work of theirs, the Invisible Committee make this connection explicit. It is well worth quoting this section in full, in part to orient ourselves to the radical position from which to write of communes and revolution: “The ‘we’ that speaks here is not a delimitable, isolated we, the we of a group. It is the we of a position. In these times this position is asserted as a double secession: secession first with the process of capitalist valorisation; then secession with all the sterility entailed by a mere opposition to empire, extra-parliamentary or otherwise; thus a secession with the left. Here ‘secession’ means less a practical refusal to communicate than a disposition to forms of communication so intense that, when put into practice, they snatch from the enemy most of its force. To put it briefly, such a position refers to the force of irruption of the Black Panthers and the collective canteens of the German Autonomen, to the tree houses and art of sabotage of the British neo-luddites, to the careful choice of words of the radical feminists, to the mass self-reductions of the Italian autonomists, and the armed joy of the June 2nd Movement. From now on all friendship is political.” The Invisible Committee, Call, 10.

[4] The closest equivalent in the United States revolves around the currents of anarchism associated with CrimethInc. and the more recent formations expressed through the popular autonomist/anarchist website “It’s Going Down,” as well as the journal Endnotes (which is international, though mostly based in the UK). The Invisible Committee’s work is put out in the US by Semiotext(e), which has been responsible for the translation and popularization of much Italian and French autonomist theory. Several other small radical presses, including Minor Compositions, Autonomedia, and Little Black Cart, also publish (post-)autonomist theoretical work. See for example Benjamin Noys’s edited volume Communization and its Discontents: Contestation, Critique, and Contemporary Struggles (2011) for a contemporary exploration of some of the theoretical currents of post-autonomism and communization.

[5] Aaron Lake Smith, “Vive Le Tarnac Nine!”

[6] For US anarchist analysis of the trial and its impact, see CrimethInc., “The Tarnac Verdicts: Unraveling the Logic of Anti-Terrorism,” which traces the history of the trial as well as a little of the impact of the Invisible Committee on the US radical scene and the common roots and resonances of the Invisible Committee and CrimethInc.; and It’s Going Down, “The Palace of Justice: Inside the Tarnac Nine Trial.” The trial received widespread international attention because the (alleged) members of the Invisible Committee were charged with domestic terrorism for the act of (allegedly) sabotaging a train line that was transporting nuclear waste to Germany. Sabotage is, of course, a time-honored tradition in France, and many were aghast that this venerable historical practice was being treated as “terrorism.”