Click here for the automatically-generated insurrectionary anarchist communique. If the one you get is total bullshit, just hit refresh until you find the gem you’re looking for.
This raises a good question. What is a communique supposed to convey? Who are they written for? As the present culture increasingly becomes separated from society and from people’s lives (painters painting only for other painters, revolutionaries writing communiques read only by other revolutionaries about the possibility of revolution) – this culture, insofar as it has any single motivation, is no longer anything but a constant self-denunciation: a seductive denunciation of the society and the rage against culture itself.
Here is a “notice to the un-civilized” — to the pro-revolutionary authors of nonsensical communiques:
Make some fucking sense!
The problem is this. To understand insurrectionary anarchist communiques one needs to have read and understood Deleuze, Foucault, Agamben, and who is fashionable lately, The Invisible Committee, to understand the references. Perhaps this points to the impoverishment of the North American anarchist milieu, clinging to catchphrases and romanticizing its own irrelevance, whilst Greek and French anarchists seem to have little trouble conveying recondite concepts to wider audiences. Why should reading a communication be troublesome at all? It should be clear as day, and speak to all of its readers like the communiques of the EZLN.
How can we be sure the authors of the dumpster-burning communiques even understand the language they use? What would Deleuze and Guttari think of young fire-starters using their schizophrenic language to communicate revolutionary ideas to global audiences? What about pro-situationist applications of insurrectionary tendencies — do we think ‘the insurrection’ requires the deconstruction of language to reflect the total deconstruction modern society, and if so, how can language be useful at all? Is kickstarting the insurrection by using this ecstatic language a successful strategy?
Here is a final thought. If an algorithm like this one can produce a communique indiscernible from that of a human, what makes us think the machine doesn’t understand the seductions of their rhetoric either? (Like the machine that translates English into Chinese by manipulating symbols, does it really comprehend the language? Try to differentiate comprehension from manipulation… and god forbid, should the algorithm really be conscious?)
Kudos to the authors of the algorithm – with some work it could be flawlessly esoteric! Hopefully in the future communiques will either actually make sense to real people, or they won’t be written at all.