Nihilist Communism: A Critique of Optimism in the Far Left

by Monsieur Dupont

Originally self-published in 2003, now edited and designed by Ardent Press, still one of the most hard-nosed books to call the left to account -- with scathing, thoughtful rebuttals to those who continue to believe that the revolution is just a matter of consciousness-raising and recruitment, or that identity politics has anything to do with Marxist thought.

Many will reject the materialism inherent in this analysis, but we appreciate the logical consistency (and the occasional brilliance of writing) of Monsieur Dupont; so refreshing in a world in which people withdraw to muddle-headedness in incoherent attempts to fit all topics into some kind of grab bag, attempts seemingly designed to avoid offense rather than to follow ideas through to their logical (or even illogical) conclusions.

Unlike so many people who either reject theory all together (rather, who obscure the theory that they work from), or who embrace theory and ignore the ways reality doesn't fit their ideas, Msr Dupont reflected on their experience (and that of others) and changed their theory to suit their lives. We need more people who are willing to be unpopular, who work an idea until it groans, who reflect on real life experiences and then acknowledge the ways in which prevailing theory doesn't make sense, and who are then capable of challenging prevailing theory to be more coherent, more realistic, and more useful.

species being could be considered a companion text to Nihilist Communism, or vice versa: reading them together has been helpful for some. Nihilist Communism refers more to specific political occurrences, and species being fleshes out some of the more esoteric ideas.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Theory, Anarchism

276 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Reviews

[J. Moufawad-Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

Anyone who gave this a good rating is some asinine pseudo-radical. Really, nearly 50% of this is dedicated to defending Zionism and complaining about Palestinian self-determination, complete with half-assed and poorly thought out pro-colonial and pro-imperialist logic. Anti-imperialism is bad because unity of an imaginary working class! Palestinians are evil because a secret Palestine bourgeoisie is killing authentic Israeli working class people! This is completely reprehensible and only reactionaries would find this vile garbage interesting.

Outside of this, the authors bank on the fact that their readers have a piss-poor understanding of marxism that they've inherited from the weirdest Trostkyite sects. Let the forces of production develop to bring capitalism to an end spontaneously! For all its proclamations about being some new challenge, it's just an endorsement of capitalist and imperialist logic, clearly written by people who pretend they have something to do with the working class but are the very bohemians they protest that they aren't. Anyone who thinks this garbage is useful is most probably a eurocentric chauvinist.

[Marty · Rating 3 out of 5]

Incredibly thought provoking piece of work. It defintely made me think deeply about the idea of an activist/left identity and how many of us obscure where power is excercised in our lives. This book will no doubt reach a tiny audience, but will make readers question a lot of their previously held assumptions.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 1 out of 5]

Defeatism is incompatible with marxism or leninism.

[Devon · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thoroughly entertaining read with great critiques on a variety of topics, especially the concept of "consciousness" and the role of pro-revolutionaries and activists.

Unfortunately MD's insistance on an overly structuralist reading of Marx and horribly outdated class determinism really hurts their overall argument, though even on the these subjects they have important things to say.

MD's biggest failures certainly resides in their embarrassingly undeveloped understanding of race, gender and sexuality, experiences of which they would like to discard as being purely personal and basically unimportant in the grand scheme of revolutionary activity. They seem to think all those struggles of "identity politics" took place in the 60s and 70s and hey, we still have Capitalism, so clearly that approach has been a failure.

Maybe from their positions it is easy for MD to ignore and dismiss the ongoing lived experience of many people on the earth, this stance certainly fits in with their willing self-portrayal as insular, cynical, pessimistic, misanthropes...

Have fun doing nothing friends! Once material conditions ripen and the proletariat fulfills their role, I'll see you in the town square!

[6655321 · Rating 2 out of 5]

MD is occasionally on point (criticizing authoritarian tendencies of pro-revolutionary groups) but spends so much time on this point (and wishes to evade authoritarianism by evading making a positive statement, that is "X is a good idea") that the entire text boils down to:

1) Lenin & Leninism are signs of Communism's failure
2) Identity politics are always reterritorialized by capitalism
3) Proletariat is not an identity but a relationship to capitalism that, additionally, exists only so long as there is capitalism

worth reading for some refreshing points about politics but sort of leaves you thinking "eh?"

[Alys · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I first encountered M. Dupont's writings I was quite resistant. It read as a mechanistic-structuralist and reductionist account of the world and there are so many more sophisticated accounts out there. Now I feel this was the wrong way to read them. You don't read them for the metaphysics but for the shift of perspective. What happens when you emphasize the non-relation of revolution to any of the actions taken in the hope of bringing it about? When you emphasize the chasm between the seizure of the means of production which establishes the material basis of communism and all of the particular day-to-day struggles that fall short of it? What you get, from M. Dupont is a sharp and lucid perspective on the contradictory and often absurd ideas pro-revolutionaries sustain - often through the very sophistication of communist theory - about their activity and its effect on the world, in order to maintain some semblance of control over one's life. A focussing of what it really implies for all our activity to take place within the world of capital and the commodity form, and the inevitability of its reproduction through any and all activity that falls short of escape - whatever it's ambition, whatever it's subjective understanding of itself. A useful corrective, and delightfully bitingly cynical.

[aa · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you ignore their commie, workerist nonsense it's actually a very troubling and thought-provoking read.

EDIT: After a year or so since reading this, I have come to a place of mostly disagreeing with the majority of points asserted in this book. That said, I'm glad it made me think and question a lot I had taken for granted.

[Lee Hunter · Rating 5 out of 5]

i love this book. read it if you haven't. full of piss and vinegar, not for the faint.

[Christopher Ruth · Rating 5 out of 5]

This cuts through most of the bullshit.

[Nathaniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disclaimer: I read this text in a zine called "Nihilist Communism : Cruelty", so my review may only apply to a smaller, excerpted section of the text

I am glad I read this. The text's biggest drawback is that the writing style is almost comically cliché- I do not know why modern communists read as if they are being translated from 19th century German. However, the content is well worth slogging through even the worst passages.

Overall, Dupont makes a strong argument for the abandonment of identity politics and a renewed focus on the emancipation (read: freedom) of the proletarian revolutionary subject (read: working class). An interesting emphasis is on the inescapable total dominance of Capitalism and the utter impotence we as individuals seem to have in trying to change the course of history. Although I remain unconvinced, Dupont offers an interesting challenge to the assumptions many radicals (including myself) make. Monsieur Dupont especially attacks nostalgia for past struggles, like May '68, and the false hope that the many personalist "struggles" can accomplish revolution.

This is not a joy to read, but that's not the point. Dupont shoves serious, cutting critique in your face and tells you to deal with it. That's more than welcome in the cosy world of safe, "revolutionary", wish-wash.

[C. Varn · Rating 3 out of 5]

While a critique of Consciousness in this book is both strong and conceptually valid and the critique of new left style identity notions of the revolutionary subject is particularly strong, it is grounded almost totally in logic and supposition. There is little substantive research to back up the piss and vinegar, storm and drang. Furthermore, it does define or limit its notions of class and thus avoids dealing with a lot of problems of class composition. Provocative, interesting but too polemical and suppositional to actually prove a lot of the assertions made.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Monsieur dupont grounds you in reality, dupont are a pair of disillusioned postal workers, who here have written an astonishingly piercing analysis of the pro revolutionary milieu today and its irreparable faults. Only from the position of dupont today can we forage an authentic engagement from the ruins of the left.

[Emma · Rating 1 out of 5]

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."

[Haultaine · Rating 2 out of 5]

What in the fed hell is this?

There are some thought provoking passages in this, or i would’ve given it a one star rating. Unfortunately the thought provoking passages are quite thoroughly undermined by thoughts the FBI or the CIA would be in support of being shared/expressed.

“there are many good arguments for complete disengagement.”

There’s a lot of weird arguments for how communism is just still capitalism, because people will still be working and consuming and producing. When the whole point there is that under communism labor and resources would be fairly distributed, instead of under 3,000 billionaires worldwide hoarding all the resources and stealing all the value generated by workers. Believe it or not billionaires aren’t working millions of times harder than the people generating their wealth in the factories they own.

“we look at the history of revolution and we see a history of failure.” I still need to read it, but I believe The Jakarta Method is supposed to go through, in detail, the elaborate ways capitalists have thwarted communism historically. Communism isn’t failing in a vacuum.

There are passages in this that equate Palestinian resistance as being the same sort of problem as Israeli occupation/oppression, when one side has the backing of the world’s sole superpower and the other has had damn near their entire world stolen from them. When we get to a world where there aren’t occupying forces oppressing the absolute shit out of people we can discuss getting rid of borders, but to act like it’s just two warring states fighting over land is quite disingenuous and offensive.

Also, fascism doesn’t equal socialism. A good book for analyzing this is Parenti’s Blackshirts & Reds.

“Despair and nihilism are more appropriate responses to the prospect of war than calling for an end to US/Israeli imperialism.” And why can’t one feel despair and nihilism and yet still struggle for a better world?

This book is at times seriously advocating that people do nothing to bring about change, and to just remain steadfast in their jobs until revolution just happens. Something about revolutions create revolutionaries and not the other way around. Basically saying there is no point in even trying. It is in these passages that i suspect the presence of fed-ghostwriters the hardest.

There’s a whole section dedicated to slandering the use of the term “pro-revolutionaries” followed by a bunch of usages of that term later in the book.

“It is well to remember that America remains the dominant anti-imperialist force in the world.” Queue meme of FBI agent sitting behind computer typing.

The book even advocates reform as an effective method for engaging with the state. Seriously.

I read this book cause I wanted to understand the anarchist’s position regarding communism better than I do. I think this book falls quite firmly under the distracting category of “leftist infighting without much actual historical understanding of leftism.” A much better, more informed anarchist perspective on communism can be found in Kuwasi Balagoon’s A Soldier’s Story. Anyone out there know any other legit anarchist texts that engage with the issue of communism from a place of good faith, as opposed to bad faith, arguments?

“We can see no purpose in detailed critical explanation’s of capitalism’s processes” the apostrophe in ‘explanation’s’ is a typo included in the text. We’re seriously gonna advocate not understanding capitalism?

“There will come a point in the struggle of the proletariat against capital where all sane people will wish for a return to capitalism as it was… “ This just in, sane people are capitalists!

“We refuse to acquire an empire of political expertise…” writes a whole book without understanding politics, got it.

The one thing i do agree with these writers on is that activism has to come from a place of inescapable duty, not some passing fad that dissipates after the first defeat. Activism must be predicated on doing all we can, against all the odds, not an assumption or expectation of success. As nice as it would be for activist efforts to succeed we do have an enormous empire we’re fighting against, billions poured into propaganda (much of which this book has fallen for, happens to the best of us), trillions poured into the military industrial complex, and yeah, i also agree that this situation doesn’t look too hopeful, but the last thing i’m gonna do is do nothing and just be a good worker until the revolution inexplicably happens to happen. No I do not think there will be an ultimate triumph of good versus evil. I do think things would get evil faster if people just gave up.

Like Angela Davis said, freedom is a constant struggle.

[Kirillov · Rating 2 out of 5]

It feels odd to rate this book two stars as the main points argued in the meat of the book are poignant and cogent. Namely, among other things, I agree with the following: their critique of consciousness; the observation that only the proletariats tied to critical industries have the power to take down capitalism; the futility of "revolutionary" action and the call to simply "Do Nothing" (this is reminsicent of Dao teachings—very cool); the infiltration of Leftist groups by opportunists and autoritharian Leninists; and their calling out of Leftists who support totalitarian regimes, theocracies, and terrorists under the flag of anti-imperialism. That said, a majority of the book falls flat because it simply isn't written well. To me, it seems that the authors are trying to copy the abstruse writing style of the French situationists, which is not the writing style that one should emulate if one is aiming for clarity and, frankly, a well-written text.

The book (pp. 1–64 in the Ardent press copy) is worth reading, but it does not comprise the majority of the book. The section consisting of pages 66 to 270 is where the trouble begins. I particularly groaned when I came across the chapter *langauge and conscioussness*, wherein, in response to some other piece the authors wrote, a person asked the authors if they could write "in plainer English" because their "language was . . . that much denser than it needed to be (p. 74). The authors wrote a jeremiad justifying their use of complex language, and frankly I wasn't convinced. Good writing should be clear and concise; there is no honor in obfuscating your language for the hell of it. This chapter put a sour taste in my mouth, and the rest of the Appendix served to prove the authors wrong. Indeed, the end of the book (pp. 181–276) was a complete chore to get through because of its needlessly dense language.

Furthermore, this may not entirely be the author's fault but I was dissapointed with the Ardent Press copy. There were plenty of editing errors throughout the book, the organization was off, and the format was inconsitent (specifically, the line spacing). That said, I'm glad there is a publisher out there printing these types of works and I'm grateful for that. Constructive criticism is warranted; though.

In all, as I said before the main part of the book is worth reading for those in the Leftist or Anarchist mileus—in fact, this book has had a profound effect on my political views and has provided me with a unique viewpoint in which to view the concept of "revolution". However, as an entire book it is flawed, poorly written in parts, and in dire need of a re-edit. Critiques aside, I am glad to have read it—indeed, there is nothing to be done.

[k.]

a very fun book. lyrical. helps build structures with which to shelter my recent pessimistic thoughts about communism and give them form.

the book does have some bad habits though. one example. it talks about itself too much. it has a persistent, awkward self consciousness, obsessed with its its own reputation and reception. i did not care to hear for the fifth time how many pro-revolutionary groups have denounced monsieur dupont, especially as i haven't heard of any of them. obviously written for those not much outside the millieu, in that regard.

included are paragraph or even chapter long explanations of why those self-same paragraphs or chapters are included. etc.

the theses are uncompromisingly materialist, abstractionist to the point that individual concerns are fully dissolved into the spectre of communism. a lot of Nihilist Communism basically isn't true; or at least is only how it looks from a very particular vantage point. some of the supposed lessons are really just going in search of the wrong thing in the right place or the right thing in the wrong. to say that everything has been totally subsumed into capitalism, there is no culture outside capitalism etc. etc. is to deliberately if temporarily forget both nature and history. to come at these issues from so relentless an angle is a useful diversion, but one that seems ultimately to lead to paralysis. the book pursues tirelessly it's own irrelevance.

i think all that just comes with the bombast, though, and the critiques that these conceits furnish feel very necessary, even 20 years on.

[Will · Rating 3 out of 5]

Recommended reading for any homeless ultraleftist. Contains flashes of theoretical brilliance and poetic, acerbic humour among some questionable conclusions and occasional waffling. I actually found some of the appendices more enlightening than the core text. For anyone interested in critiquing the critique, one half of the Monsieur Dupont duo (under the name Mickey Moosenhauer) has recently written a book called Nihil Evadere critiquing many of the ideas in this book. The other half of the duo, Frère Dupont, has since become a right-wing anti-vaxxer in the two decades since this was published.

A funny sidenote: the top review for this book is from a predictably butthurt Maoist who wrote a book claiming that the purest manifestation of Marxist theory and practice were achieved by the Shining Path, a Peruvian Maoist cult that waged a people's war against indigenous peasants, massacring thousands of civilians including babies. Go figure.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

This delightfully bitchy manifesto skewers the cultish, educated, middle-class dorks who idolise Lenin and patronisingly believe they are here to enlighten and lead the working class to some non-existent utopia. The points these two guys make are just as applicable to the ‘communist milieu’ (or just the Left-tribe in the general) today as they were twenty years ago when originally penned. And hey, I’m a Lefty myself, but I’m also a hopelessly bourgeois armchair philosopher and know full well how much of the world of isms is just spilled ink and hot air. Anyway, this is a great read.

[Severin M · Rating 4 out of 5]

a worthwhile text to engage with, with challenging critiques for modern activists and "anticapitalists" of all brands. however, by the author's own admission, this text is quick to discount what it does not see in its immediacy and quick to be pessimistic for the sake of the flavoring it provides.

[loitering outside 711 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every weird nerd on the left should read this book. You don’t need to agree with everything in it, I don’t, but you fucking should and hopefully you’ll grow some self awareness and stop being such a weird larpy little fuck and be a normal person

[A. VHX · Rating 5 out of 5]

Things you already know but you're scared to admit.

[Swarm Feral · Rating 4 out of 5]

You can see the trajectory to justifying the armchair or recanting or turning reactionary, yet still possibly their best intervention and a generative read.

[Michael]

2 stars means "it was ok" on Goodreads.

[Rui Coelho · Rating 2 out of 5]

Who is the revolutionary subject? This is still a question that devides radicals. In order to answer that, MD takes a step back, back to outdated 19th century theory. Read this to discover why you shouldn't riot, strike or block anything unless you are a real proletarian (not even any worker, and specially not thoose damned LGBT and ecologists).
"We are prepared, much to the annoyance of activists, to condone the strategy of doing nothing and disengagement" (Monsieur Dupont)

[wombat · Rating 3 out of 5]

So there were some problematic parts in this book (I'd like to flesh out further what MD mean by their assertion that there is no culture other than what is determined by capitalism) and I think their definition of the proletariat is inaccurate and outdated, but damn the rest is refreshing.