Hi Folks, I’ll be posting the format and resources at the top here each week. Scroll on down for discussion questions! I’m going to have, perhaps, a few more this week since we’re getting a sense for Bevins’s argument, scope, and interests. If you want me to provide this many every week, just let me know, otherwise I’ll probably start trimming back, before the last couple weeks just leaving it up to everyone in the conversation to pose questions/discussion topics.

Also, please feel free to add additional questions, areas for discussion, etc. as you please. I’m providing some starting points, but if there’s things that you notice I’ve missed/want to talk about – I’m very interested in any conversations people want to have.

Format

• We’re reading 2-3 chapters a week (some are very short). I’m going to be shooting for 50-60 pages a week, give or take. I’m going to be getting page counts from the libgen ebook, so that’s why readings will be done by chapter.
• Hopefully we’ll be done in 7 or 8 weeks
• Feel free to get whatever copy you wish, I’ll also post onto Perusall for your convenience and highlighting.
• I’ll plan to post on Wednesday each week with the readings we’re discussing and our future schedule as I work it out. I’ll also @ mention anyone who posts in this thread in future weeks.

Resources

• Libgen link to an ebook here
• Here’s Bevins’ appearance on Trueanon, which is part of why I wanted to do this book club
• Perusall – if you want to flag passages for discussion, I’ll do my best to check this before I post my weekly post. If people would prefer, I can also make weekly assignments here, but I’ve opened up the book for access in an assignment or whatever.

Week 1 Questions

Introduction

• Thoughts on Bevins’ depiction of the assault on protesters in Sao Paulo? It’s obviously a gripping start, but what do we make of his conclusions that this was “something new”? Also, perhaps most interesting to me - his argument there’s a direct connection between the protests of 2013 and the rise of Bolsinaro.
• Solidarity, affinity, and mutual recognition seem to be the core of the “protest” story that Bevins is telling, but clearly there’s limits to the connection of the internet. Is internationalism possible? How do we balance local concerns (and differences) against sentiments like “Turkey and Brazil are one” which would have been wonderful if both didn’t end up reactionary regimes at the end of the decade. Clearly Bevins plans to go into detail on some of these questions, but any thoughts right now while he’s putting it all out there in his intro?
• “A certain set of approaches were morally and tactically privileged from 2010 to 2020. To varying degrees you often heard that these were leaderless, ‘horizontally’ organized, ‘spontaneous,’ digitally collaborated mass protests in city streets of public squares. They took forms that were said to ‘prefigure’ the society they were meant to help bring about” (14) Are we still stuck in this paradigm? Or are we moving beyond it? Also, why is it so difficult to go outside, comrades?
• On that note, Bevins’ argument, as I see it: “And then after a set of actions is taken, it is a very different and quite treacherous journey entirely to correcting the injustice, or to improving society. That last part has been tricky to get right since 2010. It was my hope that by carefully analyzing that chain of human decisions and consequences, and by looking at the events of the decade in chronological order, some lessons might emerge.” Let’s use this as a guiding principle. What can we, as leftists on Hexbear take from this? I think that we should perhaps approach this with two goals in mind:
  • Think about tactics and strategy as leftists – what’s worth keeping from the 2010-2020 decade of protest? What should be rejected and fought against?
  • A list of potential rules/strategies/ways forward that we find in this book that we can bring to our own orgs, friends, etc. Think of it as a new list of “Trueanon Rules” perhaps that we could compile from Bevins’s journalism?
• Some additional material on Bevins’ methodology:
  • Key questions: "What led to the protest explosion? What were its goals? Were they achieved? If they weren’t achieved, why not?
  • Followups: "What would you tell a teenager in Tanzania or Mexico or Kyrgyzstan, who may live through a political explosion, or might attempt to change life in her country? What lessons would you draw from your own experiences and impart to them?
  • Understanding people on the ground vs. longue duree- what do you all think of it? Is this, perhaps, a strategy guide for “Weeks when decades happen”? Does this sound useful for us?
• Bevins’ criteria/scope: I like them, but do you think there’s any blind spots in ignoring the First World?
• Any other spicy takes on this intro? It’s pretty standard for a book like this (indeed, the main advantage it has over the “If Books Could Kill” canon is that at least the opening anecdote actually happened and is relevant to the topic!), but if there’s stuff you want to discuss further, go for it.
• Finally, some people forgot the trueanon rule: “Never talk to journalists, they’re just like cops.” Bevins seems cool so far though, so we’ll give him (and the people who talked to him) a pass for now.

Chapter 1

• There’s definitely something of a Benjaminian argument in the first pages of the chapter. I’m actually writing as I read so he might actually cite “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” at some point here, but regardless, to what degree do we agree with his media technology argument (his footnote is just Plato in the Phaedrus, and he cites Anderson’s Imagined Communities)? His argument that protest doesn’t make sense without mass media is, generally, compelling I think, but do you all agree?
  • More broadly: How “deterministic” are these technologies and how much agency do we have to guide/grasp hold of them? How do we move towards the “new” forms of protest/resistance/exercise of power that we don’t yet know?
• Obviously this is broad historical background (table setting, of sorts, for the meat of the book) as well as a contrast to the upcoming focus on non-First World areas, but is there anything useful in the New Left movements that Bevins describes here? Any strategies or lessons from 21-28 that are still today? Especially when taken in contrast with Lenin’s approach, what stands out?
  • One question that, perhaps, we should consider, is the “onboarding” of new members in response to mass growth - how do you do it without compromising/losing your organizational structure/cohesion? SDS getting flooded is an interesting story that might well allow us to consider this past year’s integration into the Fediverse more generally (though we don’t need to deeply consider this meta convo, I think there’s an interesting echo/rhyme here). (P.24)
  • Another historical note I like is the attention to the material conditions of Tsarist russia - the “particular set of skills” that your environment creates.
• I’ve worked on figuration/prefiguration, so if anyone is lost here, just holler and I’ll try to gloss this section as clearly as possible (though I honestly think Bevins does a great job).
• Old Left (29-36) – A lot of classic Hexbear and Trueanon favs/bits here. What’s one thing you’d take away from the Old Left strategy (either in Europe or the Third World)?
  • Fun question - how much of this story do you think the average lib knows?
• Revolutionary Truisms (30) – any of these ringing true to you? Ones to emphasize?
• I think at this moment it’s also appropriate to attend to Bevins’s brief recapitulation of the specific strategies around the middle east (33-34). It’s short, but I like he acknowledges the role of US policy in Egypt’s experience of 68.
• 68 more generally. This is another “failure” of revolution, what do we make of Bevins’s analysis?
• At the end of this section, Bevins returns to the role of media - here in papering over the trauma of 68. How do we learn from these moves by the dominant culture/ideology?
• The fall of the soviet union and the myth of “clamoring for the arrival of capitalism” (38). How do we like Bevins’s history here? Also, is this perhaps another “prefiguration” of the kind of thing Bevins saw unfolding over the 2010’s? What can we take from this account? Anything that jumps out at you?
• Defining neoliberalism - any critiques of this working definition?

Next Week’s Readings (1/17) – Chapters 2 - 4

@chicory@hexbear.net @Maoo@hexbear.net