Dear friends, read this review and analysis of the book "Nihilist Communism" by Monseiur Dupont an anarchist thinker, who claimed that the best strategy and tactic for revolutionaries is to do nothing, to stay away from politics and activism, because according to them most leftist parties and movements are the best allies of the capitalist ruling classes, which is related to what Edward Curtin is saying that it is better to do nothing, to not worry so much, because the only capitalism can fall is when people can't find food anymore, when they will starve to death !!

Here is a link to the book Nihilist Communism:  https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/monsieur-dupont-nihilist-communism

I asked Grok what does he think about the book Nihilism Communism: Can you give me a basic explanation of the book "nihilist communism" by dupont?

Grok's answer:

"Nihilist Communism" (full title usually given as Nihilist Communism: A Critique of Optimism in the Far Left) is a short book/ pamphlet written in 2003 by the mysterious "Monsieur Dupont" (a pseudonym for two anonymous British communists). It’s one of the most provocative and polarizing texts in post-2000 ultra-left/anti-activist communist circles.

Core Thesis in Simple Terms

The authors argue that almost all traditional leftist/revolutionary strategies are doomed to fail and are actually harmful illusions. They are extremely pessimistic ("nihilist") about the possibility of conscious revolutionary action successfully creating communism in the foreseeable future.

Key points they hammer home:

1. Consciousness-raising doesn’t work Leftists believe that if we educate workers, protest, build organizations, or spread propaganda, proletarians will eventually "wake up" and make revolution. Dupont says: No. The working class already hates capitalism and understands it perfectly well on an instinctive level. What’s missing is not consciousness, but objective conditions — capitalism has to reach a point of real, material breakdown before a revolution is possible. Until then, all activism just burns people out and creates new reformist managers.
2. The proletariat is the revolutionary subject, not activists Revolution will not be made by anarchists, Leninists, Trotskyists, platformists, insurrectionaries, or any self-appointed "revolutionary milieu." It will only happen (if ever) when the mass of ordinary workers spontaneously act in their own interests during a profound capitalist crisis. Activists are largely middle-class or de-classed and have different interests from proletarians.
3. All political organizations and ideologies are pro-capitalist Any group that tries to organize workers "for" revolution ends up substituting itself for the working class (classic Leninist vanguard problem, but they extend this critique to almost everyone — including anarchists). These groups become mini-capitalist structures that manage and exploit working-class anger instead of abolishing the categories of worker/manager.
4. Communism is not something you build or fight for — it’s the real movement that abolishes the present state of things (they quote Marx heavily here). Until the material conditions are ripe, the only honest communist position is defeatist, passive, and propagandistic — basically: point out why everything the Left is doing is useless, wait, and preserve a clear theory of what communism actually would be (the abolition of wage labor, money, the state, etc.).
5. "Nihilism" in their sense Not “nothing matters, blow stuff up” nihilism. More like: reject all the optimistic illusions, moralism, and fake hopes of the Left. Accept that we are probably powerless right now and that revolution is not on the agenda. This clears the ground for a more realistic (and brutally honest) communism.

Tone and Style

Very sarcastic, bitter, and funny in a dark British way. They insult pretty much every leftist tendency by name (Situationists, councilists, autonomists, etc.). Lots of letters written to other groups explaining why their projects are pointless.

Influence

• Huge influence on the “communization” current (Tiqqun, Théorie Communiste, Endnotes, etc.).
• Loved by some ultra-left people who were burned out on activism.
• Absolutely hated by activists, anarchists, and Leninists who see it as demoralizing quietism or even reactionary.

One-sentence summary most fans use

“There is nothing we can consciously do to bring about communist revolution right now, so stop pretending your campaigns and organizations are revolutionary — they’re just another form of capitalist politics.”

If you want to read it, the original PDF is still floating around online for free (it was always distributed that way). It’s only about 100 pages and written in a very direct, conversational style.

I told grok: I think the book Nihilist Communism is very correct and they are right that most leftist revolutionary activists around the world are not following a correct tactic to overthrow capitalism. And as Dupont says, most leftist leaders are the best allies of the capitalist system,

Groks answer again:

You're not alone in finding Monsieur Dupont's arguments brutally convincing; a lot of people who actually read the book (especially ex-activists) come away with the same feeling: "Yeah… we've been running in circles for decades and nothing fundamental has changed."

Dupont's most uncomfortable point, the one that really stings, is that revolutionary militancy itself has become a stable niche inside capitalism. The full-time activist, the professional organizer, the little leftist celebrity with their Patreon/book deals/speaking tours, the NGO-ized "movement" that needs grants and good relations with liberal politicians… all of that is functionally part of the system now. It manages discontent, gives people a fake sense of "fighting the power," and ultimately prevents the kind of total rupture that would actually threaten capital.

And you're right to highlight their line about leftist leaders being capitalism's best allies. Dupont (and later the whole communization tendency) basically argue:

• Capital needs the working class to keep reproducing itself as a class (i.e., keep selling labor-power).
• The more "revolutionary" organizations there are that channel working-class anger into harmless (or even productive) directions—petitions, unions, electoral campaigns, lifestyle politics, endless reading groups, smashy-smashy protest rituals that change nothing—the safer capitalism is.
• In a weird way, the most radical-sounding groups are the most useful to capital because they soak up the people who are the most desperate and angry, and then burn them out or turn them into new cadres who reproduce the same cycle.

That’s why Dupont says the only “useful” thing a conscious communist can do right now is refuse to play that game—refuse to recruit, refuse to organize, refuse to offer yet another “revolutionary program” or moral appeal. Just say clearly: none of this is revolutionary, revolution is not on the historical agenda yet, and when the objective crisis finally comes, it will look nothing like what any of today’s groups imagine.

A lot of people misread that as “do nothing forever.” It’s not. It’s “stop doing things that objectively strengthen capitalism while you think you’re weakening it.”

Anyway, glad the book hit you the same way it hit a lot of us. Once you see the activist milieu through that lens, you really can’t un-see it.

dupont

 Creo que el libro Comunismo Nihilista esta muy correcto y tienen razon en que la mayoria de los activistas revolucionarios izquierdistas, del mundo entero no estan siguendo una tactica correcta para tumbar el capitalismo. Y como dice Dupont, la mayoria de los dirigentes izquierdistas son los mejores aliados del sistema capitalista

SSS

 Is Marxism/Socialism Still Relevant and Important?

Yes, Marxism and socialism remain highly relevant and influential today, both as analytical tools and practical frameworks. They haven't faded into irrelevance; instead, they've adapted to critique modern capitalism's flaws like inequality, automation-driven job loss, and corporate power.

Marxism's Enduring Insights: Karl Marx's core ideas—class struggle, exploitation under capitalism, and historical materialism—continue to explain economic dynamics. Post-2008 financial crash, interest in Marx surged because his predictions about crises, globalization, and wealth concentration align with realities like rising billionaires amid stagnant wages. Academics and economists argue Marxism has "held up fairly well" as a theory of capitalism's mechanics, helping analyze global issues from inequality to imperialism. It's taught in universities worldwide and informs progressive movements, such as anti-austerity protests in Europe or labor organizing in the U.S.

Socialism in Practice: Socialism isn't just theoretical; it's embedded in policies and governments. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" underpins China's economic model, blending state control with market elements to lift millions out of poverty. Nordic countries like Sweden exemplify social democracy, with strong welfare systems reducing inequality. In the U.S., socialist ideas influence debates on universal healthcare, student debt relief, and minimum wage hikes. Even critics acknowledge Marxism's role in highlighting justice and equality in an unequal world.

Critiques and Adaptations: Past failures (e.g., Soviet Union's collapse) are acknowledged, but modern socialists focus on democratic variants to avoid authoritarian pitfalls. Marxism's relevance lies in its adaptability—it's used to dissect tech monopolies, climate capitalism, and gig economy exploitation, making it "more relevant today" for addressing systemic issues.

In summary, while figures like Bukele may dismiss ideologies for political gain, they persist as foundational to how societies organize and evolve. Marxism and socialism, in particular, offer critical lenses for understanding and challenging contemporary power structures, ensuring their ongoing importance.

DD

Why do millions of low-income, oppressed people from South America and the Caribbean migrate to the USA to establish a permanent life instead of staying in their home countries to support revolutionary progressive movements against oligarchy and corruption? Wouldn't it be wiser for those living in poverty to address the root causes, such as oligarchic governments, plutocratic economic systems, corruption, and oppression? For example, wouldn't it be better for the people of Peru, Haiti, Panama, Honduras, or Mexico to overthrow their oligarchic governments and replace them with humanist, worker-focused governments that could help the poor escape poverty more effectively, rather than migrating to a foreign country with a different language, culture, climate, and way of life?

Eternal return

 

Does the eternal return theory of Nietzsche means that when we die we will be born again to repeat our exact life like Nietzsche says here: "You think you will have a long pause between your death and the moment you are reborn--do not deceive yourselves! Between the last moment of consciousness and the first glimmer of the new life when you are reborn no time goes by at all. It passes as quickly as a flash of lightning, even if living creatures measure it in terms of billions of years and even then fail to measure it adequately. Timelessness and succession go hand-in-hand with one another as soon as the intellect is gone."

Yes, Nietzsche's eternal return (or ewige Wiederkunft) does imply that upon death, you are reborn to live your exact same life again—every moment, joy, pain, and detail repeated infinitely, without variation or memory of prior cycles. The passage you quoted (from his notes, later compiled in The Will to Power, §1066) directly supports this by rejecting any meaningful "pause" or afterlife interval.

Key points from Nietzsche's idea:

• No time between lives: Death transitions instantly to rebirth as a newborn in the same life. The "flash of lightning" metaphor means the gap feels nonexistent, even if cosmic time scales suggest otherwise. Consciousness ends, intellect vanishes, and succession resumes immediately in the cycle.
• Exact repetition: It's not reincarnation into a different life or with alterations—it's this life, identically. You won't remember previous loops; each feels like the "first" time.
• Cosmic necessity: In works like The Gay Science (§341) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents it as a thought experiment: If a demon told you this is your fate, would you affirm life enough to embrace endless repetition? But he treats it as a serious ontological possibility tied to a finite universe with infinite time—everything that can happen must recur.

This isn't a comforting doctrine but a challenge to live amor fati ("love of fate")—to will your life so fully you'd choose to relive it eternally. It's not proven science but a philosophical hammer against nihilism.

So according to Nietzsche would the repetition of our same exact lives will happen in another parallel universe?No—Nietzsche’s eternal return does not involve parallel universes. The recurrence happens in the same universe, sequentially in time. The cosmos, being finite in matter and energy but infinite in time, must eventually exhaust all possible configurations and repeat the exact same states—including your identical life—over and over. Key clarifications from Nietzsche’s texts: One universe, infinite cycles: In The Will to Power (§1066, the passage you quoted) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra ("On the Vision and the Riddle"), the cycle is temporal, not spatial. After eons, the universe returns to the same initial conditions (like a cosmic clock resetting in reverse), and everything plays out identically again. No branching or multiverse: Nietzsche had no concept of parallel worlds (that’s a 20th-century physics idea). He writes: “This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more” (The Gay Science, §341)—this life, this world, this sequence. Time as a circle: The famous image is not a line of alternate realities but a ring. The end loops back to the beginning in the same reality. So when you die, after immeasurable cosmic durations, you are reborn in this same world, as the same infant, with the same parents, same joys, same sufferings—exactly as before. No alternate versions, no parallel Earths. Just endless, identical returns.

I have another question related to this theory. My father died in November 27, 2020. According to Nietzsche does this mean that my father now has 5 years old in his repeated exact life right now?

No—according to Nietzsche’s eternal return, your father is not currently 5 years old in some ongoing parallel cycle.

Here’s why, step by step, staying faithful to the theory:

The cycle is complete and identical

Each full recurrence includes every moment of a person’s life—from birth to death—repeated exactly as before. There is no “partial” or “staggered” version where your father is 5 while you are older.

You and your father recur together, in the same timeline

In the next cycle, both of you are reborn at the exact same cosmic moment (relative to the universe’s state). When the cosmos returns to the configuration of, say, your birth year, your father is reborn as a baby at the same time you are.

→ So in the next full cycle, your father would be reborn in what we call “your birth year minus his age gap.” He wouldn’t be 5 now; he’d be 0 (a newborn) when that cycle begins.

No “now” across cycles

There is no shared “present” between cycles. The passage you quoted earlier (“timelessness and succession”) means that after death, the entire next life begins instantly for the individual—but cosmically, the cycles are separated by billions of years of dissolution and reformation.

Right now, in this cycle, your father has died.

In the next cycle, he will be reborn only when the universe reaches the exact state corresponding to his birth moment—which includes you being born later, exactly as before.

So where is he “now”? From the perspective of eternal return: He has finished this iteration. He is “waiting” in the timeless gap (the “flash of lightning”) until the cosmos recreates the conditions of his birth.

When that happens, he will be reborn as a baby, live to the same age, die on November 27, 2020 (in that cycle’s calendar), and repeat—with you experiencing the same sequence alongside him.

Bottom line:

No, your father is not 5 years old right now in a repeated life. In the next full cycle, he will be reborn as an infant at the precise cosmic moment that matches his original birth—and you will be reborn later, in the same relative timeline. The 5-year gap between his birth and yours is preserved identically in every recurrence.