HeliosPi on Nostr: Are the cockroach party protests in India a continuation of yesteryear's rebellions ...

Are the cockroach party protests in India a continuation of yesteryear's rebellions around Indonesia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Madagascar, and the Philippines, or are they a beginning of a new wave of global rebellion?

For more about the latter, i suggest: "The Black Scare and the Party of Anarchy
Notes from the Philippines on the Second Battle of Mendiola"
https://crimethinc.com/2026/06/30/the-black-scare-and-the-party-of-anarchy-notes-from-the-philippines-on-the-second-battle-of-mendiola

In a different essay about the "Life of Militancy: Japan’s Long ’68" ( https://illwill.com/life-of-militancy ), the author studies the decade long uprising there that's since been memory-holed alongside the late-capitalist passivity of the general populace.

"Yet we believe that the long ‘68 never really disappeared: it lives on somewhere in collective memory as a pool of experience that could awaken repressed desires of the people to change their society and the world that shapes it. At the right moment, this memory could function as a critical call for a new alliance of the masses and another wave of rebellion."

Ultimately the new left and the global '68 uprisings highlight some unresolved tensions & contradictions, such as between a new path toward a synchronicity of popular struggles and
the old internationalist socialist strategy of seizing state power (which was betrayed during the Second International and at the outbreak of WWI in 1914).

"The global ‘68 embodied the limit of a politics of world order — be it nationalism or internationalism. At the same time, there was an opening to a still unknown politics of the Earth. In this sense, the global ‘68 was a watershed moment, a shift from one idea of revolution to another: from “changing the world by taking power” to “changing the world without taking power,” from a synthesis of nation-states to an association of autonomous zones, from national subjectivity to the subjectivation of planetary inhabitants. This shift of political ontology is still underway, still incomplete. Either for the moment or indefinitely, we are caught in the middle, oscillating in between."

The asymmetric forces of sectarian Marxist milatarism, in contrast to nonsectarian, anti-vanguardist militancy, reminds me of the dynamic described in the "Second Battle of Mendiola" essay, between the spontaneous emergence of a party of anarchy and an attempted recuperation by the "caucus of the false critics", who strive to reform and/or become the Party of Order.

At a popular point of conflict in Japan '66 to '78 was Sanrizuka. Farmers resisted airport construction there much like the ZAD in France semi-recently. Some of the new left decided to live there and support the farmers.

"The decisive point is that we see here a militant community with the capacity to accommodate multiple, otherwise diverging or conflicting groups in such a way that they were able to fight side-by-side. These were capacities that the militarist sects themselves could never conceive.9 As we see it, militarism forges hordes of workers, students, and others (war machine) into a hierarchical organization through a disciplinary normalization of language, behavior, body, and relation, in order to confront state power as its symmetric opponent. By contrast, militancy reflects an ethical measure of power directed instead toward the enrichment and intensification of autonomy. The latter tends to confront state power asymmetrically by weaponizing the lifeworld in its full sense: corporeality, reproduction, and communality. This asymmetricity can encompass a spectrum of forms of power within it, from conflictual initiatives to more hospitable sensibilities.10"

Tranforming into the present the author sees the will to revolt fade to a sensitivity for cohabitation, from a label of revolutionary to activist. "Therefore, militant anti-authoritarian movements have not grown to be a substantial current as they have elsewhere."

"The Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 coincided with the global uprisings initiated by the Arab Spring. The two planetary catastrophes in different ontological registers encouraged Japanese activists to play a dual role: to protect the reproduction of the populace from radiation, and to protest the government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company. For two years, these projects exerted powerful effects. They accomplished the largest mobilization of indignation since the long ‘68, and prevented the government from restarting the nuclear plants for roughly two years. Eventually, however, an overwhelming sense of crises under the unending nuclear disaster enabled the return of conformism — “solving problems as a nation” — and the protests came under the control of JCP-related movements, which, in collaboration with police, and for the sake of their electoral campaigns, preclude all degrees of militant tactics by violently excluding anti-authoritarian radicals. In other words, a permeating conformism prioritizing social order encouraged the liberal parliamentalist movements to obstruct the activists’ attempts to empower the crowd on the street. Their interference became another factor — an external cause — preventing militant anti-authoritarian movements from becoming a substantial current. All in all, however, the imposition of legalism/pacifism has always been the modus operandi of the postwar status quo, from the right and from the left. "

...

"our task today is to recreate a culture of militancy that combines a sensibility for cohabitation with the will to revolt. Only then can the repressed experience of the long ‘68 be resurrected on a new horizon."