The Anarchist Tension -  Alfredo M. Bonanno



the anarchist tension by alfredo and banana I am always somewhat embarrassed when I begin a talk at least to start with this embarrassment increases in the case of what we mistakenly call conferences or as one more modestly tries to camouflage them conference / debates after all it is a question of someone turning up from elsewhere perhaps from another generation as though they have rained in from the past someone who stands in this classroom to give a talk and strangely even dangerously resembles those who hammer brains with quite different intentions if you listen carefully however you will find that beyond appearances there is a considerable difference in the concepts I am about to outline the first of these concepts takes the form of a question what is anarchism it might seem strange that I should take up such a problem in this situation as I know for certain that there are many anarchists here because I know them personally and if nothing else an Turkish at least know what anarchism is yet it is necessary to take up the question what is anarchism time and time again even in a few words why is that this does not normally happened in other expressions of life in other activities are thought that define themselves with some foundation to be something or other so anarchists keep asking themselves the same question what is anarchism what does it mean to be an anarchist why because it is not a definition that can be made once and for all put in a safe and considered a patrimony to be tapped little by little being an anarchist does not mean one has reached a certainty or said once and for all there from now on I hold the truth and as such at least from the point of view of the idea I am a privileged person anyone who thinks like this is an inter kissed and word alone instead the inter kissed is someone who really puts themselves in doubt as such as a person and ask themselves what is my life according to what I do and in relation to what I think what connection do I manage to maintain each day in everything I do a way of being an anarchist continually and not coming to agreements making little daily compromises etc anarchism is not a concept that can be locked up in a word like a gravestone is not a political theory it is a way of conceiving a life and life young or old as we may be old people are children is not something definitive it is a stake we must play day after day when we wake up in the morning and put our feet on the ground we must have a good reason for getting up and if we don't it makes no difference whether we are anarchists or not we might as well stay in bed and sleep and have a good reason we must know what we want to do because for anarchism for the anarchist there is no difference between what we do and what we think but there is a continual reversing of theory into action and action into theory that is what makes the anarchist unlike anyone who has another concept of life and crystallizes this concept in a political practice a political theory this is what is not normally said to you this is what you never read in the newspapers this is what is not written in books this is what school jealously keeps quiet about because this is the secret of life never ever separate thought from action the things we know the things we understand from the things we do the things with which we carry out our actions here is what distinguishes a politician from an anarchist revolutionary not the words not the concepts and allow me in certain aspects not even the actions because it is not their extreme let us say radical conclusion an attack that differentiates and characterizes actions it is not even accuracy in the choice of objective that qualifies them but is the way in which the person the comrade who carries out these actions it succeeds in making them become an expressive moment of their lives a specific characterization meaningfulness quality of life joy desire beauty not the practical realization not the sullen realization of a deed that is mortally an end in itself and enables one to say I have done something today far from my self at the periphery of my existence there that is one difference and from this difference another emerges a considerable one in my opinion anyone who thinks that things to be done or outside ourselves and are realized as a number of successes and failures life is a staircase at times you go up but times you go down there are times when things go well and times when things go badly there whoever thinks life is made up of such things for example the classic figure of the Democratic politician for goodness sakes someone you can talk to a friendly guy tolerant who has a permissive side to him believes in progress in the future in a better society in freedom well a person like this probably not wearing a double-breasted jacket no tie so casual a person who clothes up looks like a comrade and who himself disclosed himself to be a comrade this person could very well be a cop and makes no difference why not dare democratic policeman the era of uniform repression is over repression has friendly aspects today they repress us with lots of brilliant ideas how can we identify this person then this Democrat how can we recognize him and if he pulls the wool over our eyes preventing us from seeing him how can we defend ourselves from him we can identify him through this fact that for him life is a realization his life is made up of doing things a quantitative doing that unfolds before his eyes and nothing else when we talk to someone we cannot ask to see their membership card their ideas often make us end up totally confused and unable just to understand anything because we are all nice progressive chatterboxes and all praise the beauty of tolerance and such like how can we see that we have an enemy before us the worst of our enemies because at least we could defend ourselves from the old fascist he hid out and if we were capable of it we hit back harder now things have changed the situation has changed it can even be difficult to fish out a fascist thug today but the individual we are trying to describe this Democrat we find all over the place in school Parliament in the streets or in the policeman's uniform a judge or a doctor this fellow here is our enemy because he considers life in a different way to the way we consider it because for him life is another kind of life is not our life because for him we are extraterrestrials and I don't see why we should consider him to be inhabitant of our planet either this is the dividing line between us because his concept of life is of a quantitative nature because he measures things like success or if you like failure but always from the quantitative point of view and we measure them differently and that is what we should be thinking of and what way does life have a different meaning for us a meaning that is qualitatively different so this amiable gentleman reeks criticism upon us and says yes anarchists are all good people but they are ineffectual what have they ever done in history what state has ever been in ER kissed have they ever realized the government without government isn't a free society in anarchy society a society without power a contradiction in this critical rock that crashes down on us is certainly consistent because in fact if you look closely even where anarchists got near to realizing their utopia of a free society such as in Spain or Russia if you look at them closely you find these constructions are somewhat open to criticism they are certainly revolutions but they are not libertarian revolutions they are not Anarchy so when these gentlemen say you are utopians you anarchists are dreamers your utopia would never work we must reply yes it's true anarchism is attention not a realization not a concrete attempt to bring up about Anarchy tomorrow morning but we must also be able to say but you distinguish democratic gentlemen in government who regulate our lives who think you can get into our heads our brains who govern us through the opinions that you form daily in your newspapers in your universities schools etc what have you gentlemen accomplished a world worth living in or a world of death a world in which life is a flat affair devoid of any quality without any meaning to it a world in which one reaches a certain age is about to get one's pension and ask oneself but what have I done with my life what has been the sense of living all these years that's what you've accomplished that is what your democracy is your idea of the people you are governing a people but what does people mean who are the people are they perhaps that small not even very significant part who vote who go to elections vote for you nominate a minority which in turn nominates another minority even smaller than the first the governess governs us in the name of law but what are these laws if not the expression of the interest of a small minority specifically aimed in the first place at benefiting their own perspectives of enrichment the reinforcing of their our and so on you govern in the name of a power a force that comes from what from an abstract concept you have realized a structure you think can be improved upon but how in what way has it ever been improved upon in history what condition are we living in today if it is not a condition of death of a flattening of quality this is the critique we need to throw back at the supporters of democracy if we anarchists are utopians we are so as attention towards quality it took Democrats our utopians they are so as a reduction towards quantity and against reduction against the atrophied lived in a dimension of the minimum possible damage for them and the maximum damage for the great number of people who are exploited to this miserable reality we oppose our utopia which is at least a utopia of quality attention towards another future one that will be radically different to what we are living now so all there are marks made by anyone who talks to you in the name of political realism men of state teachers who are just servants of men of state theorists journalists all the intellectuals who pass through classrooms like this and in their speechifying talk with the calm tolerant words of the realist state that in any case nothing else is possible reality is what it is it is necessary to make sacrifices there these people are swindling you they are swindling you because you can do something else because any one of us is capable of rising up in the name of our wounded dignity before such a swindle because any one of us can realize we have been swindled because we have finally realized what is being done to our detriment and in rising up against it all we can change not only the reality of things within the limits that it is possible to know them but also one's life making it worthy of being lived one can get up in the morning put one's feet on the ground look in the mirror and say to oneself at least I have managed to change things at least as far as I am concerned and feel one is a person worthy of living their life not a puppet in the hands of a puppeteer you can't even see well enough to spit in the face so that is why anarchists keep coming back to the question of what anarchism is because anarchism is not a political movement or rather it is but only in a minor aspect the fact that the anarchist movement presents itself historically as a political movement does not mean that this exhaust all the anarchists potential for life anarchism does not resolve itself in the kunio anarchist group or in groups in Turin London or anywhere else that is not anarchism of course there are anarchists there or at least one should assume there are the kind of comrades who have begun with their own insurrection individually have become aware of the context of obligation and coercion that they are forced to live in but anarchism is not just that it is also attention the quality of life the strength we manage to draw out of ourselves the capacity to change the reality of things anarchism is the whole of this project of transformation linked to what we realize in ourselves when we bring about personal changing so it is not a quantifiable fact that can be historic event that will simply occur in the course of time appearing through particular theories people movements as well as why not through precise revolutionary acts there is always something more than the sum of these elements and it is this something more that continues to make anarchism live on in other ways so we continually need to maintain a relationship between this tension towards something absolutely other the unthinkable the unsayable a dimension we must realize without very well knowing how to and the daily experience of the things we can and do do a precise relationship of change of transformation the first example that comes to mind on this question is another contradictory element think of the concept behind the statement there are problems to be solved this is a classic phrase we all have problems to solve life itself is a problem to be solved living is a problem our social conditions having to break through the circle that restricts us right to simply everyday goings-on we consider all this to be a problem and herein lies the great misunderstanding why the structures that oppress us I think many of those present here are students maintained that problems can be solved and that they can solve them for us moreover they use the example of problems that are solved in geometry mathematics etc but this kind of problem the problems of mathematics that are as resolvable are false problems they are not really solved at all the answers to them are simply a repetition of the same problem in another form in technical terms a tautology one says one thing and answers by repeating the same thing another way so basically the problem is not solved at all it is merely repeated and when we talk of solving a problem that involves the lives of all of us our daily existence we are talking of questions of such complexity that they cannot be restricted to a simple restatement of the problem itself take for example the problem of the police the existence of the police constitutes a problem for many of us there can be no doubt that the policeman is an instrument of oppression used by the state to prevent us from doing certain things how do you solve such a problem can the problem of the police be solved the very question reveals itself to be absurd there is no such thing as the solving of the problem of the police yet from a democratic point of view it would be possible to solve some aspects of it by democratizing certain structures changing policeman's attitudes and so on now to think that this might be a solution to the problem of control and repression would be as stupid as it is illogical in actual fact it is nothing other than a way of regulating repression in keeping with the interests of power of the state if a democratic politics is useful today a far less democratic structure of control and repression might be useful in the future just as just as it has been in the past and any rare marginal minorities who think otherwise on the subject would be expelled or eliminated from the ranks when I say police I mean any repressive structure from military police to judiciary all expressions of the state that serve to control and repress so as you can see social problems cannot be solved the swindle operated by democratic structures is precisely their claim to solve such problems this Windell shows how democratic politics are not based on reality or even a minimum of concreteness everything is rigged up on the implication that things can be improved upon can be resolved in time can be said right it is on this idea of setting things right that the strength to power lies and it is on this improvement that power stands and continues in the medium and long term power relations change as we wait for what they promise to come about but never does because these improvements never materialize because power changes and transforms itself throughout history yet always remains the same a handful of men a minority of privileged people who hold the levers of power look after their own interests and safeguard the conditions of supremacy for whoever happens to be in command now what instruments do we have to combat this state of affairs they want to control us so we refuse control of course we can do this we undoubtedly do trying to minimize the damage but to refuse control in a social context is only valid up to a point we can circumscribe certain aspects of it yeah when we are struck unfairly but there are clearly certain areas of power or where rules are called laws signposts indicate enclosures and men calling themselves policemen prevent us from entering there is no doubt about it try getting into Parliament and see what happens I don't know certain levels cannot be gone beyond certain controls are inevitable so what do we do to put oppose the situation simply dream have an idea of freedom which more ever must be carefully formulated because we cannot say the freedom and our kiss want is simply reduction in control in that case we would find ourselves faced with the problem but where does this reduction and control end at a minimum level perhaps for example would the state become legitimate if for anarchists and instead of being the oppressor state of today they were to become let us say the ideal minimal state of the Liberals no certainly not that is not the way to think is not a question of trying to limit control but of abolishing control altogether we are not for more freedom more freedom is given to the slave when his chains are lengthened we are for the abolition of the chain so we are for freedom not for more freedom freedom means the absence of all chains the absence of limits and all that ensues from such a statement freedom is a difficult unknown concept it is a painful one yet it is peddled as something beautiful sweet proposing like a dream so far off that it makes us feel good like all the things that being far off constitute hope and faith a belief in other words these intangibles which apparently solve today's problems do not in fact solve them but simply miss them over change them around preventing us from having a clear vision of all the woes of our times all right some say we will be free okay things are in a mess but within this mess there is a subterranean strength an involuntary order independent of ourselves that works in place of us which will gradually change the conditions of suffering which we are living in and takes us to a free dimension where we will all live happily ever after no that is not freedom that is a swindle that tragically resembles the old idea of God that often helped us and still helps many people today in their suffering because they say to themselves very well we are suffering today but we'll be better off in the next world in fact as the gospel says the last will be first heartening the last of today because they see themselves as the first of tomorrow if we were to fob off such an idea of freedom as real we would be doing no more than cradling today's suffering by medicating social wounds in exactly the same way as the priest heals those of the poor who listen to a sermon deceiving themselves that the kingdom of God will save them from their pain anarchists cannot think this way freedom is a destructive concept that involved the absolute elimination of all limits now freedom is an idea we must hold in our hearts but at the same time we need to understand that if we desire it we must be ready to face all the risks that destruction involves all the risks of destroying the constituted order we are living under freedom is not a concept to cradle ourselves in in the hope that improvements will develop independently of our real capacity to intervene in order to understand such concepts become aware of the risks one runs by wielding such dangerous concepts we must be able to form the idea within us there is also considerable confusion on this point it is customary to consider that anything that passes through our minds is an idea one says I have an idea then tries to understand what that means that is the Cartesian concept of idea as opposed to the Platonic one which is an abstract far off point of Ref but that is not what we were referring to when we say idea the idea is a point of reference an element of strength that is capable of transforming life it is a concept charged with value that becomes a concept of strength something that can develop and make our relationship with others different all that is an idea but what is the source that the elements that make it possible to elaborate such ideas spring from school University newspapers books teachers technicians television and so on what reaches us from these instruments of information and cultural elaboration a considerable accumulation of information cascades down on us boils inside us like a cauldron making us produce opinions we tend not to have ideas but opinions this is the tragic conclusion what is an opinion it is a flattened idea an idea that has been uniformed in order to make it acceptable to the largest number of people opinions are masa fide ideas it is important for power that those opinions be maintained because it is through opinion the control of opinion that they obtain given results not least the mechanisms of propaganda and electoral procedures through the use of the medium the formation of new power elites comes not from ideas but from opinions what does opposing oneself to opinion making mean then does it mean acquiring more information that is opposing counter information to information no that is not possible because no matter how you look at it you cannot possibly oppose the vast amount of information we are bombarded with daily with counter information capable of unmasking through a process of investigating his in hidden causes the reality that has been covered up by all that informative chatter no we cannot operate in that direction whenever we attempt to do so we realize that it is pointless that we are not able to convince people that is why inner kiss always consider the problem of propaganda critically yes of course as you see there is a well-stocked table here as is always the case at initiatives or conferences of this kind there are always our pamphlets our books we are overlaid in with papers and are very good at bringing out such publications but that is not the only kind of work we need to do and in any case they do not contain element of counter information or if they do it is purely accidental this work is aimed essentially or should be at building an idea or a number of leading ideas a number of strong ideas let us give just one example over the past three or four years an affair has developed that the newspapers have reported using horrible terms like tangent pulley or clean hands legal procedures in course where many politicians have been sentenced for having AB six accepted money from the capitalists in exchange for contracts in the public works sectors and so on now what has this operation instilled in people's minds it has built the opinion that the law is capable of setting things right of sentencing politicians changing conditions so it can take us from the old concepts typical of the first italian republic to the new ones of the second republic this opinion this process is clearly very useful for example it is allowed the emergence of a new power elite to take the place of the old new up to a point but with certain characteristics and sad rehashes of old habits and personages this is the way the opinion functions now consider comparing this process of opinion making which is of considerable advantage to power alone to the construction of an idea force that might be an in-depth analysis of the concept of justice the difference is a Bissel but what is right for example it was certainly right for many and we also considered it right ourselves Forex Socialist Party leader craxi to be forced to remain locked up in his villa in tunisia the whole thing has been quite amusing it has even made us laugh made us feel good because it is quite nice when pigs at that level end up being put out of circulation but is that real justice for example and arathi is in difficulty it seems he kissed rena the mafia boss on the cheek such news certainly makes a smile makes us feel better because a pig like and arathi was annoying even at a simple physical level just seeing him on TV it was enough but what is this idea of justice justice for the for the prosecution DP trio and bhorali have a horde of supporting fans millions of people have been drawn to this process of uniforming opinion is the concept of justice we need to ponder on any different what should it lead to it should lead to us recognizing that if craxi or andreotti are responsible then people like tepee trio or Borivali are responsible to the same extent because if the former are politicians the others are all magistrates the concept of justice means fixing a demarcation line between those who support and defend power and those who are against it if the very existence of power is unjust and if all attempts some will which at we have just seen reveal themselves to be no more than self-justifying swindles any man of power more or less democratic as he might be always stands on the wrong side of justice no matter what he does to build such a concept of justice obviously means to form an idea an idea you don't find in the newspapers that isn't gone into in the classrooms or university auditoriums that cannot become an element of opinion or lead people to vote in fact such an idea leads to internal conflict because before the tribunal of oneself one asks but I with my idea so of social justice how do I see it when what poppy trio does seems good am I being taken for a ride too am i also an instrument of opinion a terminal of the great processes for maintaining power becoming not only their sleeve but also their accomplice we have got there at last we have reached the point of our own responsibility because if it is true that for anarchists there is no difference between theory and action as soon as the idea of social justice lights up in us illuminates our brain even for a split second it will never be able to extinguish itself again because no matter what we think we will feel guilty will feel we are accomplices accomplices to a process of discrimination repression genocide death a process we will never be able to feel detached from again how could we define ourselves revolutionaries and anarchists otherwise what freedom would we be supporting if we were to give our complicity to the assassins in power you can see how different and critical the situation is for whoever succeeds through deep analysis of reality or simply by chance or misfortune in letting an idea as clear as the idea of justice penetrate their brain there are many such ideas for example the idea of freedom is similar anyone who thinks about what freedom actually is even for a moment will never again be able to content their themselves by simply doing something to slightly extend the freedom of the situation's they are living in from that moment on they will feel guilty and will try to do something to alleviate their sense of suffering they will fear they have done wrong by not having done anything until now and from that moment on their lives will change completely basically what does the state want from the formation of opinion what does power want yes of course it wants to create mass opinion because from that they are able to realize certain operations such as voting the formation of power groups and so on but that is not all they want they want our consensus they want our approval and consensus is gained through precise instruments especially those of a cultural nature for example school is one of the reservoirs from which consensus is realized and the future intellectual and not just intellectual workforce is built today capitalism requires a different kind of person – those are acquired in the past up until recently there was a need for people with professional capacities a pride in this capacity and particular qualifications the situation is quite different now the world of work requires a very modest qualification level whereas qualities that did not exist and were even inconceivable in the past such as flexibility adaptability tolerance the capacity to intervene meetings etc are required in their place huge production units based on assembly lines for example now use robots or are built on the conceptual basis of Islands small groups working together who know each other and control each other and so on this kind of mentality is not only found in the factory it is not just a new worker they are building but a new man a flexible person with modest ideas rather opaque in their desires with considerably reduced cultural levels impoverished language standardised reading a limited capacity to think and a great capacity to make quick yes or no decisions they know how to choose between two possibilities a yellow button a red button a black button a white button this is the kind of mentality they are building and why are they building it at school but also in everyday life what will they do with such a person they will use them to bring about all the modifications that are necessary for restructuring capital they will be useful for a better management of the conditions and Relations of the capitalism of tomorrow and what will these relations be they will be based on faster and faster change a call to satisfying non-existent desires desires that are piloted determined to my small groups that are becoming more and more numerous this new person is quite the opposite of what we were capable of imagining or desire the opposite of quality creativity the opposite of real desire the joy of life the opposite of all of this how can we fight against the realisation of this technological man how can we struggle against the situation can we wait for a day to come a great day that will turn the world upside down what the anarchists of the last century called la grande soiree the great evening or the great day in which forces no one could foresee would end up taking over them exploding into that social conflict we are all waiting for called revolution so everything will change and there will be a world of perfection and joy this is a millennia Rhian idea now that we are reaching the end of the millennium it could take root again but conditions have changed this is not reality it is not this waiting that interests us what does interest us is another kind of intervention a far more modest one but one that is capable of achieving something as anarchist we are called to do something we are called by our own individual responsibility and by what we said earlier from the moment the idea lights up our mind not the idea of anarchy but of justice freedom when these ideas illuminate our minds and we see the swindle before us which today more than ever before we could define as a democratic swindle what can we do we must set to work and this setting to work also means organizing ourselves it means creating the conditions of reference and relating between anarchists conditions which must be other than those of the past reality has changed as I said before they are building a different man Adi qualified man and they are building him because they need to build Adi qualified Society they have removed the figure of the worker from the center of the conception of the political society as it was after D qualifying him in the past the worker bore the great brunt of exploitation that is why it was thought that this social figure would necessarily give birth to the revolution it is sufficient to think of the Marxist analysis Marx's capital is dedicated to the liberation of the worker when mark speaks of man he means the worker in his analysis of value he is talking about the workplace in his analysis of an alienation he's talking about work there is nothing that does not concern work but that is because the worker was central to the Marxist analysis at the time it was developed the working class could be seen to be the center of the social structure using different analyses anarchists also came to a consideration that the workers position was the center of the social world think of the anarcho-syndicalist san alysus for the anarcho-syndicalist it was a question of taking the concept of trades union struggle to its extreme consequences freeing it from the narrower dimension of trades union bargaining and developing it right to the realization of the revolution through the general strike so according to the anarcho-syndicalist the society of the future the free Danika society was to be nothing other than the present society freed from power but with the same productive structures no longer in the hands of the capitalists but in the hands of the collectivity who had managed them in common this concept is absolutely impracticable to today for various reasons first of all because the technological transformation has made it impossible for there to be a simple passage from the present society to the future one we desire to live in a direct passage would be impossible for the simple reason that it is not possible to use information technology in liberated forms in a Liberatore way the new technologies and computer technology applications have not limited themselves to bringing about certain modifications in particular instruments they have charts transformed all other technologies as well the factory for instance is not simply a structure of the past with the addition of computer technology but has become a computerized factoring which is quite different bearing this in mind we can only mention these concepts in a very general way because it would take time to go into them adequately so we must recognize that it is not possible to use this patrimony this passage runs parallel to the end of the myth of the centrality of the working class now in a situation where the working class has practically disintegrated the possibility of an expropriation of the means of production no longer exists so what is the conclusion the only possible conclusion and that is that this set of instruments of production we have before us be destroyed the only possible way is to pass through the dramatic reality of destruction if the revolution we imagine in which moreover we have no certainty of ever coming about it will not be the revolution of the past that saw itself as one single event that might even take place in a day or one fine evening but will be a long tragic bloody affair that could pass through unconceivable violent unconceivable tragic processes all this is the kind of reality we are moving towards not because that is what we desire not because we like violence blood destruction civil war death rape barbarity it is not that but because it is the only plausible road the road that the transformation wanted by those ruling us and who are in command have made necessary they have moved on to this road we cannot with a simple flight of fancy a simple dream change all that in the past hypothesis where a strong working class existed one could fool oneself about this passage and organize accordingly for example the organizational proposal of the anarcho-syndicalism saw a strong stimulus movement which penetrating the working class and organizing almost the whole of him was to bring about this expiration and passage this collective subject who is probably mythical from the start no longer exists even in it in its mythical version so what sense would there be in a syndicate movement of a revolutionary nature what sense would there be in an Android a narco syndicalist movement none at all so the struggle must begin elsewhere with other ideas and methods that is why we have been developing a critique of syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism for about 15 years that is why we are and define ourselves insurrectionist anarchists not because we think the solution is the barricades the barricades could be a tragic consequence of choices that are not our own but we are insurrectionists because we think that anarchists action must necessarily face very serious problems these problems are not desired by anarchism but are imposed by the reality that those in power have built and we cannot obliterate them simply by wishing them away an anarchist organism that projects itself into the future should therefore be agile it cannot present itself with the cumbersome characteristics and quantitative heaviness of the structures of the past it cannot present itself in a dimension of synthesis like organizations of the past where the anarchist structure claimed to sum up reality in commissions that treated all the various problems making decisions at periodical congresses on the basis of theses that one even went back to the last century all this has seen its day not because a century has passed since it was thought out but because reality has changed that is why we maintain that there is a need for the formation of small groups based on the concept of affinity even tiny groups made up of very few comrades who know each other and deepen this knowledge because there cannot be affinity if one does not have knowledge of the other one can only recognize one's affinities by going into the elements that determines one's differences by frequenting each other this knowledge is a personal fact but it is also a question of ideas debate discussions but in relation to the first points we made this evening if you remember there can be no going into ideas if there is not also a practice of bringing about actions so there is a continual reciprocal process of going into ideas and realising actions a small group of comrades a small group who simply meet in the evening to have a chat would not be an affinity group but a group of friends Bob mates who would meet in the evening to talk about anything under the Sun on the contrary a group that meets to discuss and in discussing prepares itself for doing and in that doing contributes to the developing discussions which transforms itself into further discussions on things to be done this is the mechanism of the affinity group so how then can infinity groups enter into contact with others where the deepened knowledge that exists in the single group does not necessarily exist this contact can be assured by informal organization but what is in an informal organization there could be relationships of an informal kind between the various affinity groups that enter into contact with each other in order to exchange ideas and do things together and consequently the existence of an organization also very widespread throughout the country comprised of even tens why not hundreds of organizations structures groups of an informal character based on discussion periodic analysis things to be done together etc the organizational logic of insurrectional anarchism is different to the organization's we mentioned earlier concerning anarcho-syndicalism the organizational forms refer to here in a few words merit going into something I cannot do now the dimension of a conference but such a way of organizing would in my opinion remain simply something within the anarchist movement were not also to realize relations beyond it that is through the construction of external groups external nuclei also within formal characteristics these groups should not be composed of anarchists alone anyone who intends to struggle to reach given objectives even circumscribed ones could participate so long as they take a number of essential conditions into account first of all permanent conflict that is groups with the characteristic of attacking the reality in which they find themselves without waiting for orders from anywhere else then the characteristic of being autonomous that is of not depending on or having any relations at all with political parties or trade union organizations finally the characteristic of facing problems one by one and not proposing platforms of generic claims that would inevitably transform themselves into administration along the lines of a mini party or a small alternative trades union the summary of these ideas might seem rather abstract and that is why before ending I would like to give an example because some of these things can be better understood in practice a theoretical model of this kind was used in an attempt to prevent the construction of the American missile base in koma so in the early 80s the anarchists who intervened for two years built self-managed leagues these self-managed leagues were precisely non anarchist groups that operated in the area with the unique aim of preventing the construction of the base by destroying the project in the course of realization the leagues were autonomous nuclei characterized by the fact that their only aim was to attack and destroy the base they did not take on a whole series of problems because if they had done that they would have become groups of hindered syndicalists with the aim of let us say defending jobs or finding work resolving other immediate problems instead their sole aim was to destroy the base the second characteristic was permanent conflict ie from the moment these groups were formed they were not specifically anarchist groups but there were people on them who were aren't anarchists they went into conflict with all the forces involved in building the base without this conflict being determined or declared by any representative organized 'im or by the anarchists who had prompted the initiative the third characteristic was the complete autonomy of these groups that is to say they did not have links with any parties or unions etc the struggle against the base is known in part and in part not and I don't know if it is the case to take up the story here again I just wanted to mention it as an example so the insurrection lists anarchism must overcome one essential problem it must go beyond a certain limit otherwise it will remain no more than the idea of insurrection lists anarchism that is the comrades that have lived that insurrection of a personal nature we mentioned earlier that illumination which produces an idea force inside us in opposition to the chatter of opinion and form affinity groups enter into relationships with comrades from other places through an informal kind of structure only realize a part of the work at a certain point they must decide must go beyond the demarcation line take a step that it is not easy to turn back from they must enter into a relationship with people who are not anarchists concerning a problem that is immediate circumscribed such as for example the destruction of the base in koma Somme no matter how fantastic or interesting this idea might have been it certainly wasn't the realisation of Anarchy what would have happened if one had really managed to enter the base and destroy it I don't know probably nothing probably everything I don't know no one can tell but the beauty of realizing the destructive event is not to be found in it's possible consequences anarchists guarantee none of the things they do they point out the responsibilities of persons and structures on the basis of the decision that they are determined to act and from that moment on they feel sure of themselves because their idea of justice illuminates their action it points out one person's responsibility or that of more people one structure or more structures and the consequences that such responsibility leads to it is here that we find anarchists determination to act but once they act along with other people they must also try to build organisms that are capable of holding together and creating consequences in the struggle of power we must never forget this and this is an important point to reflect upon the power realizes itself in time and space it is not something abstract control would not be possible if police stations did not exist if prisons did not exist legislative power would not be possible if Parliament did not exist or if there were no little regional Parliament's the cultural power that oppresses us that fabricates opinion would not be possible if there were no schools and universities now schools universities police stations prisons industries factories are all things that realize themselves in specific places in circumscribed areas which we can only move around in if we accept given conditions and play the game we are here at the moment because we agreed to play the game we would not have been able to enter the building otherwise this is interesting we can use structures of this kind but at the time of attack such places are forbidden to us if we were to have come here with the intent of attacking the police would obviously have prevented us now because power realizes itself in physical space anarchists relation to this is important of course insurrection is an individual fact and so in that place deep inside us at night we were able to go to sleep we think well in the last analysis things aren't too bad one feels at peace with oneself and falls asleep there in that particular place inside us that private space we can move about as we please but then we must transfer ourselves into the physical space of social reality and physical space when you think about it is almost exclusively under control of power so when we move around in this space we carry this value of insurrection with us these revolutionary values and measure them in a class in which we are not the only ones present we must therefore individuate significant objectives and verify their existence and as luck would have it these objectives exist perpetually everywhere and contribute to creating the conditions so that people the exploited on whose backs these objectives are realized do something to destroy them I believe this revolutionary process is of an insurrectional nature it does not have aims and this is important of a quantitative nature because the destruct of an objective or the prevention of a project cannot be measured in quantitative terms it sometimes happens that someone says to me but what results have we obtained when something is done people don't even remember the inner kiss afterwards anarchists who are these anarchists monarchists are they the people who support the king people don't remember very well but what does it matter it is not that they must remember but their struggle because their struggle is theirs we are simply an opportunity in that struggle we are something extra in the freed society where anarchist has been reached in a quite ideal dimension anarchists who are indispensable in the social struggle at all levels would simply have the role of pushing the struggles further and further eliminating even the smallest traces of power and always perfecting the tension towards anarchy anarchists inhabit an uncomfortable planet in any case because when the struggle is going well they have forgotten about and then when the struggle goes badly they are accused of being responsible of having approached it the wrong way of having taking it to the wrong conclusions no illusion then concerning any quantitative results if the struggle realized from an insurrectional point of view is correct has gone well the results if any might be useful to the people who brought it about certainly not to the anarchists it is important not to fall prey to the illusion that many anarchists unfortunately do of believing that the positive outcome of a struggle can result in a growth in our groups because that is not so and this systematically leads to disillusion the growth of our groups and an increase in the number of comrades is important but that does not come about from the results obtained so much as through the building and formation of AI of these idea forces the clarification we talked about earlier the positive results of struggles and the numerical growth and anarchist groups are two things that cannot be seen as a process of cause and effect they might be connected they might not just a couple of words to wind up I have talked about what anarchism is what democracy is in the ink comprehension we are constantly constantly being faced with of the ways the structures of power we call modern capitalism post-industrial capitalism are being transformed of some anarchist structures of struggle that are no longer acceptable today and the way one can oppose once off to the reality of power and finally I mentioned the difference between traditional anarchism and the insurrectional in Turk is impreza day thank you




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *