Insurrectionalist Anarchism Part One

8/12/2019 Insurrectionalist Anarchism Part One

1/30

Alfredo M. Bonanno

InsurrectionalistAnarism Part One

1999


2/30

2

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Affinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Informal organisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Te Revolutionary Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


3/30

3

Introduction

e following ideas have emerged from a long itinerary of struggle and reflec-tion. ey represent a tormented, complex thesis, which is not only difficult to

set out which would simply be due a defect of the author but even to exposeclearly and definitively.

In conflict with my whole being, I am about to set out the fundamental elementsof insurrectionalist anarchism anatomically. Will it be possible? I dont know. Ishall try. If the reading of these notes begins to suffocate, then just skip throughthem and leave it at that. A mass insurrection, or that of a whole people, can atanygiven moment leadtothe Statesincapacity to maintain orderandrespect forthe law and even lead to the disintegration of social and economic conditions. isalso implies the presence of individuals and groups that are capable of graspingthis disintegration beyond its immediate manifestations. ey must be able tosee beyond the oen chance and secondary reasons for the initial insurrectional

outburst. In order to give their contribution to the struggle, they must look beyondthe first clashes and skirmishes, not put a brake on them or underestimate themas mere incoherent insufference towards those in power.

But who is prepared to take on this task? It could be anarchists, not so muchbecause of their basic ideological choice and declared denial of all authority, asfor their capacity to evaluate methods of struggle and organisational projects.

Moreover, only those who have rebelled and faced the consequences of thisrebellion and lived it to the full, be it only within the microcosm of their ownlives, can have the sensitivity and intuition necessary to grasp the signs of theinsurrectionalmovement in course.Notallanarchists arerebels, justas notallrebels are anarchists. To complicate things, it is not enough to be a rebel to un-

derstand the rebellion of others. It is also necessary to be willing to understand.We need to look at the economic and social conditions around us. We must notlet ourselves be swept away like a river in full swell by the resounding demon-strations of the popular movement, even when it is moving full steam ahead andits initial triumphs lead us to hoist banners of illusion. Critique is always the firstinstrument, the starting point. But this must not merely be a surly taking sides. Itmustbe a participatorycritique,onethat involvesthe heart, feelsthe excitementof the clash against the same enemy,now withitsfacefinallystampedinthe dust.It is not enough simply to rebel. Even if a hundred rebels were to get together itwould stillnotbe sufficient, theywould merelybe a hundred crazed moleculeswrithing in destructive agony as the struggle spreads, wildly sweeping everythingaway. Important as an example and stimulus, rebels end up succumbing to theneeds of the moment. No maer how effective and radical they are, the more


4/30

4

their conscience carries them to aack oen blindly the more they becomeaware of an insurmountable limit due to their failure to see any organisationaloutlet. ey wait for suggestions from the mass in revolt, a word here, a wordthere, in the quick of the clash or during moments of calm when everyone wants

to talk before taking up the struggle again. And they are not aware that evenduring these exciting moments there are always politicians waiting in ambush.e masses do not possess the virtues we oen aribute to them. e assembly iscertainly not the place put ones life at risk, but ones life can be put at risk by deci-sions madein assemblies.Andthe politicalanimalsthat raisetheirheadsinthesecollective moments always have clear ideas concerning what to suggest, withfine programmes of recuperation and a call to order already in their pockets. Ofcourse, they will not say anything that is not absolutely correct, politically, I mean,so will be taken to be revolutionaries. But they are always the same, the sameold political animals laying the foundations for the power of the future, the kindthat recuperatestherevolutionary thrustand addressesit towards pacification.

We must limit destruction, comrades. Please, aer all, what we are destroyingbelongs to us. . .and so on.To shoot before and more quickly than others, is a virtue of the Far West:

its goodfora dayor two, thenyou needto useyourhead.And usingyourheadmeans you need a project. So the anarchist cannot simply be a rebel, he or shemust be a rebel equipped with a project. He or she must, that is, unite courageand heart with the knowledge and foresight of action. eir decisions will stillalways beilluminated withtheflames ofdestruction,butsustained withthefuelof critical analysis.

Now, if we think about it for a moment, a project cannot just turn up out ofthe blue in the middle of the fray. It is silly to think that everything must comeforth from the insurgent people. at would be blind determinism and wouldconsign us gagged into the hands of the first politician that stood up on a chairand made a few organisational and programmatical proposals, throwing smokein everyones eyes with a few words strung one aer the other. Although insur-rection is a revolutionary moment of great collective creativity, one which canproduce analytical suggestions of considerable intensity (think of the insurgentworkers of the Paris Comune who shot at the clocks), it is not the only sourceof theoretical and projectual wealth. e highest moments of the people in armsundoubtedly eliminate obstacles and uncertainties, clearly showing what hadonly been hazy until then, but they cannot illuminate what is not already there.ese moments are the potent reflector that make it possible to bring about arevolutionary and anarchist project, but this project must already exist, even if

only interms ofmethod. Itmusthave been elaborated and experimentedto somedegree, although obviously not in every detail.


5/30

5

On the other hand, when we intervene in mass struggles, clashes with interme-diate claims, is that not almost exclusively so as to propose our methods? Workersin a particular factory demanding jobs and trying to avoid being laid off, a groupofhomeless peopletryingto getshelter,prisoners on strikeforbeerconditions

in jail, students rebelling against a cultureless school are all things that interest us,up to a point. We know perfectly well that when we participate in these strugglesas anarchists, no maer how they end up there will not be any correspondinggrowth in our movement, and this is quite irrelevant. e excluded oen forgetwho we even are,andthereis noreasoninthe world why theyshouldrememberus, leastofallone based on gratitude. We have asked ourselves morethan once,in fact, what we are doing in the midst of such struggles for claims, we anarchistsand revolutionaries who are against work, against school, against any concessionto the State, against property and also against any kind of negotiation that gra-ciously concedes a beer life in the prisons. e answer is simple. We are therebecause we canintroduce differentmethods. And ourmethodstake shapein a

project. We are with the excluded in these intermediate struggles because we havea different model to propose, one based on self-organised struggles, aack andpermanent conflictuality. is is our point of strength, and we are only preparedto struggle along withthe excludedif theyadoptsuch methods ofaack,evenconcerning objectives that remain within the realm of claiming.

A method would be no more than an agglomeration of meaningless words ifwere we unable to articulate it within a projectual dimension. Had they paidsome aention to this aspect in the first place, many anxious critics of anarchistinsurrectionalism would just have gone back to their momentarily disturbedslumber. What is the point of accusing us of being stuck in methods that are ahundred years out of date without taking a look at what we are talking about? einsurrectionalism we are talking about is quite different to the glorious days onthe barricades,evenif itmightcontain elements ofa strugglethatmovesin such adirection at times. But as simple revolutionary theory and analysis, a method thatcomestolifein a project, itdoes notnecessarily takethis apocalyptic momentinto account, but develops and intensifies far from any waving of banners orgliering of guns.

Many comrades are fully aware of the need to aack and are doing what theycan to bring it about. ey perceive the beauty of the clash and the confrontationwith the class enemy hazily, but do not want to spend much time thinking aboutit. eywant to hearnothing of revolutionaryprojects,so carryon wastingtheenthusiasm of rebellion which, moving into a thousand rivulets, ends up extin-guishingitself in small isolated manifestations of insufference. ese comrades

are obviouslynotall the same, you could say thateach one constitutes a universeof his or her own, but all, or nearly all of them, feel irritated by any aempt to


6/30

6

clarify ideas. ey dont like to make distinctions. What is the point of talkingabout affinity groups, informal organisation, base nuclei or coordinations, theysay? Dont things speak for themselves? Are not tyranny and injustice, exploita-tion and the ferocity of power, quite visible there in front of us?Dont they exist

in the form of things, and men basking in the sun as though they had nothing toworry about? What is the point of wasting time in pointless discussions? Whynot aack now? Indeed, why not turn on the first uniform we come across? Evena sensible person like Malatesta was of this opinion, in a way, when he saidthathe preferredindividual rebellionto waitingto seethe world upturned beforedoing anything.

Personally I have never had anything against this. On the contrary. Rebellionis the first step. It is the essential condition for burning our bridges behind us, andevenif itdoes notcut the bondsthat tie usto societyand powerwith athousandthick ropes in the form of family, morals, work, obeying the law, at least it weakensthem. But I am convinced that this is not enough. I believe it is necessary to go

further and think about the possibilities of giving more organisational strengthto ones actions, so that rebellion can transform itself into a project aimed atgeneralised insurrection.

is second step obviouslydoes notappeal to manycomrades. And, feelingsuch efforts to be beyond them, they underestimate the problem or, worse still,criticise those who do spend time and effort on the question of organisation.

Here we will try to provide a few elements to enable us to examine the or-ganisational aspect of insurrectionalist anarchism in some depth. In particular,the problem of the affinitygroup, informality,self-organisation ofstruggles,basenuclei and the co-ordination of these nuclei (anarchists and non-anarchists) withaffinity groups (of anarchists), through informal organisation. As you can see,the question implies complex problems of method, and this means understandingcertain concepts that are oen distorted within the context of insurrectionalism.We must therefore give them our full aention in order to get rid of some of thepreconceived ideas that oen limit our vision without our realising it.

is introductory note will become more schmetic as it takes a look at these keyconcepts. e text itself will be more articulate, but would probably be difficult tofollow without first becoming familiar with these concepts.

An anarchistgroup can be composed ofperfectstrangers. Ihave oen goneinto anarchist meeting rooms in Italy and elsewhere and hardly known anybody.Ones mere presence in such a place, the aitudes, the jargon and the way onepresents oneself, the level of discussion and statements impregnated with basicorthodox anarchist ideology, are such that any anarchist feels at ease within a

shortspace of time and communicates withthe othercomrades as wellas possible,to their reciprocal satisfaction.


7/30

7

It is not my intention to speak of the ways that an anarchist group can beorganised here. ere are many, and each chooses their own comrades as theythink best. But there is a particular way of forming an anarchist group that putsrealorpresumed affinityamong all the participants before anything else. Now,

this affinity is not something that can be found in a declaration of principles, aglorious past, or a history of militancy, no maer how far back this goes intime. Affinity is acquired by having knowledge of each other. at is why onesometimes believes one has affinity with a comrade, then discovers that that isnot actually so, and vice versa. An affinity group is therefore a melting pot inwhich such relations can mature and consolidate. But because perfection is athing of angels, even affinity needs to be considered with a certain mental acumenand not be accepted supinely as the panacea for all our weaknesses. I can onlydiscover that I have affinity with someone if I reveal myself to that person, doaway with all the affectations that normally protect me like a second skin, harderandtougher thanthefirst. Andthis cannotsimplycome about through small

talk, me chaering about myself then listening to the others tales, but must comeabout in things that are done together. In other words, it must come about inaction. When we do things, we unconsciously send out tiny signals that arefarmorerevealingthan words. It isfromthese exchangesthatwe createtheconditions that are necessary in order for us to gain knowledge of each other.

If the groups activity is not doing for the sake of it so as to grow numerically,but has the qualitative aim of comrades being aware of each other and feelingat one with each other, sharing the tension towards action and the desire totransform the world, then this is an affinity group. If it is not, the search foraffinity will be no more than the search for a shoulder to lean on. Affinity istherefore the knowledge that comrades acquire of each other, which is gainedthrough action in the realisation of ones ideas. A glance backwards to allow mycomradesto see whoIamisreabsorbed by lookingforwardtogether into afuturein which we build our common project. In other words, we decide to intervenein specific struggles and see whatwe are capable of. esetwo moments, thefirst, let us say, of the knowledge of the individual, and the second, the projectualone of the knowledge of the group intertwine and constitute affinity, allowingthe group to be considered to all effects an affinity group.

e resulting condition is not fixed in time once and for all. It moves, develops,regresses and modifies during the course of the various struggles, drawing fromthem so as to grow both theoretically and practically. It is not a monolithicentity. Decisions are not made vertically. ere is no faith to be sworn upon norcommandmentsto believein, intimes ofdoubtor fear.Everythingis discussed

within the group throughout the course of the struggle,everything is reconsideredfrom the start, even if solid, eternal points might seem to exist already.


8/30

8

e affinity groups task is to elaborate a particular project, the best place tostudy and examine the conditions one decides to operate in. It might seem thatorganisations of synthesis are beer instruments for intervening in struggles thanaffinitygroups,but thevast range of interests held byanarchiststructures of

synthesis is only apparent. In fact, in an organisation of synthesis, groups areallocated tasks at congresses, and although they are free to interest themselves inall the problems that characterise this society divided into classes, basically onlyoperate according to what has been dictated by the congress. Moreover, beinglinked to programmes and principles that have been accepted once and for all,they are unable to make independent decisions and end up complying to the rigidlimitations fixed by the organisation in congress. e laers role is to safeguardthe organisationitself, in otherwordstodisturbpoweraslile as possible andavoid being outlawed. e affinity group avoids such limitations, sometimeseasily, sometimes only thanks to the courage and decision of the comrades thatmakeit up. Ofcourse,such structures cannotgive couragetothose wholack

it. It cannot suggest aack unless each individual is already a rebel in his or hersoul. It cannot go into action if people are only prepared to think at the level ofan aernoon chat.

Once the problems concerning what is to be acted upon have been gone into,the necessary documentation has been found and analyses worked out, the affinitygroup goes into action. is is one of the fundamental characteristics of this kindof anarchist structure. It does not wait for problems to appear like a spider in themiddle of a web. It looks for them and seeks a solution, which must obviously beaccepted by the excluded who are bearing the brunt of the problem. But in orderto make a proposition to a social reality that is suffering some specific form ofaggression by power in a given area, it is necessary to be physically present amongthe excluded of that area and have a real awareness of the problems involved.

e affinitygrouptherefore movesinthe direction of local intervention, facingone particular problem and creating all the necessary psychological and practicalconditions, both individually and collectively. e problem can then be faced withthe characteristics and methods of insurrectionalism which are self-organisation,permanent conflictuality and aack.

One single affinity group cannot necessarily carry out such an interventiononits own.Oen,at leastaccordingtothe(few and controversial)experiencesto date, the nature of the problem and complexity of intervention, including theextent of the area as well as the means required to develop the project and theideas and needs of the people involved, require something more. Hence the needto keep in contact with other affinity groups so as to increase the number of

comrades andfindthe means andideas suitedtothe complexityand dimensionof the problem that is being faced. Tat is how informal organisation originates.


9/30

9

Various anarchistaffinitygroups can cometogether to givelifeto aninformalorganisation aimed at facing a problem that is too complex for one group alone.Of course, all the groups participating in the informal organisation must more orless agree with the intervention and participate in both the actions and ideas.

Affinity groups oen develop informal relations that become constant as theymeet regularly to prepare for specific struggles or beer still during thecourse of these struggles. is facilitates the circulation of information about thelaer and the projects that are in preparation, as well as signs from certain areasof the world of the excluded.

An informal organisation functions quite simply. It has no name as it doesnot aim to grow numerically. ere are no fixed structures (apart from the singleaffinity groups, each one of which operates quite autonomously), otherwise theterm informal would be meaningless. It is not formally constituted, there areno congresses but only simple meetings from time to time (preferably during thecourse of the struggles themselves). ere are no programmes, only the common

experience of insurrectional struggles and the methods that distinguish them:self-organisation, permanent conflictuality and aack.e aims of the informal organisation are conferred on it by the individual

affinity groups that make it up. In the few experiences that have materialised ithas been a question ofone specific objective, forexamplethe destruction of theCruise missile base in Comiso in 19821983. But there could also be more thanone intervention and the informal organisation would make it possible for singlegroups to intervene in these different situations. For example they could alternatewhen it became necessary to be in one place for a considerable length of time (inComiso groups stayed in the area for two years). Another aim could be to provideboth analytical and practical means, and provide the financial support that theindividual group might require.

e primary function of the informal organisation is to make known the variousaffinity groups and the comrades that make them up. If you think about it, thisis stilla question ofa searchforaffinity, thistime ata different level. Herethesearch for affinity is intensified by the project which does not exclude the ever-increasing knowledge of the single individual and comes about at the level ofmore than one group. One deduces from this that the informal organisation isalso an affinity group, based on all the affinity groups that make it up.

e above considerations, which we have been developing over the past fieenyears, should have been of some use to comrades in their understanding thenature of informal organisation. is does not seem to be the case. In my opinion,the most serious misunderstanding comes from the latent desire of many of us

to flex our muscles. We want to give ourselves a strong organisational structurebecause that seems to be the only way to fight a power structure that is strong


10/30

10

and muscular. According to these comrades the first characteristic that sucha structure should have is that it be specific and robust, must last in time andbe clearly visible so as to constitute a kind of light amidst the struggles of theexcluded a light, a guide, a point of reference.

Alas! We do not share this opinion. All the economic and social analysesof post-industrial capitalism show how power would swallow up such a strong,visible structure in one gulp. Te disappearance of the centrality of the workingclass(at leastwhatwas once considered such)meansthatan aack carried outby a rigid, visible structure would be impracticable. If such structures are notsimply destroyed on impact, they would just be co-opted into the ambit of powerin order to recuperate and recycle the most irreducible elements.

So long as the affinity group continues to look inwards, it will be no morethan a few comrades giving themselves their own rules and respecting them. Bylooking inwards I do not just mean staying inside ones anarchist place, limitingoneself tothe usualdiscussions amongtheinitiated,butalsorespondingtothe

various deadlines of power and repression with declarations and documents.In that case the affinity group would only differ from other anarchist groupssuperficially: political choices, ways of interpreting the various responses to thepower structures claim to regulate our lives and those of all the excluded.

Te profound sense of being a different structure, i.e. one based on a way oforganising that is quite different to all other anarchist groups in a word, onaffinity only becomes operative when it sets out a project of specific struggle.And what characterises this project more than anything is the presence of aconsiderable number of excluded, of people in a word, the mass bearing thebrunt of repression that the project is addressing with recourse to insurrectionalistmethods.

e essential element in the insurrectional project is therefore mass partici-pation. And, as we started off from the condition of affinity among the singleanarchist groups participating in it, it is also an essential element of this affinityitself. Itwould be no morethan mere camaraderie deliteif itweretoremaincircumscribed to the reciprocal search for deeper personal knowledge betweencomrades.

But it would be nonsense to consider trying to make other people becomeanarchists and suggest that they enter our groups during the struggle. Not onlywould it be nonsense, it would be a horrible ideological forcing of things thatwould upturn the whole meaning of affinity groups and the eventual informalorganisationthatmightensuein order tofacethe specificrepressive aack. Buthere we are faced with the need to create organisational structures that are capable

of regroupingthe excludedin such a wayasto beginthe aack onrepression.So


11/30

11

we cometothe needto givelifeto autonomous base nuclei,which can obviouslygive themselves any other name that indicates the concept of self-organisation.

We have now reached the crucial point of the insurrectional project: the con-stitution ofautonomous base nuclei (we are usingthisterm hereto simplify

things).e essential, visible and immediately comprehensible characteristic of the

laer is that they are composed of both anarchists and non-anarchists.Te more difficult points reside elsewhere however, and on the few occasions

ofexperimentationthese haveturned out to be a source ofconsiderable misunder-standing. First of all, the fact that they are structures in the quantitative sense. Ifthey are such and in fact they are then this characteristic needs to be clarified.ey are actually points of reference, not fixed structures where people can countthemselves through all the procedures of established membership (card-carrying,payment of dues, supplying services, etc). e only aim of the base nuclei isstruggle. eyoperatelikelungsintherespiratorysystem,swelling whenthe

struggle intensifies and reducing in size when it weakens, to swell again whenthe next clash occurs. During quiet spells, between one involvement and another and here by involvement we mean any aspect of struggle, even simply handingout a leaflet, participating in a public meeting, but also squaing a building or sab-otaging one of the instruments of power the nucleus acts as a zonal reference,a sign of the presence of an informal organisational structure.

To see autonomous base nuclei as needing to grow quantitatively would beto turn them into union-style organisms, i.e. something like the Cobas in Italy,who defend workers rights in the various productive sectors through a widerange of activities such as claiming and defence of those they represent. e moredelegates there are, the louder the voice of the claimant. Te autnonomous basenucleus does not have delegates, it does not propose struggles based on wideobjectives such as the defence of jobs, wage increases, or safeguarding health inthe factory, etc. e base nucleus exists for the one objective that was decidedupon at the start. is can also be a claim ofsome kind,notmadethroughtherepresentative method of delegation, but faced using direct methods of immediatestruggle such as constant unannounced aacks and the blunt refusal of all thepolitical forces that claim to represent anyone or anything.

ose whoformthe base nucleishouldtherefore notexpectsome complexlevel of support to cover a wide range of needs. ey must understand that this isnot a question of some union-style defence organisation, but is an instrument ofstruggle against one specific objective, and is only valid if the initial decision tohave recourse to insurrectional methods stands firm. Participation in the nuclei

is quite spontaneous, as there are no benefits other than the specific, exclusiveone of strength and organisation concerning the objective that has been chosen


12/30

12

together, and aacking it. So, it is quite logical not to expect such organisms todevelop a high numerical or (even less) stable, composition. In the preparatoryphase of the struggle those who identify with the objective, agree with it and arepreparedto put themselves at risk,arefew. Whenthe struggleis underwayand

the first results begin to appear, the hesitant and weak will also join in and thenucleus will swell, only for these last-minute participants to disappear later on.is is quite natural and should not worry us or make us see this instrument ofmass organisation in a negative light.

Another common area of incomprehension is the short lifespan of the au-tonomous base nucleus itself. It comes to an end upon reaching the objective thathad been decided (or through common agreement concerning the impossibilityof reaching it). Many ask themselves: if the nuclei also function as a regroupingpoint of reference, why not keep them in place for possible use in some futurestruggle? Here we come back to the concept of informality again. Any struc-turethatcarries onintime beyondits originalaim,sooneror later turnsinto a

stable structure whose original purpose is distorted into the new and apparentlylegitimate one ofquantitative growth. Itgrowsin strengthin order toreachthemultiplicity of goals each one interesting enough in itself that appear on thenebulous horizon of the exploited. As soon as the informal structure plants rootsin a new, stable form, individuals suited to managing the laer will appear onthe scene: always the same ones, the most capable, with plenty of time to spare.Sooner or later the circle will close around the so-called revolutionary anarchiststructure, which by now will have found its sole aim, its own survival. is isprecisely what we see happening when such an organisational structure, albeitanarchist and revolutionary, establishes itself: it becomes a rarefied form of powerthataracts all the comrades who want to do goodfor the people and so on,etc,etc. all with the best will in the world, of course.

One last organisational element, which is necessary at times, is the coordina-tion of autonomous base nuclei. e coordinating structure is also informal andis composed of various representatives of the base nuclei. Whereas the individualnuclei, given their function as lungs can be informal to the point of not evenhaving any fixed meeting place (because a nucleus can arrange to meet anywhere),this cannot be so for the coordinating body. If a struggle still circumscribed tothe specific question that started the project lasts for a considerable length oftime and covers a fairly wide area, it is necessary to find a place for the variousactivities of the base nuclei to coordinate themselves.

e presence of anarchist affinity groups is not directly visible in the coordina-tion, and this can also be said concerning the informal organisation. Of course

anarchists are present in all thevarious base nuclei,but thisis not theidealplacefor anarchist propaganda in the classic sense of the word. e first thing to be


13/30

13

done, both within the coordination and the individual nuclei, is to analyse theproblem, the objective to be reached, then look at the insurrectional means to beused in the struggle. Te task of comrades is to participate in the project and gointo the means and methods to be employed, along with everyone else involved.

Although this might sound simple here, it turns out to be far more complicatedin practice.

e function of the co-ordination of the autonomous base nuclei is thereforethat of linking up the struggles. Here we have only one thing to suggest (absolutelyindigestable for anarchists, but quite simple for anyone who is not an anarchist):the need, in the case of a mass aack against a given structure of power, to decideupon individual tasks before the aack takes place, i.e. to agree on what needs tobe done down to the minutest detail. Many imagine such occasions of struggleto be an orgy of spontaneity: the objective is there in front of everyone, all youneed to do is go ahead and rout out the forces protecting it and destroy them. Iam puingthingsintheseterms here,althoughI knowthatmanywillhave a

hundred differentways ofseeingthings,but the essence does notchange. Allofthe participants must have a precise idea of what to do, it being a question of astruggle taking place in a given area that will have to overcome specific armedresistance. Now, ifonlyafew people know what to do theresulting confusionwill be the same, if not worse, than if no one does at all.

A plan is therefore necessary. ere have been instances where it was necessaryto have an armed military plan simply to hand out a leaflet (for example duringthe insurrection of Reggio Calabria). But can this plan really be made available toeverybody, even just a few days before the aack? I do not think so. For reasonsof security. On the other hand, details of the plan of aack must be available toall the participants. One deduces that not everybody can participate in drawing itup, but only those who in some way or other happen to be known either for theirparticipationinthe autonomous base nuclei,orbecausetheybelongtothe affinitygroups adhering to the coordination. is is to avoid infiltration by police andsecret services, something that is more than likely on such occasions. People whoare notknown mustbe guaranteed by those who are. is mightbe unpleasant,but it is unavoidable.

e problem gets complicated when the project in course is known to manycomrades who could beinterestedin participatingin one of the actions ofaackwe are talking about. In this case, the influx would be considerable (in the caseof Comiso, in the days of the aempted occupation, about 300 comrades camefrom all over Italy and beyond) and the need to avoid the presence of infiltratorsbecomes far more serious. Comrades turning up at the last minute might not

know about the actionin course,and willnotbe ableto understand what is goingon. In the same way, all those who decide not to accept the above verification


14/30

14

will end up feeling le out. And finally two last points that merit a concise, linearexplanation: why we consider the insurrectional methodology and projectualityto be the most suitable means in the revolutionary clash today, and what wethink can come from the use of insurrectional methods in a situation that is not

insurrection in act.As far as the first question is concerned, an analysis of social and economic

reality today shows how structures of synthesis reproduce all the defects of thepolitical parties of the past, great or small, making them ineffective or only usefulto the restructuring of power.

To the second question, one could reply that it is impossible to say in advancehow the conditions leading to insurrection will develop. Any occasion mightbe the right one, even if it looks like an insignificant experiment. But there ismore. To develop a project of insurrectional struggle starting from one specificproblem, i.e. a precise manifestation of power to the detriment of a considerablemass ofexcluded, is morethan a simpleexperiment. It isinsurrectionin act,

without wanting to exaggerate something that starts off as something small, andwill probably remain so. What is important is the method, and anarchists stillhave a long way to go in that direction, otherwise we will remain unprepared inthe case of the many insurrections of whole peoples that have taken place to dateand continue to do so.

Basically this book is a contribution to the great problem What is to be done?.Catania, 21 November 1998.

Affinity

Anarchists have an ambivalent relationship withthe question oforganisation.On the one hand there are those who accept a permanent structure with a well-defined programme and means at their disposal (even if only a few), that is dividedup into commissions, while on the other there is a refusal of any stable relationship,even in the short term.

Classical anarchist federations and individualists are the two extremes of anescape from the reality of the clash. e comrade that belongs to an organisedstructure hopes that a revolutionary transformation will result from a growth innumbers, so he holds the cheap illusion that the structure is capable of controllingany authoritarian involution or any concession to the logic of the party. eindividualist comrade is solicitous of his own ego and fears any form of conta-mination,anyconcessionto others oranyactive collaboration,believing such

things to be giving in and compromising.


15/30

15

isturns out to bethe naturalconsequence,evenforcomrades who considerthe problem of specific organisation and the federation of groups critically.

e organisation is thus born before any struggles take place and ends upadaptingtothe perspective ofa certain kind ofstruggle which at leastone

supposes is to make the organisation itself grow. In this way the structurehas a vicarious relationship with the repressive decisions of power, which forvarious reasons dominate the scene of the class struggle. Resistance and the self-organisation of the exploited are seen as molecular elements to be grasped hereand there, but only become meaningful on entering and becoming part of thespecific structure or allow themselves to be regrouped into mass organisms underthe (more or less direct) leadership of the laer. In this way, one is always waiting.It is as though we are all in provisional liberty. We scrutinise the aitudes ofpower and keep ready to react (always within the limits of the possible) againstthe repression that strikes us, hardly ever taking the initiative, seing out ourinterventionsinfirstperson,overturningthelogic of theloser. Anybody that

recognisesthemselvesin structured organisations expectsto seetheirnumberofmembers increase. Anyone that works within mass structures (for example inthe anarcho-syndicalist optic) is waiting for todays small demands to turn intogreat revolutionary resultsinthefuture. ose who denyall thatbutalso spendtheir time waiting, who knows what for, are oen stuck in resentment against alland everything, sure of their own ideas without realising that they are no morethan the flip side of the organisational and programmatical stance.

We believe that it is possible to do something else.We start off from the consideration that it is necessary to establish contact

with other comrades in order to pass to action. We are not in a condition to actalone as long as our struggle is reduced to platonic protest, as bloody and terribleas you like, but still platonic. If we want to act on reality incisively there must bemany of us.

How can we find our comrades? We have cast aside any question of pro-grammes and platforms in advance, throwing them out once and for all. So whatis le?

Affinity.Affinities and divergence exist among anarchists. I am not talking about per-

sonal affinity here, i.e. sentimental aspects that oen bring comrades together (inthe first place love, friendship, sympathy, etc.), I am talking about a deepeningof reciprocal knowledge. e more this deepening grows, the greater the affinitycan become. In the case of the contrary, divergences can turn out to be so greatas to make any action impossible. So the solution lies in a growth in reciprocal

knowledge, developed through a projectual examination of the various problemsthat the class struggle presents us with.


16/30

16

Tere are a whole range of problems that we want to face, and usually care istaken not examine them in their entirety. We oen limit ourselves to questionsthat are close at hand because they are the ones that affect us most (repression,prison, etc.).

But it is precisely our capacity to examine the problem that we want to facethat leads to the best way to create conditions for affinity. is can obviouslynever be absolute or total (except in very rare cases), but can be sufficient to createrelations disposed to acting.

If we restrict our intervention to the most obvious and superficial aspects ofwhat we consider the essential problems to be, we will never be able to discoverthe affinity we desire. We will constantly be wandering around at the mercy ofsudden, unsuspected contradictions that could upset any project of intervention inreality. I insist onpointing out that affinity should not be confused with sentiment.We can recognise affinity with comrades that we do not particularly like and onthe other hand like comrades with whom we do not have any affinity.

Among other things, it is important not to let oneself be hindered in onesaction by false problems such as a presumed differentiation between feelings andpolitical motivations. From what has been said above it might seem that feelingsshould be keptseparatefrom politicalanalysis,so we could, forexample, lovesomeone and not share their ideas at all and vice versa. Tat is roughly possible,no maer how lacerating it might be. e personal aspect (or that of feelingsif you like) must be included in the above concept of going into the range ofproblems, as instinctively succumbing to our impulses oen signifies a lack ofreflection and analysis, or not being able to admit to simply being possessed bygod.

From what we have said there now starts to emerge, even nebulously, a firstapproximation of our way of considering the anarchist group: a number of com-rades linked by a common affinity. e more the project that these comradesbuild together is gone into, the greater their affinity will be. It follows that realorganisation, the effective (and not fictitious) capacity to act together, i.e. to findeach other, make analyses and pass to action, is in relation to the affinity reachedand has nothing to do with more or less camouflaged monograms, programmes,platforms, flags or parties.

e affinitygroupis therefore a specific organisationthat comestogetheraround common affinities. ese cannot be identical for all, but different comradeswill have infinite affinity structures, all the more varied the wider the effortof analytical quest reached. It follows that all these comrades will also tendtowards quantitative growth, which is however limited and not the main aim of

the activity.Numericaldevelopment isindispensableforaction andit is also atest


17/30

17

of the breadth of the analyses that one is developing and its capacity to graduallydiscover affinity with a greater number of comrades.

It follows that the organism thus born will end up giving itself means of inter-vention in common. First, an instrument of debate necessary for analysis that is

capable, as far as possible, of supplying indications on a wide range of problemsand, at the same time, of constituting a point of reference for the verification at a personal or collective level of the affinities or divergencies that arise.

Lastly it should be said that although the element that holds a group of thiskind together is undoubtedly affinity, its propulsive aspect is action. To limitoneself to the first element and leave the other in second place would result inrelationships withering in Byzantian perfectionism.

Informal organisation

First let us distinguish the informal anarchist organisation from the anarchistorganisation of synthesis. Considerable clarification will emerge from this dis-tinction.

What is an anarchistorganisation ofsynthesis? It is an organisation basedon groups or individuals that are more or less in constant relation with eachother, that culminates in periodical congresses. During these open meetings basictheoretical analyses are discussed, a program is prepared and tasks are shared outcovering a whole range of interventions in the social field. e organisation thussets itself up as a point of reference, like an entity that is capable of synthesizingthe struggles that are going on in reality of the class clash. e various com-missions of this organisational model intervene in different struggles (as singlecomrades orgroups)and,by intervening,givetheircontributioninfirstperson

without however losing site of the theoretical and practical orientation of theorganisation as a whole, as decided at the most recent congress.

When this kind of organisation develops itself fully (as happened in Spain in36) it begins to dangerously resemble a party. Synthesis becomes control. Ofcourse, in moments of slack, this involution is less visible and might even seeman insult, but at other times it turns out to be more evident.

In substance, in the organisation of synthesis (always specific and anarchist), anucleus of specialists works out proposals at both the theoretical and ideologicallevel, adapting them as far as possible to the program that is roughly decidedupon at the periodic congresses. e shi away from this program can also beconsiderable (aer all, anarchists would never admit to too slavish an adherence

to anything), but when this occurs care is taken to return within the shortestpossible time to the line previously decided upon.


18/30

18

is organisations project is therefore that of being present in various situa-tions: antimilitarism, nuclear power, unions, prisons, ecology, interventions inliving areas, unemployment, schools, etc. is presence is either by direct inter-vention or through participaton in interventions managed by other comrades or

organisations (anarchist or not).It becomes clear that participation aimed at bringing the struggle to within

the project of synthesis cannot be autonomous. It cannot really adapt to theconditions of the struggle or collaborate effectively in a clear plan with the otherrevolutionary forces. Everything must either go through the ideological filter ofsynthesis or comply with the conditions approved earlier during the congress.

is situation, which is not always as rigid as it might seem here, carries theineliminable tendency of organisations of synthesis to drag struggles to the level ofthe base,proposing caution and using contrivances aimed at redimensioning anyflight forward, any objective that is too open or means that might be dangerous.

For example, if a group belonging to this kind of organisation (of synthesis, but

always anarchistand specific)wereto adhereto a structurethat is struggling, letus say, against repression, it would be forced to consider the actions proposed bythis structure in the light of the analyses that had roughly been approved at thecongress. e structure would either have to accept these analyses, or the groupbelonging to the organisation of synthesis would stop its collaboration (if it is ina minority) or impose the expulsion (in fact, even if not with a precise motion) ofthose proposing different methods of struggle.

Some people might not like it, but that is exactly how things work.One might ask oneself why on earth the proposal of the group belonging to

the organisation of synthesis must by definition always be more backward, i.e. inthe rearguard, or more cautious than others concerning possible actions of aackagainst the structures of repression and social consensus.

Why is that? e answer is simple. e specific anarchist organisation ofsynthesis, which, as we have seen, culminates in periodic congresses has growthin numbers asits basic aim. Itneeds an operativeforcethatmustgrow.Not toinfinity exactly, but almost. In the case of the contrary it would not have thecapacity to intervene in the various struggles, nor even be able to carry out itsown principle task: proceding to synthesis in one single point of reference.

Now,an organisationthathas growthin members asits main aim mustuseinstruments that guarantee proselytism and pluralism. It cannot take a clearposition concerning any specific problem, but must always find a middle way, apolitical road that upsets the smallest number and turns out to be acceptable tomost.

e correct position concerning some problems, particularly repression andprisons, is oen the most dangerous, and no group can put the organisation they


19/30

19

belongto at risk without firstagreeing withthe othermembergroups.But thatcan onlyhappenin congress,orat leastatan extraordinarymeeting,and we allknow that on such occasions it is always the most moderate opinion that prevails,certainly not the most advanced.

So, ineluctably, the presence of the organisation of synthesis in actual struggles,struggles that reach the essence of the class struggle, turns into a brake and control(oen involuntarily, but it is still a question of control).

e informal organisation does not present such problems. Affinity groupsand comrades that see themselves in an informal kind of projectuality cometogether in action, certainly not by adhering to a program that has been fixed ata congress. ey realise the project themselves, in their analyses and actions. Itcan occasionally have a point of reference in a paper or a series of meetings, butonly in order to facilitate things, whereas it has nothing to do with congressesand such like.

e comrades whorecognisethemselvesin aninformalorganisation are au-

tomatically a part of it. ey keep in contact with the other comrades througha paper or by other means, but, more important, they do so by participating inthe various actions, demonstrations, encounters, etc., that take place from timetotime. e mainverification and analysistherefore comes aboutduring mo-ments of struggle. To begin with these might simply be moments of theoreticalverification, turning into something more later on.

In an informal organisation there is no question of synthesis. ere is no desireto be present in all the different situations and even less to formulate a projectthat takesthe strugglesintothe depths ofa programmethathas been approvedin advance.

e only constant points of reference are insurrectional methods: in otherwords self-organisation of struggles, permanent conflictuality and aack.

Te Revolutionary Project

It is not easy to grasp the various aspects of revolutionary activity. It is evenmore difficult to grasp everything in terms of a complex project that has its ownintrinsiclogic and operative articulation. at is what I mean by revolutionarywork.

We all, or nearly all, agree as to who the enemy is. In the vagueness of thedefinition we include elements from our personal experience (joy and suffering)as well as our social situation and our culture. We are convinced that we know

everything that is required in order to draw up a map of enemy territory andidentify objectives and responsibility. Times change of course, but we dont take


20/30

20

any notice. We make the necessary adjustments and carry on. Obscure in ourway of proceeding, our surroundings also obscure, we light up our path with themiserable candle of ideology and stride forward.

e tragic fact is that things around us change, and oen rapidly. e terms of

the class relationship are constantly widening and narrowing in a contradictorysituation. ey reveal themselves one day only to conceal themselves the next,as the certainties of yesteryear precipitate into the darkness of the present.

Anyone who maintains a constant if not immobile pole is not seen as whatthey are: honest navigators in the sea of class confusion, but are oen taken tobe stubborn chanters of out of date, abstract, ideological slogans. Anyone whopersists in seeing the enemy inside the uniform, behind the factory, at the ministry,school, the church, etc., is considered suspect. ere is a desire to substitute harshrealitywith abstract relations andrelativity.Sothe State ends up becoming a wayofseeingthings andindividuals,withtheresult that,being anidea, it cannotbefought. e desire to fight it in abstract in the hope that its material reality, men

and institutions will precipitate into the abyss of logical contradiction, is a tragicillusion. isis whatusuallyhappens at timeslikethis whenthereis a lullbothin the struggle and in proposals for action.

No one with anyself respectwould admit tothe States having anypositivefunction. Hence the logical conclusion that it has a negative one, i.e. that itdamages some to the benefit of others. But the State is not simply the idea State,it is also the thing State, and this thing is composed of the policeman and thepolice station, the minister and the ministry (including the building where theministry has its offices), the priest and the church (including the actual placewhere the cult of lies and swindling takes place), the banker and the bank, thespeculator and his premises, right down to the individual spy and his more orless comfortableflat inthe suburbs.Either the Stateisthis articulated whole orit is nothing, a mere abstraction, a theoretical model that it would be absolutelyimpossible to aack and defeat.

Of course, the State also exists inside us. It is therefore also idea. But this beingan idea is subordinate to the physical places and persons that realise it. An aackon the idea of State (including that which we harbour inside us, oen withoutrealising it) is only possible if we aack it physically, in its historical realisationstanding there before us in flesh and blood. What do we mean by aack? ingsare solid. Men defend themselves, take measures. And the choice of the meansof aack is also open to confusion. We can (or rather must) aack with ideas,oppose critique to critique, logic to logic, analysis to analysis. But that wouldbe a pointless exercise if it were to come about in isolation, cut off from direct

intervention on the things and men of the State (and capital of course). So, inrelation to what we said earlier, aack not only with ideas but also with weapons.


21/30

21

I see no other way out. To limit oneself to an ideological duel would merelyincrease the enemys strength.

eoretical examination therefore, alongside and at the same time as practicalaack. Moreover, it is precisely inthe aackthat theory transformsitselfand

practice expresses its theoretical foundations. To limit oneself to theory wouldbe to remain in the field of idealism typical of the bourgeois philosophy that hasbeen feeding the coffers of the dominant class for hundreds of years, as well asthe concentration camps of the experimenters of both Right and Le. It makes nodifference if this disguises itself as historical materialism, it is still a question ofthe old phagocytic idealism. Libertarian materialism must necessarily overcomethe separation between idea and deed. If you identify the enemy you must strike,and strike adequately. Not so much in the sense of an optimal level of destruction,asthatof the generalsituation of the enemys defence, its possibilities ofsurvivaland the increasing danger it represents.

If you strike it is necessary to destroy part of their structure, thus making their

functioning as a whole more difficult. All this, if considered in isolation, runsthe risk of seeming insignificant. It does not manage, that is, to convert itselfinto something real. For this transformation to come about it is necessary for theaackto be accompanied bya criticalexamination of the enemysideas, ideasthat are part of its repressive and oppressive action. But does this reciprocalconversion of practical action into theoretical and theoretical into practical comeabout as something imposed artificially? For example, in the sense of carrying outan action then printing a fine document claiming it. e ideas of the enemy arenotcriticised orgoneintointhis way. eyare crystallised withintheideologicalprocess, appearing to be massively in opposition to the ideas of the aacker,transferred into something quite ideological. Few things are as hateful to meas this way of proceeding.e place for the conversion of theory into practiceand vice versa, is the project. It is the project as an articulated whole that givespractical action a different significance, makes it a critique of the ideas of theenemy. It derives from this that the work of the revolutionary is essentially theelaboration and realisation of a project.

But before discovering what a revolutionary project might be, it is necessary toagree on what the revolutionary must possess in order to be able to elaborate thisprojectof theirs.Firstofallcourage.Not the banalcourage of the physicalclashand aack on the enemy trenches, but the more difficult one, the courage of onesideas. Once you think in a certain way, once you see things and people, the worldand its affairs in a certain way, you m u s t have the courage to carry this throughwithoutcompromise orhalfmeasures,withoutpityor illusion. To stop halfway

would be a crime or, if you like, is absolutely normal. But revolutionaries arenot normal people. ey must go beyond. Beyond normality, but also beyond


22/30

22

exceptionally,whichis an aristocratic wayofconsidering diversityBeyond good,but also beyond evil, as someone would have said.

ey cannot wait for others to do what needs to be done. ey cannot delegateto others what their conscience dictates to them. ey cannot wait peacefully to

do what others itching to destroy what oppresses them like themselves woulddo if only they decided, if only they were to awake from their torpor and fromallowing themselves to be swindled, far away from the chaer and confusion.So they must set to work, and work hard. Work to supply themselves with themeans necessary to give some basis to their convictions.

And here we come to the second thing: constancy. e strength to continue,persevere, insist, even when others are discouraged and everything seems difficult.

It is impossible to procure the means one requires without constancy. erevolutionary needs cultural means, i.e. analyses and basic common knowledge.But studies that seem very far from revolutionary practice are also indispensableto action. Languages,economy,philosophy,mathematics, the naturalsciences,

chemistry, social science and so on. is knowledge should notbe seen as sectarianspecialisation, nor should it be the dileante exercises of an eccentric spirit dippinginto this and that, desirous of knowledge but forever ignorant due to the failureto possess a method of learning.Andthenthetechnics:writing correctly, (in away that reaches ones objective), speaking to others (using all the techniques onthe subject), which are not easy to learn and are very important, studying (this isalso a technique), remembering (memory can be improved, it does not have to bele to ourmore or less naturaldisposition), the manipulation ofobjects(whichmany consider a mysterious gi but instead is technique and can be learned andperfected) and others still.

e search to acquire these means is unending. It is the revolutionarys task towork continually to perfect these means and extend them to other fields.

en there is a third thing, creativity. ere can be no doubt that all of theabove means would be useless, simply specialisation as an end in itself, were theynot to produce new experiences, continual modification in the means as a wholeandthe possibilityofpuingthemto use.Andit is herethat itbecomes possibleto grasp the great force of creativity, i.e. the fruit of all the preceding efforts.Logical processes become no more than a basic, unimportant element, whereas adifferent, total new one emerges: intuition.

So now the problem comes to be seen differently. Nothing will be as it wasbefore. Numerous connections and comparisons, inferences and deductions aremade without our realising it. All the means in our possession begin to vibrate andcome alive. ings of the past along with new understanding, old concepts, ideas

and tensions, that had not fully been understood become clear. An incrediblemixture, itself a creative event, which must be submied to the discipline of


23/30

23

method in order for us to produce something, limited if you like, but immediatelyperceivable. Unfortunately the destiny of creativity is that its immense initialexplosive potential (which becomes something miserable in the absence of thebasic means mentioned above) must be returned to the realm of technique in the

narrow sense of word. It must go back to becoming word, pages, figures, sounds,form, objects. Otherwise, outside the scheme of this prison of communication, itwould be dispersive and abandoned, lost in an immense fathomless sea.

And now one last thing, materiality. e capacity, that is, to grasp the realmaterial foundations of what surrounds us. For example, we require suitablemeans in order to understand and act, and that is not so simple. e questionof means seems clear, but always leads to misunderstanding. e question ofmoney, for example. It is obvious that without money one cannot do what onewants. ArevolutionarycannotaskforStatefinancingto develop projects aimedat its destruction. ey cannot for both ethical reasons and a logical one (thatthe State would notgiveit tothem). Norcantheyseriouslybelievethatwith

small personal subscriptions they will be able to do everything they want (andconsider necessary). Nor can they simply continue to complain about lack ofmoney or resign themselves to the fact that some things just cant be done for thatreason. Evenless cantheyadopt the stance of those who,being penniless, feeltheirconscienceto be at restand,statingtheyhave no money,do notparticipatein the common effort but wait for others to do so in their place. Of course, itis clear that if a comrade does not have any money they cannot be held to payfor what they cannot afford. But have they really done everything they can toprocure some for themselves? Or is there only one way to get hold of money: gobegging for it, leing oneself be exploited by a boss? I dont think so.

In the arc of the possible ways of being, including personal tendencies andcultural acquisitions, two extreme kinds of behaviour polarise, each of whichis limited and penalising. On the one hand there are those who accentuate thetheoretical aspect, on the other, those who immerse themselves up in the practicalone. ese two poles hardly ever exist in the pure state, but are oen accentuatedenough to become obstacles and impediments.

When exasperated to infinity the great possibilities that theoretical study givesthe revolutionary remain dead leers, becoming elements of contradiction andimpediment. Some people can onlysee lifeintheoretical terms. eyare notnecessarily men of leers or scholars (for the laer this would be quite normal),but could be any proletarian, an emarginated person that grew up in the streetscoming to blows. is search for a resolution through the subtlety of reasontransforms itself into disorganic anxiety, a tumultuous desire to understand that

invariably turns into pure confusion, lowering the primacy of the brain that theyare trying to hold on to at any cost. is exasperation reduces their critical capacity


24/30

24

to put order in their ideas, widening their creativity but only in the pure, one mightsay wild, state, supplying images and judgement devoid of any organisationalmethod that might make them utilizable. is person lives constantly in a kind oftrance, eats badly, relates to others with difficulty. ey become easily suspicious,

when not anxious to be understood, and for this reason tend to accumulate anincredible hotchpotch of contradictory thoughts with no guiding thread. esolution for geing out of the labyrinth would be action. But according to themodel of polarisation we are looking at, this would have to be submied to thedominion of the brain, to the logic of reason. So, the action is killed, put offto infinity or lived badly because not understood, not brought back to the pre-eminence of thought.

On the other hand, there is endless doing, the passing of ones life away inthings to be done. Today, tomorrow.Day aer day.Perhaps inhopeofa particularday that will see an end to this puing off to infinity. Meanwhile no search fora momentsreflectionthat is notexclusively linkedtothings be done,or very

lile at least. Devoting all ones time to doing kills in the same way as devotingit all to thinking does. e contradictions of the individual are not resolved byaction as an end in itself. For the revolutionary things are even worse. e classicflaery that individuals use to convince themselves of the validity and importanceof the action they wish to undertake is not enough for the revolutionary. eonly expedient one can have recourse to is to put things off to infinity, to beerdays when it will no longer be necessary to dedicate oneself exclusively to doingand there will be time to think. But how can one think without the means todo so? Perhaps thought is automatic activity that one slips into when one stopsdoing? Certainly not. In the same way as doing is not automatic activity thatone slips into when one stops thinking. e possession of a few things then,courage,constancy,creativity,materiality,can allowtherevolutionary to bringthe meanstheypossesstofruition and buildtheirproject.Andthis concerns boththe analytical and practical aspects. Once again a dichotomy appears that needsto be seen in its inconsistency, i.e. as it is usually intended by the dominant logic.No project can be just one or other of these aspects. Each analysis has a differentangle and development according to the organisational proposal, which needs tobe assisted by other, similar analyses.

erevolutionarywhois unableto master the analyticaland organisationalpart of his project will always be at the mercy of events, constantly turning upaer things have happened, never before.

e aim of the project, in fact, is to see in order to foresee. e project isa prosthesis like any other of mans intellectual elaborations. It allows action,

makes it possible, prevents it from being extinguished in pointless discussionsand improvisation. But it is not the cause of action, it contains no element of


25/30

25

justification in this sense. If correctly intended, the project itself is action, whereasthe laer is itself a project, becomes fully part of it, makes it grow, enriches andtransforms it.

Alack ofawareness of thesefundamentalpremises of the work of therevo-

lutionaryoenleadsto confusion andfrustration.Manycomrades whoremaintied to what we could call reflex interventions oen suffer backlashes such asdemotivation and discouragement. An external event, (oen repression) givesthe stimulous to act. Tis oen ends or burns itself out and the intervention hasno more reason to exist. Hence the frustrating realisation that one has to beginall over again. It is like digging away at a mountain with a spoon. People do notremember. ey forget quickly. Aggregation does not occur. Numbers decline.Nearly always the same people. e comrade who can only act by reflex oensurvives by going from radical refusal, to shuing himself away in disdainfulsilence, to having fantasies of destroying the world (human beings included). Onthe other hand, many comrades remain aached to what we might call routine in-

terventions, i.e. those involving periodicals (papers, reviews, books) or meetings(congresses, conferences, debates, etc.). Here again the human tragedy does notfail to present itself. It is not usually so much a question of personal frustration(which also exists,andyou can seeit),as the comradestransformationinto acongressual bureaucrat or editor of barely readable pages that try to hide theirinconsistency by going into daily events, explaining them according to their ownpoint of view. As we can see, it is always the same story.

So, the project must be propositional. It must take the initiative. First oper-atively, concerning things to be seen or done in a certain way. en organisa-tionally: how to go about doing these things.Many people do not realise that thethings to be done (in the context of the class clash) are not set down once andfor all, but take on different meanings throughout time and in changing socialrelations. at leads to the need for their theoretical evaluation. e fact thatsome of these things actually do go on for a long time as though they cannotchange, does not mean that this is so. For example, the fact that there is a need toorganise in order to strike the class enemy necessarily signifies extension in time.Means and organisation tend to crystallise. And in some respects it is well thatthis should be so. at is not to say that it is necessary to re-invent everythingeachtime onere-organises,even aerbeing hitby repression. But it does meanthat this resumption should not be an exact repetition. Preceding models canbe submied to criticism, even if basically they remain valid and constitute aconsiderable starting point. At this point one oen feels aacked by misinformedcritics and preconceived ideas, and at all costs wanting to avoid being accused

of being an irreducible, which actually sounds quite positive, but implies anincapacity to understand the evolution of social conditions as a whole.


26/30

26

So it is possible to use old organisational models, so long as they are submiedto a radical critique. But what could this critique be? In a word, pointing outthe uselessness and dangerofcentralised structures, the mentalityofdelegating,the myth of the quantitative, the symbolic, the grandiose, the use of the media,

etc. As we can see, it is a question of a critique aimed at showing the otherside of the revolutionary horizon, the anarchist and libertarian side. To refusecentralised structures, organisation charts, delegates, quantity, symbolism, en-trism, etc., means to fully adopt anarchist methods. And an anarchist propositionrequires a few preliminary conditions.

e laer might seem (and in certain aspects is) less effective at first. Resultsare more modest, not so obvious, have all the aspects of dispersion and that cannotbe reduced to one single project. Tey are pulverised, diffused, i.e. they concernminimal objectives that cannot be related to one central enemy immediately, atleast as this comes to be presented in the descriptive iconography that power itselfhasinvented. Powerhas every interest in showingits peripheral ramifications

and supporting structures in a positive light, as though they had purely socialfunctions that are indispensable to life. Given our incapacity to expose them, iteffectively conceals the connections that pass from these peripheral structuresto repression, then to consensus. is is the not inconsiderable task that awaitsthe revolutionary, who should also expect incomprehension concerning actionswhen they begin to strike, hence the need for clarification. And herein liesanother trap. To make these clarifications in ideological terms would reproduceconcentration and centrality exactly. Anarchist methods cannot be explainedthrough an ideological filter. Any time that this has happened it has simply beena juxtaposition of our methods on to practices and projects that are far fromlibertarian.

e concept of delegating is criticised because it is a practice which, asidefrom being authoritarian, leads to increasing processes of aggregation. Refusalto delegate could lead to building indirect aggregation, a free organisationalform. Separate groups then, united by the methods employed, not by hierarchicalrelations. Common objective, common choices, but indirect. Not feeling the needto propose aggregational relationships that sooner or later end up producinghierarchical organisation charts (even if they are horizontal, claiming to adhere toanarchist methods), which turn out to be vulnerable to any increase in the windsof repression, where each does their own thing. It is the myth of the quantitativethat needs to fall. e myth that numbers impress the enemy, the myth ofstrength before coming out into the struggle, the myth of the liberation armyand other such things.

So, without wanting it, old things are transforming themselves. Models, objec-tives and practices of the past are revolutionising themselves. Without a shadow


27/30

27

of doubt the final crisis of the political method is emerging . We believe that allaempts to impose ideological models on to subversive practices have disappearedfor ever.

In due proportion, it is the world as a whole that is refusing the political model.

Traditional structures with strong political connotations have disappeared, orare about to. e parties of the le are aligning themselves with those of the centreand the parties of the right are also moving in that direction, so as not to remainisolated. e democracies of the West are moving closer to the dictatorshipsof the East. is yielding of the political structure corresponds to profoundchanges in the economic and social field. ose who have a mind to managethe subversive potential of the great masses are finding themselves facing newnecessities. e myths of the past, also that of the controlled class struggle arefinished. e great mass ofexploited have been drawn into mechanisms that clashwith the clear but superficial ideologies of the past. at is why the parties of theleare moving closetothe centre,which basicallycorrespondsto a zeroing of

political distinctions and a possible management of consensus, at least from theadministrative point of view.It isinthingsto be done,short term programmes such asthe managementof

public welfare, that distinctions are arising. Ideal (therefore ideological) politicalprojects have disappeared. No one (or hardly anyone) is prepared to struggle fora communist society, but they could be regimented into structures that claim tosafeguard their immediate interests once again. Hence the increasing appearanceof wider struggles and structures, national and supranational parliaments. eend of politics is not in itself an element that could lead one to believe there hasbeen anarchist turning in society in opposition to aempts at indirect politicalmanagement. Not at all. It is a question of profound changes in the modernstructure of capital that are also taking place on an international level, preciselybecause of the greater interdependence of the various peripheral situations. Inturn, these changes mean that the political myths of the past are finished as ameans ofcontrol, resultingin a passageto methods beersuitedtothe presenttime: the offer of beer living conditions in the short term, a higher level ofsatisfaction of primary needs in the East, work for everybody in the West. eseare the new rules of the course. No maer how strange it might seem, however,the general crisis in politics will necessarily bring with it a crisis in hierarchicalrelations, the delegate, etc., all the relations that have tended to put the terms ofclass opposition in a mythical dimension. It will not be possible for this to go onfor much longer without consequences, many people are starting to see that thestruggle must not pass through the mythical dimension of politics but enter the

concrete dimension of the immediate destruction of the enemy.


28/30

28

ere are alsothose who,basicallynotwantingto know what the work of therevolutionary should be in the light of the above social changes, come to supportso methods of opposition, claiming that they can obstruct the spreading ofthe new power through passive resistance, delegitimation and such like. In my

opinion this is a misunderstanding caused by the fact that they consider modernpower, precisely because it is more permissive and based on wider consensus, to beless strong than that of the past based on hierarchy and absolute centralisation.is is a mistake like any other, deriving from the fact that in each one of usthere is a residual of the equation power equals strength whereas the modernstructures of dominion are dismantling themselves piece by piece in favour of aweak but efficient form, perhaps even worse still than a strong, boorish one. enew powerpenetratesthe psychological fabric ofsociety right totheindividual,drawing him into it, whereas the laer remained external. It made a lot of noise,could bite, but basically only built a prison wall that can be climbed sooner orlater.

e many aspects of the project also make the perspective of the revolutionarytask multiple. No field of activity can be excluded in advance. For the samereason there cannot be privileged fields of intervention that are congenial toone particular individual. Iknow comrades who do not feel inclinedtotake upcertain kinds of activity let us say the national liberation struggle or certainrevolutionary practices such as small specific actions. e reasons vary, but theyall lead to the (mistaken) idea that one should only do the things one enjoys. isis mistaken, not because it is wrong that one of the sources of action must be joyand personal satisfaction, but because the search for individual motivations canpreclude a wider and more significant kind of research, that based on the totalityof the intervention. To set off with preconceived ideas about certain practices ortheories means to hide due to fear behind the idea, nearly always mistaken,that these practices and theories do not please us. But all pre-conceived refusalis based on scarce knowledge of what one is refusing, on not geing close toit. e satisfaction andjoyof the momentcomesto be seen asthe only thingthat maers, so we shut ourselves off from the perspective of the future. Oenwithout wanting to, we become fearful and dogmatic, resentful of those who domanage to overcome these obstacles, suspicious of everybody, discontented andunhappy. e only acceptable limits are those of our capabilities. But these limitsshould always be seen during the course of the event, not as something that existsbeforehand. I have always started off from the idea (obviously fantasy, but goodoperatively) of having no limits, of having immense capabilities. en day today practice has taken on the task of pointing out my actual limits to me and the

thingsthat Ican and cantdo.But theselimits have neverstopped me beforehand,they have always emerged as insurmountable obstacles later on. No undertaking,


29/30

29

however incredible orgigantic,has prevented mefrom starting.Onlyaerwards,during the course of particular practices, has the modesty of my capabilities cometo light, but this has not prevented me from obtaining partia1 results, the onlythings that are humanly aainable.

But this fact is also a problem of mentality, i.e. of a way of seeing things.Oen we are too aached to the immediately perceivable, to the socialist realismof the gheo, city, nation, etc. We say we are internationalist but in reality weprefer other things, things we know beer. We refuse real international relations,relations of reciprocal comprehension, of overcoming barriers (also linguisticones), of collaboration through mutual exchange. One even refuses specific localrelations, their myths and difficulties. e funny thing is that the first are refusedin the name of the second, and the second in the name of the first.

e samething happens concerningthe specific preparatoryactivityof findingrevolutionary means (instruments). Again, this decision is oen automaticallydelegatedto othercomrades. isis duetofearor remorse which, ifgoneinto

carefully, have lile to say for themselves. e professionalism that is flauntedelsewhere is not welcome in anarchist methodology, but neither is downrightrefusal or preconceived ideas. e same goes for what is happening concerning thepresent mania for experience as a thing in itself, the urgency of doing, personalsatisfaction, the thrill. Te two extremes touch and interpenetrate.

e project sweeps these problems aside because it sees things in their globality.For the same reason the work of the revolutionary is necessarily linked to theproject, identifies with it, cannot limit itself to its single aspects. A partial projectis not a revolutionary one, it might be an excellent work project, could eveninvolve comrades and resources for long periods of time, but sooner or later itwill end up being penalised by the reality of the class struggle.


30/30

e Anarchist LibraryAnti-Copyright

May 21, 2012

Alfredo M. BonannoInsurrectionalistAnarchism PartOne

1999

Original title: Anarchismo insurrezionalistaEdizioniAnarchismo, I libri diAnarchismo N. 10

June 1999

Translated by Jean WeirRetrieved on February 21, 2012 from digitalelephant.blogspot.com
http://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.htmlhttp://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-part-one.html

Insurrectionalist Anarchism Part One

Documents

Transcript of Insurrectionalist Anarchism Part One