ebook img

The Anarchist Tension - The Anarchist Library PDF

14 Pages·2012·0.09 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview The Anarchist Tension - The Anarchist Library

TheAnarchistLibrary Anti-Copyright The Anarchist Tension Alfredo M. Bonanno 1996 IamalwayssomewhatembarrassedwhenIbeginatalk,atleast tostartwith. Andthisembarrassmentincreasesinthecaseofwhat we mistakenly call conferences, or as one more modestly tries to camouflagethem,conference-debates. Afterall,itisaquestionof someone turning up from elsewhere, perhaps from another gen- eration, as though they have rained in from the past. Someone who stands in this classroom to give a talk and strangely, even dangerously,resemblesthosewhohammeryourbrainswithquite different intentions. If you listen carefully however you will find that,beyondappearances,thereisaconsiderabledifferenceinthe AlfredoM.Bonanno conceptsIamabouttooutline. TheAnarchistTension The first of these concepts takes the form of a question: What 1996 is anarchism? It might seem strange that I should take up such a RetrievedonApril7,2009fromwww.geocities.com probleminthissituationasIknowforcertainthattherearemany OriginalTitle,: LaTensioneanarchica. TranslatedbyJeanWeir. anarchists here, because I know them personally. And if nothing 1996,EdizioniLaboratorio,Cuneo. 1998,ElephantEditions, else, anarchists should at least know what anarchism is. Yet it is London,ElephantEditions,B.M.Elephant,LondonWC1N3XX necessary to take up the question ‘What is anarchism?’ time and time again. Even in a few words. Why is that? This does not theanarchistlibrary.org normallyhappeninotherexpressionsoflife,inotheractivitiesor ideasthatdefinethemselveswithsomefoundationtobesomething orother. Soanarchistskeepaskingthemselvesthesamequestion: What is anarchism? What does it mean to be an anarchist? Why? Be- cause it is not a definition that can be made once and for all, put inasafeandconsideredaheritagetobetappedlittlebylittle. Be- ingananarchistdoesnotmeanonehasreachedacertaintyorsaid onceandforall,‘There,fromnowonIholdthetruthandassuch, atleastfromthepointofviewoftheidea,Iamaprivilegedperson’. Anyonewhothinkslikethisisananarchistinwordalone. Instead the anarchist is someone who really puts themselves in doubt as such,asaperson,andasksthemselves: Whatismylifeaccording towhatIdoandinrelationtowhatIthink? WhatconnectiondoI managetomakeeachdayineverythingIdo,awayofbeinganan- archist continually and not come to agreements, make little daily compromises, etc? Anarchismisnotaconceptthatcanbelocked upinawordlikeagravestone. Itisnotapoliticaltheory. Itisaway ofconceivinglife,andlife,youngoroldaswemaybe,whetherwe are old people or children, is not something final: it is a stake we mustplaydayafterday. Whenwewakeupinthemorningandput ourfeetonthegroundwemusthaveagoodreasonforgettingup, ifwedon’titmakesnodifferencewhetherweareanarchistsornot. Wemightaswellstayinbedandsleep. Andtohaveagoodreason wemustknowwhatwewanttodobecauseforanarchism,forthe anarchist,thereisnodifferencebetweenwhatwedoandwhatwe think,butthereisacontinualreversaloftheoryintoactionandac- tionintotheory. Thatiswhatmakestheanarchistunlikesomeone who has another concept of life and crystallises this concept in a politicalpractice,inpoliticaltheory. Thisiswhatisnotnormallysaidtoyou,thisiswhatyounever read in the newspapers, this is what is not written in books, this is what school jealously keeps quiet about, because this is the se- cretoflife: nevereverseparatethoughtfromaction,thethingswe 2 know,thethingsweunderstand,fromthethingswedo,thethings withwhichwecarryoutouractions. Here is what distinguishes a politician from an anarchist revo- lutionary. Not the words, not the concepts and, allow me, in cer- tain aspects not even the actions because it is not their extreme — let us say radical — conclusion in attack that differentiates and characterisesactions. Itisnotevenaccuracyinthechoiceofobjec- tive that qualifies them but it is the way in which the person, the comrade who carries out these actions, succeeds in making them becomeanexpressivemomentoftheirlives,aspecificcharacterisa- tion, meaning, quality of life, joy, desire, beauty, not the practical realisation, not the sullen realisation of a deed that is mortally an endinitselfandenablesonetosay;‘Ihavedonesomethingtoday’ farfrommyself,attheperipheryofmyexistence. 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 are outside ourselves and are realised as a number of successes and failures — life is a staircase, at times you go up, at times you go down. There are times when things gowell,andtimeswhentheygobadly. There,whoeverthinkslife is made up of such things: for example, the classic figure of the democraticpolitician(forgoodness’sake,someoneyoucantalkto, afriendlyguy,tolerantwhohasapermissivesidetohim,believes in progress, in the future, in a better society, in freedom) well, a personlikethis,probablynotwearingadouble-breastedjacket,no tie,socasual,apersonwhocloseuplookslikeacomradeandwho himself declares he is a comrade, this person could very well be a cop, it makes no difference. Why not? There are democratic policemen, the era of uniform repression is over, repression has friendly aspects today, they repress us with lots of brilliant ideas. Howcanweidentifythispersonthen,thisdemocrat,howcanwe recognise him? And if he pullsthe wool overour eyesto prevent us from seeing him, how can we defend ourselves from him? We can identify him through this fact: that for him life is realisation, 3 hislifeismadeupofdoingthings,aquantitativedoingthatunfolds beforehiseyes,andnothingelse. When we talk to someone we cannot ask to see their member- ship card. Their ideas often make us end up totally confused and unable to understand anything because we are all nice, progres- sive chatterboxes and all praise the beauty of tolerance and such like. Howcanweseethatwehaveanenemybeforeus,theworst of our enemies? Because at least we could defend ourselves from theoldfascist. Hehitout,andifwewerecapableofitwehithim back,harder. Nowthingshavechanged,thesituationhaschanged. Itcanevenbedifficulttofishoutafascistthugtoday. Buttheindi- vidualwearetryingtodescribe,thisdemocratthatwefindallover theplace,inschool,Parliament,inthestreetsorinthepoliceman’s uniform,ajudgeoradoctor,thisfellowhereisourenemybecause he considers life in a different way to the way we consider it, be- causeforhimlifeisanotherkindoflife,isnotourlife,becausefor himweareextraterrestrialsandIdon’tseewhyweshouldconsider himtobeaninhabitantofourplaneteither. Thisisthedividingline betweenus. Becausehisconceptoflifeisofaquantitativenature, becausehemeasuresthingslikesuccessor,ifyoulike,failure,but alwaysfromthequantitativepointofviewand wemeasurethem differentlyandthatiswhatweshouldbethinkingabout: inwhat way does life have a different meaning for us, a meaning that is qualitativelydifferent? So, this amiable gentleman wreaks criticism upon us and says, ‘Yes, anarchists are good people but they are ineffectual. What have they ever done in history? What State has ever been anar- chist? Havetheyeverrealisedgovernmentwithoutagovernment? Isn’t a free society, an anarchist society, a society without power, a contradiction?’ And this critical rock that crashes down on us is certainly consistent, because in fact if you look closely at any- where that anarchists got near to realising their utopia of a free societysuchasinSpainorRussia,ifyoulookatthemclosely,you findtheseconstructionsaresomewhatopentocriticism. Theyare 4 conclusions. Noillusionthenconcerninganyquantitativeresults: certainlyrevolutions,buttheyarenotlibertarianrevolutions,they ifthestrugglerealisedfromaninsurrectionalpointofviewiscor- arenotanarchy. rect,hasgonewell,theresultsifanymightbeusefultothepeople So,whenthesegentlemensay,‘Youareutopians,youanarchists who brought it about, certainly not to the anarchists. It is impor- aredreamers,yourutopiawouldneverwork’,wemustreply,‘Yes, tant not to fall prey to the illusion that many anarchists unfortu- it’s true, anarchism is a tension, not a realisation, not a concrete natelydo,ofbelievingthatthepositiveoutcomeofastrugglecan attempttobringaboutanarchytomorrowmorning’. Butwemust resultinagrowthinourgroups,becausethatisnotsoandthissys- alsobeabletosaybutyou,distinguisheddemocraticgentlemenin tematically leads to disillusion. The growth of our groups and an governmentthatregulateourlives,thatthinkyoucangetintoour increaseinthenumberofcomradesisimportantbutthatdoesnot heads, our brains, that govern us through the opinions that you comeaboutfromtheresultsobtainedsomuchasthroughthebuild- form daily in your newspapers, in the universities, schools, etc., ing, the formation, of these idea-force, the clarification we talked whathaveyougentlemenaccomplished? Aworldworthlivingin? about earlier. The positive results of struggles and the numerical Oraworldofdeath,aworldinwhichlifeisaflataffair,devoidof growthinanarchistgroupsaretwothingsthatcannotbeseenasa anyquality,withoutanymeaningtoit? Aworldwhereonereaches processofcauseandeffect. Theymightbeconnected, theymight acertainage, isabouttogetone’spension, andasksoneself, ‘But not. whathaveIdonewithmylife? Whathasbeenthesenseofliving JustacoupleofwordstowindupIhavetalkedaboutwhatanar- alltheseyears?’ chismis,whatdemocracyisandtheincomprehensionwearecon- That’s what you have accomplished, that is what your democ- stantly being faced with; of the ways the structures of power we racy is, your idea of the people. You are governing a people, but callmoderncapitalism,postindustrialcapitalism,arebeingtrans- what does people mean? Who are the people? Are they perhaps formed;ofsomeanarchiststructuresofstrugglethatarenolonger thatsmall,notevenverysignificant,partwhovote,gototheelec- acceptabletodayandthewayonecanopposeoneselftothereality tions,voteforyou,nominateaminoritywhichinturnnominates of power and, finally, I mentioned the difference between tradi- anotherminorityevensmallerthanthefirstthatgovernsusinthe tional anarchism and the insurrectional anarchism of the present name of the law? But what are these laws if not the expression day. of the interests of a small minority specifically aimed in the first Thankyou. place at benefiting their own perspectives of enrichment, the re- enforcingoftheirpowerandsoon? You govern in the name of a power, a force that comes from what? Fromanabstractconcept,youhaverealisedastructureyou think can be improved upon… But how, in what way has it ever beenimprovedinhistory? Whatconditionarewearelivinginto- dayifnotaconditionofdeath,ofaflatteningofquality? Thisisthe critiqueweneedtothrowbackatthesupportersofdemocracy. If weanarchistsareutopians,wearesoasatensiontowardsquality; ifdemocratsareutopians,theyaresoasareductiontowardsquan- 24 5 tity. And against reduction, against the atrophy lived in a dimen- bad’,onefeelsatpeacewithoneselfandfallsasleep. There,inthat sionoftheminimumpossibledamageforthemandthemaximum particularplaceinsideus,thatprivatespace,wecanmoveaboutas damage for the great number of people who are exploited, to this we please. But then we must transfer ourselves into the physical miserablerealityweopposeourutopiawhichisatleastautopiaof spaceofsocialreality. Andphysicalspace, whenyouthinkabout quality,atensiontowardsanotherfuture,onethatwillberadically it, is almost exclusively under the control of power. So, when we differenttowhatwearelivingnow. moveaboutinthisspacewecarrythisvalueofinsurrectionwithus, Soalltheremarksmadebyanyonewhotalkstoyouinthename theserevolutionaryvalues,andmeasuretheminaclashinwhich ofpoliticalrealism,menofState,teachers(whoaretheservantsof wearenottheonlyonespresent. men of State), theorists, journalists, all the intellectuals who pass We must therefore individuate significant objectives and verify throughclassroomslikethisandintheirspeechifyingtalkwiththe their existence — and as luck would have it these objectives exist calm, tolerant words of the realist, state that in any case nothing perpetually, everywhere — ,contribute to creating the conditions else is possible, reality is what it is, it is necessary to make sac- so that people, the exploited on whose backs these objectives are rifices; there, these people are swindling you. They are swindling realised,dosomethingtodestroythem. youbecauseyoucandosomethingelse,becauseanyoneofusisca- Ibelievethisrevolutionaryprocessisofaninsurrectionalnature. pableofrisingupinthenameofourwoundeddignitybeforesuch It does not have aims (and this is important) of a quantitative na- a swindle. Because any one of us can realise that we have been ture, because the destruction of an objective or the prevention of swindled, because we have finally realised what is being done to a project cannot be measured in quantitative terms. It sometimes our detriment. And in rising up against it all we can change not happens that someone says to me; ‘But what results have we ob- onlytherealityofthingswithinthelimitsthatitispossibletoknow tained?’ When something is done, people don’t even remember them, but also one’s life, make it worthy of being lived. One can theanarchistsafterwards. ‘Anarchists? Whoaretheseanarchists? getupinthemorning,putone’sfeetontheground,lookinthemir- Monarchists? Are they these people who support the king?’ Peo- rorandsaytooneself,‘AtlastIhavemanagedtochangethings,at pledon’trememberverywell. Butwhatdoesitmatter? Itisnotus least as far as I am concerned’ and feel one is a person worthy of thattheymustremember, buttheirstruggle, becausethestruggle livinghisorherlife,notapuppetinthehandsofapuppeteeryou is theirs, we are simply an opportunity in that struggle. We are can’tevenseewellenoughtospitintheirface. somethingextra. So that is why anarchists keep coming back to the question of In the freed society where anarchy has been reached in a quite whatanarchismis. Becauseanarchismisnotapoliticalmovement. ideal dimension, anarchists, who are indispensable in the social Or rather it is, but only in a minor aspect. The fact that the anar- struggleatalllevels,wouldsimplyhavetheroleofpushingstrug- chistmovementpresentsitselfhistoricallyasapoliticalmovement gles further and further, eliminating even the smallest traces of doesnotmeanthatthisexhaustsalltheanarchistpotentialforlife. power and always perfecting the tension towards anarchy. Anar- AnarchismdoesnotresolveitselfintheCuneoanarchistgroup,or chists inhabit an uncomfortable planet in any case because when groupsinTurin,Londonoranywhereelse. Thatisnotanarchism. the struggle is going well they are forgotten about and when the Ofcoursethereareanarchiststhere,oratleastoneshouldassume struggle goes badly they are accused of being responsible, of hav- thereare,thekindofcomradeswhohavebeguntheirowninsurrec- ingapproacheditthewrongway,ofhavingtakenittothewrong 6 23 everything. I don’t know, no one can tell. But the beauty of tion individually, have become aware of the context of obligation realising the destructive event is not to be found in its possible and coercion that they are forced to live in. But anarchism is not consequences. justthat,itisalsoatension,thequalityoflife,thestrengthweman- Anarchists guarantee none of the things they do. They point agetodrawoutofourselves,thecapacitytochangetherealityof outtheresponsibilityofpersonsandstructuresonthebasisofthe things. Anarchism is the whole of this project of transformation decision that they are determined to act, and from that moment linked to what we realise in ourselves when we bring about our ontheyfeelsureofthemselvesbecausetheirideaofjusticeillumi- own personal transformation. So it is not a quantifiable fact that nates their action. It points at one person’s responsibility, or that can be historicised. Nor is it an event that will simply occur in of more people, one structure or more structures, and the conse- the course of time, appearing through particular theories, people, quences that such responsibility leads to. It is here that we find movementsaswellas, whynot, preciserevolutionaryacts. There anarchists’determinationtoact. is always something more than the sum of these elements, and it But once they act along with other people, they must also try is this something more that continues to make anarchism live on to build organisms that are capable of holding together and creat- inotherways. ing consequences in the struggle against power. We must never Sowecontinuallyneedtomaintainarelationshipbetweenthis forget this. And this is an important point to reflect upon: power tension towards something absolutely other, the unthinkable, the realisesitselfintimeandspace,itisnotsomethingabstract. Con- unsayable,adimensionwemustrealisewithoutverywellknowing trolwouldnotbepossibleifpolicestationsdidnotexist,ifprisons how to, and the daily experience of the things we can and do, do. didnotexist. Legislativepowerwouldnotbepossibleifparliament Apreciserelationshipofchange,oftransformation. didnotexist,oriftherewerenolittleregionalparliaments. Thecul- Thefirstexamplethatcomestomindonthisquestionisanother tural power that oppresses us, that fabricates opinion, would not contradictoryelement. Thinkoftheconceptbehindthestatement bepossibleiftherewerenoschoolsanduniversities. Now,schools, ‘there are problems to be solved’. This is a classic phrase. We all universities, police stations, prisons, industries, factories, are all haveproblemstosolve. Lifeitselfisaproblemtobesolved. Living things that realise themselves in specific places, in circumscribed is a problem, our social conditions, having to break through the areaswhichwecanonlymovearoundinifweacceptgivencondi- circle that restricts us, right to simple everyday goings on. We tions and play the game. We are here at the moment because we considerallthistobeaproblem. agreedtoplaythegame. Wewouldnothavebeenabletoenterthe And herein lies the great misunderstanding. Why? The struc- building otherwise. This is interesting. We can use structures of tures that oppress us (I think many of those present here are stu- thiskind. Butatthetimeofattacksuchplacesareforbiddentous. dents)maintainthatproblemscanbesolvedandthattheycansolve If we were to have come in here with the intent of attacking, the themforus. Moreover,theyusetheexampleofproblemsthatare policewouldobviouslyhavepreventedus. solved in geometry, mathematics, etc.. But this kind of problem, Now,becausepowerrealisesitselfinphysicalspace,anarchists’ the problems of mathematics that are presented as resolvable are relationtothisisimportant. Ofcourseinsurrectionisanindividual false problems, they are not really solved at all. The answers to factandsointhatplacedeepinsideus,atnightasweareaboutto themaresimplyarepetitionofthesameprobleminanotherform, gotosleep,wethink‘…well,inthelastanalysisthingsaren’ttoo intechnicalterms,atautology. Onesaysonethingandanswersby 22 7 repeating the same thing another way. So, basically, the problem The leagues were autonomous nuclei characterised by the fact isnotsolvedatall,itismerelyrepeated. that their only aim was to attack and destroy the base. They did And when we talk of solving a problem that involves the lives not take on a whole series of problems, because if they had done ofallofus,ourdailyexistence,wearetalkingofquestionsofsuch they would have become groups of syndicalists with the aim of, complexity that they cannot be reduced to a simple restatement let us say, defending jobs or finding work or resolving other im- of the problem itself. Take, for example, ‘the problem of the po- mediateproblems. Instead, theirsoleaimwastodestroythebase. lice’. The existence of the police constitutes a problem for many Thesecondcharacteristicwaspermanentconflict,i.e.,fromthemo- of us. There can be no doubt that the policeman is an instrument ment these groups were formed (they were not specifically anar- of repression used by the State to prevent us from doing certain chistgroups,buttherewerepeopleinthemwhowereanarchists), things. How do you solve such a problem? Can the problem of theywentintoconflictwithalltheforcesinvolvedinbuildingthe thepolicebesolved? Theveryquestionrevealsitselftobeabsurd. base,withoutthisconflictbeingdeterminedordeclaredbyanyrep- There is no such thing as solving the problem of the police. Yet resentative organism or by the anarchists who had promoted the fromademocraticpointofviewitwouldbepossibletosolvesome initiative. The third characteristic was the complete autonomy of aspectsbydemocratisingcertainstructures,changingpolicemen’s thesegroups,thatistosaytheydidnothavelinkswithanyparties attitudesandsoon. Now,tothinkthatthismightbeasolutionto orunions,etc. Thestruggleagainstthebaseisknowninpart,and the problem of control and repression would be as stupid as it is inpartnot. AndI don’tknowifit isthecaseto takeupthestory illogical. Inactualfact,itisnothingotherthanawayofregulating againhere,Ijustwantedtomentionitasanexample. repression in keeping with the interests of power, of the State. If So insurrectionalist anarchism must overcome one essential a democratic politic is effective today, a far less democratic struc- problem. It must go beyond a certain limit otherwise it will tureofcontrolandrepressionmightbeeffectiveinthefuturejust remain no more than the idea of insurrectionalist anarchism That as it has been in the past and any rare, marginal minorities who is the comrades who have lived that insurrection of a personal thoughtotherwiseonthesubjectwouldbeexpelledoreliminated naturewementionedearlier,thatilluminationwhichproducesan fromtheranks. idea-force inside us in opposition to the chatter of opinion, and WhenIsaypolice,Imeananyrepressivestructurefrommilitary formaffinitygroups, enterintorelationshipswithcomradesfrom policetojudiciary,allexpressionsoftheStatethatservetocontrol other places through an informal kind of structure, only realise and repress. So, as you can see, social problems cannot be solved. a part of the work. At a certain point they must decide, must go The swindle operated by democratic structures is precisely their beyond the demarcation line, take a step that it is not easy to claimtosolvesuchproblems. Thisswindleshowshowdemocratic turn back from. They must enter into a relationship with people politicsarenotbasedonrealityorevenaminimumofconcreteness. that are not anarchists concerning a problem that is intermediate, Everything is rigged up on the implication that things can be im- circumscribed(suchas,forexamplethedestructionofthebasein proved,canberesolvedintime,canbesetright. Itisinthisconcept Comiso). No matter how fantastic or interesting this idea might of setting things right that the strength of power lies, and it is on have been it certainly wasn’t the realisation of anarchy. What thisimprovementthatpowerstandsandcontinuesinthemedium would have happened if one had really managed to enter the and long term. Power relations change as we wait for what they base and destroy it? I don’t know. Probably nothing, possibly 8 21 of even tens, or why not, hundreds of organisations, structures, promisedtocomeaboutbutitneverdoes. Becausetheseimprove- groupsofaninformalcharacterbasedondiscussion,periodicanal- ments never materialise. Because power changes and transforms yses, things to be done together, etc. The organisational logic of itself throughout history, yet always remains the same. A hand- insurrectionalanarchismisdifferenttotheorganisationswemen- fulofmen,aminorityofprivilegedpeoplewhoholdtheleversof tionedearlierconcerninganarcho-syndicalism.Theorganisational power,lookaftertheirowninterestsandsafeguardtheconditions formsreferredtohereinafewwordsmeritgoinginto,somethingI ofsupremacyofwhoeverhappenstobeincommand. cannotdonowinthedimensionofaconference. Butsuchawayof Now, what instruments do we have to combat this state of af- organisingwould,inmyopinion,remainsimplysomethingwithin fairs? They want to control us? So we refuse control. Of course theanarchistmovementwereitnotalsotorealiserelationsbeyond we can do this. We undoubtedly do, trying to minimise the dam- it,thatisthroughtheconstructionofexternalgroups,externalnu- age. But to refuse control in a social context is only valid up to a clei,alsowithinformalcharacteristics. Thesegroupsshouldnotbe point. Wecancircumscribecertainaspectsofit,yellwhenweare composed of anarchists alone, anyone who intends to struggle to struckunfairly;butthereareclearlycertainareasofpowerwhere reachgivenobjectives,evencircumscribedones,couldparticipate rulesarecalledlaws,signpostsindicateenclosuresandmencalling solongastheytakeanumberofessentialconditionsintoaccount. themselvespolicemenpreventusfromentering. Thereisnodoubt Firstofallpermanentconflict,thatisgroupswiththecharacteristic aboutit,trygettingintoParliamentandseewhathappens. Idon’t ofattackingtherealityinwhichtheyfindthemselveswithoutwait- know. Certain levels cannot be gone beyond, certain controls are ingforordersfromanywhereelse. Thenthecharacteristicofbeing inevitable. ‘autonomous’,thatisofnotdependingonorhavinganyrelations Sowhatdowedotoopposethissituation? Simplydream? Have at all with political parties or trade union organisations. Finally, anideaoffreedom,whichmoreovermustbecarefullyformulated, thecharacteristicoffacingproblemsonebyoneandnotproposing because we cannot say: ‘the freedom anarchists want is simply a platformsofgenericclaimsthatwouldinevitablytransformthem- reduction in control’. In that case we would find ourselves faced selvesintoadministrationalongthelinesofamini-partyorasmall withtheproblem: ‘Butwheredoesthisreductionincontrolend?’ alternativetradesunion. Thesummaryoftheseideasmightseem Ataminimallevelperhaps? Forexample,wouldtheStatebecome rather abstract and that is why before ending I would like to give legitimateforanarchistsifinsteadof beingtheoppressorStateof anexample,becausesomeofthesethingscanbebetterunderstood today,itweretobecome,letussay,theidealminimalStateofthe inpractice. liberals? No, certainly not. So that is not the way to think. It is A theoretical model of this kind was used in an attempt to pre- not a question of trying to limit control, but of abolishing control vent the construction of the American missile base in Comiso in altogether. Wearenotformorefreedom. Morefreedomisgivento the early ‘80s. The anarchists who intervened for two years built theslavewhenhischainsarelengthened. Wearefortheabolition ‘self-managedleagues’. Theseself-managedleagueswereprecisely of the chain, so we are for freedom, not more freedom. Freedom non-anarchistgroupsthatoperatedintheareawiththeuniqueaim means the absence of all chains, the absence of limits and all that ofpreventingtheconstructionofthebasebydestroyingtheproject ensuesfromsuchastatement. inthecourseofrealisation. Freedomisadifficult,unknownconcept. Itisapainfulone,yet itispeddledassomethingbeautiful,sweet,reposing. Likeadream 20 9 sofaroffthatitmakesusfeelgood,likeallthethingsthat,beingfar organisations of the past where the anarchist structures claimed off,constitutehopeandfaith,abelief. Inotherwords,theseintan- to sum up reality in ‘commissions’ that treated all the various gibleswhichapparentlysolvetoday’sproblemsdonotinfactsolve problems, making decisions at periodical congresses on the basis thembutsimplymistthemover,changethemaround,preventing ofthesesthatevenwentbacktothelastcentury. Allthishasseen usfromhavingaclearvisionofallthewoesofourtimes. Allright, itsday,notbecauseacenturyhaspassedsinceitwasthoughtout, somedaywewillbefree. OK,thingsareinamess,butwithinthis butbecauserealityhaschanged. mess there is a subterranean strength, an involuntary order inde- That is why we maintain there is a need for the formation of pendentofourselvesthatworksinplaceofus,whichwillgradually small groups based on the concept of affinity, even tiny groups changetheconditionsofsufferingwhichwearelivinginandtake made up of very few comrades who know each other and deepen ustoafreedimensionwherewewillalllivehappilyeverafter. No, this knowledge because there cannot be affinity if one does not thatisnotfreedom,thatisaswindlethattragicallyresemblesthe haveknowledgeoftheother. Onecanonlyrecogniseone’saffini- old idea of God that often helped us, and still helps many people tiesbygoingintotheelementsthatdetermineone’sdifferences,by todayintheirsuffering,becausetheysaytothemselves,‘verywell, frequentingeachother. Thisknowledgeisapersonalfact,butitis wearesufferingtoday,butwe’llbebetteroffinthenextworld’. In alsoaquestionofideas,debate,discussions. Butinrelationtothe fact, asthegospelsaysthelastwill befirst, hearteningthelastof first points we made this evening, if you remember, there can be todaybecausetheyseethemselvesasthefirstoftomorrow. nogoingintoideasifthereisnotalsoapracticeofbringingabout If we were to fob off such an idea of freedom as real we would actions. So, there is a continual reciprocal process of going into be doing no more than cradling today’s suffering by medicating ideasandrealisingactions. socialwoundsinexactlythesamewayasthepriesthealsthoseof A small group of comrades, a small group who simply meet in the poor who listen to his sermon, deceiving themselves that the the evening to have a chat would not be an affinity group but a kingdomofGodwillsavethemfromtheirpain. Anarchistscannot groupoffriends,pub-mateswhomeetintheeveningstotalkabout thinkthisway. Freedomisadestructiveconceptthatinvolvesthe anythingunderthesun. Onthecontrary,agroupthatmeetstodis- absoluteeliminationofalllimits. Nowfreedomisanideawemust cussthingsandindiscussingpreparesitselffordoingandthrough holdinourhearts,butatthesametimeweneedtounderstandthat thatdoingcontributestodevelopingdiscussionthattransformsit- ifwedesireitwemustbereadytofacealltherisksthatdestruction selfintodiscussionaboutthingstobedone,thisisthemechanism involves, all the risks of destroying the constituted order we are of the affinity group. So how then can affinity groups enter into living under. Freedom is not a concept to cradle ourselves in, in contact with others where the deepened knowledge that exists in thehopethatimprovementswilldevelopindependentlyofourreal the single group does not necessarily exist? This contact can be capacitytointervene. assuredbyinformalorganisation. Inordertounderstandsuchconcepts,becomeawareoftherisks But what is an informal organisation? There could be relation- onerunsbywieldingsuchdangerousconcepts,wemustbeableto shipsofaninformalkindbetweenthevariousaffinitygroupsthat formtheideawithinus. enterintocontactwitheachotherinordertoexchangeideasand Thereisalsoconsiderableconfusiononthispoint. Itiscustom- do things together, and consequently the existence of an organi- arytoconsiderthatanythingthatpassesthroughourmindsisan sation, also very widespread throughout the country, comprised 10 19

Description:
cepts 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 prob-.
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.