Retaking our black path

From anarquia.info, translated by Anarchist News

Retaking our black path [1]

—To Alfredo Cospito, partner and co-conspirator.

We are going our own way - individuals without a redemptory and blind faith.
Our disgust with society does not engender in us any immutable conviction.
We fight for the joy of battle, and without any dreams of a better future.
What do we care about tomorrows that are awaited for centuries!
-Zo'd Axa
L'Enderhors, Paris, 1896.

We have no doubt that throughout our history, the jagged path of Anarchy has been presented with countless forks. In general, these have been transited as shortcuts, that is, cutting corners to reach the desired end: the establishment of the kingdom of freedom ( "making the State blow up and eradicating the principle of power forever" said Bakunin). However, none of these trails have led us to total liberation, always resulting in failed attempts, truncated footpaths and dead-end alleys.

Many chroniclers and researchers of the so-called anarchist "movement" locate -mistakenly- the first bifurcation of our path in the very origins of anarchism, pointing out as deviations the parallel development of the two currents of thought that gave life to the anarchist ideal. This erroneous analysis bestows anarchism with an"ambiguity" at its base -which it places at the very root of its formulations- and condemns it to drag its weight for ever and ever, through the "synthesis" of both currents of thought. However, while it is true that these primary currents are constantly proposed to us as “alternatives” which we may resort to interchangeably; in reality, we're dealing with routes that are irreconcilable with each other, that never were (nor are, nor will be) transitable for anarchism. Undeniably, this conditioning factor pushed us to forge our path by walking –as the poet would say–, abandoning all the artifices that impose on us kinships with which anarchism broke relations since the first instants of its birth, in the most violent and strict way.

Those family ties that assiduously try to affiliate us, both with radical liberalism and with workerist socialism of clear Marxist roots, were undone, precisely, in our inaugural years, with the seditious itinerary of Bakunin and his fellow travelers, by producing the necessary ruptures and demarcations, first with the League for Peace and Freedom and, immediately after, with the First International.

Commonly, these researchers of the “movement” –which we referred to previously– tend to present anarchism as a more or less delirious continuation of one or another political project or, as a kind of mixture, engendered from the synthesis of both ideologies; when, in reality, anarchism is all of the contrary. In other words, a configuration of thought and action embodied in a seditious movement that comes to life, essentially, parting from the violent rupture with these "primary" currents of thought, acquiring its theoretical-practical singularity.

The misleading approach of chroniclers and researchers, with the passing of the years, has not only fed the false ambiguity at the base of anarchism, but has ended up simplifying in the most vulgar way this supposed bifurcation, assigning roles to the “right” and to the "left" of the political spectrum to the different anarchist configurations, in an attempt to present them as atypical extensions of radical liberalism (right?) or, Marxian socialism (left?), giving apocryphal life to a "right anarchism" and another from the “left”, impoverishing anarchic theory and practice.

In such a way, the existence of that eclectic "anarchism" that ails us today has been consolidated, which appeals to the plural under the label of "anarchisms" and can be verified in all latitudes as an effective antidote against Anarchy.

Lamentably, on repeated occasions, ample sectors of the so-called “movement” have echoed these distortions; what has induced certain fragments to align themselves (and alienate themselves) in one or another formation, taking on the role –against the very essence of anarchic praxis– of “anarchists” of left and right.

IDENTIFYING IDEOLOGICAL BALLAST IN CONTEMPORARY ANARCHISM.

After the defeat of Spanish anarcho-syndicalism and the rise of transitional anarchism, the terms "libertarian" and "anti-authoritarian" began to gain ground in our camp as synonyms for anarchist. With the new lexicon, sugarcoated substitutes were installed that supplied "the bad word" and, in passing, metamorphosed the destructive and negating image of black anarchy, incorporating it into the instituting politicking agenda.

The term "libertarian" had an almost unanimous reception, particularly among those who sought to align themselves with "vanguard liberalism" and the post-war social democratic harangue (ordered around the option for the "lesser evil" against "totalitarianism".). The forming of these nuclei –where the Libertarian Federations stood out–, slowly but progressively positioned themselves on the “right” of the political stage, reaching the point of producing veritable ideological abominations, among which “libertarianism” and “anarcho” - capitalism stand out. For their part, the so-called "anti-authoritarians" also did their part, placing themselves on the “left” of the political chessboard. Under the slogan of "socialism or barbarism" and under the tutelage of an "anti-Stalinist" Marxism-Leninism , they produced their own malformations and monstrosities (from "libertarian Marxism" and "situationism", to "anarcho-guevarism" and "Libertarian autonomy" ).

Perhaps, where all the aforementioned is best verified is in North America. The development of American “anarchism” in the last fifty years has been gravitating around these two distortions, reinforcing the alignment to the “left” and the “right”, leading astray -knowingly- our black path.

Fatefully, the bulk of the new nuclei and most of the publications (printed an /or electronic) continue to congregate left and right, which has given input to some academics to outline the growing dichotomy between "red anarchism" and the "green anarchism" and its geographical distribution; exposing the pronounced ideological differences that distinguish those who opt for the obsolete economicist vision (reds) and those who choose misanthropy from the lens of deep ecology (green) 2.

Apologizing in advance for appealing to the first person –something of dubious taste–, I must admit that after almost three decades of absence I was able to verify this evidence. Consequently, the most significant paragon of the deliriums that I found in my path is ecoanarchism and its extreme offshoots, with their multiple and subsequent derivatives: on the one hand, "social ecology" and "libertarian municipalism" -congenital heirs and self-confessed defenders of the doctrinaire juggling of the peculiar libertarian Marxism of Murray Bookchin-, crucible in which they've added new ingredients, equally indigestible, ranging from "anarcho-zapatismo" the "democratic confederalism" to the style PKK and the "anarcopanterismo"clientelist and of neighborhood. Molding a left "anarchism" that today is torn between the relevance of the Green New Deal - facing the electoral circus with daddy Bernie [3] at the helm - and; the progressive increase of "self-managed communization" in the most depopulated and remote places, fusing their own doctrines with anarcho-populist archetypes emanating from the neo-platformist "popular power" . At the other end of eco-anarchism, we locate the remains of the different shreds of primitivism and by-products, equally pathetic and unheard of. These fluctuate between flight to the forest, in order to reinforce "spiritualism" and develop "the right muscles" (since "the tone and the physical condition were the focus of Bruce Lee, which continues to be a great source of inspiration" 4 ), facing the collapse of civilization and; extreme misanthropy, seasoned with a certain absolutist rancor (eager for feedback) and, a remix of disjointed rituals with religious pretensions, which tries to position itself among the horror literature of Thomas Ligotti, the mystical satanism of Joris-Karl Huysmans and, the philosophical futility of Eugene Thacker, although the resulting is a supreme buffoonery.

For both follies, the manifest destiny of their struggle is "for a better world". For the "reds" realizing their "other possible world", that is, the self-management of industrial harmfulness within the framework of a "more humane, fairer and more egalitarian" capitalism and; for the “greens”, «a world without humans». Both projects invite us to pedal while looking at the rear-view mirror. They recommend that we keep our eyes on the past and hope for the future. The "reds" anchored in the Social Revolution, alienated by nostalgia and the conservative defense of our past and mortgaged to the wait for the "objective and subjective conditions" that facilitate automatic passage to the communist and libertarian future. The “greens” stranded in the Cenozoic, to which they intend to return guided by the voices of their ancestors and by the vengeful hand of the gods (through pandemics and cataclysms); obdurate in the reproduction of a gigantic Jurassic Park, stolid with their primitive future.

Both purposes (or purposelessness), would provoke us the most resounding of laughter if the generality of their comrades, left them in the past -where they gladly locate themselves- and understood them for what they are: distortions that incessantly distance us from the black way of Anarchy. However, for a long time now, these distortions have been causing confusion in our camp due to the lack of a renewed anarchic paradigm that avows itself for the creative assault of our present, reorienting the specific historicity in which we have had to act and throw all the ballast overboard.

THE BIAS ON THE LEFT

Many "anarchists" maintain the whopper that Anarchy is intrinsically on the "left" (and even some more populist, place it "below and to the left" , echoing the neo-Zapatismo from Chiapas ); identifying it as "the critical current of socialism". In this way, they claim consanguinity and allege that we are part of a "big family". These "comrades" (intoxicated with social democratic propaganda), recognize the "left" as their habitat and lineage, giving anarchism the role of younger brother - rude, disobedient and impulsive -, who, despite his bad behavior, "Mommy Left" is always willing to embrace them on her lap, for the "common good of the family."

If you spare thinking of the Jacobin –bourgeois / liberal– origins of the “left”, nor of its instituting essence, it is difficult to discern the true intentions of this macabre trap imposed by power, which relegates anarchic theory and practice to the rearguard of Marxian thought (that was the strategy of the First International). However, it is until the beginning of the last century that anarchism was condemned to dwell on the "left" in saecula saeculorum, accused of "infantilism". Euphemism of sorts, with which Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, aspired to disarm our inalienable purposes of total liberation. Despite this, ample anarchist sectors continue to position themselves, without major regrets, to the "left" of the political dung heap.

Without a doubt, today we can identify inside our camp, and without much effort, ideological positions that pleasantly proclaim themselves "leftist" and fit perfectly into that family tree. Renowned examples are the remnants of anarcho-syndicalism, the neo-platformist parties, the libertarian communist nuclei, the anti-authoritarians, the anarcho-populists and the assignees of libertarian autonomy; without omitting the "anarcho-hyperactivists" and the compulsive "frontists", which repeatedly establish alliances with different Leninist sects and/or the nationalist (independence) brotherhoods, in the name of the Revolution, anti-imperialism, anti-fascism or anti-capitalism, counting on the acquiescence of all the aforementioned [5] .

Deserving of honorable mention -with regard to North America- some champions of anarcho-leftism in these lands; such is the case of the RAM (Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement), with its most recent protest in coordination with the coalition "Hands off Venezuela" and, the Stalinist guards of the WWP (Workers World Party), in defense of the populist government of Maduro and; the historic and unconditional support of the ABCF (Federation of the Anarchist Black Cross) to the five Cuban spies - intelligence officials from the government of the Castro brothers and FBI collaborators - imprisoned in the United States at the beginning of the century [6]. Not to mention the usual recruitment of anarchist "cannon fodder" for the "Rojava Revolution" and his martyrology, which each day takes more lives from comrades in the hands of postmodern anarcho-Leninism.

But, the bias to the left is so great in our camp, that we frequently find these "calls" published on supposedly anarchist blogs and websites. The curious thing is that they are not only tolerated but well received, celebrated and even shared in solidarity on related pages, without the slightest questioning or the slightest alarm, when they should be excluded and criticized with the same zeal that the fascistic texts and the misanthropic statements. However, many times we find annotations and demarcations, as an exordium, to our contributions -decidedly anarchic- or to the communiqués and reflections of the insurrectional praxis groups; when they are not censored or mutilated ( "due to space problems" ).

Our vision are so biased to the left that we are conditioned to immediately identify any proto-capitalist, fascist or conservative text, but we are unable to detect, and abhor with vigor, the most evident leftist and/or proto-Leninist discourse. We are competent enough to spot -light years away- the right-wing misrepresentations and banish them from our camp but useless to perceive all the leftist pestilence with which we are bombarded daily and, worse still, we remain helpless in the face of this brutal penetration, stuck in the swamp, with the lead shoes of political correctness.

Anything that comes wrapped in "social justice", decorated with "egalitarianism", dressed in "victimhood" and, smells like "people", is welcome. What is presumed to be "antisocial", is admitted to be "illegal", approaches "nihilism" and, consequently, stands against civilization, is suspect. In this same situation, and as expected, there was no lack of malicious people who have tried to put misanthropic blunders and the fearless concerns of the informal anarchic tendency in the same bag, pointing to the insurrectionary anarchism and anti-civilization of our days as a "deviation” from the anarchic ideal.

With similar intentions, they've resorted to quoting the insurrectionists of the seventies, setting the script to be followed for the (divine!) culmination of the "generalized insurrection"; without noticing that the renovations carried out in the course of the daily conflict, are not an aseptic intellectual product produced in an isolated laboratory, but rather an integral part of the dynamic development of the present-day anarchist insurrection and that anarchic warfare, as we have been proposing it -distanced from certainties, recipes and the conceptualizations that are not our own- it is nothing other than the updated redefinition of our features and the uncompromising reaffirmation of a radical critique to Power, inviting us to retake our black path to Anarchy.

For the empowerment of the Black International (Informal and Insurrectional)!
For Anarchy!

Gustavo Rodríguez,
Planet Earth, March 21, 2019.

Postscript (which invites reflection): Let us be in solidarity with OUR prisoners and fugitives in all latitudes, with which we share affinity. Let us abandon the charitable missions and the role of chaplains -the time has come to leave the "volunteer work" to the Church and to the abolitionist liberals - let us stop wasting time and resources in prisoners that are not our own. We have to demonstrate, once again, that solidarity with OUR prisoners is not a dead letter. Direct solidarity, here and now, with the beloved Alfredo Cospito and all the anarchists incarcerated around the world. Direct solidarity with the Greek comrades of the Cell of Fire Conspiracy (CCF). Direct solidarity, with our fellow fugitives Gabriel Pombo Da Silvaand Elisa Di Bernardo (free and dangerous!), stalked again by the State (Spanish and Italian).

1 . I definitely write for those who share affinity with me and I do it stemming from my multiple obsessions. It's not that I repeat the topics, as some colleagues point out to me. I repeat myself in terms of the obsessions that are my constant. Although there are many topics that obsess me, evidently, the need to correct the damage caused by the persistent "distortions" and the urgency to abandon everything "not of our own" in search of a theoretical-practical renewal facing the 21st century, are my preferred obsessions. This text is reliable proof of this. In spite of everything, my insistent recurrence in these topics has generated misrepresentations, probably motivated by my style of writing - profoundly amoral, adogmatic and politically incorrect - lacking (intentionally) the linear development of thoughts linked by a central idea. In general, these misunderstandings seem to give my contributions a certain "disciplinary" and "regulatory" intention , guided by an exacerbated, almost pathological"purism". It should be unnecessary to clarify that my critical considerations have never attempted to establish themselves as a pontificate who lectures from the vantage point, uncontaminated and neat, but they strive to be intensely self-critical, always based on practical experience. So the purpose of my concerns is not (nor can it be) other than to seek the detraction of hegemonic thought, computerized and, avid for immutable truths - in the style of science and dialectics -, which has nested in the bowels of the " movement"; and, banishing, once and for all, the pre-canned concepts, launching bets for a permanent anarchic experimentation, which renounces a priori shyness in the face of renewal; let him repudiate fear of dangerous roads; to desist from testamentary immobility and; that he be encouraged to aim higher every day, that he send his essayistic howls to the Moon and prepare to exploit the sky if necessary

2 . Williams, Dana M.,Red vs. Green: Regional Variation of Anarchist Ideology in the United States,Journal of PoliticalIdeologies,June 2009, pp. 189-210. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/3591947/Red_vs._Green_Regional_Variation_of_Ana... (Consulted: 03/20/19).

3 . Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, is an American Social Democrat, junior (independent) senator for the state of Vermont, who was a pre-candidate for the presidency in the Democratic Party internal elections for the 2016 elections and, recently, started New recounts his campaign as a presidential candidate for the Democratic primaries, with the promise that he will beat Trump in the next election.

4 . Tucker, Kevin, Prepare for the best, train for the worst: getting ready for the collapse, Species Traitor # 4, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, s / f, P. 78.

5 . It is not enough to be anti-fascist or anti-capitalist. As anarchists, we go for more: anarchic war is against all authority, against all power. The "anti-capitalism" , the "anti-imperialism", the "anti-fascism" to equal the "environmentalism" are ideologies to the service of power by instituting frontist strategies, which usually covers a wide variety of political positions, including those of our enemies. It is common to find on the “anti-fascist” fronts a large group of leftists and, above all, Stalinists, who, although they oppose “brown fascism”, their objectives are the implantation of the "red fascism". Similarly, on the "anti-capitalist" fronts , in addition to the representative sectors of the left, it is also frequent to meet with fascists and neo-Nazis who long for the extermination of the "capitalist parasites" and the establishment of state capitalism. Undoubtedly, it is on the "anti-imperialist" fronts , where we encounter the most enemies, since the range is much wider; There we will find nationalists, independentists, neo-Nazis, Stalinists, populists, liberal Democrats and, extensive sectors of the Creole oligarchies. The "environmentalism" nor is it different; All the colors of the political spectrum are housed on their fronts, highlighting those (without distinction of ideologies) that already hold power. From a similar perspective, there are comrades who have gone even further in criticizing the ideologies and fronting strategies, pointing out these same dangers even in “feminism” (Vid. Call for anarchic action this March 8, available at:https://es-contrainfo.espiv.net/2019/03/06/mexico-llamamiento-a-la-accio... (Consulted: 03/20/19).

6 . Available at: https://nycabc.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/nyc-tuesday-september-30th-lette... (Consulted: 03/20 / 19).

There are 4 Comments

The river, ship and ballast metaphors, plus the things he covers makes it so that it could be read alongside (and as a critical response to, even if not written as one) Shawn P. Wilbur's maelstrom, tributaries, and journeys in ships.

From: https://attaque.noblogs.org/post/2020/06/06/quelle-internationale-troisi...

Machine translation:

What international?
Interview and dialogue with Alfredo Cospito, from Ferrara prison
Third part

Vetriolo, giornale anarchico, n ° 4 / March 2020

The following is the third and final part of "Quelle internationale? Interview and dialogue with Alfredo Cospito, from Ferrara prison ”, published in March 2020 in n ° 4 of the anarchist newspaper in Italian“ Vetriolo ”. The first and second parts were published respectively in issue 2 (fall 2018) and issue 3 (winter 2019). Given the complexity and scope of the subjects covered and of the text itself, it was not possible to publish it in full in a single issue of the newspaper and we therefore chose to cut it into three parts.
The whole will be published in one volume, which will be released soon. […]

To receive copies of the newspaper: vetriolo [at] autistici.org

[ Attack Note: to download this text in PDF, click here - for the original in Italian here . The first and the second part are there ]

* * *

Vetriolo:In recent writings, you have wanted to open a debate about action groups and affinity groups, individuals who act alone, demands, ways to organize informally between anarchists and propaganda through the direct action. The experiences that come to this day are diverse, numerous and heterogeneous, in the different tensions of anarchism. We do not think that anarchism of action is faced with an unavailability or an impossibility vis-à-vis the current historical context. Anarchists, in different ways and at all times, have always acted "now and here". We would like to ask you, in the light of these different experiences and ways of acting and organizing in a horizontal and anti-authoritarian way: could we say that there is, especially in Italy,
Similarly, is the debate, which has often got bogged down in hollow puns, far from being able to confirm absolute validity or theoretical-practical results for "reproducibility, informality, anonymity", is it, in the Italian context, conditioned by calculations, functional to and underlying a distorted logic of "factions"?

Alfredo:The “ideological” prejudice against the informal organization is not new, here with us. Even if there is no doubt that certain embodiments of informal practice are more acceptable than others, on the part of "classic" organizing anarchism. The “small” reproducible actions against structures of domination, unclaimed, without any acronym, create fewer problems than actions that endanger the lives of men and women linked to power, especially if these are claimed with acronyms which have consistency over time. The former are more acceptable to the "movement" than the latter, for the simple reason that they cause less and less intense repression by the state. The rejection of insurrectionalism or of informal experiences like the FAI / FRI on the part of "classic" anarchism is almost always motivated as a "ethical" rejection of violence and, more precisely, of certain actions (attacks at dynamite, fires, booby-traps, shots to injure, expropriations, etc.). For people who define themselves as "revolutionaries", the hypocrisy of such motivation is more than obvious. The revolution, with its tragic aftermath of civil war, is among the most violent events that one can imagine and when one speaks of “classic”, social and organizing anarchism, one speaks of companions who have never put in discussion of the concept of revolution, of a violent break with the system. For people who do not put revolutionary violence outside their own ideological horizon, the unworthy opposition to certain practices has its roots elsewhere, not in ethics, but in fear. Fear of repression, fear of losing this false (albeit comfortable) image of the naive dreaming anarchist, innocent and ineffective victim of the system, only here in Italy, since the episode of Piazza Fontana [in this regard, we can read another text by Alfredo " At the origins of victimization "; NdAtt. ], many people have used it as a shield against repression. A “sacred image” on which a certain “social” anarchism, at times post-anarchist, founded its “myth” and its “fortunes”. The anarchist armed struggle, although a minority, has challenged this "myth", especially when it has been proudly claimed before judges. That said, we must resign ourselves to what is inevitable: the "ideological" prejudice against "new" forms of struggle is in the nature of things. Any new form of organization inexorably "disorganizes" preexisting realities which have their same goal, surprises them and puts them into discussion.
The birth of those you call "factions" is the fruit of this "disorganization", of this conflict. Our history is full of internal struggles between companions who, in theory (even if with different practices), should be on the same side. The "insurrectionalists", when they appeared in the 1970s and 1980s, were subjected to very violent attacks and infamous accusations were brought against them. Years later, accusations of the same ilk abound against the compasses of the Fédération Anarchiste Informelle. That said, it must be added that the affirmation of the "new" is almost always accompanied by acts of aggression against the "old" and we, the anarchists, are certainly not an exception. Verbal assaults, as numerous,

You maintain that the debates are likely to be reduced to simple "hollow word games" and that "reproducibility, informality, anonymity" are far from having real "theoretical-practical" results, since they would be biased at the root (a priori) by a "deformed logic of factions". You would be right if such practices had never been tested in reality, but to tell the truth, a significant part of the movement has experienced them in its flesh for years. I've been in jail for years for this. In good and in bad, I tested in practice, in reality, the effectiveness and the consequences of such "concepts". I have enjoyed exhilarating victories and suffered discouraging defeats. When you “get your hands dirty” with action, the ups and downs are inevitable. When we confront certain dynamics of struggle, we cannot be sure of anything. Anything is possible, even the most unimaginable things can happen, like magic. The only certainty that we have is that only by confronting concretely with the power we can re-elaborate, amplify and improve our action and our practice, the rest is secondary. "Reproducibility, informality, anonymity": three simple words which, for me, mean much more than abstract and convoluted theories. They are the attempt (not always successful) to be consistent and to experience my anarchy right now, now. The only certainty that we have is that only by confronting concretely with the power we can re-elaborate, amplify and improve our action and our practice, the rest is secondary. "Reproducibility, informality, anonymity": three simple words which, for me, mean much more than abstract and convoluted theories. They are the attempt (not always successful) to be consistent and to experience my anarchy right now, now. The only certainty that we have is that only by confronting concretely with the power we can re-elaborate, amplify and improve our action and our practice, the rest is secondary. "Reproducibility, informality, anonymity": three simple words which, for me, mean much more than abstract and convoluted theories. They are the attempt (not always successful) to be consistent and to experience my anarchy right now, now.

“Reproducibility”, I link it to a sensation: the joy of seeing that our practices (the actions of anarchists) surprise and sweep everywhere. In the 1980s, I saw the epidemic of electric pylons shot down all over Italy, decades after I attended, dismayed and full of enthusiasm, the international campaigns and the FAI eruption / FRI around the world. Past experiences (too quickly, sometimes) but which leave you with the imprint of a full life, worthy of living, the life of an anarchist of action overflowing with optimism. These are satisfactions difficult to understand for someone who has not experienced them, but easy to reach, you just have to throw yourself into the fray and move from theory to action; there is a world opening up…

"Informality", for me, is above all friendship and love between companions who share everything, even delusions (inevitable in human relationships, by nature changing). Brothers and sisters at war, united by a passion: the destruction of the existing, something that is sufficient for oneself and does not need the hindrances of an organization. A life lived intensely, a handful of companions who make loyalty and respect for the word given an impregnable fortress, which allows us to resist always and against everything.

"Anonymity" is freedom, because it gives us the opportunity to strike again and again ... And, despite that (especially thanks to that), it allows us to continue to act in the sunlight, to not isolate ourselves from the “movement”, by greatly reducing the risk of becoming “benchmarks”, “leaders” who impose their will thanks to their greater experience and propensity for action; and then we must always keep in mind that the lack of self-criticism makes you stupid at the speed of light. As for the short and limited experience which is mine, I can say that in anonymity we live as in a kind of salutary "schizophrenia". Part of you communicates through action, another part lives the life of "movement" (with all its muddles), but, far from the spotlight, your words are worth like those of others. Problems (at least it was so in my case) arise when anonymity dies and there comes the need for "hiding". I had never asked myself this question seriously. After shooting Adinolfi's leg, I could have run away, I had the possibility of doing it, but the fear of leaving my affects, my life, blocked me. In such a case, we create justifications, we convince ourselves that we may not be arrested. I say this to make it clear that each of us has our limits (sometimes big, as in my case) and that we pay dearly for them. The important thing is to learn from your mistakes, not to hide, not to be ashamed; it is more important to reflect on your shortcomings than on your strengths or successes; only in this way can we improve. Problems (at least it was so in my case) arise when anonymity dies and there comes the need for "hiding". I had never asked myself this question seriously. After shooting Adinolfi's leg, I could have run away, I had the possibility of doing it, but the fear of leaving my affects, my life, blocked me. In such a case, we create justifications, we convince ourselves that we may not be arrested. I say this to make it clear that each of us has our limits (sometimes big, as in my case) and that we pay dearly for them. The important thing is to learn from your mistakes, not to hide, not to be ashamed; it is more important to reflect on your shortcomings than on your strengths or successes; only in this way can we improve. The problems (at least it was so in my case) arise when anonymity dies and there comes the need for "hiding". I had never asked myself this question seriously. After shooting Adinolfi's leg, I could have run away, I had the possibility of doing it, but the fear of leaving my affects, my life, blocked me. In such a case, we create justifications, we convince ourselves that we may not be arrested. I say this to make it clear that each of us has our limits (sometimes big, as in my case) and that we pay dearly for them. The important thing is to learn from your mistakes, not to hide, not to be ashamed of them; it is more important to reflect on your shortcomings than on your strengths or successes; only in this way can we improve.

Over the years, these three practices have been tested in the field and even if (sometimes) they have produced a "deformed logic of factions", they represent the most vital and combative part of anarchy, its concretization in the world . Especially when such debates involve companions practicing direct action: in this case they gain a different, real value. Precisely because of this, even among those who put informality into practice, the contrasts, sometimes important, have never been lacking. This should not surprise us, especially if we think that the latter (informality) can be characterized by different dynamics, whether from a "structural-organizational" point of view or from a point of view. " operational ". These last years, the strongest contrasts have taken place with regard to the demand for actions and, above all, with regard to the use of acronyms, secondly with regard to the concept of "spectacularization", in relation to certain actions, accused of not be reproducible. In reality, we are talking about heterogeneous practices which give themselves different goals, not contradictory but downright distinct. They involve opposing attitudes and life choices and create the two faces of today's anarchy of action. On the one hand, the “anti-social” or “nihilist” conception, which revives the “myth” of “vengeful anarchy”, through the violence of action, brought to its extreme consequences; the "social" sides of its action exist, but we will only be able to see it in the future, when this "myth" has been able to touch the hearts of the oppressed.
To better understand, let's see what these differences are, more precisely: from a "structural-organizational" point of view, they are considerable, between small "affinity groups" scattered throughout the territory which, without links between them, communicate through demands for action and promote "international campaigns", and, on the other hand, "affinity groups" linked to a precise, localized struggle, which relate to "open assemblies" extended to the population and "movement". Equally radical are the differences from an "operational" point of view. On the one hand, actions with strong violence and impact, which have as their objective “propaganda by the act”, the simple fact of spreading terror among the ranks of the exploiters. A way of acting, therefore, which does not need to compromise, to negotiate with the existing, since its objective is not an intermediate struggle. Its only goal (beyond the pure, beneficial, pleasant pleasure of destruction) is to rebuild, whatever the cost, the "myth" of "vengeful anarchy", of "the aftermath that sings", of the "anarchist revolution". Through “propaganda by the fact”, it revives this “myth”, by once again gaining that credibility among the exploited which has been lost over the years. A credibility that will be obtained by actions that have no limits, since they will have a single objective, that, deeply ethical, to hit the exploiters hard, to avenge the exploited. A practice, therefore, which appeals to the "nihilist", "obscure" side of anarchy: revenge, hatred, violence, as well as a strong irrationality, dictated by the “crazy” and courageous desire for freedom; in my opinion, the most alive and optimistic part of our anarchy, that which will bring us to the revolution. On the other hand, insurrectionalism (social anarchism), with its link with the territory, with its actions which put sticks in the streets to reformists and gradualists of all kinds. Actions which have as their goal the immediately concrete character of a specific struggle, which must take into account popular assemblies and relate to people. By forcing themselves to graduate their interventions, so as not to run the risk of remaining isolated, of being "cut off from the game". Actions thought out and adapted to the social context that surrounds them. The characteristic of such a way of acting is the pursuit of objectives which touch the concrete life of people, which links them firmly to the presence of immediate results, although partial, which have the merit of making people understand the real potentials of direct action, of the delegation's refusal. These practices are both characterized by a great qualitative leap, which in my opinion can not do without, which puts them above all other anarchist practices: destructive action, armed action, the discussion of the state monopoly on violence. We can only start from there, to overthrow, revolutionize the world, because the seed of the future sisterhood already lives today, in conflict and in the way we organize it. Only in a context of struggle, of conflict, we can immediately savor today the purity of free relationships, of love, of living, revolutionary solidarity. The rest is compromised, quiet life, alienation, in the long term capitulation. Anarchy does not live in what we say or write, but in what we do. It would be nice to be able to count on the fact that those who speak of certain practices have experienced them in their flesh, but unfortunately this is not always the case. This is why (in my opinion) more attention should be paid to the writings and reflections found in claims for actions. In such cases, it is impossible to make a mistake: those who wrote them acted, putting their lives on the line. Their words necessarily have a materiality, a concrete character, a greater weight, we know for sure that those who wrote them took action, jeopardizing their own lives. The strength of action communication is precisely there. Certain compasses describe the claims as useless texts, filled with demagoguery; that may be the case, but there at least (for "demagogic" that they may appear), we are certain that words carry with them the "weight" of life lived, of action. Something that is missing from numerous texts, crammed with "magnificent" literature, but ephemeral because they lack ties to reality, detached from the struggle, distant from life.

Vetriolo: In recent years, you have taken a stand against the revolution. A position that you imagine you developed in prison, given that the demand of the Olga Cell / FAI-FRI ends with a declaration of love for the social revolution. We believe that we have perfectly understood your position, that is to say the provocation "against the expectation of the revolution", which in turn means postponing the action to better times, when the objective conditions are met. In short, wait-and-see in all its variants, although presented with revolutionary slogans. If it remains a provocation, okay. The dialectical paradox: today revolutionaries are reformists. This is effective. But it stops being effective if we abandon the paradoxical use of this expression. We will try to explain ourselves. This is effective against anarchism called "social" - social, but not classist - which "allies" with part of the bourgeoisie to achieve specific objectives (prevent the construction of a great work, defend rights, etc. .), while waiting for the conditions to be met to make the revolution. A little what was said during the Spanish War in 1936: first win the war, then make the revolution. This is therefore effective against the frontism which returns the revolution to when we have solved more urgent problems, for the resolution of which, therefore, we forge alliances with these subjects which the revolution should on the other hand exterminate. So, we ask you: it's not like giving the opponent a head start? What else should we wait for, for the revolution? Capitalism has perhaps not already sufficiently destroyed our planet? Perhaps he has not weighed enough on the shoulders of generations of exploited? Instead of saying that the revolution is over, it would be better to defend the necessity of the revolution here and now, against those who want to send it back to the distant future, so as not to disturb the quiet sleeps - for example - of the winemaker who does not does not want a great work on his field, where he can continue to exploit migrants as slaves; however, he feared revolution more than anything, since it would take away, as they say, the house and the vineyard.

Now we will be tough: the risk, when we declare that the revolution is over, is that there are such stupid companions - and there are many - who do not understand that these are a provocation and believe it for real! Your invective against the revolution could therefore not push the companions to act here and now, but rather push him not to act at all. Rebels need a dream; why, if not, end up in jail or get killed?

In addition, today, criticizing the revolution, do not get angry, it is not that original. It was Francis Fukuyama who started, in 1992, with his essay "The end of history". According to the American regime philosopher, it was all over: democracy, capitalism and the liberal state had won forever. The endless nightmare of the eternal present. A philosophical-social paradigm that society has reified in different ways: from TV to internet consumerism, the objects of consumption are changing very quickly, but it seems, however, that for thirty years we have been living in the same era. And since anarchists, even those who say they are most firmly anti-social, live in this society and absorb vices and ideas, A-rivista anarchica "or" Umanità nova "which pontificate on the end of the violent social revolution, which should be replaced by an anarchism understood as a cultural, Kantian, normative idea ... up to these former combatant companions who are now depressed , because sometimes the absence of a revolutionary perspective also means the absence of a projectual fantasy. I also invent a series of actions because there is a project that stimulates my mind.

Don't you find it a mistake to have entered this vein, even with completely different intentions?

Alfredo:To justify this "renunciation", which is mine, of the "revolution", I could quote Camus to you: "Since we no longer live in the times of the revolution, let us at least learn to live in the times of the revolt". In reality, I agree with him only on one point: today we are surely not living in a time of "revolution", but of "revolt". However, I want to make it clear that my apology for "revolt" is not a retreat, nor an invitation to be content with half measures, in times of scarcity. I am convinced that there is no "revolution" without a series of innumerable revolts which precede and prepare it. These revolts allow us and to live, immediately and fully, the pleasure of our anarchy (we were born for that, it is in our nature) and to open up to the world, by building, revolt after revolt, action after action, the "myth" of "the tomorrows that sing", by building, brick after brick, our credibility in the eyes of the oppressed, without which there can never be a "revolution" worthy of this name. Our role today can only be this: hitting, hitting and hitting again ... Forging with blood, sweat and enormous pleasure the "myth" of "vengeful anarchy".
An anarchist revolution is possible. We simply have to find the courage and the strength to defend this visionary and utopian perspective, which has nothing "ideological" or "authoritarian", precisely because intrinsically visionary and utopian. In the demand of the "Olga" Cell, this optimism is strongly apparent, translating into a declaration of passionate love for the "social revolution". At that time, it was (and it still is today, but I do it in a more articulated way) important to relaunch the action, in the perspective of a change and a global reversal of this world (social revolution). Since, in your question, you quote the demand for the shot against Adinolfi, let me say that, anyway, this text had big limits. It was completely folded in on itself (addressed almost only to the anarchist movement), the subject of nuclear was tackled in a superficial way and the question of technology, of the “mega-machine” (which is now central for me), was not even touched. The criticism that certain compas at that time led to this claim, that is to say that it was essentially nothing other than a series of accusations against other components of the movement, contained truths. What I am trying to say is that with time the analyzes evolve, the important thing is not to give up, not to stand still and above all never to bow to power, which, in my case, means not to renounce (by theory, given the situation in which I find myself) to violent confrontation with the system, to armed struggle, whatever the cost. Always being like yourself is not always a quality, sometimes it means defeat, makes us predictable, in some cases "folk". Consistency should not mean traveling the same path over and over again. Letting one's own strategy stagnate is practically suicide and brings nothing new to the fight. Being locked in a cell should not prevent me from growing up and looking for new paths. To have the strength to revive, it suffices to remain firm in criticism and in irony towards oneself and the world. Self-criticism and irony: two antibodies essential not to turn into fanatics, speakers of ideology. So it shouldn’t surprise you if today I contradict what I said in the past,

This kind of "lèse-majesté" is surely a provocation (as you say), but it brings about an essential "criticism", linked to my attempt to analyze reality, which has big limits, but which finds meaning concrete in practice. Almost all anarchists fold their mouths of "revolution", many act in consequence, striking structures of power, very few go further, striking men and women of the hierarchy of domination, but also in such cases the sound of this word continues to creak compared to reality, to sound hollow, displaced. If we want to be honest, we have to say it: even when we participate in uprisings and insurrections in distant countries, by making our generous contribution, we know that, just as well, very just as the cause for which we are fighting, it will never lead to an anarchist revolution. We were convinced that we always have to compromise with “reality”, so convinced that it is no longer reality that transforms us, but us who rush towards it, by adapting and giving up our idea extreme freedom, for a possible, concrete "reality". In this way we become dull, we become bland, we lose our utopian charge, by renouncing the "anarchist revolution", a perspective which for us is now "out of the world", "anachronistic", impossible to achieve. We no longer believe in it, that's the truth; deep in our hearts, day after day, year after year, "realism" has undermined our certainties, it has created an abyss almost impossible to fill. Fortunately, Fukuyama, whom you quote, was wrong: the games are not over, the story has not come to an end. The history of humanity has always been characterized (at least so far) by leaps forward, historic moments during which the "revolutionary break" is both inevitable and inexorable. The world around us is changing more and more rapidly, but the technology that has hit the ground has not yet succeeded in significantly affecting our humanity, our instincts, our "soul". But, as we said, the stake has become more important, now the stake is the very survival of the human species, life on this planet. The only concrete possibility that we have of reversing this tendency is the "anarchist revolt", with all its explosive charge of feelings, passions, irrationality, class hatred, anti-technology instincts, against the so-called scientific "progress". It will not be rationality, moderation, balance that will save us, but the irrationality of passions, feelings: hatred, love, rage, revenge. Today is not the time to build new societies, but to destroy existing ones. It is the moment of revolt, of "fascination", of the "myth" of the "anarchist revolution". The role of the “revolution”, afterwards, will be that of building, of building, but that should not concern us, since there is no revolution in progress. This is why today the "anarchist revolution" sounds anachronistic, a concept outside the world. This concept can gain meaning again, a concrete character, a topicality of its own, only if it is accompanied by "revolt", by violence. The "revolt" is content with "pathos" (feelings, passions, fascination) and "praxis" (destructive action, propaganda by the act, violence). The "revolution" is a complete, complex concept, it also needs "ethos" (values) and "logos" (strategy, rationality). With ethos and logos we do not build "myths", we do not trigger revolts, we make revolutions *. And revolutions only come when revolts have breached the hearts of men, women, the oppressed, the excluded. Everything has its time, each action is the daughter of its time. The “anarchist revolution” is the daughter of “anarchist revolts”, the daughter of our revolutionary violence. We are not living in a period of crisis of anarchy, therefore, but of regeneration. The "revolt" is content with "pathos" (feelings, passions, fascination) and "praxis" (destructive action, propaganda by the fact, violence). The "revolution" is a complete, complex concept, it also needs "ethos" (values) and "logos" (strategy, rationality). With ethos and logos we do not build "myths", we do not trigger revolts, we make revolutions *. And revolutions only come when revolts have breached the hearts of men, women, the oppressed, the excluded. Everything has its time, each action is the daughter of its time. The “anarchist revolution” is the daughter of “anarchist revolts”, the daughter of our revolutionary violence. We are not living in a period of crisis of anarchy, therefore, but of regeneration. The "revolt" is content with "pathos" (feelings, passions, fascination) and "praxis" (destructive action, propaganda by the fact, violence). The "revolution" is a complete, complex concept, it also needs "ethos" (values) and "logos" (strategy, rationality). With ethos and logos we do not build "myths", we do not trigger revolts, we make revolutions *. And revolutions only come when revolts have breached the hearts of men, women, the oppressed, the excluded. Everything has its time, each action is the daughter of its time. The “anarchist revolution” is the daughter of “anarchist revolts”, the daughter of our revolutionary violence. We are not living in a period of crisis of anarchy, therefore, but of regeneration.

The “revolt” and the “revolution” are closely linked, interdependent but interconnected, always in harmony. I would go further: the "revolution" must not become "status quo", it must be a kind of permanent revolt, of continuous, "infinite" experimentation. The "myth" is the invention which results from the "revolution". Besides, "history" and "myth" have the same goal: "to draw, under the man of the times, the eternal man", the men and women in revolt, destroyers and creators of new societies, new worlds.

Vetriolo:Speaking of certain anarchist ideas and concepts, as we do in this interview, in this dialogue, our thinking now also goes to these means, to these publications which allow us to discuss the ideas and practice that are specific to the anarchism, and which, in addition, also make possible the propaganda or the diffusion of these same ideas. Obviously, there are fundamental differences between propaganda and the dissemination of anarchist ideas. The simple diffusion seems to leave a feeling of indeterminacy. So, we ask ourselves: what significance can the diffusion of anarchist ideas have today in a world where everyone is invited to spread their intellectual trash and to reek with their culture, with their opinions and considerations? However, with regard to the term and the concept of propaganda, it seems to us that it has acquired an almost entirely negative value. It seems that we almost want to say that spreading anarchist ideas is something wrong, because it would amount to an attempt to convince or persuade "the people" ("and then, it is the power which makes propaganda ! ”). We do not agree. We want to give to this term this deeper value which links the possibility of making known its ideas, also to be able to reach possible accomplices, with a constant agitation aiming at keeping effervescence the anarchist thought, it also expression of the conflict with the power, because never detached from the action. because that would amount to an attempt to convince or to persuade "the people" ("and then, it is the power which makes propaganda!"). We do not agree. We want to give to this term this deeper value which links the possibility of making known its ideas, also to be able to reach possible accomplices, with a constant agitation aiming at keeping effervescence the anarchist thought, it also expression of the conflict with the power, because never detached from the action. because that would amount to an attempt to convince or to persuade "the people" ("and then, it is the power which makes propaganda!"). We do not agree. We want to give to this term this deeper value which links the possibility of making known its ideas, also to be able to reach possible accomplices, with a constant agitation aiming at keeping effervescence the anarchist thought, it also expression of the conflict with the power, because never detached from the action.

Anarchist propaganda, which for some is something from another era, outdated, just like another type of propaganda, propaganda by the fact. We also know that, depending on the era, words can be loaded with very different values ​​and meanings, but we want to make this clear. In short, in your opinion, what is the value today of anarchist propaganda? And then there comes another heavy question: in the age of the internet, websites and blogs, anarchists also "ventured" (so to speak) into the internet - we thought it had many negative consequences. Among those, the almost complete disappearance of publications on paper which are not a simple collection and the use without exception of digital instruments to learn about many "news" and facts concerning the anarchist movement. In addition, the use of the Internet has led to a stronger "internationalization" of certain aspects of communication between anarchists, in addition to having dictated a new speed in this same communication. There are some who think that the use of such instruments may not compromise too much the words and the value of what we defend, others, like us who write, think that they are instruments and technological achievements that belong to power. This is a difficult subject, on which there is much to say. What do you think? in addition to having dictated a new speed in this same communication. There are those who think that the use of such instruments may not compromise too much the words and the value of what we defend, others, like us who write, think that they are instruments and technological achievements that belong to power. This is a difficult subject, on which there is much to say. What do you think? in addition to having dictated a new speed in this same communication. There are those who think that the use of such instruments may not compromise too much the words and the value of what we defend, others, like us who write, think that they are instruments and technological achievements that belong to power. This is a difficult subject, on which there is much to say. What do you think?

Alfredo:"Diffusion of ideas" and "propaganda", "thought" and "action", the heart of anarchist coherence, of anarchist action, should always coexist. Diffusion of ideas: the debate between anarchists, the deepening and evolution of our analyzes, of our thinking. Propaganda: openness to the world by action, action: demonstrations, confrontations with the cops, destructive actions that speak to everyone. Power, in a democratic state, persecutes, fights "propaganda" when it becomes action, but also these anarchists who, through websites and newspapers, push for action. This shows us what the power fears: it fears our words when they make "propaganda" clearly, it fears the thought that pushes to action, the thought that becomes action. And when the dissemination of ideas goes through “propaganda by the fact”, the States only have to bend and lose or react and repress with violence. The diffusion of our iconoclastic thought, combined with our action, risks becoming deadly for any "power", democratic or dictatorial, because it does not provide for the construction of a new state, of a "counter-power". This is why repression is preventive, even against the simple propaganda advocating action, made with our writings. because it does not provide for the construction of a new state, of a "counter-power". This is why repression is preventive, even against the simple propaganda advocating action, made with our writings. because it does not provide for the construction of a new state, of a "counter-power". This is why repression is preventive, even against the simple propaganda advocating action, made with our writings.

It is not said that ideas, intuitions, are forged only in action, but the reflections which determine them must have a concrete basis, in the observation of the effect that actions have on reality. Those who maintain that "propaganda" has a bad reputation because it is a "political instrument" are right, but if it is linked to action, it acquires ethics, strength, beauty. We must be pragmatic when choosing an "instrument", never disregard its usefulness. Times are changing the arsenal at our disposal, we must update ourselves, our press (newspapers, magazines) is an insufficient instrument to communicate with the "masses", millions of oppressed. The "press" finds value almost only as a "physical place" for debate, evolution of our ideas and communication among us. I will never tire of repeating it, today the only way that we have to reach a significant number of excluded is through “exemplary” action, destructive action. Claims, small cells of compasses that practice armed struggle, compasses that take to the streets to bring conflict there, only in this way will we be able to pierce the veil of silence that states erect around their domination. It was not always so, in the distant past our press had a certain influence on the "masses", it suffices to think of the tens of thousands of copies that were printed, in the 20s of the past century, from Malatesta daily, " today the only way we can reach a significant number of excluded is through the "exemplary" action, the destructive action. Claims, small cells of compasses that practice armed struggle, compasses that take to the streets to bring conflict there, only in this way will we be able to pierce the veil of silence that states erect around their domination. It was not always so, in the distant past our press had a certain influence on the "masses", it suffices to think of the tens of thousands of copies that were printed, in the 20s of the past century, from Malatesta daily, " today the only way we can reach a significant number of excluded is through the "exemplary" action, the destructive action. Claims, small cells of compasses that practice armed struggle, compasses that take to the streets to bring conflict there, only in this way will we be able to pierce the veil of silence that states erect around their domination. It was not always so, in the distant past our press had a certain influence on the "masses", it suffices to think of the tens of thousands of copies that were printed, in the 20s of the past century, from Malatesta daily, " compasses that take to the streets to carry the conflict, only in this way will we be able to pierce the veil of silence that the States erect around their domination. It was not always so, in the distant past our press had a certain influence on the "masses", it suffices to think of the tens of thousands of copies that were printed, in the 20s of the past century, from Malatesta daily, " compasses that take to the streets to carry the conflict, only in this way will we be able to pierce the veil of silence that the States erect around their domination. It was not always so, in the distant past our press had a certain influence on the "masses", it suffices to think of the tens of thousands of copies which were printed, in the 20s of the past century, from Malatesta daily, " Umanità Nova " The last, generous, attempt to build something similar (at least here in Italy) took place in the 1990s, when the most combative part of the anarchist movement tried to found a daily, an attempt which failed because of the repression and the enormous work it would have taken to find the funds, the energies and the skills. Admittedly, from a "cultural" point of view, at least since 1968, the influence of anarchist and libertarian thought has always been strong in art, in sociology, in anthropology ... But this is a another story, which touches on the "press", but also on this typology of anarchism which, more than fighting and destroying power, tries to limit it, to put on bandages, to improve things; I don't say that with contempt,

You are asking me if the technology we use to communicate does not risk "compromising", profoundly distorting what we mean. The dilemma you pose to me is vitally important and I believe there is something true in what you maintain. The risk is indeed very high, but if we want to be incisive and effective with our action, we cannot do without getting our hands dirty with technology, so with something really toxic and dangerous. To make a concrete example, in the same way that I "dirty" my hands with a pistol, an "instrument of death", to carry out the action against Adinolfi, I had, before, to find the objective, his address… on the internet: I had to come to a compromise with technology. Not to mention "necessity", that we sometimes feel, to communicate our reflections, the reasons for our actions, the repressive waves that affect us, to the greatest possible number of compasses around the world. The use of a simple weapon is much less toxic than the use of the Internet, it carries with you less risk, because it is linked to the concrete, to materiality. Admittedly, in such a case also there are disadvantages, one runs the risk of being "fascinated.es", conditioned.es by the object, by the instrument, of being carried away by "violence", succumbing drifting from efficiency through efficiency, from specialization, from "militarism", but all this is nothing compared to the risk that one incurs by using technology only in terms of communication. With the internet and all its technological "derivatives", we risk detaching ourselves completely from “reality”, becoming video game characters, by arriving to “live” in a virtual world made of “subversive” chatter, which gives us the illusion of doing, of acting, but which, in reality, neutralizes us, by throwing us in the arms of "power", which phagocytates us slowly (without our noticing it), by consuming our life, our time, in a not so different from what happens to an inmate in his cell. How many compasses exhaust their "revolt" in front of a keyboard? In this way, alienation and dissatisfaction feed each other and find an outlet in the aggression of those who are closest to us. The charges of inconsistency, if not worse, fall "like avalanches", the saddest thing is that, for some, this is the only way to really feel “revolutionary”. There are resounding calls to action, of an exceptional radicality, but never followed by the facts, nothing but words, because everything is inconsistent and fictitious, anyway we have the excuse ready: "consistency is impossible in this world. " Nevertheless, the discourse on the “purity” of the instrument we use, if it is not tackled concretely, risks becoming one of the theological discussions that the Fathers of the Church did to determine how much angels can fit on a pinhead: a joke, something that has nothing to do with real life. We must therefore make an extra effort and go into details, in special cases. For example, without the internet the FAI / FRI's experience of armed struggle (although it was limited in time) could not have spread around the world. Each action found its answer in another, somewhere far in the world, that without coordination or structured or global organization. In this case, the “internet” has made it possible to exclude authoritarian mechanisms, by avoiding, thanks to anonymity and non-knowledge between the different action groups and individuals, the birth of leaders and hierarchies. In a dynamic of this type (without organizational structure), the internet becomes “important”, because organic and structural to the action itself, it is, in a way, the “sounding board”, the “backbone », Which, if broken,« paralyzes »and makes communication waste away.

Today, we cannot limit ourselves to circumventing information, fictitious and distorted, of power, by making “counter-information”, we must go further… And here we come back to the title of this interview: What international ”? How can we harmonize our strengths and build this international which (as we have said many times) we feel the need for? The circulation of news, followed by international action campaigns, is a first step, difficult to implement without communication by "internet". It is no coincidence that, when in a country there is a risk of insurrection, the "power" immediately censors and cuts the internet. The confrontation, the revolt, takes place, naturally, in the streets, among the people, it is a guerilla warfare led by the "people" in arms. "Counter-information" is not enough: it becomes revolutionary when it fuels action, when it becomes an instrument for action groups, allowing them to harmonize their attacks and trigger widespread insurgency. Only by acting in this way can we sketch an “international anarchist”: the simpler will be its operational dynamics, the more effective will be its action and the more probability there will be that it really marks our lives.

A basic "instrument", adaptable to reality, constantly evolving: I think that we should focus on this objective. The FAI / FRI was one of the attempts to concretize such a "project", an attempt generated by the crisis of this world, in a spontaneous and natural way, without leaders or theorists, generated by the will and the action hundreds of anarchists around the world. I am firmly convinced that one day this "black international" will rise, as if by magic, from the ashes of the numerous defeats that, as anarchists, we have suffered in the course of history, and that that day will be born a oxymoron, an organization without organization, and it will be wonderful…

* Note: My reflections on ethos , pathos , praxis and logos were inspired by Amedeo Bertolo, " Pensiero e azione. Anarchism like logos, praxis, ethos and pathos ”[ Elèuthera, Milan, 2018; NdAtt.]. I hope no one will hold it against me, given the "abysmal" distance between my anarchist terrorism and its creative anarchy. The beauty of anarchy is precisely in the fact that, when experimenting with new paths, sometimes even the “opposites” are touched. Bertolo was looking for the "good balance" between these forces, I think that the new can only come from the collision between them, because life is contrast: rational and irrational, hatred and love, everything except the mortal, static "balance". Harmony is the daughter of "imbalance", of chaos.

Add new comment