Add new comment

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.