Letterto 0

8/11/2019 Letterto 0

1/16

Letterto the

AnarchistGalaxy


2/16


3/16

he ollowing appeared online November 2011 and quickly made therounds o the usual anarchist websites. Te anonymous critique isaimed incisively at the growing tendency within international insur-rectional anarchism that posits a new guerrilla warare. Unlike the guerrilla

warare o the New Lef, this guerrilla is diffuse, anarchist, and or a totalrupture with the existent. While it is natural or those o us who desire the destruction o civili-zation to smile widely at consistent news o anarchist armed struggle, we mustalso remain critical. Much o this debate should be ormulated ace-to-aceby each group o individuals taking action against control. However, spaceremains or open critique and counter-critique within insurrectional circles.Te Conspiracy o Cells o Fire themselves push an idea o a new critique, one

attached to notices o attack, through which we may ormulate new methodsand strategies. While the authors o this piece may disagree with the neces-sity o each critical text coming in the orm o a communiqu, one agree-ment stands: we must remain active in our search or paths toward the activedestruction o domination and control. Te questions remain: Does insurrectionary anarchism mean the conscious intensification

o attack by individuals and groups? Or is it the generalization o revolt - itstools and skills - to every part o society? Are these two mutually exclusive? What is the point o the named group? Does this merely inviterepression? Does group coherency really matter? Can anonymity help mitigate state repression? Can it prevent our at-tacks rom being recuperated into the Spectacle? Can it mean the negation opolitical identities and an assertion o an individualism that evades subjectiv-ity?

Can guerrilla warare truly be separated rom vanguardism, specializa-tion, and ormalism? Is the anarchist guerrilla a totally different breed? I offer these questions because I do not have answers. While namedgroups stir up visions o arrogant Leninism, I cannot hold back my smilewhen I hear o any blow against domination. I want to envision a path towardrupture, toward the total destruction o the existent. What that means isunknown. We publish this text not as a condemnation o our comrades o the

anarchist, anti-civilization, and nihilist armed struggle, but as a small contribu-tion to that struggle.

Solidarity always to those who attack domination, named or unnamed.Untorelli Press

1


4/16


5/16

Uninvited, we are orcing ourselves on a debate that is not ours. Andwhich never will be, as it is set on a terrain that remains sterile or thedevelopment o insurrectional perspectives and the anarchist ideasand activities that ocus on such a development. So, you might ask, why write

a letter? Because nothing is closer to our hearts than liberatory and destructiverevolt, than the struggle or the subversion o the existent, because we will neverstop recognizing ourselves in all comrades who decide to attack the structuresand people o power out o a desire or reedom; because there are ew things wecherish more than individual will, the striving or coherence and the courage olighting the use, above everything. Dont think we are writing this premise inan attempt to please; it is sincere, as is our concern about the voluntary amputa-tion o the domain o anarchist struggle.

Lets be clear: More than ever there is a need or the destructive intervention o an-archists, more than ever it is the moment to intensiy, to search or possibilitiesand hypotheses enabling the extension o revolt and insurrection and in thisway speed up the overturning o this world. But this need and urge dont absolveus rom the obligation to think about what, where, how and why. Lets be straightorward:

For what reasons are anarchists (we dont have any difficulty in un-derstanding why authoritarians would do so) systematically claiming their actsand signing them with acronyms that have become amous worldwide? Whatbrings them to associate this road with an excessive orm o coherence betweenthinking and acting, between theory and practice, while in act it is simply theillusory abolition o a permanent tension which should exist between them andwhich is beyond doubt the moving strength behind the anarchist movement? Tis spreading mania risks casting its shadow over all acts o revolt.

Not only actions by anarchists that merrily pass through the bitter and alwaysdisappointing pill o the claim but also, and perhaps especially, the action othe more general panorama o rebellion and social conflictuality. Maybe that isone o the reasons that pushed us to write this text. ired o experiencing andfinding the anarchist field o attack, sabotage and expropriation more and moreassimilated to an acronym and, as such, political representation; tired o seeingthe horizon narrowing into two alsely opposing choices: either respectable an-

archism, running behind assemblies, social movements and base trade unions;or bad anarchism, being kindly asked to stamp your contributions to the socialwar with some acronym and i you dont, someone else will do it or you. Because we also choose to attack. We also sabotage the machinery ocapital and authority. We also choose to not accept a position o begging and

3


6/16

are not putting off the necessary expropriation until tomorrow. But we do thinkthat our activities are simply part o a wider social conflictuality, a conflictualitythat doesnt need claims and acronyms. We believe that only when actions areanonymous can they really be appropriated by everyone. We believe that put-

ting a stamp on an attack is moving the attack rom the social to the politicalfield, to the field o representation, delegation, actors and spectators. And, ashas ofen been said beore in this kind o debate, its not enough to proclaim thereusal o politics: its reusal implicates coherence between means and aims, andthe claim is a political instrument just like the membership card, the program,the declaration o principles. Over and above that, there is some conusion that we want to expose,because we cant continue to simply stand by and watch a content which is more

and more being given over to concepts such as inormality. Te choice o aninormal autonomous anarchist movement implies the reusal o fixed struc-tures, o membership organisations, o centralising and uniying ederations;and thereore also fixed recurring signatures, i not all signatures. It is the re-usal o the drawing up o programs, the banishment o all political means; andthereby also o programmatic claims that claim to be in the position o outliningcampaigns.

It is the reusal o all centralisation; and so equally o all umbrella struc-tures, no matter whether they declare themselves verbally inormal or ormal.In a positive sense, to us inormality signifies an unlimited and undefined ar-chipelago o autonomous groups and individuals which are orging ties basedon affinity and mutual knowledge and who decide upon that basis to realizecommon projects. It is the choice or small, affinity-based circles which maketheir own autonomy, perspectives and methods o action the basis or creatingties with others. Inormal organization has nothing to do with either edera-

tions or acronyms. And what brought some comrades to speak not only aboutinormality, but about insurrectionalism as well? With the risk o devaluingthe wide panorama o ideas, analyses, hypotheses and proposals, we could saythat insurrectionalism contains the methods and perspectives which, out o anon-compromising anarchism, want to contribute to insurrectional situations.Te anarchist arsenal o methods or this contribution is enormous. Moreover,the use o methods (agitation, attack, organisational proposals etc.) in itsel

means hardly anything: only in a thought-out and evolving projectuality dothey acquire meaning in the struggle. Setting fire to a State building is beyonddoubt always a good thing, but it is not necessarily inscribed in an insurrec-tional perspective as such. And this counts even less or the choice, or example,o aiming attacks particularly against rather central, spectacular targets, accom-

4


7/16

panied by conessions o aith. It is no coincidence that during other momentso insurrectional projectualities, the emphasis was put particularly on modest,reproducible, anonymous actions o attack compared to the more centralizedstructures and people o power, or on the necessity o well-aimed sabotage o

inrastructures that dont need echoes in the media in order to reach their goals,or example the immobilization o transport, data, and energy supplies. It seems that there are not all that many perspectives behind the cur-rent mania or claims, or at least, we have difficulty in discovering them. In act,and this doesnt imply that we want to underestimate the sincere and coura-geous rebellion o those comrades, it seems as i there is above all a striving orrecognition. A recognition by the enemy, who will hurry to complete its list oterrorist organisations, ofen signiying the beginning o the end: the enemy

starts working to isolate a part o the conflictuality rom the wider conflictual-ity, an isolation which is not only the orerunner o repression (and actually itdoesnt really matter, repression is always there were not going to weep aboutthe act that anarchist activities are always being ollowed by the eyes o the Ar-gus, and thus prosecuted), but especially, and thats the most important, it is themost effective means to combat all possible inection. In the current condition o the social body, which is sick and deteri-

orating, the best thing or power is a clearly recognizable and definable kniewhich tries to stab a piece o it, while the worst or power is a virus that risksharming the whole body in an intangible and thereore uncontrollable way. Orare we mistaken, and is it all more about recognition by the exploited and ex-cluded? But are we as anarchists not against all orms o delegation, o shiningexamples which ofen legitimize resignation? Most certainly, our practices canbe contagious, and our ideas even more, but only on condition that they bringback the responsibility to act to each separate individual, when they question

resignation as being an individual choice. o inflame hearts, most certainly, but when this lacks the oxygen oones own conviction, the fire will extinguish ast and in the best case will simplybe ollowed up by some applause or the upcoming martyrs. And even then, itwould really be too ironic i the principal opponents o politics, the anarchists,were to take up the torch o representation and, in the ootsteps o their authori-tarian predecessors, separate social conflictuality rom the immediate subver-

sion o all social roles, and do this in times when political mediation (politicalparties, unions, reormism) is slowly becoming obsolete and outmoded. And itmakes no difference whether they want to do this by taking the lead o socialmovements, speaking great truths in popular assemblies or by means o a spe-cific armed group.

5


8/16

Or is it all about striving or coherence? Unortunately, the anarchiststhat exchange the quest or coherence or tactical agreements, nauseating alli-ances and strategic separations between means and aims have always existed.Anarchist coherence is beyond doubt also to be ound in the denial o all this.

But this doesnt mean that, or example, a certain condition o clandestinitywould be more coherent. When clandestinity is not seen as a necessity (eitherbecause repression is hunting us down or because it is necessary or certain ac-tion), but as some kind o pinnacle o revolutionary activity, there is not so muchlef over rom the inamous a-legalism. In order to imagine this, it might sufficeto compare it to the social situation in Europe: it is not because thousands opeople are living in a really clandestine situation (people without papers), thatit makes them automatically and objectively a threat to legalism and crowns

them as revolutionary subjects. Why would it be any different or anarchistsliving under conditions o clandestinity? Or might it all be about rightening the enemy? A recurring element inclaims is that apparently there are anarchists who believe they can scare powerby expressing threats, publishing pictures o weapons or exploding little bombs(and lets not mention the despicable practice o sending letter bombs). In com-parison to the daily slaughter organized by power it seems kind o nave, espe-

cially to those who have no illusions lef concerning rulers that are more sensi-tive, capitalism with a human ace, or more honest relations within the system.I power, despite its arrogance, were to ear anything it would be the spread orevolt, the sowing o disobedience, the uncontrolled igniting o hearts. And ocourse, the lightning o repression will not spare anarchists that want to contrib-ute to this, but that doesnt prove how dangerous we are in any way whatsoever,it maybe only speaks about how dangerous it would be i our ideas and practiceswere to spread among among the excluded and exploited.

We are continually surprised about how little the idea o some kind oshadow is able to please contemporary anarchists, the ones that dont want toresign themselves, wait or build mass organisations. We used to be proud o it: We would put all on all to make the swamp o social conflictuality ex-tend and so make it impossible or the orces o repression and recuperation topenetrate. We didnt go searching or the spotlight, or or the glory o the war-

rior: in the shadow, at the dark side o society we contributed to the disturbanceo normality, to the anonymous destruction o structures o control and repres-sion, to the liberation o time and space through sabotage so that the socialrevolt could continue. And we used to diffuse our ideas proudly, in an autono-mous way, without making use o the echoes o the media, ar away rom the

6


9/16

political spectacle including the oppositional one. An agitation which was notstriving to be filmed, recognized, but which tried to uel rebellion everywhereand orge ties with other rebels in the shared revolt. It seems that today more than a ew comrades have chosen the easy

solution o identity over the circulation o ideas and revolt, and have in this wayreduced affinity relations to a joining something. O course it is easier to pickup some ready-made product off the shelves o the militant market o opin-ions and consume it, rather than develop a proper struggle track that makes arupture with it. O course it is easier to give onesel the illusion o strength byusing a shared acronym than to ace the act that the strength o subversionis to be ound to the degree and in the way it can attack the social body withliberating practices and ideas. Identity and ormation o a ront might offer

the sweet illusion o having meaning, especially in the spectacle o communica-tion technology, but doesnt clear every obstacle rom the road. Even more, itshows all the symptoms o sickness o a not-so-anarchist conception o struggleand revolution, which believes in being able to pose an illusionary anarchistmastodon beore the mastodon o power in a symmetrical way. Te immediateconsequence is the evermore narrowing o the horizon to a not-so-interestingintrospection, some patting on the back here and there and the construction o

a ramework o exclusive sel-reerence. It wouldnt surprise us i this mania were to paralyse the anarchistmovement even regarding our contribution to more and more requent, spon-taneous and destructive revolts. Being locked up in sel-promotion and sel-reerence, with communication reduced to publishing claims on the internet,it doesnt seem that anarchists will be able to do a lot (apart rom the obliga-tory explosions and arsons, ofen against targets which the people in revolt arealready very much destroying themselves) when the situation is exploding in

their neighbourhood. It seems that the closer we seem to get to the possibilityo insurrections, the more tangible these possibilities are becoming, the less an-archists want to be busy with it. And this counts equally or those who are clos-ing up themselves in some ideology o armed struggle. But what are we talkingabout when we speak about insurrectionary perspectives? Definitely not justabout a multiplicity o attacks, even less when these seem to tend towards theexclusive terrain o the anarchists with their ronts. Much more than a singu-

lar armed duel with the State, insurrection is the multiple rupture with time,space and roles o domination, a necessarily violent rupture which can signiythe beginning o the subversion o social relations. In that sense, insurrection israther a social uncleashing, which goes urther than a generalizing o revolt orriots, but which already carries in its negation the beginning o a new world, or

7


10/16

at least should do. It is precisely the presence o such utopian tension that o-ers some grip against the return to normality and the recovery o social rolesafer the great east o destruction. So it may be clear that insurrection is not apurely anarchist matter, although our contribution to it, our preparation to-

wards it, our insurrectional perspectives, could in uture times be beyond doubtimportant and maybe decisive or pushing the unchaining o negation towardsa liberating direction. Abandoning in advance these difficult issues whichshould be gaining importance in a world that is becoming more and more un-stable by locking ourselves up in some identity-based ghetto and cherishingthe illusion o developing strength by common signatures and the unificationo anarchists that are prepared to attack, inevitably becomes the negation o allinsurrectionary perspectives.

o get back to the world o ronts and acronyms, we could or examplemention the obligatory reerences to imprisoned comrades as a clear sign o therestraining ourselves within a ramework o exclusive sel-reerence. It seemsthat once locked up by the State, these comrades are no longer comrades like weare, but are precisely imprisoned comrades. In this way, the positions in theiralready difficult and painul debates become fixed in a way that can have onlytwo exits: either the absolute glorification o our imprisoned comrades, or abso-

lute rejection, which can very quickly turn into a renouncement o developingand embodying solidarity. Does it still make sense to continue repeating that our imprisonedcomrades are neither positioned above or below other comrades, but are simplyamong them? Isnt it remarkable that, despite the many struggles against pris-ons, the present current is again coming out with political prisoners, abandon-ing a more general perspective o struggle against prison, justice,...? In this waywe risk completing what the State was already trying to realise in the first place

by locking our comrades up: by turning them into abstract, idolized and centralreerence points, we are isolating them rom the social war as a whole. Instead olooking or ways to maintain ties o solidarity, affinity and complicity across thewalls, by placing everything in the middle o social war, solidarity is shrinkinginto the quoting o names at the end o a claim. On top o that, this is generat-ing a nasty circular motion without much perspective, a higher level o attackswhich are dedicated to others, rather than taking strength rom ourselves and

rom the choice o when, how and why to intervene in given circumstances. But the logic o armed struggle-ism is unstoppable. Once set in mo-tion, it unortunately becomes very difficult to counter. Everybody that doesntjoin and take up its deence is compared to comrades that dont want to act orattack, that submit revolt to calculations and masses, that only want to wait and

8


11/16

are reusing the urge to light the use here and now. In the deormed mirror, thereusal o the ideology o armed struggle is equal to the reusal o armed struggleitsel. O course this is not true, but or who wants to hear that, there is no spaceor discussion lef open. Everything is being reduced to a thinking in blocks, or

and against, and the path which we think is more interesting, the developmento insurrectional projectualities is disappearing into the background. o the ap-plause o the ormal libertarians and the pseudo-radicals as well as the repressiveorces, who desire nothing more than the drying up o this swamp. Because who still wants to discuss projectuality today, when the onlyrhythm that the struggle seems to have is the sum o the attacks claimed on theinternet? Who is still searching or a perspective that wants to do more thanstrike a little? Tere is, by the way, no doubt about that: striking is necessary,

here and now, and with all the means that we think appropriate and oppor-tune. But the challenge o the development o a projectuality, which aims atthe attempt o unchaining, extending or deepening insurrectional situations,demands a bit more than the capacity to strike. It demands the developmento proper ideas and not the repetition o other peoples words, the strength todevelop real autonomy in terms o struggle and capacities; the slow and difficultsearch or affinities and the deepening o mutual knowledge; a certain analysis

o the social circumstances in which we act; the courage to elaborate hypothesesor the social war in order to stop running behind acts or ourselves. In short: it doesnt only demand the capacity to use certain methodsbut especially the ideas o how, where, when and why to use them, and thenin combination with a whole spectre o other methods. Otherwise there willbe no anarchists lef, only a spectrum o fixed roles: propagandists, squatters,armed strugglers, expropriators, writers, window breakers, rioters, etc. Terewould be nothing more painul than to find ourselves so unarmed in the ace

o the coming social storm than or each one o us to have only one specialitylef. Tere would be nothing worse in explosive social situations than having tonote that anarchists are too much involved in their own back yard to be able toreally contribute to the explosion. It would give the most bitter taste o missedopportunities when we, by ocussing exclusively on the identity ghetto, wouldabandon the discovery o our accomplices inside the social storm, the orgingo ties o shared ideas and practices with other rebels, breaking with all orms o

mediated communication and representation and in this way opening up spaceor true mutuality which is allergic to all power and domination. But as always we reuse to despair. We are aware that many comradesare searching or possibilities to attack the enemy and orge ties with other reb-els through the spreading o anarchist ideas and struggle proposals, in a time

9


12/16

and space that abandons all political spectacle. It is probably the most difficultpath, because it will never be rewarded. Not by the enemy, not by the masses andmost probably not by other comrades and revolutionaries. But we carry a his-tory inside o us, a history that connects us to all anarchists and which will ob-

stinately continue to reuse to be enclosed, either within the official anarchistmovement, or in the armed-struggle-ist reflection o it. Tose who continue toreuse to spread ideas separately rom the ways in which we spread them, thustrying to exile all political mediation, including the claim. Tose who dont caremuch about who did this or that, but connect it to their own revolt, their ownprojectuality which expands in the only conspiracy we want: the one o rebel-lious individualities or the subversion o the existent.

10


13/16

Te anarchist

needs no face.


14/16

Te fire needs

no name.


15/16


16/16

UN TO R E L L I

Letterto 0

Documents

Transcript of Letterto 0