💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › alfredo-m-bonanno-informal-organisation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:17:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Informal organisation Author: Alfredo M. Bonanno Date: 1985 Language: en Topics: organization Source: From *Anarchismo*, n. 47, 1985
First let us distinguish the informal anarchist organisation from the
anarchist organisation of synthesis. Considerable clarification will
emerge from this distinction.
What is an anarchist organisation of synthesis? It is an organisation
based on groups or individuals that are more or less in constant
relation with each other, that culminates in periodical congresses.
During these open meetings basic theoretical analyses are discussed, a
program is prepared and tasks are shared out covering a whole range of
interventions in the social field. The organisation thus sets itself up
as a point of reference, like an entity that is capable of synthesizing
the struggles that are going on in reality of the class clash. The
various commissions of this organisational model intervene in different
struggles (as single comrades or groups) and, by intervening, give their
contribution in first person without however losing site of the
theoretical and practical orientation of the organisation as a whole, as
decided at the most recent congress.
When this kind of organisation develops itself fully (as happened in
Spain in ’36) it begins to dangerously resemble a party. Synthesis
becomes control. Of course, in moments of slack, this involution is less
visible and might even seem an insult, but at other times it turns out
to be more evident.
In substance, in the organisation of synthesis (always specific and
anarchist), a nucleus of specialists works out proposals at both the
theoretical and ideological level, adapting them as far as possible to
the program that is roughly decided upon at the periodic congresses. The
shift away from this program can also be considerable (after all,
anarchists would never admit to too slavish an adherence to anything),
but when this occurs care is taken to return within the shortest
possible time to the line previously decided upon.
This organisation’s project is therefore that of being present in
various situations: antimilitarism, nuclear power, unions, prisons,
ecology, interventions in living areas, unemployment, schools, etc. This
presence is either by direct intervention or through participaton in
interventions managed by other comrades or organisations (anarchist or
not).
It becomes clear that participation aimed at bringing the struggle to
within the project of synthesis cannot be autonomous. It cannot really
adapt to the conditions of the struggle or collaborate effectively in a
clear plan with the other revolutionary forces. Everything must either
go through the ideological filter of synthesis or comply with the
conditions approved earlier during the congress.This situation, which is
not always as rigid as it might seem here, carries the ineliminable
tendency of organisations of synthesis to drag struggles to the level of
the base, proposing caution and using contrivances aimed at
redimensioning any flight forward, any objective that is too open or
means that might be dangerous.
For example, if a group belonging to this kind of organisation (of
synthesis, but always anarchist and specific) were to adhere to a
structure that is struggling, let us say, against repression, it would
be forced to consider the actions proposed by this structure in the
light of the analyses that had roughly been approved at the congress.
The structure would either have to accept these analyses, or the group
belonging to the organisation of synthesis would stop its collaboration
(if it is in a minority) or impose the expulsion (in fact, even if not
with a precise motion) of those proposing different methods of
struggle.Some people might not like it, but that is exactly how things
work.One might ask oneself why on earth the proposal of the group
belonging to the organisation of synthesis must by definition always be
more backward, i.e. in the rearguard, or more cautious than others
concerning possible actions of attack against the structures of
repression and social consensus.Why is that? The answer is simple. The
specific anarchist organisation of synthesis, which, as we have seen,
culminates in periodic congresses has growth in numbers as its basic
aim. It needs an operative force that must grow. Not to infinity
exactly, but almost. In the case of the contrary it would not have the
capacity to intervene in the various struggles, nor even be able to
carry out its own principle task: proceding to synthesis in one single
point of reference.Now, an organisation that has growth in members as
its main aim must use instruments that guarantee proselytism and
pluralism. It cannot take a clear position concerning any specific
problem, but must always find a middle way, a political road that upsets
the smallest number and turns out to be acceptable to most.
The correct position concerning some problems, particularly repression
and prisons, is often the most dangerous, and no group can put the
organisation they belong to at risk without first agreeing with the
other member groups. But that can only happen in congress, or at least
at an extraordinary meeting, and we all know that on such occasions it
is always the most moderate opinion that prevails, certainly not the
most advanced.
So, ineluctably, the presence of the organisation of synthesis in actual
struggles, struggles that reach the essence of the class struggle, turns
into a brake and control (often involuntarily, but it is still a
question of control).
The informal organisation does not present such problems. Affinity
groups and comrades that see themselves in an informal kind of
projectuality come together in action, certainly not by adhering to a
program that has been fixed at a congress. They realise the project
themselves, in their analyses and actions. It can occasionally have a
point of reference in a paper or a series of meetings, but only in order
to facilitate things, whereas it has nothing to do with congresses and
such like.The comrades who recognise themselves in an informal
organisation are automatically a part of it. They keep in contact with
the other comrades through a paper or by other means, but, more
important, they do so by participating in the various actions,
demonstrations, encounters, etc., that take place from time to time. The
main verification and analysis therefore comes about during moments of
struggle. To begin with these might simply be moments of theoretical
verification, turning into something more later on.
In an informal organisation there is no question of synthesis. There is
no desire to be present in all the different situations and even less to
formulate a project that takes the struggles into the depths of a
programme that has been approved in advance.
The only constant points of reference are insurrectional methods: in
other words self-organisation of struggles, permanent conflictuality and
attack.