💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › horst-stowasser-project-a-presentation-1.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:49:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Project A (presentation) Author: Horst Stowasser Date: 1986 Language: en Topics: anarchist movement, movement, worker cooperatives, activism, Germany Source: http://www.enxarxa.com/biblioteca/STOWASSER%20La%20utopia%20es%20posible.pdf.
Stowasser, Horst. “El ‘proyecto A.’” In Murray Bookchin, Domenico
Liguri, and Horst Stowasser, La utopía es posible: experiencias posibles
(Buenos Aires: Tupac Ediciones, 2004), 11-65. Translated by Jesse Cohn.
I like to cook. I also enjoy playing with my little son and writing
political articles. I like sailing boats, swimming, talking to friends
and comrades, arguing with people, woodworking, traveling the world,
giving public lectures, participating in conferences, painting, drawing,
engaging in anarchist political activities and projects, preferably with
many people and without violence; I like my work (I currently work in
typesetting). I like playing guitar just as much as reading; I like
editing magazines and writing books, maintaining the library I created,
and finally, I like to devote myself, occasionally, to the advancement
of world revolution: the anarchist revolution, of course.
Perhaps you will say, what the hell does this have to do with the
subject? Well, it seems to me that this is where we find what Project A
means and what it is.
A multi-dimensional project
I’m pretty sure that most of you – and, indeed, all those who have
multi-dimensional personalities – have the most diverse interests,
desires, dreams, preferences, hobbies, hopes, and plans. It is not one
thing only that motivates us and brings us together in this place. And
just as Anarchy is not a single thing, such as the abolition of the
State or of money, the practice of “free love” or feeding everyone, so
our lives and our realities are a rather sophisticated combination of
multiple factors.
In this obvious, almost banal fact lies a force, a dynamic thrust,
capable of changing our lives as society.
Three different approaches
Therefore, there are different approaches to what I call “Project A.”
One might be purely political. Another might be an economic approach. A
third way might be via “private life.” Consider a simple example: a
person may be interested in participating in this project because he or
she is seeking new forms of anarchist action, strategy, and perspective
in order to overcome the current “cul de sac” that the world libertarian
movement is facing right now, where very few alternatives are open. This
could be a possible political rapprochement. Another possible path to
the Project would be for someone who is seeking a better way of working
and living: better in the sense of more fulfilling, more creative, more
organic, working in community, with a minimum of authority and
alienation, ensuring a decent income, making a living, supporting a
family. This would be a possible economic approach. Finally, someone
might be interested in changing the foundations of his or her life,
wanting to build a more satisfying existence in terms of personal
happiness, living in collective groups, establishing better conditions
for the growth of adults and children, finding self-actualization as a
person in society, etc. This desire for better conditions in “private
life” could constitute a third approach, a “private” form.
Balancing the economic, the political, and the private
To give you an initial “philosophical” idea of the merits of Project A,
I would stress that this project aims to unify these three starting
points, to overcome their contradictions, to break the artificial
boundaries between the “political,” the “economic,” and the “private.”
The goal is to reach a point where it is impossible to describe any
activity that a person is performing as just a “political activity,”
just a matter of “making money,” or just a matter of “being happy”
enjoying life. Life should no longer be divided up into specific,
sharply delimited zones; a living should be a labor that gives us
pleasure and the ability to earn our daily bread; it should be a way to
change society, to give it an anarchist shape, while providing us with
happiness and satisfaction. Project A tries to give equal weight to all
these areas, integrating all of these elements into its structures.
“Project A”
The old anarchist dream
As we all know, this idea is nothing new. In fact, it is the synthesis
of the anarchist ideas of every period. The anarchist dream has always
intended to make work into a creative game, to turn everyday life into a
source of happiness, to turn making a living into having fun and “doing
politics,” setting examples and creating exciting experiences. Project
A, therefore, is nothing but a manual for enacting the first steps of
this dream within the concrete realities of the German Federal Republic,
today, in the context of the capitalist system. Project A tries to
suggest ideas to address problems of everyday life, even in its most
boring details – problems of the truly filthy and not at all
revolutionary capitalist State that is called “social democracy.” At the
same time, this project tries to answer the current question: how can
we, in creating such concrete examples of Anarchy, make anarchism
attractive and accessible to thousands of individuals, to millions of
the so-called “ordinary people,” while avoiding the more frequent traps
and mistakes, e.g., reformism, isolation, economic collapse, and many of
the other common “diseases” afflicting so many libertarian projects?
The fatal separation in political groups
In fact, the desire to harmonize these three areas – political,
economic, and private – is almost universal among anarchists. In
reality, however, we find this fatal separation almost everywhere.
Usually, today, the “average anarchist” goes to work or study about
eight hours a day in a particular location. This is a part of his or her
life, a reality separate from everything else. Returning home, he or she
lives his or her “private life” alone with the family or community group
with whom he or she lives. Another reality, another place. Finally, the
individual becomes a “political person” in an anarchist group, union, or
circle, often once a week, when it has its regular meeting. It might be
a Friday evening, between eight and ten at night. This is the third
reality in a third place. Thus, in the usual case, work, personal life,
and political activity are totally separate; the boundaries between
these sectors are bright and clear. The same happens if a worker is
engaged in anarchist activism, as often unions are weak, activists are
trapped in the factory, and union activities are conducted outside
business hours and places of work, often occupied with issues and goals
that are foreign to the individual’s everyday reality.
Isolation and sterility
We think that it is in this fateful separation that we can locate many
of the reasons why so many projects and initiatives, and not only those
that are libertarian in nature, are so weak, why they fail, why they
quickly arrive at situation of sterility, creating their own ghettos of
isolation, or simply do not work. Because the situation just described
reflects nothing other than the almost total lack of popularity of
anarchism, the failure of anarchists to become rooted and gain
acceptance in contemporary societies with regard to everyday life in its
trivial aspects, in the social context, in the neighborhood, in working
life, etc. This deficit is almost universal in all countries and there
are very few exceptions, such as – possibly – in some regions of Spain
and the U.S. Normally, the anarchist movement tends to hide this defect
behind a superficial triumphalism or by turning to historical examples.
Anarchism today…
Anarchists, as a rule, are organized – if at all – in small,
ideologically-defined groups, thus ensuring the survival of a culture
and tradition of freedom, occasionally participating in social struggles
or movements, and being generally excellent critics of society and
prophets of the disasters that lie ahead. But what good is all this?
What good is a prophet unable to indicate how the disasters can be
overcome or how all the terrible paths that society is taking now can be
avoided for the sake of future? Anarchists today, and for over 50 years,
are not able to give this general response. They are not in a position
to point out an accessible and attractive exit from the current
conditions. They do not know how to change society on a large scale or
how to create new, libertarian social forms for the vast majority of
people, as they were able to do, in some parts of the world before the
Second World War, with the ideas and practice of anarcho-syndicalism.
…Its crisis and its lack of popularity
But the “glory days” are long gone and cannot easily be repeated, and
not in the same way. Contemporary anarchism is not in tune with the
times and is not popular. The few current anarchist projects that are
exceptions, trying to break out this ghetto, are usually isolated or
economically terribly weak or small, or else, if they prosper
economically, they easily become reformist. Above all, they are
extremely rare.
A sophisticated combination versus “purist anarchism”
Therefore, Project A is a combination of ideas that seeks to overcome
this purist, isolated anarchism. We do not consider ourselves to be
missionaries or Jesuits of anarchism. We try to mobilize pragmatic,
professional, realistic perspectives, uniting them to create a stable
basis for politico-social activities and also as points of defense
against the system that surrounds us. At the same time, this basis is to
give an added impetus to us our dreams, our utopias, our affection, and
our anarchist ideals, both in our internal relationships and in the
social structures we want to create. These ideals remain the usual
anarchist ideals.
The three approaches are equally legitimate
Consequently, the three types of approach are equally legitimate and
equivalent for us. We believe personal happiness is as important as
political success or making a decent living. Why would we be anarchists,
if not for a healthy egoism, in the positive sense of the word? If I am
an anarchist, it is not primarily because I want my grandchildren to
live better. First, I want to enjoy anarchy in my own life, at least an
initial anarchism, in its infancy, in its early conquests. And if, in
the process, by living, acting and working in this way, I can create a
new strategy for living anarchism that would expand and spread in a
virulent manner, giving it a new vitality, a new revolutionary dynamism,
what more could I hope for?
Positive egoism
A positive egoism, which is what defines my own happiness, is only
possible if the other people around me are equally happy, free and
autonomous, which is – in my opinion – the sanest way to justify any
“political” work and to promote any social activism. I, personally,
deeply suspicious of all those “professional revolutionaries” – even if
they call themselves anarchists – who are fighting “for principles,”
“for ideas” for “the beautiful black flag” or for other lofty concepts,
without including themselves, without changing their own lives, without
understanding themselves as part of this change and struggle. If we
start to “practice anarchism” in its rudimentary forms today, this must
also mean that we can start living in a better, freer and happier way.
If we cannot meet this goal, anarchism will never be a way of life and
social organization that anyone finds attractive, accessible, and
pleasant, except for political masochists and mere theoretical thinkers
of a purist persuasion.
Just one alternative among many other possibilities
Project A, however, is intended to be just one of many possible answers
to this general dilemma. One answer, which has grown and matured over
the course of nine years, and which is based on fifteen years of
experience in local, national and international anarchist struggles of
the “old style” that we have lived through.
I am afraid that after so many general considerations, you will not yet
have even the slightest concrete idea what Project A is. But before I
explain the basic details of its structure and dynamics, I have to
insist on some details and concepts that I explained previously. Without
them, the “philosophy” underlying our project can hardly be understood.
“Pamphleteering” anarchism
One of these concepts is what we call “pamphleteering anarchism.” It
means that anarchist ideas are disseminated and transferred by means of
more or less abstract manifestations: by written papers, brochures,
books, speeches, demonstrations, literature, stickers, posters, and
graffiti, as well as, on a smaller scale, by video, music and theater.
In many countries, and especially in West Germany, anarchists are
usually crazed paper producers. Sometimes, when you look at the
anarchist press in certain countries, one can easily get the impression
that we are on the eve of the social revolution and working in the midst
of powerful social upheavals and strongly rooted anarchist struggles.
However, we all know that this is not the case. The spread of anarchist
ideas by means of publication and the like is certainly necessary to
achieve our goals, but it is not sufficient. Very few people “become
anarchists” just by reading words, and even if these people come to call
themselves “anarchists,” this does not mean that there has actually been
any change, either in their private lives or in the society surrounding
them. “Pamphleteering anarchism,” no matter how well it is done, can
never reach more than 3-6% of the population, for the simple reason that
very few people are in the habit of reading. And even if this 3-6% came
to us, this would likely be a fatal selection, because we would make
anarchism accessible only to those who enjoy reading, study, theoretical
discussions and literature – in other words, intellectuals.
The anarchist ghetto
In this sector, only a few marginalized groups of underprivileged,
persecuted, and oppressed people enter, in small numbers, for the
duration of social struggles. These groups often leave anarchist circles
once the dynamics of the struggle and the specific motive for the
rebellion have been exhausted, because – apart from the specific motive
– the libertarian movement has not been able to create an environment, a
solid basis, a libertarian culture in which these people can find a new
and satisfactory way of living their everyday lives. This is precisely
the current state of most libertarian groups in most countries. This
presents the structure and the dilemma of contemporary anarchism.
The exclusion of “ordinary people”
As a result, enormously large numbers of so-called “ordinary people” are
automatically excluded. In the libertarian experiences of the past,
these people have only been interested by and committed to anarchism and
other revolutionary ideas when these movements have been able to propose
ways to solve specific, understandable and non-exotic solutions to
specific problems that existed in real, everyday life. Within this
framework of values, it is important to introduce another concept:
“lived anarchism,” which we would like to oppose to “pamphleteering
anarchism.” If the anarchists of the past, on several occasions, were
able to propose revolutionary solutions to existing problems and were
followed by large segments of the population, this was primarily because
these anarchists of the past were able to make their neighbors,
coworkers and friends understand what anarchism was and what it meant,
insofar as they tried to live it.
“Lived anarchism”
In a number of historical situations, anarchists were no longer those
exotic beasts who, at times, even adopted arrogant attitudes towards the
“ordinary people,” but were accepted as friends, good neighbors, and
co-workers in their everyday social environment. You can still find
traces of this ancient libertarian culture in some parts of Italy,
Spain, France, Latin America… For these old movements, one thing was
obvious: the best preacher is the one who preaches by example. In these
movements, propaganda, books, magazines were still very important, but
they were merely tools for social change in real life, and not, as they
so often are today, enterprises sufficient unto themselves, sucking up
what little energies were available to maintain their own existence. And
those old comrades were not considered too “fine,” too “noble” or too
“intellectual” to come into contact with “these stupid, ignorant,
ordinary, average, petty-bourgeois people” of everyday life. They
engaged in a long-term task of establishing a libertarian presence,
including culture, social struggle, syndicalism, and action. This work,
encompassing everything from “trivial” neighborhood disturbances to
general strikes to revolutionary riots and the carrying out of a general
social revolution.
This is why, in our political analysis, we think that “pamphleteering
anarchism” is necessary but should be kept in healthy proportion with
culture, living, and real anarchist struggle. Currently, the proportion
of “pamphleteering” to “living” could be estimated at 70% to 30%,
respectively. In our view, it should be exactly the opposite.
What does it mean to be revolutionary?
We think, moreover, that not everything related to “pamphleteering” or
violent gestures is automatically “political” or “revolutionary,” and
that everything that isn’t labeled “anarchist” or “direct action” is not
automatically apolitical and “reformist.” In other words, selling bread
can be as political as selling an anarchist newspaper. It just depends
on its political context, its strategy, and the broader tactics in which
it is involved.
Populism yesterday and today
Finally, we disagree with those who think that the “populism” of
anarchism is a beautiful thing of the past to which we cannot return, or
that it is a beautiful feature of life in distant countries where people
have a different mentality. On the contrary: we can attest, based on our
experiences in small and medium-sized German cities, that “ordinary”
people are not stupid, boring, reactionary idiots, provided that
anarchists do not remain the arrogant, isolated and provocative
sectarians we have been for many years in our political behavior, our
social work, our strategies, and our lives, continuing to believe, as
many do, that the “good anarchist” is one who spits contemptuously in
the faces of all those who are not the same. We even believe that today,
a popular path, based on “lived anarchism,” is possible and, of course,
necessary. In this way, social contacts are extremely important as they
are, in fact, is much more effective to give people examples rather than
printed words. This should not mean, of course, that we want to create a
sort of zoo where non-anarchists come to watch the well-educated
anarchists, hair nicely combed, dressed in neckties, hard at work
playing the clown to win the sympathies of the petty-bourgeois. We do
not want to disguise or hide anything. We just want to live what we feel
and aspire to make this kind of lifestyle accessible, a source of
examples and possible solutions to problems they have in their own
lives.
Constructive anarchism
For me, anarchism has always been a form of creative and constructive
life. If this is true, and if we generalize that philosophy across our
lives and our activities, I have no doubt that these examples will be
seen, observed, and followed closely by many people, and not dismissed
as something adventurous, exotic, or outrageous that should make people
afraid.
All this, of course, still sounds very abstract, and I think it’s time
to get into the specifics of what Project A is intended to be and to
become. Since time is short, I will have to do this in a very general
way. The basic book on Project A is 100 pages long, and the discussion
has barely begun. Meanwhile, discussion of the idea runs more than 800
pages with suggestions, criticisms and revisions, and preparations for
the Project are in full swing (Author’s note: Winter 1988). So all I can
do here is give you an overview of it without going into great detail,
trying to avoid the most common misunderstandings and prejudices. (It is
very easy to misread this project.)
Possible misunderstandings
Often, people hear a few bits or details or rumors about Project A, and
reply at once: “Well, this, we know, is such-and-such....” However, I
can assure you that this project is a distinctly new plan, with some old
ideas, some new, and some very original, combined and related, planned
in a professional manner, and designed with a maximum of fantasy,
revolutionary fervor and utopian vision. No more propaganda! Let’s get
to the point:
Two basic aspects
We have to look at the Project under two different aspects: First, the
microstructure of organization and economy that provides this project
with a solid foundation, and secondly, the political dynamics, the
course of development, and the perspective that has emerged from this
foundation.
The economic microstructure
First, let’s talk about the economic microstructure, without forgetting
that it is not all there is to Project A, but only the solid foundation
on which everything that goes further is to be built.
Project for a medium-sized city
Project A, in its initial phase, is a plan of conquest for a
medium-sized German city (about 50,000) for a libertarian
political/economic/cultural movement in order to make anarchism a
popular force, accessible and important to the social life of the city
and its surroundings. This attempt must, on the one hand, enable its
participants to live a better life, as we said previously, and on the
other hand, it must constitute a libertarian political perspective. This
particular project, Projekt A, was designed for a medium-sized German
city and for the specific exigencies of the Federal Republic of Germany,
but the general idea behind this project and even some of its details
can be easily adapted to any other reality, e.g., big cities, rural
areas, or other countries.
The “dual project”
The smallest unit, which is composed by all the basis of Project A, is
the so-called “dual project.”[1] The two squares symbolize:
[Diagram: “The dual project.” Two boxes are arranged side by side. One
is marked with a plus-sign and labeled “Gain.” The other is marked with
a minus-sign and labeled “Deficit.” An arrow emanates from the “Gain”
box and is aimed at the “Deficit” box. Bottom caption: “System in
balance = Economic basis.”]
The idea behind the “dual project” is very simple. We always try to
combine a project that brings in money with another that needs money,
that is to say, one project that’s profitable with another that runs at
a loss. To put it another way, we might call this the combination of a
“commercial” project with a “political” project. However, we can’t
maintain this distinction precisely because, due to the mutual relations
of all projects within an overall strategy, we want all projects to have
a certain political significance. To give one example: in an average
city, a political bookstore can hardly be profitable, much less serve to
earn a living for the comrades who run it. Therefore, let’s combine this
library with a café, a bar, or a club. Because of this combination, this
“dual project,” sited in the same building, organized by the same group
of comrades, achieves its economic balance and might, if it is run
responsibly, even draw a modest profit after paying salaries and
overhead.
The economic balance
Thus, after covering the deficit in the bookstore with the profit of the
café, there is still a profit margin available that can be used for
other purposes, of which more later.
Possible combinations
There are hundreds of useful and intelligent combinations of double,
triple and quadruple projects. You can combine a disco with a cultural
center or ateneo, a movie theater with a film cooperative, a garden with
a food cooperative, a macrobiotic farm with a center of information on
healthy eating, a hairdresser with a political club, a popular
university with an immigrant assistance center, a printing press with a
libertarian magazine, an advertising office with a publisher, a lawyers’
collective with a legal aid project, a carpentry shop with a vocational
training center, a garage with a center for alternative technological
development, a grocery store with a center for third world aid, etc. Or,
to give a concrete example: an Anarchist Documentation Center (“Das
Anarchiv.” that we have maintained for more than 15 years could be
combined with a photocopy and stationery store, located near a school.
Or, for another example: the typesetting firm in which I work will be
combined with an advertising studio (commercial) and an anarchist
magazine publisher (political) that we are planning.
Different products and services
Through this combination of dual and triple projects, we want to reduce
this damned production of such “leftist,” “hippie” or “countercultural”
commodities, i.e., the production of folkloric items that are not
primary necessities, as do many communities in Europe and America.
Instead, we want to cover production and service in all the areas that
we ourselves, and also the “ordinary people,” need in everyday life. So
far we have not found any profession that could not be intelligently
combined with other projects, other than work as policemen, judges,
landlords, generals, prostitutes, prison guards, etc. – all pretty
rarely encountered in the anarchist milieu...
The community of living
Naturally, our goal is not limited to the creation of a series of
successful businesses of the “dual project” type in order to assure the
lives of a handful of anarchists. What’s more, each “dual project” in
turn, is linked to a living community. In this, those working in the
dual projects and organize, share housing, lifestyle, the “private
life,” education of children, political activity, recreation, etc.
Therefore, in the ordinary case, the collective work and community
coexistence of a dual project is identical, working and living in one
place. This principle comes to be symbolized by a triangle above the two
squares:
[]
So we create “units” consisting of the “dual project” (“political”
sector / “economic” sector) and cohabitation (“private” sector). Each
“unit” of this type is autonomous in regard to labor issues, lifestyle,
mode of production, products and marketing, level of consumption,
methods of payment, methods of educating children, all the way down to
questions of various beliefs such as being vegetarian or not,
consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, the abolition of
money, private property, and many other things. In this way we achieve
the creation of a vast field of experimentation with different modes and
styles of life, work, and action, which are collective in nature without
crushing individuality.
Experiencing diversity
Thus we avoid the uniformity, coercion, and terror of a false,
authoritarian collectivism without falling into the other extreme of
individualistic dispersion. This model gives us the opportunity to
participate in the greatest number of interesting experiments without
the need for divisiveness. We can highlight the diversity of a
libertarian society, that diversity within unity, i.e.: “lived
anarchism.” In our model, a variety of different characters who could
not work in the same collective may well cooperate in different “units”
or relocate without these differences leading to the dismantling of the
entire project, as is common in many collective experiments of recent
years. Equally important is the possibility, for ourselves, of learning
thereby a virtue that is indispensable for Anarchy: “libertarian
tolerance.” We can fight our own prejudices towards the beliefs and
lifestyles of other libertarians. Instead of polemicizing against
comrades with other beliefs, we can cooperate with each other without
forcing one another to change how we live. We can observe, know and
perhaps understand each other much better than we do today. Pacifists
and militants, vegetarians and meat-eaters, supporters and opponents of
private property, proletarian, punk, or alternative comrades, those
living in couples and those who practice free love, those who educate
their children collectively or individually, those who prefer a frugal
lifestyle and those who prefer luxury – all these can, despite their
differences, cooperate, learn from one another, and maintain hundreds of
useful relationships instead of arguing and fighting amongst themselves
in a missionary spirit. Even more: they can overcome their mutual
prejudices or change one anothers’ views by observation and
experimentation. Nobody is forced to live according to a certain moral
or particular style, no one is coerced into a standard of living and
consumption, as long as the various forms practiced are not directly
anti-anarchist or out of keeping with a minimum consensus of what we may
call a general libertarian ethics.
We are all able to see how things work in the neighboring community and
how the comrades live and work in the cooperative or the house of
another neighborhood. They might even try out another way of life that
may interest them, without committing to it, settling in another
community on a trial basis, for a specified period. If they like it,
they can either stay on or introduce this way of life to their own
community, and if they are unhappy, they can return peacefully, without
losing anything.
On the one hand, all of this is a rich field for us to learn libertarian
diversity and tolerance, which is essential if we really want to make a
libertarian society without violence or oppression. On the other hand,
we can show everyone else, with obvious examples, that our
“microsociety” is able to live the most diverse forms without the need
for uniformity imposed by the collective whole, which can make
understandable the anarchist view of the abolition of the State as a
leveling artifice; then it would be an experience accessible to and
understandable by any “ordinary” person.
No dogmas
Of course, this means that the idea that people who work in a collective
should live communally is only an idea-model, not a dogma. Naturally,
there will be people who live alone and work in a collective, as well as
others who share a living space and work outside of it. We assume that
the reality of such a project will not be strictly limited to forms of
“dual project,” but will be a much more “chaotic” mix. We only draw up
general schemes and avoid making strict new laws or rules of correct
anarchist behavior. We believe that the goal of a project of this kind
cannot be to live in a uniform way, but to show the evidence and the
benefits of libertarian collectivity and diversity. The price of this
freedom is the possibility of deviation, abuse, and decay. A little
later, we will return to this danger and try to explain how we can avoid
or reduce it.
The sterility of many alternative projects
However, even this would not be anything extraordinary. Currently, in
many German cities, we find a more or less dense network of small
projects and “alternative” communities, partially of libertarian
inspiration. The number of jobs created in this alternative network
amounts to 30,000, but there are hardly any relations between them
(other than purely economic networks), and in this way, all these groups
– most of them sterile – remain inert, contributing very little to
changing society. Most of them barely able to organize their own
survival, which absorbs all their energies. As a result, over the years,
they become purely commercial enterprises that differ from the rest of
the capitalist market only by the history of their ideas, their
ecological mode of production, and their lack of bosses and hierarchies,
without being actively involved in other social struggles or political
activities beyond the business itself. Therefore, the Project attempts
to go much further than what I have so far described as the “units” of
the “dual projects.”
Common Links
The first step toward overcoming the isolation of the “units” in the
direction of this broader perspective is simply the use of the profits
that the “dual projects” generate after covering their necessities and
any internal deficits. With this money, of course, we offer aid to those
“dual projects” which are not balanced, i.e., so that their constituent
projects operate at a net loss. With the rest of the collective funds,
we can create new “dual projects” or add a third sector to a “dual
project” that is not working well.
Political projects
There is also the possibility of investing this money on things that do
not fit into the framework of the “dual projects.” we could, for
example, finance a campaign of demands, support a strike, create local
centers for resistance, social action, or cultural activities, buy
equipment for collective use (bullhorns, video equipment, duplicators,
leaflets, stickers, posters...) and thus intervene directly and with
considerable infrastructure and financial power in the social struggles
of that city. In short: by means of the “common fund” and our own
dedication, we could participate in all those politico-social activities
in which we are also actively engaged today, but with the difference
that we currently lack a solid foundation, an infrastructure of people,
equipment, and money, and also a strong collective psychology that is
prepared to overcome frustration. I repeat: in Project A, we do not put
an end to “pamphleteering anarchism” nor to the politico-social
activities of today, but on the contrary, we give them a solid,
powerful, and agile foundation, allowing us to intervene much more
consistently and with greater satisfaction. Everyone can participate in
these fields of politico-social activity: people from different
collectives, communes, etc., and local citizens who are not involved in
our specific structures. One advantage this has over the current
situation, among others, is that our interventions in those struggles
could make use of the hundreds of contacts we have through our “dual
projects,” enterprises, and services to the population of the city,
i.e., the respect that our project has garnered among the people, in the
neighborhood, from workers, youth, women… This makes it possible for any
politico-social activity to develop in ways that are much more likely to
succeed than anything is currently.
The “council”
The politico-socio-cultural field, then, is the broader perspective that
has to unify the various “dual projects” and that tends to prevent them
from decaying and falling into a spirit of apolitical self-sufficiency.
To organize and coordinate this effect, we create a so-called “Council”
whose duties are much broader than simply managing the “common fund” and
allocating that money. It is a kind of “jurisdiction” or “parliament” of
the entire Project A. In its initial phase, this could easily be a full
assembly of all the participants, in a structured and regular form.
Later, as the Project grows and acquires more complex structures, this
“Council” may take the form of an assembly of delegates, all under an
imperative mandate, with a rotation of functions, in which different
committees would deal with specific issues and problems…, i.e., a model
of direct democracy, like the system practiced in the Spanish Revolution
or the early and authentic councils (soviets) of the Russian revolution.
This Council must always be structured in a way that would prevent in
advance any bureaucratization and any authoritarian and dictatorial
structure. The “Council” has no executive powers. It cannot decide; it
can only carry out collective decisions. It cannot order any “dual
project” to do or not do this or that, since they are independent in
their internal affairs. It can only give advice, structure discussions
and critiques, and facilitate agreements, compliance with which is
always the concern of the various collectives themselves and,
ultimately, of the individuals that compose them. In the last analysis,
the “Council” cannot impose fines or penalties or sentences; it can only
exclude individuals or “dual projects” if all attempts to reach a
consensus, an agreement, or a commitment have failed.
Learning mutual aid and discussion
Therefore, the nature of the “Council” is not really that of an
“executive body” but rather a place to meet, to talk, to discuss
problems, and to seek solutions where appropriate, where information and
proposals are exchanged and where we must learn the difficult arts of
speaking, listening, thinking and reasoning, mutual aid and mutual
understanding. In fact, its proper functioning is a heavy burden for all
of us, but at the same time, a challenge. It is an effort to practice
that “anarchist democracy,” trying to reach a consensus on major issues
and to live with our differences without damaging relationships and
without jeopardizing the Project as a whole, forgetting our common
goals. The Council is, therefore, one of the more delicate parts of the
whole project, wherein we can prove our maturity and our seriousness.
The potential impact
In our sketch, the “Council” is symbolized by a new figure:
[]
If now you try to imagine that this entire scenario is to be installed
in one of these medium, provincial-type cities with political, cultural
and economic weaknesses, perhaps you can understand what a considerably
subversive dynamic resides in this model. This structure can spread
(like a cancer – a benign cancer, of course!) or implant itself (like a
mafia, our enemies will probably say) in order to slowly build up its
structures, gaining power and influence in this city; before the local
and provincial authorities really understand what is happening, our
structures are diffused, are implanted, defending the positions they
have conquered, when these exist, or creating them, if they do not
exist.
Youth as “second generation”
Now try to imagine what would happen if, in addition, we “hijacked” the
youth of this city… This we tried, creating numerous apprenticeships…
And this at a time when unemployment is one of the worst scourges of the
people and especially the young! The parents of these young people could
hardly argue against these “bad anarchists” and maintain their
prejudices if precisely these anarchists got their sons or daughters
jobs. And for those young people who, having grown up for two or three
years surrounded by and enrolled in our projects, started an
apprenticeship in one of our enterprises, this form of “anarchism” is
nothing exotic or strange, but is totally normal, totally commonplace.
They have already come into contact with this alternative lifestyle many
times, in our youth centers, in our clubs, in our cultural groups, in
our rock bands, or in our cafés. And they could see perfectly well that
a job in an anarchist collective means living and working in more
conditions that are freer, more pleasant, more satisfying, without
leaders and without being exploited by anyone, participating in
decisions themselves.
These people constitute the “second generation” of our project. They
come directly from the chosen city and grow up directly within “lived
anarchy.”
The population cannot ignore our reality
If you allow these perspectives, along with many others, to sink into
your imagination, and if you risk a glance into the future, then after
about ten years, an average family in this medium-sized city can hardly
ignore our presence and this new reality. Any given family, day after
day, will have the most diverse contacts with our different projects,
initiatives, and activities. Sooner or later, they will be obliged to
adopt some stance toward us. And the possibility that this stance will
be more positive than negative is incomparably greater than in any of
the circumstances faced by anarchist activities currently. Thus, for the
first time in many decades, we would have the possibility of finding
large parts of the population openly sympathizing with anarchist life,
work, activity, and proposals. This could become a realistic possibility
in the first five to ten years after the start of the Project.
The possibility of broad sympathy
We do not think, however, that this possibility is our ultimate goal.
Obviously, it is only the beginning. It just means preparing the ground,
laying a solid foundation on which offensive and defensive struggles can
be organized and developed, with at least a realistic hope of finding
support among the local population. This is what we mean by “breaking
out of the ghetto” or “recreating popular anarchism.”
Individual perspectives; changing careers; traveling
With all these political considerations should not forget the individual
perspectives. Naturally, in the initial phase of the first years, there
will be little rest and much hard work. We do not have the slightest
illusion about that. But in later years, within the structures that have
been established, each has the most exciting and satisfying
possibilities for their individual plans and prospects, such as changing
jobs every few years and working in different fields, participating in
different political, cultural, and recreational activities, combining
the three basic points – work, personal happiness and political activity
– without having to make further distinctions and separations between
them, taking extended trips without fear of losing jobs and social
contacts, developing personal relationships of affection, love and
solidarity within a vast circle of friends and companions, growing with
one’s children in a better environment, sharing a range of community
establishments, equipment, and facilities that a single individual could
never own (except for millionaires), and, finally, developing and
implementing more exotic and utopian personal dreams.
Example of an “exotic” project
I want to give just a very personal example of such a dream: I have
always dreamed of making a trip around the world in a big sailboat. As
an individual, perhaps I could achieve this by working hard and spending
all my money and energy on this one dream. But this would automatically
mean that I could not simultaneously be active in the anarchist
movement, nor could I realize half a dozen other dreams and projects
that I consider important. In Project A, however, once it has attained
some stability, this dream could very well be made real, becoming a
“dual project.” we could buy, prepare and equip a boat, using the
“common fund” and investing the labor of our own hands, using our own
means of production, e.g., workshops, tools… Then this boat would be
used for a period of two to three years to earn money, by carrying
tourists in the Mediterranean, for example. In that way, the money
invested is amortized; in the process, this ship feeds two or three
comrades who, at the same time, gain experience in navigation.
World Propaganda Travel
This boat would then be equipped with an international bookstore with
the most interesting works, exhibitions, a small offset printer, camera
equipment, slides and video, radio station and other means of propaganda
tools in order to launch a worldwide tour anarchist propaganda,
fraternity, passing through all ports in the world where libertarian
groups, communities, environmental initiatives, and related
anti-military. All this would be done with a big campaign that could be
done under current motto and international such as disarmament,
internationalism, anti-nuclear… Thus, we could easily achieve a global
public attention comparable to the campaigns of Greenpeace and Amnesty
International (possibly working with them), especially if we combine our
journey with spectacular direct actions relating to the theme in the
course of our voyage. During the trip, we could organize, in
coordination with comrades in the ports of call, activities such as
cultural events, film festivals, rock and folk concerts, parties,
theater, filming, publication of brochures, newspapers, and leaflets… In
this way, we would do a splendid job of disseminating libertarian ideas
in many countries, linking groups and individuals from different places,
and demonstrating that anarchism is an international movement capable of
organizing international campaigns. We could invite comrades to
encourage the people in different places to join the crew for a season,
thus creating an international collective. In the ports, we would invite
people to come on board, participate in festivals, conferences,
lectures, events, films, etc. The crew could be refreshed, by air, for
example, when it reached the Caribbean, changing over, making another
year of tourism for raising funds, continuing their journey, and so on.
The end of artificial separations
If we now imagine a single moment of this trip by boat, can we define it
as making money, enjoying life or making a political mission? It’s all
of these at once, and it would be impossible to differentiate between
the three sectors. That is what I meant when I spoke at the beginning of
overcoming the artificial boundaries between the economic, the private,
and the political, and it is only one example from among all of those
planned as part of our project.
Pragmatic and professional… Dreaming and loving
Thus, the existing general philosophy behind Project A is simply to
achieve political, moral, and economic stability by combining these
three elements in an intelligent and sophisticated way. In so doing, we
attain an internal and external force that will make it very difficult
for them to discredit, criminalize, ridicule, or even ignore us. This
strength will give us, on the other hand, the possibility of winning the
sympathy of the people, just in the course of living Anarchy. In this
framework of values and strategies, we do not hesitate to admit that we
will be pragmatic and professional to the extent necessary, nor we are
ashamed to admit that we will be sensitive, dreamy, gentle, and loving
in our internal relationships. Project A is a utopia for realists, a
vision for pragmatists.
Relying on this power, combining these three basic aspects in every
detail of our work, we think we can establish this strong base and
stable environment.
Where is it today, in the anarchist movement?
Critiques
Well, what is all this for? Is it not an excuse for a few decadent
anarchists to add a political justification to the comforts of a good
life? We think not. If anyone has understood Project A in this way, they
have not understood anything about our ideas and probably very little
about Anarchy. Of course it is not only legitimate but necessary to make
a better life, and if you can make a living and spread “lived Anarchy,”
so much the better! The critics who tell us that we cannot achieve
anything within this system, that it is impossible to take root and
corrupt capitalism from within, that in non-revolutionary times little
or nothing can be done… all their criticism in the end boils down to one
question: Is there life before the revolution? We answer this question
decisively in the affirmative.
Reformist or revolutionary?
On the contrary, is it not the case that the eternal lamentation of the
“bad times,” of the people’s lack of interest in revolutionary concepts,
of the impossibility of change under these circumstances, etc., is
nothing but an excuse for one’s own inactivity, for a lack of ideas, and
for fatalism? Think about it...
Revolutionary affirmation
But could it not be, on the contrary, that Project A serves no purpose
other than to alleviate the ills of capitalist society? Could it be
anything but a vast cooperative business, tolerated as long as it
operates within neutral areas of society, where it cannot cause harm? Is
there not a great danger that this whole structure would be fully
integrated into and digested by this system? Does it not finally come to
be a pillar of support for a rotten system, which is what allows it to
survive and to perform social tasks in hidden corners of society, where
state structures fail and do not work, making the system’s
contradictions more bearable for people? In a word: Is Project A
reformist or revolutionary?
We give two answers:
1. The danger of co-optation undoubtedly exists, but we think we can
counter it.
2. Project A is fully revolutionary.
Confusion about the revolution
I want to clarify this position:
The question is, naturally, what we mean by “revolution.” There is much
confusion about this and many strange concepts proliferate. We
understand the term “revolution” in the original, etymological meaning
of the word: for a society to re-volve or begin anew, giving rise to a
profound and not a superficial change, overthrowing a system and
replacing it with something better. This concept says nothing about the
form of the revolution: whether it is to be achieved by barricades or
leaflets, violently or peacefully, by the working class or the
intellectuals or by just anybody, by frontal and direct opposition to
the system or creating another system that replaces the old, by means of
unions, affinity groups, collectives, etc. In fact, Project A adopts a
posture of neutrality towards the different concepts of revolution, past
and present. We have no specific preferences and do not claim to know
the one true way to “the revolution.” We are not prophets, and we refuse
to preach whether the revolution must be made one way or another.
The project is not “the revolution” but its precondition
Project A is not the revolution, but a series of preliminary and
necessary steps toward it. Project A only attempts – to the extent that
we are planning, preparing, and producing the solid foundation upon
which the revolution becomes a possibility. We want to build the
framework in which there is some assurance that, after a possible
exceeding of the old system, there will be embryonic, functional and
virulent forms of another, better system ready to replace it.
Pacifist, no; peaceful, yes
In Project A, currently, we have anarchists of all kinds: pacifists and
militants, syndicalists and philosophers, workers and theorists,
ecologists and pragmatists, and the majority do not belong to any
definite trend. Equally diverse are our concepts of how it happened and
made a revolution. But we are united by a strong consensus that any
desirable revolution would have to involve as little violence as
possible.
Revolution and insurrection
Two concepts that should not be confused are often mixed up: revolution
and insurrection. An insurrection is a revolt, a riot, a spontaneous
contestation that might be able to bring down a system. This does not
mean that an insurrection automatically turns into a revolution. History
offers experiences of all kinds: there have been insurrections that only
ended up installing new dictatorships, there have been revolutions that
triumphed without an insurrection and insurrections that were able to
give rise to a successful revolution. Anything is possible. However, in
the popular imagination – and in the anarchist imagination – the concept
of revolution is closely linked to that of insurrection. They are often
used as synonyms.
Phenotype and genotype
This view is not only wrong but harmful, because it leads to misleading
results. In fact, those who think that everything violent is
automatically revolutionary and everything peaceful automatically
reformist, just take into account the phenomena of things. They attempt
to characterize the inner nature of an event while taking into account
only their outward forms. You can’t judge the contents of a can without
looking inside. In Project A, we speak of “phenotype” and “genotype,”
two terms borrowed from biology. The “phenotype” means the outward
appearance, the surface presentation, the shape of an event. The
“genotype” is the inner development of the same event, the direction
that it will take, its quality. Consequently, we are very careful about
judging whether social movements are revolutionary or reformist when we
see only their surface forms of action.
Chicago, 1886
For example, were the anarchist workers of Chicago in 1886 revolutionary
or reformist? Well, according to the judgment of some of today’s young
German anarcho-purists, they must have been mere reformists. What were
they fighting for? For the eight hour day! Thus, they had the same
purpose as Germany’s reformist trade union, the DGB. Such a view only
takes into account the “phenotype” of the movement and “forgets” that
those workers were participating in a strategy with revolutionary goals
and fought for the improvement of their living conditions, better wages
and reduced working hours, not as an integral part of the system, but as
a first step to overcoming that system. The demand, as a phenomenon, can
be reformist or revolutionary, depending on the context of the struggle
and the perspective that is involved, i.e., the “genotype.” The Chicago
workers developed their struggles within a popular movement, with a
good, solid, and solidary organizational structure, as we try to create
it (in a form appropriate to our society today) in our project. In
short: the “genotype” of the struggles of Chicago was revolutionary,
even as the “phenotype” of some of their actions, viewed in isolation,
may seem “reformist.”
Spain, 1936
Or take the famous Spanish example. It’s really amazing that so few
anarchists understand that the Spanish revolution did not begin in 1936,
but some forty years earlier. What was the CNT doing for all these
years? What was the International doing in Spain before the creation of
the CNT? Not only those well-known heroic attempts of general strikes,
riots, insurrections and expropriation, but at the same time, a whole
series of “reformist” things: creating and installing their unions,
setting up schools and stores, worker and agricultural cooperatives,
workshops, cultural centers, printing presses for books, cultural and
philosophical magazines, forming structures in the neighborhoods,
fighting for bread, jobs, higher wages, reduced hours, decent working
conditions, and more.
The everyday task
In other words, this package also did all the quiet, basic work, that
continuous, everyday, boring, dirty work, frustrating and difficult in
spite of all its little steps, classically “reformist,” and, from a
“phenotypic” point of view, identical to the work performed by any
social democratic, liberal or christian-democratic party today, or even
as the Catholic Church does in its social mission. But only on the
surface. For the CNT was preparing itself at the same time to take the
factories into its own hands, to revolutionize agriculture, to organize
distribution, to implement libertarian communism. It armed itself for
when it would come time to overthrow the reaction, and finally
triumphed, if only for a few years. Without this foundation of a
“reformist” phenotype, a “people in arms” would never have appeared, and
those who took up the gun would have been a few crazies, totally
isolated and without the slightest chance of winning. If you look at the
average activity of any ordinary CNT nucleus in any year between 1906
and 1936, you will find just such a reformist “phenotype.” However, we
all know that the CNT was extremely revolutionary. A contradiction? Not
at all! When we take into account the “genotype,” the essence of Spanish
anarcho-syndicalism, we understand that within its totality, everything
changed its value: then, even those acts of reformist “phenotype” are
part of a process of revolutionary “genotype.” Both concepts are
mutually dependent. The CNT made several improvements, minor
alterations, before ’36. But none of them had ever changed society in a
radical way. On the other hand, the pure and heroic gesture of
insurrection would not have succeeded as it did in ’36 if the CNT had
not created this stable foundation with its ongoing work in small
“reformist” steps for all those previous years.
The “secret recipe” of the Spanish Revolution
That is the “secret recipe” of the Spanish revolution and other few
anarchist revolutions that briefly achieved success: the anarchists of
yesteryear did not consider themselves above dealing even with the
little everyday problems of their contemporaries and of themselves, in
order to propose, at the right moment, a radical solution that could
then be followed by the so-called “masses.”
One must prepare for the crisis of capitalism
The strategy of Project A follows the same philosophy: we do not know
how and when that “right moment” will come. A state system could fall
into crisis very quickly and unexpectedly, almost always due to outside
factors and not because of our social agitation. No one can predict
today whether a revolutionary situation in Germany may be tomorrow or in
twenty years. But we must be prepared, well prepared, to respond
properly to a situation. A power vacuum like what appeared in Spain in
July 1936 does not necessarily lead to a libertarian revolution. One can
easily fall into the other extreme: a fascist dictatorship or other such
filth.
Overthrow the trust in institutions
So the best way to prepare is to create solid structures, to allow many,
many people to have the most diverse experiences of lived Anarchy, to
make them see that self-management is possible, to make them lose all
fear, respect, and trust toward state institutions, to enable them to
take their destiny into their own hands at the right moment, and to give
them courage. And this courage in themselves is gained through many
small experiments, increasingly large each time, experiments that we can
begin to make today. Of course, the Spanish revolution would not have
triumphed with only these small steps, without the workers taking the
guns from the barracks and breaking the resistance of the rebel
generals. That was not a small step, but a large one. But it happened
because the workers were prepared for this; they had learned in advance!
Nonetheless, they were not professional militarist-revolutionaries, but
simply workers in struggle. And after two or three days of open warfare
on the streets of Barcelona, these same workers knew exactly how to
organize their factories without bosses and how to organize the social
life of an entire country. Because they had prepared well for this! They
had the basis, the sympathy, the solidarity, and the confidence needed
to win and achieve this profound revolution. They had no problem
intelligently combining elements of the “reformist” phenotype with
others of a “revolutionary” phenotype.
The myth of violent struggle
This is the right path to achieving the revolution, and I think that
this is the reason why many of the comrades of Project A are not one
hundred percent pacifists. The thing is that they do not glorify
violence or see it as a value in itself. The problem, unfortunately, is
that in the historical mythology of revolution, the struggle and the
insurrection come to be glorified, the rest forgotten.
The analogy with anarcho-syndicalism
In Project A, we want not to forget “the rest.”
We began by taking a first step, and we think that even if it looks
“reformist” to some, it is truly revolutionary. Anyone who re-reads the
historical discussions that took place when, at the beginning of the
century, the new idea of “syndicalism” entered the anarchist movement –
for example, the famous Amsterdam Congress of 1908 – will also see that,
at that time, many purist anarchists argued that any kind of syndicalism
would necessarily be reformist. They also took into account only the
“phenotype” of anarcho-syndicalism and forgot its “genotype.” In
reality, anarcho-syndicalism has been, to this day, the most successful
libertarian current. But we do not live in the thirties; all we want to
do is to make a contemporary response to our present reality.
This concept of revolution is capable of resolving the apparent
contradiction in the history of revolutions: why the same efforts led to
different results. Why did a heroic uprising, for example in Germany,
Italy, or the U.S., fail, while another equally heroic uprising
succeeded elsewhere, for example, in Spain, the Ukraine, and Argentina?
The most important reason is the fact that what is sufficient for the
triumph of a revolution is not the degree of heroism and dedication in
and of itself, but its contours: the stability and level of the
foundation from which the revolt emerges.
[]
The “imaginary line of resistance”
Every revolution has to deal with what we call the “imaginary line of
resistance.” This line is composed of two factors: the resistance in the
minds of people who fear a revolution instead of desiring it. The
tactical end of each revolution must be to weaken the line of
resistance, to perforate and eliminate it.
Punctures and constant work
This can be done in two ways: to perforate and destroy it with
continuous punctures or to weaken it and thus overcome resistance in the
public mind. Obviously we cannot ever overcome this line in the minds of
dictators and capitalists simply by good arguments. Therefore,
uprisings, riots, general strikes, etc., i.e., the “punctures” will most
likely be necessary at certain times. This means perforating the “line”
by means of a direct struggle. On the other hand, we can never overcome
the “line of resistance” in the minds of those people whom we want to
“liberate” by using force and insurrection against them. Therefore, the
task of undermining this “resistance in the mind” must be made with
models of “lived Anarchy,” by giving examples, by creating virulent
counterstructures, thus making the revolution something that more and
more people want rather than fear, with many small experiments that give
them the courage and knowledge to achieve it. This means, therefore,
that both forms are necessary and that the task of anarchists should be
to maintain the least violent form possible.
Raising the level of the base
This can be achieved by being active in two areas: first we have to
raise the level of the base from which a revolt may rise. This is the
“solid foundation” I referred to so frequently earlier. Secondly, we
have to weaken the resistance in the minds of people. It is in these two
fields that Project A wants to start working now. We teach only one
possible way; anyone can do similar and analogous things.
This is the place of Project A within the schema of the revolution.
Project A is not “the revolution,” nor is it intended to be such, but it
is a necessary preliminary step.
Creating a rich libertarian culture in everyday life
What we want to accomplish within the next ten, twenty, thirty years is
precisely to create a vast libertarian culture in everyday life. In the
diagram above, this would be the gray layer, the level of case 2, the
base for the revolution, which in turn can feed on the same base. In
this picture you can easily see that an identical effort of revolt,
starting from a weaker and lower base, does not even touch the “line of
resistance” in the course of its brief duration, much less penetrate it.
We all know – especially in Germany – this dynamic from the small local
militant struggles of the last twenty years which failed precisely for
lack of an adequate base and each time fell back to zero. They started
from a very low level, when the line of resistance that had to be
pierced was still very thick and strong.
An identical effort, however, by acting in a constant and repetitive
manner, may well pierce the line of resistance, if it starts from a high
and stable level, which – in its turn – has already weakened this line
of resistance. And if the holes are repeated and made frequently, we
will have what is, by definition, a revolutionary situation, and if the
penetration is perpetual, we have the revolution itself. The Spanish
Revolution actually started from a very high level and had to punch
through a very weak line of resistance on the part of the system and
very little in the minds of many people. And this was precisely the
result of forty years of continuous work, dedication, and a vastly
disseminated libertarian culture. This is exactly what we want to create
with our Project A.
The “negative identification” with the state
Let me illustrate this theory with a simple experience, which, probably,
you can share on many occasions: Nowadays, most people are
unenthusiastic about the State or even less so about the government.
They have what we call a “negative identification” with the state. It’s
easy to get any person to agree with you on the following judgments:
that the government is a mafia, that the State is criminal, that
taxation is theft, that officials are corrupt, that the authorities are
a bunch of arrogant bastards, that the going rates are tantamount to
blackmail, etc.; many anarchists believe, consequently, that these
people are also anarchists in the bottom of their hearts and also want
to abolish the State. These anarchists simply forget the other side of
the coin: the same people are afraid of any revolution and would quickly
agree that the State, nevertheless, is also a kind of insurance, which
pays pensions and unemployment benefits, builds schools, roads and
hospitals, maintains a certain order, and, in principle, prevents you
from being assaulted and robbed at knife-point… “Nevertheless,” people
often say, “things are not that bad, and if the State disappeared, they
could be much worse.”
The fear of revolution
Thus, they don’t want any revolution. They have something to lose, and
what we want to offer is very nebulous: they have never had a lived,
tangible, accessible experience of it. Where should these people find
confidence that they could build a better future? This “negative
identification” with the state of today is probably much more difficult
to overcome than the blind nationalism and irrational chauvinism of the
past. That’s why you can no longer convince people merely with some
well-structured arguments that make them understand their discontent nor
by some other exemplary action; only concrete examples can convince them
that things will get better if we take them into our own hands.
Our first concrete steps
Well, I think I have said enough of dreams and theories. In so doing, I
have drifted far enough from that German city and the gray reality in
which we are living now. The important question that now arises is how
do we go from “now” to the “tomorrow” I just described? And what are our
concrete steps? What is the schedule that we want to follow?
Chronology
The chronology I will try to give you now must be in a very short,
abbreviated form. It has much to do with the special administrative and
technical details of the Federal Republic of Germany, and I will try not
to get lost in them because the reality in each country is different.
Therefore, little can be generalized from this owing to different
national realities.
The “preparatory phase”
For us, a very good preparation of the Project is of great importance.
Most of us came from and have remained active in the German anarchist
movement for many years, so we all know how quickly time passes and the
ease with which the years slip away. We do not want to waste time due to
poor or hasty preparation or with premature nonsense. Our motto in this
regard is very simple: “We are in a great hurry; that’s why we are
preparing very slowly.”
Let us form a group
After publishing the book we defined the “preparatory phase.” This is
where we now stand [authors note: see the introductory page on the
current situation]. During this phase, certain things have to be
achieved: we have to get to know one another, not just by writing
letters and exchanging political ideas and opinions but also as persons,
in our lives and in our characters. We have to form a group in the broad
sense of the word: politically, economically, individually, and
psychologically. These different processes take time.
Professions
We have to find people in the right professions, as defined either by
title or by self-taught skills or completing on-the-job professional
training, and with the trades that they wish to realize in the future
project.
Discuss the concept
We have to form small groups which will form the future “dual projects.”
We must raise the money necessary to purchase equipment, buildings and
land, once chosen the city. We must return to critically discuss the
content of the book “Das Projekt A,” which is nothing but a general
proposal, in order to change it, to complete it, and to develop a new
concept with which all of us can identify.
We have to get to know one another in ordinary and extraordinary
situations. To do this, we visit one another, organize meetings and
rallies, camps and trips, plan small, temporally-limited projects on
which we collaborate, and so on.
Structure
We need to organize an entire structure of national, regional, or
professional gatherings where we hold discussions, make decisions, work
out details, and plan the next steps. We must create an uncensored
bulletin for internal debate, critique, and information where all can
express themselves. We need psychodynamic sessions and games to learn to
open up to one another, training ourselves to be sensitive and
understanding to all. We have to analyze the potential flaws and risks
of our project and develop counter-strategies. We must anticipate and
weigh the possible rejection and repression. All this and much more
belongs to the “preparatory phase.”
End of preparations
This phase is not defined by time but by quality. This means that this
phase does not end after a certain time, but at the moment we are
convinced that all those needs have been met and that there is nothing
more to discuss but that conditions are ripe to begin. Once we have
found the right people in the right place, gathered the money and
professional skills, found the right city and developed the Project in
the right way, according to the sense of the group, we begin.
Finding the right place
An adequate city must be found during the preparatory phase. We have
designed a kind of list of criteria with a system of evaluation. These
criteria cover aspects such as the ecological environment, urban
quality, the prices of houses, buildings and land, political and
cultural activities, presence of other social movements, political and
administrative structure, economic strength, structure coexisting with
industries, utilities and commerce, distance to other major urban
centers, agriculture and handicrafts, the possibility of collaboration
with other projects and more local alternative. In a second step, we
create “patronage” for the cities favored and proposed by different
partners, thus reducing the number of candidates again. In a third
stage, after further reducing the number of cities, we send “spies” to
the remaining sites in order to live there for a while and get the most
information and impressions. At the same time, each group member has the
opportunity to visit these cities in person. Finally we take a joint
decision in accordance with the results, hoping to find the city that is
more or less “optimal” for us and our specific project.
Archigroup and pioneering groups
Meanwhile, the clarification process in the most diverse groups have
made progress, so that we can create what we call the “archigroup,”
i.e., people who are already fully convinced and ready to make
commitments and obligations. Until now, the presence in the group has
been completely free and has not carried any obligations. Now, however,
there are commitments of all sorts, freely entered into, moral, legal
and economic. Each group can unite its components according to their
view and we believe that, in cases where there are large investments of
money, it may even sign legal contracts to avoid an eternal fight in the
event that the politico-moral commitment fails.
Commitment
Recall, however, that each “dual project” is autonomous in setting its
structures and that, with respect to the Project as a whole, there is
only a moral obligation. However, as the experience of many alternative
projects of the past twenty years, it seems appropriate to establish in
advance how a group is dissolved in case of a dispute; the conventions
should be established while the group is fully in harmony.
Economic fundraising
Another process to be undertaken during the preparatory phase is to
gather the monies needed for investment. In principle, each collective
(dual project) needs to prepare itself. This will probably be done in a
very conventional and traditional way: working and saving money, getting
credit, contributing existing capital (savings accounts, selling
property, etc.), obtaining loans from family and friends, organizing
solidarity campaigns, cashing in current or future inheritances. Others
may help initially with material goods such as computers, vehicles,
machinery, land, houses, experiences, etc. Additionally, we can sell
solidarity bonds, organize concerts for the benefit of the Project and
create a sort of support group among supporters, friends and comrades
outside the Project who can make donations. Moreover, from the
beginning, we will open a joint checking account, in which everyone who
is currently interested or a future participant will contribute a fixed
monthly fee on their own behalf, according to their economic situation.
This money, little at first but accumulating as it is nourished by many
small donations from month to month, is not to be used for or by any
specific “dual project,” but will be pooled.
Our common housing
The first sum is “symbolic” of our collective unity, and should be used
just after the start for benefits for all, whether as a general
emergency fund or to buy equipment that we need. This common fund and
its administration is the beginning, the embryonic form of the “Council”
described above, and in this form, this “Council” can begin working
before the actual startup. As I said, then this fund will be fed by the
profits that each “dual project” generates. It will thus be one of the
preventive measures which we overcome the various crises that most
surely suffer in the process of the first months and years.
Financial independence from the state
We all agree that we want to keep the size of debts and loans as small
as possible and that no project should depend on government or
semi-governmental subsidies and grants, which are very common in
Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, etc. This decision is not so much a
moral as a pragmatic decision. We have no difficulties accepting money
from the state (because after all, it is money that comes from the
people, and we would make better use of it than, say, the army), but we
want to avoid our project depending on the state and becoming subject to
all kinds of pressure and blackmail, as has happened with many projects
in Germany.
Any subsidy will therefore be, for us, an extraordinary amount, but each
project must be conceptualized so that it can also exist without this
kind of “support.”
Where to find people?
The last major issue related to the preparatory phase is as follows:
where and how to find the people who are needed to begin the Project?
A project for everybody
Obviously, the first “recruitment” will take place through the
dissemination of the book. These people come mostly directly or
indirectly from the anarchist movement. This is not necessarily an
advantage. Project A is not defined as a project for anarchists. On the
contrary, it is defined as an anarchist project for everyone. We have in
this regard another very simple motto: “Any person who really wants to
live this way and shows it seriously is sufficiently anarchist for us,
no matter how they define themselves.” We want not to slap labels on
people but to evaluate them as people. Certainly, no authoritarian
character will feel at home among us and within these libertarian
structures. What we want to achieve from the beginning, to create
structures open and welcoming to all, especially for those “ordinary
people” whom we wish to convince. Recall what I said: in the initial
phase we deploy our “pioneers,” and by the “second generation” we find
and recruit them from the local population.
Avoid sensational advertising
Still, we do not doubt that this project will start with 80% anarchists.
This is because we are careful to avoid all advertising and tabloids. We
do not want to unnecessarily alert the police, the courts, or the local
authorities, the banks, the administration, or the press, television,
etc. Otherwise, they could easily mount the specter of a “dark anarchist
conspiracy” that could hamper our way even before it had begun, causing
the failure of the entire project. Therefore, the book and other
information is not transmitted or by libraries and publicly, but person
to person, via libertarian networks existing in Germany. I don’t mean
that it is a secret or paranoid project, but that we want to reduce the
risk of premature and damaging publicity.
Avoid weakening the anarchist movement
The danger that this project will weaken other anarchist projects and
organizations by pulling the best militants away from them is relatively
small, since Project A especially interests those anarchists who until
now did not have clear perspectives or were not satisfied by the work
that they were doing.
Balancing the group: the “selection” process
Therefore, we are trying to create a balance, to achieve a harmonious
group. We will openly admit that the process of forming the “archigroup”
is a process of selection. The process is one of “mutual” selection.
There is no authority to decide, but we all decide together through an
everyday process of meeting and sharing experiences. Those who fail to
manifest the necessary seriousness and interest will not find other
comrades to form a dual project with them and thus will exclude
themselves by their own lack of confidence, seriousness, and maturity.
In this respect, Project A is not open to “all.” We are not liberal but
libertarian. We take the principle of free consent and social contract
as seriously as anyone can.
Warning
For this reason, we continue to make a clear warning to all enthusiasts
of weak will who may cross our path: this project means hard work, and
it requires discipline, dedication, enthusiasm, realism, and
perseverance. It is not a hobby but, for most of us, a lifetime
perspective. It is a project for dreamers, but only for realistic
dreamers. Consequently, we have published a sort of “ideal” description
of the composition of our group.
Mutual sympathy: youth, women, children, and elders
First, we are looking for nice people who won’t bring their frustration,
aggression, or indifference to the Project. We need people who are
optimistic without getting lost in blind enthusiasm. The criterion of
“mutual liking” will probably become extremely important in the first
contact, perhaps more than theoretical affinity for one another’s
political ideals. It would be dangerous if most of the members were very
young. Partners of sixteen or eighteen are easily excited by a concept,
but after a few months or years, they feel a great need to change, to
see other parts of the world, to have other experiences. It would be
irresponsible to subject them to moral pressure to stay and fulfill
their commitments. On the other hand, if they departed in large numbers,
this could quickly jeopardize the whole project. Of course, this is a
risk we run generally, and age is not the only risk factor. In reality,
there are some positive exceptions. We just want to make sure the
average age of the members is balanced, and of course younger and older
people will be involved. On the other hand, the people we are looking
for must bring some political and working experience.
The “ideal” participant
A person who has never suffered a political defeat, who is easily
disappointed by the initial frustrations of the Project, will lose all
hope. And we have no doubt that we will experience many frustrations and
occasionally suffer defeat… A person who has suffered past frustrations
without becoming pessimistic and bitter would be ideal for our project.
Another concern is the balance between women and men, which is usually
in bad shape. We strongly hope that this project is capable of providing
women with every opportunity for self-fulfillment and well-being and of
making it possible even for men to become good “feminists” in the best
sense of the word. In fact, there is already a group of women who are
developing their own activities. We also want to integrate many children
into our project, because a free and libertarian education is one of our
concerns for the future. A project without children is a dead project, a
project without a future… Finally, we want to create places where older
people can live with dignity. This is not the place to describe the many
plans we have in this direction, but, after all, we all know that we
will be tomorrow’s old and none of us wants to grow old in those
inhumane and undignified conditions common to modern welfare states. In
addition, an aspect that led to these considerations is the shameful way
in which the anarchist movement, which calls for a high humanitarian
ideal, often lets its own senior comrades live and die in deplorable
conditions.
In short, we are looking for skilled, experienced, middle-aged people of
libertarian tendencies, able, if possible, to contribute both materially
and ideologically, who are realistic dreamers, possessing some ability
to cope with frustrations and the necessary amount of enthusiasm.
Introducing these criteria, we prefer to grow slowly for a higher
quality group. These conditions, which may seem somewhat rigid, are
actually open to exceptions, which can be made by any “dual project” or
by the Project as a whole. They are provided mostly for the composition
of the “archigroup” and early “pioneer groups,” which face a hard and
difficult situation in the initial phase, requiring all energy to go
toward establishing the Project and defending it against the first
attacks. In later periods, once the Project is solidly installed, we can
reduce or waive all of these conditions.
“Problematic” support groups
We even think that the Project can take on a great function of
integrating groups of people who are marginalized or who face certain
problems, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, mental disabilities, and
so on, incorporating them into various collectives.
Infiltration of the site
The first step toward the chosen city, of course, will not be for an
invasion of anarchists to flood the town on some given day. We settle
little by little and start to install those projects that are essential
by virtue of their technical or infrastructural necessity. We also want
those comrades who are currently among the ranks of the unemployed to be
the first installed. Meanwhile, other, smaller projects that are already
under way will continue to wait, as will those comrades who are still
working in their former high-wage professions, so that, if necessary,
they can provide financial and moral support during the first crisis
that the “pioneers” may suffer. These, in turn, can find local housing
and land suitable for those who are waiting. Thus we effect a kind of
“infiltration” which may last approximately two years.
Security
In this way, we avoid giving a major “shock” to the local population,
which may feel invaded, at the same time that we establish a kind of
economic security at the outset. Having completed this “infiltration
phase” with three, four, or five waves of settlement, Project A really
begins to be a political factor, openly on the offensive. Having
overcome the first problems and crises, we have the time and dedication
needed to go out in public and openly present a social, political and
cultural alternative.
And that closes the circle. What we want to develop and happen from that
point on is as I explained above.
Changing the concept, if necessary
These are our basic ideas for the launching of the Project. Of course,
the specific situation of the locality should also be considered: if
projects that we want to install already exist there, we can change our
plans or even try to compete with the existing projects; it depends if
we can get along. On the other hand, if we see lacks and necessities
that we had not previously considered, we can change our plans and mount
other new projects. Additionally, before we begin, we want to reach all
kinds of “alternative” people in the city, to gather their opinions on
our plans and perhaps to gain their support or even their membership in
the Project.
Expansion of the Project
Attracting people of conscience
A network spanning the whole country
Obviously, our ultimate goal is the infiltration of a small city, to act
subversively there in order to create a sort of anarchist island.
...Our ultimate goal, however, is for the spirit of Project A, its
essence, to spread and grow. We want to be contagious in all respects.
We want to encourage this process on both the local and national levels,
thinking at the same time of a not too distant future that may even see
interesting possibilities for international contacts and cooperation.
Locally, we want to expand quickly to the suburbs, to neighboring towns,
to the entire region, to other nearby cities. We do not first create new
“dual projects” and subversive nuclei ourselves, but encourage
sympathizers whom we have gradually gotten to know to create their own
political, cultural, and economic initiatives. We will quickly establish
trust with the people of the region, and we can encourage them, lending
our moral and material aid to their efforts to accomplish the Projects
that they find worthwhile. Furthermore, we think that in the first
phase, our way of life and action will be more attractive to
“alternative” and “progressive” people than to “ordinary” people. If our
models actually work, we think that this will inspire many of them.
Thus, Project A starts to grow and spread around the city. Nationally,
we naturally want to maintain close and brotherly relations with all
sorts of libertarian groups and individuals, even encouraging similar
experiments or adaptations of the same methods. It is likely that the
discussion of Project A, during its preparatory phase, will generate not
a single project A, but projects B, C, and D in different parts of
Germany, Austria or Switzerland. But even if this doesn’t happen, we
think that our experiment, by not failing, may generate some excitement
and inspiration in the libertarian movement, which then will try to
mount similar projects in their cities, following our example. We think
we can speed this process by supporting a magazine that informs people
about the Project, doing public relations work, receiving visitors, and
inviting the curious. Thus, over a period of ten years or so, we will
cover all of Germany with a more or less dense network of projects or
initiatives. Each one of them, like ours, will also diffuse itself
within its own region, making this network increasingly dense.
International perspectives
There are also some mature ideas for making “the Project” into an
international phenomenon. First, we might serve the many contacts that
already exist with the international libertarian movement, informing
them, inviting them, and encouraging them to develop similar concepts,
adapted to the realities of their countries. Of course, this is not a
matter of starting a new ideological trend but of spreading some basic
ideas, such as breaking out of the anarchist ghetto, winning popularity
and trust among the population, trying to unite the political with the
private and the economic, etc.
Adapting the ideas
It is clear that an adaptation of Project A, which was designed for the
realities of Germany, will be very different in the U.S., Spain, Turkey,
Australia, and Uruguay, for instance. While in Spain we will probably
have to seek a union of militant anarcho-syndicalist struggles with
everyday life, the creation or development of a libertarian labor
movement is still a future goal in Germany. In Turkey, no doubt, the
land question will play a more important role than in the U.S., and in
Australia, the Projects would likely be strongly influenced by the
existence of large communes in the countryside. But these are
differences of “phenotype.” as for the “genotype,” this could well
provide for solidarity and international cooperation. In Germany, to
achieve this international diffusion, we have the great advantage of
migration. Through the ties that, for instance, Turkish, North African,
Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian migrant workers have, we can create
nuclei in these countries. Similarly there are opportunities in Eastern
Europe, for example, East Germany or Poland.
Particularly in countries with no libertarian tradition or movement,
such as Morocco or Turkey, we believe that economic models with a
libertarian basis (e.g., cooperatives) have many advantages over mere
anarchist propaganda of the “pamphleteering” kind, which will almost
automatically be illegal in these places. By contrast, we can establish
strong and direct political, economic, and cultural ties with countries
where there are strong libertarian structures such as Spain, France,
Italy, USA, and some parts of Latin America. We believe in an intensive
exchange of comrades, living and working for a time with different
groups in different countries.
International campaigns
We are perfectly equipped to organize solidarity and informational
campaigns to support direct struggles taking place in foreign countries.
Finally, we can import and market the products of libertarian
cooperatives or self-managed workshops to be sold in Germany, using the
sale of these products to disseminate political information on the
specific conditions of its production and distribution. Here, again, is
an example of linking politics with economics… But these are all plans
for the future, once our project has been installed and stabilized.
Spreading a “virus”
Our main goal therefore is to convert the Project to a social reality
and to spread the “virus” over the whole surface of our country. Thus we
give a new impetus revitalizing the libertarian movement and bring a lot
of people to the libertarian lifestyle and culture, i.e., “lived
anarchism.” This could easily be a major new strategy of anarchism,
which might well be supplemented by other existing strategies such as
anarcho-syndicalism, anti-militarism, ecological control, pacifism or
local militant struggle.
Opening a new front
If you like, we can speak of opening a “new front” in the fight against
the system, a “front” that is very complex and difficult for our enemies
to define and fight because it is an completely legal area and a
subversive dynamism that is difficult to detect. This subversive
dynamism combats the state in the minds of the people, generates
experiences of self-management, creates embryonic forms of
counter-society, and gives many people the spirit and encouragement they
need to oppose the system directly. We are quite convinced that, through
the spread of our many popular experiments, many people will lose their
confidence in the state and, to the same extent, gain confidence in
their own abilities. We do not believe, however, that all these people
“infected” by the libertarian virus will automatically become convinced
anarchists.
“Positive” tolerance
Nor is it necessary for them to do so. But we do believe that through
this procedure, many “ordinary people” will have at least a realistic
chance to reach what we call a “positive tolerance” for the anarchist
ideas and ways of living and acting that will replace the “negative
identification” with the State that we previously described. This is the
first step. For anarchists, at least in Germany, this first step means
nothing less than an opportunity that has not existed for fifty years.
If in our city, for example, 30% of the population sympathized openly
with us, this “positive tolerance” would constitute a base of support
that anarchists haven’t had in decades. And this “positive tolerance”
could become a source of active and direct support in any particular
conflict that might arise.
Synthesis
In summary, with our project, we
society;
by providing substitutes for them, weakening and crumbling them;
life for ourselves.
Entering society instead of withdrawing from it
We do not want to create a “new world” outside of capitalism, isolated
and self-sufficient, as proposed by the German anarchist Gustav
Landauer, for example, before the First World War (although we are close
to Landauer in some other respects); instead, we want to produce active,
virulent, subversive nuclei within society in order to overcome
capitalism. We know perfectly well that true self-management and a real
libertarian society are not possible within capitalism. But this must
not lead to fatalism and ceasing to build new embryonic structures that
are capable of breaking down the system even if, initially, in seemingly
small and unimportant areas.
We do not withdraw, we enter. We attack the system in multiple ways, at
multiple levels, both above and below ground.
Avoid military conflict
We do not necessarily attack where the system is extremely strong and
well prepared, but in those areas where it is weak and does not have
counter-strategies ready. Consider, for example, a stupid strategy,
attacking the state-capitalist system in open battle on that very field
where it finds its classical superiority: military struggle. Not only
would we lose this battle because of our incredible inferiority of
strength, experience, and mentality, we would also would have to
sacrifice our anarchist ideals to become a paramilitary apparatus.
Depriving the state of the people’s loyalty
We prefer first to beat the State in the popular consciousness, then
within social realities and through the offensive, subversive direct
action of the people. We want people to disengage from all allegiance to
the State, taking their destiny into their own hands.
Let me now ask you a simple question:
What nation can resist such a movement for long?
World revolution
So ultimately our final perspective is none other than world revolution.
An anarchist world revolution, of course. Perhaps it would be a
revolution a little different from the classic clichés and images of
heroic struggles on barricades, of snipers and exploding bombs. But it
would be a revolution, with a realistic chance that it would give birth
to a libertarian society. It would be a revolution that we can start
right now. And it would be a revolutionary process which, incidentally,
offers a satisfying life to those who engage in it.
Weaknesses of the Project
This, of course, sounds a little euphoric. We are enthusiastic, of
course, if not euphoric. But we also see many weaknesses in our project.
In the book, there is an entire chapter about them. In the discussion,
we are sure to find others. The key weakness is likely to be human
nature, its subjectivity. I think we will have many problems that arise
from the most varied and irrational human emotions: absurd behavior,
animosity, jealousy, abuse, hatred, competitiveness… Human beings are
not mere “factors” operating within an approach, however “brilliant” it
may be.
Another weakness is the danger that the Project will be integrated into
the system, the danger of embourgeoisement or selling out. The various
forms of repression are another weak point, which concerns us, because
we do not think the system will remain indifferent to our attempts, once
it understands the danger they pose. And there are many other weaknesses
that I cannot list here...
Reducing the risks
But we think that the obstacles must be overcome and that problems
should be solved. We won’t overcome them with lamentations. Our overall
strategy with respect to these weaknesses is to eliminate them in
advance, in the preparatory phase, as much as possible. When creating
our internal structures, we take all of them into account, planning in
such a way as to prevent their development or at least reduce the risk
of these hazards overwhelming the Project. Finally we think that by
keeping these dangers in our minds, in a large group, we may recognize
and resist all kinds of deviations and disruptions. Of course, even with
all these “filters” installed in our structures, there remain many
obstacles, but we have enough courage to face the rest.
Experimentation, danger, and hope
We can only reduce the risks, and there are no guarantees about what
will happen. But when has there ever been a revolutionary attempt that
was assured of success? Of course it will still be very experimental,
but we face the risks and hope for success on a realistic basis.
And… do you know any other alternative? I do not see any. All of our
lives are risky, experimental, marked by hopes and dangers; however, we
do not commit suicide. We struggle. We want these risks, experiments,
dangers and hopes no longer to remain in the hands of others. For my
part, I prefer to take my chances in my own hands.
Bakunin put it another way:
“Those who demand the possible can never achieve anything. But those who
demand the impossible at least achieve the possible.”
Thank you very much for your attention and patience.
A note about the author
Born in 1951, Horst Stowasser was active in the movement for about
twenty years. He had his first contact with anarchism in Argentina. He
studied agronomy and languages, working many years at the Popular
University, especially among economic migrants. He published numerous
magazines and libertarian publications, including the journal Impulso in
Spanish. Entering the CNT in 1973, he took on the most varied projects
in Spain and Germany, participating in several conferences and plenary
sessions of such organizations as the AIT and IFA, as well as other
international meetings. He was one of the leaders of the CNT in Germany
and one of the first members of the FAU, leaving it in a fraternal
manner after making some critiques. He created the anarchist archive and
library “Das Anarchiv,” the only anarchist documentation center in
Germany, which has been in existence for more than ten years. He has
written half a dozen popular books and pamphlets on anarchist themes and
continues to work on conferences and public events on libertarian
topics.
In 1985, he served a prison sentence for “insulting the army” which had
a vast echo in the libertarian press. Currently [in 2004], he works as a
photocompositor in an “alternative” firm. In 1990, he went to live in
Neustadt, one of the places where he began work on Project A, part of
the WESPE Group.
[Translator’s note: Stowasser died in August 2009 in the city of
Ludwigshafen am Rhein.]
[1] In other writings, Stowasser compares the linking of disparate
projects and areas of life to a “knitting pattern.”