💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › giuseppe-ciancabilla-against-organisation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:28:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Against Organisation Author: Giuseppe Ciancabilla Language: en Topics: individualist, organization, insurrectionist, Italy Source: Retrieved on January 3, 2011 from http://www.non-fides.fr/?Against-organization
We cannot conceive that anarchists establish points to follow
systemically as fixed dogmas. Because, even if a uniformity of views on
the general lines of tactics to follow is assumed, these tactics are
carried out in a hundred different forms of applications, with a
thousand varying particulars.
Therefore, we don’t want tactical programs, and consequently we don’t
want organization. Having established the aim, the goal to which we
hold, we leave every anarchist free to choose from the means that his
sense, his education, his temperament, his fighting spirit suggest to
him as best. We don’t form fixed programs and we don’t form small or
great parties. But we come together spontaneously, and not with
permanent criteria, according to momentary affinities for a specific
purpose, and we constantly change these groups as soon as the purpose
for which we had associated ceases to be, and other aims and needs arise
and develop in us and push us to seek new collaborators, people who
think as we do in the specific circumstance.
When any of us no longer preoccupies himself with creating a fictitious
movement of individual sympathizers and those weak of conscience, but
rather creates an active ferment of ideas that makes one think, like
blows from a whip, he often hears his friends respond that for many
years they have been accustomed to another method of struggle, or that
he is an individualist, or a pure theoretician of anarchism.
It is not true that we are individualists if one tries to define this
word in terms of isolating elements, shunning any association within the
social community, and supposing that the individual could be sufficient
to himself. But ourselves supporting the development of the free
initiatives of the individual, where is the anarchist that does not want
to be guilty of this kind of individualism? If the anarchist is one who
aspires to emancipation from every form of moral and material authority,
how could he not agree that the affirmation of one’s individuality, free
from all obligations and external authoritarian influence, is utterly
benevolent, is the surest indication of anarchist consciousness? Nor are
we pure theoreticians because we believe in the efficacy of the idea,
more than in that of the individual. How are actions decided, if not
through thought? Now, producing and sustaining a movement of ideas is,
for us, the most effective means for determining the flow of anarchist
actions, both in practical struggle and in the struggle for the
realization of the ideal.
We do not oppose the organizers. They will continue, if they like, in
their tactic. If, as I think, it will not do any great good, it will not
do any great harm either. But it seems to me that they have writhed
throwing their cry of alarm and blacklisting us either as savages or as
theoretical dreamers.