💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › alfredo-m-bonanno-logic-of-insurrection.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:20:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Logic of Insurrection Author: Alfredo M. Bonanno Date: 1984 Language: en Topics: insurrection, organization Source: Retrieved on March 3, 2017 from http://writerror.com/texts/alfredo-m-bonanno-the-logic-of-insurrection. Notes: Alfredo M. Bonanno. The Logic of Insurrection. 1984. Originally published in http://325.nostate.net/library/insurrection-1.pdf][Insurrection #1]]. ‘Insurrection’ is an anarchist magazine of the 1980’s which was edited by Jean Weir of [[http://www.elephanteditions.net][Elephant Editions]], UK. See also: [[https://archive.elephanteditions.net/special/insurrection-pdf archive.
When we hear the word insurrection we think of some precise moment of
upheaval in the past, or imagine a similar clash in the future.
Spontaneous insurrection occurs when people are pushed beyond their
limits of endurance at their points of exploitation. Certain events take
place: street clashes, attacks against the police, destruction of the
symbols of capitalism (banks, jewelers, supermarkets, etc). Such moments
of popular violence catch anarchists unprepared, amazed that yesterday’s
apathy is transformed into today’s rage.
Look at Brixton a couple of years ago: anarchists were not, could not
have been, protagonists in the riot. Events took them by surprise.
People rose up for reasons apparently simple, but which were hatching
beneath the surface for a long time. Anarchists’ participation was
simply that of adapting to the situation, the guests of an insurrection
but not acting with an insurrectional logic. To throw a brick is not the
best way for a conscious revolutionary to participate in an
insurrection.
When we talk of applying a logic of insurrection we mean going about
things the other way round. We do not limit ourselves to identifying
areas of social tension and joining in when it explodes, we try to
stimulate rebellion and even more, propose and participate in the
formation of an organization of revolt.
Let’s try to be as clear as possible.
The kind of organization we mean should be of an associative, social or
mass character—a committee, support group, league against repression,
association for housing rights, anti-nuclear groups, abstentionist
league against the elections, etc—not a specific anarchist group. Why
should people have to belong to an anarchist group to take part in a
social struggle?
People’s participation in this kind of structure can be limitless,
depending on the work the anarchists manage to do within it. Beginning
with a handful of comrades and people most motivated in a particular
struggle, whether it be a wildcat strike, mass sackings, a proposed NATO
base, squatting, etc, it would entail initially spreading information
about the situation set out as clearly and directly as possible.
Leaflets, journals, posters, debates, conferences, public meetings and
so on would be used and the embrion of one of the groups mentioned above
formed. When there is some response to this part of the work it is time
to establish a meeting place and contact number. The organization’s
actions will become more effective as the struggle progresses, numbers
increase and repression develops against it.
The outcome will not be certain. The active presence of anarchists does
not mean control but rather stimulation. They have the same rights as
the other and no particular weight in decision making. Their suggestions
will be considered valid if they are both in tune with the general level
of feeling and at the same time try to push it forward.
Timid or hesitant proposals would be rejected as obstacles to advancing
the struggle and as betraying the needs and rebellion. A proposal that
is too far advanced, that goes beyond the level of the moment would be
considered impossible, dangerous and counterproductive. People would
withdraw, afraid of being mixed up in who knows what.
Anarchists operating within this structure must therefore be in touch
with reality and propose actions that are both possible and
comprehensible. It is possible that a spreading mess rebellion could
evolve from this initial work of stimulation. This is what we mean by
the methods and logic of insurrection. It is quite different to the
logic of trade unionism and syndicalism (including anarcho-syndicalism),
structures which all begin from a logic of defense as opposed to one of
attack. They tend towards quantitive growth (increasing membership) and
defending past gains, and, in the case of the trade unions, protecting
the interests of one category.
What we are proposing on the contrary are basic associative structures
organized to deal with one objective of struggle and stimulate people’s
feelings of rebellion, to culminate in as conscious an insurrection as
possible.
Using this method there is no way the anarchists within the structure
can transform themselves into a leadership or power group. In fact, as
we have said, they are obliged to follow the conditions of the struggle.
They are not working for a quantitive growth in their own anarchist
group. They cannot propose simply defensive actions but are constrained
to go towards increasingly advanced ones. On the one hand these actions
can lead to insurrection and levels that cannot be predicted. On the
other they can fail to be effective. In either case the original
associative structure inevitably becomes redundant, and the anarchists
will go back to what they were doing before.