💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-without-a-trace.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:50:44. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Without a Trace
Author: Anonymous
Date: 2003
Language: en
Topics: anonymity, attack, class war, insurrection, subversion
Source: Retrieved on September 12, 2010 from http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no10/trace.htm
Notes: Published in Do or Die! — Voices from the Ecological Resistance (Issue 10), 2003.

Anonymous

Without a Trace

Dominant culture rarely interests itself in evidence other than that

which shows willing and enthusiastic complicity from its subjects. Acts

of refusal and revolt are effaced from the historical record when they

expose the tenuous control of authority. Even when they do appear,

presence, motives and behaviour are all mediated through the lens of

elite partiality which works to deny that we are capable of generating

the ideas and means of our own liberation.

That much most of us recognise; it is the premise of class history

developed in the 1960s by the likes of EP Thompson, Christopher Hill and

Eric Hobsbawn. But theirs is also a particularist history, focused as it

is on the same level of public appearance as that of the Establishment.

Just as real life is elsewhere than on television, so the history of

resistance is at the very least written between the lines of the

official record of leaders, followers and climatic events. In the

interests of self-preservation, the ruling class and its official

recorders — journalists and other such vermin whose social position

depends upon the maintenance of class society — invariably work to keep

attention only on a protests leaders (whether real or imaginary) and

particularly on those with superior status or privilege.

But as well as those who lack the influence to have their words and

actions recognised as important are those who have no intention

whatsoever to be identified. It is this realm of individual and

collective refusal that has proved the most resilient to exposure in the

historical record.

A vast area of active political life is ignored for the simple fact that

it takes place at a level we rarely recognise as political. Trained by

the mass media to applaud the spectacular action rather than the

incremental and prudent, all is in the appearance, the image of revolt

as reproduced through that same mass media. But much political activity

is elaborated among an intentionally restricted public that excludes or

is hidden from the gaze of authority. So it is not only that the

historical record is kept by elites, for elites, but that subversives

themselves have an interest in concealment of their activities (for

starters, this gives us greater personal security and self control).

Such acts as these were never meant to be recordable, and they were

often successful only insofar as they were invisible. The most

successful poisoning of class oppressors, for example, are those never

known as such. Just like the perfect crime, the subversive act seeks to

escape all detection, cover its tracks and avoid appearance in the

archives; for the perpetrators to strike (anonymously) again. Only those

who wish to be martyrs, self-publicists or media personalities would

wish to wait around to offer their names and have their picture taken.

Though the point, by its very nature, is impossible of proof, apparent

docility is the measure of subterfuge, and is only broken by those

crises of ruling class confidence that allow insurrectionary

breakthrough. Our ability to capitalise on these favourable moments must

be understood in the context of a long term struggle that is only

successful insofar as it is invisible.

So a view of politics focused either on the official and formal

relations of power (the command performances of consent), or on open

protest and rebellion, represents a far too narrow concept of political

life. The body of historical knowledge that we must grapple with is for

the most part only a record of that which has broken through to the

public sphere. There are undoubtedly important instructive events and

occurrences among them which can give strength, through popular memory,

to protest and resistance. But the lens of hindsight and reportage is a

distorted mirror. ‘History’ records what is most spectacular and most

easily located: the start, the peaks, the decisive break with the past.

We see the climax, the (only possibly decisive) invasion of public

space. As such it implodes the development of movements of refusal and

social transformation, for it freezes our attention on a single frame in

time, disconnected from that which made it possible. As Dickens remarks

in Barnaby Rudge; “We note the harvest more than the seed time.” Despite

the claims of the media, these moments almost never come from nowhere;

they are, rather, the acceleration of continuing processes through

timely public manifestation. The agitation and preparation that precede

and underpin the demonstrative act are always beginning and never end.

It is at the point of certain rupture that the perpetrators of everyday

acts of refusal consider it safe to appear on the public stage. Unless

provoked by the State into desperate measures, open collective defiance

is rarely undertaken unless it is practical and likely to succeed. Until

that time, the mechanisms, structures and struggles which necessarily

precede it remain a closed book.

It is the accumulation of ‘petty’ acts of defiance and refusal that make

critical upsurges possible. They are not a substitute for revolution but

a necessary condition for it. That is why the insurrectionary moment

invariably escalates so rapidly — “as if from nowhere” — and is why

revolutionary elites (the clownish ringmasters of the vanguard) always

find themselves hopelessly overtaken.

No More False Prophets

An understanding of previous movements for change is not merely an

exercise in historical interpretation. Knowledge gained is the means by

which we can understand how to take effective action, ourselves, today.

When we recognise what has been, we can plan for what might be.

Movements that attempt to create a groundswell of opposition by

initiating public (usually publicity seeking) protests will always meet

with general indifference not because most people don’t care, but

because we are a lot more realistic about the utility of such

initiatives than the protestors.

The art of the possible is discovered rather in those anonymous,

immediate (but not by any means spontaneous) short run collective

actions that apply the principles of guerrilla warfare to everyday life.

Cryptic and, above all, surreptitious actions are best adapted to resist

an opponent who can probably win any open confrontation. We must be ever

ready to melt away as soon as faced with unfavourable odds.

Spontaneous forms of popular action can be, and are, deliberately chosen

because of the tactical advantages for all those involved. What might be

called ‘low intensity class warfare’ is always pressing, testing and

probing the boundaries of the permissible — so as to take swift

advantage of any fissures that may open up in moments of crisis. It is

not then our ‘incapacity’ to sustain permanent political organisation

(most sensible people vote with their feet and avoid these formations

like the plague) but that the choice of fleeting, direct action

represents a popular tactical wisdom developed in conscious response to

the political constraints realistically faced. Anonymity and avoidance

of formal organisations are enabling modes of resistance, a measure of

our understanding of both the danger and the futility of spectacular

mediated action.

While such action precludes formal organisation, it most certainly does

not eschew effective co-ordination, achieved through the informal

networks of affinity, kinship, traditional and intentional community,

workplace and, yes, even perhaps ritual and religious practice. Socially

embedded networks, developed at the level of the everyday, are as opaque

to the authorities as they are indispensable to subversive activity. Let

what’s left of the Left engage in monumental plans for grandiose

national — now even global — federations. (Federations and movements of

what? Parades before the worlds TV cameras? No thanks.)

Effective subversion must be organised out of the gaze of domination, in

a sequestered physical, cultural or social location; those areas that

are least patrolled by authority. (Anarchist and eco-activist meetings

are mostly conventions for police informers, wannabe reformist

politicians and loonies.)

For those who look only on the surface of things, those seduced by the

spectacular image of defiance, the strategy posed here might be seen as

a retreat from ‘conventional’ class struggle. But all things are

precisely not as they seem; this is the very form that traditional

successful class struggle has always taken. The clandestine, apparently

innocuous, maybe even anti-political assembly provides the fluidity, the

guerrilla mobility, for effective subversive action.

No Name No Slogan

For us, there are immediate uses and gains in formations such as these;

no leaders to round up, no hierarchical organisation to wield power over

us in our name, no membership lists to investigate, no manifestos to

denounce, no mediators to meet (and then join) the power holding elite.

No public claims are made, no symbolic lines are drawn, no press

statements to be deliberately misconstrued and trivialised by

journalists. No platforms or programmes which the intellectuals can

hijack as their exclusive property, no flag or banner to which to pledge

a crass and sectarian allegiance.

Then what concrete forms will our subversion take? Well, the forms it

already takes; theft, feigned ignorance (all the better to dissemble our

intentions), shirking or careless labour, foot-dragging and the go-slow,

zero work (with a little preparation we might come to enjoy the next

depression), secret trade and production for sale (for barter — or even

better for free), squatting, defaulting on all payments for anything,

evasion of taxes, destruction of official records, sabotage and arson,

assassination, impromptu riot (for the hell of it) and the detournment

of State sponsored celebration into moments of joyous destruction.

If we were to undertake all this with the objective of attaining a

complete self reliance in the satisfaction of all our needs and desires,

we may well find it sufficient for the move from surviving within this

system, to superseding it.

Let the daily celebration of life be but a dress rehearsal for

insurrection. It is the accumulation of small, instrumental acts that

will bring authority to its knees. Let us rise!