💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › alfredo-m-bonanno-anarchists-and-action.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:15:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchists and action Author: Alfredo M. Bonanno Date: September 1989 Language: en Topics: Insurrectionary, insurrectionary anarchy Source: https://archive.elephanteditions.net/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-anarchists-and-action Notes: From “Insurrection”, September 1989. Translated by Jean Weir
Anarchists are not slaves to number but continue to act against power
even when the class clash is at a low level in the mass. Anarchist
action should not therefore aim at organising and defending the whole of
the class of the exploited in one vast organisation to see the struggle
from beginning to end, but should identify single aspects of the
struggle and carry them through to their conclusion of attack.
If anarchists have one constant characteristic it is that of not letting
themselves be discouraged by the adversities of the class struggle or to
be enticed by the promises of power.
It will always be difficult, often impossible, to find an anarchist
comrade who has given in to power. This might happen as a result of
torture or physical pain, never by long spells of repression or loss of
heart. There is something in anarchists that prevents them from becoming
discouraged, something that makes them optimistic even in the worst
moments of their history. It makes them look forward to possible future
outlets in the struggle, not backwards to past mistakes.
An anarchist’s revolutionary work is never exclusively aimed at mass
mobilisation therefore, otherwise the use of certain methods would
become subject to the conditions present within the latter at a given
time. The active anarchist minority is not a mere slave to numbers but
acts on reality using its own ideas and actions. There is obviously a
relationship between these ideas and the growth in organisation, but the
one does not come about as a direct result of the other.
The relationship with the mass cannot be structured as something that
must endure the passage of time, i.e. be based on growth to infinity and
resistance against the attack of the exploiters. It must have a more
reduced specific dimension, one that is decidedly that of attack and not
a rearguard relationship.
The organisational structures we can offer are limited in time and
space. They are simple associative forms to be reached in the short
term, in other words, their aim is not that of organising and defending
the whole of the exploited class in one vast organisation to take them
through the struggle from beginning to end. They must have a more
reduced dimension, identifying one aspect of the struggle and carrying
it through to its conclusion of attack. They should not be weighed down
by ideology but contain basic elements that can be shared by all:
self-management of the struggle, permanent conflictuality, attack on the
class enemy.
At least two factors point to this road for the relationship between
anarchist minority and mass: the class sectorialism produced by capital,
and the spreading feeling of impotence that the individual gets from
certain forms of collective struggle.
There exists a strong desire to struggle against exploitation, and there
are still spaces where this struggle can be expressed concretely. Models
of action are being worked out in practice, and there is still a lot to
be done in this direction.
Small actions are always criticised for being insignificant and
ridiculous against such an immense structure as that of capitalist
power. But it would be a mistake to attempt to remedy this by opposing
them with a relationship based on quantity rather than extending these
small actions, which are easy for others to repeat. The clash is
significant precisely because of the enemy’s great complexity which it
modifies constantly in order to maintain consensus. This consensus
depends on a fine network of social relations functioning at all levels.
The smallest disturbance damages it far beyond the limits of the action
itself. It damages its image, its programme, the mechanisms that produce
social peace and the unstable equilibrium of politics.
Each tiny action that comes from even a very small number of comrades,
is in fact a great act of subversion. It goes far beyond the often
microscopic dimensions of what took place, becoming not so much a symbol
as a point of reference.
This is the sense in which we have often spoken of insurrection. We can
start building our struggle in such a way that conditions of revolt can
emerge and latent conflict can develop and be brought to the fore. In
this way a contact is established between the anarchist minority and the
specific situation where the struggle can be developed.
We know that many comrades do not share these ideas. Some-accuse us of
being analytically out of date, others of not seeing that circumscribed
struggle only serve the aims of power, arguing that, especially now in
the electronic era, it is no longer possible to talk of revolt.
But we are stubborn. We believe it is still possible to rebel today,
even in the computer era.
It is still possible to penetrate the monster with a pinprick. But we
must move away from the stereotypical images of the great mass
struggles, and the concept of the infinite growth of a movement that is
to dominate and control everything. We must develop a more precise and
detailed way of thinking. We must consider reality for what it is, not
what we imagine it to be. When faced with a situation we must have a
clear idea of the reality that surrounds us, the class clash that such a
reality reflects, and provide ourselves with the necessary means in
order to act on it.
As anarchists we have models of intervention and ideas that are of great
importance and revolutionary significance, but they do not speak for
themselves. They are not immediately comprehensible, so we must put them
into action, it is not enough to simply explain them.
The very effort of providing ourselves with the means required for the
struggle should help to clarify our ideas, both for ourselves and for
those who come in to contact with us. A reduced idea of these means, one
that limits itself to simply counter-information, dissent and
declarations of principle, is clearly inadequate. We must go beyond that
and work in three directions: contact with the mass (with clarity and
circumscribed to the precise requirements of the struggle); action
within the revolutionary movement (in the subjective sense already
mentioned); construction of the specific organisation (functional to
both work within the mass and to action within the revolutionary
movement).
And we need to work very hard in this direction.