💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-archipelago.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 19:40:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Archipelago
Author: anonymous
Date: 2012
Language: en
Topics: organization
Source: Retrieved on August 30th, 2018 from https://machorka.espivblogs.net/2015/06/17/archipelago-affinity-informal-organization-and-insurrectionnal-projects-enitfr-2012/
Notes: (en/it/fr) 2012

anonymous

Archipelago

Why come back to questions about affinity and informal organization?

Certainly not because we are lacking attempts to explore and deepen

these aspects of anarchism, not because yesterday’s discussion, like

today’s, aren’t being somewhat inspired by them, and also not because

there is a lack of texts – true, most of the time in other languages –

that approach these questions perhaps in a more dynamic manner. However,

without a doubt, certain concepts require a permanent analytical and

critical effort, if they don’t want to loose their meaning by being

all-too-often used and repeated. Otherwise our ideas risk becoming a

common place, some “evidence”, a fertile ground for the idiotic game of

identity competition, where critical reflexion becomes impossible. It

also happens that the choice of affinity for some becomes quickly

dismissed as if it was about a relationship perched on its own ideas, a

relationship that would not allow a contact with reality and neither

with comrades. While others wave it around like a banner, like some kind

of slogan – and like all slogans, usually it is the real meaning, deep

and propulsive, to be its first victim.

No human activity is possible without organization, at least if we

understand for “organization” the coordination of the mental and

physical efforts deemed necessary to achieve a goal. From this

definition we can deduct an important aspect, which is often forgotten:

organization is functional, it is directed towards the realization of

something, towards action in the broadest sense of the word. Those who

today urge everyone to just organize, in the absence of clear goals and

while awaiting that from this first moment of organization all the rest

would automatically develop, they put on a pedistal the fact of

organizing as an end in itself. In the best of cases, maybe they hope

that from this will spring a perspective, a perspective that they are

not able to imagine by themselves or roughly draw up, but which would

become possible and palpable only within some kind of collective and

organized environment. Nothing less true. An organization is fruitful

when it is nurtured, not from a banal quantitative presence, but from

individuals that use itto realize a common goal. Said in other words, it

is pointless to believe that, just by organizing ourselves, the

questions of how, what, where and why to struggle will be resolved by

the magic of the collective. In the best of cases – or the worst,

depending on the point of view – perhaps someone could find a bandwagon

to jump on, a wagon pulled by someone else, and just get comfortable in

the quite unpleasant role of follower.

So it is only a matter of time before one would, disgusted and

dissatisfied, break with this organization.

Organization is therefore subordinated to what one wants to do. For

anarchists, we need to also add the direct ties that need to exist

between what one wants to do, the ideal for which one struggles and the

way to obtain it. Despite the present disguising and word games, in the

more or less marxist meanders, parties are still considered to be an

adequate means to fight against political parties. We still see them

today put forward the political affirmation of the productive forces (in

times when the scale of the industrial disaster is under everyone’s

eyes) as a road to end with capitalist relationships. Some want to take

measures to render superfluous all other measures. Anarchists have

nothing to do with this kind of magic tricks, for them the ends and the

means need to coincide. Authority cannot be fought with authoritarian

forms of organization. Those who pass their time picking apart the fine

points of metaphysics, and find in this affirmation arguments against

the use of violence, an alibi or a capitulation by anarchists,

demonstrate through this above all their profound desire for order and

harmony. Every human relation is conflictual, which does not mean that

it is therefore authoritarian. To talk about such questions in absolute

terms is certainly difficult, which doesn’t take away the fact the

tension towards coherence is a vital need.

If today we think that affinity and affinity groups are the most

adequate form for struggle and anarchist intervention in social

conflictuality, it is because such a consideration is intimately tied to

how we conceive of this struggle and this intervention. In fact, two

roads exist to face the question, roads that are not diametrically

opposite, but that also do not totally coincide. On one hand, there is

the non-negotiable need of coherency. From there comes the question of

the measure certain anarchist organizational forms (taking for example

the organizations of synthesis with programs, some declarations of

principles and some congresses such as anarchist federations or

anarcho-sindacalist structures) answer to our idea of anarchism. On the

other, there is the matter of adequateness of certain organizational

structures. This adequateness puts the question more on the grounds of

historical conditions, of goals that want to be reached (and therefore

to the organizational form that is considered most apt to this), of

analysis of the social and economic situation… To the big federations we

would have preferred, also in other eras, small groups who move with

autonomy and agility, but on the level of adequateness to the situation,

with great difficulty one can exclude a priori that in certain

conditions, the choice of an anarchist organization of struggle,

specific and federated, of a guerrilla constellation…can (or rather,

could have) answer to certain needs.

We think that contributing to insurrectional ruptures and developing

them is today the most adequate anarchist intervention to fight against

domination. For insurrectional ruptures we mean intentional ruptures,

even if temporary, in the time and space of domination; therefore a

necessarily violent rupture. Even though such ruptures have also a

quantitative aspect (as they are social phenomenons that cannot be

reduced to a random action of a fistful of revolutionaries), these are

directed towards the quality of the confrontation. They take aim against

structures and relations of power, they break with their time and space

and allow, through the experiences made and the methods used to

self-organize and of direct action, to question again and to attack more

aspects of dominion. In short, the insurrectional ruptures seem to us

necessary on the road towards the revolutionary transformation of the

existent.

Out of all this logically derives the question of knowing how anarchists

can organize themselves to contribute to such a rupture. Without giving

up on the always important spreading of anarchist ideas, according to

us, today, it is not about gathering at all costs the biggest amount of

people possible around anarchism. In other words, we don’t think that

what is necessary is strong anarchist organizations with a broad shining

able to attract the exploited and the excluded, as a quantitative

prelude for these organizations that in turn will give (when the time is

ripe) the signal of insurrection. Furthermore, we think that it is

unthinkable, in our days, that insurrectional ruptures could start from

organizations that defend the interest of a particular social group,

starting from, for example, more or less anarcho-syndacalist forms. The

integration of such organizations within democratic management, in fact

perfectly answers to contemporary capitalist economy; it is this

integration that made it impossible to potentially cross from a

defensive to an offensive position. Finally it seems to us impossible

that today a strong “conspiracy” would be able, through different

surgical operations, to make domination tremble and to drag the

exploited in the insurrectional adventure; beyond the objections that

can be made against this way of considering things. In historical

contexts where power was very centralized, such as in czarist Russia,

one could still somehow imagine the hypothesis of a direct attack

against the heart (in this case the assassination of the czar) as a

prelude to a generalized revolt. In a context of decentralized power

like the one we know, the question can no longer be about striking the

heart, hypothesizing a scenario where one, well aimed shot, could make

domination shake in its foundations (which obviously doesn’t take

anything away of the validity of a well aimed shot). Therefore other

paths should be explored.

Affinity and affinity group

Many draw back in front of affinity. It is in fact a lot easier and less

demanding to sign up to something, be it an organization, a permanent

assembly or an scene and to take up and reproduce formal

characteristics, rather than undertaking a long and never exhausted

research for comrades with whom to share ideas, analysis and eventual

projects. Because affinity is exactly this: a reciprocal knowledge

between comrades, shared analysis that lead to prospectives of action.

Affinity is therefore directed on one hand towards theoretical deepening

and on the other towards intervention in social conflictuality.

Affinity is radically placed on the qualitative plane. It aspires to the

sharing of ideas and methods, and it does not have as a goal an infinite

growth. For some comrades, one of the main preoccupations, even though

often well hidden, seems to remain the number. How many are we? What

should we do to be more? From the polarization on such a question and

from the constatation that today we aren’t many, given by the fact that

many others do not share our ideas (no, also not unconsciously), derives

the conclusion that we should, to grow numerically, avoid putting too

hard of an accent on certain ideas. These days it is rare to still find

those who will try to sell you a membership card to some revolutionary

organization, destined to quantitatively grow and aspiring to represent

always more exploited; but it is many who think that the best way to get

to know others consists of organizing “consensual” activities such as

for example self-organized bars, workshops, concerts, etc. Surely such

activities can have their role, but when we face the topic of affinity

we are talking about something else. Affinity is not the same thing as

friendship. Of course the two do not exclude each other, but it is not

because we share certain analysis that we sleep together, and vice

versa. In the same way, just because we listen to the same music it

doesn’t mean we want to struggle in the same way against domination.

The search for affinity occurs on an interpersonal level. It is not a

collective event, a group affair, where it is always easier to follow

than to think for oneself. The deepening of affinity is evidently a

matter of thought and action, but in the end affinity is not the result

of carrying out an action together, but rather a starting point from

which to then pass to action. OK, this is obvious, some might say, but

then this would mean that I will not meet many people who could be good

comrades, because in some way I would confine myself in affinity. It is

true that the search and the deepening of affinity require a lot of time

and energy, and that therefore it is not possible to generalize it to

all comrades. The anarchist movement of a country, of a city or even of

a neighbourhood cannot become one big affinity group. It is not about

enlarging different affinity groups with more comrades, but to make

possible the multiplication of autonomous affinity groups. The search,

the elaboration and the deepening of affinity leads to small groups of

comrades that know each other, share analysis and pass together to

action.

There’s the word… The aspect “group” of an affinity group has regularly

been criticized, in both wrong and right ways. Often there are comrades

who share the notion of affinity, but it becomes a lot more complicated

when we start talking about “groups” which on one hand goes beyond an

inter-individual aspect, while on the other hand seem to limit the

“growth”. The objections most of the time consist in underlining the

pernicious mechanisms of the “interior/exterior”, of the

“inside/outside” that such affinity groups can generate (such as, for

example, the fact of renouncing to one’s own path to follow the one of

others, the sclerosis and the mechanisms that can surface such as

certain forms of competition, hierarchy, feelings of superiority or

inferiority, fear…). But these are problems that arise in any kind of

organization and are not exclusively tied to affinity. It is about

reflecting on how to avoid that the search for affinity brings to a

stagnation and to a paralysis rather than to an expansion, a spreading

and of a multiplication.

An affinity group is not the same thing as a “cell” of a party or an

urban guerilla formation. Since its search is permanent, affinity

evolves in permanence. It can “increase” up until the point that a

shared project becomes possible, but on the other hand, it can also

“decrease” until making it impossible to do anything together. The

archipelago of affinity groups therefore constantly changes. This

constant change is often pointed out by its critics: one cannot build

anything from this, because it is not stable. We are convinced of the

opposite: there is nothing to be built around organizational forms that

revolve around themselves, away from the individuals that are part of

it. Because sooner or later, at the first blows, excuses and tricks will

anyways surface. The only fertile ground on which to build is the

reciprocal search for affinity.

Finally, we would like to point out that this way of organization has

the further advantage of being particularly resistant to the repressive

measures of the state, since it does not have representative bastions,

structures or names to defend. Where crystallized formations and big

organizations can practically be dismantled in one hit, because of the

same fact that they are rather static, affinity groups remain agile and

dynamic even when repression hits. Since affinity groups are based on

reciprocal knowledge and trust, the risks of infiltration, of

manipulation and snitching are much more limited than in huge

organizational structures to which people can formally join or in vague

surroundings where it is only necessary to reproduce certain behaviour

to join the club. Affinity is a quite hard base to corrupt, exactly

because it starts from ideas and it also evolves according to these

ideas.

Informal organization and projectuality

We believe that anarchists have the most amount of freedom and autonomy

of movement to intervene in social conflictivity if they organize

themselves in small groups based on affinity, rather than in huge

formations or in quantitative organizational forms. Of course, it is

desirable and often necessary that these small groups are able to come

to an understanding between each other. And not for the purpose of being

transformed into a moloch or a phalanx, but to realize specific and

shared aims. These aims therefore determine the intensity of the

cooperation, of the organization. It is not excluded that one group who

shares affinity organizes a demonstration, but in many cases a

coordination between different groups could be desirable and necessary

to realize this specific goal, anchored in time. Cooperation could be

also more intense in the case of a struggle conceived on a medium term,

as, for example a specific struggle against a structure of power (the

building of a deportation centre, of a prison, of a nuclear base…). In

such a case, we could talk about informal organization. Organization,

because we are dealing with a coordination of wills, means and

capacities between different affinity groups and individuals that share

a specific project. Informal because we are not concerned with promoting

some name, or quantitatively strengthening an organization, or signing

up to a program or a declaration of principles, but of an agile and

light coordination to answer the needs of a project of struggle.

In one way, informal organization finds itself also on the ground of

affinity, but it goes beyond the inter-individual character. It exists

only in the presence of a shared projectuality. An informal organization

is therefore directly oriented towards struggle, and cannot exist apart

from this. As we previously mentioned, it helps to answer to particular

requirements of a project of struggle that cannot be at all, or with

great difficulty, sustained by a single affinity group. It can, for

example, allow to make available the means that we deem necessary. The

informal organization does not therefore have the goal to gather all

comrades behind the same flag or to reduce the autonomy of the affinity

groups and of individualities, but to allow this autonomy to dialog.

This is not a loophole for doing everything together, but it is a tool

to materialize the content and the feeling of a common project, through

the particular interventions of affinity groups and individualities.

What does it mean to have a project? Anarchist want the destruction of

all authority, from this we can deduct that they are on the constant

search for ways of doing this. In other words, it is certainly possible

to be an anarchist and active in such without a specific project of

struggle. In fact this is what happens in general. Whether anarchists

are following the directive of the organizations they belong to

(something that seems belonging more to the past), or whether they are

waiting for the arrival of struggles they can participate to, or whether

they attempt to include as many anarchist aspects as possible into their

daily life: none of these attitudes presumes the presence of a real

projectuality – something that, let’s make it clear, does not make these

comrades less anarchists. A project is based on the analysis of the

social, political and economic context one finds themselves in, and from

which one refines a perspective that allows them to intervene in the

short and medium term. A project that therefore holds an analysis, ideas

and methods, coordinated to reach a purpose. We can for example publish

an anarchist newspaper because we are anarchists and want to spread our

ideas. OK, but a more projectual approach would require an analysis of

the conditions in which this publication would be suitable to intervene

in the conflictuality, which form it should therefore take,… We can

decide to struggle against deportations, against the deterioration of

the conditions of survival, against prison… because all these things are

simply incompatible with our ideas; developing a project would

necessitate an analysis to understand from where an anarchist

intervention would be the most interesting, which methods to use, how to

think of giving an impulse or intensification to the conflictual tension

in a given period of time. It goes without saying that similar projects

are usually the occasion for organizing informally, in a coordination

between different groups and anarchist individualities.

Therefore an informal organization cannot be founded, constituted or

abolished. It is born in a completely natural way, fulfilling the needs

of a project of struggle and disappears when this project is realized or

when it is assessed that it is no longer possible or relevant to realize

it. It does not coincide with the entirety of the ongoing struggle: the

many organizational forms, the different places of encounter, the

assemblies etc. produced by a struggle will exist independently from the

informal organization, which does not mean that anarchist cannot also be

present there.

The “others”

Up until now we have mainly talked about organizational forms between

anarchists. Without a doubt, many revolts provide precious suggestions

that are parallel to what we have just said. Let ́s take as an example

the revolts of the last years in certain metropolis. Many rebels

organized themselves in small agile groups. Or let ́s think of the riots

on the other side of the mediterranean. There was no need of a strong

organization or of some kind of representational structure of the

exploited to spark the uprisings, their backbone was built of multiple

forms of informal self-organization. Of course, in all this we did not

express ourselves on the “content” of these revolts, but without rather

anti-authoritarian organizational forms, it would be completely

unthinkable that they would have taken a liberatory and libertarian

direction.

It is time to say goodbye, once and for all, to all political reflexes,

even more so in these times when revolts do not answer (not anymore) to

political prerogatives. Insurrections and revolts should not be

directed, neither by authoritarians nor by anarchists. They don’t ask to

be organized in one big formation. This does not take away that our

contribution to such events (phenomenons that are really social) cannot

remain simply spontaneous if it aspires to be a qualitative contribution

– this requires a certain amount of organization and projectuality.

However the exploited and the excluded do not need anarchists to revolt

or insurge. We can at most be an additional element, welcomed or not, a

qualitative presence. But that nonetheless remains important, if we want

to make the insurrectional ruptures break through in an anarchist

direction.

If the exploited and the excluded are perfectly capable of revolting

without anarchists and their presence, not for this are we ready to

renounce looking for some points and a terrain where we can struggle

with them. These points and this terrain are not “natural” or

“automatic” consequences of historical conditions. The encounter among

affinity groups, as well as informal organization of anarchists and

exploited willing to fight, occurs better in the struggle itself, or at

least in a proposal of struggle. The necessity of spreading and

deepening anarchist ideas is undeniable and in no moment should we hide

them, confine them to the back-alleys, or disguise them in the name of a

given strategy. However in a project of insurrectional struggle it is

not about converting the most amount of exploited and excluded to one’s

own ideas, but rather to make possible experiences of struggle with

anarchist and insurrectional methodology (attack, self-organization and

permanent conflictuality). Depending on the hypothesis and the projects,

it is necessary to effectively reflect on which organizational forms

this encounter between anarchists and those who want to struggle on a

radical basis can take. These organizational forms can certainly not be

exclusively anarchist constellations, since other rebels take part in

it. They are therefore not a support to “promote” anarchism, but have

the purpose of giving shape and substance to an insurrectional struggle.

In some texts, drawn up from a series of experiences, there is a mention

of “base nuclei” formed within the project of a specific struggle, of

forms of organization based on the three fundamental characteristics of

insurrectional methodology. Anarchists take part, but together with

others. In a certain sense, they are mostly points of reference (not of

anarchism, but of the ongoing struggle). They somewhat function as the

lungs of a insurrectional struggle. When this struggle is intense it

involves many people, and it diminishes in number when the temperature

drops. The name of such organizational structures has little if no

importance. One must discern, within certain projects of struggle, if

similar organizational forms are imaginable or necessary. We have to

also underline that this is not about collectives, committees, popular

assemblies etc. previously formed and that have the purpose of lasting

in time, and whose composition is rarely anti-political and autonomous

(since there are often institutional elements involved). The “base

nuclei” are formed within a project of struggle and only carry a

concrete purpose: to attack and destroy an aspect of dominion. Therefore

they are not para-unionist organizations that defend the interests of a

social group (in the committees of the unemployed, in the assemblies of

students…), but occasions of organization geared towards attack. The

experiences of self organization and attack do not obviously guarantee

that in a future struggle the exploited would not accept or not tolerate

institutional elements. But without these experiences, these kind of

reactions would be practically unthinkable.

To summarize, according to us it is not about building organizations

that would “attract the masses” or to organize them, but to develop and

put in practice concrete proposals of struggle. Within these proposals,

of an insurrectional character, it is therefore important to reflect on

the organizational forms considered necessary and adequate to realize a

proposal of attack. We underline once again that these organizational

forms do not necessarily implicate structures with meetings, places of

encounter etc. but that these can also be born directly on the street,

in moments of struggle. In certain places, for example, it can be easier

to create some “points of reference” or a “base nucleus” with other

exploited by interrupting the routine, putting up a barricade on the

street… rather than waiting for everyone to come to an appointment to

discuss about putting up a barricade. These aspects cannot be left

totally to chance and to spontaneity. A projectuality allows reflexion

and an evaluation of different possibilities and their relevancy.

In short

If the question moves away from how to organize people for the struggle,

it becomes how to organize the struggle. We think that archipelagos of

affinity groups, independent one from the other, that can associate

according to their shared prospectives and concrete projects of

struggle, constitute the best way to directly pass to the offensive.

This conceptions offers the biggest autonomy and the widest field of

action possible. In the sphere of insurrectional projects it is

necessary and possible to find ways of informally organizing that allow

the encounter between anarchists and other rebels, forms of organization

not intended to perpetuate themselves, but geared towards a specific and

insurrectional purpose.

[Translated from Salto, subversion & anarchy, issue 2, november 2012

(Brussels).]