Insurrection – Alfredo M. Bonanno (1988)

All articles from ‘Insurrection: Anarchist Magazine‘, Issue Four, May 1988, London, UK

A considerable part of the anarchist movement shares insurrectional positions, but they are theoretical stands only. We think that a new way to consider insurrection is possible.

Apart from a few not very significant fringes, the international anarchist movement shares theoretical positions of a revolutionary character. The liberal democratic vein, important as far as it shows a possible line of involution, remains on the margins.

In turn almost the whole of the revolutionary anarchist positions — with different nuances — see insurrection as a necessary phase along the road to revolution.

But this insurrection is seen as a mass revolt due to certain socio-economic forces that serve to set it off. The role of the anarchist movement is to limit itself to understanding these conditions and economic and social contradictions to make them more comprehensible to the mass. Basically, a role of propaganda and counterinformation.

Often even the anarchist comrades who see the need for violent struggle against the structures of oppression without half measures, limit themselves to this part of the analysis and do not feel obliged to go any further. The mass — they say — must do everything themselves. Anything else would be authoritarian on the part of the specific anarchist organisation and could turn out to be disastrous.

This idea of insurrection might have been logical when nearly the whole of the anarchist movement was on positions of synthesis, i.e. in the dimension of the big (or not so big) quantitative organisations. Through the instrument of the syndicalist organisation they planned to address the whole of the social and economic struggles into a situation of waiting for a breaking out of the revolutionary moment.

There is a different way to envisage revolutionary struggle in an insurrectionalist key in our opinion.

We consider that the anarchist organisation, so long as it is informal, can contribute to the constitution of autonomous base nuclei which, as mass organisms, can programme attacks against structures of social, economic and military repression. These attacks, even if circumscribed, have all the methodological characteristics and practises of insurrectional phenomena when not left to the blind forces of social and economic conflict but are brought into an anarchist projectuality based on the principles of autonomy, direct action, constant attack and the refusal to compromise.

In a word, this is the insurrectional conception that we are inviting all interested comrades to assess with critiques, analysis, and debate.

a.m.b.

Internationalism

The struggle alongside the exploited of the world cannot simply be reduced to collecting signatures or to counter-information, it must complete itself with an attack against those responsible — internal and external — for exploitation.

A restricted view of the struggle is doomed to failure. If not in terms of immediate results (improved conditions, growth of revolutionary consciousness, development of the movement, etc) at least in the long term modifying of power relations.

The revolutionary struggle is total. It involves the possibility of life for the exploited in all the different parts of the world, hence the need for the total intervention of the revolutionary even when operating in a circumscribed and therefore immediate struggle.

But this interest cannot limit itself to simply reading the newspapers and keeping oneself informed on what is happening in the world. It must go a little (or a lot) further than that.

Proletarian internationalism is an active intervention, a participation in the struggles of the exploited that extends everywhere.

But there is a mistaken way of considering this basic revolutionary perspective. It was applied by the authoritarian parts of the movement in the seventies with disastrous results. This mistake has mechanical characteristics and consists of taking what one considers to be the highest point of the clash (i.e. the situation of peoples in the third world) where social and economic conflicts are more obvious, and carrying them — as a strategic and methodological proposal — to within the situation of the more advanced countries (the so-called metropolitan situations). In the past one heard of bringing Vietnam to Berlin or London or Milan. The mistake was in sanctifying the open armed clash unreservedly and in transferring these aspects to situations which had, and still have very different characteristics.

But in practice it was not a question of real proletarian internationalism. The far-off situation was seen as an occasion for pushing the local situation. The transferal en bloc of the methods and slogans was done with a view to obtaining sympathy and propaganda on the wave of results that the struggle of those far-off peoples were achieving.

We consider that today more than ever real proletarian internationalism can go towards one of two solutions. Firstly, the classical one which is spoken about less and less now and has come to be seen only through the distorting lens of a now out-dated romanticism, is that of direct participation through internationalist groups or brigades. A lot could be said on the subject which we shall put off until some future date where it can be gone into in more detail among comrades.

Alternatively there is the other aspect, that of real “support” to the internationalist struggle.

It should be said that this support cannot be reduced to a simple subscription. Even if very useful, it is certainly not the first thing that the exploited engaged in a struggle expect. There is also the so-called “political” support, i.e. counterinformation, demonstrations, picketing of consulates and embassies, letters of protest. All very useful things.

And then there is the attack against those responsible for exploitation. Both internally and externally. Without wanting to give this aspect privilege over all the others, we must say — very clearly that to do only the first means rendering such activity ineffective. It means reducing the manifestation of thought and opinion to a banal exercise of democratic dissent. It means the transformation of financial support into an act of charity which is mainly an alibi for oneself. To do the two things together has a more serious significance and corresponds to what we consider to be true proletarian internationalism.

a.m.b.

National Liberation Struggle

We must get out of the contradictions and ambiguities that anarchists find themselves in when considering the problem of the national liberation struggle. A proposal for an international anarchist confederation for national liberation.

One of the most disputed principles of the anarchist struggle is that of seeing the possibility for developing a revolutionary dimension within the national one.

This problem gives rise to much fear and incomprehension.

It is said that anarchism, being internationalist, should not concern itself with events related to situations within single nations. The clash between classes puts all proletarians on the same level against the exploiters, so one part cannot be extracted from the social war and restricted to within a single territory or nation.

Other dangers are listed with reference to specific historical situations: dangers of involution, of transforming the national liberation struggle into a florid new nationalism or of giving the local bourgeoisie preference over the foreign one. And many other arguments which to tell the truth are not always serene or well thought out.

Many comrades have not thought sufficiently about this thorny problem. They express judgements based on preconceived ideas, not on an evaluation of the limits or possibilities of a struggle for national liberation carried out by anarchists and laid out on anarchist principles.

As the idea of revolution breaking out all over the planet at the same time is unthinkable, it should not be impossible to envisage a breakout of revolutionary events in one specific place at a time. Now if this is reasonable enough one must admit then that a correct anarchist analysis applied to the main areas of tension would lead to the possibility of intervening in an organised and strategically clear way.

Certain situations exist in the world today that present contradictions of a predominantly national kind. Why is it that anarchists must stay outside them? Perhaps because recent experience has shown that these situations often have reactionary outcomes? Or because nearly all of them are dominated by marxist positions? These are not good enough reasons. One could reply to the first that there is no such situation as one that can guarantee a revolutionary or progressive outcome in advance, but rather that such an outcome would be more probable in the presence of anarchists and their struggle. To the second one could say that the relationship between marxism and the national liberation struggle is purely instrumental. That is, the people in struggle have adopted — especially in Africa and South America — certain marxist elements as they have nothing else at their disposition. And is this not perhaps the fault of the anarchists?

We are therefore for intervention in the various national liberation struggles. Not just a general one of solidarity or, worse still, that of systematically drawing political distinctions. We are for an active intervention.

By active intervention we mean not only “real” international solidarity consisting of attacking the common enemy; but also an intervention based on analysis and organisational proposals.

One of the proposals that seems right at the present time and which could become a point of reference in the future, is that of forming an International Confederation for National Liberation, accepting the distinguishing factor of the insurrectional method and the refusal of interclassism.

[Article uncredited in ‘Insurrection‘, but credited to a.m.b. in ‘Anarchismo’, n.52, Maggio 1986.
– M.Gouldhawke]

Beyond Workerism, Beyond Syndicalism

The end of syndicalism corresponds to the end of workerism. For us it is also the end of the quantitive illusion of the party and the specific organization of synthesis.

The revolt of tomorrow must look for new roads.

Trade unionism is in its decline. In good as in evil with this structural form of struggle an era is disappearing, a model and a future world seen in terms of an improved and corrected reproduction of the old one. We are moving towards new and profound transformations.

In the productive structure, in the social structure.

Methods of struggle, perspectives, even short term projects are also transforming.

In an expanding industrial society the trade union moves from instrument of struggle to instrument supporting the productive structure itself.

Revolutionary syndicalism has also played its part: pushing the most combative workers forward but, at the same time, pushing them backwards in terms of capacity to see the future society or the creative needs of the revolution. Everything remained parceled up within the factory dimension. Workerism is not just common to authoritarian communism. Singling out privileged areas of the class clash is still today one of the most deep-rooted habits that it is difficult to lose.

The end of trade-unionism therefore. We have been saying so for fifteen years now. At one time this caused criticism and amazement, especially when we included anarcho-syndicalism in our critique. We are more easily accepted today. Basically, who does not criticize the trade unions today? No one, or almost no one.

But the connection is overlooked. Our criticism of trade unionism was also criticism of the “quantitive” method that has all the characteristics of the party in embryo. It was also a critique of the specific organizations of synthesis. It was also a critique of class respectability borrowed from the bourgeoisie and filtered through the cliché of so-called proletarian morals. All that cannot be ignored.

If many comrades agree with us today in our now traditional critique of trade-unionism those who share a view of all the consequences that it gives rise to are but a few.

We can only intervene in the world of production using means that do not place themselves in the quantitive perspective. They cannot therefore claim to have specific anarchist organizations behind them working on the hypothesis of revolutionary synthesis.

This leads us to a different method of intervention, that of building factory “nucleii” or zonal “nucleii” which limit themselves to keeping in contact with a specific anarchist structure, and are exclusively based on affinity. It is from the relationship between the base nucleus and specific anarchist structure that a new model of revolutionary struggle emerges to attack the structures of capital and the State through recourse to insurrectional methods.

This allows for a better following of the profound transformations that are taking place in the productive structures. The factory is about to disappear, new productive organizations are taking its place, based mainly on automation. The workers of yesterday will become partially integrated into a supporting situation or simply into a situation of social security in the short-term, survival in the long one. New forms of work will appear on the horizon. Already the classical workers’ front no longer exists. Likewise the trade union as is obvious. At least it no longer exists in the form in which we have known until now. It has become a firm like any other.

A network of increasingly different relations, all under the banner of participation, pluralism, democracy, etc, will spread over society bridling almost all the forces of subversion. The extreme aspects of the revolutionary project will be systematically criminalized.

But the struggle will take new roads, will filter towards a thousand new subterranean channels emerging in a hundred thousand explosions of rage and destruction with new and incomprehensible symbology.

As anarchists we must be careful, we are carriers of an often heavy mortgage from the past, not to remain distanced from a phenomenon that we end up not understanding and whose violence could one fine day even scare us, and in the first case we must be careful to develop our analysis in full.

a.m.b.

Illegality

Simply spreading facts that have been distorted or concealed by the institutional information system constitutes an “illegal” action. Not against one precise law (except in the case of the so-called ‘State-secret’), but something that goes against the management of social control on which the State’s very possibility of having its laws respected is based.

A wide area of behaviour exists therefore that attracts the attention of the State’s repressive organs just as much, if not more, than that which clearly breaks a specific law.

It can be extremely damaging to the project of State control for certain news to be in circulation at a given moment, at least as damaging as actions falling into the “illegal” category.

This shows that the line between “formal” legality and that of “real” legality fluctuates according to the repressive projects being put into act.

It varies according to the relationship between State and capital at a given time, and this is established less through recourse to precise laws than through a myriad of controls and dissuasions that only evolve into actual repressive actions in specific cases.

Relation between politics and illegality

Basically all political critique remains within the field of legality. In fact it bolsters the social fabric and allows it to overcome certain defects and deficiencies caused by capital’s contradictions and some excessively rigid aspects of the State.

But no political critique can reach the total negation of State and capital. If it did it would become a social critique — as in the case of anarchist critique — and would cease to be a constructive contribution to the institutional fabric, and so become “illegal”.

Periods of institutional and social equilibrium can exist that allow the existence of a social critique of a radically anarchist nature, but that does not alter the substantially “illegal” character of this critique.

On the other hand, even behaviour that comes heavily under the jurisdiction of the penal code can be considered differently in the light of a relationship of a political kind. For example, the armed struggle of a combatant party is undoubtedly an illegal action in the formal sense of the word, but at a given moment it can become functional to the State and capital’s projects of recuperation and restructuring. It ensues that an agreement between combatant party and State is not impossible.

This is not as absurd as it seems. The combatant party puts itself within the logic of destabilising the existing ruling power for the construction of a future power that is different in form but identical in substance.

In this project, as soon as it is realised that there is no outlet for a military confrontation, they make a deal. The amnesty that is being talked about so much in Italy today with the Red Brigades is one such deal.

As we can see, while simple anarchist critique — radical and total in content — always remains “illegal”, even the armed struggle of the combatant parties can at a given moment enter the domain of “legality”. That clearly demonstrates the “fluctuating” nature of legality and the State’s capacity to adapt this to levels of social control.

The exercise of control

The instruments of repression only use brute force minimally. They function preventively to a far greater extent as instruments of social control.

This is applied through a series of provisions for all the forms of potential illegality and deviant behaviour.

Potential illegality comes within the law today, but the farseeing eye of the censor looks ahead to foresee its possible outcome. In the same way social deviance today might be a possible object of study or surprise, tomorrow it could become a concrete manifestation of social subversion.

a.m.b.