user preferences

New Events

International

no event posted in the last week

Notes on the article “Anarchism, Insurrections and Insurrectionalism”

category international | anarchist movement | opinion / analysis author Wednesday December 27, 2006 23:06author by José Antonio Gutiérrez D. Report this post to the editors

The objective of this article is to deal with certain issues that I believe to be insufficiently dealt with if at all, in the article of Joe Black, “Anarchism, Insurrections and Insurrectionalism”. I believe those issues to be of importance if we are to debate on insurrectionalism, so as to understand in perspective some of its ideas and the specific place it has in the general anarchist movement. [PDF booklet of this article]
bbbutton.jpg

Before going any further, I want to say that I find praiseworthy the approach of comrade Black on the subject; at no time, he slipped into easy dismissals, distortions, nor biased interpretations to which, unfortunately, we are so accustomed in the anarchist movement. Above all, his discussion has been respectful and he has clarified some of the misinterpretations on the topic that among the anarchist-communists are a common currency. Through this humble contribution to the debate I hope not to be lead astray from that spirit, and to deal only with real differences instead of creating artificial ones.

I believe the criticism of comrade Black, fundamentally accurate in a number of issues, to be nonetheless a merely formal criticism. It is a criticism of the insurreccionalist “recipe book”, but not of its “catechism”. He directs his criticisms to certain practices that insurrectionalists could well do or not. But he does not deal with the political conceptions lying behind that give shape to their positions and the organisational format they resort to –personally, I’m far from believing as comrade Black suggests, that our differences only emerge in the face of the organisation question. I’m of the opinion that those organisational issues are reflecting some basic political differences. There’s, therefore, needed an internal criticism and not only a formal criticism.

To understand the problem at the root of insurrectionalism’s political conceptions (fundamentally wrong, in my opinion) we have to take into account that they are the offspring of a certain historical moment, something that cannot be regarded as a mere coincidence. Every political idea is a daughter of its times. Secondly, many of these political conceptions are common to a wide section of the left, beyond anarchism. Insurrectionalism is a particular response to some problems that are in no way the sole heritage of anarchism, but that expressed in a wide range of political currents. This I think to be of paramount importance, particularly in the Chilean experience, where there has been a generation that speaks an insurrectionalist language after moving forward from the “lautarismo” towards anarchism. Though there has been a certain change in their political ideas, it is this “insurrectionalist” quintessence that has given continuity to this generation that has changed, to a certain extent, aesthetics but not discourse.

The Political context of the birth of insurrectionalism



First of all, I want to insist on the fact that despite insurrectionalism being portrayed as a new anarchist current for the last couple of decades, on various historical moments (and under various flags –marxist, republican and anarchist alike) there have emerged movements that share some fundamental features with insurrectionalism: rejection in practice of any type of organisation with some projection in time (“formal organisation” according to the insurrectionalists), rejection of systematic and methodical work, despise for the people’s struggle for reforms and mass organisation, what is has as a counterpart voluntarism, maximalism, a primarily emotional approach to politics, a certain sense of urgency, impatience and immediatism . [1]

Conditions for these sorts of tendencies to emerge in the anarchist milieu have taken place under very specific historic moments, in which there has been a combination, on the one hand, of a high level of repression from the system and, on the other, of a low level of popular struggles. This factors combined have been historically a fertile ground for insurrectionalist tendencies in anarchism. The first precedent was “Propaganda by the Deed”, that was born as a result of the repression to the Paris Commune. Then we have terrorism in Russia during the repressive aftermath to the 1905 revolution and illegalism in France, just before the First Great War. In Argentina, these tendencies flourished at the end of the 20s and during the 30s, years of acute repression and of flinching of the once powerful workers movement –this was a desperate, though heroic, of a decadent movement. Then we have Italy and Greece during the early 60s, decades in which the Post War low tide of the popular movement was probably at its lowest and when it was felt with all its weight the political defeat of the anti-fascist left, smashed from the left by Stalinism. In Spain, the experience of the MIL develops during the 70s, when it is clear to everyone that the Franco regime is going to have a “natural death” and when the transition, on the grounds of the strict exclusion of the revolutionary elements, was on its way. Even the very mention of comrade Black of insurrectionalism emerging in the English speaking world in the 80s, is not a minor issue: these are the years of a very low level of class struggle as a whole and years that saw the neocons on the rise, by the hand of Thatcher in England and of the “Reaganomics” in the US.

Even in Chile, the experience of the MJL (Lautaro), what I regard as the direct referent giving a certain sense of tradition to the local movement that has some insurrectionalist features, dates from the late 80s, when the fate of the popular movement that grew in the struggle against the dictatorship was already decided. That very popular movement that had resorted without blushing to “all means of struggle”, and that was at this stage worn out, on its decline and that in the end, found itself blocked by the democratic institutions, unable to fight back in the same way they have done, up to that very minute under Pinochet’s tyranny.

When the popular movement is on a low level of struggle, there’s usually a growing feeling of isolation of the revolutionary movement from the masses; this leads often to a loss in the confidence in the mass organisations of the people and, actually, on the people themselves. This lack of confidence is frequently disguised in a highly abstract jargon about a proletariat that does not materialise but in spontaneous acts of revolt. This lack of confidence is not only expressed as a denunciation of certain bureaucratic, reformist or compromised tendencies that are hegemonic in the popular organisations (such a criticism we would share with them), but they criticise the very nature and the raison d’etre of this organisations.

Also, the moments of a low level of popular struggle generally happen after high levels of class confrontation, so the militants still have lingering memories of the “barricade days”. These moments are frozen in the minds of the militants and it is often that they try to capture them again by trying hard, by an exercise of will alone, by carrying on actions in order to “awaken the masses”... most of the times, these actions have the opposite result to the one expected and end up, against the will of its perpetrators, serving in the hands of repression.

This condemnation of the popular organisations and this sense of urgent action –the one that does not ponder its impact on the popular consciousness and that usually end up, in fact, as extreme forms of vanguard action, though theoretically they might claim a distance from the concept of vanguard as a whole- tends to make even worse the initial isolation, what makes, at the end of the day, even easier the tasks of the repression and annihilation of dissent to the system.

Making general rules out of exceptional circumstances



When the levels of class struggle are high, those are the most relevant moments of it. However, they are exceptional moments on history, moments that work as hinges that open new revolutionary and radical alternatives out of the crisis of the old. The very nature of class struggle is to have moments of an open and brazen confrontation and others of scarce struggle; it is this fact what makes necessary for the revolutionary organisation to have a strategic vision.

Often there had been tendencies in the left that have based their tactics into making general rules out of moments of the class struggle that, by definition, are transitory: thus, the social-democracy consolidated in the moment of low level of struggles after the Paris Commune, renouncing to revolution and putting forward a reform by stages approach as their strategy. For them, the moment of low confrontation was the historical rule –this is the main reason to their opportunism.

Contrary to this, there were those who made a general rule out of the peak moments of class struggle: council communism is an example of that. Their strategy of forming council bodies based in the experience of the European revolutions of the 1920s, without any room for the struggle for reform and only with an all or nothing programme. This leads to the opposite pole of opportunism, that is maximalism, what is not a problem in revolutionary times, but in moments of low intensity of class struggle leads to isolation and confines the revolutionary movement to be nothing but a sect, probably full of devotion, but with no decisive role in the popular organisation. The most dogmatic versions of this current are incapable of appreciating revolutionary potential of those experiences not adjusting to their scheme.

In regard to insurrectionalism, as we already expressed, there seems to be as well a tendency to make a general rule out of certain hot moments in the class struggle. The exclusive practice out of context of forms of action more proper of those moments of open confrontation, at the expense of other forms of struggle, seems to demonstrate this trend of freezing historical moments as stated. This can have nefarious consequences.

Revolutionary movements have to learn how to be flexible, how to accommodate to new circumstances without losing from sight their principles and their fundamental politics. We have to reject dogmatism not only theoretically, but also tactically .[2]

Tactical dogmatism



One of the biggest problems of anarchism today is dogmatism, as this replaces concrete analysis for a number of eternal slogans, which are absolute, inaccurate and aprioristic. In reality, dogmatism is only the other face of our theoretical insufficiencies. The theoretical documents of contemporary anarchism are often full of inaccuracies and are impregnated by a rigid spirit, unaltered by encounter with reality. Contrary to what many believe, it is not only in the ideological aspect where this dogmatism can be felt. Dogmatism is far stronger when it comes to tactics. We, unfortunately, often see tactics turned into principles.

A way in which this tactical dogmatism is expressed is in the tendency among many anarchists to enounce a tactic or a political position –generally, nothing more than predictable phrases, identical to what has been said by other anarchists in places and times totally different- and only after that, to try to look for ways to justify it. That’s doing the thing the other way round: analytical efforts happen after the positions are already taken!

Another way for this tactical dogmatism to be expressed, as we were reminded by comrade Black, is in the tendency to construct a whole ideology or current around a single tactic: we find traces of this in certain forms of anarcho-syndicalism as well as in insurrectionalism. This is a particularly weak line of thought that reduces the complexity of the political landscape and of the libertarian struggle to unique and sacred formulas.

What is worth noting is that often revolutionary struggle demands a variety of tactics that are imposed by the very necessities of practice: pacific and armed forms of struggle, legal mechanisms and transgression of law, public and clandestine organisation, all of these has been used, not infrequently, simultaneously by the anarchist movement, and there’s no other parameter to measure the effectiveness of these tactics than the objectives of the movement, or the progress made in the construction of popular power and the weakening of the bourgeois power. There are no intrinsic qualities for tactics: what can be valid today mightn’t be so tomorrow. And at the end of the day, tactics can only be chosen and discarded in relation to a global strategic programme; so, any judgement around them should not be based on the tactics as such, but on the way they served to the long term objectives.

The parameter to measure the effectiveness of the actions of the anarchists should be nothing short of their programme –what becomes a major problem when most of the anarchist groups lack even the most basic of the programmes. How is it possible then to hold a coherent vision between the immediate action –that can be even elevated to a fetish- and the long term objectives that are not envisaged as nothing but vague slogans? Does this mean to suggest for the comrades to sit and wait eternally so as to have a brand new programme with the one we can go out and fight? Certainly not. Simply it means to develop our tasks as organisations and gain our space in the popular struggles while we develop on parallel and give specific shape to the general view on things provided by anarchist theory. It means to take the general principles of anarchism to a concrete alternative for a place and space given.

Comrade Black reminds us of the importance as a parameter to measure our solidarity action that the group of people we are practicing solidarity with approve our tactics (ie., workers on strike). This being valid, only represents a minor proportion of the possible actions in which anarchists are regularly involved. This type of action is only useful for the struggles in which anarchists are a group of external support (to be honest, this situation is more likely to happen in places like Ireland –country where the original author of the article is from- where the level of social struggles is extremely low and with a political level of militancy as low). Most of the times our action are not merely intending to support some external group of people, but would have ourselves as the primary actors of struggle (ie, we are the workers striking, etc.) or would respond to political motives of the very organisation.

Defence, attack and victory



To assume this tactical flexibility means to assume together with our action, the need to politically evaluate and analyse. It is a well known motto that there is no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory, and vice versa. Political theory on its own is of no good, as practice on its own is of no good as well. But both concepts are irrelevant in the absence of political analysis to make theory and practice go hand in hand and to make them relevant for the here and now. It is necessary for making our practice effective as well.

Theory gives us tools to interpret reality, but they have to be applied, understanding the objective and subjective factors, as well as the huge range of factors combining of them both. In taking those factors into account, we are giving a direction to our practice. This is what will lead our way. I clarify that our focus is always in moving forward and in no case we privilege a mere waiting: there’s always something to be done today. What is the most recommendable for the present, that varies enormously according to the context and we cannot have a pre determined alternative nor easy answers.

In moments when the class conflict is at a low level or on retreat, it is not that difficult to lose patience, thus falling into the hands of voluntarism and in the fetish of action. We know that social processes are long and we do not intend to make them any longer by putting lead shoes on our feet; but we know as well that history do not have shortcuts, that the processes of building an alternative take long and that the “final clash” is nothing but a myth that in reality happens in diverse struggles and confrontations throughout history. We have to be prepared for the moments when we can take a frontal offensive but, all too conscious of the complexity of social processes and of the fluctuations of class struggle, we have to be equally prepared to confront those moments when it is the State and the capitalist that will be sharpening their knives, so as to confront those moments of low struggle when indifference will probably beat us stronger than repression. Revolutionaries, above all, have to learn the art of perseverance. Impatience is not a good adviser as taught by revolutionary experience. This does not mean to wait, but to know how to choose the type of actions to perpetrate in certain moments.

All I want to say with this is that “attack”, a central concept of insurrectionalism, is not all; in revolutionary struggle there is attack, as there is defence. There are moments to move forward, as there are moments to hold positions. Sometimes the moment for the offensive has to be carefully chosen and nothing of this can be predicted in none of the revolutionary doctrines. This can only be learnt through experience, political clarity and, above the rest, by a healthy environment for criticism that is mature and serious. At the end of the day, what we are interested in is not in doing actions as to calm the consciousness of our comrades, but our real interest is victory and, unfortunately, the number of attacks does not necessarily add up to that goal.

Discussion and revolutionary praxis



Many of the weak aspects of anarchism are taken to paroxysm with insurrectionalism. Many of the things we actually consider to be basically wrong with them are not only to be found among insurrectionalists but rather they are to be found in one way or another present in the broader anarchist movement. We have talked of this tendency to freeze certain historical moments, of making general rules out of extraordinary experiences, of tactical dogmatism; but we recognise as another weakness of the anarchist movement the almost absolute lack of a tradition of constructive criticism. Discussions among anarchists are seldom directed towards clarifying situations or searching for solutions to the difficulties that the revolutionaries find into their practice. Most of the times discussions are motivated by a double effort of condemnation of the deviates and to demonstrate who’s the legitimate representative of ideological purity.

Another huge problem in discussion among anarchists is the use of blanket concepts, as demonstrated by comrade Black, that in fact help more to obscure than to clarify debate. For instance, it is too often that “unions” are criticised as if all of them were exactly the same thing... ignoring the world of difference between, let’s say, the IWW, the maquilas unions or the AFL-CIO in the US. To group them all under the same category not only doesn’t help the debate, but it is also a gross mistake that reveals an appalling political and conceptual weakness.

All these have caused, among other things, a serious lack of debate among libertarian circles. It is not our intention now to look for the roots of this problem, the one is caused by numerous reasons (isolation, idealism, absence of real practice, dogmatism, sectarianism, etc...), but we only intend to call the attention on the link existing between this lack of a tradition of constructive debate and the problem noted by comrade Black about the terms in which debate is usually posed: whether you are with us or against us.

Comrade Black correctly disagrees with the blackmail inherent to the claim made by insurrectionalists that any criticism to their actions means to side with the State and repression. No one is free from revolutionary criticism, least the revolutionary themselves. It is neither legitimate nor honest to say that he who criticises a stupid action is “adjusting the straight jacket” or is validating repression, or is siding with the State, or is a coward.

But I find it important to state that the line dividing left-wing criticism from right-wing criticism has to be unequivocally marked and cannot be left as a nebulous zone. For being true that we don’t have to accept everything other organisations do, nor remain silent in the face of actions we might consider stupid and wrong, we always have to be conscious that our criticism can be used by the class enemy if it is not clearly posed and if we don’t distinguish, above anything else, who is it the one with whom we have an antagonistic difference (State-Capital) from the comrades with whom we might have political differences, no matter how big, but which do not turn us into warring opposites. The problem here is not criticism, but how this criticism is posed. We do not want to see our criticism to be turned into an argument into repression’s and our enemy’s favour. Let us remember that this system is always looking for the seeds of division and for the slightest chance to attack dissent.

But not only criticism against insurrectionalism could be used by the State and its repressive forces; in fact, the very criticism made by insurrectionalists can work as a godsend for State to justify repression. A pathetic example of this is the declaration issued by the Informal Anarchist Coordination of Mexico in the face of the events in Oaxaca (“Solidaridad directa con los oprimidos y explotados de Oaxaca” November 16th). In this public declaration, the bulk of it is directed against the APPO, the CIPO-RFM and other popular organisations that were in direct fight against State and Capital. Not much for theory there, that was quintessential class struggle. But they preferred to spend their saliva and ink criticising in a dishonest way, and worse, resorting to some of the same arguments used by the State media that questioned the movement in Oaxaca. This criticism could not only be labelled as reactionary, but also as untimely, appearing at the very minute that the comrades there were needing the most of our solidarity and when repression was at its highest.

This attitude was in a remarkable contrast with the attitude assumed by the Magonist Liberation Commando (Democratic Revolutionary Tendency –Army of the People), which knew when to keep a low profile, which knew how to respect the different alternatives of struggle tactically assumed by protesters in Oaxaca and who were notably conscious that not only our criticism can be useful to the system, but also our own irresponsible action. They say so in a public statement on November 27th “Up to now, we remained expectant and on alert in order to avoid repression to be unleashed over the popular movement gathered around the APPO under the excuse of the armed revolutionary struggle, but the brutality of the federal and national neoliberal government forces us to raise our voice and to make use of our weapons so as to contain and dissuade the neoliberal offensive that should not and cannot be tolerated by any revolutionary organisation”

At the end of the day, the danger for our actions to be used into the system’s favour (just like our differences can be) has to be considered seriously, but seems to be something absolutely underestimated, or worse, ignored by insurrectionalists. This is a serious omission, for we know thanks to historical experience how important it has been for the system the role of the agent provocateur and of stupid actions to look for ways to justify an excessive repression and to isolate the revolutionary movement from the masses. History is full examples, as those illustrated by Victor Serge in “What everyone should know about repression” (1925) about the provocateurs at the Czar’s services in post 1905 Russia (remarkable as this document is, it was only possible thanks to documents seized after the 1917’s revolution from the files of the okhrana, the political police of the Czar); Alexander Skirda in his book “Facing the Enemy” also gives us ample documentation from the French police files of the role of the provocateurs among the anarchist terrorist groups from 1880 until the end of that century. Stories of provocateurs and of senseless actions plague the records of the left and anarchism. But even more dangerous than the actions of the provocateurs themselves is the irresponsible or untimely action of sincere comrades, but too wrong in action or lacking any sense of direction to aim.

We, therefore, cannot silence our criticism in the same way as those who are disagreement with us have the same duty to criticise. I say a duty, for the fraternal and constructive criticism, though not for this less energetic, is a need in order to develop a healthy movement and to look for ways to improve our praxis in the search for the road towards freedom. All it is needed to know is when, how and where criticism will be formulated, so it becomes a factor of strength of the movement instead of a factor of weakness. The same holds truth for action itself.

To conclude...



I think insurrectionalism is useful for debate today not as much as for the criticism it directs towards authoritarian organisations or to the left, and not even to the anarchist movement. It is so, because it brings to our attention a number of the greatest weaknesses of the libertarian movement. It is the mirror image of our historical flaws and of our insufficiencies. Many of our comrades who would take a prudent distance from insurrectionalism would be surprised that, no matter they might disagree in the end results with it, they might be nonetheless sharing a number of its political foundations as well as some its weaknesses. It seems to me that insurrectionalism is not, as many comrades would want us to believe, a bizarre product of the ideological confusion of recent decades. It has been, instead, the expression of tendencies emerging at different times in history, in the face of certain circumstances of a very particular nature, and its expression has been possible due to the existence of serious fault lines in our politics and, what we believe to be, misconceptions. These misconceptions are nothing new and are not limited to insurrectionalism –they are far more widespread in the ranks of our movement than what we would believe.

To sum it up, I hold that insurrectionalism has been incubated, nurtured, bred and developed under the shade of the very mistakes of the anarchist movement (something equally valid for other leftist versions of a certain “insurrectionalism”) and their conscious expression, as a tendency in its own right over the last while, gives us the opportunity to deal with its politics and thus move forward.

José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
10th of December, 2006



--------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Neither enthusiastical participation in insurrections, nor armed struggle are distinctive elements of insurrectionalism regarding other political currents, included anarchist ones.
[2] Recently, an article by Wayne Price, from NEFAC, called “Firmness in Principles, Flexibility in Tactics” was shedding some light on this issue http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4281

author by Waynepublication date Sat Dec 30, 2006 04:30Report this post to the editors

People interested in reading more comments on this article can read them on Infoshop, where this article was reposted. A number of comments were posted about it. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20061228140637965#comments

author by Joepublication date Sun Dec 31, 2006 22:48Report this post to the editors

The author replied to some discussion of the article on infoshop, I think these replies deal with points that others might hold so I've pasted them in below
Joe


"Ok, let me refute something easy; the article talks about the "propaganda by deed" as the first time the tendecy of insurrectionalism surfaced. This is dead wrong and show a great lack of understanding about the insurrectionalist tendency. Instead insurrectionalists, as i understand that tendency (within the anarchist movement, that is. The insurrectionalist tendency exists outside of the anarchists movement and is a tendency that crosses secterian ideological lines within the broader communist movement. Read Gilles Dauve or Delueze and Guattari, for example.), trace its roots back to Bakunin and Malatesta, both who were very critical of the "propaganda by deed" tactics of killing individuals in the rulingclass."

You are confusing the "insurrectionary tendencies" I criticise (that I detail in the article, so no need to describe them again here) with the participation in insurrections of anarchists as a revolutionary movement. Indeed, Bakunin participates in insurrections, anarcho-communists of all types have participated in insurrections and in the revolutionary movement. That's not the point and we clarify that. Read footnote one. But there's a great difference in the tactics exposed by a Bakunin, always too concerned about the organisational tasks, big time organiser of the First International and giving always thought to the constructive post-revolutionary tasks, with, let's say, the "Science of Revolutionary Warfare" of the early Most. "Insurrectionary Tendencies" that basically dismiss the need of organisation beyond conspirative cells. It is precisely for those reasons that propaganda by the deed is actually the first referent since the emergence of a clearly defined anarchist movement.

"And the modern father of [anarchist] insurrectionalism, Alfredo Bonanno, took part in the struggle in the 60ies-70ies and was also very critical of the vanguard tactics of the leftwing terrorists that operated at that time in Italy. Insurrectionalism is the OPPOSITE of those kinds of tactics."

The opposition of Bonnano was actually an ideological one, for in terms of the tactics he was obviously very impressed with them. Too impressed to leave them have a mark on the movement up to these very days. The criticism and opposition displayed theoretically and ideologically, did not affect in any substantial way the tactical outcome of them two (apparently) opposite political lines. That's another point I try to make in the article (that from different political quarters, people arrived to the same practical conclusions).

2. Chuck0 claims that most anarchist he knows claim to be pro-organisation... actually we all could say the same. But in fairness, beyond the claims, not everyone who says to be pro-organisational is actually for it in practice. We have to judge people not only for what they claim, but also for what they do. Otherwise, we could accept, as well, the claims of Stalinism of being the most advanced revolutionary current of all times (while in practice they prepared the ground for the world-wide reaction we are suffering from today) and many other claims that are common currency in the left. In fairness, in the English speaking world, many people, while claiming to be for organisation, have such an abstract concept of it, that makes any possible organisation too loose to be functional. And in practice, most anarchist in the English speaking world are quite hostile to organisation (beyond what they might claim) and indeed as soon as an organisation emerges, start all sorts of unfair criticisms. You only have to contrast the number of unorganised anarchists with the number of organised anarchists and you would have a notion of what I'm saying. Practice speak louder than words.

3. Someone post a comment that I find quite amusing, but very telling of the bottom line of all the debate around insurrectionalism:

"Ted: "Hey Bill, wanna go burn down the bank?"
Bill: "Uh, won't we need an organization for that?"
Ted: "Nah, not really."
Bill: "O.k.""

Organisation is not needed to burn a bank. But burning banks you will not change the capitalist relationships that are expressed in banks. You might give a headache to a local capitalist and you might be happy with that. I'm not. Anarchism is not about burning banks. anarchism is not about giving headaches to the capitalists. Anarchism is about changing a social system that exploits and oppresses the majority of the people for another that guarantees freedom and equality. Organisation is there to make our point and argument heard and popular among the bulk of the people, to prepare for the social upheaval, to organise the unorganised so we can all pitch in to help bring about a new society.

This is when it comes to preparing. But what serious insurrectionalists fail to see is that the difficult task is never the insurrection itself, as proved in many historical examples, but the constructive tasks. And that's what you mainly need organisation for. In Argentina there was a massive upheaval back in 2001 and what did it lead to? Nothing, absolutely nothing 6 years later. The ruling class after the barricades could easily re organise and re build a discredited State and capitalist ruling class in the absence of a serious revolutionary project, that by necessity, is the product of organisations. Revolutionary programmes have never emerged spontaneously and they never will.

So, what type of anarchism do you want? An anarchism to change society or an anarchism to go down and burn the bank, and indulge in attacks against your own petty-hates? That's the bottom line.

J.A. Gutierrez

author by insurrectionary anarchistpublication date Mon Jan 01, 2007 04:37Report this post to the editors

"Organisation is not needed to burn a bank. But burning banks you will not change the capitalist relationships that are expressed in banks. You might give a headache to a local capitalist and you might be happy with that. I'm not. Anarchism is not about burning banks. anarchism is not about giving headaches to the capitalists. Anarchism is about changing a social system that exploits and oppresses the majority of the people for another that guarantees freedom and equality. Organisation is there to make our point and argument heard and popular among the bulk of the people, to prepare for the social upheaval, to organise the unorganised so we can all pitch in to help bring about a new society."

Actually, organization is needed to burn a bank, whether it's done by an individual or a group, certain things must be organized such as the incendiary device, means of transport, target, timing, etc., and in the case of a group action, how that group interacts is a matter of organization.

Burning banks alone will not change the capitalist relationship expressed by banks. But neither will a revolutionary program alone. No insurrectionary anarchist advocates burning banks as the sole activity that will lead to revolution. This also doesn't mean that it's always bad to burn banks or somehow hinders other practices or the social movement towards revolution.

Organization is not soley for making a point or argument heard and popular among the people. We are people and are part of "the people" we want to make a revolution with. Therefore we organize ourselves and with others based on our desire for freedom and revolution. Communication is part of this, but organization is part of all tasks and practices, from burning banks to public speaking.

author by José Antonio Gutiérrezpublication date Mon Jan 01, 2007 05:25Report this post to the editors

First of all, I want to appreciate your spirit of constructive debate and the kind way in which you pose your comment. It certainly reveals a genuine desire of productive debate that is badly needed in our ranks.

Now dealing with your comment, you can have an organisation behind burning a bank, of course, but it is not necessary -a single person for whatever reason could go and do it. Especially, in a remote town with no police surveillance that's perfectly possible. Still, that particular point, whether you need organisation for that action or not is quite irrelevant to the whole argument and acts only as a metaphor.

"Burning banks alone will not change the capitalist relationship expressed by banks. But neither will a revolutionary program alone."

I absolutely agree on that point. The main difference is that a revolutionary programme is essential to bring revolutionary change to a favourable outcome; burning a bank is not.

I'm sure the serious insurrectionalists won't advocate burning banks alone; but in not paying attention to the constructive aspects related to anarchist struggle and organising I think we are neglecting a really important side of anarchism: what's to be done the next day of the revolution. This has been a historical flaw and weakness in anarchism. And in neglecting this aspect of anarchism, the 'insurrectionary' side of our struggle is all we are left to offer to the rest of the people. I doubt many will get attracted to our political positions this way and worse, in the face of a real widespread insurrection, we leave the gates open for leninism or to the old bourgeoisie to reorganise society.

I agree with you that sometimes it might be a good idea to burn a bank -for instance, in third world countries, this can prove sometimes to be highly popular if the bank in question is a multinational one profiting out of a highly indebted people, turning itself into a living symbol of economic misery and desperation. But burning a bank not always can be a sensible decision and in other context it can further alienate the political group who carry this activity -for instance, in the context of an explicitly pacific demonstration. My argument is not for or against some tactic; is about deciding when they are appropriate and realizing that whatever might work well today, maybe won't work well tomorrow. My argument, in general, is against tactical dogmatism that believes that a single tactic is valid at any time (an insurrectionary approach in this case, but this is also truth for many currents in the anarchist milieu).

author by one insurrectionary anarchistpublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 02:37Report this post to the editors

A mistake I think both Joe Black and Gutiérrez make in their ill-informed critique of insurrectionary anarchism is that such anarchists don't see "attack" as a tactic. Attack is a part of the insurrectionary strategy of revolutionary struggle. Attacks on oppressive people or institutions are not seen as superior forms of activity in comparison to any others. Talking with others, painting slogans, writing leaflets, squatting buildings, burning banks, stopping development projects, taking part in riots or large-scale social insurrections are some of the many activities that insurrectionary anarchists engage in. Such anarchists do not elevate or glamorize sabotage or armed attacks as being superior in effectiveness or importance in the revolutionary struggle.

Insurrectionary anarchism is not primarily about arson, vandalism, or armed attacks on the power structure. It's mostly about changing social relations, subverting and eliminating capitalist and oppressive forms of social relationships and institutions.

author by Joe Blackpublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 03:41Report this post to the editors

Actually if you go back and read my article you'll see I make just that point quite close to the start.

Ie I wrote
"It is probably useful to dispel a couple of myths about insurrectionalism at the start. Insurrectionalism is not limited to armed struggle, although it might include armed struggle, and most insurrectionalists are quite critical of the elitism of armed struggle vanguards. Nor does it mean continuously trying to start actual insurrections, most insurrectionalists are smart enough to realise that this maximum program is not always possible, even if they are also keen to condemn other anarchists for waiting."

I'm actually pretty disappointed with the replies to both articles, its seems insurrectionalists have made very little effort to understand what has been written and have simply trotted out standard replies. Joses article I think makes some pretty useful points, I'd sooner see a serious attempt to reply to these rather than the quite crude nit picking that has gone on.

author by yyhhyhhpublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 04:54Report this post to the editors

And yet the whole argument of the article is based on a critique of some armed groups in the 1900s that dont even have anything to do with the insurrectionalist tendency other than the fact that they wanted to start "insurrections" (which all anarchists and indeed revolutionaries want to do).

Insurrectionist theory and analysis isnt based on what some groups thought was necessary a hundred years ago. And even tho the theoretical influences can be traced back to names such as Malatesta and Bakunin, it was really formulated as a specific theoretical tendency in the 70-80 by Bonanno, based on the new material reality that we are right in the middle of right now, and which Bonanno allready could see formating back then.

It is pretty ironic that the author has to state in the beginning that this article tries to deal with the insurrectionalist tendency honesty and without being sectarian, when thats exactly what it does!

author by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.publication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 06:08Report this post to the editors

"And yet the whole argument of the article is based on a critique of some armed groups in the 1900s"

No. Actually if you read the article well you would realize that the intention is not so much to criticise "insurrectionalism" as such, but to use it as an example of theoretical weaknesses to be found in all of the anarchist spectrum -but that happened to be taken to an absolute extreme in insurrectionalism. I base this criticism not only in some groups of the 1900s. Again, if you read the article you would see a number of other moments in history and organisations mentioned (including bits of a declaration from a Mexican organisation that are just a couple of months old), as well as our own experience.

Therefore, I'm more interested than in discussing "insurrectionalism" as such in discussing politics in anarchism. At the end of the day, the criticism is not of insurrectionalism (I really don't mind what they do or what they do not do -as long as it is not an extraordinarily stupid mistake). The criticism is of the flaws to be found in anarchism in general that have lead to certain developments. It is more then a criticism to insurrectionalists a criticism to all of us.

Thus, I'm interested in engaging in constructive debate; up to now, it has not taken place. Rants are not arguments. Not surprinsingly, I mention myself in the article this to be a serious issue among anarchists in general.

author by ututrurpublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 07:49Report this post to the editors

Well, i guess it says something about your article if the readers dont understand your argument, especially if they are themselves sympatethic to the insurrectionalist tendency, and moreover used to be sympathetic to the plattformist tendency (and so have quite alot of knowledge of both of these currents). So what the hell are those useful points that you make in the article in the middle of all the missrepresentation of insurrectionalism?

Seems to me that the basis of your argument is that insurrectionalists try to generalise tactics that was used in specific historical times of hard repression and low levels of class struggle, and we, as anarchists, need to be "flexible" instead? That is a funny argument because the plattformists are doing exactly that; generalising a tactic that came out of a specific historical time (i.e after the anarchist loss of influence during the russian revolution). Or is it just that we all need to organise in big formal organisations....?

So, please explain to me in simple words what your point is?Cuz i obviously dont get it.

author by José Antonio Gutiérrezpublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 08:16Report this post to the editors

Platformism is not based on a tactic. Its merit is precisely that: it does not generalise a tactic out of a precise moment in struggle, and its lessons remain quite useful both for moments when class struggle is at its lowest or at its peak. It gives a general approach to them. It is actually based on a thorough criticism of the short-comings of anarchism at a tactical and strategical level, it is a balance of its history, and it gives a number of lessons to be applied to very different circumstances.

Yes, we have to learn to be flexible when it comes to tactics, that is a realistic approach to revolutionary politics and exactly that it is anarchists from a "platformist" quarter that come up to this conclusion, answers your question if we generalise a tactic out of a concrete circumstance.

And about misinformed... well, I've gone through most of the important texts of Bonnano and some of the other famous (at daggers drawn, for instance) as well as through a number of magazines, sometimes through real pains, through discussions from serious fellas and nutters, and if there is any obscure essence on insurrectionalism I'm missing you tell me.

Still I insist, I don't give a toss about insurrectionalism or even platformism to that matter. The important thing is the starting point to discuss politics and meaningful change. The rest is only the spirit of the church (us and them mentality) closed to debate. The only point you've made with your comments does not actually deal with anything I say in the article... very telling as well....

author by gjgjgjgpublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 20:30Report this post to the editors

"Platformism is not based on a tactic. Its merit is precisely that: it does not generalise a tactic out of a precise moment in struggle, and its lessons remain quite useful both for moments when class struggle is at its lowest or at its peak. It gives a general approach to them. It is actually based on a thorough criticism of the short-comings of anarchism at a tactical and strategical level, it is a balance of its history, and it gives a number of lessons to be applied to very different circumstances."

Those lesson came after the russian revolution and the conclusion was "lets be more like the leninists, or we are going to fail!". I would say that thats a very specific moment in history, atleast as much as the insurrectionalist tendency came out of specific moments in history.

And obviously you think that it has some important lessons to teach us about the shortcomings of the anarchist movement, just as i think insurrectional theory/strategy/tactics does.

"Yes, we have to learn to be flexible when it comes to tactics, that is a realistic approach to revolutionary politics and exactly that it is anarchists from a "platformist" quarter that come up to this conclusion, answers your question if we generalise a tactic out of a concrete circumstance"

Ofcourse we do. Who disagrees with that? Not the insurrectionalists, who uses alot of diffrent tactics.

"And about misinformed... well, I've gone through most of the important texts of Bonnano and some of the other famous (at daggers drawn, for instance) as well as through a number of magazines, sometimes through real pains, through discussions from serious fellas and nutters, and if there is any obscure essence on insurrectionalism I'm missing you tell me."

Well, if your claim is true, then its remarkable how little you have been able to grasp about the insurrectionalist perspective. Maybe you are just too blinded by your own ideology. It is pretty obvious that you didnt exactly start your research with an open mind tho. Dont you know that ideology is false conciousness?;)

"Still I insist, I don't give a toss about insurrectionalism or even platformism to that matter. The important thing is the starting point to discuss politics and meaningful change. The rest is only the spirit of the church (us and them mentality) closed to debate."

I would say that this article started the "us and them" mentality. Which is one of the things that made me so dissapointed.

"The only point you've made with your comments does not actually deal with anything I say in the article... very telling as well...."

Well, it deals with the missrepresentation of insurrectionalism. But fine, go on and tell me what the points are so we can discuss that instead.

author by Daniel Walker - None. (Tempareraly isolated.)publication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 21:42author email daniel__walker__ at hotmail dot comauthor phone 07951022446Report this post to the editors

The revolution isn't a simple task. first, not an organisation, but a mutual benefit, agreement or persuation (a Belief that would be anarchism and simultaneuosly along with non anarchism).
right we got that?

The state are expecting such revolution, so we throw a dummie, kind of like a test on the community, but because we are divided through what tactics we should use and whats missing in the theories ( remember this is not about one country its about the world) of our perticular vision ie green, primtivism, communism. which ever, i've seen about a dozen different groups all with different way they wish to achieve the revolution. this of little importance at the moment, we face a western civilistion crisis of id which would force us further underground and further apart ( not like the inability to yeild on your belief so that you both may benefit, which is the true meaning of respect. isn't already a brick wall of non revolutionary progress).

we can include non anarchist in willing to show disaproval against the government and protest before them.( without trying to poach them for your cause, they remain neutral.) unwittingly there to liberate themselves, maybe a little decietful but sometimes you have to fight damn right dirty. look at it this way they have an army these people will defend thier government. these human beings are the people we are saving, (not just ourselves) but they do not, or cannot realise this. ( when they where born they where bound by fate, the governmet was here before all of us where born, democracy too.)
Do you see?

'while the sky is falling', there will be left, from the military, a resistance on their part , against the revolutionists. we dont want the military taking control.

the post-revolution change is the break down of remnants of power, there are still issues of defence against our own countries military, i wouldnt expect anyone to give up their lives, so their is only one way to do that (and i dont want you to get the idea that this is a reform, hell no.)
the army must become deemed oppressive to peace (before the members of the public) a militia. but the police we have to keep around for a little while not for the policing of the community. no for they will begin to have a sense of a community. the police are a non active force in a time of peace that can be assembled when anti-anarchists raise their ugly little head, if they do. and when the community is mature. 'the end of the post revolution era', the police will no longer bepresent, they will have become intergrated (if that is the right word) into society and part of the peolpe they once helped (to serpress)

so then if this is to succeed we need action world wide.
when one country is suffering another will step in, (this can be induced) this is a perfect time for the revolution in that country, the forces are away. when they come back there is no country.

now i have missed alot of fine detail out, alot.
the pre-revolution change will be the hardest battle. this is when anarchists bring back a sense of community a need to share in order to sustain, and the learning of the neccessary knowledge that wil be needed.
the people will have near completed the learning that will help maintain the community.

the revolution will be unstable time for the, the world and the poeple nothing much in the way of commercial work will get done, due to the nature in which the pre-revo change will occure. and the last thing we want is the military getting control.

i am probably no more clear to you than you are to me, but none the less all my best wishes and high hopes to you.


I will release my 'paper' when i can, if anyone could possible be interested

author by Anarkismo Editorial Group - Anarkismopublication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 21:54Report this post to the editors

It is fairly clear that the same person is posting on this thread under a number of identities (yyhhyhh, ututrur and gjgjgjg). This technigue is know as 'sock puppeting' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

Please stick to one identity or your comments will be hidden as a form of trolling (see commenting guidelines - http://www.anarkismo.net/docs.php?id=29 )

If you want to discuss this warning please do so at the link below

Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1700
author by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.publication date Fri Jan 05, 2007 22:03Report this post to the editors

"Those lesson came after the russian revolution"

Every idea comes in a concrete period of time and have a history. Of course I acknowledge that in my article, and I say that the risk is to generalise exceptional conditions as the rule in class struggle. Anyway, the Russian Revolution and the lessons the Platformists extracted from it, span from moments of very low class struggle, of strong repression, and moments in which the revolutionary tide was at its peak.

"and the conclusion was "lets be more like the leninists, or we are going to fail!".

Have you read the Platform ( "I used to be sympathetic")?. Obviously not, for then you would realize that there's a serious criticism of leninism and that in emphasising the need of organisation, they were just acknowledging the best of classical anarchism, from Bakunin on. Oh... but beware of "formal organisation" anarcho-leninists.... pffff....

"And obviously you think that it has some important lessons to teach us about the shortcomings of the anarchist movement, just as i think insurrectional theory/strategy/tactics does. "

I do think insurrectionary anarchism has a lot of lessons to teach us, but not in the ways you might think -I believe it is a mirror image of the weaknesses and flaws of the movement at large....

"Ofcourse we do. Who disagrees with that? Not the insurrectionalists, who uses alot of diffrent tactics."

Tactic is not a synonim with things you do -the dismissal of all fight for reforms so ubiquitous in insurrectionalism is the main criticism we would do.

"It is pretty obvious that you didnt exactly start your research with an open mind tho. Dont you know that ideology is false conciousness?;)"

I actually never have heard about insurrectionalism until I was asked to write a preface for a Latin American edition of "Ai Ferri Corti". So I was pretty unaware of it to be biased. And yes, ideology is false consciousness, but political theory is not the same as ideology -you can ask Marx ;)

"I would say that this article started the "us and them" mentality. Which is one of the things that made me so dissapointed."

No. And actually what I'm saying is that many of the flaws that many anarchist-communist see in insurrectionalism (as if they were from a different breed) are present in all of the movement. That is actually my main point.

"Well, it deals with the missrepresentation of insurrectionalism. But fine, go on and tell me what the points are so we can discuss that instead."

Actually you don't deal with any of the points you say are missrepresented... you'd better tell me.

author by @publication date Sat Jan 06, 2007 02:03Report this post to the editors

"It is fairly clear that the same person is posting on this thread under a number of identities (yyhhyhh, ututrur and gjgjgjg). This technigue is know as 'sock puppeting'

Please stick to one identity or your comments will be hidden as a form of trolling"

It was never my attention to try pass off as more than one person. You guys took away my two first comments so i changed my nickname - thats all. I will stick with one nickname in the future.


"Every idea comes in a concrete period of time and have a history. Of course I acknowledge that in my article, and I say that the risk is to generalise exceptional conditions as the rule in class struggle."

And yet somehow the plattformists do not do generalise while the insurrectionists do. Funny how things work out sometimes, isnt it?

"Anyway, the Russian Revolution and the lessons the Platformists extracted from it, span from moments of very low class struggle, of strong repression, and moments in which the revolutionary tide was at its peak."

Yes, somehow the plattformist organisation works all the time!

"Have you read the Platform ( "I used to be sympathetic")?. Obviously not, for then you would realize that there's a serious criticism of leninism and that in emphasising the need of organisation, they were just acknowledging the best of classical anarchism, from Bakunin on. Oh... but beware of "formal organisation" anarcho-leninists.... pffff...."

Yes i have read the plattform (talk about your boring text!). I think it is very influenced by the leninist party concept (even tho it is against leninists obviously - the anarchists wants the workingclass to join the plattformists instead!). But dont feel too bad about that, more or less all leftists current - from social democracy to trotskism, to syndicalism and also many versions of anarchism - is really diffrent versions of some of the basic leninist concepts. And i dont mean that as a smear. As i said, i used to feel sympathetic towards the plattformist current and i still dont feel hostility towards it (even tho i do not agree with it anymore).

"I do think insurrectionary anarchism has a lot of lessons to teach us, but not in the ways you might think -I believe it is a mirror image of the weaknesses and flaws of the movement at large...."

What do you mean "a mirror image"?

"Tactic is not a synonim with things you do -the dismissal of all fight for reforms so ubiquitous in insurrectionalism is the main criticism we would do."

Insurrectionists are not _against_ reform, but reforms or no reforms is really beside the point. The insurrectionists has a very sober view of the struggle. They have a very clear understanding of the limits of diffrent struggles (like the one in Qaxaca)They realise that all struggles die out, that they all get recuperated in the end (unless and until it reach communism) and that the way they die out is when the rulingclass offer diffrent reforms. Nothing wrong with that, but for insurrectionists it is the struggle and the dynamics it creates that is important.

"I actually never have heard about insurrectionalism until I was asked to write a preface for a Latin American edition of "Ai Ferri Corti". So I was pretty unaware of it to be biased. And yes, ideology is false consciousness, but political theory is not the same as ideology -you can ask Marx ;)"

Yes, and the point is that theory easily could tranform into ideology. And one of the first sign is unwillingless to really understand theory that exists outside your own ideological box.

"No. And actually what I'm saying is that many of the flaws that many anarchist-communist see in insurrectionalism (as if they were from a different breed) are present in all of the movement. That is actually my main point."

And what flaws are those? Let me guess; how anarchists shouldnt be so afraid of organisation, right?

"Actually you don't deal with any of the points you say are missrepresented... you'd better tell me."

Well, i have mention the fact that the tendency doesnt come from formal armed groups that existed in hte beginning of the last century, but from Malatesta and Bakunin, for instance. But didnt you say that you didnt give a "toss" about insurrectionalism? So lets talk about what what the article really wanted to discuss then.

By the way, sorry if i sound agressive. I just call them as i see them. No offense, ok?

author by @publication date Sat Jan 06, 2007 02:12Report this post to the editors

Intention! It was nbever my intention to pass off as more than one person. Sorry.

author by José Antonio Gutiérrezpublication date Sat Jan 06, 2007 07:04Report this post to the editors

"And yet somehow the plattformists do not do generalise while the insurrectionists do. Funny how things work out sometimes, isnt it?"

I'm just contrasting the end results -just like council communism the political conclusions applied by insurrectionalism produce alienation in context of low level of class struggle. Instead, the lessons of platformism can be applied to moments of high class struggle confrontation or of low level.

I would agree with you that there is always the danger of dogmatical views and some platformists have actually fallen (mainly in the past) in them. We are no exception to any of these rules, and I believe sometimes comrades have applied the view as if we still were in the 1920s. Still, I would say that we have moved a lot from there, unlike some other currents that are still stuck in 1968, 1936, 1920, 1880 or whenever.

"Yes, somehow the plattformist organisation works all the time!"

Actually, there's not such a thing as the Platformist organisation. There are only certain principles that are enough to have an organisation (whatever best suited to the concrete or specific moment) while on libertarian principles. As far as I'm concerned, I see organisations based on platformist principles working alright and building a movement in very different contexts and under very different shapes. Again I would be worried about comrades trying to stick to a single form of organisation (though the principles remain). But when it comes to insurrectionalism, their leaflets all sound the same, whereas written in Mexico or in Italy.

"Yes i have read the plattform (talk about your boring text!)."

I can talk to you about many others, starting with Ai Ferri Corti... I'm telling you, real pains man, real pains :)

"I think it is very influenced by the leninist party concept (even tho it is against leninists obviously - the anarchists wants the workingclass to join the plattformists instead!)"

Now I get it: what you don't know is Lenin! "What is to be Done?" will give you the basics of the leninist party. Diametrically the opposite to the principles of internal democracy, of work and feedback with the people and as a part of the peoplem, of federalism, etc. Not to talk about the objectives of such an organisation. Go to that text of Lenin and then go back to the Platform and compare.

By the way... is there any problem in wanting your organisation to grow? Or the fewest members you have the more of an anarchist you are? (a bit of vanguardism there?)

"What do you mean "a mirror image"? "

That there we can see a number of weaknesses that usually many people don't realize in their own currents because in insurrectionalism they are exaggerated. I talk about them in the article. Nothing there is exclusive on insurrectionary anarchism and can be find elsewhere in the left -platformism no exception to that.

"Insurrectionists are not _against_ reform, but reforms or no reforms is really beside the point. The insurrectionists has a very sober view of the struggle. They have a very clear understanding of the limits of diffrent struggles (like the one in Qaxaca)"

Well, actually the declaration of the insurrectionalists on the Oaxaca events was the best example of an absolute lack of understanding of the whole process going there. Discussed in the article as well.

"They realise that all struggles die out, that they all get recuperated in the end (unless and until it reach communism) and that the way they die out is when the rulingclass offer diffrent reforms. Nothing wrong with that, but for insurrectionists it is the struggle and the dynamics it creates that is important".

But the whole point I'm making about the reforms is not that insurrectionalists do not participate in what you call "circumscribed, local" struggles. But that there is a lack of projection of the actual struggle and the real meaning of reforms in the accumulation for a long term project. The struggle for reforms is not only valid for its dynamics: there is value in the reforms as such, there is value in the dynamics (ampowerement and all that) but there is value as well if they help to advance positions for a long term project. A programme, thus said, not just a vague politically desired future. That's the point when you make sure that struggles just not die out.

The lack of that strategy, the lack of a programme proves to be a major hindrance in the development of any further revolutionary development of events after reforms are won (even the biggest of the reforms) in the face of an actual insurrection: Argentina was a very clear and tragic example of that.

"Yes, and the point is that theory easily could tranform into ideology. And one of the first sign is unwillingless to really understand theory that exists outside your own ideological box."

Sure, agree with reserves on that too. That's why debate is important and unsurprisingly it does not take much place in anarchist circles. But it is not only important to understand theory, but as well to understand reality and the people around us: that's a major failure in anarchism and in insurrectionalism this is true as well. (Actually the portrait of a brilliant ideological box is how insurrectionalist criticise other anarchist currents or the popular movement at large).

"And what flaws are those? Let me guess; how anarchists shouldnt be so afraid of organisation, right?"

That's one indeed, and a very serious one. The others are mentioned in the article (dogmatic approach to tactics, generalisation of the exceptional circumstance, lack of strategical thinking... you can find the rest in the article itself)

"Well, i have mention the fact that the tendency doesnt come from formal armed groups that existed in hte beginning of the last century, but from Malatesta and Bakunin, for instance."

Not surprisingly you trace your roots back to them -that's why you can claim being anarchists in fairness. But that's not the point really where we divert as currents. Leaving theoretical issues aside, actually it only takes form as a current after those experiences you mentioned of the 'formal' armed groups -but my whole argument is that those tendencies have always been there, though not formally expressed in such a thorough way.

"But didnt you say that you didnt give a "toss" about insurrectionalism? So lets talk about what what the article really wanted to discuss then."

We are sort of getting there somehow. Don't forget that I really don't give a toss about discussing (at this level) on Platformism either.

"By the way, sorry if i sound agressive. I just call them as i see them. No offense, ok?"

Bah, I have a really thick skin. I don't see as a bad thing being energic about your positions.

author by Anarkismo Editorial Group - Anarkismopublication date Sun Jan 07, 2007 19:37Report this post to the editors

The reply to Joes article has been moved to that article, it can be found at

Related Link: http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3430
Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
¿Què està passant a Catalunya?

Front page

Hands off the anarchist movement ! Solidarity with the FAG and the anarchists in Brazil !

URGENTE! Contra A Criminalização, Rodear De Solidariedade Aos Que Lutam!

¡Santiago Maldonado Vive!

Catalunya como oportunidad (para el resto del estado)

La sangre de Llorente, Tumaco: masacre e infamia

Triem Lluitar, El 3 D’octubre Totes I Tots A La Vaga General

¿Què està passant a Catalunya?

Loi travail 2017 : Tout le pouvoir aux patrons !

En Allemagne et ailleurs, la répression ne nous fera pas taire !

El acuerdo en preparacion entre la Union Europea y Libia es un crimen de lesa humanidad

Mourn the Dead, Fight Like Hell for the Living

SAFTU: The tragedy and (hopefully not) the farce

Anarchism, Ethics and Justice: The Michael Schmidt Case

Land, law and decades of devastating douchebaggery

Democracia direta já! Barrar as reformas nas ruas e construir o Poder Popular!

Reseña del libro de José Luis Carretero Miramar “Eduardo Barriobero: Las Luchas de un Jabalí” (Queimada Ediciones, 2017)

Análise da crise política do início da queda do governo Temer

Dès maintenant, passons de la défiance à la résistance sociale !

17 maggio, giornata internazionale contro l’omofobia.

Los Mártires de Chicago: historia de un crimen de clase en la tierra de la “democracia y la libertad”

Strike in Cachoeirinha

(Bielorrusia) ¡Libertad inmediata a nuestro compañero Mikola Dziadok!

DAF’ın Referandum Üzerine Birinci Bildirisi:

Cajamarca, Tolima: consulta popular y disputa por el territorio

© 2005-2017 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]