The Anarchist Tension Alfredo M. Bonanno 1996 IamalwayssomewhatembarrassedwhenIbeginatalk,atleasttostartwith. Andthisembar- rassmentincreasesinthecaseofwhatwemistakenlycallconferences,orasonemoremodestly tries to camouflage them, conference-debates. After all, it is a question of someone turning up fromelsewhere,perhapsfromanothergeneration,asthoughtheyhaverainedinfromthepast. Someonewhostandsinthisclassroomtogiveatalkandstrangely,evendangerously,resembles those who hammer your brains with quite different intentions. If you listen carefully however you will find that, beyond appearances, there is a considerable difference in the concepts I am abouttooutline. The first of these concepts takes the form of a question: What is anarchism? It might seem strangethatIshouldtakeupsuchaprobleminthissituationasIknowforcertainthatthereare manyanarchistshere,becauseIknowthempersonally. Andifnothingelse,anarchistsshouldat least know what anarchism is. Yet it is necessary to take up the question ‘What is anarchism?’ timeandtimeagain. Eveninafewwords. Whyisthat? Thisdoesnotnormallyhappeninother expressionsoflife,inotheractivitiesorideasthatdefinethemselveswithsomefoundationtobe somethingorother. So anarchists keep asking themselves the same question: What is anarchism? What does it mean to be an anarchist? Why? Because it is not a definition that can be made once and for all, put in a safe and considered a heritage to be tapped little by little. Being an anarchist does not mean one has reached a certainty or said once and for all, ‘There, from now on I hold the truthandassuch,atleastfromthepointofviewoftheidea,Iamaprivilegedperson’. Anyone whothinkslikethisisananarchistinwordalone. Insteadtheanarchistissomeonewhoreally puts themselves in doubt as such, as a person, and asks themselves: What is my life according to what I do and in relation to what I think? What connection do I manage to make each day in everything I do, a way of being an anarchist continually and not come to agreements, make littledailycompromises,etc? Anarchismisnotaconceptthatcanbelockedupinawordlikea gravestone. Itisnotapoliticaltheory. Itisawayofconceivinglife,andlife,youngoroldaswe maybe,whetherweareoldpeopleorchildren,isnotsomethingfinal: itisastakewemustplay dayafterday. Whenwewakeupinthemorningandputourfeetonthegroundwemusthavea goodreasonforgettingup,ifwedon’titmakesnodifferencewhetherweareanarchistsornot. Wemightaswellstayinbedandsleep. Andtohaveagoodreasonwemustknowwhatwewant to do because for anarchism, for the anarchist, there is no difference between what we do and whatwethink,butthereisacontinualreversaloftheoryintoactionandactionintotheory. That iswhatmakestheanarchistunlikesomeonewhohasanotherconceptoflifeandcrystallisesthis conceptinapoliticalpractice,inpoliticaltheory. This is what is not normally said to you, this is what you never read in the newspapers, this is what is not written in books, this is what school jealously keeps quiet about, because this is the secret of life: never ever separate thought from action, the things we know, the things we understand,fromthethingswedo,thethingswithwhichwecarryoutouractions. Here is what distinguishes a politician from an anarchist revolutionary. Not the words, not theconceptsand,allowme,incertainaspectsnoteventheactionsbecauseitisnottheirextreme —letussayradical—conclusioninattackthatdifferentiatesandcharacterisesactions. Itisnot even accuracy in the choice of objective that qualifies them but it is the way in which the per- son,thecomradewhocarriesouttheseactions,succeedsinmakingthembecomeanexpressive moment of their lives, a specific characterisation, meaning, quality of life, joy, desire, beauty, notthepracticalrealisation, notthesullenrealisationofadeedthatismortallyanendinitself and enables one to say; ‘I have done something today’ far from myself, at the periphery of my existence. There,thatisonedifference. Andfromthisdifferenceanotheremerges,aconsiderableonein my opinion. Anyone who thinks that things to be done are outside ourselves and are realised as a number of successes and failures — life is a staircase, at times you go up, at times you go down. There are times when things go well, and times when they go badly. There, whoever thinkslifeismadeupofsuchthings: forexample,theclassicfigureofthedemocraticpolitician (forgoodness’sake,someoneyoucantalkto,afriendlyguy,tolerantwhohasapermissiveside tohim,believesinprogress,inthefuture,inabettersociety,infreedom)well,apersonlikethis, probably not wearing a double-breasted jacket, no tie, so casual, a person who close up looks likeacomradeandwhohimselfdeclaresheisacomrade,thispersoncouldverywellbeacop,it makesnodifference. Whynot? Therearedemocraticpolicemen,theeraofuniformrepressionis over,repressionhasfriendlyaspectstoday,theyrepressuswithlotsofbrilliantideas. Howcan weidentifythispersonthen,thisdemocrat,howcanwerecognisehim? Andifhepullsthewool over our eyes to prevent us from seeing him, how can we defend ourselves from him? We can identifyhimthroughthisfact: thatforhimlifeisrealisation,hislifeismadeupofdoingthings, aquantitativedoingthatunfoldsbeforehiseyes,andnothingelse. Whenwetalktosomeonewecannotasktoseetheirmembershipcard. Theirideasoftenmake usenduptotallyconfusedandunabletounderstandanythingbecauseweareallnice,progressive chatterboxesandallpraisethebeautyoftoleranceandsuchlike. Howcanweseethatwehave anenemybeforeus,theworstofourenemies? Becauseatleastwecoulddefendourselvesfrom theoldfascist. Hehitout,andifwewerecapableofitwehithimback,harder. Nowthingshave changed, thesituationhaschanged. Itcanevenbedifficulttofishoutafascistthugtoday. But theindividualwearetryingtodescribe,thisdemocratthatwefindallovertheplace,inschool, Parliament, in the streets or in the policeman’s uniform, a judge or a doctor, this fellow here is our enemy because he considers life in a different way to the way we consider it, because for himlifeisanotherkindoflife,isnotourlife,becauseforhimweareextraterrestrialsandIdon’t see why we should consider him to be an inhabitant of our planet either. This is the dividing line between us. Because his concept of life is of a quantitative nature, because he measures thingslikesuccessor,ifyoulike,failure,butalwaysfromthequantitativepointofviewandwe 2 measure them differently and that is what we should be thinking about: in what way does life haveadifferentmeaningforus,ameaningthatisqualitativelydifferent? So, this amiable gentleman wreaks criticism upon us and says, ‘Yes, anarchists are good peo- ple but they are ineffectual. What have they ever done in history? What State has ever been anarchist? Have they ever realised government without a government? Isn’t a free society, an anarchist society, a society without power, a contradiction?’ And this critical rock that crashes down on us is certainly consistent, because in fact if you look closely at anywhere that anar- chists got near to realising their utopia of a free society such as in Spain or Russia, if you look atthemclosely,youfindtheseconstructionsaresomewhatopentocriticism. Theyarecertainly revolutions,buttheyarenotlibertarianrevolutions,theyarenotanarchy. So, when these gentlemen say, ‘You are utopians, you anarchists are dreamers, your utopia wouldneverwork’,wemustreply,‘Yes,it’strue,anarchismisatension,notarealisation,nota concrete attempt to bring about anarchy tomorrow morning’. But we must also be able to say but you, distinguished democratic gentlemen in government that regulate our lives, that think youcangetintoourheads,ourbrains,thatgovernusthroughtheopinionsthatyouformdaily in your newspapers, in the universities, schools, etc., what have you gentlemen accomplished? Aworldworthlivingin? Oraworldofdeath,aworldinwhichlifeisaflataffair,devoidofany quality, without any meaning to it? A world where one reaches a certain age, is about to get one’spension,andasksoneself,‘ButwhathaveIdonewithmylife? Whathasbeenthesenseof livingalltheseyears?’ That’swhatyouhaveaccomplished, thatiswhatyourdemocracyis, yourideaofthepeople. Youaregoverningapeople,butwhatdoespeoplemean? Whoarethepeople? Aretheyperhaps thatsmall,notevenverysignificant,partwhovote,gototheelections,voteforyou,nominatea minoritywhichinturnnominatesanotherminorityevensmallerthanthefirstthatgovernsus inthenameofthelaw? Butwhataretheselawsifnottheexpressionoftheinterestsofasmall minorityspecificallyaimedinthefirstplaceatbenefitingtheirownperspectivesofenrichment, there-enforcingoftheirpowerandsoon? Yougoverninthenameofapower,aforcethatcomesfromwhat? Fromanabstractconcept, you have realised a structure you think can be improved upon… But how, in what way has it everbeenimprovedin history? Whatconditionarewearelivingin todayifnota conditionof death,ofaflatteningofquality? Thisisthecritiqueweneedtothrowbackatthesupportersof democracy. Ifweanarchistsareutopians,wearesoasatensiontowardsquality;ifdemocratsare utopians,theyaresoasareductiontowardsquantity. Andagainstreduction,againsttheatrophy lived in a dimension of the minimum possible damage for them and the maximum damage for the great number of people who are exploited, to this miserable reality we oppose our utopia whichisatleastautopiaofquality,atensiontowardsanotherfuture,onethatwillberadically differenttowhatwearelivingnow. Soalltheremarksmadebyanyonewhotalkstoyouinthenameofpoliticalrealism,menof State, teachers(whoaretheservantsofmenofState), theorists, journalists, alltheintellectuals whopassthroughclassroomslikethisandintheirspeechifyingtalkwiththecalm,tolerantwords of the realist, state that in any case nothing else is possible, reality is what it is, it is necessary to make sacrifices; there, these people are swindling you. They are swindling you because you candosomethingelse,becauseanyoneofusiscapableofrisingupinthenameofourwounded dignity before such a swindle. Because any one of us can realise that we have been swindled, becausewehavefinallyrealisedwhatisbeingdonetoourdetriment. Andinrisingupagainstit 3 allwecanchangenotonlytherealityofthingswithinthelimitsthatitispossibletoknowthem, butalsoone’slife,makeitworthyofbeinglived. Onecangetupinthemorning,putone’sfeet on the ground, look in the mirror and say to oneself, ‘At last I have managed to change things, at least as far as I am concerned’ and feel one is a person worthy of living his or her life, not a puppetinthehandsofapuppeteeryoucan’tevenseewellenoughtospitintheirface. So that is why anarchists keep coming back to the question of what anarchism is. Because anarchismisnotapoliticalmovement. Orratheritis,butonlyinaminoraspect. Thefactthat the anarchist movement presents itself historically as a political movement does not mean that thisexhaustsalltheanarchistpotentialforlife. AnarchismdoesnotresolveitselfintheCuneo anarchistgroup,orgroupsinTurin,Londonoranywhereelse. Thatisnotanarchism. Ofcourse there are anarchists there, or at least one should assume there are, the kind of comrades who havebeguntheirowninsurrectionindividually,havebecomeawareofthecontextofobligation andcoercionthattheyareforcedtolivein. Butanarchismisnotjustthat,itisalsoatension,the qualityoflife,thestrengthwemanagetodrawoutofourselves,thecapacitytochangethereality ofthings. Anarchismisthewholeofthisprojectoftransformationlinkedtowhatwerealisein ourselveswhenwebringaboutourownpersonaltransformation. Soitisnotaquantifiablefact thatcanbehistoricised. Norisitaneventthatwillsimplyoccurinthecourseoftime,appearing through particular theories, people, movements as well as, why not, precise revolutionary acts. There is always something more than the sum of these elements, and it is this something more thatcontinuestomakeanarchismliveoninotherways. So we continually need to maintain a relationship between this tension towards something absolutelyother,theunthinkable,theunsayable,adimensionwemustrealisewithoutverywell knowinghowto,andthedailyexperienceofthethingswecananddo,do. Apreciserelationship ofchange,oftransformation. Thefirstexamplethatcomestomindonthisquestionisanothercontradictoryelement. Think of the concept behind the statement ‘there are problems to be solved’. This is a classic phrase. Weallhaveproblemstosolve. Lifeitselfisaproblemtobesolved. Livingisaproblem,oursocial conditions,havingtobreakthroughthecirclethatrestrictsus,righttosimpleeverydaygoings on. Weconsiderallthistobeaproblem. And herein lies the great misunderstanding. Why? The structures that oppress us (I think many of those present here are students) maintain that problems can be solved and that they cansolvethemforus. Moreover,theyusetheexampleofproblemsthataresolvedingeometry, mathematics, etc.. Butthiskindofproblem, theproblemsofmathematicsthatarepresentedas resolvable are false problems, they are not really solved at all. The answers to them are simply arepetitionofthesameprobleminanotherform,intechnicalterms,atautology. Onesaysone thing and answers by repeating the same thing another way. So, basically, the problem is not solvedatall,itismerelyrepeated. Andwhenwetalkofsolvingaproblemthatinvolvesthelivesofallofus,ourdailyexistence, we are talking of questions of such complexity that they cannot be reduced to a simple restate- ment of the problem itself. Take, for example, ‘the problem of the police’. The existence of the police constitutes a problem for many of us. There can be no doubt that the policeman is an instrumentofrepressionusedbytheStatetopreventusfromdoingcertainthings. Howdoyou solvesuchaproblem? Cantheproblemofthepolicebesolved? Theveryquestionrevealsitself tobeabsurd. Thereisnosuchthingassolvingtheproblemofthepolice. Yetfromademocratic point of view it would be possible to solve some aspects by democratising certain structures, 4 changing policemen’s attitudes and so on. Now, to think that this might be a solution to the problemofcontrolandrepressionwouldbeasstupidasitisillogical. Inactualfact,itisnothing otherthanawayofregulatingrepressioninkeepingwiththeinterestsofpower,oftheState. If a democratic politic is effective today, a far less democratic structure of control and repression mightbeeffectiveinthefuturejustasithasbeeninthepastandanyrare,marginalminorities whothoughtotherwiseonthesubjectwouldbeexpelledoreliminatedfromtheranks. WhenIsaypolice,Imeananyrepressivestructurefrommilitarypolicetojudiciary,allexpres- sionsoftheStatethatservetocontrolandrepress. So,asyoucansee,socialproblemscannotbe solved. Theswindleoperatedbydemocraticstructuresispreciselytheirclaimtosolvesuchprob- lems. This swindle shows how democratic politics are not based on reality or even a minimum ofconcreteness. Everythingisriggedupontheimplicationthatthingscanbeimproved,canbe resolvedintime,canbesetright. Itisinthisconceptofsettingthingsrightthatthestrengthof power lies, and it is on this improvement that power stands and continues in the medium and longterm. Powerrelationschangeaswewaitforwhattheypromisedtocomeaboutbutitnever does. Becausetheseimprovementsnevermaterialise. Becausepowerchangesandtransformsit- selfthroughouthistory,yetalwaysremainsthesame. Ahandfulofmen,aminorityofprivileged peoplewhoholdtheleversofpower,lookaftertheirowninterestsandsafeguardtheconditions ofsupremacyofwhoeverhappenstobeincommand. Now, what instruments do we have to combat this state of affairs? They want to control us? So we refuse control. Of course we can do this. We undoubtedly do, trying to minimise the damage. Buttorefusecontrolinasocialcontextisonlyvaliduptoapoint. Wecancircumscribe certainaspectsofit,yellwhenwearestruckunfairly;butthereareclearlycertainareasofpower whererulesarecalledlaws,signpostsindicateenclosuresandmencallingthemselvespolicemen prevent us from entering. There is no doubt about it, try getting into Parliament and see what happens. Idon’tknow. Certainlevelscannotbegonebeyond,certaincontrolsareinevitable. So what do we do to oppose this situation? Simply dream? Have an idea of freedom, which moreovermustbecarefullyformulated,becausewecannotsay: ‘thefreedomanarchistswantis simplyareductionincontrol’. Inthatcasewewouldfindourselvesfacedwiththeproblem: ‘But wheredoesthisreductionincontrolend?’ Ataminimallevelperhaps? Forexample,wouldthe StatebecomelegitimateforanarchistsifinsteadofbeingtheoppressorStateoftoday,itwereto become, let us say, the ideal minimal State of the liberals? No, certainly not. So that is not the waytothink. Itisnotaquestionoftryingtolimitcontrol, butofabolishingcontrolaltogether. Wearenotformorefreedom. Morefreedomisgiventotheslavewhenhischainsarelengthened. Wearefortheabolitionofthechain,soweareforfreedom,notmorefreedom. Freedommeans theabsenceofallchains,theabsenceoflimitsandallthatensuesfromsuchastatement. Freedom is a difficult, unknown concept. It is a painful one, yet it is peddled as something beautiful, sweet, reposing. Like a dreamso far off that it makes us feel good, like all the things that, being far off, constitute hope and faith, a belief. In other words, these intangibles which apparentlysolvetoday’sproblemsdonotinfactsolvethembutsimplymistthemover,change them around, preventing us from having a clear vision of all the woes of our times. All right, somedaywewillbefree. OK,thingsareinamess,butwithinthismessthereisasubterranean strength, an involuntary order independent of ourselves that works in place of us, which will graduallychangetheconditionsofsufferingwhichwearelivinginandtakeustoafreedimen- sion where we will all live happily ever after. No, that is not freedom, that is a swindle that tragicallyresemblestheoldideaofGodthatoftenhelpedus,andstillhelpsmanypeopletoday 5 in their suffering, because they say to themselves, ‘very well, we are suffering today, but we’ll bebetteroffinthenextworld’. Infact,asthegospelsaysthelastwillbefirst,hearteningthelast oftodaybecausetheyseethemselvesasthefirstoftomorrow. Ifweweretofoboffsuchanideaoffreedomasrealwewouldbedoingnomorethancradling today’ssufferingbymedicatingsocialwoundsinexactlythesamewayasthepriesthealsthose of the poor who listen to his sermon, deceiving themselves that the kingdom of God will save them from their pain. Anarchists cannot think this way. Freedom is a destructive concept that involves the absolute elimination of all limits. Now freedom is an idea we must hold in our hearts,butatthesametimeweneedtounderstandthatifwedesireitwemustbereadytoface all the risks that destruction involves, all the risks of destroying the constituted order we are livingunder. Freedomisnotaconcepttocradleourselvesin,inthehopethatimprovementswill developindependentlyofourrealcapacitytointervene. In order to understand such concepts, become aware of the risks one runs by wielding such dangerousconcepts,wemustbeabletoformtheideawithinus. There is also considerable confusion on this point. It is customary to consider that anything thatpassesthroughourmindsisanidea. Onesays‘Ihaveanidea’thentriestounderstandwhat that means. That is the Cartesian concept of idea as opposed to the Platonic one which is an abstract far off point of reference. But that is not what we are referring to when we say idea. Theideaisapointofreference,anelementofstrengththatiscapableoftransforminglife. Itisa conceptchargedwithvaluethatbecomesaconceptofstrength,somethingthatcandevelopand makeourrelationshipwithothersdifferent. Allthatisanidea. Butwhatisthesourcethatthe elementsthatmakeitpossibletoelaboratesuchideasspringfrom? School,university,newspa- pers,books,teachers,technicians,televisionandsoon? Whatreachesusfromtheseinstruments of information and cultural elaboration? A considerable accumulation of information cascades down on us, boils inside us like a cauldron, making us produce opinions. We tend not to have ideas,butopinions. That is the tragic conclusion. What is an opinion? It is a flattened idea, an idea that has been made uniform in order to make it acceptable to the largest number of people. Opinions are massified ideas. It is important for power that these opinions be maintained because it is throughopinion,thecontrolofopinion,thattheyobtaingivenresults,notleastthemechanisms of propaganda and electoral procedures through the use of the media. The formation of new powerelite’scomesnotfromideasbutfromopinions. What does opposing oneself to opinion-making mean then? Does it mean acquiring more information? That is, opposing counter-information to information? No, that is not possible becausenomatterhowyoulookatityoucannotpossiblyopposethevastamountofinformation wearebombardedwithdailywithcounter-informationcapableof‘unmasking’throughaprocess ofinvestigatinghiddencauses,therealitythathasbeencoveredupbyallthatinformativechatter. No, we cannot operate in that direction. Whenever we attempt to do so we realise that it is pointless,thatwearenotabletoconvincepeople. Thatiswhyanarchistsalwaysconsidertheproblemofpropagandacritically: Yes,ofcourse,as youseethereisawell-stockedtablehereasisalwaysthecaseatinitiativesorconferencesofthis kind. Therearealwaysourpamphlets,ourbooks. Weareladenwithpapersandareverygoodat bringingoutsuchpublications. Butthatisnottheonlykindofworkweneedtodo,andinany case they do not contain elements of counter-information, or if they do it is purely accidental. 6 Thisworkisaimedessentially,orshouldbe,atbuildinganideaoranumberofleadingideas, a numberofstrongideas. Let us give just one example. Over the past three or four years an affair has developed that the newspapers have reported using horrible terms like ‘tangentopoli’ or ‘clean hands’ [legal procedures in course where many politicians have been sentenced for having accepted money fromthecapitalistsinexchangeforcontractsinthepublicworkssectors]andsoon. Nowwhat has this operation instilled in people’s minds? It has built the opinion that the law is capable of setting things right, of sentencing politicians, changing conditions, so can take us from the old concepts typical of the first Italian Republic to the new ones of the Second Republic. This opinion,thisprocess,isclearlyveryuseful. Forexampleithasallowedtheemergenceofa‘new’ powerelitetotaketheplaceoftheold. Newuptoapoint, butwithcertaincharacteristicsand sadrehashesofoldhabitsandpersonages. Thisisthewayopinionfunctions. Now,considercomparingthisprocessofopinion-making,whichisofconsiderableadvantage to power alone, to the construction of an idea-force that might be an in-depth analysis of the concept of justice. The difference is abyssal. But what is right? For example, it was certainly right for many, and we also considered it right ourselves, for ex-socialist party leader Craxi to be forced to remain locked up in his villa in Tunisia. The whole thing has been quite amusing, itevenmadeuslaugh,madeusfeelgoodbecauseitisquitenicewhenpigsatthatlevelendup being put out of circulation. But is that real justice? For example, Andreotti is in difficulty. It seemshekissedRiina[mafiaboss]onthecheek. Such news certainly makes us smile, makes us feel better, because a pig like Andreotti was annoying even at a simple physical level, just seeing him on TV was enough. But what is this ideaofjustice? JudgesfortheprosecutionDiPietroandBorrellihaveahordeofsupportingfans. Millionsofpeoplehavebeendrawnintothisprocessofuniformingopinion. Is the concept of justice we need to ponder on any different? What should it lead to? It shouldleadustorecognisingthatifCraxiorAndreottiarcresponsiblethenpeoplelikeDiPietro or Borrelli are responsible to the same extent. Because if the former are politicians, the others are all magistrates. The concept of justice means fixing a demarcation line between those who supportanddefendpowerandthosewhoareagainstit. Iftheveryexistenceofpowerisunjust andifallattempts,someofwhichwehavejustseen,revealthemselvestobenomorethanself- justifyingswindles,anymanofpower,moreorlessdemocraticashemightbe,alwaysstandson thewrongsideofjusticenomatterwhathedoes. Tobuildsuchaconceptofjusticeobviouslymeanstoformanidea,anideayoudon’tfindin thenewspapers,thatisn’tgoneintointheclassroomsoruniversityauditoriums,whichcannot become an element of opinion or lead people to vote. In fact, such an idea leads to internal conflict. Becausebeforethetribunalofone’sselfoneasks,‘ButI,withmyideaofsocialjustice, howdoIseeitwhenwhatDiPietrodoesseemsgood? AmIbeingtakenforaridetoo? AmIalso aninstrumentofopinion,aterminalofthegreatprocessesformaintainingpower,becomingnot justtheirslavebutalsotheiraccomplice?’ We have finally got there. We have reached the point of our own responsibility. Because if it is true that for anarchists there is no difference between theory and action, as soon as the idea of social justice lights up in us, illuminates our brain even for a split second, it will never be able to extinguish itself again. Because no matter what we think we will feel guilty, will feelweareaccomplices,accomplicestoaprocessofdiscrimination,repression,genocide,death, a process we will never be able to feel detached from again. How could we define ourselves 7 revolutionariesandanarchistsotherwise? Whatfreedomwouldwebesupportingifwewereto giveourcomplicitytotheassassinsinpower? Youseehowdifferentandcriticalthesituationisforwhoeversucceeds,throughdeepanalysis of reality or simply by chance or misfortune, in letting an idea as clear as the idea of justice penetrate their brain? There are many such ideas. For example, the idea of freedom is similar. Anyonewhothinksaboutwhatfreedomactuallyisevenforamomentwillneveragainbeableto content themselvesby simply doing something to slightly extendthe freedom of the situations they are living in. From that moment on they will feel guilty and will try to do something to alleviate their sense of suffering. They will fear they have done wrong by not having done anythingtillnow,andfromthatmomentontheirliveswillchangecompletely. Basically, what does the State want fromthe formation of opinion? What does power want? Yes,ofcourse,itwantstocreatemassopinionbecausefromthattheyareabletorealisecertain operationssuchasvoting,theformationofpowergroupsandsoon. Butthatisnotalltheywant. They want our consensus. They want our approval. And consensus is gained through precise instruments, especially those of a cultural nature. For example, school is one of the reservoirs fromwhichconsensusisrealisedandthefutureintellectual,andnotjustintellectual,workforce isbuilt. Todaycapitalismrequiresadifferentkindofpersontothoseitrequiredinthepast. Upuntil recently there was a need for people with professional capacities, a pride in this capacity and particularqualifications. Thesituationisquitedifferentnow. Theworldofworkrequiresavery modest qualification level whereas qualities that did not exist and were even inconceivable in thepastsuchasflexibility,adaptability,tolerance,thecapacitytointerveneatmeetings,etc. are requiredintheirplace. Huge production units based on assembly lines for example now use robots or are built on theconceptualbasisofislands,smallgroupsworkingtogetherwhoknoweachotherandcontrol eachotherandsoon. Thiskindofmentalityisnotonlyfoundinthefactory. Itisnotjusta‘new worker’ they are building, but a ‘new man’; a flexible person with modest ideas, rather opaque intheirdesires,withconsiderablyreducedculturallevels,impoverishedlanguage,standardised reading,alimitedcapacitytothinkandagreatcapacitytomakequickyesornodecisions. They knowhowtochoosebetweentwopossibilities: ayellowbutton, aredbutton, ablackbutton, a whitebutton. Thisisthekindofmentalitytheyarebuilding. Andwherearetheybuildingit? At school,butalsoineverydaylife. Whatwilltheydowithsuchaperson? Theywillusethemtobringaboutallthemodifications thatarenecessaryforrestructuringcapital. Theywillbeusefulforabettermanagementofthe conditionsandrelationsofthecapitalismoftomorrow. Andwhatwilltheserelationsbe? They will be based on faster and faster change, a call to satisfying non-existent desires, desires that arepiloted,determinedbysmallgroupsthatarebecomingmoreandmorenumerous. Thisnew person is quite the opposite of what we are capable of imagining or desiring, the opposite of quality, creativity, the opposite of real desire, the joy of life, the opposite of all this. How can we fight against the realisation of this technological man? How can we struggle against this situation? Can we wait for a day to come, a great day that will turn the world upside down? Whattheanarchistsofthelastcenturycalled‘lagrandesoirée’? Thegreateveningorthegreat day—‘legrandjour’—inwhichforcesnoonecouldforeseewouldenduptakingover,exploding intothatsocialconflictweareallwaitingfor,calledrevolution? Soeverythingwillchangeand therewillbeaworldofperfectionandjoy? 8 This is a millenarian idea. Now that we are reaching the end of the millennium it could take root again. But conditions havechanged. This is not reality, it is not this waiting that interests us. What does interest us is another kind of intervention, a far more modest one, but one that is capable of achieving something. As anarchists we are called to do something. We are called by our own individual responsibility and by what we said earlier. From the moment the idea lightsupourmind,nottheideaofanarchy,butofjustice,freedom,whentheseideasilluminate ourmindsandweseetheswindlebeforeus—whichtodaymorethaneverbeforewecandefine a democratic swindle — what can we do? We must set to work, and this setting to work also meansorganisingourselves. Itmeanscreatingtheconditionsofreferenceandrelatingbetween anarchists,conditionsthatmustbeotherthanthoseofthepast. Reality has changed. As I said before, they are building a different man, a de-qualified man, andtheyarebuildinghimbecausetheyneedtobuildade-qualifiedsociety. Theyhaveremoved thefigureoftheworkerfromthecentreoftheconceptionofthepoliticalsocietyasitwas,after de-qualifyinghim. Inthepasttheworkerborethegreatestbruntofexploitation. Thatiswhyit wasthoughtthatthissocialfigurewouldnecessarilygivebirthtotherevolution. Itissufficient to think of the Marxist analysis. Marx’s Capital is dedicated to the ‘liberation’ of the worker. When Marx speaks of man, he means the worker. In his analysis of value, he is talking of the workpace;inhisanalysisofalienation,heistalkingaboutwork. Thereisnothingthatdoesnot concern work. But that is because the worker was central to the Marxist analysis at the time whenitwasdeveloped. Theworkingclasscouldbeseentobethecentreofthesocialstructure. Usingdifferentanalyses,anarchistsalsocameclosetoaconsiderationthattheworker’sposi- tion was the centre of the social world. Think of the anarcho-syndicalist analyses. For the an- archosyndicalistsitwasaquestionoftakingtheconceptoftradesunionstruggletoitsextreme consequences, freeing it from the narrower dimension of trades union bargaining and develop- ing it right to the realisation of the revolution through the general strike. So according to the anarcho-syndicaliststheSocietyofthefuture,thefreeanarchistSociety,wastobenothingother than the present Society freed from power but with the same productive structures, no longer in the hands of the capitalists but in the hands of the collective which would manage them in common. This concept is quite impracticable today for various reasons. First of all, because technolog- ical transformation has made it impossible for there to be a simple passage from the present societytothefutureonewedesiretolivein. Adirectpassagewouldbeimpossibleforthesim- plereasonthatitisnotpossibletouseinformationtechnologyinliberatedforms,inaliberatory way. Thenewtechnologies andcomputer technologyapplications havenotlimited themselves tobringingaboutcertainmodificationsinparticularinstruments,theyhavetransformedallthe other technologies as well. The factory, for instance, is not simply a structure of the past with theadditionofcomputertechnologybuthasbecomeacomputerisedfactory,whichisquitedif- ferent. Bearingthisinmindwecanonlymentiontheseconceptsinaverygeneralwaybecause itwouldtaketimetogointothemadequately. Sowemustrecognisethatitisnotpossibletouse thispatrimony. Thispassagerunsparalleltotheendofthemythofthecentralityoftheworking class. Now,inasituationwheretheworkingclasshaspracticallydisintegrated,thepossibilityofan expropriationofthemeansofproductionnolongerexists. Sowhatistheconclusion? Theonly possibleconclusionisthatthissetofinstrumentsofproductionwehavebeforeusbedestroyed. The only possible way is to pass through the dramatic reality of destruction. If the revolution 9 we imagine and which moreover we cannot be certain will ever come about, it will not be the revolution of the past that saw itself as one single event that might even take place in a day or one fine evening but will be a long, tragic, bloody affair that could pass through inconceivably violent,inconceivablytragicprocesses. Allthisisthekindofrealitywearemovingtowards. Notbecausethatiswhatwedesire,not because we like violence, blood, destruction, civil war, death, rape, barbarity. It is not that, but becauseitistheonlyplausibleroad,theroadthatthetransformationwantedbythoserulingus and who are in command have made necessary. They have moved on to this road. We cannot changeallthatwithasimpleflightoffancy,asimpledream. Inthepasthypothesiswhereastrong working class existed, one could fool oneself about this passage and organise accordingly. For example,theorganisationalproposalofanarcho-syndicalismsawastrongsyndicalistmovement which,penetratingtheworkingclassandorganisingalmostthewholeofit,wastobringabout this expropriation and passage. This collective subject, who was probably mythical from the start,nolongerexistseveninitsmythicalversionsowhatsensewouldtherebeinasyndicalist movement of a revolutionary nature? What sense would there be in an anarcho-syndicalist movement? Noneatall. Sothestrugglemustbeginelsewhere,withotherideasandmethods. Thatiswhywehavebeen developingacritiqueofsyndicalismandanarcho-syndicalismforaboutfifteenyears. Thatiswhy we are, and define ourselves, insurrectionalist anarchists. Not because we think the solution is thebarricades—thebarricadescouldbeatragicconsequenceofchoicesthatarenotourown— but we are insurrectionalists because we think that anarchist action must necessarily face very serious problems. These problems are not desired by anarchism but are imposed by the reality thatthoseinpowerhavebuilt,andwecannotobliteratethemsimplybywishingthemaway. Ananarchistorganisationthatprojectsitselfintothefutureshouldthereforebeagile. Itcannot presentitselfwiththecumbersomecharacteristicsandquantitativeheavinessofthestructuresof thepast. Itcannotpresentitselfinadimensionofsynthesislikeorganisationsofthepastwhere the anarchist structures claimed to sum up reality in ‘commissions’ that treated all the various problems,makingdecisionsatperiodicalcongressesonthebasisofthesesthatevenwentbackto thelastcentury. Allthishasseenitsday,notbecauseacenturyhaspassedsinceitwasthought out,butbecauserealityhaschanged. Thatiswhywemaintainthereisaneedfortheformationofsmallgroupsbasedontheconcept ofaffinity,eventinygroupsmadeupofveryfewcomradeswhoknoweachotheranddeepenthis knowledge because there cannot be affinity if one does not have knowledge of the other. One can only recognise one’s affinities by going into the elements that determine one’s differences, by frequenting each other. This knowledge is a personal fact, but it is also a question of ideas, debate, discussions. But in relation to the first points we made this evening, if you remember, therecanbenogoingintoideasifthereisnotalsoapracticeofbringingaboutactions. So,there isacontinualreciprocalprocessofgoingintoideasandrealisingactions. A small group of comrades, a small group who simply meet in the evening to have a chat would not be an affinity group but a group of friends, pub-mates who meet in the evenings to talk about anything under the sun. On the contrary, a group that meets to discuss things and in discussing prepares itself for doing and through that doing contributes to developing discussionthattransformsitselfinto discussionaboutthingsto bedone, thisis themechanism oftheaffinitygroup. Sohowthencanaffinitygroupsenterintocontactwithotherswherethe 10