Reading: Another Critique of Insurrectionalism
To Contextualise: The Failure of Nonviolence Related tags: #tFoN
Note: Overwhelmingly an interesting text with directions to explore issues within the CNT, should someone want to. Though, that wasn't the intent of it being used in Failure.
An insurrectionalism exists in the North American context that has as its major influences Fredy Perlman, Wolfi Landstreicher, At Daggers Drawn, to a lesser extent the work of Bonanno and to a greater extent the experiences of ecological and indigenous struggles.
If the North American 'insurrectionalism' has anything to do with Wolfi, it needs to be refocused and made to sit with deconstructing whatever impact Wolfi's bullshit has had.
That is not to say that the more pacifist or leftist currents in Italy were right, because they weren't, nor that the critiques that insurrectionalists made of the milieu were not correct, which they were. But against an enemy as powerful as the State it is not enough to be correct. We can only prevail by making a constant assessment of our efforts, lines of attack and positions of defense, and implementing the necessary changes.
This is, once again, true. It's also a kind of critique I'd level against texts that keep being written in their attempts to Be Right, even when that's less important.
What good are a million “anarchists” with CNT cards if the whole mass can be diverted towards reformism by a handful of upstarts and petty politicians?
More people should've caught on to the CNT's bullshit long ago. Which is irrelevant to contextualisation, but it's a note I wanted to add.
Or to summarize: in the face of repression, continue attacking. And why not? To water down combativeness because there have been consequences is a disgraceful error, and one committed by the Organization and its Libertarian Movement several times during the 20th century.
And again. More people in the Anglo world who love clinging to the CNT should've realised sooner, rather than just holding onto them as the only continuing project of anarchism... Which they haven't been for a long time (if they ever were to begin with).
So, the situation won't expand beyond these 200 people. The State soon knows who almost everyone is. They have separated and revealed themselves, and now they are controlled. In the best of cases, they continue taking the streets, caught in the only form of solidarity they know and recognize. The 200 are reduced to 100 because of the increase in risk. They will burn a large number of banks, in their demos or in nocturnal attacks, but the State knows more or less who they are. There are new arrests. Now there isn't sufficient energy to write letters or visit everyone frequently. The arrested remain isolated and upon getting out of jail, many are burned out and give up their involvement with the struggle and with other comrades. We all lose their experience. Meanwhile, few people beyond the anarchist milieu find out about all this because the attacks are clandestine and the demos are surrounded by police. If they notice, they see something external to them and they wouldn't even know how to involve themselves: ways of participating for people who find themselves on the outside are not apparent. The psychological distance between the anarchists and other people increases and depression generalizes in the milieu (more ignored evidence of the collective nature of freedom: the more separated we are from other human beings, the more dejected and hopeless we become).
This actually describes a rather old method, which was also used against labour organisers. A lot of people routinely ignore this aspect, so it's interesting to see it included here.
Basically, this is a form of blackballing folks, keeping them from having access to the support and networks they need.
We don't do it principally to convince them but rather so that a revolutionary perspective reaches them, not just that of the TV.
... A common thread between so many of Peter's sources is the media, which is influential... But it's also not the only source at all for influencing people. Weird that they don't look earlier in life.
Aim should be practiced before the demonstration and if someone's aim is so bad that they're more likely to hit a pedestrian or another demonstrator, they shouldn't throw dangerous things (instead they can carry a backpack; not everyone can be Rambo). If someone gets so nervous in chaotic situations that they get tunnel vision, don't see their surroundings, don't know how to breathe deep and calm down, and are capable of breaking windows one meter away from four-year-old kids or, who knows, knocking over an old person in a wheelchair, surely they should carry the banner or a spray can instead of a hammer and their closest friends and comrades should be the first ones to tell them so. Having to repeat such basic things at this stage in the game is disgraceful.
All of this ties into being considerate of the people around you. Failing to be prepared is being inconsiderate, and it is likely to get others hurt who do not need to be hurt.