“COMMUNITY” SICKNESS

Anarchist practice has fallen sharply in recent years, with few actions either at mass level or at the level of specific groups. As a result we see a revival of the issue of how to get closer to ‘communism’ or to building situations that not only express our ideas and ethical and cultural values but are also capable of satisfying our fundamental personal and collective need for freedom. In other words, there is a proposal to create points of reference that go beyond the classical division between the personal and the political.
This corresponds to a growing need within the whole movement against capital today, not just the anarchist one. As hopes of profound changes in the social structure vanished with the spreading of desistance from the struggle, the concern with not letting oneself be engulfed by increasing restructuring has become greater: ‘We must continue to struggle for our own essential needs, because in any case it is not the time to talk of great macroscopic changes.’
The problem is that these impulses end up taking two roads which, if examined closely, both lead to the same dead end in the same ghetto. The first, more direct, road is that of desistance: nothing can be done, the enemy is too powerful. We might as well just rely on spreading our ideas (which are superior anyway) and not insist on attack, which only leads to repression, creating more difficulties for the movement in its fundamental activity of propaganda and spreading anarchist theory. The second, more tortuous, road is that of an organisational proposal linked to the idea of community.
Many comrades talk of ‘community’, although not always as something confined to one geographical area or in order to satisfy (or try to satisfy) certain needs, even basic ones. It should mean a different way of seeing life, culture, novelty, diversity. ‘Community’ thus escapes the dangers of conservatism or of becoming a mere repetition of empty slogans.
But very little is said about this ‘community’ in terms of its structural or other arrangement that could give some idea of its ‘operative’ side. It is seen in terms of a sense of participation, an awareness of the specific contradictions of anarchism (in truth never clear), and the desire for freedom and equality, without the former being realised at the cost of the latter, or vice versa.
Why do we believe that this road is equal to the first, that of declared and open desistance? It is easily said. Because the revolutionary struggle is an organisational fact, here and now, not simply a ‘cultural revolution’ (by the use of this term I am not referring to Mao’s cultural revolution, which has nothing to do with us, and which was ‘cultural’ in name only). Because the clash between classes leaves no room for ‘margins’ or free spaces that can be reached through operations carried out within the somewhat polluted currents of philosophical thought. Because the revolutionary always pays in first person, so is aware he will also have to face ‘sacrifice’, i.e. the postponement of projects, delay in the satisfaction of needs. Because anyone who really decides to attack the power of the oppressors cannot reasonably think that the latter will leave them in peace with their ‘ideal’ tensions of freedom and equality. Because if they really want these places of ‘communitarian’ living to be at all tangible in practical terms (and not just a cerebral exercise), they must also give some sign of good will, i.e. pronounce themselves to be against violence, against expropriation, especially in the individual sense, and against active solidarity with those who are really struggling and facing death every day, either at the workplace or in the other places where opposing interests clash.
At this point the provocation needs to be put in these terms, or so it seems to me:
We can talk about the idea of ‘community’ and limit ourselves to that. Very well. Then we should be clear about it.
Or we can try to put the idea of community into practice. All right. In that case we should be more specific about communitarian structures, activities, limitations and possibilities.
As far as the second point is concerned, we have only a vague critique of self-managed attempts within capitalist situations today, which do not take the many other problems into account.
I must say when one finds oneself faced with a myriad of not always edifying historical examples, it is always best to take a step back from an idea, no matter how important, useful or pleasant the latter might be. And the problem of ‘community’ is undoubtedly of this kind.
Let us take a look at it. The idea of ‘community’ is not specific to anarchists. On the contrary it has been developed throughout philosophical thought (the academic codification of the ideas of the dominant class) in opposition to the concept of ‘society’.
Leaving aside the specific use that Plato, Fichte and Hegel made of the idea of ‘community’, one example that needs to be borne in mind is Marx and Engel’s analysis of the primitive community in which the history of humanity began. This was to become a final community where the history of the proletariat and the class struggle were to resolve themselves. Such philosophical determinism reaches its full tragi-comic expression in Stalin’s theories of ‘community’ that stand up well alongside the theories of the National Socialists, who were not just theoreticians but ‘almost’ architects of a ‘community of a sacred culture and people’ (by force, of course).
So far we are clearly within the area of a supra-national interpretation of the concept of ‘community’.
But another elaboration of this concept has been realised in the workshops of academia, one that comes closest to the ideas that are being discussed in the anarchist movement today. This sees ‘community’ not as a supranational entity, but as a particular link between individuals, in other words as a ‘social relation’. According to this way of seeing things, individual relations are brought about by common interest, creating interaction that serves to amalgamate the ‘community’.
This concept was first formulated by the German Romantic school, by a theoretician of religion (Schleiermacher) to be precise, in 1799, and his ideas are undoubtedly linked to his concept of ‘religion’ which means ‘to bound together’ or ‘tie together’.
Then in 1887 Tonnies, in a more detailed formulation, described community as a natural organism within a kind of collective will aimed at satisfying prevalently collective interests. In this organism, individual urges and interests atrophy to a maximum degree, while the cultural orientation tends to reach an almost sacred dimension. There is global solidarity between all members. Property is held in common. Power (at least as it is understood today) is absent.
The model presented by Tonnies for his analysis is that of European rural society, in the peasant villages. Kropotkin, for his part, drew on other realities (that of the Russian ‘mir’) and from other anthropological literature (in the English language), but had a fairly similar model in mind.
In my opinion the error lies in believing that it is natural to act in a way that is both specific to certain communitarian situations, and to the historical course of a communitarian feeling that existed among certain peoples before the disintegration of the social order. In other words it was thought that some communitarian institutions had survived destruction by the modern State and continue to exist in incomplete forms that are still visible today, such as the family (or extended family), neighbourhood groups, co-operatives, etc. This is all really quite naive. Less naive, but just as mistaken (therefore dangerous), is the point of view of those who say that community is a ‘union’ that is felt ‘subjectively’ by its members, whereas society is only understood through an objective arrangement.
None of this detracts from the feelings of solidarity, equality and the refusal of individual power and property that the exploited have been capable of realising in quite well-defined forms. Just as it does not detract from the concept of self-organisation, spontaneous creativity and projectuality of those who are against power.
What I want to question here is the validity and possible use of the concept of ‘community’, if only for the following reasons:
a) in the light of the history of this concept, we cannot consider community to indicate a value that is superior to that of society;
b) it follows that we cannot consider ‘community’ to be part of a cultural heritage of progress against reaction;
c) point b) is demonstrated by the fact that the fascist and reactionary movements also—in their own way—made reference to the concept of community;
d) it is not easy to free community from the aura of the sacred or the bearer-of-truth. This has a distorting effect on the undeniable solidarity that spreads within it, a solidarity that often extends acritically under a flag or slogan;
e) it would be far from easy to separate the concept of ‘community’ from its original rural and peasant base with all the implications that are now far off in time and certainly in contrast to a general situation of profound technological change.
It seems to me that we can wind up by simply saying that there is no need to have recourse to concepts such as ‘community’, which carry pollutants that are not easy to filtre out, in order to point to the effective capacity for self-organisation that the exploited possess.
When this concept is used to refer to a possible organisational form, deceiving oneself that it would overcome the limits and contradictions, dangers and traumas that revolutionary anarchist activity inevitably carries with it in a situation of profound social laceration such as the present, I must stress my disagreement.


[Original title: Mal di ‘Comunita’, ProvocAzione 5, May 1987. English translation by Jean Weir in collaboration with John Moore and Leigh Starcross, published in Dissonances, Elephant Editions, London]

http://pantagruel-provocazione.blogspot.com/search/label/%22Community%22%20sickness

This paper was born from the need to accompany the review "Anarchismo" with an agile publication capable of developing 'circumscribed and condensed' analyses. Political and social analyses, leaflets, communiques and documents of the anarchist movement as well as of other groups and organisations, as well as many short and very short articles concerning attacks on the structures of power, news items testifying forms of spontaneous rebellion, that are manifesting themselves with different modalities and often turn out to be quite extraneous to the specific ambit of the anarchist or antagonist movement.

http://pantagruel-anarchismo.blogspot.com/

Starting from a series of analyses - concerning among other things, the modifications in the productive structures, the perfectioning of information technology, transformations in the world of work and school, the progressive cultural emptying - a perspective of struggle is outlined: not only the attack on the 'great temples of death', on the 'visible complexes that attract everybody's attention' but also and principally small and often simple objectives, peripheral structures spread over the whole territory that are beginning to take on increasing importance for capital: factories, commercial structures, seats of power, but also electricity pylons, communications cables, everything that combines in the development of capital and the continuation of exploitation. These analyses and proposals precede the publication of 'ProvocAzione' in part, but in this paper they are gone into further and turn out to be still, valid at the present time.


ISSUE ONE - January 1987

EDITORIAL

In a reality that is opening up possibilities of revolutionary intervention or rather that is strengthening the thrust towards the desire for profound transformation, we need to give ourselves more adequate instruments that can be better understood by eventual users. A paper is always something limited, necessarily circulating within a predetermined circuit. We know this perfectly well. But we will not let ourselves be influenced by those who come out with a sentence of absolute condemnation.
So long as it is adequate to these claims and does not turn out to contradict itself or to be too unilateral. That is precisely what we thought we could see in the last series of Anarchismo. A contradiction caused by the fact that we wanted to kill two birds with one stone. One of the two ended up not biting the bait. The documentation and news articles ended up becoming (given the not exactly monthly regularity of Anarchismo) often too late, while analytical examination suffered from seeing itself constrained within the angust dimensions of a few pages.
So one ended up becoming unilateral. In fact, the informative model (or counter-informative) ended up deciding in the field of analysis as well, conditioning the latter to the affairs of the moment and preventing the task of analysis that always remains that of “seeing in order to foresee”. You can’t foresee much - so you cannot make your “surprise” actions of the future adequate if your analysis remains tied to affairs of the moment.
It is necessary to have the logical space of taking a distance in order to see better. In view of resolving, or rather of lightening, this task, we have given life to ProvocAzione which will come out monthly. More frequent therefore, and more news items. Also analyses. More circumscribed and condensed. Documents and accounts of struggle. Chronicle and considerations. Individuation of events and personages. The enemy and its counterpart. The class war and small actions.
A readable paper. At least, so we illude ourselves (and hope). But always readable by having recourse to one’s brain, not to scleroticised residuals of what the mechanisms of consensus have left us with. Our paper will be simple, not simplistic. No specialised language, but not for that will it be “reduced”. No concessions to fashion either, substantial or formal. No cohabitation with those who are killing our capacity to understand, starting from the use of language (written or spoken). Against manipulators and swindlers of all kinds. We have always been against those who illude themselves that they can solve any problem with just one more icon.
So much for the form.
For the content, the war continues against mystifiers of all kinds, a number of whom are more dangerous than danger in the same way in which every “hanger on” is more realist than the king. The enemy and surroundings. Prospectives and methods of domination and the management of the misery of consensus. Warders and prisoners in the new perspective where reciprocal acceptation of their roles as differences is being weakened, and the few revolutionaries still on the barricades see more and more spotlights on themselves. The projects of power. The places of power.
And then rebellion. Wherever it comes about, in whatever way it manifests itself. the revolt to breathe, not to die here and now, asphysixiated by repression or by simple piousness. Torturers or Red Cross nurses, both are our enemies.
Now rebellion is beginning to delineate itself for what it is: a permanent state of mind of whoever does not accept charity or cowardice. The pride of rebellion is no longer that of the slave who rebelled because he was constrained to choose between physical death or revolt. Now, at a time when the project of power is based on the prospect of consensus and not pure and simple repression, rebellion is a question of pride and dignity, and it will become so more and more.
Now is the time for a serene but firm distinction between revolt and dissent. The insecure and tepid will continue to say no while power prepares to use this no as a further element of government. For how long we have to continue to confuse the respectable pacifist with the decided antagonist of a death system which has disguised itself with progressive possibilism?
Is it possible to make this distinction? Or have the roles become so gangrenous as to be inseparable? Have we all become spineless animals? Looking around one sees nothing but beggars. Even comrades that we would never have imagined would have bowed to hypothetical negotiations with power are now talking about the end of the revolution, possible government concessions, a practice of platonic dissent thatdoes not suit the rigidity and firmness we considered them to possess. Disillusion? Perhaps. But also clarity in ideas.
The paper wants to unmask this reality, also going into the depths of the shabbiness of excuses and camouflage. The pathetic individual that hides behind formal dissent makes us vomit, but it is necessary from time to time to point to him if we do not want to be overwhelmed by a tide of chatter in all and for all, complying to the will of those who are setting up the dominion of tomorrow.
We must harden our hearts if we want to reply effectively as revolutionaries to the perspectives of the “new” rebellion. The time for tenderness has disappeared for good. Now goodness and tolerance towards whoever hesitates or openly collaborates, means betrayal. Yesterday we were considered excessive, but we were only logical. Today we need to be really cruel if we do not also want to become confused with the manifest heap of the utilisable.
We are decidedly for the attack on the class enemy and against the structures of power. We consider that today the roads of simple dissent and platonic respectable pacifism are leading into the palace of horrors. Anyone can fool themselves as they wish or manifest their clear conscience to refuse attack, either due to fear or opportunism. May this appear clearly.
May the charlatan intriguers and crows of ill omen put an end to their laments. If they have converted to collaboration, may they say so openly and stop trying to throw smoke in our eyes, talking of a presumed impossibility to do anything else.
We want to do differently. And along with us millions of men and women who want to struggle in the name of their own dignity.


Main articles

Editorial
Nuclear, never again
State Servants
Proposal for a National Demo
Police Shoot at Montalto
CONCEDE TO REPRESS (AMB)
Communique-Pentiti Mai
The Battle of Montalto di Castro
Infamity Explained to the People
THE RAILWORKERS’STRUGGLE (PLP)
Pasqua the Terrible
Arrests - France - Geminiani
The Mayor Loses Ground OV
Reply to Orestino Domenichelli’s Declaration
Chirac’s Face
Propulsive Utopia
Spain, China, Italy
Let’s Burn the School
“Action Directe”
The School Between Jumps and Projects
Functions of the Educational system
Military Nuclear - Two Unexploded Bombs
Vengeance -Alfa Romeo Showroom, Explosive Device
Hunting the Hunters
D.C. Robbed - Clashes at New Year
Homeless Defends Himself with Lions - A Doubt About Carlo Rubbia
Deja Vu (Not too much)
Attack on Carlo Rubbia
Attack on Methane Gas Duct
Foreigners and the CGIL


Chronicle

Olbia - Sardinia - data centre in Olbia. Town hall burned and documents and calculators destroyed. Mayor’s room and others destroyed. On the walls “Olbia is sad, we need work and dignity” “Perhaps the cat is sad”.

State servants: many ‘repentents’ and dissociated left prison - how defend them? - police escorts - and proletarian justice?

Arrests: comrades in France - including anarchist Roberto Gemigniani

Chirac: demos in France - students truncheoned - against Devaquet law

Burn the school: students try to set fire to school - a good citizen rings the police

Action Direct: 15 Dec. A.D. strike ex-minister Peyrefitte - against student demos - and “abolition of Devaquet law” bomb in car

Vengeance: 72 year old kills ex-PM who sentences him to 20 years in ‘55. Escapes in hired van then takes poison when police capture him.

Milan showroom: “Workers on the dole” claim attack on Alfa Romeo showroom in Milan

Hunt the hunters: Barbagia: 60 attacks in a month - hooded men take their arms and game and wallets. Over 100 arms taken

C.D. robbed: half a billion in cash stolen from safe in D.C. headquarters in Rome
New Year clashes: G.B. London, Liverpool, Leeds, special riot police - generalised illbeing - demos take up the right to joy, to play - new roads of liberatory violence. They must not be blocked.

Evicted man defends himself: Padova - englishman threatened with eviction puts three lions in garden.

Deja vu: “La Scala - demo like old times - slogans, eggs, spitting

Attack on methane duct : Christmas night - Palazzo Canavese, Ivrea - 2 detonators and 100 metres of fuse - duct main line explodes

Antimilitarist attacks: over 100 NATO tanks sabotaged over last few days at Sanem base in Luxemburg

Half ton explosive destroys barracks in Belfast. 6 employed in barracks woounded. IRA

Chile, December: national information central attacked - one killed, others wounded.


http://provocazione-pantagruel.blogspot.com/

Dal centro alla periferia

L'attacco innanzi tutto. Come discriminante, come parola d'ordine, come progetto concreto. Nei fatti. Anche nei piccoli fatti. Non nelle chiacchiere. Anche se fossero le solite chiacchiere sui massimi sistemi.

Se dobbiamo incontrarci, incontriamoci su ciò.

Nei fatti contro le grandi realizzazioni, i grandi templi della morte, i complessi visibili da lontano e che richiamano l'attenzione di tutti, anche di coloro che ne inventano di cotte e di crude per far finta di non capire.

Su ciò pienamente d'accordo. Ma non solo su ciò.

Tutti i giorni, nei nostri percorsi obbligati, segnati a forza dal capitale e dai suoi interessi, incontriamo obiettivi poco visibili. Non sono le grandi cattedrali che riflettono sullo schermo gigantesco dei mezzi di informazione di massa il loro significato, ma sono i minuti terminali di un mostruoso progetto di controllo e di repressione, di produzione e di arricchimento per i padroni del mondo. Questi minuti obiettivi passano spesso quasi inosservati. Qualche volta li usiamo noi stessi, senza accorgercene.

Ma dal piccolo rivolo, innocuo ed esile, si costruisce, d'affluente in affluente, il grosso fiume turbinoso e sporco. Se non possiamo erigere una diga sul fiume, perché le nostre forze non lo permettono, riduciamo almeno l'afflusso di acqua interrompendo una parte di questi piccoli apporti.

E questo possiamo farlo. Nessun controllo repressivo, per quanto capillare, potrà mai salvaguardare ogni elemento del progetto produttivo nel suo insieme. La polverizzazione nel territorio è una delle condizioni della produzione capitalista.

Ecco, essa può diventare il punto di partenza di una nostra strategia d'attacco. Facile, anche se non preclusiva di altri interventi, più consistenti e, singolarmente presi, più significativi.

Ma, non dimentichiamo, la significatività dei piccoli attacchi è data dal loro numero e ciò è possibile in quanto non si tratta di azioni di grande complessità, anzi spesso si tratta di fatti decisamente elementari.

Pensiamo sia tempo di andare dal centro alla periferia.



[da ProvocAzione, n. 3, marzo 1987]