Insurrectionary Anarchy & Revolutionary Organization

From Black Wave Communist Collective By Sabotage

In recent years there have been many debates within the anarchist movement about the insurrectionary method of organizing for revolution.[1] But often these debates do not go into detail regarding the organizational proposals put forth by insurrectionary anarchists. This piece hopes to highlight these organizational methods and serve as an introduction to this project and tendency within revolutionary anarchist thought.

Formal vs Informal Organization?

One of the biggest debates around the insurrectionary method has been that between the need for formal or informal anarchist organization. One does not need to dig far to see that such debates are a false dichotomy. In the Postscript to Issue 2 of the Swedish journal Dissident named Insurrection and Anarchy, the Batko Group explains “it is important not to trap oneself in the dichotomy between formal and informal organization. The form is always dependent on the capacity of initiative. Formal structures can sometimes be used, as long as the initiative is kept.”[2]

Even the father of contemporary insurrectionaryl anarchism Alfredo Maria Bonanno in one of his seminal essays entitled From Riot to Insurrection says:

“Certainly, it is still possible to go along the road of the organisation of synthesis, of propaganda, anarchist educationism and debate — as we are doing just now of course — because, as we said, this is a question of a project in tendency, of attempting to understand something about a capitalist project which is in development. But, as anarchist revolutionaries, we are obliged to bear in mind this line of development and to prepare ourselves from this moment on to transform irrational situations of riot into an insurrectional and revolutionary reality.”[3]

It would be instructive if the current anarchist movement took heed of this above example. The quote above was from a speech given at a formal conference around the journal Anarchismo of which Bonanno was the main editor. Informal organization was not meant to be a dogma to be followed at all cost like staunch believers in the party or syndicalist forms of organization, but was a historical tendency that Bonanno was trying to analyze in motion.

In hindsight we can now see, like the Batko Group alluded to, that whether to intervene in the class struggle using formal or informal practices is a matter of choosing the appropriate means to achieve the desired ends.

Self-activity & Self-management

What then are the means by which insurrectionary anarchists propose to organize for revolution? Those familiar to most revolutionary anarchists, self-organization.

Insurrectionary anarchists take very seriously that the emancipation of the exploited and oppressed classes must be a project resulting from their own autonomous self-activity. This applies whether it be individuals, groups of anarchist revolutionaries, or mass bodies of the exploited in struggle for their own autonomy.

The reason this is of importance is because it is a major similarity shared between insurrectionary anarchists and the rest of the revolutionary anarchist movement. It is particularly interesting in the light of it being the same means historically that most anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists have desired, if refocused as we will later see in the discussion of their proposals for mass organizing. Not only is workers’ self-activity the preferred method for struggle, but it is the nucleus of the self-organized society anarchists desire to create through social revolution:

“Self-management of the struggle comes first, followed by self-management of work and society…Revolution of work is therefore the self-managed organization of these first elements of the future society, base production nuclei which grow from the autonomy of the struggle.”[4]

Active Minority: Specific Anarchist Organization of Affinity

Contemporary insurrectionary thought arose out of the historical conditions of post-war Italy. In the Italian anarchist movement at that time there was a hot debate between those believing in the validity of the specific anarchist “organization of synthesis” around the Anarchist Federation of Italy (FAI)accused of being “purists” and those defending the model of a specific anarchist “organization of tendency” around the Anarchist Groups of Proletarian Action (GAAP). Both groups were organized around a specific anarchist program whether pluralist (FAI) or platformist (GAAP).[5]

It was out of this reality that a third type of specific organization emerged, around local groups based on affinity. Affinity in this scenario did not mean that anarchists should just organize with their friends, or not organize at all like the anti-organizational individualists, but based around clarifying where comrades are at based on political discussion, analysis, and most importantly through experience working with each other in struggle. In short, a focus on building unity with others through praxis. Revolutionary anarchists of all tendencies should consider trying to learn from the best elements of such strategies. Instead of agreeing to political programs (whether minimal, transitional, or maximal) that are set in stone, revolutionary anarchists should strive to continue to have an analysis and organizing practice based and refined through participation in the social struggle:

“The affinity group on the other hand finds it has great potential and is immediately addressedtowards action, basing itself not on the quantity of its adherents, but on the qualitative strength of a number of individuals working together in a projectuality that they develop together as they go along. From being a specific structure of the anarchist movement and the whole arc of activity that this presents - propaganda, direct action, perhaps producing a paper, working within an informal organization - it can also look outwards to forming a base nucleus or some other mass structure and thus intervene more effectively in the social clash.”[6]

Autonomous Base Nuclei: Self-managed Leagues for Workers’ Autonomy

As mentioned earlier the self-activity of the exploited and oppressed is incredibly important to insurrectionary anarchists. This reveals itself in the ideal form of mass organizing proposed by insurrectionary anarchists, autonomous base nuclei. “Base” is the Italian word for grassroots. “Nuclei” is another word for “cells.” Autonomous base nuclei are essentially self-managed grassroots cells or leagues independent from any political party or syndicalist/union alliances. They are mass organizations based on total workers’ autonomy and self-organization.

Insurrectionary anarchists work within community, labor, or other mass struggles with intermediate aims always encouraging workers to organize autonomously if possible. Examples of such organizations from their practice were the self-managed leagues created to fight against the construction of a U.S. missile base in Cosimo, Italy.[6] The Movimento Autonomo di Base (Autonomous Movement of the Railway Workers) in Turin, Italy is also often cited.

There has often been suspicion that such structures mimic the front organizations created by many Leninist parties, proving that insurrectionary anarchists have a substitutionist and vanguardist practice. On the contrary the call for such self-managed organizations to take on characteristics of direct action (attack), permanent conflictuality (critique of representation) and so on seems to mirror the strategy and tactics espoused by some contemporary revolutionary anarchists who have theorized a practice of “direct unionism.”[7]

There has also been a misguided notion that insurrectionary anarchism is a political theory and method that is for the active destruction and attack of the existing Left in the various unions and syndicalist organizations. One may only need to take a look at Bonanno’s Critique of Syndicalist Methods to see that this is not entirely true:

“A project to disorganize the unions would require a destructive logic…It would be dispersive to put energy (which we do not possess) into such a perspective, and not the right way to look at the problem of worker organization. Quicker and better results would be obtained from making a radical critique of the unions and extending it equally to revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism.”[8]

Insurrectionary anarchists do not argue against working within such structures but for bringing their radicall anarchist critique and ideas to these organizations in order to move past the historical passe most such organizations find themselves in. They work towards the building of more class wide structures that are not limited to the workplace or community struggles but where people fight for their own issues and struggles, not just deffensively. A more current example of such organizations can be seen in the “solidarity network” model that has popped up recently where workers fight against their bosses and landlords but have also participated in struggles against the police and sexual perpetrators.[9]

Putting the Dead to Rest

In conclusion anarchists should recognize that the perceived differences between insurrectionary and other currents of revolutionary anarchism are not as large a schism as often portrayed in some circles. These divides seem to be derived more from ignorance of the insurrectional project by both proponents and opponents alike or based on historical comparison to perceived similar historical currents. Hopefully this introduction to insurrectionary organizing methods for revolution helps clarify where there is similarity and where there are differences, as well as dispel common myths. Instead of swaying back and forth in the continual debate over organizational form hopefully the anarchist movement as a whole can start focusing further on the (anti-)political goals and visions that revolutionaries of all tendencies are hotly debating today.

Citations

[1] Crimethinc’s Say You Want An Insurrection?, Peter Gelderloos’ Insurrection vs. Organization, and Joe Black’s Anarchism, insurrections and insurrectionalism

[2] Dissident #2 Postcript

[3] A.M. Bonanno From Riot to Insurrection

[4] A.M. Bonanno Looking Forward to Self-management

[5] Coordinadora Informal Anarquista Vivir la Anarquía

[6] Insurrection #4

[7] Libcom.org Direct Unionism

[8] A.M. Bonanno Critique of Syndicalist Methods

[9] Libcom.org Solidarity Networks

Comments

a piece like this is almost

a piece like this is almost jaw-dropping inasmuch as its kinda decent and fair. but one would have liked to have read it several years ago, when the diatribe was at its worst and, more importantly, a critique of Bonnano-ism might have been more relevant. These days the contemporary insurrecto has moved well beyond these positions, at least among my constellation, and while Bonnano will continue to be relevant, critiques of insurrectionarialism as if its still just "insurrectionary anarchism" will not.

What is insurrectionalism as

What is insurrectionalism as opposed to insurrectionary anarchism? Honest question.

Hard to say, because meanings

Hard to say, because meanings differ for different people. Maybe:

Insurrectionalism describes a wider tendency that dates back to Babeuf, Buonoratti, and Blanqui, socialists whose practice consisted of instigating insurrections. This history informed anarchists like Malatesta. IA would describe a specific trajectory that arose out of the problems posed by the social antagonism of the 1970s in Italy, Spain, and the UK.

Or, insurrectionalism sometimes is used pejoratively against IAs, perhaps because it makes it sound like IA is without content and just a fetish for violence.

I guess my question is how

I guess my question is how the two tendencies would differentiate themselves in practice? Insurrectionalism does seem like it's form without content, tactics employed without any sense of overarching strategy. I ask because there seems to me at least that there are divergent views on what it means to be an insurrectionist. Is it an oversimplification to say that insurrectionalism puts the need to attack above any kind of ideological constraint in terms of the method or target of attack? Whereas perhaps IA's are promoting a specific type of insurrection that is specifically based in class struggle?

"This reveals itself in the

"This reveals itself in the ideal form of mass organizing proposed by insurrectionary anarchists, autonomous base nuclei. “Base” is the Italian word for grassroots. “Nuclei” is another word for “cells.” Autonomous base nuclei are essentially self-managed grassroots cells or leagues independent from any political party or syndicalist/union alliances. They are mass organizations based on total workers’ autonomy and self-organization."

What on earth is the difference between Autonomous base nuclei and anarcho-syndicalst unions? This seems like what syndicalists argue for... just with a different name, as if we wouldn't notice?

I don't know a single IA in

I don't know a single IA in the US in 2012 who would argue for "mass organizations based on total workers’ autonomy and self-organization."

I know a couple, but they

I know a couple, but they keep it to themselves, sort of embarrassing,,,

If that's what you mean by

If that's what you mean by anarcho-syndicalism, than good for you. But be a bit more realistic about what some of your comrades are arguing for. Is the IWW a temporary organization to coordinate the class struggle in a particular locale that will be abandoned as soon as the participating proletarians don't need it? I don't think so. It's more than a 100 years old and it's been 70 years since there was clear evidence that it was useful for any sizable group of proletarians in struggle. While many comrades inside it want to use it more practically and informally (think: libcom), it's also kept alive by various patriarchs who use it as a playground for their micropoliticking and unionist maneuvering.

I don't care about labels. If you want to push "anarcho-syndicalism" to become flexible and contemporary and relevant but not change the name, go for it. But I don't care for the baggage so, for myself, I dropped it.

Well, the IWW isn't an

Well, the IWW isn't an anarcho-syndicalist organization. A lot of members - some of them (including the authors of that "direct unionism" this article references) obviously do use it in the way you describe.

Word up on not caring about labels. But I'm not sure if I'm "making anarcho-syndicalism relevant" or flexible - it already was. Unfortunately no I@'s read anything about it, so all their judgements are based on weird stereotypes, and then they come out with an article like this and its like.... Oh, yeah, where have you been for the last decade?

it already wasnt, you mean.

it already wasnt, you mean. And im sure a fair number of "I@'s" have passed through the IWW at some point in their lives

I'm the person who initially

I'm the person who initially mentioned the IWW. Again, I don't care about labels, but my projects are organized informally and anti-institutionally, so maybe I count as an "IA" for you. But I was a member of the IWW for years and participated in numerous anarcho-syndicalist reading groups and I'm friends with lots of Wobblies and am pretty up on the current politics within the IWW and the IWA-AIT. But my perspective on the class struggle leaves me unable to countenance any of those groups, sorry.

Autonomous base nuclei:

Actually useful as it parses

Actually useful as it parses out Italian debates in the 60s that still inflect our milieux. But a bit too optimistic regarding the prospects of formal organization: if informality is a tendency in motion, it's because capital and the class struggle continue to reorganize themselves to make formality more irrelevant (much more so even than in the 70s).

Further, in elaborating the relationship between proletarian self-activity and the formal "organization of synthesis," it would help to be more clear what the long-range proposal of the synthesis organization is. My understanding is that the Italian FAI still held to the idea it could become the organ for struggle for the entire class, like the Spanish CNT-FAI in the 30s or the IWW claims still. "Synthesis" means that an organization could first incorporate the diversity of the anarchist movement and than that of the whole class. This is the particular dream of formal organization rendered most obsolete by the end of Fordism, and to which IA's informality is counterposed.

Finally, while the author's intentions seem good, they continue valorizing Bonanno in a patriarchal (literally) way. Not only is he not the patriarch of IA now, he wasn't in the 70s. Much of his prominence is an accident of translation, though I don't mean to deny his eloquence or importance. But if you're trying to grasp how the the insurrectionary proposal was made in the 70s, you should also read Stuart Christie, Ratgeb, Constantino Cavalleri (still barely translated), the texts from MIL and the autonomous groups in Spain along with Camatte, the Angry Brigades and Azione Rivoluzionaria communiques, Jean Weir, and Giorgio Cesarano.

I actually thought it was

I actually thought it was quite refreshing to see a group looking to critique insurrectionary anarchy and then as a logical first step examining texts from Bonanno and tendencies in Italy. Even the "critique" is quite light and seems to amount to "they want this thing, which is nice, but we think this other thing works better" and doesn't reduce itself to name-calling or a single reference to Tiqqun. I think re-affirming the roots of insurrectionary anarchy is important as the methods, tools, and perspectives for an insurrectionary practice were all laid out by Bonanno and his comrades, whereas there is no obtainable program to the Tiqqun nonsense (which is not even anarchist, let alone insurrectionary anarchist) even if you cut through all the jargon and look up all the footnotes.

I don't think the Coming Insurrection was the worst thing ever written (there are far worse things), but I think the major problem is caused in America was a muddling of words and ideas about what "insurrectionary anarchy" is because it is natural of course to turn one's eyes to the newest book that has come out with the word "insurrection" in the title, despite the book's recommendations for struggle being to basically follow a crimethinc-esque drop-out program. Anyone who thinks this isn't the message, you're deluding yourself. If you read actual self-identifying insurrectionary anarchy text, they speak in plain (sometimes translated) English about what the idea is about, what the practices are, and some insights on how to do them. Insurrectionary anarchy has much to offer the anarchist movement in America and it offers many lessons learned through it's synthesis over decades that American anarchists desperately need to learn. I appreciated the references to Batko, which is a pretty nice collection of various shorter insurrectionary texts. While I don't agree with the positions "Black wave" takes (mainly in their other articles), I think it's a nice change to see someone looking to engage with IA in a critiquing fashion or any fashion to actually engage with the real ideas rather than a false representation of them.

http://www.motarbetaren.se/batko/en_dissident.php

Just in case anything I'm saying seems new to you or you want to read something good about IA, check these texts out:

http://digitalelephant.blogspot.com/2010/08/insurrectionalist-anarchism-...

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Alfredo_M._Bonanno__The_Insurrection...

So you would agree that 'the

So you would agree that 'the BIG strike' is Tiqqunish?

Hey buddy, I'm the commenter

Hey buddy, I'm the commenter who criticized the emphasis on Bonanno. I fundamentally agree with you, but I dislike both personally and practically the fetishization of Bonanno. First of all, it does him a disservice. It's much healthier to read his early shit in the context of A.R. and the wider antagonist milieu of the 70s. Miguel Amoros has an excellent text on this even if its a bit hostile.

Secondly, I agree that Tiqqun is also fetishized, and mystified, in a different way. It's obviously not the handbook for insurrection that it's presented as. But I still want to approach it seriously, again not as a universal tonic, but as part of a continuity of ideas and struggle is France and Italy, one which encompasses Camatte and Os Cangaceiros but also the 2005-2006 cycle of struggles and lots of post-structuralist nonsense in between. As a relic of the anti-globalization period too, it's actually pretty inspiring, kinda like the French version of Do or Die. Both advocate a kind of dropping out that you deride as "crimethincish," but to me feels like an honest desire to hold onto the personal intensities that arose out of eco-defense, Genoa, etc.

Which Amoros text are you

Which Amoros text are you talking about?

I agree with the concept that Bonanno can seem like the only Italian insurrectionary anarchist who wrote anything at times and I think that is because of the lack of translation or lack of access to English translations of other Italian writers. I'd love to read more Italian IA things, but much of it hasn't really been translated. However, I personally have not really seen a fetishism of Bonanno. I'm a bigger fan than most, but for the most part I don't see his stuff being read or IA being seriously discussed. The issue is this, that IA has fallen by the wayside and, as a term, been recuperated (to a degree), but mostly just misunderstood post-Tiqqun fetishism. And I think there is a hell of a lot more Tiqqun fetishism than there is any Bonanno fetishism you apparently witness. My referencing of Bonanno texts is purely because I believe them to be good text which illustrate points that I agree with and explain the IA practice better than other things I've read. There are many other, probably better texts out there, I just haven't seen them, and I do think that something desirable Bonanno's texts are the simplicity and directness of them. However, in regards to the original article here, yes it certainly does exalt Bonanno as the godfather of IA, a title which I'm sure he does not want. This, I think, comes more from the group "Black Wave" not understanding much about what they're writing about. Still though, I find it refreshing that when talking about or critiquing IA, they are at least talking about the ideas of someone who is actually an IA in theory and practice, which is something that hasn't happened a lot lately.

Author here... I used to be a

Author here...

I used to be a everything "insurrection" and "greece" fetishist. maybe i still am to a degree. i got into insurrectionary anarchy after december 2008, when new school got occupied, shit kicked off in athens, and the tarnac 9 case was going on and tiqqun and invisible committee stuff was coming into vogue. i in turn got into a lot of the anti-state communist stuff in summer/fall 2009.

Unfortunately perhaps the only serious communist grouping in my city who actually wanted to see insurrection and revolution and do class/social war organizing were the folks NEFAC. Now we are called Common Struggle. I am actually the Federal Secretary of the organization. The federation has always had a bit of an ultra-left streak.

Anyway yeah I can see that calling Bonanno the father of IA is a little rash. He is certainly not, and just one figure among many, that I am starting to discover more and thanks for the suggestions (I have also asked about this on Anarchy101.org) But yeah I do not know. I think there are a lot of organizational developments that are generally all leading in the same direction. One could say much of this stuff is also similar to a lot of later day Council Communist thought as can be seen in the KAUD or GIKH.

-Sabotage

Sacco n Vanzetti The

Sacco n Vanzetti The Anarchist Background talks alot about the italian-american IA scene in the early 1900s. galleanists, et al...
you should check that out if you haven't. that shit way pre-dates bonanno (he's not THAT old! lol).

what are people's thoughts about the FAI/Iron Column/durruti's homies in the Spanish Civil War? they were all IAs if i'm not mistaken...

federal secretary of the

federal secretary of the council communist party.. good lord

"you go to war with the army

"you go to war with the army you have"
-donald "sabotage" rumsfeld

you two... and i thought i

you two... and i thought i was the only one left. still out here killing king abacus and being willfully disobedient.

The Amoros text is in the

The Amoros text is in the collection "Un Terrorismo En Busca De Dos Autores." And to Sabotage: I respect the sincerity with which you approach IA's limitations, and agree that they need to be overcome, but I am very skeptical that joining NEFAC can be anything but a step backwards. If I understand your writings here to be part of that overcoming for you, I might recommend as a parallel effort the text "Epidemia de Rabia" which is an attempt to come to grips with IA as it went down in the Spanish State in the late 90s.

Could you post some links,

Could you post some links, especially ones with english translation? Ratgeb, Christie, Angry Brigades, Weir I know where to find. The others...never heard of some of what you've listed.

I'll do my best: On the MIL,

I'll do my best:

On the MIL, find this pamphlet. Fragments of it are online but not everything. It's about the Catalan experience of "diffuse urban guerrilla" that later informed the insurrectional proposal, but it also makes much more explicit the links between anarchist militantcy, Camatte's conceptions of organization and domestication, and informality. The documentary "Lucio" is also relevant.
http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/7sqvtk

That text I mentioned above, Epidemia de Rabia addresses the circulation between diffuse urban guerrilla in Italy and the Spanish State, specifically the role of Italian fugitives in formenting a particular practice that became associated with IA, for better or worse. The comrades involved are still imprisoned and don't get much solidarity outside the Spanish State. The zine on the F.I.E.S. system ("Prison Within the Prison"?) deals with their later struggles without being fully explicit about the background history.

From the autonomous groups in Spain: http://zinelibrary.info/files/segovia.pdf Also, check out "To Libertarians."

Constantino Cavalleri has been translated into a number of other languages but not English. I might have seen one text in translation years ago but can't remember what it is right now. In Castillian: http://www.esnips.com/displayimage.php?album=1323018&pid=10362908

Regarding A.R., check the end of issue #0 of Insurrection (most pdfs unfortunately are also missing the last page of that article). The problematics framing IA emerge partially from the experience of this so-called "Vaneigemist" armed organization. Everything else on it is more fragmentary, but if we ever run into each other, I could pass along some other things.

Thank you so much!

Thank you so much! Solidarity from Ohio. I'd never heard of MIL. Have to see if I can get a copy over hear. It's a shame more hasn't been translated, and that I'm not multi-lingual. I'd love to get my hands on the writings of severino di giovanni (unless I'm just unaware that they no longer exist), more of galleani's work translated.

RA for sure will be of interest. Read so much Bonanno, and that elephant edition volume on armed struggle during the years of lead. What else (in english) is out there about these years that is both of interest to anarchists & also dicusses their role/contributions?

*AR.

*AR.

Pushed by the Violence of our

Pushed by the Violence of our Desires, available from Petroleuse, and the whole debate on armed feminism in the Italian Feminist Reader.

The Unseen.

The debate between Debord and Sanguninetti on the nature of the armed struggle: whether it was simply stupidity in motion or the result of high-level state manipulation. (Find it on Not Bored, I think) The anarchist debate is slightly different, though I think most agreed that A.R. was a failure as was "diffuse urban guerrilla," and IA was an attempt to overcome the self-destructive temptation of guerrilla warfare. If you haven't, read Bifo's (even if he's a fuck) and other's accounts of the massive but failed anti-repression conference in Bologna in '77. The craziness of the armed momentum comes through, even if the anarchist faction, with their gigantic p.38 sign, are more sympathetic.

Much appreciation.

Much appreciation. "Epidemia..." I found only in spanish. Did a machine translation using Google (I really don't like using google for anything). As long as it's accurate (someone fluent in Spanish will have to verify that) and as long as there's no other English translation I'll post it in a blog/submit it to anarchist library (or something like that) in the coming weeks.

Definitely wouldn't mind doing more translations as long as I can find links & machine trans is reliable.

If you're in the habit of

If you're in the habit of including contact information on things you release, I'll try to respond with notes/corrections on the translation.

The eventual blog post will

The eventual blog post will be at neuralnetworkdot noblogs dot org.

If you have a link to that amoros text you mentioned above in italian, I'll get to work on that too. I skimmed a few Italian sites and found the volume it's in for sale, and then about three of his texts in English at libcom, but nothing else (from what I could make out).

Yes, you can start

Yes, you can start "insurrectional" practice within a formal organisation. But that practice will always be outside and/or against the formal structures. Thats the point.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content