For a Revolt That Will Not Recuperate, For a Revolt That Will Not Defer
<table><tr><td>This is a response to <a href="http://libcom.org/library/insurrectionary-anarchy-revolutionary-organiza... Anarchy and Revolutionary Organization</a>. In this document, it appears there is an attempt to define the closeness insurrectionary anarchy has to the platform. This is an attempt to expose that even if insurrectionary anarchists desire to make formal organizations with a platform, it would be far different than one that favors the anarchist communism of Common Struggle, very different from the synthesis anarchism of the Seattle Solidarity Network and very different from the industrial unionism of the Industrial Workers of the World.
This is also a response to the Anarchy 101 Question <a href="http://anarchy101.org/3224/is-it-possible-to-have-a-federation-of-affini... it possible to have a federation of affinity groups?</a> where a debate between myself and the user <em>anok</em> found disagreement on the possibility of a platform for insurrectionary anarchy. In the debate, I created an imaginary platform using some insurrectionary anarchist theory with the purpose of showing the possibility of an insurrectionary anarchist federation of affinity groups.</td><td><img title="OMGTITDSE" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/burnitall.jpg"></td></tr></...
This was written to continue this discussion more broadly and to deepen our understanding of what is possible for anarchists to achieve through organization and how to move beyond current North American anarchist practices which weaken our ability to create the world we desire. To some, this may contradict their understandings of contemporary insurrectionary anarchy. To others, this presents a synthesis of tendencies that anarchists have been growing towards, but haven't defined as they can only embrace insurrectionary anarchy as an ideology or tendency that can only be in favor of informal organizations and an anarchist projectuality that can never solidify within a program.
This was not written to be a final word on the subject. It is an experimentation of thought which I hope contributes strongly to discourse and opens up a potential for a better discourse to occur to further anarchists in favor of the insurrectionary project. I also hope this may be attractive to anarchist communists that see a need for theoretical and tactical unity, a need for collective responsibility and a desire for federation, but find the current forms of organizations for a platform to be lacking as they presently exist.
One of the key points of insurrectionary anarchist practice is a rejection of intermediate gains. The solidarity network, like the syndicalist union, is founded on making intermediate gains. Rather than aiming for the destruction of the social order, these groups instead aim for healing the contradictions of people to the social order.
First they <strong>*reify*</strong> social struggle by putting their organization in a role of defining the struggle. This is a representation of the struggle through the organization. The decisions of social struggle is channeled through their organization, aiming to have the narratives of the organization define how and why struggle occurs. When these organizations decide to start or stop a conflict based on perceived wins/losses, the conflict itself starts and stops.
This by itself isn't fully a problem. Any individual or group that moves beyond anonymity, that is singled out as the voice of the narrative of the struggle, whether intentional, through happenstance or through the social order imposing a perceived dialogue, can create reification.
To some, this is the same as substituting the struggle of the organization for the real struggle. To myself and others, this is an experiment with the present and propaganda of the deed. By recognizing that these organizations are not the real struggle but rather in favor of real struggle, by recognizing that this is the work of those for revolution and not the work of the revolution, substitution is not occurring. However, reification is occurring. Should a break out of real struggle happen and these organizations still be participants, very often these organizations will still represent the struggle wither intentional or not.
Second, these organizations <strong>*recuperate*</strong> by creating intermediate goals to achieve. When a conflict occurs, the goal is not founded on destroying the social order and attempting to create the lives we want in the process of destruction. The goal is to make people's lives better now within the social order. This is done with the logic that by making people's lives better it is sapping the power of the social order while building a strength, building a mass movement that can overcome the social order later when the relationship of power can be flipped. The mass movement becomes strong while weakening the social order through material gains.
What is really going on is pacifying conflict by fixing the social order. When an intermediate goal is achieved, the reasons for being in conflict do not grow beyond the initial purpose. When the social order yields to these organizations both the social order and the representation of struggle compromise and come to an understanding. This understanding is that the social order will continue for another day. Their will be no more conflict because the struggle has been made content with the achieved goal it perceives.
As can be seen, because of a reification that creates recuperation, revolt is <strong>*deferred*</strong>. Any attempt to gain something that isn't aimed at the destruction of the social order puts the narrative of its destruction off until later. This *later* seems to never come. The organization, even at the heights of revolt, throughout periods of social unrest and ruptures of insurrection, will still continue the thought that the revolution is not for today. The organization that defers the struggles of today will continue the thought that tomorrow might have better conditions to eliminate the social relationships of domination.
To become more, there are other ways. An organization for revolution, an organization for the destruction of the present order, an organization for anarchy now, may still hold elements of the social order within it no matter how much rhetoric to the contrary is written. Reification for any organization can not be avoided, be it the organization for revolution or the organization of mass. An outbreak of social unrest that can achieve insurrections and beyond is uncontrollable and can not be predicted into existence. Its occurrence can happen at any time with any moment of contradiction setting it off.
This should not mean anarchists avoid forming organizations. It also doesn't mean anarchists should only form informal organizations in the hope they can avoid reification. An organization that has any success will be placed in front, in the role of representation. We witness this today with the black bloc, which is only a tactic, transformed by media narratives into an organization. Individuals, like David Graeber, are then chosen by the media to speak for the black bloc and to define what it is trying to achieve. The Occupy movement has a narrative and counter-narrative on its purpose with the back and forth of David Graeber and Chris Hedges. We can not avoid this role. It will be manufactured by the social order whether we like it or not.
It does mean that we should aim to shape our narrative. If we are anarchists, we need to make it known what we are and what we want to achieve. If we are for anarchy, then our goals should be about attempting to achieve anarchy immediately. We can not continue this path of intermediate goals, which pollute our aims and agenda. The outbreaks of social unrest will happen whether we participate or not.
In order to avoid being an obstacle for this, we need to keep our narrative focused on what we want. We can not propose a continuation of any role of recuperation as that puts off the narrative of destruction of the social order now. When we recuperate, we create a narrative that limits the potential of what can occur at any moment. When we recuperate, we always defer our struggle for tomorrow.
Let us not do this any longer. If we form *unions*, let them not be unions for better wages, benefits and work conditions. Let them be for the abolition of work. If we make *solidarity networks* let them be free of the obstacles that prevent the growth of conflict. Solidarity means attack. Anything less is just another face for the continuation of the social order.
- *High Priest Wombat, KSC - Revolt Against Work*