PREFACE
This
is not the first time we find ourselves faced with a similar
dilemma: how transcend the limitation of the means? Reach out beyond the
constriction of the roles? Encounter those who have begun their individual
insurrection but find their path obstructed by a pile of blunt instruments?
Those who have decided to venture into the abyss and have become exigent, want
to invent their own methods, draw them forth from the conditions they are
constrained to live in against their will, now, as the bosses' calendar
indicates the arrival of the third millennium. Those who want to dance with
life in more than fleeting encounters, in the adventure of discovery' that
illuminates destruction in all its possibilities.
A contradiction emerges: in order to do this we need to activate the
techniques they taught us with other ends in view read, write, analyse,
discuss, but this time not to pass exams, get a job, acquire social status,
cultivate the admiration of others. No, here the effort is exquisitely selfish.
Not an accumulation of data, but ideas to stimulate other ideas, questions to
contrast facts Roads to action to be explored. Paths to be forged or meandered
along, as we learn to recognise monsters under their disguise and experiment
the best weapons to confront them with, those that enhance our indefatigable
quest for freedom.
This
is the perspective we have given ourselves and where we believe others are
venturing. That is why we have decided to set to work…shooting a shower of arms
into the unknown, aware that by their very form they risk turning up in the
wrong place and violating the tranquillity of those who seek in the written
word confirmation, truth, serenity, or simply an antidote to insomnia, however,
we have decided to adventure into the unexplored.
Perhaps
one or two will strike, encounter who will take up the threads of the
discourse, unravel them, re-elaborate them and in some way make them part of
their own project of liberation, transforming them into active intervention.
The
following articles were all published some years ago in the monthly paper
"ProvocAzione" (now out of print). We are now making them, available
to a wider readership, an invitation to question some of our certainties and
examine more closely some of the commonplaces we take for granted.
Jean Weir
PROPULSIVE
UTOPIA
Some
of us have lived through similar moments (1987 - Student and railway workers
rebel in France. What follows are a few disconcerting notes that beyond the
specific moment). The incredible thunderbolt of a propelling idea suddenly
surges up from the grey monotony of everyday life. A desire to be beyond
the abyss, well beyond it.
Many
have lived through this and systematically put it out of their minds. A tiny
minority of old regulars at meetings and demos continue to practice the
liturgy' of the incredible within the enclosure of themselves, now convinced
that the utopian proposal must come from rewriters of theories clever enough to
climb mountains from within the four walls of their own rooms.
The
others are not even worth mentioning. Most of them had no inkling of what one
was dreaming about. They casually confused possibilism with socialism in an
indigestible mixture known as "democratic radicalism".
But
propulsive utopia, the life-blood of the real movement, cannot be found in
books or even in the avant-garde theses of the elite philosophers who clock in
to the fact of pre-wrapped ideas like clever shift workers.
It
feeds off a hidden but burning collective desire, increasing its flow in a
thousand ways. Then suddenly you find it at the street corner. The form it
takes is not usually staggering. It is often shy and unsure of itself and
certainly does not conjure up a vision of lightning on the road to Damascus. But
for anyone able to read between the lines of the real movement this and only
this is the strong point of a phenomenon that runs into a thousand rivulets
threatening to break up its unity in models worthy of a hasty gazetteen.
Here
and there in the recent students' and railway workers' demonstrations in France
the slogan of great revolutions we had become resigned to seeing diluted for
ever into parliamentary speeches and pub chat has suddenly reappeared.
Equality.
Along
a little path in the forest the real movement is finding itself by pointing to
a great utopian objective: go beyond rights to the full reality of the deed.
A
swallow does not mean spring, you might say. Correct. A banner, a thousand
banners are only words cried to the wind and are often blown away by it. But
words are not born inside stuffy libraries. When they correspond to the spirit
of thousands of people they suddenly break into the collective consciousness
that is the basis of the real movement. Then and only then do words abandon
their symbolic purpose and become a simple covering over reality. They become
the substance of a project that is latent but at the same time is powerfully
operative.
Today
the macabre spectacle of equal rights is suffocating any desire that throws its
glance beyond the barrier of the ready-made. But the refusal of politics by the
student movement is only a filter for the profound, utopian request for
immediate, total liberation. Out with all schemers, in with freedom. Right. But
when this freedom does not have a bodily content, when it becomes a covering
over well (or badly) construed words, then it is no more than a new way of
sealing up ideology
Of
course the struggle of those enclosed in the ghettoes, prisons, factories,
schools, racial and sexual discrimination, only aims at breaking down the first
barrier, the wall, the immediate enemy one comes up against in painful social
discrimination. But although comprehensible that still does not correspond to a
revolutionary struggle for the equality of all, the maximum exaltation of the
difference of each one. No matter how well it goes, the particular struggle
will be recuperated and transformed into further conditioning because it is
still a struggle for equal "rights" and does not affect situations of
fact that are anything but equal so long as there remains a field of political,
therefore social, discrimination.
The
statement that appeared in the streets of Paris showed a serious attempt to go
beyond the trap the ideologues built long ago, conveniently camouflaging it in
the suggestion that students beware of outside elements, politics,
provocateurs, etc. This is an old story that the managers of power always
circulate at opportune moments because they are indirectly in control through
the channels of consensus and the conditioning of information. It is a
technique they use to warn against dangers relating to one part of themselves
so as to detract attention from another part that they want to bring into
effect.
Now,
by opposing genuinely revolutionary opposition to such underhand plots the real
movement is rediscovering the explosive potential of utopia. It is acting in
such a way that its radical critique of the process of recuperation cannot be
recuperated. It is not by chance that this position has appeared at the same
time as economic claims are diminishing in importance. There equality was seen
as the result of the repartition of produced value beyond the endemic division
between capitalists and proletarians. But we are sure that any society that
were to pass more or less violently from capitalism to post-revolutionary
socialism through the narrow door of syndicalism would necessarily be a grey
parody of a free society. The heavy trade union self-regulating mechanism with
its ideal of the good worker and the bad skiver would be transferred to society
as a whole. The students have faced the problem of the impossibility of any
outlet in the labour market. But their analysis strengthens (or should
strengthen) the conviction that only with a radically utopian way of seeing the
social problem will it be possible to break through the boundaries of a destiny
that those in power seem to hold in their hands. Theirs is certainly not the
kind of equality' that is being talked about in France today. The same goes for
the railway workers, perhaps in an even more obvious way as they make no
reference to arguments of an economic or at least wage-claiming kind.
Why,
one might ask, are we so sure of the revolutionary content of an idea that,
after all, has moved with varying fortunes in the world revolutionary sphere
for at least two hundred years? The answer is simple. The propulsive value of a
concept cannot be understood in social terms if one limits oneself to examining
existing conditions. in fact there is no causal relationship between social
conditions and a utopian concept. The latter moves within the real movement and
is in deep contrast to the structural limits that condition but do not cause
it. In the fictitious movement on the contrary the same concept can move around
comfortably. Here in the rarefied atmosphere of the castle of spooks the
utopian concept, having lost all its significance, becomes no more than a
product of ideology like so many others. Research into the causes of utopia or
rather utopian desire could certainly be interesting but would give poor
results if one were to limit oneself to the study of the field of the social
and historical conditions in which the concept suddenly appears.
For
this reason we cannot outline the limits of a presumed operativity of a utopian
concept starting from these conditions. It could go well beyond the latter, in
other words could itself become an element of social change.
Now,
equality is a contradictory concept that exists in each one of us. On the one
hand we feel profoundly different to others and tend to defend and encourage
this diversity. We consider uniforming ourselves and accepting orders and
impositions to be unworthy of us, even though we often see ourselves forced to
put a good face on it for the needs of the moment. On the other hand everyone
sees these radical differences as a value that exists within the context of a
substantial equality. Equality of conditions, possibilities, freedom, values,
social space and so on, all in the more profound difference of desires, feelings,
aims, interests, culture, physical aspects, etc.
But
this concept has only been perceptible throughout history as attempts to
transform man into a herded animal. in order to become equal to another he had
to become a sheep and not think about what made him profoundly different to the
shepherd who guides the herd and does the shearing. Democracy has always been
seen (and is still seen today) as equality of rights, not conditions. To the
hypothetical equality of rights there has always corresponded a substantial
inequality of conditions. And instead of being related to the nature of their
individuality, differences between people have always been those marked by the
different basic conditions they live in as they struggle against the
suffocating artificial divisions imposed on them by power
Incredible
things can happen when an idea like equality' erupts into
the real
movement and succeeds in breaking through the conditions that had forced it to
remain occult till then. The mortifying reality of the present does not
necessarily imply a negative outcome. In practice anything could happen, if
some revolutionaries exist before the revolution, most of them are born during
it. The strength of the utopian concept multiplies to infinity at precisely the
moment in which it is proposed, so long as it emerges within the real movement
and is not an ideological plaything within the fictitious one.
The
proposal of equality radically transforms the superficial existence of the
equality of rights.
The
exploited make egalitarian utopia their own from the moment they hoist the
flag, so puffing an end to the existence of that equality of rights that was
nothing other than the basis of their exploitation. The revolutionary idea
ceases to be utopia and transforms itself into events that upturn the social
order far beyond what could have been predicted from an analysis of the
political situation. The power structure has made equality something sacred,
imposed the stigma of a right on it. In this way it has transformed the underground
utopian thrust of centuries deep within the real movement into a further means
of exploitation and recuperation The struggle for rights thus takes the
place of the struggle for real equality.
Only
the concrete use of freedom leads to real equality (in the profound differences
between each one). No freedom can be conceded as a right. Not even the freedom
to demonstrate. And it seems that the French students grasped the utopian
essence of equality at the moment they made utopia the aim of their action,
exposing the swindle that presented their demonstration in the streets as a
demonstration for rights. It remains to be seen whether the real movement will
be able to use this concept, or whether it will succumb to the process of
recuperation in course aimed at putting everything back into the paraphernalia
of rights. If they were to make revolutionary use of egalitarian utopia, this
would become operative immediately in the same way as whoever takes freedom is
not freed, but is free.
Equality
is defiance of today's society, the utopian decision to act differently to what
the general idea imposes. But this concept has been introjected by most people
and become the very foundation of repression and death by uniformity, boredom,
suffocation.
This
concept of equality, which has made faint hearts fear for the sort of the
individual throughout history, represents the most explosive road for
safeguarding the real differences and characteristics of each one, beyond the
social conditions that chain them to the mediocrity of illusory ones. So
equality is the defiance of order that only the real movement can throw in the
face of society.
In
the streets of Paris they are perhaps beginning to see a clearer road for
getting out of the swamp of possibilism. It could be a false alarm, it could be
a sign of an underground tumult, it could even be an operative indication to be
put into practice, now, everywhere. It is up to the sensitivity of individual
comrades to decipher this indication. Men of power have been doing it-to their
exclusive benefit- for a long time.
THE
REFUSAL OF ARMS
The
'refusal" of arms is an implicit element of anti-militarism. But this
concept is taken for granted and is hardly ever gone into in any depth.
Being
precise objects weapons are certainly the fundamental instruments that not only
the army as an organisation (which would not make sense if it were unarmed),
but also the military mentality (which has derived a series of authoritarian
deformations from the use of weapons) is based on.
This
is so. Armies have always been armed, and have created a particular form of
hierarchical organisation with a fixed and rigid level
of command
precisely because the use of weapons is-or at least is believed to be-rigid and
must obey precise rules. The same goes for the mentality. The “armed”
individual feels different, more aggressive, and (apparently) more easily
overcomes the frustrations that everyone has in them, so ends up becoming
overbearing and cowardly at the same time.
But
militarism cannot, even in its own opinion, make an "optimal" use of
weapons. It must insert their possible use within the political and social
context of unstable equilibrium, both nationally and internationally. At the
present time a purely "militaristic" use of arms would be inconceivable.
That leads those who bear weapons, as well as their bosses and the
arms producers, to developing an ideology of defence with which to cover not
only their use but also their production and perfection in the negative sense.
When
anti-militarists limit themselves to simple declarations of principle weapons
remain something symbolic, i.e. they remain the abstract symbols of destruction
and death. On the contrary if
anti-militarism were to go forward concretely and/open up the road to
liberation in the material sense, then it would not he able to limit itself to
a symbolic refusal of arms, but would have to go into the problem more deeply
In
fact weapons, being objects, are considered differently according to the point
of view they are being looked at from. That goes for anything, and weapons are
no exception. This is not a relativist consideration, it is a simple
materialist principle. Arms as inert objects do not exist. What exist are arms
in action, i.e. that are used (or waiting to be used) in a given perspective.
That is so for all things if we think about it. We tend to imagine things cut
off from their historical and material context, as though they were something
abstract. But if that were so they would become meaningless, reduced to the impotence
we would like to reduce them to in the case of arms. in fact things are always
"things in action". Behind the thing there is always the individual,
the individual who acts, plans, uses means to attain ends.
There
is no such thing as an abstract weapon (taken as an isolated object) therefore,
What does exist are weapons that the army uses in its projects for action where
the latter are given a specific investiture as instruments for the
"defence of the homeland", "maintaining order", "the
destruction of the infidels", "the conquest of territory", etc.
The soldier is therefore in possession of a vast outfit of ideologies or value
models, which he acts out when he uses weapons. When he shoots he feels,
according to the circumstances, defender of the homeland, builder of the social
order, destroyer of the infidels, engineer of social territory, etc. The more
his role corresponds to that of the crude executioner the more he is at the
mercy of the fabricators of ideology and capitalist rule and the more the weapons
he bears become blind instruments of oppression and death. Even if he were to
lay them down they would still be objects within a general framework that
qualifies them as instruments of death.
Now,
if the project is different, if the aim of the action is different, the
significance of the weapon changes. As a means it can never be absolved of its
limitations as an object with which it is possible to procure damage and
destruction with a certain ease (which is what distinguishes the object
"weapon" from other objects which, many of them, can also become arms
when necessary). We are not trying to say that the end-liberation, the
revolution, anarchy or whatever other liberatory, egalitarian dream-justifies
the means, but it can transform weapons into different "objects in
action". And this different object in action also comes to be a part of
the anti-militarist struggle, even although it remains to all effects a weapon.
In
a project of liberation, behind the arm lies the desire to free ourselves from
our rulers and make them pay for the damage they are responsible for There is
class hatred, that of the exploited against the exploiters, there is the
concrete material difference of those who continually suffer offence to their
dignity and want to wipe out those responsible.
That
is all radically different to any ideological chatter about order and the
defence of the homeland.
But what
is the imaginary
One
of the new concepts one tends to come up against with increasing frequency is that
of the "social", or "collective", "imaginary". It
is nearly always thrown at you as though it were something that everyone is
aware of and is leading to attitudes and deductions that do not seem to me to
be all that well founded.
Hence
the need to clarify some of the aspects of this "concept" which
presents not a few difficulties.
As
far as we can see the term "social" or "collective"
imaginary is used to refer to the feelings that a socially significant event or
situation gives rise to in society as a whole. But there is also an implicit
reference to the means of communication that realise the passage of such events
from their dimension as circumscribed facts to their spreading in space and
persistence in time as never before. In other words it would seem to be an
unconscious (therefore irrational) mechanism by which members of society
interpret particular events in exactly the same way as the media do, i.e. in
the way desired by the dominant political-cultural structure.
It
is taken for granted that this actually occurs. In fact there can be little doubt that the great mass of people
are taken in by the information, culture, and consequently the ideas elaborated
by power. Nor can there be much doubt that most people react in a way that is
so uniform as to make reliable political forecasts and projects possible even
from quite modest samples. Mass society; thinks and acts in a massified
therefore foreseeable way, far more so than when social cohesion was guaranteed
by vast analphabetism.
So
far so good. Yet much could be said as to how this uniformity could be broken
up to make it become critical and contradictory, confused and desperate, rather
than remain inert and consenting.
In
actual fact quite the opposite happens. And this also goes for the revolutionary
movement, precisely those who should be bringing about, or at least considering
the problem of how to bring about, an operation of deconsecration and rupture.
Instead the 'imaginary'.' has come to be accepted as a possible point of
reference. Something homogeneous that exists and which pressure can be put on.
Something -precisely what, is not clear-that can be put to revolutionary
purposes.
When
this claim is more articulate, something that rarely happens today in times of
great analytical poverty, it is said that the "imaginary" is the sum
of the various levels of class consciousness or, more simply, that it
transforms class differences into sensations and personalised images such as
production, social mobility, the structures society is divided into, etc. So
through this fitter the individual is able to grasp his or her
"position" within the social body and identify with one class as
opposed to another
It
seems to me that we need to consider a number of problems urgently First, the
fact that the concept of "imaginary" (social and collective) comes
"dangerously" close to the concept of "myth". Not that
Sorel scares us, what does is an ill-considered, acritical use of mass
irrational processes, especially when considered in a revolutionary
perspective. Second, it is not in fact true that there is a direct relationship
between the "imaginary"' and class consciousness in general, if for
no other reason than because it is impossible to make a clear separation
between exploiters arid exploited through processes of induced collective
feelings such as those stimulated by the media. Let us take the
“imaginary" of nuclear "fear" for example, as it developed in
the wake of Chernobyl. here a great amorphous fear spread throughout all the
social classes, going beyond "differences" by uniting everyone under
the common denominator of death by radiation. What emerges in any discussion on
this element of the "imaginary" (social or collective) is a
connection not with levels of consciousness but with a collective, irrational
reaction. In other words we are far from the project of the "myth 4f the
general strike" which could only be perceived (but not brought about) by
the proletariat according to Sorel's thesis.
Third,
the consideration that there is such a thing as a reservoir of potential that
is simply waiting to be tapped for any revolutionary project we have in mind,
is certainly negative. That would lead to the belief that the media could be
used to divert such a reservoir (the "imaginary") to the advantage of
the revolutionary movement, whereas in reality it can only be reached, expanded
or modified to the exclusive benefit of the projects of power If we were to
accept that point of view we would tend to choose the kind actions of attack we
think would be most easily understood in an "imaginary" key not
realising that this is managed by power through "its" information.
But
let us look at things from a different point of view, one which is of more
interest to us in my opinion. That the social or collective
"imaginary" be "an organisation of images" is undoubtedly
the case. Otherwise why use this horrible neologism? Whoever uses it must have
in mind not a woolly impenetrable muddle of images but a whole fairly clear
structure, So if we want to use this term we should use it in the sense of
something organised at the level of imagination, something that concerns
symbols, feelings, sensations, images produced by reality (socially significant
facts), then transferred to the collectivity by the classical instrument of the
media.
Now,
if we consider this carefully we see that "an organisation of images"
is what Sorel used to define as "myth". He even uses the same words:
"the myth is an organisation of images".
In
recent years (which could explain the confused immersion of this concept into
the revolutionary movement) there has been not so much a revival of Sorel as of
the concept of the myth, with analyses by Levi Strauss and Barthes, up to
Douglas and Godelier This has happened parallel to the profound changes in the
productive and social structures, new cultural stimuli and the collapse of the
old system of centralism and State planning. As capitalism moves towards
restructuring on the basis of everything being "provisional" in a
reality charged with tension and lack of permanence where all the certainties
of the past are being replaced by probabilistic models, the concept of
"political myth" is taking up its trajectory again in the new guise
of "social" (or collective) "imaginary".
Not
only are we against the acritical use of such a term, we consider it
indispensable to see what the consequences of considering such a concept within
a revolutionary project would be. This is particularly necessary in a situation
of social disintegration such as the present. We need to examine and clan. fly
how the powers of persuasion work, how the irrational (therefore also
imaginary') forces that the profound structural modifications are causing in
society also work, and understand why the new concepts that are taking the
place of the idols of the past are so fascinating and mystifying.
We
are not saying we are for a cold analysis that states things with clarity,
wanting to plant an ideological tree in place of a luxurious spontaneous jungle
of exotic plants. We arc only saying we cannot accept complex and contradictory
concepts as though they were acclaimed usable instruments for our daily
struggle against the State and capital.
Our
main point of reference remains the whole of the exploited, particularly the
part who are about to be thrown out of the work market due to the process of
capitalist restructuring. This whole can undoubtedly be reached through the
flux of the "organisation of images" that power brings about for its
own aims, but this process has not been fully perfected. Contradictions are
opening up in it. People might convince themselves of something but at the same
time they cannot avoid harbouring suspicion and a potential for revolt. This
potential is gradually increasing alongside power's attempts to obtain
consensus and adhesion, as the new' systems of exploitation (ferocious
restructuring and destruction of the old work identity') become clearly
visible. Power cannot prevent such elements from entering the process of
"organisation of images" that it is working to produce. And this is
the place for our intervention.
So
we can only take into account what is wrongly defined as the
"imaginary" in part, using precisely that area of it that power
cannot control, not the whole of the flux of images it manipulates to transmit
to and implant in people. And this part can only be reached by stimuli of
rebellion, by--if you like--the irrational consequences of violent
modifications in the productive structures, themselves indirectly caused by the
flux of information and centralised control.
So
we suggest a critical examination of the concept of "imaginary" in
such a way as to make it possible to individuate elements that are
“accidental" or "uncontrollable" as far as power is concerned.
We believe the revolutionary movement should make reference to these and these
alone, not to some hypothetical collective "imaginary" seen as an
immense reservoir from which it is possible to draw subversive potential.
ARE WE
MODERN?
It
is not just a question of words. There is a common line of thought that sees those
who want to conserve the past as being quite separate from the supporters of a
future that is still to be built. The first are seen as old and stupid, linked
to institutions and structures that have been surpassed in time, the second as
addicted to transformation and innovation. In between, rooted in the past but
with an eye turned to the future, are the so-called reformists and their
desires for hazy half measures.
It
should be said right away that although we are convinced that this division has
seen its day it still persists in our minds, a mental category we cannot free
ourselves from because we do not want to face it. Most of us would never admit
that the “future", i.e modernity, and "revolution"
i.e. violent transformation, could do anything but stand together But is that
really so? A progressive conception of history cannot but say it is. But what
has historicism led to? Without doubt it has built concentration camps. Also
model prisons, but these came later Millions of people have been slaughtered in
the name of the objective spirit which realises itself in History, (therefore
comes about gradually, in modernity, in the future), and all with the best of
intentions.
And
we are nearly all, anarchists included, children of historicism, at least until
proved otherwise. We deduct from this that more or less all of us are for
progress (whoever would admit to anything else?) and believe that either we are
moving towards a final catastrophe or to a profound, radical change in values.
This affair of history as something that is marching to its destiny is
reassuring, even when we see this destiny as a complete holocaust.
This
incapacity to question our cultural origins, in the first place historicism,
then determinism, scientism, eclecticism (a decent analysis of Malatesta's
thought is necessary here), prevents us from seeing our own condition clearly.
We
nearly all believe we are "post" something or other Personally I
think we are in a post-industrial era and have thought so since at least the
end of the 'Seventies, but this no longer conveys much. Industry such as Ford,
Taylor and Marx imagined it has seen its day, and the trades unions and
syndicalist organisations, even those we conceived ourselves, have seen their
day too.
The
management of capitalism at world level depends less and less on a concept of
life based on the accumulation of value. That is to say that if industry in
terms of machinery and skilled labour was the basis of the social
transformation that led to the modern world, the end of industry-now replaced
by electronically controlled diffused production-marks its eclipse.
A new Middle Ages? An absurd question, just as the
answers on all sides have been. It is pointless to attempt to see historical
"remakes". The political pragmatism of daily adjustments is leading
to long term changes in the social whole where new possibilities of dominion
and forms of struggle against oppression are emerging. The acid test of the
class struggle is always reality in all its forms, and these forms, taken
individually, cannot be considered more modem than those that have been
supplanted because they no longer correspond to certain aims. This
philosophical necessity of choice is purely hypothetical. In reality things are
different. Choices from a wide range of variants are possible because the basic
values affecting the judgements that produce these choices exist. Considered
concretely, i.e. as their effect as elements capable of transforming reality,
these values are neither ancient nor modern. The very idea of progress is
antithetical to them and produces incredible confusion.
For
example, is equality an ancient or a modem value? It is impossible to answer
this question. Given that it has never existed in reality, at least in recent
history, one deduces that it must be related to the future. But is the future
modern? We do not know. There are,
however, different ways of believing the realisation (or prevention) of
equality to be possible. Seen in relation to their effectiveness and their
response to social conditions at a given historical moment, these can be
considered to be either ancient or modern. And is the accumulation of value
ancient or modern for capitalism? Given the conditions at the present time one
could say that it is no longer a modern value and that new aims are appearing
on the horizons of those in power Distinction could be one of these values, the
distance between two world concepts: those who control the levers of power (the
included) and those who must simply obey and have been programmed and conditioned
for this (the excluded). Reductive values such as nihilism, neo-formalism,
analphabetism, velocism, supra-nationalism, etc, are also modern values which
reconfirm this final separation between included and excluded. But is it
possible to consider such values in historicist terms, as being more advanced
than those of the past? I really don't think so.
We
have often asked ourselves whether it is absolutely necessary to destroy
technology; or whether we should guarantee its safe revolutionary passage to a
possible future "good" use. Then we realised that the technology of
computers and universal control could never be useful to a Society that starts
off from the real liberation of all as opposed to that of a privileged
minority. Hence destruction as a necessary fact, a value. Modern? We do not
know. There have also been moments of destruction that seemed reactionary in
the past (there are still some who speak of the Vendee as something negative,
but do so due to their personal historical ignorance), which since have been
re-examined more closely. The peasants' insurrections burned castles. Were they
modern? We do not care a bit. Is a struggle today against neo-machinery modern?
It is for us because we are trying, not without difficulty, to see things from
a point of view that is not totally historicist. Think of the arguments about
nuclear power. Ourselves against the bosses who turn out to be-some of them-in
favour of it. But on each side of the clash, hallucinations of the Apocalypse.
Undoubtedly an effect of historicist culture on both sides. So at a point it is
easy for the bosses to reject nuclear energy' and transfer their interests and
projects elsewhere.
The
same thing goes for atomic war and the atmosphere of millenarian catastrophe we
breathe all around us today The end of a millennium is fast approaching and the
circle will present itself again, always the same and always different. The
rapid destruction of world resources carried out by the plunderers in power is
an inescapable fact. This will either be brought to an end, or it will be
transformed when the included of tomorrow build one world suited to their own
needs and another for the needs of others. In other words, even the present
battle against the wastage of natural resources could become an industry in the
future, the foundation of the exploitation of tomorrow. That it is why we
propose an immediate systematic attack on all the forms of capitalist
expression, both the backward ones still linked to rapid and irrational
exploitation and the more advanced ones linked to the electronic control of the
planet. In a not too distant future they will shake hands, crushing us in the
middle.
In
order to do this we must have the courage to look backwards as well as
forwards. Backwards to seek certain values that are no longer considered
"modern". In this research we could single out a few elements that
relate to human action: constancy, courage, respect for one's fellows (human or
animal), being harsh with oneself frugality, a correct consideration of the
environment. But others too that are only apparently in contrast: play, love,
fantasy, joy, tenderness, dreams.
In
order to make these things our own, critically, not as dogmas imposed by a
globalising concept of the world, we must move towards a radical contrast with
the present social situation as a whole. We do not accept compromise. We are
not points of reference to be taken for granted. We are not supplying a formula
for numerical growth.
Now,
this position seems to strongly contradict some of the essential points of
historicism. Not only does it go against the idea of the Spirit that realises
itself in history, it eliminates any privileged point of reference, even, let's
be clear about this, Anarchy. To be against power, the State, class domination and
all forms of exploitation is all very well. But to oppose all that with an
ideological, dogmatic juxtaposition instead of action, no, absolutely not. If
we must reduce anarchy to this in the name of our great ideal, [do not agree.
Anyone who enjoys this weekend pastime may do as they please, we will certainly
not be the ones who prevent them from walking. But they should not complain if
we start running while they are still claiming their rights as free afternoon
ramblers. We have never wanted to know anything of these rights.
And
we contradict historicism, or so it seems, with our craving desire for action.
We cannot simply wait for things to come to an end in our absence. We want to
be in the game. We want to contribute to transformation in the direction we
believe is right, now, not in the sense of a dogma that has been fixed forever
in time. We cannot wait so are acting here and now, recognising no point of
reference on which to pin our hopes and expectations. Nor do we recognise the
existence of some 'objective spirit" or lay god that might be working for
our liberation. In the deep of the night where all values tend to be zeroised,
if anything tights them up we want it to be the light of our explosions.
THE
PRIORITY OF PRACTICE
When
we look at the actions of others we tend to see in them a priority given either
to practice or to theoretical reflection.
Neither
of these satisfies us.
When
we observe others we often ask ourselves why they tend one way or the other on
the scales of an ideal equilibrium that clearly only exists in our dreams.
Is
this due to specific interests? Ideological preclusion? Narrow-mindedness?
Intellectual poverty, or simply stupidity? There is no lack of choice. And
usually, often without realising it, we make precisely the judgement that
happens to be the most convenient to us, either to take a distance from a
practice we do not want to have anything to do with, or so as not to get
involved in theoretical positions we do not share.
But
human beings act within a whole flux of relations where it is not always
possible, and never easy, to see clearly where practice ends and theoretical
considerations begin. When this impossibility is taken to the extreme limit,
theory and practice become one. This is only possible for the sake of argument.
Abstract elements are isolated, i.e. taken from a wider context, and the more
obvious components emerge. This problem does not only concern theory, it also
concerns practice. In other words, by acting in this way we are able to make
not only theoretical but also practical 'abstractions" We thereby deduce
that there is no absolute correlation between "abstractness" and
theory, at least in the way that those in favour of practice would have us
believe.
From
the moment in which an individual finds himself in a personal and social
situation, i.e., from birth and even beyond physical death, they begin working
out a theoretical elaboration for all their actions, even the most seemingly
blind and conditioned of them. This is constantly present putting order within
certain limits, into that acting no matter how spontaneous it might appear to
be. So theory is part of the experience of life itself, in the way others bring
themselves to our attention inaction, joy feelings, disappointments or in the
ideas we allow to penetrate us through reading, studying, looking, talking,
listening, but also from transforming, working, destroying.
There
is riot one "place" for theory and another for practice therefore,
except in an abstract consideration suspended like a ghost outside the world.
The fact that this ghost turns out to be anything but outside this world but
acts and produces effects inside it merely confirms what we have just said. In
other words there are relations of reciprocal exchange between these two moments
of human experience which arc themselves part of a general flux, not separate
objects in space. We can make a clearer distinction when we speak of how
someone who acts tries to set about their action in respect to others. Again it
is only possible to identify an "orientation' up to a point, certainly not
a constant relationship of cause and effect. This orientation gives us an
indication of the actor's intentions and the condition of who is at the
receiving end of the action, all within the vast flux of relations that cannot
be isolated in reality, merely singled out for the love of clarity Whoever acts
in any one of a hundred, a thousand, ways makes their intentions known
concerning the aim of their action. At the margins these intentions melt into a
fluid context, but in their nucleus, during the most significant moments of the
event or events that solidify them as intentions, there is considerable
orientation indicating the choice of means, clarifying the objective,
transforming relations, and all this does not leave reality as a whole
unchanged. Here the leaning can be practical or theoretical, according to the
actor's intentions. If on the other hand the prevalence is accidental, comes
about by mistake whereas the intention had been quite different the relation
between orientation and objective is reversed. The action takes place with the
consequent transformation of individual and collective relations as a whole.
But the greater the number of elements of disturbance capable of acting on and
reversing the results, the further it will be from the original intention.
Criticism,
if one really intends to do something and not just give oneself an ideological
cover up, must grasp these discrepancies between intention and objective, aims
and action. Criticism that degenerates into simple statements such as those
describing the forms taken by the intention/objective relationship is
pointless.
To
say that a given position gives priority to "practice" or that
another privileges theory is senseless. It is necessary to see in depth how the
action in question can be reached (or at least got a glimpse of) through its orientation.
And this cannot start from a positive or negative consideration of practice or
theory. Worse still, it cannot come from a judgement that gives complete
preference to either theory or practice concerning the subject under
discussion.
All
critical analysis should therefore examine the orientation, its adequacy
concerning the objective, and this cannot end up with a value judgement. We
shall try to be more clear "Inadequate" interventions take place for
various reasons, not all of which are the "fault” of whoever is directing
the orientation. From personal incapacity to inadequate decisions (but who
establishes how and what-qualitative or quantitative should be done?) the arc
is extremely wide. Basically, adequacy should be looked for on the basis of the
whole orientation proposed, that is to say it should be ascertained whether
there are contradictions within the orientation itself rather than contrasts
between proposal and objective. The roads to accomplishing an aim are not
always easily grasped, at least not right at the beginning, and it is easy to
be led astray by one's convictions and conditioning. Instead, and this is the
point, some research on contradictions is important.
Can
a reasonable person say then unsay something? Our culture says no, absolutely
not. We are the offspring of western rationalism and do not admit contradiction
in our orientations. The fact remains that the latter exist, and the results of
their unrecognised presence are, unfortunately; always very bitten Analyses
should move in this direction, not cry scandal (when some speak then contradict
themselves), but show how and with what consequences the contradictions revealed
produce greater or lesser possibilities of reaching the objective chosen,
Because that is the way things are, the road of action is not always straight.
And
the most relevant contradictions, those that make people cry out right away
about the inadequacy of the direction when not-and here the cry would
definitely be gratuitous-about privileging theory as opposed to practice or
vice versa, are precisely those who are unable to make up their minds about the
effects of the theory-practice relationship, claiming to separate the
inseparable.
To
conclude this now long precision, Jet us say that the real problem is not so
much that of tracing a uniform way of acting towards an objective as of
grasping the orientation in its entirety, seeing the totality of theory and
practice as direct action and the transformation of reality as a whole. it is
here that the value of what we do lies, not ~ so-called claims to purity or
coherence at all costs, not enclosing everything in a region where the air is
so pure one cannot allow any contrast or contradiction.
There
is no such thing as a dichotomy between those who elaborate theory and those
who act, but between those (both in the realms of practice and theory, as their
apparent orientation might be, at least according to them) who want to
contribute to transforming things from their actual "normal" state to
one which is radically different, and those who do not. There are servants of
power who feel good in their uniforms and people who want to free themselves,
and for this reason have decided to struggle.
THE ARMED
WING OF SCIENCE
There
is a precise relationship between the means at our disposal and our capacity to
self-manage and defend ourselves against alt forms of power and exploitation.
The more the means are effective and sophisticated, the easier it is for them
to tall into the hands of a minority who use them for their own projects to
control the rest of us. It derives from this that developments in technology
the "armed wing" of science-are leading to a perfection in dominion
that runs parallel to the few minimal improvements in general living
conditions.
I
do not know if the present level of scientific (and consequently technological)
development should make us fear catastrophe is imminent. I do not give much
credit to catastrophe theories personally, in fact I believe they could be
designed to scare people. Nevertheless I am certain that not only is it no
longer possible to control technological development because of the incredible
speed at which it is developing new means and perfecting new instruments, but
also that the rulers themselves are no longer able to co-ordinate them in a
rationally planned project. Not only would it be impossible to put much of what
is being produced to any good use, most of it is no more than a reproduction of
conditions that cannot be brought to a halt, at least in the present political
and social situation.
Over
the next few years each single technological innovation could give rise to an
exponential growth of unknown dimensions, both in terms of their effects and
application. This will lead to an "explosion" not in the specific
atomic, genetic or electronic sense so much as an uncontrollable spreading of
even more technological developments.
Many
comrades see technology' in terms of the friendly computer the super fridge,
the old TV set that allowed us a few pleasant evenings (disturbed at times by
criticism circulated by over biased theorisers), so a condemnation of technology
as a whole shakes them. On the contrary, we believe that the danger lies not in
specific technological choices but in the speed-now crazily out of control-at
which they are being applied. This has led to a widening of the distance that
has always existed between "knowledge" and technical means". We
now find ourselves before an unbridgeable gap. Not so much in terms of
"controlling" the means, understanding them and using them within the
limits and awareness of the risks that any "prothesis" implies. We
are convinced that this distance has grown, not just concerning the exploited
class who have been led far from any possibility to take over the available technology
by force, but also as regards the dominant class, the so-called included with
their highly specialised technicians and scientists.
This
disturbing thought can be illustrated by looking at some of the experiments
carried out by the "apprentice sorcerers" in the past. Certainly with
fewer means at their disposition, but presenting just as many dangers which
were faced with the same superficiality. The exploitation of the planet's
resources, atomic energy, the division of the world into areas of influence
with projects of genocide concerning the most economically backward
populations, capitalist accumulation, the cynical arms market and many other such
nice activities are but a few of the consequences. And these are all quite
rudimental if we consider the risks that an uncontrolled acceleration in
technological experimentation could give rise to today.
We
do not know what consequences the genetic changes in the animal and Vegetable
selection presently being experimented will lead to. What scares us most is
that we do not know what the results of an advance in the technological
application of this research will make possible in the near future. The first
fear would still hold even if technology; were to put a brake on itself and
science were to stop "thinking". That being impossible, the second is
more than well founded.
All
this constitutes a real danger, one that technology as the armed wing of science
is no longer able to put a halt to, making us risk more and more as each year
goes by.
How
are the social and political (therefore also political and moral) structures
responding to this situation? With pitiful calls to scientists to act with
prudence and a sense of responsibility, to politicians for more control, along
with vague denunciations of the dangers of this or that branch of research. As
though there were such a thing as good and bad technology, and as though the
whole of science (including its armed wing) were not involved in a process of
development that will require something far more complex than the bleating of
reformist politicians or proposals for an ecological orientation to put a stop
to.
Behind
science stands international capital, behind each individual scientist (but how
many of them arc there now, certainly no more than a couple of dozen in the
world, for the rest it is a question of highly specialised workers) there are
massive State investments, military projects for control and economic projects
for capitalist accumulation. And above all there is technological development.
That
is why we are against the whole of technology and do not agree that it can be
divided in two, one part to be rejected (where to?) and the other accepted. Our
road is quite a simple one. It does not stumble over a thousand obstacles like
that of the possibilists, in fact it is the only one practicable in the present
situation. The propulsive outlet must be revolution. A profound upheaval of
social, political, cultural and moral relations. These are the only conditions
under which it will be possible to put an end to the exponential processes of
technology' with all their consequences.
We
all know, and there is no need to constantly be reminded of it, that this revolutionary
outlet seems far off today. But we must not forget that it is precisely the
perverse mechanism of the productive structure itself that we must take as our
point of reference, as our subterranean ally. On one side, the side of the
exploited, we have the determination and will of a few revolutionaries capable
of continually working within the various contradictions caused by the
production process as a whole. On the other the perversity of the technological
process along with the obtusity of the managerial class and their incapacity to
control the means at their disposal. A new model of class division is emerging,
a different way of conceiving the struggle and involvement in the clash.
We
are convinced that today's technology will never be of any valid use. Not
because we are luddites. Or if we are it is certainly in ways and with aims
that are quite different to those of the last century. The fact is that
technology today unequivocably constitutes a whole that is moving unchecked
towards a most perverse accumulation. The struggle against technology is
therefore a revolutionary struggle in itself even though we know perfectly well
that in. an acute phase it will not be possible to reach its abolition
completely. But objective conditions will have changed, and the field that this
technology finds itself operating in will be different. For the same reason we
find those who accuse us of using the technology we hasten to condemn
ridiculous. It is certainly not by carrying out crusades against the peripheral
products of technological capitalism that we will be able to face the class
struggle and the new (vertiginously new) conditions of the clash. To simply
refuse this technology would lead to sclerotisation, a sacralisation of fear,
creating myths where we would end up playing into the hands of all those who
have an interest in increasing fragmentation and endless circumscribed sectors.
The
same goes for science, the ideas of science, not the people who set themselves
up as scientists to better qualify their role as the servants of power We are
not against "thought' of course, what we are against is
"specialisation". No matter what area it comes from it is always the
harbinger of new power systems, new forms of exploitation. Thought is free
activity and it will certainty not be we anarchists to propose its limitation.
But we are not so stupid as to request "self-limitation" by those who
draw huge profits from thinking as well as the benefits of status and a careen
The first prospect would be authoritarian and liberticide, the second simply
stupid.
Those
who make thought an element of privilege in order to ensure the continuation of
power today will unfortunately continue to act in order to maintain the
underlying conditions that make such forms of thought possible. In the meantime
some of them could be brought to face the weight of their responsibility, but
that would be a question of marginal deeds that cannot clean out the sewer
completely.
THE MORAL
SPLIT
In
order for an action to be carried out it is not enough for it simply to be
considered "right". Other elements intervene, such as the underlying
moral judgement, which have nothing to do with whether the action is valid or
not. This becomes obvious when you see the difficulty many comrades have in carrying
out actions which in themselves are in no way exceptional.
A
moral obstacle appears, leading to a real ethical "split" with
unpredictable consequences. For example, we have been pointing out the
uselessness of huge peaceful demonstrations for some time now instead we
propose mass demonstrations that are organised instructionally, supported by
small actions against the capitalist structures responsible for the present
situation of exploitation and genocide all over the world.
We think
it could be useful to reflect for a moment on the different attitudes that
exist concerning such actions, beyond any question of method or political
choice.
No
mailer how much we go into things theoretically spooks remain inside all of us.
One of these is other people's property. Others are people's lives, God, good
manners, sex, tolerating other people's opinions, etc. Sticking to the subject:
we are all against private property, but as soon as we reach out to attack it,
an alarm bell rings inside us. Centuries of moral conditioning set into motion
without our realising it, with two results. On the one hand there is the thrill
of the forbidden-which leads many comrades to carry out senseless little thefts
that often go beyond immediate and unavoidable needs -and on the other the
unease of behaving immorally” Putting
the "thrill" aside, which I am not interested in and which I
willingly leave to those who like to amuse themselves with such things, I want
to take a look at the unease
The
fact is, we have all been reduced to the animal state of the herd. The morals
we share (all of us, even those who in theory do not) are
"altruistic". That is, respectable egalitarian and levelling. The
territories of this morality have yet to be explored. How many comrades who
superbly declare they have visited them would recoil at the sight of their own
sister's breast? Certainly not a few.
And
even when we justify our attack on private property' to ourselves' and to the
tribunal of history-by maintaining that it is right that the expropriators be
expropriated, we are still prisoners of a kind of slavery, moral slavery to be
exact. We are confirming the eternal validity of the bosses of the past,
leaving the future to judge whether those into whose hands we have consigned
what has been taken from us personally be considered expropriators or not.
So,
from one justification to another; we end up building a church, almost without
realising it, I say "almost' because basically we are aware of it but it
scares us.
To
take property from others has a social significance. It constitutes rebellion
and, precisely because of this, property owners must be part of the
property-owning class, not simply people who possess something. We are not
aesthetes of nihilist action who see no difference between taking from the
former and pinching money from the beggar's plate.
The
act of expropriation means something precisely in its present class context,
not because of the "incorrect" way that those we intend to
expropriate have acted in the past. If that were our only point of reference
then the capitalist who pays union wages and "looks after" his
workers, sells at reasonable prices, etc, would be excluded from the legitimacy
of expropriation. Why should we concern ourselves with such questions?
The
same thing happens when we talk about "destructive" actions. Many
comrades know no peace. Why these actions? What is gained by them? What is the
point of them? They are of no benefit to us and are only damaging to others.
By
attacking, for the sake of argument, a firm that supplies arms to South Africa
or which finances the racist regime in Israel, one which projects nuclear power
stations or makes electronic devices with which to "improve"
traditional arms, the accent is put not so much on the latter's specific responsibility,
as on their belonging to the class of exploiters. Specific responsibility only
concerns the strategic and political choice. The sole element for reaching the
ethical decision is the class one. Realising this enables us to reach a certain
clarity on the matter The moral foundation for any action is the difference
between classes, the belonging to one of the two components of society that are
irreducibly opposed and whose only solution is the destruction of one or the
other.
The
political and strategic foundations on the other hand require a series of
considerations that can be quite contradictory. All the objections listed above
concern this last aspect and have nothing to do with the underlying moral
justification.
But,
without our realising it, it is in the field of moral decision that many of us
come up against obstacles. The basically peaceful (or almost
peaceful)
marches, no matter how demonstrative of our intentions "against",
were quite different. Even the violent clashes with the police were quite
different. There was an intermediate reality between ourselves and the
"enemy", something that protected our moral alibi. We felt sure of
being in the "right" even when we adopted positions (still in the
area of democratic dissent) that were not shared by the majority of the
demonstrators. Even when we smashed a few windows things remained in such a way
that this could be accommodated.
Things
are different when we act on our own or with other comrades who could never
give us a psychological "cover" such as that which we so easily get
from within the "mass". It is now individuals who decide to attack
the institution. We have no mediators. We have no alibi. We have no excuse. We
either attack or retreat. We either accept the class logic of the clash as an
irreducible counter-position or move backwards towards negotiation and verbal
and moral deception.
If
we reach out and attack property--or something else, but always in the hands of
the class enemy--we must accept full responsibility for our deed, without
seeking justification in the presumed collective level of the situation. We
cannot put off moral judgement concerning the need to attack and strike the
enemy until we have consulted those who, all together, determine the
"collective situation”. I shall explain better I am not against the work
of mass counter-information or the intermediate struggles that are also
necessary in a situation of exploitation and misery. What I am against is the
symbolic (exclusively symbolic) course these struggles take. They should be
aimed at obtaining results, even limited ones, but results that are immediate
and tangible, always with the premise that the instructional method the refusal
to delegate the struggle, autonomy, permanent conflictuality and self-managed
base structures be used.
What
I do not agree with is that one should stop there, or even before that point as
some would have it, at the level of simple counter-information and
denunciation, moreover decided by the deadlines provided by repression.
It
is possible, no, necessary, to do something else, and that something needs to
be done now in the present phase of violent, accelerated restructuring. It
seems to me that this can be done by a direct attack on small objectives which
indicate the class enemy, objectives that are quite visible in the social
territory, or if they are not the work of counter-information can make them so
with very little effort.
I
do not think any anarchist comrade can be against this practice, at least on
principle. There could be (and are) those who say they are against such a
practice due to the fact that they see no constructive mass perspective in the
present political and social situation, and I can understand this. But these
actions should not be condemned on principle. The fact is that those who take a
distance from them are far fewer than those who support them but do not put
them into practice. How is that? I think this can be explained precisely by
this "moral split" which a going beyond the threshold of the
"rights” of others causes in comrades like myself and so many others,
educated to say "thank you" and "sorry" on the slightest
occasion
We
often talk about liberating our instincts, and-to tell the truth without having
any very clear ideas on the subject-we also talk about "living our own
lives" (complex question that deserves going into elsewhere). We talk of
refusing the ideals transmitted from the bourgeoisie in their moment of
victory, or at least the bogus way in which such ideals have been imposed on us
through current morals. Basically what we are talking about is the real
satisfaction of our needs, which are not just the so-called primary ones of
physical survival. Well, I believe words are not enough for such a beautiful
project. When it stayed firmly within the old concept of class struggle based
on the desire to "re-appropriate" what had unjustly been taken from
us (the product of our labour), we were able to "talk" (even if we
didn't get very far) of needs, equality, communism and even anarchy. Today, now
that this phase of simple reappropriation has been changed by capital itself we
cannot have recourse to the same words and concepts. The time for words is
slowly coming to an end. And we realise more each day that we are tragically
behind, closed within a ghetto arguing about things that are no longer of any
real revolutionary' interest, while people are rapidly moving towards other
meanings and perspectives as Power slyly and effectively urges them on. The
great work of freeing the new man from ethics, this great weight built in the
laboratories of capital and smuggled into the ranks of the exploited, has
practically never begun.
We
come up against weakness everywhere today. We are weak, or act as though we are
for fear of seeming different.
It
is no longer fashionable to be self-assured or to have knowledge of oneself or
others or things. It seems old fashioned, almost bad taste. We no longer make
any effort to do things well, and by that I mean the things we have chosen to
do, that we believe wt would do at any cost. Contrary to logic itself, we do
them badly, superficially, without paying any attention to detail. We do not
exactly boast about this weakness of course, but use it as a kind of screen to
hide behind.
So
we have become slaves to this new rapidly spreading myth. What we want to do
here is not talk about "strength"-which has never been anything but a
disguised form of weakness-but rather attempt to bring this situation to light.
it is a question of a flattening of values and a distortion of the instruments
we need to acquire in order to live and to attack our enemies. The prevailing
model today is that of the loser; renunciation, abandoning the struggle or
simply slowing down. The power structure has every interest in seeing that this
disposition continues. We hardly think at all and reason inadequately,
passively submitting to the messages put out by the various information
channels. We do not react.
We
are building a personality that is halfway between the idiot and the stamp
collector. We understand little, yet know a lot: a multitude of useless
dispersive things, pocket encyclopaedia knowledge.
We
are convinced that we have a right to be stupid and ignorant, to be losers.
We
have sent efficiency back to the adversary, considered an efficientist model
that belongs to the logic of power. And
that was right, indispensable once. When it was a question of damaging the
class enemy, it was right to be absentecists and against work. But now we have
introjected this attitude and it is our adversary who is winning the return
game. We have given up, even in regard to ourselves and the things we really
want to do.
And
so we have turned to the butterfly catching of oriental philosophy, alternative
products and ways of thinking, models that are of little use and which lack
incisiveness. Instead of waiting for our teeth to fall out, we are pulling them
out one by one. We are now happy and toothless.
The
laboratories of power are programming a new model of renunciation for us. Only
for us of course. For the winning minority, the included", the model is
still aggressiveness and conquest. We are no longer the sanguinary, violent barbarians
who once let loose in insurrections and uncontrollable revolts. We have become
philosophers of nothing, sceptical about action, blasé and dandy. We have not
even noticed that they are shrinking our language and our brains. We are hardly
able to write any longer, something important in order to communicate with
others. We are hardly able to talk any longer We express ourselves in a stunted
jargon made up of banalities from television and sport, a barrack-style
journalism that apparently facilitates communication whereas in reality it
debases and castrates it.
But
worse still, we are hardly able to make an effort to do anything any longer. We
do not Commit ourselves. Few deadlines, a few things to be done, not much
reading. A meeting, an action here and there and we are prostrated, done in. On
the other hand we spend hours listening to (without understanding) music that
is devoid of content, songs in languages we do not understand, noises that
imitate the factory; racing cars or motorbikes. Even when we lose ourselves in
the contemplation of nature (what little remains of it) we do not really go for
a walk, but it is the walk that enters us. We accept the banality, the
ecological and naturalist models that capitalism (in its new alternative
version, of course, even worse than what went before it) is coming out with.
But we have no experience of any real relationship with nature, one that
requires engagement and strength, aggression and struggle, not simple
contemplation.
And
don't talk to me about the aggressive behaviour of the capitalists in contrast
to which we should be developing tolerant behaviour. I know perfectly well what
the aggressiveness of capital signifies, or that of the participants in the
Paris-Dakar race. That is not what I am talking about. In fact I do not mean
aggressiveness at all. Words can be deceiving. What I mean is that it is
necessary to act instead of idling one's time away while the boat goes up in
flames.
Either
we are convinced that far-reaching changes are taking place or we are not.
Capitalism and power are undergoing a transformation that will upset the
present state of our lives for goodness knows how many decades. If we are not
profoundly convinced of this then we might as well carry on chasing the
butterflies of our dreams, the myths of buddhism, homeopathic medicine, Zen
philosophy, escapist literature, sport or whatever else we fancy, including a pleasant
distancing ourselves from grammar and language.
But
if we are convinced of the first hypothesis, if we are convinced there is a
project in course bent on reducing us to slaves, principally to a cultural
slavery that is depriving us of even the possibility of seeing our chains, then
we can no longer put up with tolerance or the tendency to give up or abandon
the struggle. And it should not be thought that what we are saying here is only
valid for comrades who have already put revolutionary engagement behind them
and are now quite tranquilly grazing among the greens, the oranges, the
buddhists or other such herds. We are also referring to those who maintain they
are still revolutionaries but are living the tragedy of progressive physical
and mental pollution day by day.
This
is not a simple call to action. The graveyards are full of such calls. We are
talking about a project that has been studied in the laboratories of capitalism
and is now being applied to perfection. It is aimed at gradually and painlessly
turning us away from our capacity to struggle. This project is moving hand in
hand with the profound restructuring of capital. Ours is not a call to
voluntarism, or if you like a cry in the wilderness. We hope it will be, even
if limited and approximate, a small contribution to an understanding of the
profound changes that are taking place in the world around us.
Printed and published by
Elephant Editions
B.M. Elephant
London WC 1N 3 XX