Considerations on Action and Anarchy

Two comrades are still being held captive with the charge of having deprived an Ansaldo manager of the pleasure of walking (at least for a while). This person has made weapon production and trade the reason of his life.

Without dwelling on the dynamic guilty-not guilty we are on the side of the comrades and give them all our solidarity.

To those who pulled the trigger – an action that may or may not be ‘functional to insurrection’ – we want to say that their action didn’t harm us, quite the opposite!

Many were very much pleased on the day of May 7!

One can only consider this action abhorrent if one thinks through the filter created by decades of propaganda regime on revolutionary violence, a task that the State fulfilled in an excellent manner if we consider how coldly the “anarchist galaxy” expressed solidarity to the arrested comrades.

Therefore, if we want to act as revolutionaries it is high time we broke these sediments of power ideology, shed away the instilled fear and repulsion for the use of violence and started reasoning lucidly by taking revolutionary perspectives into account.

In fact, here we are talking about an act of revolutionary violence. We couldn’t define otherwise an act carried out as an attack on power regardless of the opinions one might have on it or the results it produced. And this is precisely an attack on power at least in its actual consequences (let’s not forget that its target is a person directly responsible for wars and massacres).

We have no intention to comment on individual positions regarding this specific action of armed struggle. Each keeps their ideas and considerations as concerns the validity, opportunity and ethics involved in this action.

However, regardless of what one might think of this specific action, the use of weapons is certainly to be taken into account in an insurrectional struggle made of different practices, which complement one another. There can never be an insurrection made only of weapons; nor can there be one made without a shot being fired.

On the other hand we believe that symbiosis of the different practices of action is the only way to compound real revolutionary efficiency (which cannot occur if a unique instrument of attack is the only one taken into consideration) with indispensable individual and collective development.

It is right that each individual and/or affinity group carry out their struggle in the way they think the most appropriate for the destruction of the existent and for the construction of a free society. But for the struggle to have insurrectional outcomes it is necessary that it is backed and supported by other comrades’ practices, which may be different as for the methods but which have the same revolutionary goals.

This is what we mean when we say projectuality, which is indispensable to the struggle, different for each individual and in constant development, and which is also opposed to absolute projectualities, i.e. to general plans of action applied to all situations, in all places and at all times.

After all, the greatest and most fascinating aspect of anarchy is that of refusing all dogmas and parties.

It would be vilifying if anarchists considered themselves in the way the State describes them, i.e. as a unique and undiversified body where differences of thought and action represent a problem for the ‘general functioning of the whole’, a cancer to be eradicated and stigmatized.

Luckily in this case and in many others someone has refused this concept and has chosen the path to insurrection with love and anger, a path made of actions as well as active solidarity with the comrades hit by repression.

The same solidarity that makes us feel so close to Nicola and Alfredo and turns every day they spend in jail into a contribution to insurrection, more than one can ever think.

Free soon, even closer to the destruction of the existent!

Anarchist individualities from Lucca