Article from Infoshop.Org.
he dramatic armed actions of groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire continue to attract international attention and reflect political positions with a certain degree of influence among rebellious proletarians. Positions which are to say the least highly problematic.
The dramatic armed actions of groups like the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI) and the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire continue to attract international attention and reflect political positions with a certain degree of influence among rebellious proletarians. Positions which are to say the least highly problematic.
More often then not the questionable nature of the theory and practice of “nihilist” and “individualist” insurrectionaries is obscured by criticism of their activity from legalistic opponents of all minority partisan action regardless of its targets or political content.
However the problem with these groups is not the terrain of struggle upon which they operate (an unavoidable part of the broader class confrontation), but the perspectives they articulate.
Misanthropy, militaristic elitism, callous contempt for the victim and a lack of interest in any kind of program of social transformation or political action beyond the immediate egotistical gratification to be gained from violence combine into a gleefully hopeless outlook with nothing to offer but the doomed antics of suicidal heroes.
What else are we to make of statements like these:
“We never did fit in the narrow limits of an orthodox social struggle that speaks almost exclusively the language of economic analyses and the front of class struggle, flamboyantly ignoring the individual responsibility of the subjects of authority. We are hostile so much to the hand that holds the whip, as well as to the backs that accept it passively on them.”.
The armed struggle is not conceived as one level of a wider strategic process of revolutionary construction and class recomposition but as a sort of ultimate “life style choice” to be carried out for its own sake and as a proof of the “spiritual superiority” of its practitioners over the drab gray mass which has to go to work in the morning.
Such an ideology is among other things, primarily one for the young, childless and athletic.
All those subject to capital are not viewed as potential comrades in a collective struggle for emancipation but as so much rubbish who bear on their conscience the guilt of acquiescence to overwhelming violence in the hope of surviving and in the absence of any other realistic perspective.
The “economistic” demands of the mass which tends to be roused to action by intensifying degradation of its material living conditions more then by the exhortations of Futurist poets also come in for sneering scorn.
And after all it seems these romantic rebels have no interest in anything as boring as a program of social transformation which would provide for the subsistence, dignity and comfort of the majority.
The future they look forward to is one of the self-isolating rebellion of the strong and the elite against the “decedent” democratic mob. The glamor and adrenaline of a life in the underground is the medicine they proscribe themselves for the boredom and mediocrity of commoditized life. And like all drugs sooner or later the addict sobers up and finds their social circumstances unchanged.
We have no objection to the use of all means and forms of struggle in the class war for communism, but elitist rhetoric which hearkens back to the grand reactionary and misogynistic tradition of Nietzsche and Marinetti leaves us unmoved and a little ill.
The social revolution will not be made by the “lofty passions” of a handful of heroic individuals but by the throughly mundane needs of countless anonymous millions.