Empty places

Dear Friends,   

I’ve been inspired by letters circulated recently by Ill Will Editions, which have offered a helpful window for thinking through the current global pandemic. Reading them, it struck me that several have circled around something like a disjunction or asymmetry between two distinct yet overlapping lines of thought: on one hand, there is the understandable fear that the forms of social control presently implemented will be sustained beyond the pandemic (not unlike they were after 9-11), a concern that directs our attention to state power; on the other hand, there is the disruptive force of the virus itself, like a  non-human agency conducting itself across us, and operating beneath and beyond the waves of governmental and economic measures by means of which the elites in the political class scramble to maintain an increasingly tenuous veneer control and authority. Orion addressed the latter in his letter when he described the virus as a power that has “constructed its own temporality, which immobilizes everything,” a power “capable of extending beyond what the insurrections proved incapable of doing, and actually shutting down the economy.” Two types of agency, two asymmetrical lines of force—how are we to parse their peculiar overlap in this moment, those of us who have never been friends of their ‘normal time’? 

I write to you now from Chile, a place that has been in a state of unrest since October of last year. As it happens, the pandemic’s arrival within the context of an unfolding insurrection provides a moment to  reflect on the modalities of crisis politics and control in the current moment.

Our situation might appear quite the same as anywhere else these days: the Chilean government followed the example of governments around the globe, declaring a national emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In point of fact, this most recent state of exception is the third that the government has declared in the past decade, since it follows not only the uprising this past October, but also the catastrophic earthquake of 2010. In each of these cases, the maintenance of public order was handed over to the military, which did not hesitate to implement nightly curfews and military checkpoints  restricting and surveying movement. 

Have we shifted from one form of upheaval to another? If so, the relevant distinction would not be between normal and exceptional states, between the rule of law and emergency measures, but rather, in this shift, who is in control over the territory, and how are we inhabiting it? Under what conditions can this question no longer be answered? If it is possible to assess continuity and divergence in our present moment in Chile, one can do so only by looking at the experience of, and contestation over, collectively inhabited territory.  I’d like to share with you a few examples of such experiences, through several portraits of everyday life that capture the myriad of ways people and institutions have responded to the COVID pandemic amidst contestations over territory. 

Variable enforcement 

On March 15th, 2019, in a televised, national press conference, the Chilean Board of Medicine (colegio de médicos) criticized the current Ministry of Health for improperly implementing its protocols. Since the government was failing to control the outbreak that started in Santiago, they asked everyone in the city to begin a full 14-day quarantine: no work, no school, no leaving the house. Many in the city followed this quarantine—bars and nightclubs owners closed their businesses in the name of social responsibility, and mall employees staged walk-outs and went on strike until the city closed the shopping malls.

It wasn’t until March 20th that the Chilean government finally implemented quarantine measures in Santiago, including full quarantine in territories with high rates of COVID-19, such as the rich neighborhoods of Santiago and the city’s downtown. Those who live inside the quarantine zone must now fill out a form on the police department’s website and download a “temporary pass” before leaving their house. On the form, we must select an option from the list of permitted reasons to travel from our homes, and declare where we are going. We can request a 4 hour pass 2 times a week for basic necessities, a 12-hour pass to go to a doctor’s appointment, and a 30-minute pass to walk their dog. Essential workers can request a salvoconducto, a permit to travel during military curfew or cross military checkpoint. At the beginning of the quarantine, police stations had lines around the block, with people waiting to apply for a salvoconducto.

Along the border of Santiago’s quarantine zones, only a dozen or so military checkpoints exist. We quickly realized we could walk past the handful of guards stationed there. Furthermore, city buses appear to be affected by these quarantine measures. In effect, those who opt to remain at home in the quarantine zone often do so because they are complying with the medical board’s recommendation, rather than the official quarantine measures.

Meanwhile, the official quarantine measures have not been extended to the combative poblaciónes, home to the greatest number of participants in the October 2019 Chilean uprising.  These neighborhoods at the periphery of the city were formed by massive squatter movements in the 1950s and 60s, when residents collaborated to build houses, defend each other from eviction, and negotiate with the government for city infrastructure, schools, and clinics. If you’ve seen videos of riots during the March 29th Day of Combative Youth (Dia del Joven Combatiente), the footage is more than likely from these neighborhoods. 

Back in October, the rebellious tendencies of the poblaciones were no longer confined to those specific areas but proliferated all over, as people circulated in the downtown, metro, supermarkets, pharmacies, and shopping malls. The attacks weren’t against the police and metro—the two obvious symbols of state power—but also targeted the formal economy itself. 

This year, despite the military curfews and fear of the pandemic, the poblaciónes celebrated the day of combative youth by taking the streets and confronting the police. Unlike in central Santiago, public space continues to be open in the poblaciónes. Although there are fewer protests and social life has diminished, the pandemic has not yet fully interrupted life in these areas. Initially, protestors who congregated in Plaza de la Dignidad feared that the government would use its official quarantine measures as an attempt to regain social control after months of Chile’s social uprising. In the end, no heavy effort was made to enforce quarantine measures in those spaces where they would anyway be contested: the boundaries of the quarantine zones and the rebellious territories of the poblaciónes

Control of public space

With the new norms of quarantine and social distance, the pandemic has interrupted the shared experiences of protests in the streets and neighborhood events in the plazas. Since October, upheaval has structured our everyday life where we live, rendering our neighborhood projects both possible and necessary. Neighbors formed assemblies in response to the upheaval of the massive street demonstrations. Through assemblies, we hoped to meet each other, and sustain the forces in the streets and life in the neighborhood. People used assemblies to organize and publicize new neighborhood events such as community kitchens, flea markets, children’s theater, and open-air concerts. Meeting in parks, our assemblies would be constantly interrupted by the life of the neighborhood: street dogs greeting us and playing in the middle of the circle, people asking for cigarettes, sitting with us and ranting, and old insurgents saying we should stop talking and start lighting barricades. 

The pandemic has radically interrupted this everyday life. Now, the neighborhood assembly is online. Assemblies, mutual aid, and online workshops are coordinated and announced in their corresponding Whatsapp groups. Uninvited neighbors can no longer drop in spontaneously. My capacity to write in a café was enabled by the possibility that I would be interrupted by an old friend walking in with someone new to meet, or that protesters would spill into the café from Plaza Dignidad to evade the spray of the guanaco (the police’s water cannon tank), interruptions that conferred sense of structure and situated meaning on my work. Could it be that all activity becomes meaningful only when conducted in the public? In any case, we were wrong to have ever looked upon the possibility of interruption as a nuisance or distraction. In fact, the more entangled they were with the lives of others who inhabit our world, the more meaningful our activities became. The quarantine signifies the interruption of this shared sensibility and with it, made all the other interruptions that followed from it impossible as well.

Who imposes restriction of movement?

And yet, things are still happening in Chile: in other regions, residents have continued participating in the uprising by blockading the industries that destroy their territories. In Patagonia, for instance, several towns have been engaged in a decades-long conflict with the players in the salmon industry. By dumping antibiotics, feed, and waste, salmon farms have decimated the waterways on which local fishermen rely, while industrial freight trucks ravage the narrow country roads that connect towns to one another.

When things kicked off back in October, the breadth and depth of the upheaval became apparent to us only after learning that, while Santiago was burning, rural communities were also erecting barricades on country roads and interrupting Chile’s major industries. These same towns blockaded the roads that brought workers and supplies to the Salmon farms. In those days, to get a reading of the situation within one’s city, it sufficed to walk down the street, and yet it was comparatively difficult to gather news of the protests elsewhere in the country. Despite this difficulty, “Free Chiloe” (Chiloe Libre) graffiti proliferated on buildings throughout Santiago. 

When the COVID outbreak began to spread outside Santiago, residents on the Patagonian island of Chiloe blocked ferries carrying salmon industry workers. Eventually, the government restricted transportation to the Island to prevent the spread of Coronavirus; yet, when a ferry arrived bringing additional police forces to enforce the quarantine, Chiloe residents attempted to block that ferry, too. 

A determinate ambiguity

In his recent reflection on Agamben and the legacy of the Chilean state of exception, Gerard Munoz offers some insight into why the state’s emergency measures ultimately failed to take any effective hold during the October uprising:

The Chilean debate is in a better position to arrive at a mature understanding of the state of exception, not as an abstract formula, but as something latent within democracies. The dispensation of Western politics into security and exceptionality is not a conceptual horizon of what politics could be; it is what the ontology of the political represents once the internal limits of liberal principles crumble to pieces (and with it, any separation between consumers and citizens, state and market, jurisprudence and real subsumption).

In order to function, the deployment of a state of emergency relies on the liberal distinction between market and state, citizen and delinquent. The Chilean government appealed to the “security of the state”, but the uprising had already disproven the liberal principles of the post dictatorship Chile, and to such an extent that a reversal of course had for a time become strictly unthinkable

In the months following the social explosion, we could not have conceived any event that could bring any swift conclusion to the life of the streets. There was no amount of heavy-handed police repression that could have convinced us of a self-evident need for law and order; no over-hyped constitutional assembly or impending financial crisis could convince us that there was a real, external force that would interrupt the social explosion.  

And yet, here we are: the pandemic has brought an abrupt halt to the uprising in ways we had thought to be impossible. From the first week of the COVID outbreak, Plaza de la Dignidad has been quiet. There has been no lootings, even despite the lack of supplies. Conflicts with the police remain confined to the poblaciones

To what does it owe this power? The pandemic interrupted the uprising because to many , it appeared as an external force. If it possesses a power that no governmental ordinance can rival, this is because its presence tends to shatter the various separations on which the administration of this world depends because it doesn’t recognize the gap between state and market, consumer and citizen, jurisprudence and subsumption. As a result, we know longer know if we are taking care of ourselves in resistance to the state, despite the state, or in subordination to the state. As the pandemic moves through this world, it interrupts the positive contact with which this world is based.  In the absence of such contact, we are left with scrambled claims of obedience and contestation, resistance and self-assertion. 

This is not the place to recall the extent to which the fictive ideals of liberal democracy depended on the growth of a fracture between interior and exterior realms of experience: public reason and private obedience, faith and confession, moral conscience and political right, etc. Where once there appeared a world, full and filthy with attachments, heresies, and allegiances, only a subject—a self-possessed and autonomous citizen—would be left to remain. Was this not the project of modern economic governance? 

Not only has the experience of space been re-liberalizing, but also the forms of care have followed suit. As the insurrection recedes, and with it, the bustling and rich horizon of shared attention and concern, the forms of care that now replace it already bear the stain within them of that absence to the world that defined the modern liberal subject. While we, like everyone with a conscience, are moved to care for others more vulnerable than us in this moment, we must not confuse the notions of care wrapped up within practices social distancing with the practices we developed together before the pandemic, and which are only possible by fully inhabiting a shared territory. We are told this crisis threatens the vulnerable, the infirm, the elderly; that, in taking care of ourselves, we are taking care of others; that our role, as participants in a ‘shared world’, is to reduce the spread through social distancing and isolation. Yet, to be deprived of social life and the use of public space, is to be deprived of those very experiences that confer meaning on concepts such as care, support, and community action. After all, to experience a common world is to participate in the activities that make it not merely possible, but real; only through combination and encounter can our singular capacities reveal to us all that outstrips them, all that can only belong to anyone, to everyone. In quarantine, we risk being denied the conditions that make possible an awareness that we inhabit a shared world.  

-Emilio, Santiago de Chile, April 24th, 2020


Pandemic War diaries – First of May Edition

“The disaster is that there really is absolutely no left… There’s just emptiness… There’s nothing, nothing at all.”

Nanni Balestrini

Berlin. Let’s start with what is the only thing that makes any sense at all, because everything beyond, all the fizzled out affects, all the powerless rage, grief, all the overwhelming fear dissolves as if in an experimental arrangement in the complete agony of isolation and separation, as if it had not existed. So let us start with the hope, which is said elsewhere, that a person can survive a month without food, a week without drinking, but not four seconds without them. So let’s talk about hope.

Submitted to Enough 14. Written by Sebastian Lotzer. Translated by Enough 14.

Let’s talk about the cops that were hanging around everywhere, eyeballing us and talking to us as if we were little children to remind us of distance regulations that they themselves didn’t give a shit about. Let’s talk about the contempt that was directed at them. So let’s talk about that wonderful evening at the beginning of May, that hour when the evening sun shining on Oranienstraße giving it a very special light. Let us talk about the air that was so wonderfully fresh, let us talk about all that seemed possible for a few moments.

Let’s talk about the fact that we were able to listen to our own words, because not every corner was booming with basses, dull party mobs were blowing their brains out, let’s talk about the fact that there were more banners to be seen than there have been for many years. Let’s talk about the fact that we were able to establish a balance of power in which our opponent refrained from chasing us apart. Let us talk about the fact that there were thousands of us, let us talk about the fact that it was the first time since we had been imprisoned and deprived of our rights. Let’s talk about how every beginning has a magic within it.

Let’s talk about the fact that we were less than our opponents, but we can still be smarter and more victorious. Let’s talk about how this day really means something to us, something that seemed lost in all those years when we were like a flock of sheep, self-proclaimed leaders and trotting behind their trucks. Let’s talk about the fact that we didn’t have to listen to all those stupid speeches, the eternally same phrases. Let’s talk about how we could have made history. Let’s talk about how we missed that opportunity. Let’s talk about why this happened.

“Keep moving forward in difficult terrain”

The Art of War – Sun Tzu

No marching up, no fixed formation, no form that can be controlled, no crowd that can be contained. No direction that is predetermined, being able to turn at any time, creating moments of surprise. This is how we started, this is how it could have continued. You could feel the insecurity of the cops, their difficulties to adapt to our tactics in the early stages. Then the hesitation began, the waiting, instructions were given in the background, blindly followed. Our first mistake. Our opponent now knew where to expect us, where to meet us. Relocated his troops, blocked roads, began to disperse and chase us. We could now have started to block them, construction sites could have found their way onto the road, we could have scattered in different directions, made opposite movements. But we are just rushing from one predetermined point to the next. Satisfied with being there at all, instead of confidently appropriating parts of the terrain. Still, the situation was not lost.

At Kottbusser bridge sudden dynamics, the cops could only pant behind. At Wassertorplatz the van of the operation command (it stands there every year) without protection, one or two bottles, then the leaders of our opponents could already breathe again. From now on it became more difficult for us with every crossroad. From the provision rooms riot squads flooded the neighborhood, the cops from the PMS got new courage, put on their vests and simply walked along the edge with three of them. Another cop car, with only the driver inside, stood crosswise, was flowed around, not a scratch was to be seen afterwards. Now our opponent realized that we were limiting ourselves, that we had only come to be here at all. The rest is quickly told and well known. Everything flowed to the already sealed off Mariannenplatz, there again static, powerlessness, beatings and arrests. A few stones and paint bags in the Manteuffel and then we had our familiar First of May back. Every further offensive option was history.

“The greatest vulnerability is ignorance”

The Art of War – Sun Tzu

There is no doubt that we are living in difficult times. We live in times of increased risk, but also of increased opportunity. Everything is fragile and permeable, any narrative could be a thing of the past tomorrow. We are imprisoned and disenfranchised, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, the homeless, the refugees, the women who are beaten at home, the low-class family, now five of them sitting every evening in their too-small flat, are even worse off. Beyond our world of prosperity, hundreds of millions of people are losing their livelihoods. Since the first days of the worldwide lockdowns there has been resistance because for many it is about everything. In Africa, in South America they are plundering supermarkets, in many places the streets and squares are reviving in spite of the real health risks with people who are willing to fight, because further waiting is unbearable if you have nothing to eat and only look into the abyss of poverty. In Lebanon the banks are burning day after day and the whole world is watching carefully.

A large part of the left has given in to the blackmail of the elites, does not question the narrative of the absence of alternatives. As if we needed someone to tell us what we have to do to protect ourselves and our neighbours, friends, the people around us. We act out of love for people, which is what distinguishes us from our mortal enemies, who suddenly pretend to care for the old and weak, who otherwise let them vegetate and die. If we were in Kreuzberg on May 1st, “to practice democratic protest” (Statement 1st May Alliance), then we were there for nothing. It’s not about protesting, it’s also not about “making ourselves heard in the coming distribution struggles” (Taz), a large part of the left got lost in this dead end street a long time ago.

Many people in the world looked closely at Kreuzberg on the first of May. For the first time in many years. The actions in SO 36 were among the first mass actions in Europe since the declaration of the state of emergency on almost the entire continent. For many, a day that would have ended with a (temporary) loss of control of the Empire would have been a sign of encouragement. In recent weeks there have been many calls from Italy, Spain, France, to fight their way out of the state of shock, to familiarise themselves with the new terrain on which we now are forced to move. We will have to learn to breathe, to walk, to talk, to love each other again. Too many things have broken among people in the last few weeks. Will be broken in the coming months. It is to be feared that in the coming weeks we will not be as numerous again as on the first of May. That we will meet a well-positioned opponent.

“I have already tried to describe the form of despotism that we can expect and from which we must tirelessly protect ourselves”

Giorgio Agamben

If the resistance in Europe against the new regime that is about to unfold is not to be limited to the revolts of the abandoned youth in France, Belgium, …, we will no longer be able to afford tactical errors such as those made on the First of May, because this already prevents any option to a strategic search for a movement in this country. There is a fundamental need for a world beyond fear and regulation. This was also demonstrated by the strong participation in the anti-authoritarian demonstration on May 1st in Athens, in which around 5,000 people took part despite a curfew in force until May 4th. The emergency regime believes itself to be at the height of its power, apparently so unresistingly it has been able to prevail. But that is precisely where its fragility is to be found, because it has nothing to offer but a prolonged desolation that is only fed by the promise of care and paternalism. On the streets we write history. Dystopia or freedom.

Pandemic War diaries – First of May Edition

The self-abolition of the proletariat as the end of the capitalist world (or why the current revolt doesn’t transform into revolution)

“Exploitation, which is necessary to sustain the economy, has in the
generalized installation of capital, managed historically to overcome
the attacks of the proletariat, since they have never put its central
components into question” […]

If it were but merely a question of explaining the facts in a very
pedagogical way, the day after tomorrow the old world would be left in
the dust, but this is not so, the exploited feel comfortable in their
chains because they are entrapped in the mercantile social relations
that hide their exploitation under the veil of democratic reconciliation
or of nihilistic resignation, two poles of the same ideological center.”

–Anarquia & Communismo n.11

Santiago, Chile Winter 2018

“Yet at the same time, the proletariat only exists when it becomes
conscious of its condition and struggles for its liberation, that is,
its self-abolition, by attacking the social relations and institutions
that keep it dominated and through the affirmation of its truly human
interests, neither defined nor mediated by mercantile necessities”

-Ya No Hay Vuelta Atrás (Now There’s No Turning Back) n.2

Santiago, Chile February 2020

The fundamental contradiction of the current proletarian revolt

The revolt is breaking out all over the world, but all over the world
the revolution is missing. Why? What follows is a tentative but forceful

The current-day reason is that this society of classes is coming out of
a historical counterrevolutionary period (since approximately the
1980’s) and entering a historical period of ascension and
intensification of the worldwide proletarian struggle against worldwide
Capital-State (2008-2013 and 2019-202?). Which, at the same time,
recently is starting to alter the correlation of forces and the
conditions for a possible revolutionary situation, in view of the fact
that the proletarian revolt has caused the bourgeoisie and their
governments to tremble, but it still hasn’t defeated them nor sent them
to the dustbin of history. As the comrades of Grupo Barbaria say, this
is a “hinge period” which must be seen not as a photograph but as a film
that contains flows (revolts), and ebbs (returns to normalcy), new flows
and a open finale. A historical period which transits between the
counterrevolution and a possible revolutionary situation at a global
level; for which, nevertheless, there is still a long way to go.

The structural reason, or the one in the backdrop, is that the
proletariat is still not a revolutionary class, despite the fact that
today the capitalist crisis is more widespread and serious than ever
before, and that the current global wave of revolts of the exploited and
oppressed is a embryo and a milestone heading forward towards the global
revolt, or at least its necessity and possibility. With a greater or
lesser grade of organizational autonomy and of street violence, the
proletarian class today is fighting against the capitalist order almost
everywhere, but this is not sufficient: in the end, the proletariat is
revolutionary or it is nothing, and it’s only revolutionary when it
struggles, not for “a life that is just and dignified” as the working
class, but to cease to be it. Yes, the proletariat is only revolutionary
when it struggles to cease being the proletariat, that is, when it
fights for its self-abolition. Of this there are certain symptoms and
elements in some current struggles (e.g. struggles not for more work and
more State but for another life, although they appear to be “suicidal”
struggles) but still there’s a long way to go, because in their majority
the proletarians continue to reproduce themselves as the class of labor
and, therefore, as the class of Capital, and they continue to negotiate
with the State about their demands in that reproduction. At the moment,
then, the working class flows and ebbs between being an exploited class
and being a revolutionary class. This is the fundamental contradiction,
still unresolved, of the proletarian revolt today and, therefore, the
principal reason for which it doesn’t transform into social revolution.

At the same time this happens because, in this era of real and total
subsumption (integration and subordination) of work and life into
Capital, Capital and the proletariat reciprocally imply each other – as
the comrades of Endnotes say-, they mutually reproduce “24/7”, sometimes
they identify with each other and other times they are in direct
confrontation. A class relation in which, of course, the proletarian
social pole is that which suffers all this human alienation as an
exploited and oppressed class, and therefore once and awhile it rebels
against such a condition. To which the Capital-State responds with
repression and, above all, with co-opting and recuperation of the
proletarian struggles into its logics, mechanisms, institutions,
ideologies and discourses. Because if it doesn’t do so, it would
seriously compromise its own existence. Like so then, from the point of
view of the revolutionary and dialectical materialist, in the current
historical cycle of class struggle the abolition of Capital necessarily
implies the abolition of the proletariat and vice-versa.

Indeed, because in the end it’s not a matter of taking pride in being a
proletarian and fighting for a “proletarian society”, and even less for
a “proletarian State”. Alienation can’t be destroyed through alienated
means, that’s to say with the arms of the system itself (as it is
believed by the partisans of the “transition period”, meaning the
so-called “socialism” of State capitalism, whatever the “path” may be),
since that is “giving more power to Power”. On the contrary, it’s a
matter of assuming the fact of being a proletarian as a condition that
is socially and historically imposed, as the modern slavery from which
one must liberate themself collectively and radically. It’s a matter of
ceasing to be an exploited and oppressed class once and for all,
eliminating the conditions that make the existence of social classes
possible. Given that the proletariat condenses all forms of exploitation
and oppression within itself, at the same time as all forms of
resistance and of radical alternative, Capital, the State and all forms
of exploitation and oppression would be abolished (sex/gender, “race”,
nationality, etc.) This is the social revolution. And without a doubt
this will not be a magical occurrence that happens over night in a pure
and perfect manner, but a historical and contradictory process which
nevertheless will have this consistent foundation or will not be.

Yet at the moment that is not what’s happening because, in spite of
being in revolt in many countries, the proletariat in their majority
continue to struggle to reproduce their “life” as the working class and
not to put an end to their slavery, waged and citizenized. (I say in
their majority, because there also exist proletarian minorities that
agitate against work, the class society and the State, but that
unfortunately don’t have a greater social impact.)

And they don’t do it just because of ideological alienation or “lack of
class consciousness”, but because of the material necessity of survival:
selling their labor force in the current precarious conditions and at
whatever price in order to be able to cover their basic needs, trying to
valorize their commodity-labor power in the work market as much formal
as informal (or in the market of goods and services, in the case of
self-management and barter), to struggle to subsume their life even more
to Capital, reproduce and bear its social relations and its forms of
living. The capitalist class relationship is in crisis, but it remains
standing. The working class today is more precarious and miserable than
ever before, but it continues to be a working class.

If indeed Capital can no longer maintain so much surplus or excess
population which its own historical development has produced all over
the world, but rather it gets rid of them by means of wars, pandemics,
famines, etc., just as it also tends to generate new class conflicts,
principally on part of the workers against the increase in exploitation
and the pauperization or the so-called “austerity measures” taken as
much by the left and the right; at the same time, the capitalist
counterrevolution has still not been defeated by the proletariat on the
socioeconomic and everyday terrain, and therefore, not on the political
and organizational terrain, despite the ideological illusions that the
different leftists create in this respect.

For example currently in Chile, a country in which, on one hand, despite
the community soup kitchens and other practices of solidarity between
proletarians, the revolt doesn’t provide a livelihood, or not for a long
awhile. The majority of the people have to work (formally and
informally) in order to eat, pay the rent, education, health care, basic
services, telephone and internet, etc.; that’s to say, they must
reproduce the capitalist relationships of production, circulation and

and on the other hand, in spite of the existence of the autonomous
territorial assemblies, their major demand is the “constituent
assembly”; meaning that, instead of taking power over their own life in
order to change it radically and in every aspect, the majority of our
class would again delegate it to the bourgeois-democratic State. But
above all, because in their majority the proletarians continue
reproducing the capitalist relationships of alienation, oppression,
exploitation, competition and atomization amongst themselves, including
in the the assemblies, the barricades and the territorial recuperations.
And although the revolt in Chile is the most advanced at an
international level at the moment, it is not therefore “the revolution
to commence” as the comrades of the blog “Vamos Hacia la Vida” say, but
rather it is a revolt that is being defeated by its own limits and
obstacles, regardless of the organizational autonomy and the street
violence which still manifests in it. As the comrades of the Círculo de
Comunistas Esotéricos say, “The revolution has been postponed, but the
larval possibility of assuming it has been implanted. It’s necessary to
continue nourishing its possibilities as one waters a plant, as one
suckles an infant, as bonds of affection are built: constantly, daily.
The battle in these moments has been lost, but only partially. There are
inroads that are necessary to maintain. Just as there are setbacks that
need to be evaluated” And as another comrade from there, of the blog
“Antiforma” says, paraphrasing Vaneigem: “those that speak of revolution
and class struggle without referring to the destruction of the social
and biopsychic fabric that could sustain a decisive change, speak with a
corpse in their mouth.” Nevertheless, whatever happens in the next
months in this country (especially , after the plebiscite which was
announced for April 2020 but temporarily suspended due to the
coronavirus), it will be a milestone in the transition – or not – of a
possibly revolutionary historical period on a global level, which
without a doubt leaves revolutionaries everywhere with multiple and
valuable lessons.

For such reasons the thing is that, in this era and all over the world,
the proletariat oscillates between being a class which is exploited and
oppressed by Capital-State and being a class that is revolutionary or
self-abolishing. It fluctuates between the one and the other, with or
without consciousness of what it is doing and what it can do. This is –
and it’s worth reiterating – the fundamental ambiguity, paradox or
contradiction of the current day proletarian revolt that is still
unresolved , and therefore, the principal reason for which it doesn’t
transform into a social revolution.

Indeed, the revolt is not a revolution. The intermittent re-emergence of
the worldwide proletariat, and its autonomous and violent actions
against the forces of repression (of which spectacle and illusion are
also made, e.g. the romanticizing of “the front line”), are not a
revolution. But “the socialist transition State” and “rank-and-file
workers’ self management” aren’t revolution either (they never were).
The key to the social revolution is the self-abolition of the
proletariat, which goes hand-in-hand with the abolition of value,
because these are the roots or the foundations of capitalism, understood
as the social dictatorship of value valorizing itself at the cost of a
proletarianized humanity and of nature.

The self-alienation and self-destruction of the proletariat as a class
of Capital

On the contrary, when they don’t fight against the capitalist conditions
and class relationships, when they don’t fight in an autonomous and
conscious way to produce the conditions and the weapons (practical and
theoretical) of their own liberation, the proletariat is a class of
Capital and for Capital, because it is Capital that produces and
reproduces it daily and in every sense, as much objectively or
materially as subjectively and spiritually. Not only producing and
reproducing economic value and surplus value, but also cultural value
and surplus value, ideological and psychological – that is, producing
and reproducing human alienation in all its levels and forms, upon the
basis of the the fundamental and transversal alienation of the
capitalist society: commodity fetishism, meaning the objectification,
commodification and monetary valorization of human relations -. Not only
by means of wage slavery and voluntary servitude – that is, being a
citizenry disciplined by work/consumption and fragmented into thousands
of particular identities-; but, above all, when the proletarians don’t
recognize or assume themselves and among themselves to be as such, when
they disregard and isolate themselves and neither act in solidarity nor
mutual aid, when they compete, cheat, snitch, defraud, exploit,
dominate, violate in every possible form and even kill each other (in
all of these, without a doubt the women, children, homosexuals, blacks
and indigenous bear the brunt of it).

In summary, the problem is the reproduction of capitalist social
relations and of power in everyday life, principally within the
proletariat itself, not only because of how the proletarian men and
women relate with the exploiting and ruling class, but because of how
they relate amongst the oppressed themselves in order to reproduce
themselves as such, being, as they are, the majority of the society. And
the thing is that, throughout majority of historical time (there are
exceptions: revolts and revolutions) and in every part of the world, the
proletariat has passed it by self-alienating and self-destructing as
humanity to the benefit of Capital (of commodity fetishism, of value, of
the money-god for which they work) and of all the forms of
exploitation/oppression that are subsumed within its mode of social
production reproduction (patriarchy, racism, nationalism, etc.) instead
of directing all the subversive aspect of their misery, rage, and
violence against it; and above all, instead of fighting to reappropriate
their own lives and live them in real freedom and community.

Now, as Marx said, a society doesn’t ever disappear before all of its
productive forces and forms of living (and of dying) are developed, or
before the material conditions for new and superior social relations
there already exist at its bosom. Therefore, the bourgeois society will
not disappear until the proletariat neither can nor want to live under
the capitalist mode of production and of living, and therefore begin to
produce for themselves, by need and by desire, anarchic and communist
social relations and forms of living, which can only be developed freely
and fully by means of the social revolution, in the heat of the class
antagonism and the reproduction of daily life. It is there, in the real
and practical social struggles where the proletarians do this, where the
seed of revolution, of communism and anarchy, can be found.

As Endnotes and other comrades like Kurz explain well, the revolutions
of the 19th and 20th centuries, despite their elements and tendencies of
a communist and anarchic character (e.g. rejection of work and of the
State, of mercantile exchange and of democracy) didn’t dynamite the
roots and fundamental categories of capitalism, but rather they
developed, modernized and spread them throughout the world from the
opposition, not only through the counterrevolutionary (re)action of the
worldwide bourgeoisie, but also thanks to the worker-union, peasant and
popular movement and its leftist vanguards that took bourgeois state
power or, in the absence of that, managed to make the state concede
economic, political and social reforms in terms of welfare, development
and nationalism. It’s needless to say here, but anyway just in case,
what existed in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, etc. was not communism
but State capitalism with other administrators and other headings. For
their part, the anarchist and autonomist experiences of self-management
(from Barcelona in 1936 to Chiapas and Rojava today in the 21st century)
didn’t manage to break away from and overcome the social and impersonal
dictatorship of value, money, the commodity and work, and that’s to say
capitalism, either.

In short, all the past revolutions failed to realize the fundamental
objective of the communist revolution: the abolition of class society,
beginning with the proletariat itself, which is the principal producer
and product of capitalist social relations.

Today we know that, despite such revolutionary elements and tendencies,
it wasn’t due to causes pertaining to the ideological-political –
meaning program and party – and military – meaning arms and the use of
violence – but rather quite precisely material and historical causes –
namely: a transition from formal subsumption to the real subsumption of
work into Capital, a surge and crisis of the workers’ movement as
opposition to/developer of capitalism, new cycles of
crisis/restructuring and of class struggles -, which determined that
communism would not be realized in past eras and that it really hadn’t
been possible yet until today or from now on to realize it. And this is
not “to justify the leninist and stagist theory of statist and
capitalist development of productive forces”, as a comrade of the ICG
says. It’s “applying historical materialism to historical materialism
itself”, as Korsch said; in this case, the historical materialist
conception of communist revolution. Furthermore in the communizing
perspective leninism is also openly criticized as a counterrevolutionary
force, and communism is understood as a real global-historical movement
that, due to the causes that have been mentioned, still has not been
able to transform into a new society.

Then, how could it be possible- even inevitable – that the current
historical and international cycle of capitalist crisis/restructuring
and of class struggle could be pushing the proletariat towards the
worldwide communist revolution, in the same time that it is pushing
towards extinction? Because the technological progress of the
multinational companies, with the aim of competing and obtaining more
profits and power, has turned them in their majority into a superfluous
or excess population (surplus proletariat) which becomes more and more
difficult to guarantee under this system, not only the production of
commodities and of surplus value, but the reproduction of their very
life in every aspect. The contradiction of capital, sooner or later
fatal, is that it almost completely devalues its principal source of
value and of wealth: the collective labor force, the working class. The
fact that today there exists so much technology (as to reduce human
labor to the necessary minimum) and so many foods (as much to feed more
than the existing world population), but at the same time there is
neither as much work, nor money, nor stability, nor housing, nor
uncontaminated environment, nor health, nor anything, for the majority
of the population, creates malaise and social protest. In which the
proletariat, which is so precaritized today, has fought not only for
work and for another kind of government, or not only for more money,
more things and better services, but also against the State-Capital,
with or without consciousness that it had done so. Producing communities
of struggle and of life not mediated by competition, money or authority,
that’s to say where new social relations are experimented with that
subvert the capitalist social relations – another world inside of and
against the bowels of this world -, but that last only as long as such
struggles last… like everything in these “liquid” and “diffused” times.

It’s no coincidence then, that this era of crisis and social revolts be,
at the same time, the era of the labor reserve army or of the workers
who are unemployed, underemployed and impoverished, composed in a
considerable percentage by youth with higher education, internet access
and “social networks”, and with experience in massive rebellions and
even in insurrections and “communes”. But up until there and no more,
because the revolt is not the revolution. Capitalism remains standing.
And this, at the same time, is because the proletariat is the living
contradiction which today fluctuates between
self-alienation/self-destruction and self-emancipation/self-abolition
through its revolts and returns to normality.

The revolution is the positive resolution of this movement in
contradiction: the revolution is the radical
self-suppression/self-overcoming of the proletariat and, therefore, of
Capital, not because of ideology but because of concrete vital
necessity, that is to say when the proletariat feels and assumes in
social practice the necessity to produce communism and anarchy in order
to live, no more and no less, Meanwhile, capitalism, with the plasticity
which has always characterized it, will continue to dialectically
recycle the assaults of the proletariat to its own favor. And its
leftist organizations will continue reproducing Capital and the State,
although they think and say the opposite (see below).

All of this – and not “the lack of a party” nor “the lack of a program”
– is what materially and historically explains why the proletariat,
despite being the social majority numerically, has still not destroyed
once and for all this system of alienation, exploitation, misery and
death which is ruled over by the bourgeoisie, who are numerically the
social minority. This is the response to the question that many
proletarians have made sometimes or often, above all in this era of real
and total subsumption of humanity into Capital.

Indeed, the problem is not only the “perverse” bourgeoisie and the
“damned” capitalist system, but that, through subsumption, the
proletariat itself IS the capitalist system: let’s be realist and
honest, our class is not, nor must it be seen as “victim”, “saint”, nor
“heroine”, in this history: the majority of the time and all over the
place it keeps on self-alienating and self-destructing as humanity,
reproducing the capitalist relationships of exploitation and oppression.
But also, as an exploited and oppressed class, the proletariat has been
and can be the revolutionary class, not necessarily but potentially,
depending on what it does or doesn’t do in the class struggle to negate
and suppress its own current condition, to transform the capitalist
social relations into communist social relations.

Because it’s humanly comprehensible and assertable that our class
becomes fed-up and attacks such a subhuman condition of being an
exploitable and disposable commodity-thing. Because, dialectically
speaking, within its self-alienation pulsates the possibility of its
self-abolition, given that the de-alienation runs the same route as the
alienation (from the economic alienation to the religious and
ideological alienation). Its self-abolition, then, necessarily implies
its self-liberation (“the emancipation of the workers will be the task
of the workers themselves” or it will not happen), and its
self-liberation necessarily implies its radical self-critique as a
class. Because the self-critique allows it to learn the lessons of its
defeats for present and future battles; that’s to say, because
self-critique is the key to self-liberation, just as the “revolution
within the revolution” is the key to the revolution. and above all
because, as Camatte said “currently, either the proletariat prefigures
the communist society and realizes the [revolutionary] theory, or it
continues to be what society already is.”

This includes and implicates principally its organizations, parties,
movements, collectives, groupuscules, sects or “rackets” of the left
(marxist-leninist and postmodern) and of the ultra-left (radical
communists and anarchists), because these also reproduce the capitalist
relations, logics, dynamics, practices and behaviors. Principally, by
means of their multiform political and ego competition to be the
self-proclaimed vanguard that takes power over the State “when the
historical moment arrives”, for some, or that self-manages Capital “from
below and to the left” for “everyone” in daily life, for “others”. It’s
all the same, because all these different leftist organizations are, due
to their practices and their relations, just another gear in this
generalized mercantile society of atomization, competition, spectacle
and ideology (ideology understood as the deformed consciousness of the
reality that, as such a real factor, at the same time exerts a real
deforming action, in the words of Debord). Products and agents of the
ideological-political and identitarian market, these leftist
organizations are the caricaturesque and miserable spectacle of the
struggle for revolution… ad nauseam. They are capitalism with an
“anticapitalist” appearance.

Above all in moments of post-revolt or of a return to normalcy, like for
example the leftist organizations in Ecuador after the revolt of October
2019 (in which we participated spontaneously as thousands of
proletarians “without a party”), or like what happened also in Brazil
after the revolt of June 2013… and in general all over the world, before
and after the current wave of revolts.

Still so, the problem is not only the reformist or left-wing of Capital
and its multiple divisions and competitions. The problem isn’t per se
the ideology or the organizations either. The problem is how the
proletariat itself and its proletarian minorities reproduce capitalism
in daily life, in practice, despite how their ideology and discourse say
the opposite.

The self-abolition of the proletariat as the key to the communist
revolution and communism as a real and contradictory movement

Nevertheless, the only way to combat, destroy and really overcome all
this shit is the autonomous and revolutionary struggle of
proletarianized humanity, including its radical minorities. As well as
the everyday and anonymous forms of resistance and solidarity between
the oppressed or the nobodies “without a party”. Indeed, it is in the
dialectic contradiction itself where the possibility of revolution can
be found, understood as a negation and overcoming of the negation. This
contradiction really exists and it IS the proletariat: an exploited
class and a revolutionary class. Because the same vital energy that
reproduces this system of death can be used to combat it, destroy it and
overcome it. Starting by questioning, revolutionizing, and abolishing
itself and by extension all other social classes, towards the aim of
reappropriating human life itself, in the heat of, and only in the heat
of, the class struggle. Assuming in practice that the struggle against
Capital necessarily implies the struggle against its class condition
itself. That might sound “suicidal” but, on the contrary, it’s
liberating from the chains of wage slavery and of all oppression and
alienation. Because, as the comrade Federico Corriente says, “today
there’s no other horizon than that of the catastrophic reproduction of
Capital and the inevitable and uncertain leap “into the void” that is
paramount for putting an end to it, that will happen through the assault
of the proletariat against the contradictions of its own reproduction.”

In fact, the only power which must be of interest to proletarians –
because they possess it, at least potentially – is the power to
self-eliminate as such and to so eliminate the capitalist and statist
class relationship. As the comrades of Les Amis du Potlach said, “the
revolution will be proletarian for those that realize it and
anti-proletarian through its content” That is what the historical and
revolutionary materialist dialectic really consists of, no more and no
less: in assuming that the proletariat and the class struggle are a
fundamental or substantial part of Capital, with the aim of struggling
to cease be so and thus – and only thus – to render the classes and such
a “systematic dialectic” itself abolished. This, and not anything else,
is the proletarian revolution, the communist revolution. Obviously
assuming it and doing it (the concrete) is a million times more
complicated than understanding it and saying it (the abstract). And in
spite of the current proletarian revolts, there is still a long way to
go towards that, for the reasons expressed in the first part of this

In the sense that it’s still necessary to pass through many more crisis,
struggles, insurrections, civil wars, pandemics, tragedies,
counterrevolutions and defeats so that the proletariat finally manages –
or not- to assume that human and historical necessity for the
revolution, to become conscious of their revolutionary power, to act as
a revolutionary subject and to make the social revolution, the key of
which – and it’s worth insisting upon – is the self-abolition of the
proletariat (the bourgeoisie will no longer have someone to exploit and
oppress), which is intrinsic to the abolition of value (human relations
will return to being human, since they will no longer be mediated by
commodity-things or by money), and the transformation of the capitalist
and authoritarian social relations into communistic and anarchic ones in
every aspect. Not because of any ideology or politics, but because it
will be a material question of life or death, in account of the current
capitalist catastrophe which, in the future, will be increasingly worse.
All of this, in increasingly more accelerated and violent times.

Yes: abolishing the proletariat in order to abolish capitalism must be –
and really has always been – the objective and the principal measure of
the communist or communizing

revolution, in practice and, therefore, in the theory and revolutionary

And meanwhile? And meanwhile, as it has been said: the autonomous and
revolutionary struggle of proletarianized humanity, class antagonism and
solidarity as much within counterrevolutionary everyday life (or in the
non-revolutionary class struggle) as in the revolts and insurrections
(or in the revolutionary class struggle), and above all the creation and
development of new social relations and forms of life that break with
and overcome the capitalist relations. Because it’s not only a matter of
reappropriating and having clear the historical and invariant program of
the communist revolution, and of fighting to impose such a program upon
the class enemy by means of revolutionary power. It’s not just a matter
of fighting for and making the revolution, it’s a matter of BEING the
revolution. As the comrades of the Invisible Committee had said well,
“the question is not only the struggle for communism, but the communism
that is experienced in the revolution itself.” Therefore, the only
“meanwhile” or the only “transition” to communism is communism itself,
understood as a real and historical social movement that fights to
destroy the capitalist society in order to transform into a new society
without classes or States.

Indeed, because communism is not the utopia or the ideal to implant in
an uncertain and indefinitely postponed future ad infinitum. As Marx
said “communism is the real movement that abolishes the current state of
things”, the premises of which can only be realized on the
global-historical plane. It is the real movement of the proletariat
tired of being so that destroys and overcomes the capitalist world, not
because of ideology but because of material necessity and for freedom
(freedom understood as consciousness acting out of necessity. Certainly,
as Marx also said, a mass communist consciousness can only be produced
through participation in a revolution or mass transformation of the
material and spiritual conditions of existence.):

This movement has reemerged in the last decade and is once again “a
spectre that haunts the world” and which frightens the worldwide
bourgeoisie. Communism is “a corpse that doesn’t cease to be born” it is
a real, living movement, that threatens the basis of the capitalist
system itself, but which still hasn’t killed and buried it, due to its
own limits and internal contradictions (see below).

But communism is not an ensemble of measures that are applied after the
taking of power, as the leninists believe. It’s a movement that already
exists, but not as a mode of production (there can’t be a communist
island within capitalist society, as the self-managerialists believe),
but as a tendency towards the community and the solidarity that can’t be
realized in this society, the key of which lies precisely in the
practices of solidarity and of community among proletarians while they
struggle for their own lives against the capitalist system until being
able to abolish it and overcome it, knowing or not what they are doing.
Above all in situations of crisis and of extreme necessity:”In extrema
necessitate, omnia sunt communia”: “in extreme necessity, everything is
for everyone”.

Communism is not an ideal or a program to realize; it already exists,
not as an established society, but as a seed, a task, an effort and a
tension for preparing the new society. As Dauvé says “communism is the
movement that tends towards abolishing the conditions of existence
determined by wage labor, and it effectively abolishes them through

Metaphorically speaking, communism is the fetus and the revolution is
the birth of the new world. This is communization.

When it is real, the revolutionary movement is not pure and perfect but
impure, imperfect, limited and contradictory. Hence, what really makes
it revolutionary is assuming, sustaining and tensing that internal
contradiction in order to eradicate and overcome it; concretely,
eradicate and overcome the reproduction of the capitalist social
relations at its heart along with the rest of the society. In other
words, the revolutionary movement or the real community of struggle of
the proletariat is the living contradiction and, at the same time, the
conscious, voluntary and impassioned “tension” (in the sense that
comrade Bonanno gives it) to eliminate and overcome this imposed
contradiction; that is, by creating revolutionary situations, relations
and subjectivities – communitarian and libertarian – that manage to
confront, strike, debilitate, crack, destroy and overcome capitalism in
the concrete life of concrete individuals, so much that it constitutes
another form of being and living in this world.

One step forward in this real and anonymous proletarian movement is
worth more than a dozen programs and “rackets” or groupuscles of the
left and ultra-left.

Only then does the real community of struggle prefigure or anticipate
the real human community. Only then exists the coherence between
revolutionary ends and means (one of the lessons of the historical
anarchist movement). And that is to make and to be the revolution
understood as communization.

None of this is either pure or perfect, but it is impure, imperfect,
limited, contradictory, as it was said: there exists a tension, rupture
and leap or change more or less permanent – or rather intermittent –
within it, as a real and living movement. In effect, the real
anticapitalist movement is the one in which the deeds subvert and
overcome the capitalist conditions of existence and its own internal
contradictions determined by such conditions. Where direct action, the
abolition of private property, solidarity, gratuity, horizontality in
the taking of decisions that affect everyone’s lives, are facts and not
only words and ideas. I’m thinking of Exarchia (Greece) and the Mapuche
territories (Araucanía), just to mention a few current and concrete
examples. There exist the seeds and the tendencies of communism and
revolution today.

So, a period of communization instead of a “period of transition”. This
means that communization will not occur overnight, nor through the
existence of a mass class consciousness (incarnated and directed by “the
party”) nor through the existence of many “self-managed communes”
(capitalism with an assembleary and self-managed appearance), but by
means of a process or a contradictory and historical-concrete cycle of
capitalist crisis/restructuring and of real and international class
struggle that, at the same time, is a result, critical balance and
surpassing synthesis of all the past cycles of struggle (since the birth
of capitalism up until then).

Concretely, the current historical cycle, in which the proletariat, at
the same time that it is totally subsumed to Capital, resumes its class
struggle against it and, therefore, against their own condition as an
exploited and oppressed class, in order to so reappropriate their own
lives. Which is inseparable, lastly, from the struggle to communize all
the conditions and material and immaterial means of existence.

In effect “the communist production of communism”, as the comrades of
Théorie Communiste say, can only be realized at the heart of the real
class struggles and, more specifically, at the heart of the autonomous
struggles of and within the proletariat itself in order to out a stop to
the catastrophic capitalist progress in course and therefore defend
nothing more and nothing less than Life, by material and concrete
necessity, and also because of the acting and emergent consciousness of
such a necessity. Tensing, breaking and overcoming its own limits as a
class of and for Capital. Questioning, negating and overcoming their own
condition as a social class determined and divided by work and money.
Resisting, advancing and leaping from their defensive self-organization
towards their positive self-abolition as such. Taking immediate
communist measures to this effect.

Immediate communist measures? Yes, because the current
historical-material conditions, these being the high level of capitalist
progress and of catastrophe in every aspect of social life, as well as
the existing communist practices in some current proletarian struggles,
not only make it possible but urgent to take immediate communist
measures. Furthermore, as Jappe says, this is the only revolutionary or
“radical realism” that is possible today, while all kinds of reformism
of the “period of socialist transition” type not only were, are, and
will be counterrevolutionary by being capitalist and statist, but also
because it’s objectively impossible in this era. In effect, given that
the current crisis of Capital is the crisis of labor, of value and of
the class relationship, the revolution not only must consist of
abolishing private property, meaning expropriating from the bourgeoisie
by force and communizing the means of production and the consumer goods:
it must consist – and in reality it always has consisted- in abolishing
wage labor, the division of labor, money, mercantile exchange, value,
businesses; and, in turn, in generalizing the minimal necessary labor,
the gratuity of things and the collective and individual making of
decisions, in order to so abolish all the social classes and all forms
of state power over the real community of freely associated individuals
that must be formed in order to produce and reproduce their own lives
according to their real human needs. As a banner recently unfurled on a
balcony of an italian city says: “Work less. Everyone work. Produce
what’s necessary. Redistribute everything.” All of this, in concrete
local territories and with real international ties. Also, inseparable
from that, are those communist measures that eliminate all forms of
segmentation, privilege and oppression based upon sex/gender, “race” and
nationality. And if it’s possible to speak and write about all that,
it’s because there exist practices in some current anti-system revolts
and movements that already prefigure or anticipate them as real seeds
and tendencies.

A current and concrete example of an immediate communist measure; the
looting of supermarkets in the south of Italy, one of the countries most
afflicted by the “coronavirus crisis”, which was done by proletarians
who are already in precarious situations and now desperate, given that,
as they themselves say, “the problem is immediate, the children have to
eat.” Why is it an immediate communist measure? Because, despite it not
directly affecting the sphere of production (as on the other hand the
recent wildcat strikes in the same country have indeed done), it
eliminates by the deed the sacrosanct private property, the commodity,
wage labor and money, and satisfies the common and basic needs of the
proletarians and their families. The spontaneous, autonomous and
anonymous networks of solidarity and mutual aid among proletarians,
which have been created in these precise moments everywhere, are also a
concrete communist practice. How can these kinds of measures be
sustained over time an space? That’s another subject. On the other hand,
it’s also possible to consider as an immediate communist measure the
call for a “universal rent strike” (to not pay rent and to occupy empty
homes for people that are homeless) from many countries of the world
(Spain, France, Sweden, United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Argentina, Chile,
Ecuador, etc.).

On the other hand, the other possible meanwhile is that the proletariat
in their majority continue working (including police and military work,
and that of “telework”), buying, consuming, contaminating, voting,
studying, facebooking, tweeting, watching netflix, eating “junk food”,
going out to party, listening to reggaetón and getting drunk on the
weekends, drugging themselves to the veins, going to the bordello, to
the stadium, to the concert and the tavern… or to the church, and being
nationalist, xenophobic, macho and violent (including fascist) towards
other proletarians but not towards the bourgeois and their uniformed
guard-dogs; or looking for work and dying of hunger, from depression or
of cancer; or going delinquent to later rot in jail; or going “crazy” to
later rot in the asylum; or falling into social paranoia, consumerism
and individualism in the supermarkets and everywhere else, when there
are pandemic situations (e.g. coronavirus), health emergency, austerity
measures and massive disinformation/idiocy; or – what seems to be the
opposite but is not – joining up to be militants in the ranks of their
left/ultra-left organizations, believing that they are “fighting for the
revolution” and “being coherent” by that, when in reality they are only
participating in capitalist political competition between proletarians,
a competition that only differs in the form and level of violence from
other non-political forms of fratricidal war (gangs, mafias, etc.) at
the same time that such political sects have a similarity to religious
sects in their dogmatic way of seeing the world and by treating their
peers like sheep and soldiers for their war against “the enemy” and for
“the cause”.

To sum it up, the other possible meanwhile is alienated survival and, in
the long-term, suicide; that’s to say, that the proletariat continue
self-alienating and self-destructing in a million ways to the point of
becoming extinct as humanity, not before devastating the planet,
clearly, under the yoke of the capitalist Leviathan (businesses and

Communism or extinction

Therefore, the current and inexorable dilemma for humanity is: communism
or extinction, revolution or death. But the revolution doesn’t only take
place at exceptional moments in history. The revolution itself is an
eruptive and decisive exception in the history of the class struggle and
the capitalist social normality. But it’s not a fate or destiny but a
possibility. It’s not inevitable but rather it’s contingent: it can as
much as can’t happen. It depends on what the proletariat does or doesn’t
do in respect. Because capitalism will not die by itself or peacefully.

The revolution is not an occurrence which happens overnight, instilling
paradise on Earth either, but rather it’s a historical process,
concrete, contradictory and even chaotic, that contains flows and ebbs,
advances and retreats, ruptures and leaps, times of stagancy and new
leaps. It’s a process of social transformation of a radical and total
character which has always been, and above all at these heights of
history, necessary and urgent, because it’s the only way that
proletarianized humanity – which is the majority of humanity – can cease
to self-alienate and self-destruct as humans, and at the same time to
cease to destroy non-human nature.

Yes: communization is the only revolutionary exit from the crisis of
capitalism or, which is the same thing, the only radical solution for
the civilizatorian crisis, because it’s the only way to guarantee the
reproduction of Life, or as Flores Magón would say, for its
“regeneration” or reinvention.

It’s necessary to produce, then, that exception or historical eruption
that is the revolution, no more and no less than for vital necessity. It
must be gestated and born. Communism is the fetus and the revolution is
the birth of the new world. But, as it has already been said, this
depends on what the proletariat does or doesn’t do in order to transform
the current social conditions and their own life, their own collective
being and the ecosystem.

In the case that our class doesn’t fight for the total revolution until
the end, the counterrevolution will continue to reign and the capitalist
or dystopian catastrophe in course (systematic economic crisis,
cutting-edge technology/”artificial intelligence”, massive unemployment
and poverty, devastation of nature/ecological crisis, pandemics, wars,
suicides, etc.) will finally end up making us as a species extinct.
Perhaps there are only a few generations left before that. And the
countdown increasingly accelerates.

Therefore, the current worldwide capitalist crisis and the current
worldwide wave of proletarian revolts constitute possibly the last
historical chance to finally start the irrevocable process of the global
communist revolution, of the abolition or the overcoming of the society
of classes and fetishes… or to perish.

Exaggerated? Apocalyptic? We’re already living in the capitalist
apocalypse that is the the current crisis of civilization! The dystopian
future is now! Our historical cycle of crisis and struggles will
possibly be the cycle of 2019-2049…

Communism or extinction!

The self-abolition of the proletariat is the end of the capitalist

Proletarians of the world: Let’s self-organize in order to cease to be

A proletarian fed-up with being one
Quito, Ecuador
February-April, 2020

A revolutionary “pessimistic” postscript in times of coronavirus

“The outbreak of the new strain of coronavirus (COVID-19), which has
wrought havoc in China since the end of last year, has surged over
borders and impacted the rest of the world, and with it, the imminent
economic crisis has but further advanced. The world economy is in
full-on crisis, the administrators of power are pending on immense
financial relief, the bourgeoisie are beginning to close factories and
lay off employees using the lucky pretext of the “quarantine” as excuse.
The disaster is immanent. Nevertheless, it’s important to know that the
monetary losses don’t signify the fall of the capitalist system.
Capitalism will seek at every moment to restructure itself on the basis
of austerity measures imposed on proletarians in order to palliate all
the catastrophic consequences that it will bring along with it. And this
is due to the fact that the “blows” that capitalism has been dealt due
to these phenomena are simply losses in its rate of profit, but those
losses don’t at all change its structure or its essence, meaning the
social relations that allow it to remain standing: the commodity, value,
the market, exploitation and wage labor. In fact, it’s in these
structures that capitalism most reaffirms its necessities: sacrificing
millions of human beings to the favor of economic interests, making the
polarization between classes sharpen and revealing more forcefully in
what position the dominant class is to be found, who will use all the
efforts in their reach in order to preserve this state of things.


The ever-more contradictions heightened contradictions of this mode of
production (crisis, war, pandemics, environmental destruction,
pauperization, militarization), which exasperate our conditions of
survival, won’t clear the way either mechanically or messianically for
the end of capitalism. Or better said, such conditions, although they
will be fundamental, won’t suffice. Because for capitalism to reach its
end, it’s imperative for there to be a social force, antagonistic and
revolutionary that manages to direct the destructive and subversive
character towards something completely different from what we know and
experience now.

If we want it or not, we can’t let a question as important as the
revolution to drift aimlessly, to leave it to luck. It’s necessary to
experience the resolution of this problem on the basis of the
organization of tasks that can go on to present themselves, that’s to
say, the grouping for the appropriation and defense of the most
immediate necessities (not paying debts, rent, or taxes), but also, the
rupture from all the dreams and mirages that carry us to manage the save
miseries behind another facade.


It’s not necessary to wait for the dystopia or the hollywoodesque scenes
of apocalypse, because these are already materially manifesting in
different parts of the globe, and in fact they greatly surpass any
attempt at representation by cinematic fiction.

The current pandemic of COVID-19 is one more stage in the degradation to
which this society of commodity production brings us.

A stage before which it is reaffirmed that the true future only hangs
from two strings:

Communist revolution or to perish in the twilight!”

Contra la Contra n.3
Collapse of the capitalist system? A few notes on current events.
Mexico City
March 2020

The self-abolition of the proletariat as the end of the capitalist world (Proletarios Revolucionarios)

Bergamo (Italy) – One of the consequences of the COVID-19 state measures is an increase of patriachal domestic violence. Ciao Vivi.

The news of the murder of a 34-year-old woman from Bergamo, Viviana, was circulated by word of mouth an newspaper artciles a few days ago. Yet another act of patriarchal violence: brutally beaten and punched by her partner for reasons of jealousy, Viviana died after six days in a coma following the reported traumas. In these times where the state is imposing measures on us to stay locked up in the house, even pretending to decide what our main affections should be (at the top of which, of course, are the blood-related family and the stable couple), cases of gender-based violence are even more numerous than usual. Couples and family are the pillars of the heteronormative social order, functional for the State. In the rhetoric of the orders imposed by Daddy-State, of the #restiamo a casa and of the tricolour flags, familistic and patriotic values with a rotten fascist smell are relaunched. Many women and LGBT people find themselves in difficult situations at the moment because they are forced to live together in oppressive relationships or with a family that does not accept them, unable to leave and deprived of the possibility of reaching their support networks, composed mainly of bonds of friendship. Some of us have met Viviana in a squat or on a punk concert, or perhaps met her at a demonstration. For several years we had lost sight, but those who knew her remember her as a sweet, sunny, lovable girl, who certainly did not deserve such a horrible end. We will forget nothing and forgive nothing. Let it never be said again that patriarchy doesn’t exist or is water under the bridge. So that our relations may finally be free exchanges between individuals and not cages of possessiveness. So that this murderous civilization collapses with all its foundations, including those cemented within us.

Ciao Vivi

One of the consequences of the #COVID19 state measures is an increase of patriarchal domestic violence: Ciao Vivi

Chronicles from the state of emergency No. 7 – Wall paper from #Trentino

May 1st in Rovereto

On May 1st, about twenty companions took to the streets for about an hour in the working-class district of Fucine with a series of amplified interventions at the Itea buildings (Istituto Trentino Edilizia Agevolata). Like what happened on April 25th at Brione, it was an opportunity to talk about both the structural causes of the epidemic – all linked to the capitalist way of plundering and exploiting nature – and how Confindustria and the government dealt with it, causing a massacre. During this initiative the inhabitants of Itea, who are in economic difficulties (the managers of the Provincial Authority announced a moratorium on rents for shopkeepers, but not for tenants), were invited to organize themselves in order not to pay the rent. It was stressed that the ban – which will continue after May 4 – on meeting more people in the open air is intended to keep us isolated and passive in the face of what they are preparing for us: the loans that the government is going to ask the European institutions and domestic creditors (banks, insurance companies, investment funds) will be repaid by increasing the exploitation of workers and the poorest sections of society, an aspect on which “pro-Europeans” and “sovereigns” all agree. To resist this – and the introduction of 5G – it is necessary to responsibly violate social containment measures. Some inhabitants – especially young people – have approached the initiative. Two police patrols, on the other hand, have kept their distance.

“If we can work, we can strike.”

Under this slogan blockades and strikes were organised in most logistics chains between April 30 and May 1. In Bologna, in Casoria, in the province of Naples, in Turin, in Campi Bisenzio, in Calenzano, in Modena (where the protests had already started at the beginning of the week). And then Genoa, Milan, Brescia, Bergamo, Piacenza, Florence, Rome, Caserta… Once again the carriers – mostly immigrants – confirmed themselves as the most combative sector of the wage class. The riders from Turin and the transport cleaners from Naples also went on strike and on April 30th they blocked the subway.

In the belly of the beast

While the Italian media only give space to the protests of Trump’s supporters, who want the resumption of economic activity without ifs and buts (the same position adopted by the League and ridden by the fascists, who try to disguise themselves behind the “tricolor masks”), on May 1st in the United States there were massive strikes against giants like Amazon, Whole Food, Walmart, Target. The demands are the closure of the sites where there have been contagions, no restrictions in testing for potentially infected workers, remuneration for dangerous work, interruption of the delivery of non-essential goods and the end of retaliation against workers who demand more safety at work. Nurses took to the streets in front of 130 hospitals in 13 states to recruit new staff, against the lack of protective equipment and attempts to silence the protestors. Common denominator of these and many other demonstrations, the opposition to spending and military intervention by the stars and stripes. Since March, at least 140 wild strikes have been documented throughout the United States. Meanwhile, in California, New York State, Missouri and several major cities, the rent strike is spreading.


Asking ourselves what practical purpose the rules imposed on us for more than a month have for containing the contagion has so far proved to be a fundamental exercise of critical spirit. From May 4, the date of the infamous “phase 2”, restrictions on our freedoms (especially those of association and demonstration) will not change, but it will be possible to visit… who? In the first version it was the relatives. Protests. You misunderstood, we meant stable relations. This ballet once again reveals that certain measures have very little to do with health. What practical use does it have compared to the containment of contagion to be able to meet only relatives? Do family ties protect us from being infected? Is there some kind of flock immunity linked to the surname? The answer seems obvious to us.

In the next few days many activities will re-start (leaving aside those, certainly not essential, that never closed , such as companies that produce arms); we will return to produce and consume almost at full capacity. We will not, however, return to our significant social ties, our friendships, our accomplices: those, on paper, are worth less than a certificate of kinship. Patience for those who do not have a family or who have broken off relations with it because they have found affection, understanding, reciprocity elsewhere.

Work, home, family: that’s the main thing!

But if we want to put an end to the social organisation that creates pandemics, we must also loudly claim the importance of all our ties, especially the most unselfish and authentic ones – which often have nothing to do with families.


To capture all expressions of human life through Law is a totalitarian utopia. Totalitarian, because its realization would make human beings similar to machines; utopia, because the state can never control everything we do. However, it can approach, and quite a lot, taking advantage of the most propitious opportunities. What do the Decrees issued in the name of the Coronavirus emergency have in common with the countless liberticide laws that have studded the history of this country? Not only and not so much the mass extension of the restrictions, but the fact that – by overturning the foundations of liberal ideology – these Decrees define as allowed not what is not expressly forbidden, but what is expressly allowed. Well, where is only place where activities are divided between those expressly permitted and those expressly prohibited? Prison.

While not yet collecting the necessary consensus to introduce the “Immune” application for the digital tracking of social contacts, the state has started to require some semi-free prisoners to have a smartphone for geolocation. As a replacement for what? Electronic wristbands, the construction of which is entrusted to one of the cell phone companies (Fastweb).

The advance of digital technology allows what the totalitarian regimes of the past did not even dare to dream of.

Chronicles from the state of emergency No. 7 – Wall paper from #Trentino

Spain – To Be Released

Weeks after our initial incarceration we are finally being released, little by little. Released, we say, because very few stayed indoors of their own accord. Of course some did, but most had no choice. Media hysteria censured of any alternative, fines, police intimidation and beatings are enough to keep even the most rebellious souls locked up. The monster came out of the mist only to retreat again, no one knowing when it might return to rear its ugly head.

Yet, here in southern Europe, we were not abandoned during quarantine. Not forgotten like the dead. Carrefour kept its shelves stocked. If one persisted toilet paper could be found and hoarded. Amazon never let us down, but at $10,000 a second that’s hardly surprising. Orange supplied in times of need, but with society’s upsurge in demand on telecommunications an upgrade from this archaic 4G is essential. In a period of hibernation, as they have chosen to label it, big industry enjoyed a midnight feast while the others were forced to sleep. It would appear that Holzmann’s ‘creative destruction’ is exactly what we’re witnessing: a good old deep clean, forcing the clutter into the corners to make space for the elegant new furniture.

The scientific bombardment shows little sign of slowing up. The facts, figures, graphs, lofty titles and even heftier wallets continue to force upon us a story that must be accepted. Our ideas, experiences and lives are nothing but fake news in a New Normality where the only trustworthy sources are the party-pledges of our favorite periodicals. Everyone’s got an opinion yet to refuse the transcribed plot is to be in support of murder. Numbers skyrocketed, then relaxed, but death continues to rain down, yet all we see on the bleak walk to the shop and back are the faces we once smiled at, averting our gaze.

The life we are now living was drawn from a model that transitioned us from fascism, says the cop, gun pressed gently into the lower back. We’re lucky to have had this time together, says the husband, brushing his wife’s hair across the bruise beneath her eye. Many countries won’t have had the privileges granted to us, announces the director of an NGO, looking out of his window over the Madrid skyline.

When this ghost leaves Europe life will continue in its memory. The APPs downloaded to protect from contagion will continue to track; embedded ‘contact tracing’ becoming a pseudonym for socialising. Facial recognition software, perfected in its detection of those wearing masks, will become standard practice. Unsolicited gatherings of more than two are a threat to public health and the society of a metre’s distance just got bigger. By now, if there’s a scrap of truth in what they say, the virus will be ravaging Africa, but there are other ways to deal with that.

If we’re all in this together, whatever ‘this’ is, and it’s our duty to protect the vulnerable then now is not the time to take the blue pill, lie back and enjoy the Matrix. Generations are going to grow understanding this normality to be new in reference to a pandemic they don’t remember. Human contact is going to be a maneuver of biological terrorism and contesting science is to be regarded as lunacy. The activity timetables drawn up for us will clearly prescribe the boundaries of human exertion as dinner arrives in a paper bag on the doorstep of an Uber account, delivered by a neighbour you’ll never know from number 23. No need to meet. Just take a photo and leave it on the porch.

Contrary to what’s been said, capitalism is not the virus. Capitalism is a social relationship based upon an economic system that methodically exploits the excluded. The record isn’t fixed and it certainly hasn’t changed. The enemies are who they always have been: capital, being invested assets and resources; its lover of a lifetime, the state; their manipulators, advocates and beneficiaries, the rich and ruling class; and its defence, the police, military and affiliated security institutions. Even religion is losing its significance as this great leveling is firmly heralding science as God and non-compliance the Devil. What capitalism is doing, as the interplay of fluctuating relationships between these elements, is that which it always does: adapting to provide for its vested interests. The beauty of a flexible market economy is that it can bend and adjust itself according to supply and demand, but in bending demand supply can operate with greater efficiency. Just as capitalism requires the homogenisation of language to streamline its transactions, aiming minority tongues and dialects into irrelevance, the standardisation of consumer requirements and necessitisation of certain technologies pave a path to power less cluttered.

Much has been said about the assaults on the working class. Dismissals and contract suspensions are the talk of the town, and the black labour market the unheard scream, yet this has all been clear since time began. Capitalist power has been brutally exploiting since its inception, only now it is forcing desperation down choking throats. With a deliciously liquid property market as the lumps are whisked away, allowing more established capital to extend its reach by lapping up the lower labour costs, those that have been struggling for weeks – months – will take anything. The glorious flexibility of the ‘gig economy’ replaces any assumption that one needs a stable living wage as electronic interfaces improve an efficiency that humans held back. All the cultural pastimes that are so missed have been forced into irrelevance as capital’s grasp on ‘our neighbourhood’ is fully clenched. Every claim that “x is not for sale” has been fucked into the sidelines by the now evident reply that “yes, my dear, it is. You are.”

Let’s remember that the people imposing these measures are the same people that spill blood day in, day out, in global wars of political motive. The same people that rip the earth to pieces and poison it to the core, for the most important resources to extract are profit and power. Let’s not forget that those demanding our conformity are exactly those who, time and time again, force us down the path of crisis in an economy that we never even asked for anyway. The same intentions that raise rents and lower wages. The same hands that beat migrants without a glimmer of remorse. The same guns that killed Carlo Giuliani in Genoa in 2001, Alexandros Grigoropoulos in Athens in 2008 and Mark Duggan in London in 2011.

Whatever virus exists has not been defeated, controlled or sent packing. The ingredients have been balanced and the recipe perfected. While we’re waiting for the next course, slowly getting fat on the crumbs that fall from the masters’ table and remembering how easy it is to forget, the next great catastrophe is being rested before service. In the face of one of the greatest economic and social transformations of the current age, one must remember that those in whom many now look to for a solution, even supposed revolutionaries, are nothing but monsters: creators of a New Brutality that we are queuing up to endure.

On activism, theory, the individual and revolutionary organization. An imaginary debate between a few comrades

translated by malcontent editions

This text, composed for the most part of key fragments from texts by
other historical and international comrades on the themes proposed, is
the continuation or second part of my text “The self-abolition of the
proleariat as the end of the capitalist world (or why the current revolt
doesn’t transform into revolution”, and it’s a tentative and provisional
response to the question “So what should we do then?”

1. Amadeo Bordiga (Activism – Italy, 1952)

[from: https://libcom.org/library/activism-amadeo-bordiga]

Activism is an illness of the workers movement that requires continuous

Activism always claims to possess the correct understanding of the
circumstances of political struggle, and that it is “equal to the
situation”, but it is incapable of engaging in a realistic evaluation of
the relations of force, enormously exaggerating the possibilities of the
subjective factors of the class struggle.

It is therefore natural that those affected by activism react to this
criticism by accusing their adversaries of underestimating the
subjective factors of the class struggle and of reducing historical
determinism to that automatic mechanism which is also the target of the
usual bourgeois critique of Marxism. That is why we said, in Point 2 of
Part IV of our “Fundamental Theses of the Party”:

“… [t]he capitalist mode of production expands and prevails in all
countries, under its technical and social aspects, in a more or less
continuous way. The alternatives of the clashing class forces are
instead connected to the events of the general historical struggle, to
the contrast that already existed when bourgeoisie [began to] rule
[over] the feudal and precapitalistic classes, and to the evolutionary
political process of the two historical rival classes, bourgeoisie and
proletariat; being such a process marked by victories and defeats, by
errors of tactical and strategical method.”

This amounts to saying that we maintain that the stage of the resumption
of the revolutionary workers movement does not coincide only with the
impulses from the contradictions of the material, economic and social
development of bourgeois society, which can experience periods of
extremely serious crises, of violent conflicts, of political collapse,
without the workers movement as a result being radicalized and adopting
extreme revolutionary positions. That is, there is no automatic
mechanism in the field of the relations between the capitalist economy
and the revolutionary proletarian party. […]

The indefatigable and assiduous labor of defense waged on behalf of the
doctrinal and critical patrimony of the movement, the everyday tasks of
immunization of the movement against the poisons of revisionism, the
systematic explanation, in the light of Marxism, of the most recent
forms of organization of capitalist production, the unmasking of the
attempts on the part of opportunism to present such “innovations” as
anti-capitalist measures, etc., all of this is struggle, the struggle
against the class enemy, the struggle to educate the revolutionary
vanguard, it is, if you prefer, an active struggle that is nonetheless
not activism. […]

The resumption of the revolutionary movement is still nowhere in sight
because the bourgeoisie, putting into practice bold reforms in the
organization of production and of the State (State Capitalism,
totalitarianism, etc.), has delivered a shattering and disorienting
blow, sowing doubt and confusion, not against the theoretical and
critical foundations of Marxism, which remain intact and unaffected, but
rather against the capacity of the proletarian vanguards to apply those
Marxist principles precisely in the interpretation of the current stage
of bourgeois development.

In such conditions of theoretical disorientation, is the labor of
restoring Marxism against opportunist distortions merely a theoretical

No, it is the substantial and committed active struggle against the
class enemy.

2. Camatte – Collu (On Organization – France-Italy, 1972)

[from: https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/on-org.htm]

At the present time the proletariat either prefigures communist society
and realizes communist theory or it remains part of existing society.

Today, now that the apparent community-in-the-sky of politic constituted
by parliaments and their parties has been effaced by capital’s
development, the “organizations” that claim to be proletarian are simply
gangs or cliques which, through the mediation of the state, play the
same role as all the other groups that are directly in the service of
capital. This is the groupuscule phase. In Marx’s time the supersession
of the sects was to be found in the unity of the workers’ movement.
Today, the parties, these groupuscules, manifest not merely a lack of
unity but the absence of class struggle. They argue over the remains of
the proletariat. They theorize about the proletariat in the immediate
reality and oppose themselves to its movement. In this sense they
realize the stabilization requirements of capital. The proletariat,
therefore, instead of having to supersede them, needs to destroy them.

The critique of capital ought to be, therefore, a critique of the racket
in all its forms, of capital as social organism; capital becomes the
real life of the individual and his mode of being with others […] The
theory which criticizes the racket cannot reproduce it. The consequence
of this is refusal of all group life; it’s either this or the illusion
of community.[…]

Today the party can only be the historic party. Any formal movement is
the reproduction of this society, and the proletariat is essentially
outside of it. A group can in no way pretend to realize community
without taking the place of the proletariat, which alone can do it.[…]

The revolutionary must not identify himself with a group but recognize
himself in a theory that does not depend on a group or on a review,
because it is the expression of an existing class struggle. This is
actually the correct sense in which anonymity is posed rather than as
the negation of the individual (which capitalist society itself brings
about). Accord, therefore, is around a work that is in process and needs
to be developed. This is why theoretical knowledge and the desire for
theoretical development are absolutely necessary if the
professor-student relation – another form of the mind-matter,
leader-mass contradiction – is not to be repeated and revive the
practice of following.[…]

It is necessary to return to Marx’s attitude toward all groups in order
to understand why the break with the gang practice ought to be made:

– refuse to reconstitute a group, even an informal one (cf. The
Marx-Engels correspondence, various works on the revolution of 1848, and
pamphlets such as “The Great Men of Exile,” 1852).

– maintain a network of personal contacts with people having realized
(or in the process of doing so) the highest degree of theoretical
knowledge: antifollowerism, antipedagogy; the party in its historical
sense is not a school.

Marx’s activity was always that of revealing the real movement that
leads to communism and of defending the gains of the proletariat in its
struggle against capital. Hence, Marx’s position in 1871 in revealing
the “impossible action” of the Paris Commune or declaring that the First
International was not the child of either a theory or a sect. It is
necessary to do the same now.[…]

It follows from this that it is also necessary to develop a critique of
the Italian communist left’s conception of “program.” That this notion
of “communist program” has never been sufficiently clarified is
demonstrated by the fact that, at a certain point, the Martov-Lenin
debate resurfaced at the heart of the left. The polemic was already the
result of the fact that Marx’s conception of revolutionary theory had
been destroyed, and it reflected a complete separation between the
concepts of theory and practice. For the proletariat, in Marx’s sense,
the class struggle is simultaneously production and radicalization of
consciousness. The critique of capital expresses a consciousness already
produced by the class struggle and anticipates its future. For Marx and
Engels, proletarian movement = theory = communism.[…]

Actually, the problem of consciousness coming from the outside did not
exist for Marx. [Kautsky-Lenin] There wasn’t any question of the
development of militants, of activism or of academicism. Likewise, the
problematic of the self-education of the masses, in the sense of the
council communists (false disciples of R. Luxemburg and authentic
disciples of pedagogic reformism) did not arise for Marx. R. Luxemburg’s
theory of the class movement, which from the start of the struggle finds
within itself the conditions for its radicalization, is closest to
Marx’s position (cf. her position on the “creativity of the masses,”
beyond its immediate existence).[…]

Once we had rejected the group method, to outline “concretely” how to be
revolutionaries, our rejection of the small group could have been
interpreted as a return to a more or less Stirnerian individualism. [and
as “a new theory of consciousness coming from the outside through the
detour of an elitist theory of the development of the revolutionary
movement] As if the only guarantee from now on was going to be the
subjectivity cultivated by each individual revolutionary! Not at all. It
was necessary to publicly reject a certain perception of social reality
and the practice connected with it, since they were a point of departure
for the process of racketization. If we therefore withdrew totally from
the groupuscule movement, it was to be able simultaneously to enter into
liaison with other revolutionaries who had made an analogous break. Now
there is a direct production of revolutionaries who supersede almost
immediately the point we were at when we had to make our break. Thus,
there is a potential “union” that would be considered if we were not to
carry the break with the political point of view to the depths of our
individual consciousnesses. Since the essence of politics is
fundamentally representation, each group is forever trying to project an
impressive image on the social screen. The groups are always explaining
how they represent themselves in order to be recognized by certain
people as the vanguard for representing others, the class. […]

All political representation is a screen and therefore an obstacle to a
fusion of forces. […]

In the vast movement of rebellion against capital, revolutionaries are
going to adopt a definite behavior – which will not be acquired all at
once – compatible with the decisive and determinative struggle against

We can preview the content of such an “organization.” It will combine
the aspiration to human community and to individual affirmation, which
is the distinguishing feature of the current revolutionary phase. It
will aim toward the reconciliation of man with nature, the communist
revolution being also a revolt of nature (i.e., against capital;
moreover, it is only through a new relation with nature) that we will be
able to survive, and avert the second of the two alternatives we face
today: communism or the destruction of the human species.

In order to better understand this becoming organizational, so as to
facilitate it without inhibiting whatever it may be, it is important to
reject all old forms and to enter, without a priori principles, the vast
movement of our liberation, which develops on a world scale. It is
necessary to eliminate anything that could be an obstacle to the
revolutionary movement. In given circumstances and in the course of
specific actions, the revolutionary current will be structured and will
structure itself not only passively, spontaneously, but by always
directing the effort toward how to realize the true Gemeinwesen (human
essence) and the social man, which implies the reconciliation of men
with nature (Camatte, 1972).

3. Francesco Santini (Apocalypse and Survival Italy, 1994)

– See also the pdf edition published by Malcontent Editions]

10.2 Two opposed points of view on organization.

In 1971 Comontism took shape and the group that had formed based on the
positions of Invariance [the journal directed by Camatte] dissolved. It
must be mentioned that both tendencies had diametrically opposed
attitudes towards the “question of organization”. One of these attitudes
was in fact that of Cesarano and a large part of the current. The idea
of Comontism instead whimsically identified its own members (largely
veterans of the similar Organizzazione Consigliare di Torino) with the
historical party of the proletariat, or, even better, with the “human

On this basis, it created an organization with branches in several
Italian cities (see Maelström, No. 2), which erased any distinction
between theoretical and practical activity, between public life and
private life, between individual and organization. Comontism thus
attempted to breathe life into a concrete communism, characterized by:

1. The collectivization of all resources for survival;

2. A “total” way of living together;

3. The constant practice of the “critique of everyday life” in order not
to yield to the pressure imposed by society in the form of family,
social milieu, legal relations, etc.

The immediatist illusion of the group caused it to overlook one
fundamental fact: that between capitalism—that is, between personal
relations dominated by valorization—and communism, there is a revolution
that, according to Marx, serves among other things to “get rid of all
the old shit”. For Comontism the Gemeinwesen [human community] had to be
put into practice here and now: it was all about the passage to
communism of twenty or thirty persons, communizing all relations all at
once: this idea would lead inevitably and immediately to the production
of an ideology: immediatism was rapidly followed by the elaboration of a
whole set of “theoretical” corollaries.

In retrospect, we have to sympathize with Comontism: it was a group of
courageous individuals who always stayed at their posts at the
revolutionary front, bravely confronting harsh repression and fighting
against various Maoist-workerist splinter groups that had specialized
military structures crafted to ensure that the assemblies and
demonstrations were conducted in a way that was acceptable to their
father-master PCI (with the sole exception —besides, naturally, the
Bordiguist groups that had already experienced the armed repression of
the “extraparliamentary” Stalinists—of Potere Operaio, a group devoted
to guerrilla tactics which, although it did not publicly defend the
revolutionaries, was always opposed to […]the systematic calumnies of
the left which had for several years been proclaiming that
“situationists=fascists”. It is indisputable, however, that Comontism
was a revolutionary group, which the Cronaca di un ballo mascherato
justly cited as part of the radical communist current. Not in vain did
it claim to have remained on the terrain of revolutionary practice, when
so many other former Luddites had accepted the separation between the
“militant” public life and private life, which soon led them to passive
nihilism and, in many cases, to renounce the revolutionary option in
favor of worldly success or simply a tranquil life. On the other hand,
one cannot avoid criticizing the retreat of Comontism with respect to
the level attained by Ludd. Comontist immediatism is nothing but a
substitutionism of the proletariat carried to its logical extreme.

From this point of view, Comontism was an authentic model of ideology,
based on an undeclared but easily recognizable hierarchy, which
subjected its recruits to initiation tests and examinations of their
radicality. The most disastrous aspect of Ludd, which we shall discuss
in connection with Cesarano’s critique, became a systematically and
relentlessly applied ideology. Among its ideological conclusions we
find: the apology for crime (the only respected and recognized way to
survive); the praise, not publicly proclaimed, but a constant feature
within the group, for hard drugs as an instrument of destructuring and
liberation from family and repressive relations; the sectarian attitude
of superiority displayed towards every element external to the
organization; the group’s hostility to the hard working, sheep-like
proletariat, which was viewed as just as culpable as everyone else who
was not part of the organization. All of this turned Comontism into a
gang at war with all of humanity, and an uncritical follower of the
criminal model. This is what we mean by “ideology”: the theorization of
this practical attitude in fact prevented any critical procedure from
assuming a material basis: they were dogmas embedded in the extremely
coercive experience of the members of the group. This form of
immediatism was certainly one of the reasons that prevented Cesarano
from drawing practical conclusions, and which led him to lose himself in
sterile abstractions.

However, behind this and other dead ends of Cesarano we find certain
positions that are diametrically opposed to those of Comontism: the
positions of Invariance.

Invariance had “resolved” the problem of organization by studying the
measures employed by Marx to prevent the party from succumbing to
bourgeois reformism during the period of counterrevolutionary retreat.
This analysis was extremely partial, since it completely ignored all of
Marx’s activity that was devoted to building the communist party, and
distorted the revolutionary tradition by avoiding a critical examination
of the purely political activity of Marx taken as a whole. This attitude
was expressed in a text from 1969, published three years later by
Invariance under the title, “On Organization”, signed by Camatte-Collu,
which can be summarized as follows:

1. Under the real domination of capital every organization tends to be
transformed into a Mafia or a sect;

2. Invariance avoided this danger by dissolving the embryonic group that
had begun to form around the journal;

3. All organized groups are excluded a priori, because of the risk that
they will be transformed into Mafias;

4. Relations between revolutionaries are only useful at the highest
level of theory, which each individual can attain in a personal and
independent way, or otherwise fall prey to followerism.

According to Camatte and Collu, the danger of individualism was of no
account because the “production of revolutionaries” was already
underway—in 1972: the extension of the revolutionary process was such
that a network of interpersonal contacts at the “highest” level of
theory was already guaranteed and was even evident.

Thus, Camatte and Collu expressed in the clearest way an error that was
typical of the entire current and of Cesarano himself. In reality, a
pre-revolutionary stage on an international level was not opening up in
1972 (despite the fact that the movement would continue to resist,
although only in Italy), nor was an inexorable production of
revolutionaries imminent (even Camatte and Collu would desert).
Therefore, the disregard of individualism was nothing but an illusion.
There was nothing glorious about dissolving the small group that was
forming around the journal. This did nothing but accelerate what was
already taking place: the dispersion of the sparse revolutionary forces
that remained from 1968, forces which would not experience a resurgence
(in France there were no more large-scale social uprisings, and in Italy
the revolutionary current faced 1977 so weakened by individualism that
it was incapable of undertaking any relevant interventions). In fact,
individualism favored the dissolution of the revolutionary perspective:
either because life in isolation produced a feeling of reduced
self-esteem—which could only be escaped by comparing oneself with one’s
peers—which prevented one from perceiving the movement and which
generated discouragement and depression, the loss of one’s defenses
against the invasion from “outside” and surrender to dominant
tendencies; or because it disguised personalism and elitism, and served
to enable one to get rid of those uncomfortable relations that could
stand in the way of an opportunist reinsertion into bourgeois ideology.
During the seventies and eighties the work of the liquidation of the
organizational remnants (which were by then fragile and informal) and
the unjustified fear of succumbing to politics, “workerism” or leftism,
contributed the impulse to jump to the “other side of the barricade” for
those exponents of the “elite” who had transformed theory into a fetish
and who were mistrustful of the alleged danger of followerism (a danger
that was actually imaginary and non-existent: in Italy no group or
personality exercised any attraction or obtained passive followers such
as the Situationist International had on the other side of the Alps. In
France, in any event, Invariance never did so). We have been analyzing
two views regarding organization that were typical of the seventies,
which we can reject without any remorse, and above all without falling
prey to any of the mystifications offered by the youngest elements. The
first view, that of Comontism, is the model of the criminal
gang-historical party-human community. Although respectable from a human
point of view (like its current epigone, the French group, Os
Cangaceiros), and although it was often interesting for the
practical-organizational-lifestyle solutions that it proposed (the
revolutionaries must live “as if” communism was already a fact and could
thus face the terrible struggle for survival together, which was twice
as hard for them), its vision was born from resentment: the proletariat
is not revolutionary, so “we” (the tiny groups) are the proletariat; we
are the now-realized human community. This led them to a dogmatic and
ideological evaluation of their own sectarian activity and offered the
most disastrous answers: the terroristic self-criticism imposed on every
gesture and every word; the fetishism of coherence; the lurking
possibility of political decline, caused above all by the spell cast by
action, which led them to become a mere gang of loud-mouthed thugs. All
of this was based on the totemic-fetishistic blackmail of “practice”, in
the ideological scorn for theory and lucid action.

The other, “invariantist”, view, which would later spread over a large
part of the radical current, is the model of the circle of relations
among “theoreticians”. In this case, the enormous totem-fetish of theory
conceals the unilateral nature of relations limited to a tiny elite of

Such an attitude, now that the illusions regarding a rapid and abundant
“production of revolutionaries” have dissipated, amounts in reality to
pure and simple individualism. Instead, there is nothing left to do but
to adjust to the fact that the revolutionaries are now isolated. To
increase their current powerlessness by taking a position against
organization does not make any sense. The alternative of continuing to
pursue this option, in an environment of the anxious atomization of
revolutionaries, insisting on the anti-Mafia phobia and on the
exclusivity of relations between a handful of the elect (if one can find
any such elect) at the highest level (higher than what?) of theory, is
not very attractive.

Although it is now clear that the resurgence of activism and militancy
rapidly leads back to politics, it is also clear that the fetish of
theory separated from collective efficacy and, if possible, organized
practice, offers no way out. Communist principles, united with a
critical theory animated by its contrast with the theory of the previous
two decades and with the principle results of the recent past—that is: a
revolution of and for life, a questioning of the limits of the ego and
of personal identity (which in the work of Cesarano are denounced
vehemently and comprehensively), the experience of a revolution in the
revolution—are the only antidotes against the Mafioso degeneration,
which cannot be escaped by way of self-valorizing isolation, and much
less by the original and personal road of an alleged creativity.

It is obvious that in 1970 there was no danger posed by the possibility
that a militant-activist group associated with Invariance or a core
group of “theoreticians” would be formed. In fact, the danger was just
the reverse: disintegration and the neglect of the most important
questions that should have been addressed:

1. The reformulation of the contribution of the historical ultraleft
(Bordiga and the most consistent sector of the

German revolution, which were decisive for the world revolution);

2. Draw up a balance sheet of the new contents contributed by the

3. The need to create a network of relations capable of enduring and
prepared to reinitiate the revolutionary possibilities that were
presented during the seventies.

According to Camatte and Collu the “production of revolutionaries” would
magically resolve all problems, when what actually took place
immediately thereafter was the dispersion of the revolutionaries, and it
became evident that they were incapable of taking advantage of the
opportunity that would be once again, and only in Italy, be presented.

In the following years the question of nihilism arose, still posed in
terms that were upside down with respect to reality: in reality the
expressions of nihilism were the abandonment of the revolutionary
tradition, the end of the search for communist relations among
subversives, the denial of the need to become an effective community,
and the underestimation of the need to avoid being dragged down by the

Comontism was a caricature of relations between revolutionaries, with
its illusion that all problems could be magically resolved by the right
ideology, and its pretension of being the embodiment of the theory of
the sixties, now complete, which only had to be applied in practice
without any delay. Although it was aberrant and unsustainable on the
theoretical plane, this simplification was based on a profoundly correct
demand: theory cannot be a separate and specialized activity, it is an
integral part of the everyday coherence of revolutionaries and the need
to change reality in its entirety, to have an impact on society and on

Comontism had a doubly counterproductive result:

1. Because it created a gang that proclaimed itself to be the enemy of
society and the proletariat, preventing any possibility of forming a
pole of regroupment and of having an effect on society;

2. Because it was easily recuperable by the most typical ideology of the
seventies: that which consisted in justifying—as Toni Negri did—the
groups produced by social disintegration, instead of subjecting them to
a radical critique. This made Comontism incapable of providing any
perspective to a sector, one that was much more coherent in 1977, of
young people who broke with the hierarchical and instrumental armed
practice of Autonomia Organizatta and who instead wanted to act for
themselves, courageously but with impoverished and confused ideas.

Comontism, however, was right to reject the elitism of the few who act
“at the highest level of theory”. Such elitism could only lead to the
creation of relations rooted solely on the intellectual plane.

Cesarano was the only person who acted on the highest level, producing a
clear and explicit theory, completely anti-esoteric, vainly trying to
provide a human solution to this pseudo-intellectual milieu,
characterized by its absolute fragility and by its tremendous
incoherence (except for Piero Coppo and Joe Fallisi, the only other
people among his comrades who preserved a revolutionary coherence,
without nourishing any pretenses to superiority derived from the
possession of theory).


16. The activity of the Centro d’iniziativa Luca Rossi

This is why an activity like that undertaken by the Centro d’iniziativa
Luca Rossi [1990’s] is relevant, which we may summarize as follows:

1. Clarifying the revolutionary tradition, which is necessary in order
to establish some principles that transcend the waves of barbarism that
capital has unleashed on the world that it has colonized (racism, war,
the bloody resurgence of national conflicts like those of the period
before the First World War, the belligerent expansionism of the old
religions), with special attention to the ultraleft current of the epoch
of fascism and Stalinism. This labor implies the resumption of the
projects that were underway in the seventies and which could not be
concluded: the affirmation of communism and its positive description.
Because we must confront the mystification that accompanied the collapse
of that which seventy years of counterrevolution falsely passed off as
“communism”, while fascism and racism no longer just play the role of
spectacular scarecrows but have become gigantic zombies armed to the

2. Drawing up a balance sheet of the Italian radical current, because
the revolutionary eruption of those years “set fire to” a series of
questions without actually answering them, and got stuck in a dead end
just when the time seemed to be most favorable for its activity (1977).
This is why it is necessary to demarcate that historical experience in
order to extract the requisite lessons from it. There is a clear
necessity, among other things, of making accessible the results of this
endeavor, but it is unthinkable that this should be done outside the
boundaries of a discussion that would make it comprehensible and that
would make it an object of criticism for today’s revolutionaries. It is
therefore necessary to confront a double task: to spread the principle
texts of the seventies and to try to draw up a critical balance sheet of
that period.

3. In the short term, we have to avoid repeating the error that was made
at that time and that would be totally unthinkable today: the
valorization of isolation (which transforms theoretical activity into
something abstract and unverifiable). To the contrary, the experiences
of the revolutionaries in the workplaces, in the rank and file
proletarian organizations, and in the social centers, must be very
carefully analyzed without making any exceptions, since they constitute
a vital element, without which not even the preliminary formulations of
therevolutionary tradition would be viable. One lesson that may be
immediately drawn from the radical theory of the seventies is that the
revolutionaries cannot omit the concrete relations with the social
struggle without swelling the ranks of so many brilliant former
revolutionaries; and at the same time, they cannot renounce the concrete
and living critique of everyday life without eventually succumbing to
passive nihilism.

4. There is no need to fear the organizational and institutional
solutions that could serve to attain full practical efficacy. In the
current conditions of the profound crisis of capitalism, in which the
best elements of the international revolutionary proletariat are not,
however, prospering—and there is not even a prosperous class movement
capable of self-defense—the revolutionaries face all the typical dangers
of the previous periods of retreat, but they still do not possess any
historical relation with a recent movement of generalized struggle.
Thus, in a certain sense, today much more than in the seventies, we move
along the edge of the abyss, threatened by the snare of desperation,
deception, and the “catastrophic” crisis of devalorization, in which it
is becoming ever more difficult to find a solution in attack and revolt,
a solution that, after all, in comparison with our current situation,
used to be within reach. So that now, no one may allow himself any kind
of indulgence on the terrain of isolation. Revolutionary community,
organization and solidarity are urgent necessities, whose absence is
dramatically obvious, but whose realization is terribly distant. All of
which calls for strong bonds between revolutionaries, without any kind
of sectarianism. The current period of “preparatory” work, of
clarification of principles, requires not only coherence and
intransigence, but also an enrichment of contacts, of sources and
discussions. The revolutionary milieu is in itself too weak, it is too
much of a “nostalgic” parody of what it once was, to be capable of
constituting by itself a valid point of reference. That is why it needs
all the contributions it can get, in order to create some degree of
circulation of ideas, of research, of study, that would at least
establish the minimal conditions for a resurgence.

There will be no movement without principles and without theory, nor
will there be any movement if we reproduce the narrow-mindedness that
characterized the decline of the radicals.

4. Carlos Lagos Paredes – Communization (Foreward to Apocalypse and
Survival by the spanish translator – Chile, April 2010)

– See also the pdf edition published by Malcontent Editions]

It is one thing to recognize the value of a theoretical work for its
radical and clarifying features, but another one entirely to attribute
to it the ability to change the course of a social movement. A theory
may of course seek to help the proletarian movement avoid being
“poisoned” by ideology, but it can only act as one partial influence
among many others. With respect to both the case of communist minorities
as well as the proletarian movement in general, ideologization is the
result of the complex interaction between innumerable factors—among
which, the content of immediate social practice occupies a central
place—rather than of intellectual errors that are spread by contagion
from one mind to another and which can be counteracted by the “antidote”
of a correct theory. The practical content of the movement can be
analyzed and predicted, but for the most part it is beyond the scope of
formal theory, since it responds to its own laws and evolves in
accordance with what its protagonists perceive to be immediate
necessity. Although theory formally expresses the content of human
relations, it only expresses a negligible part of them; it is one
mediation among others, and as such cannot by itself alter the material
conditions that produce ideology or its supersession. The purview of
theory is in fact much more modest: in the best case, it can publicly
explain aspects of reality or relations that were not normally
perceived, or call attention to the risks and the opportunities of a
situation that affects everyone. Everything else depends on the men and
women dedicated to action and struggle.

The overestimation of the power of written theory is not the only
feature that can be criticized in Santini’s article, but this did not
discourage me when it came time to translate it. I do not think that in
this case the author was trying to argue in favor of personalism or of
idealism. I believe, rather, that he permitted himself some exaggerated
claims, inspired by his great affection for Cesarano and for the
experience that he recounts, which is of course debatable, but does not
invalidate the contribution made by the text taken as a whole. The same
is true of the emphasis that Santini places on the need for
revolutionary regroupment, an aspect that, in my view, he does not
subject to a profound enough analysis. Considering the indisputable
dispersion of revolutionaries, it seems to me to be of little use to
call for their regroupment as if this were itself enough to solve
anything. In reality, it is not so much a question of getting the people
with revolutionary ideas to associate with one another, but to know for
what purpose they would do so, besides the enjoyment of their mutual
affinity. To do this, however, does not by any means require that one be
a “revolutionary”: we proletarians have a tendency to unite
spontaneously because this is what our social nature demands: it is not
a question of choice. If such a regroupment has some special purpose,
this is another question, but it only makes sense to debate this
question in relation to each specific case. Whether it involves
organizing a potluck dinner, a strike picket at work, the publication of
a text of radical critique or agitation in support of imprisoned
comrades … there are a thousand things that can be discussed and acted
upon, without losing sight of the fact that each person participates in
this or that activity because it directly affects his personal
existence. But a general appeal to revolutionaries in order to convince
them to regroup in accordance with their ideas, is another matter
entirely, which basically is oriented towards transcending concrete
determinations that link each person to a specific kind of activity. I
shall pause here to examine this point more carefully because I believe
that what Santini expresses in his article is symptomatic of a very
widespread perception.

What Santini says is true: the retreat of the working class to defensive
positions or to mere helplessness only aggravates the devastation
produced by capitalist development, and in such conditions isolation
cannot be defended with the delirium displayed by the apologists for
theoretical purism in the early seventies. But there is also another
question: as long as social atomization persists in the proletariat as a
whole there will be limitations to the regrouping of radical minorities,
since their activity inevitably tends to reproduce the conditions in
which their class lives and acts. This must have a repercussion on their
practice, which will tend to focus on one particular issue to the
detriment of others, with the exclusionary effect this entails. Thus, it
is by no means strange that some revolutionaries undertake solidarity
actions on behalf of prisoners while others concentrate on rebuilding
nuclei of agitation in the workplace; likewise, it is logical that some
would prefer to respond to the need for independent media, while others
devote their efforts to preserving the historical memory of the
proletariat … and so on. It would be absurd to expect that each person
should assume responsibility for all the practical necessities of the
movement, nor does it make any sense to demand that all those who are
engaged in different activities should converge in a single perfectly
integrated collectivity: this would be enough to render their
co-existence impossible, assuming with justification that a certain
degree of dispersion is the inevitable effect of the way one lives in
this society. In these conditions, it is normal for those who are trying
to develop a “total practice” to end up absorbed in an overwhelming
flood of tasks and relations where what they gain in terms of extension
is almost always lost in terms of depth. The dissatisfaction that this
generates is usually expressed in a recriminatory discourse that makes
the radical minorities themselves responsible for the dispersion and
weakness of the proletarian movement. Each group or individual therefore
discovers reasons for underestimating the others because they are “only”
devoted to labor issues, or counter-information, or prisoners’ aid, or
theory, etc. Ultimately, from this point of view all of them are
culpable for not being sufficiently revolutionary to have an impact on
the general situation. Such an attitude is equivalent to putting the
responsibility for industrial pollution on the shoulders of the ordinary
consumers. In both cases what is expressed is a feature of radical
democratism, which relies on the moral power of good intentions to
resolve the problems that can by no means be resolved under capitalist

The preferential dedication to certain tasks will only cease to be a
problem in a revolutionary context, in which human relations will
possess a new dynamic corresponding to new social problems; and in which
the resulting polyvalence will not be a distinctive trait of
“revolutionaries”, but of broad sectors of the population. As long as
this does not take place, and perhaps even after it has occurred, it is
inevitable and even desirable that some should devote themselves with
more enthusiasm to one or another type of activity. If the preference
for one activity instead of others today appears as a limitation this is
not due to the actual content of this activity, but due to the fact that
the collective capacity for harmonizing the diverse activities in a
coherent community has not been sufficiently developed. This is only a
reflection of the way the population as a whole relates to the
instruments of production and to the products of their activity.
Communism, however, does not impose the abstract demand that each person
should occupy himself indiscriminately with everything; instead, it
allows for the harmonious social coordination of individual aptitudes.
The communist production of the “total man” is not the production of the
isolated individual in possession of infinite abilities, but the total
community: in this community, man does not need to do everything that
the others do, but he has the opportunity to do anything because he no
longer encounters arbitrary impediments that separate him from his own
inclinations. This has nothing to do with the madness of the “new man”
that justified the spectacular protagonism of certain revolutionary
leaders, and which is today still nourishing the desire for fantasy and
the moralism of those who want to see their own personal requirements
rule the lives of everyone in the entire world.

Returning to Santini, I think that his overestimation of theory as well
as of the current possibilities for revolutionary regroupment are
related to the insufficiency of his criticism of the point of view
elaborated by Cesarano and Invariance during the seventies: a point of
view in which the crisis of capitalism presents such apocalyptic and
unfavorable features for communism, that revolutionary possibilities no
longer seem to be contained within the social contradiction of
capitalism itself, but elsewhere. Thus, theory appears as a means
capable of expressing possibilities situated beyond the immediate social
contradiction (which actually amounts to a new esotericism); while
regroupment seems to provide access to such possibilities, without
taking into account the fact that the revolutionaries themselves are
immersed in the social contradiction and in history, from whose limits
in any event they can hardly escape.

5. Gilles Dauvé (Militancy in the 21st Century – France, 2014)
[No full english edition available, Translation: Malcontent Editions]

The situationists had made from the rejection of militancy a base
banality, a critique that was summed up in 1972 in Militancy, supreme
state of alienation.

For us, ‘militant’ is not an insult reserved for those that we wouldn’t
do anything together with (as ‘petit-bourgeois’ was long ago for many
militants). Certain comrades can be included within the militancy: they
don’t seek perfection, but we don’t see it necessarily as a sufficient
motive for rupture.

In the situationist critique, to militate signifies sacrificing one’s
own life for the cause, denying personal desires and necessities in
order to submit to a doctrine. And above all, to believe that it’s
possible to change the world with no more than presentations, meetings
and words. The militant is a voluntarist multiplied by a productivist.

Forty years later, what has the militant changed into? What consequences
do these changes have in our critique of militancy? […]

The professional revolutionary of long ago was paid by the party: today
the State or a private organism contracts them or subsidizes them, which
was unacceptable for the militants of the 70’s. The rejection of
political parties has progressed, the rejection of the State [and of the
Market] has diminished […]

There’s no interest in playing at massacre. We don’t believe ourselves
to be worse than our neighbor, nor do we imagine overcoming the
contradictions of radical critique through the magic of a dialectic that
would take up the good parts of each one (the energy of one, the
preoccupation to inform of the other, the reproduction of old texts by
the third…) abstaining from the faults present in each of them.

In any case, we don’t hope to construct today the organization that will
be ready tomorrow “when everything explodes” To remain available is
often the best that can be done; to be informed, but without being glued
to the screen; to act, but not necessarily every day. In the necessary
diffusion of information and radical theses, these are no more important
than the links woven for their circulation, useful some day, but it
would be impossible and vain to formalize currently. If the collective
inertia is an obstacle to the revolution, certain types of actions can
also maintain the passivity.

As a proletarian proverb says: “it’s not the revolutionaries who will
make the revolution, but the revolution that will make the

6. A proletarian revolutionary after participating in a mass revolt and
returning to the capitalist normalcy, at a time of economic and health
(Ecuador, March-April 2020)
[translation: Malcontent Editions]

If indeed theory is an activity or a specific form of practice which
emanates from reality with the aim of consciously understanding and
transforming it, it’s the practice of the class struggle itself that
always has the last word in class society. Only in practice can the
truth and the force, or not, of a theory be demonstrated. And theory
only turns into a material force when it kindles within the masses and
they realize it. Revolutionary theory is only practice and immediate in
the revolution, and vice-versa: only the practical revolution is
immediately theory. The rest is silence… or pure noise.

But the revolution doesn’t depend on “grassroots work” and “agitation
and propaganda” focused on “awareness raising” and recruitment on the
part of a “revolutionary” organization for its own “accumulation of
forces” and “taking of power” under its ideology (e.g. the
marxist-leninists). Neither does it depend on creating small
“self-managed communes” isolated form the rest of the society in order
to “live the utopia here and now” (e.g. the self-managerialists). Much
less does it depend on the political, symbolic and mediatic activism of
the new leftists (e.g. the leftist postmodernists, including some
anarchists). All these forms of supposedly “anticapitalist” action do no
more than to reproduce this generalized mercantile and spectacular
society, although they think and say the opposite, because they neither
attack nor subvert its roots or foundations but rather reproduce them
“from below and to the left”.

Then? In reality the revolution depends on the anonymous proletarian
masses or the nobodies who neither can nor want to live under the
capitalist mode of production and of living any longer, and thus begin
to produce for themselves, through necessity and desire, social
relations and forms of living that are communistic and anarchic, which
can only be developed freely and fully by means of the social
revolution, meaning by means of the abolition and overcoming of the
class society, in the heat of the class antagonism itself and the
reproduction of daily life. In the real social struggles and everyday
practices where the proletarians do this, there is where the seed of
revolution, of communism and anarchy is to be found.

Meanwhile, individuals tend to be separated amongst themselves, just as
theory tends to be separated from practice as well (this last
separation/alienation is called ideology), given that capitalism is the
world of separation or of the systematic social organization of
isolation, independently from what individuals or groups of the left
believe and say ideologically to this respect. But the revolutionaries
“with neither dogma nor party” will not save us from ideology either,
for the simple fact of “living” under conditions of structural social
alienation/separation. Thus, to be objective from the communist and
class perspective, radical theory must not only be produced in an
individual or isolated form and only in relation with other individuals
that do the same (as is my case currently, and surely that of other
comrades in other latitudes as well as in other eras, including
Camatte); but rather it’s necessary to make an effort to construct and
practice social relations and forms of living that really transform the
capitalist social relations and forms of living, with other proletarians
that are “ordinary” but are tired of being proletarians (which is more
complicated but also more necessary and effective). “Communism vs. the
alienated lone individual” (Santini, 1994)

In effect, what’s more important and decisive than the revolutionary
theories and individuals, are the real links of solidarity, mutual aid,
care, confidence, communication, gratuity, horizontality and liberty
which, in an anonymous and autonomous way, the proletarians create in
order to satisfy their immediate vital necessities and, at the same
time, to struggle for and live the revolution, that’s to say to change
their own lives radically in every aspect, as much in times of
capitalist normality (or of non-revolutionary class struggle) as in
times of revolts and insurrections (or of revolutionary class struggle).
Theory will only be a factor or one more active element of this total
and radical transformation of the class and of society; but it will be,
because revolutionary praxis – which without a doubt includes
revolutionary agitation and propaganda – is lucid or conscious of itself
and of its circumstances.

Having it clear that this will not occur at whatever time or whenever it
is wanted (as the voluntarists and immediatists believe), but in
concrete historical situations of ascent, generalization and
intensification of the class struggle and of the capitalist crisis,
which affects people’s daily lives and presents them with new social
problems to resolve in collective practice.

Furthermore, this can’t be done with people that don’t want to or can’t
do it, they cannot and must not be obliged to it (nobody saves or
liberates anybody, we all save ourselves or self-liberate together).
Real relationships of community and of liberty can only be constructed
with other proletarianized individuals that already fight for their own
freedom and human community, to reappropriate their lives, in their own
realities and with the means that they have at reach.

The historical, social and impersonal process of the revolution is that
which produces revolutionary individuals who associate freely in order
to act as such, and vice-versa. That, among other things, is what “that
communist production of communism” (Théorie Communiste, 2011) involves,
by means of real communities of struggle and of life; that is to say, by
means of spontaneous, impure, imperfect, limited and contradictory
communities of proletarians that fight for their immediate vital
necessities at the same time as fighting for their own liberation and
abolition as a social class (communist proletarians fight for our own
abolition, as Gorter said well), and for the abolition of Capital and
the State. This involves, also, breaking and overcoming the isolation or
the capitalist social atomization and, at the same time, making an
effort to be the critique and the practical overcoming of the “rackets”,
groupuscules, gangs or political mafias of the left that compete amongst
themselves for quotas of power within the bourgeois society and its
State – the reason for which they are not revolutionary but rather

Contradictory? Yes: better said, dialectical, because the proletariat is
the living contradiction and it is only revolutionary when it fights to
cease being an exploited and oppressed class. That’s why it’s an
anti-class class. The revolution is the positive resolution of this
contradiction in motion. Criticizing and overcoming in the said motion
all the separations which Capital has imposed; in this case, the
separation between individual and community, and between theory and
practice; and, therefore, criticizing and overcoming the typical and
false leftist debates to that respect: activism-theoreticism (or
pragmatism-intellectualism), subjectivism-objectivism and
individualism-collectivism. Even so, it continues to be contradictory or
dialectical, because it’s a living reality, in constant movement and,
therefore, in constant self-transformation. The same applies,
historically and logically, to revolutionary
organization-anti-organization: it has only been, is, and will be such
if it questions and transforms the capitalist social relations and forms
of living and thought that it contains and which contain it (which
without a doubt includes the male-chauvinist, racist, nationalist, etc.
forms of oppression at its very heart); if it realizes radical critique
(theoretical and practical) of all the aspects of the capitalist world;
if it subverts the current state of things and produces the arms
(practical and theoretical) of its liberation in an autonomous and
conscious manner; if it prefigures the real human community of freely
associated individuals and fights for the communist revolution in deeds;
if it struggles for its own abolition as an organization separated from
the class, abolishing the capitalist conditions that have produced it as
such; in a word: if it really contributes to the self-liberation and the
self-abolition of the proletariat as a class which is exploited,
oppressed and alienated by Capital and the State.

All of this – as it has already been said and it’s worth making clear –
not at a whim but in determined conditions, principally in situations of
revolutionary crisis produced or not by the class struggle itself, as
well as in everyday life in the measure that it’s possible. And – as
it’s also already been said and worth making clear – not in a pure
manner without contradictions, because when a movement is real it’s
impure and contradictory, and what makes it revolutionary, then, is to
assume, sustain and strain these capitalist contradictions in order to
overcome them and overcome them all at the root.

On the contrary, the proletarian and popular organizations, as much of
the masses as of “cadres”, as much activists as radicals, have not been,
are not, nor will they be more than organizations that, through their
practices and their relationships, reproduce capitalism but with an
“anticapitalist” or “revolutionary” appearance. For which they must also
be criticized, fought against, destroyed and overcome by the
proletarians that are fed-up with being proletarians and “without a
party”. Indeed, to really self-emancipate, the proletariat must
criticize, strain, break, transform, abolish and overcome itself
radically, without fear, mystification, piety or subterfuge. In this
sense, the proletariat, like the revolution, in reality advances through
ruptures and leaps. Its militant self-organization and self-activity
only make sense if it’s in order to realize this sole end which is truly
revolutionary. This means, furthermore, to understand and practice
communism as a real movement and anarchy as a tension towards social

But, unfortunately, what happens most of the time and all over the place
is exactly the opposite, despite how many organization-gangs and
militant-martyrs of the left that exist and do “real political work and
not just blah-blah”. The revolutionary situations, on the contrary, have
been, are, and will be decisive historical exceptions, ultimately,
according to what the proletariat does or doesn’t do in them as a
revolutionary or self-abolishing anti-class class; that’s to say,
according to what our class does or doesn’t do to abolish and overcome
the living contradiction that it itself is in every aspect of social
life, including its organizations, its ideologies and its
“revolutionary” roles.

The proletarians don’t learn “these things” only through theory, but
principally through their own practical experience and, especially,
through the false steps, the errors, the failures, the blows and the
defeats suffered in everyday life and in the class struggle, until the
revolution… or death. and also it’s something that can happen just as
much as it can’t, depending on what, now and in the coming decades, we
do or not in order to free ourselves integrally; that’s to say, to
self-abolish as a class (and as a gender, “race”, nation, etc.) and in
order to create a real human-natural community, above all in this era of
generalized capitalist catastrophe where the only radical alternative
that’s left for the human species is: communism or extinction.


Other related and recommended texts:

– Give up activism – Andrew X (1999)

– The Necessity and Impossibility of ‘Anti-Activism’ – J. Kellstadt

– Against the Logic of Submission: Neither Intellectualism Nor Stupidity
– Willfull Disobedience (2001)

– La propaganda subversiva y los “ismos” – Ricardo Fuego (2006)
[es, no existing english edition]

– Minimum Definition of Revolutionary Organizations – Situationist
International (1967)

– Militancy: highest stage of alienation – Organisation des Jeunes
Travailleurs Révolutionnaires (1972)

– The Impotence of the Revolutionary Group – Sam Moss (1930s)

– Rackets – F.Pallinorc (2001)


Squat solidarity! This MayDay squatters from across the U.K. have come together to co-ordinate decentralised actions across the country to highlight our plight and address our needs. Both residential and commercial buildings have been occupied to provide housing for ourselves and the others left high and dry during this time of crisis, and banners have been dropped in support by squats not yet facing imminent eviction. Land has been taken to repurpose for clean open space and food, and food distribution is taking place to aid all who are struggling.
Due to the COVID-19 crisis, emergency legislation was introduced and put a stay to all evictions for 90 days. However, it took just three weeks for the judges to surrender to the pressure from bailiffs, landlords and banks, and amend the law.
Squatting cases will continue to be heard via phone, and bailiffs are now again smashing through our doors the way they always have – but this time we’re in the middle of a global pandemic and it’s scarier than ever before.
Evictions make us sick. In both the metaphorical and physical sense. The government that we didn’t choose values landlords’ and millionaire owners’ property laws higher than public health or our lives and the lives of people we love.
We recognise though that it’s not a matter of choosing a “better” government as for us, it ends up being the same. We are a collective of communities living on the margins of society. Some of us are BIPOC, migrants, refugees, queer and trans
people. Some are people living with disabilities, managing various health conditions, healing from trauma and domestic abuse. All of us are building our own refuges, homes and chosen families. COVID-19 has only magnified our already
existing health, housing and power inequalities.
We find further discrimination in the illegal evictions that have taken place in these last weeks, as well as the well-evidenced police harassment of those of no fixed abode or street homeless – despite the lockdown rules not applying to
those without homes. The government plan to house the homeless has proven to be worthless as people find themselves not able to get a spot, or treated like dirt when they do. State provision has already failed so many. Councils are running
out of money, all the while council housing sits empty by the thousands. Specialist services such as domestic violence survivor support and LGBTQI+ housing and support services are fighting to be able to offer much needed refuge.
Meanwhile it is estimated that the number of long-term empty homes in England now exceeds 226,000 (this figure is significantly higher if taking commercial properties into account).
The precarity we face is the same precarity lots of other people will recognise – it’s living payslip to payslip in insecure housing. It’s having little to no savings, little to no social network and sweating to get benefits that barely cover necessities. Government’s “solution” to make receiving universal credit easier and suspending evictions (which will only postpone them) is a temporary fix. It won’t solve the crisis that started way before the pandemic did. Some say COVID-19 is a crisis for capitalism. We say: to be so, it would have to destroy or at least scratch any of the structures that stay exactly the way they’ve been, the way they’ve been designed to be. It’s us – squatters and renters – who get hit the hardest while landlords enjoy their mortgage holidays and property owners fill out eviction papers.
We will not ask permission to find a safe place to sleep and stay alive. We will sleep wherever we can and want to.
Whether in one of the 837272819191? empty buildings or abandoned unused land plots lying around or take up secret corners on OUR streets, if that’s the place we find the most safe. We will survive in the ways we need to and know.
We can’t just see this as a return to “normal”, and like all other aspects of our lives, we need to forge new paths and refuse to be crushed by a crumbling capitalism trying desperately to maintain its grip on the population. Our actions today are not those of politely asking to be reconsidered by the state, or begging to have the amendment overturned.
We’re not asking for their kindness as we already know they’ve got none for us. We acted today because for us, solidarity means attack – attack on the legal amendment and the idea of housing as a commodity.

Demand space to stay safe. Take it if you have to.


Written by: Squatters across the UK

London – Graffiti, banners and subvertising

USA – Texas “control unit” prison: New writings and update from Xinachtli

“I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.”

Fraternal, revolutionary greetings, in the true spirit of internationalism and solidarity against all forces of evil, destruction and self-destruction, hoping this one finds you, family and friends in the very best, as it leaves me, during these trying times of not only the deadly Coronavirus COVID-19, but of the same deadly white supremacist pig-germ that now occupies the White House, that is as deadly as COVID-19 for our impoverished communities, and for the imprisoned, and poor immigrants seeking a better way of life, all pushed back by this sheer imperialist arrogance and elitism of the billionaire, money-laundering pig club that has taken over the halls of political power in the U.S. of A., a clear and present danger to all of humanity and planet Earth. Let future generations disown us and label us as spineless cowards, if we do not act to stop this insanity and madness!

You have the free liberty to duplicate these materials and share them with the rest of the world, on social media or to whomever or wherever you find my words, in the hopes that this extreme state repression I am being subjected to by these racist police state pigs may stir the senses of world humanism, and motivate others to join the freedom train, in whichever ways they can, in spreading the word of the true realities of what Amerikkka’s racist, pig prison torture chambers are all about, all in the name of the corporate greed profiteering of those who make a livelihood of imprisoning others and upholding the fascism of this capitalist/imperialist totalitarian police state. There is only one way out of this misery for us, and that is through class struggle and social revolution. I have my shovel in hand, and have joined the club of grave diggers, to dig the future grave of this racist, oppressive and criminal system of robbery called capitalism. Expropriate the expropriators!

I am awaiting to hear from a few parole lawyers I reached out to to see what their fees are to represent me at my upcoming parole review hearing, beginning in January 2021. Once I learn of all that, then I will make a call to accumulate support letters and other pleas for release and I will then post it to the world. So, stay tuned.

Again, thank you so much for your solidarity and support. It means a lot to me. Take care and stay safe of the COVID-19 virus.

All power to the oppressed!

In internationalist solidarity,


s/n Alvaro Luna Hernandez

Texas’ Allred Guantanamo Bay Prison

“Today, the most powerful force for social transformation is the working class movement… Anarchists must recognize the usefulness and the importance of the workers’ movement, must favour its development, and make it one of the levers for their action, doing all they can to see that it, in conjunction with all existing progressive forces, will culminate in a social revolution which leads to the suppression of classes and to complete freedom, equality, peace and solidarity amongst all human beings.”
Errico Malatesta, Italian anarchist

Xinachtli Defense Committee Update – March 2020

The James V. Allred Prison Administration is subjecting Chicano political prisoner and jailhouse lawyer Xinachtli, s/n Alvaro Luna Hernandez, to a campaign of harassment and repeated discriminatory cellblock assignments to 12 Building Disciplinary Segregation Cellblock F Pod, housing those who violate prison rules, although Xinachtli has violated no prison rule. It is clear he is being subjected to these punitive assignments as part of prison repression to keep him further isolated, now, in a prison within a prison, and in a “psychiatric ward” also housing many intellectually disabled people under intense psychotropic drugged states, in a cellblock almost daily gassed with chemical agents, repreated instances of prisoner suicides, and repeated suspension of all activities, including denial of daily showers, and the proper cleaning of the cellblock by support service prisoners, during these emergency Coronavirus times necessitating proper hygiene and cleanliness.

Such repression is part of the prison’s punitive, retaliatory measures against Xinachtli for his ongoing legal activities, and his outspokenness in speaking truth to racist, oppressive power, and him leading a revolutionary-education consciousness study group to preach prisoner unity among all captives, to study revolutionary theory, anarchism, and social liberation movements, and in helping others to file suits against the prison’s institutional racism and inhumanity, and in making prisoners come to terms with the true nature of their capitalist-class imprisonment, as capitalism’s “surplus populations” of poor, unemployed, and especially ethnic minority prisoners of AmeriKKKa’s racist courts that maintain “quotas” for imprisoning extrajudicially all charged with crime, no matter their guilt or innocence, in a state known for imprisoning and executing the innocent, in Texas’ modern-day chattel slavery of mass incarceration where the Texas prisoner class is “cannon fodder” for its Texas Correctional Industries empire of assembly-line factories, and other forms of stoop slave labor under horrific working conditions, with no pay, resulting in loss of life and limb, all legalized by the 13th Amendment as “slavery and involuntary servitude” as punishment for crime.

The Texas prison system continues to be a fascist prison, notorious for its institutional racism and atrocities against its captive population, and other forms of extreme repression against captives such as Xinachtli, who refuse to submit and who continue fighting back, calling on oppressed prisoners to unite, and to demand to be treated like human beings and not animals. Animals in city zoos receive better treatment than Texas’ prison slaves, especially those such as Xinachtli in repressive solitary confinement for a prolonged duration designed to break prisoners and to dehumanize them into submission.

This specialized form of state repression is the brainchild of the notorious Dr. George Beto, who ruled Texas prisons with an iron fist, introducing the “leather strap” to beat striking prisoners, and “blacklisting” and barring from the prison attorneys such as Francis Jalet Cruz, and using the same discriminatory cellblock housing tactics now being used against Xinachli in efforts to pressure prisoners to abandon their fights against the prison, withdraw their suits, and to renounce their ideas considered “revolutionary” and make them submit and stop exposing these inhumanities. All this is officially reported in Cruz v. Beto, 603 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1978), involving George Beto, who federal courts found liable and ordered to pay monetary damages to Attorney Jalet Cruz, activist Fred Cruz, and the other clients of said attorney singled out by Beto into the Eight Hoe Field Force Squad for specialized repression.

Dr. George Beto is considered a god in prison circles, and his portrait is painted on many walls at various prisons in the state. His institutional psychology and his Texas-style form of prison fascism is alive and well today behind prison walls, as Beto taught his students at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas, who moved on to work for the prison system either as prison guards or part of the administrative hierarchy of the prison empire. AmeriKKKa’s “control unit” prisons are designed with this purpose in mind, as Marion Federal Warden Ralph Aron testified, in the prison litigation relating to Marion’s prison lockdown, that the purpose of said “control units” was “to control revolutionary attitudes in the prison and society at large”, as is now being practiced against Xinachtli as part of the prison’s behavioral modification programs for social thought-control and extreme repression.

Repression against Xinachtli has intensified, especially since global support for him is growing, and freedom, justice-loving people learn of him, his history of struggles, outside and inside prison walls, and are horrified by this government’s continuing secret, dirty war against social militancy and dissent. Folk singer David Rovics has now written a “Ballad”, available to listen online, honoring Xinachtli for his lifetime commitment to change this racist, oppressive society and to a better world. Texas prison officials fear and despise the prospect that the outside world at large could become aware of its prison inhumanities, and to know that in AmeriKKKa not all is milk and honey, nor is it a paradise of democracy with equal justice for all, but in all reality it is a bastion of racism and oppression against the poor, and people of color, especially behind its barbed-wire prisons, and its “control units”, orchestrated by the white supremacist pig now occuping the White House, that violate all norms of human decency, and international human rights laws and standards, and are KKKoncentration KKKamps for the poor, of AmeriKKKa’s modern-day plantation slavery system and its prison industrial complex, disproportionately represented by black and brown people of color, of its genocidal, murderous and torturous system of mass incarceration, all for corporate profiteering, that should shock the conscience of humanity and stir our senses to act for change now, and support Xinachtli and the Texas prisoner class in the fight for dignity and humanity.

See also:http://www.davidrovics.com/

We are calling on all freedom, justice-loving peoples of the world to call and email Texas prison authorities and protest in the strongest of terms these crimes against humanity, telling the government: not in my name you won’t!

Jimmy S. Smith Allred Warden(940) 855-7477
Bryan Collier Texas Prison Executive Director(936) 437-2101 Bryan.Collier@tdcj.texas.gov exec.director@tdcj.texas.gov

Texas Governor Greg Abbott https://gov.texas.gov/(512) 463-2000

Program Supervisor Prison Access to Courts(936) 437-4815 atc@tdcj.state.tx.us

Janie Cockrell Office of Ombudsman Citizen Complaints ombudsman@tdcj.texas.gov
(936) 437-4927

Contact the Defense Committee at:PO Box 7907, Austin, Texas, 78713, USA(937) 224-1207, twitchon@gmail.com

My Revolutionary Resurrection!

You have falsified and destroyed our history,after you stole our lands, converting us into foreigners,
illegal aliens in our own homeland.But you will never erase our identity, culture,tongue, our indigenous roots, you so fear and despise.We are a proud, noble, humble, compassionate people,and a valiant, revolutionary one.

We will forever rattle and break the chains, physical and mental,you have put on us as a brand of our inferiority, as your domestic wage-slaves.

We will unite in your factories and asphalt jungles and reservations and capitalist-profiteering prison cages of mass incarceration until we are free of your indoctrinated capitalist filth, your so-called values, your greed, your worship of material possessions, your white privileged ruling class barbarism you have subjected us to. We will unite against you, and free Mother Earth, who you hold under siege, destroying it for corporate profits.

You may have me in your racist prison dungeon cages now, and tomorrow you may kill me, but I vow to the world, you will never, ever kill my spirit, for I am of the quality of men that will live forever in the hearts and minds of the powerless, the voiceless, the oppressed.When you bury me again, this time in a cemetery grave and not in the grave you have me in now, I will resurrect from the grave to come back and hunt you, to dispense the revolutionary justice you have escaped, and to bury you and your racist, capitalist, imperialist systems deep in a grave, from which you will never, ever rise again to destroy others.

by Xinachtli (meaning “Germinating Seed” in Nahautl, Xinachtli is a renowned Chicano political prisoner and NLG jailhouse lawyer member. He has been in a Texas “control unit” prison for 20-plus years.)

Texas “control unit” prison: New writings and update from Xinachtli (U$A)

The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: COVID-19, Corbyn and ‘Crisis’ (UK)

Text from the UK reflecting on anarchy, “democracy”, coronavirus, and responses to the pandemic…

PDF: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions: COVID-19, Corbyn and ‘Crisis’

We started to write this text last December, just after the general election in England, in response to the huge number of anarchists who voted…. then coronavirus hit. Struggling to make sense of the new context we are in, we wondered if our critique of “democracy” (and the surge of Labour voting anarchists) in the UK was appropriate. Some may read this text as an unsympathetic distraction from a global “crisis”.

We hope our humble (but fiery) reflections will spark some much needed discussion. Now is the time for difficult questions….and as there will be no return to “normal”, we decided to publish it now. Email us at theroadtohell [at] riseup [dot] net