In the recently a discussion started by the insurrectional nihilist direct action proponents on their perception of strategy, as if aformal organization can really produce a single strategy or aformalists can adopt one from above (Alfredo Bonnano) and call it activism from below. We found a comment, slightly of entertaining value but also containing a small part of criticism on what they describe as “action”.

Yes, why not? Without any organization a strategy can be produced; the timing and coordination of actions, the execution of the strategy may slightly be limping though, in order for those actions to be perceived as a significant materialization of the strategy.

Some concern arises from this speculation. Daily in large cities of millions of residents there may be hundreds who reach a high level of stress and frustration, and due to their perception of injustice they riot at the individual level. Each one with his/her way and her/his target. Some while erupting end up dead, some at an emergency psychiatric reintegration clinic, and some in prison (correctional clinic). A few luckier ones will have some friends who will act soon enough to reinstate them as civil members of society in order to avoid the consequence of their lawlessness.  In times of economic distress this becomes a growing phenomenon. The majority of this activity is described as individual expression of anger and wrath and cannot possibly have any political content. They are not perceived as significant by society as they lack coordination, uniformity, and synchronization. Thus they acquire the description of a natural social phenomenon. One in x thousands every day snaps, loses his/her marbles sort of speak.

This type of activity to reach some uniformity, needs “some” organization, coordination, orchestration, that could gain political content and continuity. Organization to provide someone with a way and form to describe the riot?  Would this be a more conscious choice than just exploding wrath and frustration?  Do revolutionary individualists try to invest and inspire a natural phenomenon of anger and frustration, caused by economic and social injustice or generally the material conditions under capitalism?

Are they trying to induce some feelings to the masses so they will vent their steam in a certain direction? If no organization arises within a mass revolt/riot only mass terror and fear will spread as a consequence. This usually brings adverse effects.  The angry soon regain a collective logic of survival and by lacking the organization to regain survival support systems they assign authority to forces of repression.

What would be the importance of action in the form of isolated individual attacks when there are no conditions for altering collective consciousness?  Often this results to even greater spread of conservatism in a society. Is it the individual satisfaction of those inciting the riot of importance, and the alibi that they did “something” while others do “nothing”?

Translator’s comment: In this poetic effort the commentator is underlying the value of the insurrectional nihilist attempts as having individualist satisfaction as a goal and alibi, against the social consequences of assisting the state to spread more conservativism and repression in society. Therefore lacking any political responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The individual right to act and assist the state to legitimize social repression.  Which raises an even more important issue, the question of what that hidden strategy may actually be. Can “total liberation” really be translated in a strategy to legitimize totalitarianism?

The text in greek.

Leave a Reply