FIRE AND GUNPOWDER
From Indonesia to Chile…
A proposition for FAI/IRF
We hear the song of fire that comes from far away. The words smell of gunpowder. From the other side of the world rebellious comrades burn the nights and liberate places and moments. we can hear them… They conspire, plan, attack… We do not have to say anything else, we leave our brothers and sisters to speak for us.
“We are all Conspiracy Cells of Fire. C.C.F. is not an organization or just a group. On the contrary it is a antagonistic expression of rage and contempt towards authority and its structures. To spread the C.C.F. all you need is gasoline, matches and the desire to fight for absolute freedom. We have begun the war against the existing order.
The following text is dedicated to the Mexican C.C.F. and to our brothers and sisters of F.A.I. all around the world.
i)The wind blows against… from Indonesia to Chile
These previous months from every corner of the earth more and more explosive messages of fire and gunpowder cross borders and seas reaching us here, in the greek prisons where we are hostage, but not defeated.
Words mix with fire and behind the ashes of banks, government buildings, cop cars, nanotechnology labs, satellite antennas, private security cars and luxury shops, open a promise to friends and a threat to the enemy. They open a live proposition of the Informal Anarchist Federation (F.A.I.). An International Revolutionary Front (I.R.F.) is now organized in Italy, England, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Russia, Holland, Peru, Bolivia, Indonesia, Australia, Greece…
An idea that started its journey ten years ago from Italy from the brothers and sisters of the Italian F.A.I. and today is stronger than ever. F.A.I. definitely is not a theoretic game of harmless words and symbols, but an idea to live dangerously and anarchically with all our senses, without dead time and cowardly excuses.
Often the texts that come to our hands like the one from the Italian F.A.I., the one from the english comrades of F.A.I. titled “Rain and Fire”, the announcement of the Russian F.A.I., the call of the 11 anarchist organizations from Mexico, and many more, fill us with a weird awkwardness. Its this indescribable joy we feel when individuals and groups who do not know one another reach the same conclusions and feel the same feelings the exact same moment.
This feeling explodes in every word that unlocks the next and draws a common path of revolt. It is one of the few times that we do not have much to say. Most of our points are covered by our comrades. But we don’t want to consume the text in a series of compliments.
We know that we have work to do and a tough path with battles to walk through. Now we want to become even more dangerous, even more substantial, even more anarchist. This is why we write a lot from inside the prisons, because we want to act more.
ii) Doing a “translation” within the translation
Communication is the corner stone of our whole informal structure. We realize every word as a invitation of battle against authority. Every meaning we print on paper, we want to find a way for it to escape from theory and transform into practice. Only in practise are all theoretical values tested. Every word, however, that we use has its own historical origin. Often the same words express different meanings from country to country. The Informal Anarchist Federation (F.A.I.) consists of an international anarchist formation between individuals and cells that speak different languages, but however pursue to express through their actions, their common desire for the anarchist revolution.
This is why the translations of texts and communiques that circulate in the circles of F.A.I. are of great value in order for one to meet the ideas of the other. Often, however, a second “translation” of the translation is necessary in order to explain a few words that have different meanings from place to place.
Here we make a first attempt of this double translation in order to clarify every possible confusion amongst comrades. The first indication, came from our brothers and sisters in Chile when the comrades of the Columnas Antagonicas Incendiarias (antagonistic incendiary columns) promoting the dialogue through action, in a communiqué with which they claimed the responsibility for the arson of the Banco Estado in Santiago, openly expressed their reflections concerning the use of the word revolution and the meaning we as C.C.F. give it.
Their objection is based on the fact that for them usually the meaning of revolution is identified with the generalized popular uprising, that is composed through a sudden conscious awakening of the masses. This revolution is usually invoked by Marxists and few “anarchists” that justify the use of revolutionary violence only when the social conditions will be mature, thus dismissing the meaning of individual insurrection. Therefore, speaking of such a revolution is like speaking in the name of the people, something that intensely reminds the armed vanguards and the Marxist perception, with which we have no relation.
Of course, it is true that we often use the meaning of revolution in our texts considering self-evident that by repeatedly speaking of anarchist anti-socialism, anarcho-individualism, the tension of insurrectionist comrades and aggressive nihilism, it is apprehensible what we mean with its definition. But often the great distances, the lack of translations, as well as the specific use of every word in every place, stresses to us the need to be more clear. We clarify, therefore, that in no way do we feed with illusions of a future vague social awakening from one moment to another, neither of a popular uprising with anarchist characteristics. We have no trust in the masses who with their cowardices and immobility conserve this authoritarian system. This is why we are not only enemies with the state, but also with the social values that support it, vindicate it and reproduce it as a social relation in their interior. Even social protests for better wages, social security, more rights, are mobilizations with an expire date, that lead back to passivity.
We believe that every person individually must become conscious, must realize the crime of the existence of authority, abolish it from their life style and at the same time find comrades to strike the spread out authority of the state. This is why we believe in the anarchist minority struggle and the new anarchist urban guerilla.
Besides, the meaning of revolution on its own does not mean liberation. Lets not forget that the dictatorship of communist parties was established, mainly after revolutions. We do not want any revolution, but an anarchist revolution that will abolish every form of authority. This is why from now on in order to become clear in our texts and our actions we will speak of the anarchist revolution.
Another misunderstanding that often happens has to do with our reference to armed struggle. We know that in some other countries, for example Italy, the meaning of armed struggle refers to past decades and the logic of armed pioneering.
Here we must clarify that in no way do we believe in enlightened vanguards and “revolutionary” guidance. Whatever we do, we do it first of all for ourselves. Through our attacks we communicate with other comrades, spread the anarchist values, strike the system, deny the role of the victim and enjoy our lives through the most wild and liberating of its versions.
Simultaneously, we want to structure the opposing awe, opposite the enemy making clear the existence of a constant civil war between the insubordinates and authority. We seek to terrorize the terrorists and pass on to them the fear of vengeance to their camp, mansions, parliaments, ministries, police stations.
All this offers us a great personal satisfaction. This is why we define ourselves as anarchists-individualists. We do not like any kind of opinion that wants to transform the anarchist revolution from a genuine way of life into a military mission with rules and leaders at the service of the general “well-being” of society. We will not sacrifice ourselves for the “well-being” of a society that often gets kicked by the bosses and says “thank you”. If through our speech and actions, we cause liberating questions and doubts to some other people against the modern way of life, this is good first of all for themselves. It would be a great joy and honour if in their faces we meet future comrades. And if not, we will never, not even for a moment, abandon the battle against authority and our anti-social critique, in order to be liked by most people.
There is, however, one more parameter of the critique towards the use of the term “armed struggle”. A critique that comes mainly from our brothers and sisters of the insurrectionist anarchy. The reference to armed struggle can easily be misunderstood as a monomania, a fetishism of guns, as an informal hierarchy of the means of the anarchist struggle that places armed struggle as the supreme form of action.
We, so much in our speech, as well in as our actions never put the forms of conflict with the system in a hierarchical order. We never believed that an action becomes more or less “anarchic” depending on the percentage of violence it concentrates. Simultaneously, however, we are absolutely against the separations of the traditional “anarchists” who justify and defend a violent action, only when it is expressed en masse in a demonstration, but they undermine and disdain it when it is carried out in the darkness of the night by a determined minority of comrades. As well we never agreed with a stupid separation that is expressed by some “anarchists” in some countries and makes anarchist violence acceptable only when it is turned against a material target, but on the contrary marginalizes and condemns the practise of the execution of an officer that staffs the system, speaking of respect of human life. For us there is no respect for the human life of a cop, a judge, a prosecutor, a journalist or a snitch.
When, therefore, we use the term “armed struggle” essentially we also send a message to those traditional old school anarchists who with their ethology, want to stop the beauty of the wildness of anarchist action and confine it to more calm and mass forms of protest against the system. For us an anarchist comrade can use a pencil and paper up to a kalashnikov and bombs against authority and its civilization.
Obviously, therefore, today we support and promote every action that attacks the system in its own special way. Fly posting, self-organized publications and blogs, militant demonstrations, sabotage, attacks with stones and paint, expropriation of banks, bomb attacks, arson of state and economic targets, executions of officers of authority, is our gear in our arsenal of anarchist practical theory. This is why when we speak of armed struggle, we do not just speak of guns and bullets, but also about all the above and anything that frightens authority and is on the side of the anarchist barricade.
Now the fact that we used the term “armed struggle” at a great degree in order to break the fetishism of low intensity violence that is promoted by the reformist tension of anarchy brings us up against the misapprehension we mentioned previously. This is why because we do not want to be defined by association with the cowardice of some and be like something we are not, from now on we are thinking of replacing the reference to armed struggle either with the explanation of its polymorphy, or with the wider meaning of direct action which includes all we want to do.
- Fire and Gunpowder