The (un-)consciousness of the individual and his or her more or less voluntary participation in society is the engine of the same. The innumerable questions and doubts one asks oneself in the course of life can be overwhelming, and it is difficult to imagine detaching oneself from the prevailing reason. The ideology of the citizen prevents any unleashing of freedom. Moving away from the prescribed ways of authoritarian society can be a matter of one‘s own will – but is also always conditioned by external factors such as the individual‘s experience of being exploited, regimented and beaten on his own skin. Rebellion against any authority and humiliation may appear to be a logical conclusion in thought and everywhere – but it is usually not. For every hierarchical system is interwoven with an ideological core. Our alleged high culture should be the apex of economic, social, cultural, political and even ecological development. In practice, however, it seems much more likely to mean the destruction of all life on this planet. Nothing is more responsible for the destruction of the earth than industrial capitalism, its ideology of progress and a humanity obsessed with progress in all its complexity, with all its interwoven needs, desires and illusions. Many of these dreams are now finally to be realised through the doctrine of technology and science. But on the way to dubious „perfection“ it will leave a trail of long-term devastation. Nuclear waste, microplastics, asbestos, cancer and ecological disaster are the consequences. The dominant industrial system manufactures the destruction of the earth and life on a daily basis.

Within this mega-machine there is no longer anything local, everything is global – the infrastructure of and belief in the capitalist system has the entire globe in its grip and the structures of the industrial system are expanding by the second with the aim of colonising all life on the planet as well as our bodies and thoughts. The structures of the data and electricity network, the transport routes of goods and raw materials, the logistic networks, the metropolises, the factories, the prisons and the temples of technology are the cornerstones and veins of the system that increasingly turns our survival into sleepwalking in digital illusory worlds and keeps the reality of oppression and colonisation on this planet trapped in an interplay of war, state of emergency and catastrophe. In the face of this, it would be hostile to life to fuel the lethargy of the exploited and excluded in order to create guilt in the sense of the prevailing politics. The system cannot be improved, it must be destroyed. Otherwise, all that remains are various forms of moral self-flagellation and hypocrisy (green capitalism, supposedly organic food, etc.).

That is why the anarchy we are talking about puts the problem of destruction at the centre: the destruction of everything that prevents us from living, that restricts us, that stands in the way of freedom, that is imposed on us, that oppresses us, that scourges us, that reduces us, that wants to govern and manage us. The destruction and attacks on the veins and cornerstones of the ruling system are not only of a physical nature, but also target the social relations and ideologies that surround us. So the critique of social relations arms our minds, and the toolbox of sabotage arms our hands – and in a dispersed conflict we come together with other individuals who are equally intent destroying what stands in the way of their freedom. This scattered constellation of struggle – sometimes alone, sometimes in small groups, sometimes coordinated or with many others – emphasises the need to organise oneself, to express one‘s own ideas, to examine them and one‘s own relationships, to discuss them and relate them to one‘s own perspectives. For what can damage the pervasive and fragile network of the system and provoke ruptures in the social reality of oppression is neither a centralised „counter-power“, nor a „critical public debate“, nor reformism in anarchist rhetoric. Rather, numerous scattered individuals and groups who come together according to their own desires and hostilities to dare destructive attacks on the neural pathways of the system can wash away the lethargy and rot of servility, multiply social disorder and disrupt the stability and functionality of order.

A liberating proposal for self-responsibility, for overcoming coercive relations, can therefore be the violent uprising against these relations, in order to propose and implement an unambiguous expression of offensive action against the existing system.

If the starting point is the overthrow of the rulers and all domination, then this is a requirement that must encompass the totality and extent of the ruling system. The struggle against domination is a „total“ struggle. Partial struggles that do not encompass the totality of the exploitation and destruction of the earth are doomed to stagnation. The self-limiting goals of a partial struggle become limitations, acting blindly and deafly in the shadow of a much wider horizon. Because yes! We want more, much more. But we are certainly not movement managers or preachers of ideological anarchism. The need to destroy all coercive relations is based precisely on destruction, whether material or metaphysical. But for the many wild creatures (Latin creatura, „creature“, from creare, „to create“, „to build“, „to generate“) who reject all authority, destruction is also a moment of creation. Taking the space and time to act means filling and using both differently. On the way to destruction, we often direct our thoughts and energies to how we can most effectively achieve our goal, because neither time nor space is unlimited. The prevailing „common sense“, logic, draws the conclusion. This leads to the pursuit of efficiency in the implementation of our plans. The degree of goal achievement, or in other words, efficiency, can be determined by comparing the actual value with the planned target value. This apparently logical idea is subject to a mathematical formula. But this calculation is a myth of management. It shows the „most efficient“ tactics for managing people, means of production or bureaucracy, and even for politics. But isn‘t it precisely administration and the order it creates that is the problem? Why should we, on the one hand, attack and destroy any administration and its effectiveness (which we criticise) in order to replace it with a different, but still efficiency-oriented, basic attitude? After all, it is our struggles that want to propose something different in their fundamental contents and perspectives and express it in action.

The opinion of others is one of the great metaphysical hurdles we face as soon as we step out into the daylight, into the streets and squares. There, detached from the feel-good plenum, the walls covered with political posters, we stand on somewhat precarious legs because someone might ask uncomfortable questions. There are only us, with our questionable and incomplete ideas, who seem shy and uncertain when talking to other people. Perhaps because many of us have never been used to putting content, positions, ideas and proposals into our own words, without beating about the bush and without being ashamed to talk about them. An exercise, certainly, but just one of many.

But the opinion of others is a problem we encounter more often than when we hand out leaflets on the street. Because it is our subjective opinion about the opinion of others that makes us doubt our ideas and actions. Legitimate questions arise: Do „people“ understand us? Shouldn‘t we write „simpler“? Maybe we should swap that black hoodie for a nice shirt? The dilution of ideas is always lurking around the corner, and so we disguise ourselves in order to be more accessible, i.e. more efficient. The „easier“ way is to make us feel less alone with our ideas. The biggest nightmare for many people in any kind of movement seems to be the „political“ loneliness. Being or feeling isolated is tantamount to non-existence and can lead to giving up activism and going through life with resignation.

The efficiency spiral is also a danger in „combative“ circles. It is not necessarily expressed in resignation, but rather in the question of the communicability of actions. This often leads to a kind of hierarchisation that distinguishes between „easily communicable“ and „badly communicable“ actions. Smashing a fascist‘s kneecaps is just about acceptable today; hanging him from a rope would probably meet with less understanding, even though this has happened time and again in the „glorious“ history of anti-fascism. But now without metaphorical allusions: In France, hundreds of radio masts, fibre-optic cables and electricity pylons are sabotaged every year, anonymously or not. And the number is increasing. Like all sabotage, its effect is temporary, until it is repaired, which is out of the question, but the fact of future repair cannot be a reason not to sabotage. In Germany, such forms of action could probably lead to a great social outcry, and probably parts of a radical left would also join this outcry. But what would that mean for the people who sabotage, or want to sabotage, out of their analysis? Do they not act because there is no immediate communicability? The value of such actions lies not only in their expression, i.e. the result of an action, but also in the motivation through the choice of the form of action and the target itself. The value also lies in the quality of wanting to break with the status quo, without waiting for the masses, consensus or broad agreement. Ultimately, the question is: how do we decide what is „communicable“, when, how? How can we determine this?

We have no social barometer. We only have our debates and analyses in which we discuss what could be done, how and why. That is the real value, the quality. What is the long-term perspective of indiscriminate vandalism? It may sound exaggerated, but smearing paint on a window, even the one of the National Parlament, is in form and expression a trivial threatening gesture that does not carry the desire and will to destroy. We cannot afford to merely threaten or intimidate the rulers with whom we are engaged in a social war and resign ourselves to their eventual satisfaction. In this way, no one creates a threat that can be perceived as a real danger to the ruling order. The opinion of others, and the fear of it, which could lead us to choose colour, has at this moment become an obstacle to a possible wider perspective. If we set ourselves the goal of launching an attack, but exclude certain actions and means a priori because we find the level of presumed repression (the opinion of the cops/ judges) and „unpredictability“ (the opinion of society) too disturbing, and adapt our action to this standard, does this make us strategists or revolutionaries? Rather the former. Not that revolutionaries (only) act out of recklessness and stubbornness, but perhaps the bar could be set a little more independently of factors that we can never really assess objectively anyway. Constant tactics can lead to a wait-and-see attitude that does not fuel fights. We need more cheerful daring than a tight timetable, and we should push ourselves and others towards that rather than always rationalising everything.

Mastering nature

Man is outside and above nature, destined to dominate it – this is the world view taught by the Bible and Christianity with its „subdue the earth“. A scientific face was given to this ideology by the Enlightenment and its science, which perpetuated the idea that man was the natural „owner and master of the earth“ (Descartes). This idea that the earth is there to be subjugated by man was a necessary condition for the subsequent and ever-increasing destruction of nature, the exploitation of raw materials and animals, the poisoning of soils and seas, for wars against „wild nature“ and „wild primitive peoples“, for colonialism and genocide. This idea that the ultimate goal is always „progress“ and „growth“ has managed to accelerate human history to such a bizarre degree that it is now difficult to comprehend the extent of the destruction that human has left on the planet. The idea that humans are above all other living things and are justified in exploiting everything else on the planet to the hilt has brought us to where we are today: In the midst of a natural and climate disaster that will shake, change and make survival on Earth impossible for many.

The system of destruction

Industrial capitalism has colonised the entire globe and is the web that encircles and imprisons the entire planet: There are no more local problems – every product on the market links people in different parts of the world and different places in the production chain, every T-shirt is linked to land grabs and rainforest destruction, to the power of agribusiness and the impact of fertilisers, pesticides and other chemicals on rivers and groundwater, to the collapse of insect populations, to global networks of exploitation and sweatshops, to endless slums, to children and young people ruining their health with piecework in dangerous factories, to offices with panoramic views and Swiss bank accounts, to container ships powered by heavy fuel oil, to shopping malls and endless landfills where 80% of fast fashion ends up. Every piece of fabric is part of a global network of profit and exploitation, deforestation and destruction. Capitalism‘s constant quest for growth, doubling its economic output every 25 years or so, has brought us to this point: on the one hand, capitalism‘s consumption of raw materials has become so great that it can no longer be satisfied, and on the other, the resulting destruction and pollution is so devastating that we are in the midst of a catastrophe in which the industrial system threatens to destroy all the foundations of life in the long term.

The attack of green capitalism

Faced with its own devastating destruction of nature, the same capitalism is making a „green“ turn – a cynical and bizarre response to the ongoing devastation. It cloaks itself in an anxious disguise, calling itself „climate and CO2 neutral“, while maintaining the same industrial progress and growth. A new crisis of capitalism and the same old capitalist solution: economic growth and technological innovation. This time it is also about exploiting new sources of energy, developing new infrastructures, recruiting new products and opening up new markets – only this time everything is electronic, digital, „sustainable“, „green“ and „climate-neutral“. But green capitalism and its new innovations and infrastructures are the same continuation of the ongoing exploitation of nature: new toxic mines and land grabs from indigenous peoples, development of new energy sources at the expense of nature and people, pipelines in every direction, toxic waste dumps… Also the capitalism of e-cars and eco-certificates only leaves behind deforested areas, depleted soils, overfished seas, extinct animals, destroyed habitats, impoverishment, misery and war.

Old patterns – new infrastructure

At the moment, for example, Europe is massively expanding its hydrogen, gas, mining and wind power infrastructure: Hydrogen is to come from the disputed territories of the Mapuche indigenous people in Argentina and Chile, from Norway, where it is produced from toxic natural gas, and eventually from some African countries, such as Namibia, the former German colony, which will soon supply ‚green‘ hydrogen on a large scale. New pipelines are being built for the hydrogen infrastructure in the North Sea and between Spain and France. There are also plans to drill for gas in the North Sea – and Germany wants to produce gas in the Atlantic off Senegal, which the locals are protesting against because of the destruction of nature and the lack of fish. At the same time, thanks to the LNG terminals in the North Sea, which were completed at lightning speed, there are massive supplies of fracked gas from the US – the protests of local people on the island of Rügen against the ugly terminals and the new LNG pipeline, as well as the voices warning of the imminent extinction of the harbour porpoise, were unanimously ignored during construction. Finally, 13,000 new wind turbines are to be built in Germany, covering two per cent of the country‘s total area. A total of 1.8 million tonnes of copper (from Peru and Chile), 95 million tonnes of cement and 30 million tonnes of steel will be used to build these wind turbines, as well as iron ore (from Brazil), silver (from Mexico and Argentina), bauxite (from Guinea) and rare earths (from China). In addition, a number of offshore wind farms are to be built in the North Sea, the infrastructure for which will form a new European „electricity motorway“. There are also other crazy plans in the EU, such as turning a huge area of northern Sweden (in the territory of the indigenous Sami people, who also fight against huge windparls in Norway also belonging to german and siwss companies) into the largest rare earths mine… or opening various lithium mines in France and Portugal, or extracting lithium from the Rhine…

At the same time, the absurdity of green capitalism is exposed by proposals such as dumping concentrated and highly toxic CO2 waste in the North Sea (Habeck), or continuing to operate nuclear power plants in order to reduce emissions, or building new ones (Thunberg). In order to satisfy the energy hunger of green capitalism, the network of destruction is constantly being extended – and whether capitalism calls itself green or not, it is always based on extractivism, colonialism and exploitation, on mines, factories, temples of consumption and technological-military armament.

Everything different!

We propose a break with the dominant religious-scientific ideology, which keeps coming up with new justifications and pseudo-solutions for the domination and destruction of nature. It is time to break with the whole Christian tradition of colonisation and genocide, and to consign to the dustbin of history the idea that this industrial system would bring us progress and happiness. In less than five generations, industrial capitalism has managed to threaten the very survival of the human and animal worlds. In just one century, technology and the ideologies of progress of various political persuasions have brought us electrification, urbanisation, weapons of mass destruction, industrial mass murder, atomic bombs, the internet, smart phones, quantum computers and gene editing. What we are hurtling towards is not a natural disaster, but a social disaster – a social system that is destroying all the foundations of life through a global industrial system. This catastrophe is happening by the minute: 30 acres of rainforest are being cut down every minute, while at the same time one million tonnes of Greenland‘s ice is melting. At the same time, the economy‘s energy needs are growing. And the shareholders‘ tills are ringing every second. This social disaster, this economy of destruction, has clear profiteers and responsibles – it is at the expense of the poor and marginalised – while the agribusiness and meat industry, which is cutting down the rainforest; the oil and chemical industry, which is poisoning the oceans and the soil; while Bayer-Monsanto, which is responsible for 60 percent of insect deaths with its pesticides; while the technology and car industries, the energy giants and energy companies, the mining companies, the industrialists and banks and many others continue to siphon off fat profits…

We are not apocalyptics who, in the face of impending catastrophe, hope for a new kingdom of heaven. In fact, we are quite desperate. But despair can also make us determined. We are also inspired by the initiatives and struggles that are springing up everywhere to resist the advance of destruction. We think of Lützerath and the variety of actions that were united in their rejection of the monstrous mine. We think of all the fiery attacks in solidarity with this struggle. We think of the new generation of climate activists, some of whose reformism seems naive to us, but who we admire for their determination. We hear and read about the indigenous Wet‘suwet’en in British Columbia, who have been fighting for generations against the colonial state‘s infrastructure projects and to prevent the construction of gas pipelines – as well as the rebellious Mapuche communities in southern Chile and Argentina, who have been fighting for centuries for their autonomy and also against the colonialists‘ wind and hydrogen farms. One also thinks of the hundreds of attacks on antennas and fibre-optic cables in France, which hinder the constant expansion of the technological network, and of the rich experience of past struggles against the nuclear industry, in which various forms of disobedience, solidarity and sabotage have complemented each other. All this and much more comes to mind when we say that we are more determined than ever to stop this global capitalist industry that brings nothing but suffering and destruction. And this with self-determined, offensive and creative means, the variety of which is limitless – as are the possible struggles against the industrial system of destruction.

Just as we reject the total idea of subjugating nature, we do not have an all-encompassing concept of how everything should be different. Perhaps the problem also lies in the search for individual solutions and ideologies, and in putting them on the throne, instead of creating thousands and thousands of independent and self-determined solutions side by side, which can value each other and communicate freely, instead of warring, subjugating and exploiting each other.

For a world where we live in harmony

and as part of nature.

Let‘s shut down the industry of destruction.

Sunday evening, the eleventh of December, somewhere in France: Somewhere in France? No, not anywhere, somewhere between Paris and Fessenheim. There, several people climbed to the top of a 400,000-volt electricity pylon. They have not come to admire the view, no, they have a clear intention: they want to „continue the struggles for which our comrades are behind bars“, because this is „the most passionate form of revolutionary solidarity“. What does this mean? Quite simply, they set about unscrewing the bolts that held the colossus in place. „The mast is still standing, but its statics are clearly compromised. May our revolutionary fury work in alliance with nature and a winter storm do the rest!“ The power line in question will supply electricity to the CIGÉO industrial project. CIGÉO? Centre industriel de stockage géologique pour les déchets HA et MA-VL, in English: reversible geological repository for radioactive waste in the departments of Meuse and Haute-Marne. In Bure. From 2025, nuclear waste will be stored there in a system of tunnels covering an area of 30 square kilometres. And it will remain there for the next 100,000 years. Until now, France has only two sites for storing low and intermediate level radioactive waste; the rest of the contaminated waste from France‘s 56 nuclear power plants is stored at the La Hague reprocessing plant. Right next to the Bure repository, RTE, the grid operator, is planning a transformer station the size of 20 football pitches to satisfy the „energy hunger of the nuclear monster“. All right, sabotage then. In solidarity with whom? With Alfredo Cospito, who has been on hunger strike until the 19.04.2023. Let‘s hear from the saboteurs themselves: „Alfredo has always known how to link the question of social revolution with the question of ecology, and through his words and actions to link the ecocidal plundering of our planet with the struggle against the powers that be, against exploitation and oppression. In his statement on the shooting of Italian nuclear industry leader Roberto Adinolfi (ansaldo nucleare; 2012), and later in various court statements, he described the need to anchor a revolutionary perspective in the anti-nuclear movement. In a valuable contribution to the debate, he also commented in 2018 on the struggle against the CIGÉO nuclear waste storage project in the French village of Bure in the Meuse department. Referring to the idea of the diversity of tactics practised there, he proposed „an intensification of the forms of struggle chosen there“.

Aha, an intensification of forms of struggle…

A week later, another industrial monster was confronted with an intensification of the struggle. But let‘s start at the beginning: on 18. December, the pre-Christmas calm of Advent in the south of France was abruptly interrupted: at four o‘clock in the morning, one or more perpetrators set fire to two high-voltage electricity pylons in the Marseille region. The two pylons were only a few metres apart. What happened then? One fire caused a brief interruption in the electricity supply to the surrounding communities. But the other cut power to part of the Marseille-Marignane airport, according to RTE, the network operator, forcing emergency power to take over. A police source said: „Two Enedis high-voltage pylons were set on fire on Monday at the corner of Boulevard Marcel Pagnol and D9 in Vitrolles. The first serves the Marseille-Provence airport and Airbus Helicopters“. In other words, an airport and a company that makes helicopters for the military and the police. Two industries with a huge appetite for energy… Perhaps another attempt „to link the question of social revolution to the question of ecology and to link, through words and deeds, the ecocidal plundering of our planet to the struggle against the powers that be, against exploitation and oppression“.

But that was not enough: Just two days later, the French grid operator RTE reported further sabotage. Also between 17. and 18. December, an electricity pylon in the town of Saint-Justet-Vacquières, near Alès, also in the south of France, was sawed down – „fortunately it did not fall down, otherwise the consequences would have been very serious, because the pylon of this high-voltage line would have fallen on a neighbouring pylon and could have caused a domino effect,“ according to a public prosecutor. The deputy mayor agrees: „I am very concerned about the radicalism with which vital interests are targeted, against industry, of course, but not only. If the people who committed these acts knew what we are doing in Salindres, they would see that they are catalysts that allow us to reduce the burden on the environment“. In Salindres? Oh, so the media and the mayor know that „the intended target was the Salindres chemical plant, about ten kilometres away.“ What happens at Salindres? The chemical park is home to Arkema, a company founded by the oil giant Total Oil, which produces petrochemicals such as PVC. The deputy mayor‘s assertion that „we all protect the environment together and not against each other“ in the face of this oil and plastics giant seems to have divided opinion. The media think that the act was carried out by „environmental activists“… Interesting, but let‘s read the claim itself: „We sabotaged the 225,000-volt pylon on the main line that supplies electricity to the Salindres chemical-industrial centre (Arkema and others). Method : 1) Saw off the crossbars. Note: These are the bars that connect the legs. 2) Make diagonal cuts on both legs in the direction of the fall. Note: The mast must fall perpendicular to the cables. 3) Saw with straight cuts on the same feet about 30 cm above the previous cuts. Note: Saw all the way to the end to get a piece that can be cut off completely. 4) Ram the sawn-off pieces, still held in place by the mast‘s gravity, with a battering ram. Note: A small log can be used. 5) As the mast falls, walk away in small steps in the opposite direction. Note: Metal saws and oil will suffice for this action. Let‘s attack the corporations that poison the earth! (…) Strength to the struggling individuals in France, Germany and elsewhere. If the targets are too well protected, they can cut in advance when attacking the power grid and put themselves in less danger. Let‘s go on the offensive! (…)“ So another sabotaged electricity pylon, and another call to go on the offensive in the face of the destruction of the earth….

But let‘s take a step back. What exactly did this Italian anarchist Alfredo Cospito, imprisoned for ten years say about the so-called environmental struggles in his contribution to a meeting in Bure?

„First of all, let me introduce myself: 8 years ago I shot the CEO of Ansaldo Nucleare, the designer and builder of nuclear power plants, in the legs. You have to know that Italy, even if it doesn‘t have nuclear power plants, is quietly exporting them to countries like Romania, Croatia, Albania…. . The aim of this action was to revive the anti-nuclear movement in Italy and to give an aggressive acceleration to the struggle against the techno-industrial system. With a „resounding“ action, we wanted to show that anarchists can hit „alive“ one of the people responsible for the revival of nuclear energy in „our“ country. For once, we did not „limit“ ourselves to the only destructive action against things, but we took another direction by directly hitting those responsible for the destruction of „our“ planet. We called this action „Nucleo Olga (FAI-FRI)“.

We wanted to make the different perspectives visible in their feasibility and to stimulate a greater openness to the different forms and practices of anarchist ecological action. To reject the taboo that only actions against things can be justified. To challenge the absurd belief in the absolute sanctity of human life, even among those who commit massacres in the name of the science of progress. The objective was only marginally achieved (even if it made many companions think) because the practice of „multiform“ action (at least here in Italy) has not yet been fully understood and even less practised to its full potential, and many prejudices still exist. Many people see „peaceful“ blockades in street confrontations, in attacks on people, in attacks on things, in the use of permanent acronyms to give continuity to temporary acronyms separated from each other….. Few people realise that all these practices have their own reason, their own specific purpose, and do not necessarily contradict each other. And in certain situations (as in Bure), when practised without bias, they complement each other and become truly effective, devastating and disorientating to power. That is, of course, if one does not cry „excommunication“ when certain actions go further and hit harder. These are all practices that, if followed in parallel, without contradiction or struggle, can make a difference and achieve the goal. The absence of one of these practices weakens the strength of all the others. It is important that they include the rejection of any institutional poisoning, otherwise they become an acceptance of the system, only counterproductive palliatives. A specific struggle in a demarcated area like „Bure“ can be strengthened not only by actions in the rest of the country, but even beyond. It is enough to think of this kind of „Black International“ which, without needing a central organisation, has proved time and again that it has the power to support „our“ struggles from outside (from the four corners of the world).

I never tire of saying it, even at the risk of repeating myself: We anarchists have a powerful weapon, extraordinarily effective in its simplicity: the „affinity group“. Comrades united by deep affection and trust who decide to act, strike and return home healthy to strike again. The „affinity group“, when it becomes an „action group“, finds its strongest meaning in illegal, destructive and risky actions. These groups do not depend on the assemblies, they are something else, they have nothing to do with the organisation, they live on liberating, destructive gestures and can become really dangerous for the system. Especially if they are not accompanied by contempt or superiority towards the people, their assemblies of struggle. If the action of an individual or a small group does not stand in opposition to the struggle of „the people“, it strengthens it, pushes it forward. Violent and armed action is only an (important) part of an anarchist‘s life, and there is no contradiction in having a say in a meeting after an action alongside „the people“, or on a barricade or roadblock, the only thing to avoid from the outset is dialogue with power, with institutions. (…)

It is clear to all that this is a battle for the survival not only of our species, but for the life of „our“ planet, because nature is in danger of being turned into a „monster“ day by day. Nuclear science and technology are about to shake the chaotic order of nature to its foundations. We do not have much time left if we really want to change things and reverse this self-destructive process. We must not, and above all we can no longer, set limits to our actions, we must overcome our fears, abandon our scruples and get going“.

Well, perhaps the three attacks mentioned above are examples of what the companion buried alive in Italian dungeons means when he talks about actions in a struggle that go further and hit harder. Or perhaps they are just more attempts to cut the arteries of the industrial system that are everywhere, supplying it with energy, data and goods.

In any case, the objectives raised provide interesting cornerstones when we talk about „linking the question of social revolution with the question of ecology“: The nuclear industry, the military and aeronautical industry and the (oil and) chemical industry. All three are undoubtedly industries that exemplify not only the gigantic energy hunger of the industrial system, but also its destruction, poisoning and pestilence on the planet.

But let‘s shift focus for a moment: In Germany, a so-called climate movement seems to be gaining momentum. The evicted village of Lützerath recently became a focal point of the struggle against the destructive monstrosity of the coal industry. Even in the midst of this struggle, there seemed to be many people who came together in common trust to strike and move on: Attacks on policemen and their cars around Lützerath, sabotage of the RWE coal railway, blockades of access roads and occupations of machines, smashed windows of party offices in various cities, torched Siemens cars and Strabag lorries, solidarity demonstrations, shattered glass and a fleet of Amazon trucks burning bright. All these actions come together in a common struggle, united by a common diversity of forms of action and at the same time a clear rejection of the institutions of power. Without assemblies, central organisation or press officers, a struggle gains all the more strength and momentum when it becomes a field of experimentation for those who, on the basis of it, forge unique relationships and decide to attack freely and wildly, in whatever way they choose. The vitality of a struggle is characterised by the diversity of its forms of action and the common solidarity between them.

A struggle against the coal industry, but not only, a struggle against the industrial destruction of the planet… What are the possible next steps? We will see…

An open (and desperate) letter to those who eat our bread

[This text was published during Alfredo Cospito‘s hungerstrike. We publlish it nevertheless, because we think it raises important re ections and critiques.]

Dear comrades,

In these dark times, when every horizon seems to be closing for good, we turn to you and to you alone (to the fighters, not to the consensus hunters; to the steadfast dreamers, not to the situational pragmatists – that is, not to the militants and opportunists). To those of you who have met us over the years in Italy and around the world, or to complete strangers, who are the only ones who can understand our current state of mind and our words. Many say that those who have no hope should remain silent. Although this would explain the silence in which many of us fall, we do not agree. In fact, in some ways we believe that the exact opposite is true: those who persist in peddling evocative narratives (from heavenly paradise as a reward for earthly resignation, to communism as the inevitable outcome of capitalist development, to the insurrection that accompanies every citizen mobilisation or neighbourhood uprising) should shut up. Especially now, when humanity is well on the way to self-destruction, when the planet is on the brink of ecological collapse, when social carnage is getting worse by the day, when war is being waged with nuclear weapons, when voluntary servitude is so widespread that any aspiration for the slightest freedom seems ridiculous, it seems more urgent and necessary than ever to penetrate deeply into reality and not to scratch the surface of things in order to derive from it comforting illusions. That is why this letter is desperate, because it is born of discouragement in the face of a situation that seems hopeless in every way.

We do not hide it. We have staked on the coincidence of thought and action, we have been taken in by opinions and staged productions. We have invoked the unique and its own and are now surrounded by selfies and their vanity. We have tried to spread utopias and have been crushed by realism. We have loved the most exaggerated and unique ideas and fallen prey to sweeping and mass propaganda. We have longed for the awakening of conscience and are now prisoners of the algorithm. We gave priority to ethics and were overwhelmed by politics. Poetry may have survived Auschwitz (and television?), but critical thinking has been wiped out in Silicon Valley. We have become like the German revolutionaries Stig Dagerman ¹met in the immediate post-war period: living ruins, dignified but rare.

And today? What can we say when words have lost their meaning everywhere? Upstairs and downstairs, in the palaces and in the squares, everything has turned into a clattering chatter, a huge farce that leaves one dismayed and stunned. The umpteenth demonstration in this sense in the last few days² is the reaction to the hunger strike to the bitter end of the anarchist prisoner Alfredo Cospito, whose announced, expected, feared, desired death has opened a real masquerade ball.

Have you ever heard of Satanta the White Bear, chief of the Kiowa, one of the many Native American tribes? He was big and strong, took part in many battles and was known for his courage. He was one of the first Indian chiefs to be tried by a white court. He spent a few years in prison, then was released, but fearing that he might arouse the warlike instincts of the younger Indians, he was soon sent back to prison. For several years, White Bear spent many hours peering through the bars. His eyes looked north, to the hunting grounds of his people. When he realised that he would never again ride free through the forests and prairies, when he realised that he would never again sleep in a teepee (a tent with a circular floor plan, a symbol of movement and equality), when he realised that he would never again see the other members of his tribe, but would rot in a rectangular concrete cell, he decided to put an end to it all. On 11 October 1878, he threw himself out of the window of a prison hospital in Huntsville, Texas. An understandable decision. A humane decision.

Alfredo Cospito, also tall and, until recently, stocky, is not an Native American but an anarchist who was sent to prison more than ten years ago for shooting in the legs the most important person in charge of nuclear energy in Italy, the director of Ansaldo Nucleare in Genoa. He has been on hunger strike until th 19.04.2023 to protest against the prison regime to which 41Bis has been subjected since May last year. His life is in danger, but he is not giving up. He says he will continue until his last breath, and knowing his tenacity and determination, he is capable of doing so. Only he can say what he can and cannot accept. Only he can decide what he wants to do with his body. How he wants to live, how he wants to die. And why.

So far, so good. Everyone makes their own choices, whether they agree with them or not. But unlike the White Bear, Alfredo Cospito has made a political choice. He is accepting death in order to get a certain demand accepted. With his hunger strike, he wants to achieve the abolition of 41bis, that is, he wants to force the state to remove the so-called „harsh imprisonment“ from its law. The more days pass, the more solidarity actions spread all over the world and the closer the tragic end comes, the more attention his struggle attracts. That reactionaries are outraged by this „blackmail“ of the institutions by a convict is natural and not worth mentioning. Nor is it surprising that progressives or pseudo-dissidents of various stripes should pounce on this „civilised non-violent protest“, which is why one can only shrug at the solidarity of the usual beaurocrats (priests, intellectuals, artists) and turn up one‘s nose at that of the scoundrels (judges, ex-ministers, neo-fascists)….. This is the way things are and there is no point in trying to understand it.

Nevertheless, we cannot help but put a question to those who have ears and hearts: Would so much overarching interest have been possible if the original demand had not been political-humanitarian in nature? What we mean is what the anarchist lawyer himself says when he declares that „the great merit of Cospito is to have reopened the public debate on what the 41bis is and whether or not it is compatible with the Constitution“. These are not just the words of a lawyer doing his job to the best of his ability, but the only possible perspective on the question raised: if the mission of the prison is re-education, as we are led to believe, what is the point of a harsh penal system like 41bis? Shouldn‘t the state abolish it, or at least limit it as much as possible? (Restrict it to mafiosi who dissolve children in acid, as if we did not know that the state released these mafiosi after they repented). Although this question is being discussed in public, it is a purely institutional question. Not social, not popular, not class, and certainly not nihilistic, but institutional. This is echoed and reiterated in the Appeal for Cospito, addressed “to the Prison Administration, the Minister of Justice and the Government“ and signed by dozens of lawyers, judges and academics in various capacities: „To call a challenge or blackmail the attitude of those who make the body the ultimate instrument of protest and affirmation of their identity is to betray our Constitution, which places human life and dignity at the forefront of the values whose protection is entrusted to the State for the sake of its own legitimacy and credibility, and not as a concession to those who oppose it. This is the difference between democratic states and authoritarian regimes“.

It is enough to read such sentences and the names of the signatories to understand what they are really about: trying to save what can be saved from the total shipwreck suffered by the right. In a sense, those who say they want to save Alfredo Cospito are speaking the truth in order to defend democracy, which has been so delegitimised that it is necessary to compensate for its aberrations with a noble gesture. Saving the life of an anarchist who has never killed anyone could be the right opportunity. „Yes, it‘s true, we killed the rioters from the prisonrevolt of Modena, we massacred prisoners of Ivrea, we made life impossible for millions of people, but come on, we were lenient with this anarchist…“. This is what makes a Gherardo Colombo³ worry about Cospito, who will always be remembered as the judge who killed Pinelli for the second time1. A motivation that can also be applied to those who, like Adriano Sofri or Donatella Di Cesare, participated in the lynching of the opponents of the Green Pass.

But all the occasional outpourings of good feeling in this world can no longer hide the stark fact: democracy is an authoritarian regime. And after three years of state humiliation of human life and dignity in the name of public health, this is no longer the radical criticism of a few hotheads, but a banal statement of fact.

You don‘t have to be an anarchist to realise that the Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper, judging by the way it has been used in public by its own admirers of late. Even those with a solid academic and philosophical reputation in the field of jurisprudence have recently had to admit that they can no longer „confront a jurist or anyone who denounces the way the law and the Constitution have been manipulated and betrayed without questioning the legal system and the Constitution“. Need I remind you that neither Mussolini nor Hitler needed to question the constitutions in force in Italy and Germany, but found in them the legal bases they needed to establish their regimes? It is possible, then, that the gesture of those who today seek to base their struggle on the Constitution and on rights is already defeated at the outset…. It is as if certain procedures or principles in which one believed, or rather pretended to believe, have now shown their true face, which cannot be ignored. It is paradoxical that what even an academic like Agamben was able to understand escapes most of the subversives who today call for the end of 41bis. Under moral pressure to prevent the death of an anarchist, they fail to see the point of their mobilisation.

Suffice it to say that the tone of this hunger strike remains the same as it moves from the palaces and courtrooms to the streets. It is pathetic, to say the least. Not to mention the embarrassing praise of the sanctity of martyrdom. But what about the constant distinction between bad mafiosi and good anarchists? Or the deplorable denunciation of the disproportion between the acts committed and the sentences imposed (certainly nothing new, considering the 14-year sentence imposed for the days of Genoa in 2001), which, although appropriate in the courtroom, sounds particularly odious coming from those who no longer dare to advocate always and only the destruction of prisons? What can be said about the usual „quantity mania“, which swells but does not grow, and which is nourished by those who take the occasional scruples of judges and intellectuals as proof of a broad consensus? Well, it is certainly impossible to say what is more unintentionally funny: the proposal by a Norwegian politician to award the Nobel Peace Prize to one of the greatest warlords (the NATO Secretary), or the initiative by some „anarchists“ to „break the deafening silence of the tenant of the Quirinal Palace“ [official residence of the President of the Italian Republic] in order to „break the conscience (and the blessed sleep…) of those who should be protecting Alfredo‘s safety“. Hearing those who tirelessly proclaim their „solidarity with Alfredo and his practices“ say that a head of state should watch over the health of an enemy of the state, one is inclined to paraphrase⁴ the words of a famous French anarchist who climbed the scaffold: „In the virtual war they have declared on the bourgeoisie, certain anarchists demand protection; they do not give death, they demand not to suffer it.“

Contrary to those who bask in a mirage and deduce an electrifying weakness of the state from the statements of some television journalists who commented on Cospito‘s hunger strike, it seems to us, on the contrary, that the anarchists have become more than weak and authentic puppets when they are reduced to becoming megaphones of constitutional-political struggles. The state no longer even needs to liquidate the anarchist movement, which has liquidated itself by renouncing its own ideas in order to realise pragmatic tactical convergences. If a large part of the left is joining the anarchists today, it is not because events are forcing them to do so, but because these anarchists are almost the only ones today who are responding to the call to „say something left-wing or even non-left-wing, something civilised…“. – like demanding the abolition of 41bis. By the way, have you ever wondered how much hope there is of winning such a battle? Considering that the agony of an anarchist in prison and a few broken windows in 2023 are unlikely to break the state any more than the Mafia bombs that exploded thirty years ago, how many more tricks can we play? The remission of the Article 41bis sentence and the non-application of the life sentence in his case? What a great victory: under the regime of ordinary high security, he would have faced only twenty years in prison.…

Forty years ago, there were those who criticised the proposal for an amnesty for political prisoners on the grounds that the moral pressure of four thousand bodies dying in solitude could not justify negotiations with the state. They argued that one should not demand the release of comrades in order to resume the struggle, but that one should fight for the release of comrades. Even taking into account the different historical contexts, a millennium has indeed passed if today the change of the prison regime for one anarchist (plus three Stalinists and a few hundred alleged mafiosi) is made the goal of mobilising an entire movement. It is possible to tell a nice story about the anarchist exception in the general Italian situation and to imagine today the agonies of the bourgeoisie, angry with the state for having „unleashed“ the anarchists, just as it was possible yesterday to imagine the resurrection of the Paris Commune under the sky of Venaus⁵. In reality, the state today rules so unchallenged that it can get away with anything: letting anarchists rot in jail at will, charging trade unionists with extortion or placing environmental activists under special surveillance. Why shouldn‘t he? Because it‘s unconstitutional? If he can lock up 60 million honest citizens in their own homes without anyone making a sound, even to the applause of many right-wing revolutionaries, then surely he can bury an anarchist dead or alive. Without having to justify himself. To whom should he justify himself? To the journalists? To the intellectuals? To the politicians? To the lawyers? To public opinion? Before the subjects who are afraid of their own shadow and even their own breath? Before the subversives who can only demand that the state behave better, more justly, more fairly?

The victory of the State is truly complete when its enemies only speak its language and show that they no longer want to storm the skies (they are content to defend a few loopholes in the earth).

Alfredo Cospito is still alive and continues his hunger strike. He is doing everything he can and thinks of to get out of the hole in which he is imprisoned. But since he is in the hands of the state and the game is played entirely on institutional grounds, there is no reason to be optimistic about his fate. The government has ample opportunity to juggle the situation. It can show concern and set the record straight in the tradition of patriotism; it can prolong the prisoner‘s ordeal by force-feeding him; it can be generous today only to be crueler tomorrow. It can even show a certain humanitarian spirit and then pull the plug („Oops, there was a complication, we‘re sorry, we did everything we could, but you know how it is, his body was weakened“). As any gambler knows, the house always wins in the long run.

„If the Sinophians have condemned me to exile, I condemn them to remain in their homeland,“ Diogenes the Cynic is said to have said. Is this the art of putting a good face on a bad game, or an angry philosophy of life? Dear companions, we too are condemned to exile, eternal exile, because there is no place for us in this world. One dream after another, one desire after another, one freedom after another, everything is taken away from us. And it is no comfort to know that the extinction of the lovers of freedom precedes the extinction of the champions of authority. But here, in the midst of loneliness and despair, there is not only resignation, bitterness, melancholy, nausea. There is also what is called the courage of despair, the determination to try everything because we have nothing left to lose.

Let‘s find that courage. Let‘s banish the domesticated bipeds to their homeland and stop wasting time running after their parties, their classes, their movements. Let us enrich the paths of exile. Let us prepare for solitude. Let us practise surviving in the desert, moving in the desert, fighting in the desert. Without scruples, without pity. For an angry philosophy of life, for a vengeful philosophy of life.

Death, life lies in wait.

(found on abirato.net)

1 Stig Halvard Dagerman was a Swedish anarchist and published the book „German Autumn“. In it he describes the destroyed post-war Germany in 1946. to give a picture of the destroyed country after the world war.

2 It will most likely refer to the nationally mobilised demonstration in Turin on 04.03.2023. During this demonstration there were massive attacks on banks, luxury cars/businesses.

3 In the course of a judicial investigation led by Gherardo Colombo, among others, it was alleged that Giuseppe Pinelli, while standing at the window of the police station, had a fainting spell and fell out of the window.

4 In the original it says: „In this merciless war that we have declared against the bourgeoisie, we do not ask for pity. We give death, and we know how to bear it“. The reference here is to Emile Henry, who used this phrase in his trial statement. Less than a month later, at the age of 21, he was beheaded by the guillotine on 24 May 1884. The authors of the text „The best offense is not defense“ have rephrased the original sentence as an allusion.

5 Venaus is a village on the border between France and Italy. It is a pivotal point in the No-Tav (citizens) struggle against the high-speed train that will link Italy and France. Certain movement leaders and groups saw great insurgent potential in this widespread struggle. Hence the comparison with the Paris Commune.

Das (Un-)Bewusstsein des Einzelnen und seine mehr oder weniger freiwillige Teilhabe an der Gesellschaft ist das Triebwerk derselben. Die unzähligen Fragen und Zweifel, die man sich im Laufe des Lebens stellt, können überwältigend sein, und es ist nur schwer vorstellbar, sich von der vorherrschenden Vernunft zu lösen. Die Ideologie des Bürgers verhindert jede Entfesselung von Freiheit. Sich von den vorgeschriebenen Wegen der autoritären Gesellschaft zu entfernen, kann eine Frage des eigenen Willens sein – ist aber auch immer durch äußere Faktoren bedingt wie der Erfahrung des einzelnen Individuums an seiner eigenen Haut ausgebeutet, reglementiert und gezüchtigt zu werden. Die Rebellion gegen jede Autorität und Erniedrigung mag gedanklich und weltweit als logische Schlussfolgerung erscheinen – ist es aber meistens nicht. Denn jedes hierarchische System ist mit einem ideologischen Kern verwoben. Unsere vermeintliche Hochkultur soll der Gipfel der wirtschaftlichen, sozialen, kulturellen, politischen und auch ökologischen Entwicklung sein. Sie scheint jedoch ganz praktisch viel eher die Vernichtung allen Lebens auf diesem Planeten zu bedeuten. Nichts ist mehr für die Zerstörung der Erde verantwortlich als der Industriekapitalismus, seine Fortschrittsideologie und die fortschrittsbesessene Menschheit in ihrer ganzen Komplexität, mit all ihren ineinander verwobenen Bedürfnissen, Sehnsüchten und Illusionen. Viele dieser Träume sollen nun durch die Doktrin der Technologie und Wissenschaft endgültig verwirklicht werden. Doch auf dem Weg zur fragwürdigen „Vollkommenheit“ wird sie eine Spur der langfristigen Verwüstung hinterlassen. Atommüll, Mikroplastik, Asbest, Krebs und ein umfassendes ökologisches Desaster sind die Folgen. Das herrschende industrielle System fabriziert tagtäglich die Zerstörung der Erde und des Lebens.

Innerhalb dieser Megamaschine gibt es kein lokal mehr, alles ist global – die Infrastruktur des und der Glaube an das kapitalistische Systems hält den gesamten Globus im Griff und die Strukturen des industriellen Systems werden sekündlich ausgebaut und zielen darauf ab die Gesamtheit des Lebens auf dem Planeten sowie unsere Körper und Gedanken zu kolonisieren. Die Strukturen des Daten- und Stromnetzes, der Transportwege von Waren und Rohstoffen, des Verkehrsnetzes, der Metropolen, der Fabriken, Gefängnisse und Technologietempel sind die Eckpfeiler und Adern des Systems, welches unser Überleben immer mehr in ein Schlafwandeln in digitalen Scheinwelten verwandelt und die Realität der Unterdrückung und Kolonisierung auf diesem Planeten in einem Wechselspiel aus Krieg, Ausnahmezustand und Katastrophe gefangen hält. Im Angesicht dessen wäre es lebensfeindlich, die Lethargie der Ausgebeuteten und Ausgeschlossenen zu schüren, um Schuldgefühle im Sinne der herrschenden Politik zu erzeugen. Das System kann nicht verbessert werden, es muss zerstört werden. Andernfalls bleiben nur verschiedene Formen moralischer Selbstgeißelung und Heuchelei (grüner Kapitalismus, vermeintliche Bio-Lebensmittel, usw.).

Deswegen stellt die Anarchie von der wir reden, das Problem der Zerstörung in den Mittelpunkt: Zerstörung all dessen, was uns am leben hindert, was uns einschränkt, was der Freiheit im Wege steht, was uns auferlegt wird, uns unterdrückt, geißelt, klein macht und regieren und verwalten will. Die Zerstörung und die Angriffe auf die Adern und Eckpfeiler des herrschenden Systems, sind nicht nur von physischer Natur, sondern zielen ebenso auf die uns umgebenden sozialen Beziehungen und Ideologien. Die Kritik der sozialen Beziehungen also bewaffnet unseren Geist und der Werkzeugkasten der Sabotage bewaffnet unsere Hände – und in einem verstreuten Konflikt kommen wir mit anderen Individuen zusammen, die ebenso darauf setzen das zu zerstören, was ihrer Freiheit im Wege steht. Diese verstreute Kampfkonstellation – mal alleine, mal in kleinen Grüppchen, mal koordiniert oder zu vielen – betont die Notwendigkeit sich selbst zu organisieren, um zum einen den eigenen Ideen Ausdruck zu verleihen, als auch diese und die eigenen Beziehungen zu überprüfen und in Zusammenhang mit den eigenen Perspektiven zu diskutieren und in Verbindung zu setzen. Denn was dem überall präsenten und verletzlichen Netz des Systems Schaden zu fügt und Brüche in der sozialen Realität der Unterdrückung provozieren kann, ist weder eine zentralisierte „Gegenmacht“, noch eine „kritische öffentliche Debatte“ oder ein Reformismus in anarchistischer Rhetorik. Stattdessen können zahlreiche verstreute Individuen und Gruppen, die sich ihren eigenen Wünschen und Feindlichkeiten entsprechend zusammen tun, um zerstörerische Angriffe auf die Nervenbahnen des Systems zu wagen, die Lethargie und Fäulnis der Unterwürfigkeit hinwegschwemmen, die soziale Unordnung vermehren und die Stabilität und Funktionalität der Ordnung unterbrechen.

Ein befreiender Vorschlag zur Selbstverantwortung, zur Überwindung der Zwangsverhältnisse kann also der gewaltsame Aufstand gegen diese Verhältnisse sein, um einen unmissverständlichen Ausdruck des offensiven Handelns gegen das bestehende System vorzuschlagen und umzusetzen.