No God No Master: Part 5 (1966-2012)

No Gods No Masters ‒ A History of Anarchism
https://archive.org/details/NoGodsNoMasters2

No God No Master

a history of anarchism

Argentine, France,

USA, Japan, China,

Algeria, Uruguay,

Spain, Denmark,

UK, Australia,

Africa, Andalusia.

On five continents,

crowned with flowers
or armed with cobblestones,

the libertarians slowly came
out of the night

and lit bonfires.

They, who had been thought to be defeated,

they took the initiative everywhere.

They triggered
the vast insurrectionary movement

and ultimately won the battle
for cultural hegemony.

But winning battles is nothing to them

if they don't win the social war.

However, in the years following 1968,

the anarchists will discover a new danger,

no longer that of disappearing,

but that of alienation

Because faced with a global system

which stages the appearances
of its own criticism,

their emancipatory slogans,
their killer riffs

and even their people often
end up being salvaged.

To advance their ideas,

libertarians will no longer
have any other choice

locally and internationally

than to advance masked

and wtith guerrilla warfare
or mass mobilization

back to propaganda (by the deed).

And that's how
from the outskirts of Montevideo

to the heart of London,

from the rebels in Chiapas
and to the insurgents in Seattle

anarchism
- without always calling it that -

has inspired all new forms of resistance.

And in this postmodernity
that wanted to be the end of time,

once again anarchism has given

the big wheel of history another spin

The Networks of Anger

Whether '68 was a dress rehearsal
or a failed revolution,

the fact remains
that it will have left

the taste of unfinished business
in the mouthes of the revolutionaries.

How can we not to understand
that many of them

are disappointed by the sight

of the people going back to work?

But faced with the return
of the eternal polemics,

between organizations
that blame each other

and intend on picking up the stakes,

how could they not be sickened?

What to do?
How to continue the fight?

Some decide to go to the country side
and join communes,

while others
- either out of optimism or despair -

choose to stay in cities

in order to try forcefully
to rush things.

Urban guerilla

For the anarchists,
everything actually begins

in Uruguay in 1965

when Abraham Guillen,

veteran of an anarchist division
in Spain

but also a graduate in economics,

who participated
in all the insurrectionary attempts

between the wars

publishes his book
"Strategy of the urban warrior".

To understand the novelty of his work,

we must remembered
that since the triumph

of the armed struggle
of the Cuban Revolution

it's the theory of Che Guevara,

called foquismo,

that is favoured by revolutionaries.

The warriors move through the mountains
and the jungle

to create - together with the peasants
and natives - insurrectionary centers.

This theory that showed
its effectiveness in the Cuban context

according to Abraham Guillen,

has to be redesigned
for more developed countries.

In a revolutionary war,

when the urban masses are more important

that the rural masses,

the center of gravity of the fight

must be in the urban air.

Great cities are
immense concrete jungles

where all the tricks of guerrilla warfare

can be properly used.

The time has come
when a revolutionary minority

can set the mass in motion

and overcome the alleniation
brought on by fear.

The theory of urban warfare

and armed propaganda
has just been completed

and Abraham Guilen specifies:

The revolutionary war

must take into account that it is
a war in space and time

and that the all its operations

must reach the population.

Libertarian socialism

must lead by example

and put before its very substance:

direct action of libertarian socialism.

Direct action

because as far as
indirect action is concerned

in which the masses do not participate:

There are already enough political parties

The objective, in my opinion,

it is awareness.

The realization
that the capitalist system is fragile

and that the proletarians can therefore

themselves lead the armed struggle.

By the way:

This is the classic vision
of anarchist attacks

since the end of the 19th century.

The propaganda of the deed.

Abraham Guilen's theory spreads fast

and manages to convince

just as much in Switzerland
as in Latin America and Uruguay,

where a revolt is looming since
the deep economic crisis in the mid-1960s

It particularly inspires

a group of young revolutionaries,

the Tupamaros.

Led by Raúl Sendic,

a supporter of self-governance,

and a fine connoisseur of Proudhon,

and gathered around liberitarian [ideas | slogans],

among them are revolutionary socialists,

heterodox communists,

priests influenced by liberation theory,

but also, and from the start,

like people like Gérard Dogatti,

Georges Savalza and Rossi Morica,

and many liberitarians.

The anarchists take part
in the formation of the Tupamaros.

The Tupamaros also respect human life.

In that sense,
it's a very respectable fight.

The Tupamaros also immediately adopt

the strategy of urban guerilla
and of armed propaganda.

They attack [in all directions | everything]
and [strike repeatedly | shards fly].

Not a day without their actions

in the newspaper headlines.

On Monday, the Tupamaros occupy a factory.

Tuesday, Christian association raided:
5 million.

Wednesday, bomb attacks
on several political clubs.

Thursday, a factory occupation and a bomb.

Friday, bomb and bank robbery.

Saturday,
explosion of a television station.

And Sunday, by way of rest,

the escape of dozens of prisoners.

The powers denounced the violence.

The Tupamaros,
who initially avoid blood shed,

are well received by the press
and public opinion.

They even benefit
on the international scene

with a very positive image,

as proven by the Time Magazine article

that makes them look
like modern-day Robin Hoods.

Thanks to them,

the theories of urban warfare
and armed propaganda

are popularizing and spreading
throughout the world.

People learn by replicating.

So once you see a group doing things

and you have connections with this group,

networks are created.

Then, we find the same type of action
almost everywhere

That's what happened for example
with the Angry Brigade.

Coming from Latin America,

the question of armed struggle
does indeed arise

from 1969 on, for all revolutionaries.

Everywhere, newspapers are published,

films are made,
books are written about them

and calls to arms are made on television.

In all neighborhoods, in our workplaces,

we must prepare, right now,

the armed struggle for the destruction
of all capitalisms.

But when all the revolutionaries
get involved,

it is often anarchists
who take the initiative.

For example,
there are the Tupamaros West-Berlin

with Michael Bommi Baumann,

who are the first to shake the old word.

In Spain, the "First of May Group",
[an autonomous anti-capitalist commando],

makes the gun powder speak.

The calls to build the guerrillas
are also heard in France,

where from 1970,

the "Groupe Révolutionnaire no. 2"

organizes a week of bombs in Grenoble,

followed by the GARIs
(Revolutionary Internationalist Action Groups)

who also [start attacks].

They rob banks and increase the attacks

and sabotage throughout the country.

In the USA,
former hippies take up arms.

The Weather Underground,
have not forgotten

and blow up the statue of the police
at High Market Square in Chicago.

But it's probably in the UK

that the strategy of
anarchist armed propaganda

is conducted in the most emblematic way

by an organization which, even today,

did not reveal all its secrets:
the Angry Brigade.

Many questions remain

that newspapers like The Times and others

already raised at the time.

Who are the Angry Brigades?

And they answered:

"The Angry Brigade, that can be anyone."

"The Angry Brigade is the man or woman
sitting next to you.

They have guns in their pockets
and hatred in their minds."

Anyone can be in the Angry Brigade,

names don't matter.

The really interesting thing,

and that get forgotten today

about the members
of the so-called Angry Brigade,

is that they were also involved

in many mutual aid activities

between communities and with unions.

They were poets and writers,

but they were described
by the press at the time

as a terroristic bunch.

This is actually very far from
who they were.

This collective is diverse

but it is nonetheless
highly mobilized and politicized.

Determined to go for armed struggle,

they adopt the name "Angry Brigade"

and invent a logo

where we see the male and female signs

around a kalashnikov.

Like other armed struggle groups
of the time,

it confuses the observers,

that among these fighters,

there are many female fighters.

In the tradition of the petrolium workers
of the Commune,

these women were called
'Amazons of terror'

and frighten as much as they fascinate.

We remember in particular in West-Germany,

the heroic 'Nada' of the "Movement 2. June"
(Gabi Kröcher-Tiedemann)

and of Ulrike Meinhof,

who, although not an anarchist,

was called that on the wanted posters

with a price on her head.

But for the British public,

it is the figure of Anna Mendelssohn

who is suspected
of being active in the Angry Brigade,

who grabs attention
in this TV interview

where she sums up
the sense of her fight in a word.

How do you describe your politics?

Revolutionary.

Sensitive to all forms of domination

and convinced that attack
is the best defense,

for nearly three years,

the women and men of the Angry Brigade

wil combine the struggles
and strikes repeatedly.

Of course they target the banks,

the headquarters of large companies,

and the embassies
of far-right dictatorships,

but they also broaden the scope
of actions of armed propaganda

and thereby open up new fronts.

Some of their targets were quite unusual.

For example, they blew up
a fashion store: 'Biba'.

They said Biba was a symbol

consumer society

and that as such, it should be burned.

To be well understood,

the symbolic actions
of the Angry Brigade

are systematically accompanied
by explanatory press releases.

Brothers and sisters,
what are your real desires?

Sit in the drugstore, look distant,

empty, bored,
drinking some tasteless coffee?

Or perhaps blow it up or burn it.

The only thing you can do

with these modern slave houses
called boutiques,

is wreck them.

You can't reform
profit capitalism and inhumanity.

Just kick it till it breaks.

Revolution.

The logic is to speak to an audience

who will understand the reasons

why you carry out your actions.

But of course the risk of that is

that you will also leave out

all those who do not feel angry

and cannot understand the symbolic act.

In order not to cut themselves off
from the population,

the European urban warriors
of the Angry Brigade

strive not to spill blood.

Even as they knock on the doors of power

with a letter bomb campaign,

sent to conservative newspapers,
major industrialists and ministers,

faithful to the strategy of
armed propaganda,

they will never cause any casualties.

They didn't acutally killed anyone.

They caused some injuries,
but not seriously.

Propaganda by the deed

should always be symbolic.

The Angry Brigade

had this very important slogan, I believe:

"Only fascists attack people."

You talk about the "ethics" of bombs

Anna Mendelsohn confirms:

You are saying
that bombs are very dangerous things.

Bombs can kill people.

And killing people is not what we want.

By putting a bomb in a cafe.

and not being in a position of making sure

that there is nobody there,
who is going to be killed,

then that's mindless.

That has nothing to do with
trying to make a hit at property

which the ruling class own

and which keeps them in power.

But nonetheless, as in the 19th century,

fear is part of the ruling class.

They begin to deploy
an impressive arsenal,

new laws are passed,

special units are created

like the Bomb Squad in the UK,

and thanks to the new computers
and files of the population,

in Europe and worldwide,

the hunt for the urban warriors is on.

In Uruguay, for example,

the powers become more rigid

and the authorities increaste the actions
against the insurrection

The net is cast

which make it possible to [catch]
the people of the Toupamaros movement,

like here George Savalsa.

Use of torture is becoming widespread

and the death squads are
on the heels of revolutionaries.

[And this spectacular repression
has aftershocks and victims.]

In West-Germany, Georg Rauch

one of the founders of the
Tupamaros West-Berlin

is killed by the police,

making him the first martyr
of armed propaganda.

In Spain, the liberitarian guerillero
Salvador Puig Antiche

is executed with a garrote

in the model prison of Barcelona.

And in the UK,
some alleged members of the Angry Brigade,

including Anna Mendelssohn, are arrested.

It's the longest trial in British history

and although none are found guilty

of the bombs and letter bombs

they are sentenced
to very heavy prison terms.

The limits of clandestine actions

and of armed propaganda have been reached.

And even though the anarchists
had been among the first

to make the apology,

they are also libertarians
who begin to criticize it very early on.

It is a problem of where, how
and why you carry out an attack.

If it's to cripple capitalism,
it may be worth the call.

But if it's just a spectacular attack ...

because an attack has
a profound inequality

between those who have the capacity
and know how to make bombs

and the common people,
those who go to work,

and who have nothing

nothing other than of course
their ability to go on strike.

All of this seems to me
to give a kind of heroic warrior ideal

to movements which can perhaps
replace the long thankless work

of organisation, of formation, of culture.

There is a certain
revolutionary impatience

which makes them imagine

that they are going to
strike the enemy in the heart

by putting a little bomb here or there,

but who has [increasingly informed.]

They rarely succeed in triggering
any social understanding.

In front of the cameras,
a few days before her arrest,

Anna Mendelssohn herself
admits the relative inefficiency

of the strategy of only bombing.

What has that series of bombs
proved to Britain?

Yes, what is the achievement,
the biggest you've done?

Achievement in terms of change,

in terms of what it changed,

it hasn't changed anything.

It hasn't changed anything at all.

There are many libertarians
who will then prefer

instead of armed propaganda,
[just normal] propanda.

In the late 70s and early 80s,

after this period
of strong revolutionary offensives,

the anarchists therefore
take up their pilgrim's staff again.

While getting involved
in the punk movement

which started then,

by opening publishing houses
and bookstores,

by creating fanzines, free radios
like here in France Radio-Libertaire,

or by participating
well-behaved demonstrations

they go back into the shadows
for a few years.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the end of the Sowjet Union,

capitalism triumphs.

It can go global
and starts its last transformation.

It strengthens its institutions

and generalizes its offensive against
bodies, cultures and landscapes.

The world is becomes
a single global market

from which nothing must escape

and in which everything
is therefor subject to its laws.

"There is no alternative"

they say to those
who dare to question this.

And this more intensive theft
of wealth and resources

is the result of these new
global strategies.

And that are influenced by,
and draw quite heavily on anarchism,

which is also inspired by
many indigenous movements.

It was partly inspired
by the Zapatistas in Mexico,

when in 1994 the Zapatistas made
themselves known to the world

with their insurrection.

On 1 January 1994,
in the morning twilight,

a ragged army arises.

Your attention please!

Here is Radio Zapata

the official voice of the EZLN

the Zapatista Army of National Liberation

Here is the first declaration
from the Lacandon jungle

Today, we say "basta"

It all starts in a very interesting way.

Because there is the threat of violence,

but we cannot say
that there is really violence.

What do they want?
Who are these warrior heroes,

who do not choose to belong
to the libertarian tradition?

The EZNL comes from a different tradition.

It rather starts
as Marxist or even Guevarist.

That said, it's a smart organisation

that started well adapted

both to the environment
in which it developed,

- namely in Chiapas,
which is a strongly indigenous region,

and therefore draws some inspiration from

the practices and traditions of the region

and at the same time
uses the history of Mexico.

That's why they also claim Zapata,

the peasant movement of the land.

They also claim Flores Magón,

as this precursor of the revolution,

who also brought the slogan

“Tierra y Libertad”
(Land and Freedom).

At the other end of this country,

all the contradictions
of capitalism come to light.

While nearly half of the population
lives below the poverty line,

Coca-Cola has become cheaper than water.

Economists may talk about
Mexican miracles,

but the indigenous peasants of the EZLN

who descended from the highlands
or come out of the jungle,

firsthand know
the effects of neoliberal globalization

and all forms of domination.

They occupy the decision-making centers,

because they no longer intend
to be dispossessed of their land,

of their life and their tradition,

and want to take matters
in their own hands.

But by the time they write
their programmes on the walls,

the commentators loose
interest in the message.

All eyes then turned on the messenger.

Subcomandante Marcos,

a former philosophy student,
who became a guerrilla,

but who under the influence
of the indigenous,

has gradually reconsidered
his ideas and strategy

to adopt a more libertarian
way of thinking.

His rank,
which doesn't exist in any other army,

because acording to the Chiapas saying

["Without ...]
[There is no one who commands,]

just like the use of the balaclava,
this rank, is testomony to this evolution.

The balaclava, yes,

This obviously answers
the problem of clandestinity.

But at the same time,
everyone wears the balaclava.

Therefore, they are all
both soldiers and leaders.

Which means to them,
we are all brothers and sisters,

we are all in the fight.

This also means that within the EZLN

anyone can put on their balaclava and say:

"I'm Marcos!"

The other Marcos is not dead,
he is here, it's me.

This means that anyone can be Marcos

No need to have or gun,
live in the mountains

or write like me
to be Marcos.

The true originality
of the Zapatista movement

goes beyond symbols and individualities.

It lies in the example
that another world is possible.

Because the experience that started
here as a result of the uprising

and that extends over a territory
as big as a country,

it mobilizes more than 250,000 people

and represents one of the longest
and most important experiences

of collective self-governance
in modern history.

Free access to natural resources,
co-operatives

women's assemblies,
councils of good governance,

abolition of prisons,
autonomous universities, free hospitals.

In this isolated part of the world
where it is so hard to live,

these men and women who have
always been humiliated and despised

combine practical, ancestral
and political innovation

trying, despite the adversities,

to redraw a world in their image

through implementing at all levels

real direct democracy.

They use anarchist forms of organization

in which we find spokes councils

where people delegate a person
to coordinate the activities of the group.

But the delegate simply carries
the word of the group

and does not make decisions
for their group.

What they want is a society
in which everyone has equal power

and the equal well-being, without people
and authority above them.

That's it.
That's what anarchism is.

That's why we use the term
counter-power.

Anarchism is not an anti-power strategy,

it is a strategy to counter power,

to decentralize and redistribute power.

This is why I consider
the Zapatista movement

as belonging to the libertarian
and anarchist tradition.

But - rightly in my opinion -
they distrust and refuse labels.

The [gestures | appearance]
of the Zapatistas restores hope

for the revolutionaries of the world

who are coordinated
in the young alter-globalist movement

and who come to Chiapas

to participate in regional assemblies,
international conferences

and even in intergalactic meetings
organized by the EZLN

The great egalitarian success of Chiapas,

is to be able to emphasize
the international and the globalization

And so allowed everyone to find themselves
in the struggle of the Indigenous

as long as we don't [silence]
the Indigenous.

We have to listen to them first
and then follow them,

and not precede them as an avant-garde.

So the Zapatista movement
has succeeded in its challenge,

effectively to federate
all the revolutionary movements

starting with the libertarians
because of its horizontality.

Here was an example of
a different way of doing things.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union,
whether one is for or against,

people were looking for a new model.

But this example is seen as a threat.

The State sends the army,

and the landowners of [Otmélis]
murder indiscriminately.

For example at the massacre of Acetal,
where 45 people were shot

including 18 children
and 4 pregnant women.

Rather than to [descend into | revert to] violence,

the EZNL decide
to march to Mexico without weapons

to announce its message
to the people of Mexico and to the world.

"...to the people of Mexico,
to the peoples of the world...

brothers and sisters,
We were born from the night

In her we lived
And we will die in her."

On their way, the march grows.

Masked men and women join.

Their red and black flags are raised

and their slogans are taken [over | up].

It's no longer just the voice
of a small rebellious community

which is heard in the poetic speech
of this faceless face.

But thanks also to Manu Chao,

it's the long cry of anger
of all the oppressed

who suddenly come out of the [shadows].

"Housing, land, work,
bread, health, education,

independence,
democracy, freedom.

These were our demands
in the long night of 500 years.

These are today, our demands."

The Zapatista strategy
- occupation, secession, self-management -

comes to relaunch experiments
already in progress

where they inspire new ones everywhere.

In the center of empires

against useless big projects
and their world,

as at the ZAD of Notre-Dame-des-Landes,

in the cradle of Western civilization,

like in Athens [or] the Exarcheia district,

protests against austerity policies.

Or in the very heart of the fighting,

like in Rojava where the Kurds,

[caught] between fanatical Daesh mercenaries

and the regular armies
of the Turkish authoritarian power

make war and revolution at the same time.

But we must not forget

that here the fanatics
of the Islamic State

have claimed the black flag.

It's the red, yellow and green flag

of the Kurdish revolutionaries

which is the one of anarchy.

The confederal and democratic experience

that the 6 million inhabitants of Rojava

lead for nearly 10 years

is indeed a revolution
that is at the same time

ecological, equal and libertarian.

Even if the situation remains precarious,

they can count on the determination
of the women's battalions

and on the reinforcements
of internationalist columns

whom sometimes come
from other lands of resistance.

Because whoever is in Rojava,

in Chiapas, in Exarcheia,
or at Notre-Dame-des-Landes,

despite their apparent diversity,
these struggles

are against the same enemy
and in the name of the same ideal,

they are interconnected

as seen by the messages of solidarity

that the combatants exchange
at the height of the fighting.

But at the turn of the 3rd millennium,

we feel that the local response

[] in the countries of the South
is insufficient.

Therefore, it is in the North

that the neoliberal globalization

will receive its first global response.

The black bloc attacks

It is under the eyes of the cameras
of the continous info channels

and at the heart
of the world's leading power,

that the 3rd millennium begins
with the attack on a trade center.

But for the history of anarchism,

it's not the 2001 one in New York,

but the one that takes place
2 years earlier,

and just as unexpected,

on the other coast of the USA.

In North America, I would place

the turning point
at the meeting in Seattle in 1999;

the famous meeting.

What happened there?

I was already a libertarian militant

but I was not going to go there.

Completely unexpectedly,
to most people

there was this huge protest in Seattle

against international capitalism

and also against the WTO, the IMF.

Which suddenly revealed

that a new generation of anarchists

who were organizing this opposition

against the WTO and the World Bank.

November 1999, at the foot of Mount Ranier

a WTO summit must take place

to set the rules for the next millennium.

Already, we knew a new advance
of capitalism

who will expand its merchant empire

to the productions of the mind
to the living and to all the elements.

The Chair of the WTO

and the rulers of the main economic powers

did not choose Seattle at random.

Birthplace of Bill Gates,

then the richest man in the world,

the 'Emerald City' is indeed the
world capital of commercial aeronautics

and the world center of computer software.

It hosts the head quarters
of some of the big companies

whose names already rhyme
with neoliberal globalization.

But it was without taking into account

the presence of
a long libertarian tradition

of which the recent appearance of 'grunge'

- a fusion between punk and hippie movement

[led by] Nirvana

who liked to feature circled A's
in their videos -

was only its last expression.

And on the big international
mobilization call

launched by an entire conglomerate
of organizations, groups and individuals

brought together in
a movement of movements

who chose to use this opportunity

to express their opposition
to the new world order.

It's leaderless.

It is a horizontal movement,

direct action

against the multinationals.

It has all these markers.

And even if a large number
of people involved

did not consider themselves anarchists

there were many anarchists present.

And it is clearly an non-party movement

and clearly anti-institutional.

And in that sense,
it is anarchistic.

At the morning of 30 November,

despite the fact that the 'rainy city'

has never deserved
its nickname more

the atmosphere is [good].

They joke, they [sing | chant].

They [call] the participants
who will be at the conference.

They also push a bit to try to enter.

The authorities who had underestimated
the scale of the mobilization

get scared.

[The army is called in ]
and the National Guard intervenes.

What popular history remembers
as the 'Battle of Seattle' begins.

In order to respond to police violence
and to defend the march,

a small group of protesters

decided to retaliate.

Suddenly, a black bloc forms.

There is something that
today is an integral part

of the identity of the movement.

[We didn't know
this component of the black bloc]

[We have seen it emerge in Western Europe.]

Where is it from?

The black bloc originates
from West Germany.

During the 70s,
there was a black bloc

which was autonomous.

Some called themselves anarchists,

others did not claim
to be part of any group:

"We are just autonomous."
(Autonome)

They invented the black bloc technique

wearing helmets, masks

to protect themselves against
police violence and identification.

It must be said that at the time,
In West Germany

there were very repressive
anti-terrorist laws.

Even though the Black Bloc

which is design around a strategy
and not individuals

already existed for a long time,

it's here and then

that it becomes known to the world.

For several hours,

in front of the cameras
of the main continous news channels

the revolutionaries who adopt it

face the confrontation

and claim the use of violence.

It means violence not against people,

but against things.

What breaks are
for example windows

or bank machines.

It is a violence that is
very much symbolic,

which is not at all
direct physical violence

agiainst people.

It very often includes confrontation
with the policie

but not at all extreme violence,

which consists in the possibly symbolic
destruction of ownership,

breaking the banks etc.

Indeed, despite appearances,

far from being chaotic and messy,

the direct action of the bla,ck bloc
[is reasoned and considered],

it is different from a simple riot.

In its path, windows are shattered,

but not just to express anger

or enjoy the pleasure of breaking
for the sake of breaking,

as we hear too often.

It is to show that it is possible
to attack the branches of capitalism

and this very telegenic violence

fascinates the cameras.

[Somehow double in a way,]

in the age of the media

a sensational image is sometimes
better than long speeches,

this [cinegraphic]
recourse to violence

is indeed a both a propaganda
by the deed and by the image.

They consider that it is necessary
to go and fight against capitalism.

And it's to fight against capitalism

that they use these techniques.

So it's easy: banks are banks,

it's the money,
it's the current financial capitalism,

so we attack the banks.

Even if we only scratch the surface.

But at least it gets everyone's attention

and only government propaganda

pretends not to understand

why they are attacking the banks?

Everyone understands
why the banks are attacked.

[Propaganda and half a propaganda]

The continous news channels
broadcast the images on a loop.

On the TVs, they denounce the thugs

and try to depoliticize their actions.

It's a show of the state
[of this violence]

implemented by the [dominating] themselves
[to describe it as]

as an irrational outburst,
as blind violence, etc.

Anarchist revolutionaries

are not lacking in intelligence.

They invented this slogan
in a very clever way:

"The windows don't suffer."

Why do you care so much

since we did not use

violence against people?

A state of emergency is declared,
a curfew is imposed.

and permission is given
to shoot at troublemakers,

but the power has lost the initiative.

They prefer to interrupt the summit.

They gonna lose control!

Thanks to the unexpected action

and the determination of the Black Bloc,

the Battle of Seattle is won.

It was a suprisingly successfull.

We saw that it was possible
to take back power

and that authority could not be maintained

with just the police on the street.

Authority was undermined
because it's a matter of faith,

just a matter of faith.

And since then

there have been more such demonstrations
all over the world.

In Geneva, Naples,
Quebec City in Canada.

It exploded wherever
people were in conflict with authority.

In the following years,

on all continents,

the shadow of the Black Bloc

hangs over the great summits
that barricade themselves.

It must be said that following Seattle,

its number has continued to grow.

Its presence is becoming
more and more massive

in demonstrations,

its rapid and effective action,

and its increasingly fascinating images.

The phenomenon is so strong
that in 2012,

protestors become the person of the year

of the Times magazine.

Just as at the end of the 19th century,

in the circles of power,

there is again talk of
a black international.

and they put all their effort
into ensuring

that Seattle cannot be repeated.

And this has bee used
to justify research

in the field of new weapons.

In the United States, for example,

there has been research
into 'non-lethal' weapons,

as they say,

ultrasound, lasers,

anything that could be used

in protests against protesters
and demonstrators

And we started seeing the police
behave like an army.

The police
somehow militarized everywhere.

This new law enforcement arsenal
also includes pacification.

At all major events,

with its non-lethal weapons,

they limit them mutilated,

occasionally they kill some,

as it happened in France
with Rémi Fraisse,

who dies from a grenade

for not wanting them
to destroy an ecosystem.

But when they lose control,

they don't hesitate to bring out
the weapons, the real ones.

As in Greece
where Alexandros Grigoropoulos

a 15-year-old
who took part in a demonstration

is murdered by the police.

Like in Oaxaca in Mexico,

where the anarchist journalist Brad Will,

who filmed the revolt of the teachers

and was killed by a policeman,
filmed his own camera

Or like in Genoa where Carlo Giuliani,

a 23-year-old libertarian,

is shot in the head

[and then run over by the police jeep.]

By the end of the decade,

many libertarians
are beginning to question

the Black Bloc strategy.

Hasn't it become too systematic
and therefore predictable

to the point of sometimes turning
against the demonstrators themselves?

After ten years of clashes,

it is urgent to imagine
new forms of struggle.

Indignant & insurgent

In recent years, a new world has been born

the internet.

Thanks to the digital revolution

and thanks to the ease of
exchanging information, that it brings,

we have witnessed an historically
unprecedented increase in financial flows.

This new El Dorado [turns]
the heads of multinationals

and major banking organizations

who get bigger and bigger
without any control.

The [secret] financial bubble

which explodes in 2008 is symbolized
by the fall of Lehman Brothers.

We are witnessing the most important
bankruptcy in all history.

For the first time since
the crisis of 1929 in the West,

millions of people are thrown
into the streets overnight

and entire countries are ruined.

[If revolts and by its place,]
it is in the fall of 2011,

through an international mobilization,

that unexpectedly

and without always calling it that

the anarchists will again be talked about

with the Occupy movement.

That's why it began on Wall Street.

Because Wall Street ruined
the world economy

with massive frauds

for which no one will ever be convicted.

This also shows
the total inefficiency of the states

when it comes to controlling
international capitalism.

No serious action has been taken
with regard to those responsible

for this gigantic economic devastation.

Which is why countries like Greece,
Spain and others all over the werold

are still paying.

Inspired by the occupation of squares
during the Arab Spring

and the anti-austerity movement in Spain,

by organizing a gigantic camp

at the foot
of the temple of international finance

Occupy Wall Street combines protest rally

and the creation
of a temporary autonomous zone.

The Occupy Wall Street movement,

- which is not stricttly speaking
an anarchist movement -

is heavily influenced by anarchists.

Moreover, many anarchists have set up

the structure of the movement.

People like David Graber for example,

an American anarchist who wrote
extensively on anthropology.

And others who,
without identifying as anarchist,

aligned themselves as anarchists.

Among them, there is also Kalle Lasn

a Canadian journalist,
founder of Adbusters

and author of the very beautiful
anarchist design;

Tom Morello,
guitarist of Rage Against the Machine

who is also a very active
militant of the IWW,

the great North-American
anarchist labour union;

or the eternal Noam Chomsky,
who comes to give lectures there.

But while all the tendencies of anarchism
can be found here

and all these tactics are deployed,

the mobilization is also special
by [bringing together] many people

who do not belong
to the libertarian movement,

but who must position themselves
according to it,

such as Naomi Klein, Cornel West,
Judith Butler, Michael Moore

or the Nobel Prize winner
in Economics Sciences, Joseph Stiglitz.

It is not the least of the paradoxes
of anarchism

that at the moment

when its ideas and practices
become widespread

that it then disappears
in the movements [that it helped.]

It's about ideas and experiences

which must have a meaning for our lives

and who can give us options
to respond to those.

The [problem of] anarchism is not
to make itself known,

but to offer us a kind of tool box

for the problems of daily life.

Is it important to claim anarchism? No.

Fortunately, anarchists don't fight
for an anarchist world.

They fight for a free world.

And this difference is crucial.

Coming from all over the world
to film the awakening,

cameras of the info channels
no longer show

a distant theater or spectacular violence

but in scenes of everyday life
on the street corners,

what life could be like without
many forms of domination and exploitation.

Because here for several months,
they meditate,

they discuss, they dream,
they sing, they love,

they share and they educate each other.

As always they abolish
the prisons, the police,

money and borders.

Together they image other possible worlds

and they try to achieve them here and now.

They adopted anarchist forms
of organization.

Small groups that coordinate

and try to find consensus

through direct democracy,

while asking the question

what they would do
going forward

But these people who are violent

persist in acting
as if they were already free [...]

Urgently, new laws are passed

and repression starts.

The authorities, as usual

tried to stop
the Occupy Wall Street movement.

They tried to enforced laws
against loitering

and all those laws from the 19th century.

The police looked for any excuses
to stop the movement.

They would say it was a health hazard

They talked about disturbing public order
or about illegal assemblies.

They said people were trying
to start a riot.

But the more they repress,
the more they censor,

the more
the Occupy movement spreads

and thanks to these images
that spread via the Internet,

the more its believes

transform and multiply
in space and in time.

There is a strong movement

in front of the headquarters
of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt

In Tokyo, Paris, Montréal, Seoul,
Rome, Hong Kong, Melbourne, Tel Aviv

in more than 1,500 cities
in 82 countries.

And through these great mobilizations

and the Occupy movements,

without always calling it that,

anarchism spreads and spreads

until it becomes the [pole] around which

the whole social movement turns

and part of the political world.

It doesn't matter if you are for
or against anarchism,

within the anti-capitalist movement,

you will have to define yourself
according to it

and you will be accountable.

Are your practice and your organizations
truly democratic?

Do organize horizontally?

Do you listen to everyone?

Are you sensitive to gender, sexualities
and other forms of diversity?

In short,
are you more humane?

Anarchism cannot be taught,

it can't be learned in books,
in schools, in conferences.

Anarchism is contagious.

There is a transmission

that is not [of the order of didactics.]

The libertarian movement also benefits

of this spread of its ideas.

This new vigor [destroys]

to all the perceived ideas about anarchism.

It had been described as
'petty bourgeois revolts'

and is now implanted
in the most humble circles.

There were attempts to limit to the West

but it still conquers new territories,

like here on 1 May 2019 in Indonesia.

It had been described as a minority

but now garners massive support,

especially from the new generations

who say to themselves
that it is an [Arab government].

[And while we so often thought
that anarchism is dead]

it proves, despite all these defeats,

that it is more alive than ever.

There have been many defeats
in the history of the anarchist movement,

defeats as big as the aspirations
that these people had.

But there is another way
to see the history of anarchism

which to me, is
the most interesting,

also more fair,
more respectful of the facts.

Through these great moments

which are moments of real failure,

- it's true that the Commune lost,

it's true that we lost in Spain -

there are always wins

less visible, less spectacular,

but they are present everywhere.

It is still remarkable that
what the anarchists thought,

felt, promoted, defended
for a very very long time

is present today in many elements
of our culture.

Anarchism had a fundamental role

in the progress of ideas

and humanity in general.

But anarchism still seems to be there
and not there.

Anarchists seem to be everywhere

and at the same time,
we wonder all the time:

But where are the anarchists?

Anarchism will never go away

because it belongs to the human being.

Every time someone wonders
why we must obey,

there will be an anarchist.

Far from complete,

the history of anarchism continues.

But as new currents have emerged,

and more recent figures
have succeeded the old ones,

as strategies and tactics have diversified

and as discourses and practices
have evolved

at the end of almost
two centuries of existence,

it seems that its teaching
remains the same as on the first day:

That of the need for an insurrection,

perhaps just the chances of insurrection,

an insurrection that would no longer
be about waiting,

but meditating on these words
of the invisible committee,

to rush.

The question for an insurrection
is to make itself irreversible.

Irreversibility is reached
when one has overcome,

together with the authorities
the need for authority,

along with ownership,
the desire to appropriate,

and complaining
[about the wish to complain]

This is why the insurrectionary process

contains within itself
the form of its victory

or that of its failure.

Collectively subtitled by anarchists,
on amara.org