for the creation of moments of mass destruction where
creativity and anger combine in unpredictable collusion

The Affinity Group

To have affinity means to have knowledge of the other,
1o know how they think on social issues and how they think
they can intervene in the social clash. This deepening of knowl-
edge between comrades is an aspect that s often neglected, im-
peding effective action.

Having chosen the path of direct action, of unmediated
attack against power, and having chosen to act where one is
now, the question of how to organize these actions arises. Prac-
tically, the desire to see one's own struggle against the social
order become social struggle shows itself in the desire to act
with others. For the types of actions most consistent with an an-
archist insirrectional perspective~small actions that can be eas-
ily imitated and improved upon, using unsophisticated means
that are available to anyone--the affinity group provides an ef-
fective method of organizing.

Let's b clear from the begirining, an affinity group is
not a permanent organization that one joins. It is a method for
organizing an action based on affinty between those taking part
in the action. So the essential firststep is the development of
relationships of affinty. Affinity is not a matter of feeling good
around each other. For the purpose of an insurrectional practice,
affinity develops through the process of getting to know each
other as comrades on an ever deepening level-that is coming to
understand how the other understands the struggle against this
society and how they feel they can intervene in it. Through dis-
cussion, such questions can be clarified, strengths and weak-

nesses made evident and possibilities for shared actions re-
vealed,

Itis when the possible projects of action become evi-
dent that certain of those who have been developing affinity
come together as a group with the specific purpose of carrying
outa particular action. When this project is completed, the par-

ticular group disbands as such, but the relations of affinity con-
tinue.
In the course of carying out actions together, affinity
will deepen and strong bonds may grow between those in-
volved. This is to be expected, since as anarchists we do not sec
our activity as separated from our lives, but ather as an expres-
sion of the way we view and choose to live life. Thus we put
the whole of our being into these actions. Our passion for free-
dom and intensity of lfe goes into our projects, so how could it
not affect the relationships of affinity we choose to develop?

But what is essential about the affinity group is that it is
amethod for organizing small actions of the sort necessary for
attacking the many facets of power that we confront everyday,
which avoids developing a cumbersome formal organization
and allows for the fluidity necessary for the development of an
intelligent anarchist analysis and practice.

Developing Relationships of Affinity

“Today the spirit drowns in a mass of chance encounters., We
are looking for those who are still alive enough to support each
other beyond this; those flecing Normal Life.”

—Agalust Sleep and Nightmare

‘We live in a society in which most of our encounters
have already been defined in terms of predetermined roles and
relationships in which we have no say. A randomness devoid of
surprise surrounds the scheduled torment of work with a “free
time" lacking in joy, wonder or any real freedom to act on
one’s own terms, a “free time” not so very different from the
job from which it is supposed to be a respite. Exploitation per-
‘meates the whole of existence as each of our iteractions is
channeled into a form of relating that has already been deter-
‘mined in terms of the needs of the ruling order, in order to guar-
antee the continued reproduction of a society in which a few
control the conditions of everyone’s existence and so own all of
our lives.

So the revolt against our exploitation is ot essentially
a political or even an economic struggle, but a struggle against
the totality of our current existence (and so against politics and
economy), against the daily activities and interactions imposed
on us by the economy, the state and all the institutions and ap-
parati of domination and control that make up this civilization.
Such a struggle cannot be carried out by any means, It requires
2 method of acting in and encountering the world in which new
relations, those of free individuals who refuse to be exploited
and dominated and equally refuse to dominate or exploit, mani-
fest here and now. In other words, our struggle must be the im-
mediate reappropriation of our lives, in conflict with the present
society.

Starting from this basis, the refusal of formality and the
development of relations of affinity cannot be seen in merely
tactical or strategic terms. Rather, they are reflections in prac-
tice of what we are fighting for if we are, indeed, fighting to
take back our lives, to reappropriate the capacity to determine
the conditions of our own existence—i.c., the capacity for self-
‘organization.

‘The development of relationships of affinity is specifi-
cally the development of a deep knowledge of one another ina
complex manner, a profound understanding of each other’s
ideas, dreams, desires, passions, aspirations, capacities, concep-
tions of the struggle and of life. It is, indeed a discovery of what
i shared in common, but more significantly it is a discover of
differences, of what is unique to each individual, because it is at
the point of difference that one can truly discover the projects
one can carry out with another.

Since the development of relationships of affinity i it-
self a reflection of our aims as anarchists and since it is in-
tended to create a deep and ever-expanding knowledge of one
another, it cannot simply be left to chance. We needto inten-
tionally create the opportunity for encounters, discussions and
ebates in which our ideas, aspirations and visions of the revo-
lutionary struggle can come into contention, where real affini-
ties and real conflicts can come out and be developed—not with
the aim of finding a unifying middle ground in which every one
is equally compromised, but to clarify ditinctions and so dis-
cover a real basis for creating projects of action that aren’t sim-
ply playing the role of radical, activist or militant, but that are
real reflections of the desires, passions and ideas of those in-
volved. While publications, intemet discussion boards and cor-
respondence can provide means for doing this on some levels,
o the extent to which they are open forums they tend to be too
random, with potential for the discussion to lose any projectual-
ity and get sidetracked into the demoeratic exchange of opin-
ions which have little connection to one’s life. To my mind, the
best and most significant discussions can take place in face-to-
face encounters between people with some clarity of why they
are coming together to discuss. Thus, organizing discussion
groups, conferences, meetings and the like is an integral part of

the development of relations of affinity and so of projects of
action.

‘The necessity to pursue the development of relation-
ships of affinity with intention does not mean the development
ofa formal basis for affinity. It seems to me that formality un-
dermines the possibility of affinity, because itis by nature
based on a predetermined, and therefore arbitrary, commonal-
ity. Formal organization is based upon an ideological or pro-
grammatic unity that ultimate comes down to adherence to the
organization as such. Differences must be swept aside for the
cause of the organization, and when differences are swept
aside, soalso are dreams, desircs, aspirations and passions since
these can only ever belong to the individual. But, in fact, for-
‘mal organization has nothing to o with intention or projectual-
ity. In fact, by providing an ideology to adhere to it relieves the
individual of the responsibility of thinking for herself and de-
veloping his own understanding of the world and of her strug-
gle in it. In providing a program, it elieves the individual of the
necessity of acting autonomously and making practical analyses
of the real conditions in which she is struggling. So, in fact, for-
mality undermines projectuslity and the capacity for self-
organization and so undermines the aim of anarchist struggle.

Relationships of affinity are the necessary basis of self-
organization on the most basic daily level of struggle and of
life. It is the decp and growing knowledge of one another that
provides the basis for developing projects of revolt that truly
reflect our own aspirations and dreams, for developing a shared
struggle that is based in the recognition and, at s best, the pas-
sionate enjoyment of our very real and beautiful differences.
“The development of social revolution will, of course, require an
organizing of activity beyond the range of our relationships of
affinity, but it i the projects that we develop from these rela-
tionships that give us the capacity for self-organization, the
strength to refuse all formality and, thus, all of the groups that
claim to represent the struggle, whether they call themselves
parties, unions or federations. In the relationship of affinity, a
new way of relating free from all roles and every hackneyed
Social relationship already begins to develop, and with it an ap-
parent unpredictability that the authorities will never under-
stand. Here and now, we grasp a world of wonder and joy that
is 2 powerful weapon for destroying the world of domination.

The Insurrectional Project

An anarchist insurrectional project requires a method
that reflects the world we desire and the reality of the world we
seek to destroy. Acting in small groups based on affinity fits
both of these requirements. Power in the present world no
longer has a real center, but spreads itself throughout the social
terrain. Acting in small groups allows projects of attack to
spread across the terrain as well. But more significantly, this
method brings one’s aim into one’s method—revolt tsclf be-
comes a different way of conceiving relations. Anarchists al-
‘ways talk of refusing vanguardism—but such a refusal means
refusing evangelism, the quantitative myth that secks to win
converts to an idcology of anarchism. Acting in small groups to
attack the state and capital puts anarchy into practice as the
self-organization of one’s own projects, in relations based on
affinity—real knowledge of and trust in each other—rather then
adherence to a belief system. Furthermore, this sort of action,
liberated from the quantitative, does not wait until “conditions
are right”, until one is guaranteed a large following or until one
is certain of the results—it is action without measure. Thus, it
carries within it the world we desire—a world of relations with-
out measure.
Some Ideas on Insurrectional Anarchist Organization

Once one has decided not to put up with being ruled or
exploited and therefore to attack the social order based on
domination and exploitation, the question of how to go about
this arises. Since those of us who rise up i rebellion cannot let
themselves be organized by others without falling under a new
form of domination, we need to develop the capacity to organ-
ize our own projects and activities—to put the elements to-

gether that are necessary for acting projectually in a coherent
manner.

‘Thus, organization, as I'm using the term here, means
bringing together the means and relations that allow us to act
for ourselves in the world. This starts with the decision to act,
the decision that our thirst to have all of our life as our own re-
quires us to fight against the state, capital and all of the struc-
tures and institutions through which they maintain control over
the conditions of our existence. Such a decision puts one in the
position of needing to develop the specific tools that make in-
telligent action possible, First thorough analysis of the present
conditions of exploitation s necessary. Based on this analysis,
‘we choose specific objectives to aim for and means for achiev-
ing these objectives based upon our desires and the ideas that
‘move us. These means, these tools for action must first and
foremost include ways of making our objectives, desires and
ideas known to others in order to find affinities, others with
whom we can create projects of action, Thus, we look to create
occasions for encounters and discussion in which similarities
and differences are clarified, in which the refusal of false uni-
ties allow the real affinities—real knowledge of whether and
how we can work together—ecan develop. These tools allow the
projectuality of individuals in revolt to become 2 force in move-
ment, an clement propelling toward the insurrectional break.
Since affinity is the basis for the relations we are aiming o use
in action, informality is essential—only here can its forms b
expressions of real needs and desires.

S0 our desire to create insurrection moves s to reject
all formal organization—all structures based on membership
and the attempt to synthesize the various struggles under one
formal leadership—that of the organization. These structures
for synthesis share some common traits. They have a formal
theoretical basis, a series of doctrine to which all members are
expected to adhere. Because such groups are seeking numbers
this basis tends to be on the lowest common denominator—a
set of simplistic statements with no depth of analysis and with a
dogmatic tendency that militates against deep analysis. They
also have a formal practical orientation—a specific mode of
acting by which the group as a whole determines what they will
do. The necessity such groups feel to synthesize the various
struggle under their direction—to the extent they succeed—
leads to a formalization and ritualization of the struggles under-
mining creativity and imagination and tumning the Various strug-
gles into mere tools for the promotion of the organization. From
all of this it becomes clear, that whatever claims such an or-
‘ganization'may make about its desire for insurrection and revo-
lution, in fact ts frst aim is to increase membership. It is im-
portant to realize that this problem can exist even when no
structures have been created. When anarchism promotes itsel
in an evangelistic manner, it is clear that a formal theoretical
basis has imposed its rigidity on the fluidity of ideas necessary
for developing real analyses. In such a situation, the practical
orientation—the modes of action also become formalized—one
need only look at the ritualized confrontations by which so
many anarchists strive to get their message across. The only
purpose that this apparently informal formalization serves is to
try to convince the various people in struggle that they should
call themselves anarchists—that i, to synthesize the struggles
under the leadership of the black flag. In other words to gain
numbers of members for this formal non-organization. Dealing
with the media to explain who anarchists are seems 10 enforce
this way of interacting with the other exploited in struggle, be-
cause it reinforces the separation of anarchists from the rest of
those exploited by this society and leaves the impression that
the anarchists have some special understanding of things that
‘makes them the de facto vanguard of the revolution.

So for the purpose of creating our insurrectional project
‘we want to organize informally: without a formal theoretical
basis 50 that ideas and analyses can be developed fluidly ina
way that allows to understand the present and act against it and
withouta formal practical orientation so that we can act with an
intelligent projectual spontaneity and creativity. A significant
aspect of this informal organization would be a network of like-
minded people. This network would base itself on a reciprocal
knowledge of each other which requires honest, straightforward
discussions of ideas, analyses and aims. Complete agreement
would not be necessary, but a real understanding of differences
would. The aim of this network would not be the recruitment of
‘members—it would not be a membership organization—but
rather developing methods for intervening in various struggles
in an insurrectional manner, and coordinating such intervention.
The basis for participation would be affinity—meaning the ca-
pacity to act together. This capacify stems from knowing where
10 find each other and studying and analyzing the social situa-
tioh together in order to move to action together. . Since there is
no formal organization to join, this network would only grow
an the basis of real affinity of ideas and practice. This informal
network would consist of the tools we develop for the discus-

sion of social analyses and the methods for intervening in strug-
gles that we create.

‘This network is basically a way for individuals and
small groups to coordinate their struggles. The real point of ac-
tion is the affinity group. An affinity group is an informal, tem-
‘porary group based on affinity—that is real knowledge of each
other—that comes together to accomplish a specific aim. Affin-
ity develops through a deepening knowledge of each other:
knowledge of how the other thinks about social problems and
of the methods of intervention they consider appropriate. Real
affinity cannot be based on a lowest cormon denominator, but
must include a real understanding of differences as well as
similarities between those involved, because it is in the knowl-
edge of our difference that we can discover haw we can really
act together. Since the affinity group comes together for a spe-
cific circumseribed aim, it is a temporary formation—one that
ceases to exist once the aim is accomplished. Thus it remains
informal, without membership.

With this informal basis, once we recognize that our
own freedom will remain impoverished as long as the masters
continue to control the conditions under which most people ex-
ist, depriving them of the ability to freely determine their own.
lives, we recognize that our own liberation depends on inter-
‘vention in the struggles of the exploited classcs as a whole. Our
involvement is not one of evangelism—the propagandistic
‘method would place us on the same level as political move-
ments, and we are not politicians or activists, but individuals
who want our lives back and therefore take action for ourselves
with others, Thus, we do not propose ariy specific anarchist or-
ganization for the exploited to join, nor a doctrine to put faith
in. Rather we seek to link our specific struggle as anarchists to
that of the rest of the exploited by encouraging self-
organization, self-determination, the refusal of delcgation and
of any sort of negotiation, accommodation or compromise with
power, and a practice based on direct action and the necessity
of attack against the structures of power and control. The point
s to enéourage and participate in specific attacks against spe-
cific aspects of the state, capital and the various structures and
apparati of control. Since our purpose is to struggle against our
own exploitation with other exploited people, certainly with the
aim of projecting toward insurrection, there can be no guaran-
teeing of any results—with no organization striving to gain
‘members, we can't look for an increase in numbers. There is no
way to know the end. But though we have know guarantees, no
certainty of accomplishing our aim, success is not the primary
reason for our struggle. The primary reason is that not 1o act is
the guarantecd defeat of an empty and meaningless existence.
To act o take our life back is to already regain it on the terrain
of struggle, to already become the creator of one’s own exis-
tence, even if in constant battle with a monstrous order deter-
‘mined to crush us.

Why we are Insurrectional Anarchists

-Because we are struggling along with the excluded to alleviate
and ultimately abolish the conditions of exploitation imposed
by the included.

“Because we consider it possible to contribute to the develop-
ment of struggles that are appearing spontancously everywhere,
tuming them into mass insurrections, that i to say, actual revo-
utions.
~Because we want to destroy the capitalist order of the world
‘which, thanks to computer science restructuring has become

technologically useful to no one but the managers of class
domination,

~Because we are for the immediate, destructive attack against

the structures, individuals and organizations of Capital and the
State,

~Because we constructively criticize all those who are in situa-
tions of comprise with power in their belief that the revolution-
ary struggle is impossible at the present time.

-Because rather than wait, we have decided to proceed to ac-
tion, even if the time is not ripe.

~Because we want to put an end to this state of affais right
away rather than wait until conditions make its transformation.
possible. These are the reasons why we are anarchist, revolu-
tionaries and insurrectionalists.

Notes on Insurrectionary Anarchism

Insurrectionary anarchism is not an ideological solution
toall social problems, a commodity on the capitalist market of
ideologies and opinions, but an on-going praxis aimed at put-
ting an end to the domination of the state and the continuance
of capitalism, which requires analysis and discussion to ad-
vance. We don't look to some ideal society or offer an image
of utopia for public consumption. Throughout history, most
anarchists, except those who believed that society would evolve
10 the point that it would leave the state behind, have been in-
surrectionary anarchists. Most simply, this means that the state
will not merely wither away, thus anarchists must attack, for
waiing is defeat; what is needed is open mutiny and the spread-
ing of subversion among the exploited and excluded. Here we
spell out some implications that we and some other insurree-
tionary anarchists draw from this general problem: if the state
will not disappear on its own, how then do we end its exis-
tence? Itis, therefore, primarily a practice, and focuses on the
organization of attack. These notes are in no way a closed or
finished product; we hope they are a part of an ongoing discus-
sion, and we most certainly welcome responses (interesting re-
sponses will be printed in the next issue of Hot Tide). Much of
this comes from past issues of Insurrection and pamphlets from
Elephant Editions (see the Insurrection Page on our website or
write us if interested).

1: THE STATE WILL NOT JUST DISAPPEAR; ATTACK
~The State of capital will not “wither away,” as it sezms many
anarchisis have come to believe-not only entrenched in ab-
stract positions of *waiting, but some even openly condemning
the acts of those for whom the creation of the new world de-
pends on the destruction of the old. Attack is the refusal of me-
diation, pacification, sacrifice, accommodation, and compro-
mise. *

~Itis through acting and learning to act, not propaganda, that
we will open the path to insurrection, although propaganda has.
arole in clarifying how to act. Waiting only teaches waiting; in
acting one learns to act.

~The force of an insurrection s social, not military. The meas-
ure for evaluating the importance of a generalized revolt is not
the armed clash, but on the contrary the amplitude of the pa-
ralysis of the economy, of normality.

2. SELF-ACTIVITY versus managed revolt: from insurrection
to revolution

~As anarchists, the revolution is our constant point of refer-
ence, no matter what we are doing or what problem we are con-
cemed with, But the revolution is not a myth simply to be used
as a point of reference. Precisely because itis a conarete event,
it must be built daily through more modest attempts which do
not have all the liberating characteristics of the social revolu-
tion in the true sense. These more modest aftempts are insur-
rections. In them the uprising of the most exploited and ex-
cluded of society and the most politically sensitized minority
opens the way to the possible involvement of increasingly
wider strata of exploited on a flux of rebellion which could lead
to revolution.

~Struggles must be developed, both in the intermediate and
long term. Clear strategies are necessary to allow different
‘methods to be used in a coordinated and fruitful way.
~-Autonomous action: the self-management of struggle means
that those that struggle are autonomous in their decisions and
actions; this s the opposite of an organization of synthesis
which always attempts to take control of struggle. Struggles
that are synthesized within a single controlling organization are
casily integrated into the power structure of present socicty.
Self-organized struggles are by nature uncontrollable when they
are spread across the social terrain.

3. UNCONTROLLABILITY versus managed revolt: the
spread of attack

~It s never possible to sec the outcome of a specific struggle in
advance. Even a limited struggle can have the most unexpected
consequences. The passage from the various insurrections—
limited and circumscribed--to revolution can never be guaran-
teed in advance by any method.

—~What the system is afraid of is not these acts of sabotage in
themselves, so much as their spreading socially. Every prole-
tarianized individual who disposes of even the most modest
means can draw up his or her objectives, alone or along with
others. It is materially impossible for the State and capital to
police the apparatus of control that operates over the whole so-
cial territory. Anyone who really wants to contest the network
of control can make their own theoretical and practical contri-
bution. The appearance of the first broken links coincides with
the spreading of acts of sabotage. The anonymous practice of
social self-liberation could spread to all felds, breaking the
codes of prevention put into place by power.

—Small actions, therefore, easily reproducible, requiring unso-
phisticated means that are available to al, are by their very sim-
plicity and spontaneity uncontrollable. They make a mockery
of even the most advanced technological developments in
counter-insurgency.

4. PERMANENT CONFLICTUALITY versus mediation with
institutional forces

~Conflictuality should be seen as a permanent clement in the
struggle against those in power. A struggle which lacks this
element ends up pushing us towards mediating with the institu-
tions, grows accustomed to the habits of delegating and believ-
ing in an illusory emancipation carried out by parliamentary
decree, to the very point of actively participating in our own
exploitation ourselves.

~There might perhaps be individual reasons for doubting the
attempt to reach one’s aims with violent means. But when non-
Violence comes to be raised to the level of a non-violable prin-
ciple, and where reality i divided into *good’ and ‘bad,’ then
arguments cease to have value, and everything is seen in terms
of submission and obedience. The officials of the anti-
globalization movement, by distancing themselves and de-
nouncing others have clarified one point in particular: that they
see their principles—to which they feel duty-bound--as a claim
to power over the movement as a whole.

5. ILLEGALITY; insurrection isn’t just robbing banks
~Insurréetionary anarchism isn’t a morality on survival: we all
survive in various ways, often in compromise with capital, de-
pending on our social position, our talents and tastes. We cer-
tainly aren’t morally against the use of illegal means to frec
ourselves from the fetters of wage slavery in order to live and
carry on our projects, yet we also don't fetishize illegalism or
tum it into some kind of religion with martyrs; it s simply a
‘means, and often a good one.

6. INFORMAL ORGANIZATION; not professional revolu-
tionaries or activists, not permanent organizations

From party/union to self-organization:

~Profound differences exist within the revolutionary move-
ment: the anarchist tendency towards quality of the struggle and
its self-organization and the authoritarian tendency towards
quantity and centralization.

~Organization is for concrete tasks: thus we are against the
party, syndicate and permanent organization, all of which act to
synthesize struggle and become elements of integration for
capital and the state. Their purpose comes to be their own exis-
tence, in the worst case they first build the organization then
find or create the struggle. Our task is to act; organization is a
‘means. Thus we are against the delegation of action or practice
to an organization: we need generalized action that leads to in-
surrection, not managed struggles. Organiization should not be
for the defense of certain interests, but of attack on certain in-
terests.

Informal organization is based on a number of comrades
linked by a common affinity; its propulsive clement s always
action. The wider the range of problems these comrades face as
a whole, the greater their affinity wil be. It follows that the
real organization, the effective capacity to act together, i.c.
knowing where to find each other, the study and analysis of
problems together, and the passing to action, all takes place in
relation to the affinity reached and has nothing to do with pro-
grams, platforms, flags or more or less camouflaged parties.
‘The informal anarchist organization is therefore a specific or-
genization which gathers around a common affinity.

‘The anarchist minority and the exploited and excluded:

~We are of the exploited and excluded, and thus our task is to
act. Yet some critique all action that is not part of a large and
visible social movement as “acting in the place of the proletar-
iat.” They counsel analysis and waiting, instead of acting.
Supposedly, we are not exploited alongside the exploited; our
desires, our rage and our Weaknesses are not part of the class
struggle. This s nothing but another ideological separation be-
tween the exploited and subversives.

~The active anarchist minority is not slave to numbers but con-
tinues to act against power even when the class clash is at a low
level within the exploited of society. Anarchist action should
not therefore aim at organizing and defending the whole of the
class of exploited in one vast organization to see the struggle
from beginning to end, but should identify single aspects of the
struggle and carry them through to their conelusion of attack.
‘We must also move away from the stereotypical images of the
great mass struggles, and the concept of the infinite growth of a
‘movement that is to dominate and control everything.

~The relationship with the multitude of exploited and excluded
cannot be structured as something that must endure the passage
of time, i.¢. be based on growth to infinity and resistance
against the attack of the exploters. It must have a more re-
duced specific dimension, one that is decidedly that of aftack
and not a rearguard relationship.

~-We can start building our struggle in such a way that condi-

tions of revolt can emerge and latent conflict can develop and
be brought to the fore. In this way a contact is established be-
tween the anarchist minority and the specific situation where
the struggle can be developed.

7. THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE SOCIAL: individualism and
communism, a false problem

~We embrace what is best in individualism and what is best in
communisim.

~Insurrection begins with the desire of individuals to break out
of constrained and controlled circumstances, the desire to reap-
propriate the capacity to create one's own life as one sees fit.
This requires that they overcome the separation between them
and their conditions of existence. Where the few, the privileged,
control the conditions of existence, it is not possible for most
individiials to truly determine their existence on their terms. In-
dividuality can only flourish where equality of aceess to the
conditions of existence is the social reality. This equality of ac-
cess is communism; what individuals do with that access is up
o them and those around them. Thus there is no equality o
identity of individuals implied in true communism. What
foroes us into an identity or an equality of being are the social
oles laid upon us by our present system. ‘There is no contradic-
tion between individuality and communism.

8. WE ARE THE EXPLOITED, we are the contradiction: this
is no time for waiting

~-Certainly, capitalism contains deep contradictions which push
it towards procedures of adjustment and evolution aimed at
avoiding the periodic crises which afflict it; but we cannot cra-
dle ourselves in waiting for these crises. When they happen
they will be welcomed if they respond to the requirements for
accelerating the elements of the insurrectional process. As the
exploited, however, we are the fundamental contradiction for
capitalism. Thus the time is always ripe for insurrection, just as
‘we can note that humanity could have ended the existence of
the state at any time in its history. A rupture in the continual
reproduction of this system of exploitation and oppression has
always been possible.
Further Reading

Venomous Butterfly Publications
hitp://www.omnipresence. mahost.org/vbp-htm

Outlaw History and Theory
hitp://swww charmnet/~claustro/outlaw/default htm

Killing King Abacus
hitp://svvrw.geocities.com/kk_abacus

Insurrectionary Anarchists of the Coast Salish Territories
(Vancouver, BC)

hitp://www.geocities.comyinsurrestionary_anarchists/

Solidarios
hitpi//swww.geocities.com/ANAR_GR

Guerra Sociale
hitp://swww guerrasociale.org

Infoshop: Anarchy on the Web
hitp://www.infoshop.org

Anarchism in New Orleans
hitpi//nolaanarchy.cjb.net
Tension Collective

cha Steve Stuart

MR 5041

31 MeAlister Dr.

New Orleans, LA 70118

http://nolaanarchysib.net
tensioncollective@yahce.com