Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:33:32 +0200
Subject: R: AUT: Bad Faith - was Black Blocks
From: "Laura Fiocco" <fiocco-AT-unical.it>


I do agree with Alessandro that one of the problem is to use "intelligent"
means for reaching the target, but I think the question is the target:
different ways of conceiving both revolution and comunism. And this is a
bigger problem
ciao laura

----------
>Da: Alessandro Coricelli <alessandro.coricelli-AT-rcn.com>
>A: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Oggetto: Re: AUT: Bad Faith - was Black Blocks
>Data: Mer, 25 lug 2001 14:11
>

>
> On Wednesday, July 25, 2001, at 05:00 AM, Paul Bowman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Again this is a common refrain from the authoritarian "left". The logic
>> is
>> simple - the aim of fascist activity is to destroy what the left
>> attempt to
>> build - therefore any activity which is judged by the would-be generals
>> to
>> be "destructive to the movement" or that they simply cannot cope with
>> (or
>> are scared by) is objectively fascist. It helps that this also puts you
>> on
>> the side of the liberals and the state in a popular front against the
>> demonised anarchist = violent = fascist bogeyman.
>
> Let's try, first, to put something out of the discussion. Nobody, here,
> is confused. Everyone knows who's "responsible"(of the repression, the
> killing etc.).
>
> But let's also try to see who's the real authoritarian and whose logic
> it appears to be "old".
>
> I'd start with an analogy(a "quasi-metaphore") from the very early
> '70(it is sort of funny too).
> The Primavalle(a very large suburb of Rome) section of Potere Operaio(we
> were at the dawn of the "operaio sociale", that's the reason why we
> established territorial "sections") tried to convince the inhabitants of
> the local housing projects to self reduce their rent and organize in
> "collettivi" for each "scala" or building). Most of the people there
> seemed, of course, to like the idea. But they responded to it not that
> enthusiastically either. After few days we realized the reason why. In
> actuality, almost the totality  of the residents of the projects weren't
> paying their rent at all!!!!!!! Moreover, they were already well
> organized to protect the ones who cyclically the police was trying to
> evict.
> BTW, when you try to understand what "constituent power" is all about
> think about those experiences;-)
>
> Now, the difference between the "autonomist"(workerist) approach and the
> "others"(traditional left and the "genetically minority" ones) is in the
> ability to "follow". To know where and when to stop doing "our
> things"(which is also the actual basis of what I call "parasiticism").
> We were more than happy to find out that we were "behind" the times. The
> "others"(and that was pretty funny too) kept organizing self-reduction
> of rent and utilities while most of the proletariat of suburban Rome
> weren't pay them at all! Autonomia, later, helped developing even "new
> technologies"(one of the founding collettivi of Autonomia was the one of
> the workers of the  Government run electricity compamy, Enel) to avoid
> paying the utilities bills(making them "invisible").
>
> The very same thing(the inability or unwillingness to understand, to
> KNOW) had been displayed in Genoa, imho. I want, if possible, to keep
> being very "practical", even if there are very important theoretical
> issues involved. From what I gather the BB (ok, don't tell me now "what
> blocs are you talking about" etc. 'cause I got the idea)methods are far
> from being "new", militarily speaking. But with a "twist". The "twist"
> being to "use" the movement(s) to do "their things". As always this
> approach it is an "ignorant" one and not only "against the movement".
> Pretty much not "creative"(at least as far "knowledge" is concerned) at
> all. And, imho, essentially authoritarian and third-internationalist.
> Again, from what I gather, the main (military) objective of the
> "multitude" in Genoa was to force(creatively and, why not,
> "theatrically") was to force the fences around the "zona rossa". At
> least once and in one place . "At least one meter passed"(the fences).
> I'm quite sure that this was a reachable objective. And a very joyful
> one. It is apparent that the behaviour of someone made this
> objective(and the consequent "joy") impossible to achieve. The "theatre"
> that the BB(or whatever) wanted was, yes, the one that the police
> wanted(to stay away from the "zona/e rossa/e". To not give priority to
> the re-appropriation of the territory).
> So, it is NOT "us" who don't know(knowledge and bad faith go hand to
> hand) much about the "composition"(in its typical and "just variety") of
> the movement. But someone else.
>
> ciao,
> alessandro
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---