A recent text outlining a path for developing action capacity concludes that “studying the vulnerabilities of domination” also needs attention. If a capacity for destruction is present, then the question naturally arises of how to aim it so that this destruction hits where it hurts. Let’s imagine what such an approach might entail by turning our gaze to a central pillar of global power and counterinsurgency: the U.S. “defense industry.”
Anarchists and other rebels based in the U.S. are well-placed to strike at its war machine—the ’60s saw a prolonged social upheaval driven primarily by this objective, and in the many years since, anarchists here have occasionally moved beyond opposing war to attacking it. The current genocide in Palestine has heightened social tensions against U.S. militarism, though the actions of anarchists in this moment have mostly had little impact on their targets and not contributed much to the popular imaginary of how militarism can be attacked. What could equip anarchists to carry out more significant strikes, to hone a quality of action that goes beyond the symbolic? To this end, the proposal put forward by “Fragments for an Insurgent Struggle Against Militarism and the World that Needs It” deserves discussion: to focus on well-conceived attacks that target vulnerabilities in the production and infrastructure of war.
Continue reading Developing Incisive Capacity: Making Actions Count
organizzativi basati sull’affinità e sull’informalità. Quello che lo differenziava radicalmente da qualsiasi intellettuale non era solo il suo rifiuto di ogni carriera accademica e di ogni rappresentazione mediatica, ma il fatto che analizzare lo Stato e il capitalismo non serviva per lui ad andare a dormire con le idee più chiare, bensì a trarne delle precise conseguenze – etiche, pratiche, organizzative – nella vita quotidiana.