August 11, 2020

Retaking our black path


Retaking our black path [1]

—To Alfredo Cospito, partner and co-conspirator.

We are going our own way – individuals without a redemptory and blind faith.
Our disgust with society does not engender in us any immutable conviction.
We fight for the joy of battle, and without any dreams of a better future.
What do we care about tomorrows that are awaited for centuries!
-Zo’d Axa
L’Enderhors, Paris, 1896.

We have no doubt that throughout our history, the jagged path of Anarchy has been presented with countless forks. In general, these have been transited as shortcuts, that is, cutting corners to reach the desired end: the establishment of the kingdom of freedom ( “making the State blow up and eradicating the principle of power forever” said Bakunin). However, none of these trails have led us to total liberation, always resulting in failed attempts, truncated footpaths and dead-end alleys.

Many chroniclers and researchers of the so-called anarchist “movement” locate -mistakenly- the first bifurcation of our path in the very origins of anarchism, pointing out as deviations the parallel development of the two currents of thought that gave life to the anarchist ideal. This erroneous analysis bestows anarchism with an“ambiguity” at its base -which it places at the very root of its formulations- and condemns it to drag its weight for ever and ever, through the “synthesis” of both currents of thought. However, while it is true that these primary currents are constantly proposed to us as “alternatives” which we may resort to interchangeably; in reality, we’re dealing with routes that are irreconcilable with each other, that never were (nor are, nor will be) transitable for anarchism. Undeniably, this conditioning factor pushed us to forge our path by walking –as the poet would say–, abandoning all the artifices that impose on us kinships with which anarchism broke relations since the first instants of its birth, in the most violent and strict way.

Those family ties that assiduously try to affiliate us, both with radical liberalism and with workerist socialism of clear Marxist roots, were undone, precisely, in our inaugural years, with the seditious itinerary of Bakunin and his fellow travelers, by producing the necessary ruptures and demarcations, first with the League for Peace and Freedom and, immediately after, with the First International.

Commonly, these researchers of the “movement” –which we referred to previously– tend to present anarchism as a more or less delirious continuation of one or another political project or, as a kind of mixture, engendered from the synthesis of both ideologies; when, in reality, anarchism is all of the contrary. In other words, a configuration of thought and action embodied in a seditious movement that comes to life, essentially, parting from the violent rupture with these “primary” currents of thought, acquiring its theoretical-practical singularity.

The misleading approach of chroniclers and researchers, with the passing of the years, has not only fed the false ambiguity at the base of anarchism, but has ended up simplifying in the most vulgar way this supposed bifurcation, assigning roles to the “right” and to the “left” of the political spectrum to the different anarchist configurations, in an attempt to present them as atypical extensions of radical liberalism (right?) or, Marxian socialism (left?), giving apocryphal life to a “right anarchism” and another from the “left”, impoverishing anarchic theory and practice.

In such a way, the existence of that eclectic “anarchism” that ails us today has been consolidated, which appeals to the plural under the label of “anarchisms” and can be verified in all latitudes as an effective antidote against Anarchy.

Lamentably, on repeated occasions, ample sectors of the so-called “movement” have echoed these distortions; what has induced certain fragments to align themselves (and alienate themselves) in one or another formation, taking on the role –against the very essence of anarchic praxis– of “anarchists” of left and right.


After the defeat of Spanish anarcho-syndicalism and the rise of transitional anarchism, the terms “libertarian” and “anti-authoritarian” began to gain ground in our camp as synonyms for anarchist. With the new lexicon, sugarcoated substitutes were installed that supplied “the bad word” and, in passing, metamorphosed the destructive and negating image of black anarchy, incorporating it into the instituting politicking agenda.

The term “libertarian” had an almost unanimous reception, particularly among those who sought to align themselves with “vanguard liberalism” and the post-war social democratic harangue (ordered around the option for the “lesser evil” against “totalitarianism”.). The forming of these nuclei –where the Libertarian Federations stood out–, slowly but progressively positioned themselves on the “right” of the political stage, reaching the point of producing veritable ideological abominations, among which “libertarianism” and “anarcho” – capitalism stand out. For their part, the so-called “anti-authoritarians” also did their part, placing themselves on the “left” of the political chessboard. Under the slogan of “socialism or barbarism” and under the tutelage of an “anti-Stalinist” Marxism-Leninism , they produced their own malformations and monstrosities (from “libertarian Marxism” and “situationism”, to “anarcho-guevarism” and “Libertarian autonomy” ).

Perhaps, where all the aforementioned is best verified is in North America. The development of American “anarchism” in the last fifty years has been gravitating around these two distortions, reinforcing the alignment to the “left” and the “right”, leading astray -knowingly- our black path.

Fatefully, the bulk of the new nuclei and most of the publications (printed an /or electronic) continue to congregate left and right, which has given input to some academics to outline the growing dichotomy between “red anarchism” and the “green anarchism” and its geographical distribution; exposing the pronounced ideological differences that distinguish those who opt for the obsolete economicist vision (reds) and those who choose misanthropy from the lens of deep ecology (green) 2.

Apologizing in advance for appealing to the first person –something of dubious taste–, I must admit that after almost three decades of absence I was able to verify this evidence. Consequently, the most significant paragon of the deliriums that I found in my path is ecoanarchism and its extreme offshoots, with their multiple and subsequent derivatives: on the one hand, “social ecology” and “libertarian municipalism” -congenital heirs and self-confessed defenders of the doctrinaire juggling of the peculiar libertarian Marxism of Murray Bookchin-, crucible in which they’ve added new ingredients, equally indigestible, ranging from “anarcho-zapatismo” the “democratic confederalism” to the style PKK and the “anarcopanterismo”clientelist and of neighborhood. Molding a left “anarchism” that today is torn between the relevance of the Green New Deal – facing the electoral circus with daddy Bernie [3] at the helm – and; the progressive increase of “self-managed communization” in the most depopulated and remote places, fusing their own doctrines with anarcho-populist archetypes emanating from the neo-platformist “popular power” . At the other end of eco-anarchism, we locate the remains of the different shreds of primitivism and by-products, equally pathetic and unheard of. These fluctuate between flight to the forest, in order to reinforce “spiritualism” and develop “the right muscles” (since “the tone and the physical condition were the focus of Bruce Lee, which continues to be a great source of inspiration” 4 ), facing the collapse of civilization and; extreme misanthropy, seasoned with a certain absolutist rancor (eager for feedback) and, a remix of disjointed rituals with religious pretensions, which tries to position itself among the horror literature of Thomas Ligotti, the mystical satanism of Joris-Karl Huysmans and, the philosophical futility of Eugene Thacker, although the resulting is a supreme buffoonery.

For both follies, the manifest destiny of their struggle is “for a better world”. For the “reds” realizing their “other possible world”, that is, the self-management of industrial harmfulness within the framework of a “more humane, fairer and more egalitarian” capitalism and; for the “greens”, “a world without humans». Both projects invite us to pedal while looking at the rear-view mirror. They recommend that we keep our eyes on the past and hope for the future. The “reds” anchored in the Social Revolution, alienated by nostalgia and the conservative defense of our past and mortgaged to the wait for the “objective and subjective conditions” that facilitate automatic passage to the communist and libertarian future. The “greens” stranded in the Cenozoic, to which they intend to return guided by the voices of their ancestors and by the vengeful hand of the gods (through pandemics and cataclysms); obdurate in the reproduction of a gigantic Jurassic Park, stolid with their primitive future.

Both purposes (or purposelessness), would provoke us the most resounding of laughter if the generality of their comrades, left them in the past -where they gladly locate themselves- and understood them for what they are: distortions that incessantly distance us from the black way of Anarchy. However, for a long time now, these distortions have been causing confusion in our camp due to the lack of a renewed anarchic paradigm that avows itself for the creative assault of our present, reorienting the specific historicity in which we have had to act and throw all the ballast overboard.


Many “anarchists” maintain the whopper that Anarchy is intrinsically on the “left” (and even some more populist, place it “below and to the left” , echoing the neo-Zapatismo from Chiapas ); identifying it as “the critical current of socialism”. In this way, they claim consanguinity and allege that we are part of a “big family”. These “comrades” (intoxicated with social democratic propaganda), recognize the “left” as their habitat and lineage, giving anarchism the role of younger brother – rude, disobedient and impulsive -, who, despite his bad behavior, “Mommy Left” is always willing to embrace them on her lap, for the “common good of the family.”

If you spare thinking of the Jacobin –bourgeois / liberal– origins of the “left”, nor of its instituting essence, it is difficult to discern the true intentions of this macabre trap imposed by power, which relegates anarchic theory and practice to the rearguard of Marxian thought (that was the strategy of the First International). However, it is until the beginning of the last century that anarchism was condemned to dwell on the “left” in saecula saeculorum, accused of “infantilism”. Euphemism of sorts, with which Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, aspired to disarm our inalienable purposes of total liberation. Despite this, ample anarchist sectors continue to position themselves, without major regrets, to the “left” of the political dung heap.

Without a doubt, today we can identify inside our camp, and without much effort, ideological positions that pleasantly proclaim themselves “leftist” and fit perfectly into that family tree. Renowned examples are the remnants of anarcho-syndicalism, the neo-platformist parties, the libertarian communist nuclei, the anti-authoritarians, the anarcho-populists and the assignees of libertarian autonomy; without omitting the “anarcho-hyperactivists” and the compulsive “frontists”, which repeatedly establish alliances with different Leninist sects and/or the nationalist (independence) brotherhoods, in the name of the Revolution, anti-imperialism, anti-fascism or anti-capitalism, counting on the acquiescence of all the aforementioned [5] .

Deserving of honorable mention -with regard to North America- some champions of anarcho-leftism in these lands; such is the case of the RAM (Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement), with its most recent protest in coordination with the coalition “Hands off Venezuela” and, the Stalinist guards of the WWP (Workers World Party), in defense of the populist government of Maduro and; the historic and unconditional support of the ABCF (Federation of the Anarchist Black Cross) to the five Cuban spies – intelligence officials from the government of the Castro brothers and FBI collaborators – imprisoned in the United States at the beginning of the century [6]. Not to mention the usual recruitment of anarchist “cannon fodder” for the “Rojava Revolution” and his martyrology, which each day takes more lives from comrades in the hands of postmodern anarcho-Leninism.

But, the bias to the left is so great in our camp, that we frequently find these “calls” published on supposedly anarchist blogs and websites. The curious thing is that they are not only tolerated but well received, celebrated and even shared in solidarity on related pages, without the slightest questioning or the slightest alarm, when they should be excluded and criticized with the same zeal that the fascistic texts and the misanthropic statements. However, many times we find annotations and demarcations, as an exordium, to our contributions -decidedly anarchic- or to the communiqués and reflections of the insurrectional praxis groups; when they are not censored or mutilated ( “due to space problems” ).

Our vision are so biased to the left that we are conditioned to immediately identify any proto-capitalist, fascist or conservative text, but we are unable to detect, and abhor with vigor, the most evident leftist and/or proto-Leninist discourse. We are competent enough to spot -light years away- the right-wing misrepresentations and banish them from our camp but useless to perceive all the leftist pestilence with which we are bombarded daily and, worse still, we remain helpless in the face of this brutal penetration, stuck in the swamp, with the lead shoes of political correctness.

Anything that comes wrapped in “social justice”, decorated with “egalitarianism”, dressed in “victimhood” and, smells like “people”, is welcome. What is presumed to be “antisocial”, is admitted to be “illegal”, approaches “nihilism” and, consequently, stands against civilization, is suspect. In this same situation, and as expected, there was no lack of malicious people who have tried to put misanthropic blunders and the fearless concerns of the informal anarchic tendency in the same bag, pointing to the insurrectionary anarchism and anti-civilization of our days as a “deviation” from the anarchic ideal.

With similar intentions, they’ve resorted to quoting the insurrectionists of the seventies, setting the script to be followed for the (divine!) culmination of the “generalized insurrection”; without noticing that the renovations carried out in the course of the daily conflict, are not an aseptic intellectual product produced in an isolated laboratory, but rather an integral part of the dynamic development of the present-day anarchist insurrection and that anarchic warfare, as we have been proposing it -distanced from certainties, recipes and the conceptualizations that are not our own- it is nothing other than the updated redefinition of our features and the uncompromising reaffirmation of a radical critique to Power, inviting us to retake our black path to Anarchy.

For the empowerment of the Black International (Informal and Insurrectional)!
For Anarchy!

Gustavo Rodríguez,
Planet Earth, March 21, 2019.

Postscript (which invites reflection): Let us be in solidarity with OUR prisoners and fugitives in all latitudes, with which we share affinity. Let us abandon the charitable missions and the role of chaplains -the time has come to leave the “volunteer work” to the Church and to the abolitionist liberals – let us stop wasting time and resources in prisoners that are not our own. We have to demonstrate, once again, that solidarity with OUR prisoners is not a dead letter. Direct solidarity, here and now, with the beloved Alfredo Cospito and all the anarchists incarcerated around the world. Direct solidarity with the Greek comrades of the Cell of Fire Conspiracy (CCF). Direct solidarity, with our fellow fugitives Gabriel Pombo Da Silvaand Elisa Di Bernardo (free and dangerous!), stalked again by the State (Spanish and Italian).

1 . I definitely write for those who share affinity with me and I do it stemming from my multiple obsessions. It’s not that I repeat the topics, as some colleagues point out to me. I repeat myself in terms of the obsessions that are my constant. Although there are many topics that obsess me, evidently, the need to correct the damage caused by the persistent “distortions” and the urgency to abandon everything “not of our own” in search of a theoretical-practical renewal facing the 21st century, are my preferred obsessions. This text is reliable proof of this. In spite of everything, my insistent recurrence in these topics has generated misrepresentations, probably motivated by my style of writing – profoundly amoral, adogmatic and politically incorrect – lacking (intentionally) the linear development of thoughts linked by a central idea. In general, these misunderstandings seem to give my contributions a certain “disciplinary” and “regulatory” intention , guided by an exacerbated, almost pathological“purism”. It should be unnecessary to clarify that my critical considerations have never attempted to establish themselves as a pontificate who lectures from the vantage point, uncontaminated and neat, but they strive to be intensely self-critical, always based on practical experience. So the purpose of my concerns is not (nor can it be) other than to seek the detraction of hegemonic thought, computerized and, avid for immutable truths – in the style of science and dialectics -, which has nested in the bowels of the ” movement”; and, banishing, once and for all, the pre-canned concepts, launching bets for a permanent anarchic experimentation, which renounces a priori shyness in the face of renewal; let him repudiate fear of dangerous roads; to desist from testamentary immobility and; that he be encouraged to aim higher every day, that he send his essayistic howls to the Moon and prepare to exploit the sky if necessary

2 . Williams, Dana M.,Red vs. Green: Regional Variation of Anarchist Ideology in the United States,Journal of PoliticalIdeologies,June 2009, pp. 189-210. Available at:… (Consulted: 03/20/19).

3 . Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, is an American Social Democrat, junior (independent) senator for the state of Vermont, who was a pre-candidate for the presidency in the Democratic Party internal elections for the 2016 elections and, recently, started New recounts his campaign as a presidential candidate for the Democratic primaries, with the promise that he will beat Trump in the next election.

4 . Tucker, Kevin, Prepare for the best, train for the worst: getting ready for the collapse, Species Traitor # 4, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, s / f, P. 78.

5 . It is not enough to be anti-fascist or anti-capitalist. As anarchists, we go for more: anarchic war is against all authority, against all power. The “anti-capitalism” , the “anti-imperialism”, the “anti-fascism” to equal the “environmentalism” are ideologies to the service of power by instituting frontist strategies, which usually covers a wide variety of political positions, including those of our enemies. It is common to find on the “anti-fascist” fronts a large group of leftists and, above all, Stalinists, who, although they oppose “brown fascism”, their objectives are the implantation of the “red fascism”. Similarly, on the “anti-capitalist” fronts , in addition to the representative sectors of the left, it is also frequent to meet with fascists and neo-Nazis who long for the extermination of the “capitalist parasites” and the establishment of state capitalism. Undoubtedly, it is on the “anti-imperialist” fronts , where we encounter the most enemies, since the range is much wider; There we will find nationalists, independentists, neo-Nazis, Stalinists, populists, liberal Democrats and, extensive sectors of the Creole oligarchies. The “environmentalism” nor is it different; All the colors of the political spectrum are housed on their fronts, highlighting those (without distinction of ideologies) that already hold power. From a similar perspective, there are comrades who have gone even further in criticizing the ideologies and fronting strategies, pointing out these same dangers even in “feminism” (Vid. Call for anarchic action this March 8, available at:… (Consulted: 03/20/19).

6 . Available at:… (Consulted: 03/20 / 19).

Copyright © 2014-[wpsos_year] "AntiGovernment Network" All rights reserved