A compilation of texts, a contribution to a correspondence between those who desire anarchy and subversion.
At what point can one speak in the plural? When one is plus one, or should it at least be a few, or many more? Some will consider it a failure to speak as a lone voice; for others it’s the most valued stage
to speak from. Determined to not be alone, putting forward questions,
should one be satisfied by any response?
The outcome of the encounter
can be so tasteless and banal that the effort seems senseless.
Determined to speak up, are there still questions left unanswered? At times the continuous affirmation of the I becomes nauseating; it’s unclear if anyone is still supposed to be listening. The persistence of the individual to carry on can be admirable, but isn’t it suspicious – this avoidance of the complications that are others? And what is left of the expansive potentials of the we when it’s used as a camouflage strategy for the I to dissolve into the background?
Probably only few anarchist projects happen in splendid isolation, I don’t know of a single one. Generally, if they don’t already start from a constellation, they can count on a helping hand here and there, at the least a curious glance with questions and suggestions. That doesn’t constitute an I, neither a we. Mostly there is an attraction towards one of both. Based on preferences or circumstances? Common sense which sees
a chronological order between outlining a position and getting involved can be discarded, unless one wants to hang on to a reductionist two-step educational programme for life. Things are messy, artificial separations are not helpful (anymore).
Often when anarchists ponder on who to conspire with, affinity has been the answer. The trickiness there is that it is answering a question with a question. And the latter cannot resemble a questionnaire, somewhere affects come into the equation.