An attack on the FSB building in Arkhangelsk inevitably caused a storm of discussions in the left and anarchist segment, and even in the latter, the range of opinions changes from complete approval to little restrained skepticism. How to evaluate the act of Mikhail?

First, about choosing a goal. There should be no doubt at all - the comrade chose the best of what was available to him. It may be asked what the Arkhangelsk FSB officers were guilty of, who, it seems, are not involved in the torture of the "Network" case, and in this case, is the attack on them a manifestation of the principle of collective responsibility?

No sooner had the echo of the explosion in Arkhangelsk died down, when a friendly chorus came from all angles, in which the voices of Stalinists, socialists, part of anarchists and simply leftists intertwined.

Everybody rushed to blame Michail as they fear that they will be repressed because of him. Also they try to make themselves look white and fluffy, declaring that:

"individual terrorist acts have nothing similar with the ideology of anarchism..."

"The tactics of the communists at the present stage remains the same: the study of Marxism-Leninism, comprehensive class agitation and propaganda, association with like-minded people, the struggle against opportunism and revisionism. There is no other way, only the organized working class under the leadership of the Communist Party can oppose the capitalist class."

In 2012, forces associated with the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Northern Syria successfully ousted the authorities of the Assad regime. As a result, an autonomous territory emerged, claiming to build self-government in the wake of Murray Bukchin’s ideas. In recent years, a significant number of anarchists from different countries of the world went on a long journey to this region - Rozhava, to help the revolution with arms. Thus a new (well forgotten old) phenomenon was born . Its name is an anarchist with a gun.

Bickford world is on fire,
and there are evil clouds over the country!
"Adaptatsiya"

Those of us who understand revolution as something real, as something that will inavoidably occur in foreseeable future, face a number of painful contradictions. Sometimes it seems that there is a whole gulf between revolution and our reality.

History gives us a consolation. It teaches us that even the darkest eras, when society is enmeshed in reactionary obscurantism, passivity and indifference, can suddenly be replaced by a tremendous liberation movement in a very short time.

Why anarchism?

We state that it is either a fool or a scoundrel who can support the current system in Russia. Most of the proposed "alternatives" contain, albeit under a different sauce, the same "values" on which today's power stands - hierarchy, relations of domination and subordination, competition, greed, etc. It is not difficult to see that these "values" defects social life of our country.

Anarchism appeals to the thirst for freedom and equal collectivity.

A direct action, a physical attack on institutions and symbols of power, is at the same time an act of rebellion and confrontation with oppressors and a symbol that, having reached society, becomes a strong, loud call to fight. It is the point where the existential meaning of the act of combating converges with strategic considerations (with attempt to involve more people in a direct clash with the system). That is the basic goal of insurrectionary anarchism as a practice.

There are also more individualistic interpretations of the meaning of "insurrectionary" actions - some understand this action as complete self-worth, without having the task of influencing "ordinary people". However, this interpretation is not for us.

Honest minds of the Russian anarchist movement have long noted that a significant array of anarchist activities of our era is rather an imitation of activity. The most sorrowful type of imitation is an imitation of an organization.

A dozen years ago, when we were young, many of us realized it. But unfortunately we were almost completely deprived of worthy mentors and were forced to “build a house from its foundation". It was the time when we concluded that affinity-grours,informal unions, individual and collective initiatives are more effective than "chimerical" organizations.