Self-formations
Mode of Organization

by Everyone
yesterday, today, and this day forward

Structure

Alienation cannot be fought in alienated forms. The struggle for self-management requires the self-management of the struggle. The IAI is a procouncilist, antitheocratic and insurrectionary organization within which cannot be tolerated any theologies, hierarchies, specializations, dogmatisms or reformisms. If its members remain free and responsable alone of their activity outside of the organization, the absolute democratic horizontality of the IAI requires of each one of them that they radicaly criticize society — theoreticaly and in acts. The organization rests on theoretical, tactical and organisational unity. The IAI is not a ridiculous model before the hour of a future society which can only be the result of the expropriation of everything by the councils. The IAIÕs aim is not to represent or direct anything; its members represent only themselves and are ready to collaborate with all those who share their theses.

Radicality

Radical critic is not the sum of the totality of criticisms but a critic of totality. This critic excludes all partial theory or practice

Theory and Practice

Theory is not a sovereign authority, nor a system of truths given once and for all, but a project, an activity, always uncertain of acheiving an elucidation of the world. Antitheocratic practice is not the application of a preexisting knowledge but an activity which aims others as autonomous beings and regards them as the agents of the development of their own autonomy. The knowledge on which it is based is necessarily fragmentary and provisional, not only because there cannot exist an exhaustive theory but because practice itself constantly provokes the emergence of new knowledge, because only activity makes the world speak.

Antispectacular

Antitheocrats know that compromise is much more dangerous than confidentiality. Anything that can be put in spectacle confesses its incapacity to criticize the spectacle. To appear in the spectacle on oneÕs own consent, without aiming to harm it, is always a collaboration with this regime. Even to appear in it without wanting is often a serious defeat which is better to expect, so much one risks being deformed or degraded by it for not appearing in it as an enemy. When one makes an important social critic, one certainly abstains from peddling it on television or in other synods of the same kind.

The theory aims at elucidation but the form of the activity tends for maximum distance from the acceptable and awaited codes ; the unacceptable and unbearable must be systematically looked for.

If our identities are abandoned to the police and gossip, it is because these identities are of no interest. The speed reading which the spectacle imposes is practised by reading a title for an article and a signature for a essay. We do not seek to make a name for ourselves. We are too ambitious for that.