Organisation-of-the-Organisationless

Organisation of the Organisationless
they do, but involves a fundamentally different approach
to disagreement – in this case, for example, the object of
disagreement would be tactics rather than the borders
separating lawful and unlawful behaviour. Ultimately,
how broad one’s conception of the network-movement
is determines how comprehensive a picture one has
of the overall field of struggle, the direct and indirect
interactions within it, the impacts that actions might
have, latent connections to be developed, ties to be
strengthened, differences to be taken into account,
struggles and objectives to be prioritised, points of
leverage, areas in which intervention is called for.
As such, the network-movement is a prerequisite
for strategic and tactical thinking. Whereas ‘the
movement’ inevitably implies some presupposition of
a unity that is not given, ‘network-movement’ starts
from a dynamic multiplicity – a dynamic system
whose parts are also dynamic systems – and points
towards the continuous project of the construction of
commons, temporary or permanent, whose form is not
presupposed in advance. The choice for either dispersion
or unification is not inscribed in advance in the notion
of a network-movement. On the contrary, the idea of
network-movement opens the possibility that several
ways of combining the two – swarming, distributed
action, diversity of tactics, institutionalisation, forking,
even (why not?) parties – can be selected according to
what the occasion requires. Once these are considered
in the context of a network-system, the point is not
what solution is valid for the whole, but what solutions
work within the whole. There is no need to find a single
answer to what everyone must do – it is no wonder these
should appear unlikely, given the number of variables
29