We publish below an essay generously shared with us by its author, Simón Royo Hernández. Hernández’s work has endeavoured to engage philosophically with the tradition of political anarchism, as others have tried to do, in significant ways.
We know that many criticise such endeavours, even perhaps citing Bakunin in their favour: “No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker.” And yet Bakunin was no stranger to philosophy and he did not hesitate to also criticise “philosophically” ideas that he thought problematic. More importantly, the refusal of the refusal of theoretical systems is not a refusal of philosophy, for what Hernández in part explores is precisely the anti-systemic or anti-totalising nature of anarchist thought.
Whatever one’s judgement about such an exercise, to dismiss it categorically is itself intellectually arrogant.
And what kind of action or praxis would be imaginable or possible without thought?
Event and Anarchy: The anarchic event
Simón Royo Hernández
Event is a concept used in philosophy to designate and indicate the so-called gift of Being, that is, the emergence of a novelty, the news of an exception, radical changes or discontinuity, whether in History or in any progressive and continuous process. The regular and stable course of something is interrupted, disrupted, suddenly, as in an eruption, but at the same time this outbreak incubates, develops little by little until it finds a trigger.
The discovery of America, a revolution, a pandemic, the demolition of the Twin Towers, a volcanic eruption, falling in love, the invention of penicillin, the discovery of the use of fire or electricity, the explosion of a star, a sudden terror or joyful mood, the repopulation of an abandoned town, an intuition, the emergence of a genius; all of these events and many more can be considered events.
But not all events are the same and we are interested in distinguishing here, above all, between events in general and the anarchic event in particular.
An event denotes the possibility of a presence previously ignored, which may be new, distinct, different, or may have been buried, forgotten, hidden or absent, and which has come to reveal itself, to emerge or to be revealed again, to be exhumed after a time of oblivion. An event involves surprise, the emergence of something unanticipated, therefore it is not possible to explain an event, and it cannot be the object of science, even if we can think about it.
Reason, objectivity, science and modernity have left no room to think about the event, that which implies a break with the principle of causality and the determinism of the calculable.
Religion, for its part, will understand the event as a miracle, incorporating it into its soteriology, a deceit of the spirit unacceptable to any atheistic and materialist thought. The event of the death of God implies the death of religion, at least in the West, where its praxis is already a mere narcissistic and hypocritical ornament, leaving current Islamism as a memory of what religiosity was before the death of God, sometimes an atrocious system of submission and dominance.
There is actually no form of permanent continuity in History. And it is always possible to take up failed experiences from humanity’s past and apply them to the praxis of the present, hence ghosts such as religion constantly return, or we once again believe that science helps us. It will be able to explain everything through a total worldview, but that is also why libertarian experiences reappear, updating themselves in their novelty to subvert and shatter the modern dream of the total administration of existence in general.
The pretensions of finding an absolute foundation and an end to History decline and the possibilities of a radical change in power relations open up, with each anarchic event.
Quantitative accumulation or loss can produce a qualitative leap and that would perhaps have happened in modernity, giving way to postmodernity. A simple example can be given of the famous second law of dialectic, of how quantity is transformed into quality, in the case of someone becoming bald: a person successively loses hair, each time they are a person with less hair, until they lose all of it and become bald. The accumulations and losses of modernity would have precipitated the breeding ground for the event of postmodernity, where the appearance of new anarchic subjects manifests itself in an unpredictable way.
Precisely in the capitalist world that seeks the total administration of life, under the technical immersion in a society in which it is almost impossible to position oneself in a way other than that of domination and submission, when all seeing is homologated, there nevertheless resonates the echoes of freedom, awakening in some and spreading the desire for inextinguishable and impregnable freedom that inhabits us. Contemporary capitalist nihilism and the transformation of humans into working material lead us to consider that the imposed regularity of our monotonous existences has the character of a disease, a caused illness that has a cure. The therapeutic healing of such virulence has a therapy, detachment, the detachment from the gerontoplasm of domination, distancing from what matters to the capitalist world, and it has an antidote, anarchy, with all the meanings to which that word refers: mutual care, independence, autonomy, absence of exploitation, rejection of governance, rejection of hierarchies and impositions.
We speak then of outbreaks of freedom, in short, of affirmations of wild becomings as truths that are not imposed, as anarchic events that have their non-causal correspondences with each other.
We speak of an anarchic event then to designate a genuine transformation of what exists that passes from domination to freedom. We call the emergence of such an event anarchic, for it is dictated by the unpredictable and unanticipated emergence of an an-arché, that is, of something liberating that did not exist before for the regime of the administration of life and that comes into existence for the first time.
As a novelty, this event, its original state, is free, although it may subsequently become alienated, exploited, enclosed and dominated, if the situation in which it emerges is of a slave, feudal or capitalist nature. But also, anarchic events can emerge in situations; in the human being, they provoke a mutation of subjectivity, a new situation or one that no longer supports what one has been supporting, assuming a new way of being, of being and of living.
With an anarchic event, which is openness and possibility, there is then a break with the current situation or state of things, a break that can be momentary, transitory or permanent. Initially it is not the solution to a problem but the opening of possibilities for overcoming such a problem. After such an anarchic event, if the implications of such an emergence are potent and powerful, then, they force the limits or positioning of the world to the point of destroying, reconstructing or deconstructing it, showing it first as a freer non-place, in which freedoms that did not exist before gain a certain degree of existence, until they consolidate themselves everywhere, generating a new state of affairs, thus moving in this way collectively to another dimension, giving rise to a subjective reconversion at a collective level. Accommodating the new, that which was not before, is terrifying for the psyche, individual and collective, since no step is ever assured.
What is of the nature of an event presupposes a retroactivity, a historicity, by which, what happens with each new happening, happens simultaneously in everything that had preceded it. The world is thus reconfigured and transfigured, in different ways.
The opposite of the anarchic event, which adds freedom to the world, would be the founding event, the emanation of new principles of domination, which subtract freedom from the world, turning it, increasingly, into a managed prison; although the anarchic event emerges with more force the more the founding event presses us, because the anarchic event emerges as a disruptive moment in the face of the absence or breakdown of a horizon of expectation.
The philosopher Alain Badiou, for his part, in L’Hypothèse communiste, considers that:
“An event is the creation of new possibilities. It is located not merely at the level of objective possibilities but at the level of the possibility of possibilities. Another way of putting this is: with respect to a situation or a world, an event paves the way for the possibility of what — from the limited perspective of the make-up of this situation or the legality of this world — is strictly impossible.”
We partially agree with Badiou, because we do consider libertarian communism as something possible, even in the conditions of possibility given by the capitalist situation of the world.
The event that will come, as a still post-eschatological promise, can urge us to carry out what still seems impossible to us, which refers to actions that are still anti-principled (an-archic), that is, opposition and destruction of the old, rupture with the principles, foundations, justifications and sustainability of the reigning capitalism. The anarchic event however urges us to carry through with what has always seemed and seems possible to us; the event thus points us to subsequent primary (anarchic) ??actions, that is, the construction of the new, now, without restraints or restrictions, with innovation and creativity. Firstly, domination ceases to be while freedom has not yet come, thus freedom can make its way; the anarchic, political event of libertarian communism is first the emergence of an improbable possibility in a field of possibles, the certainty that another something is possible of which the contours are still unknown. It is a reaction to a world that becomes intolerable and inadmissible. Secondly, it is already the construction of that new world that we cannot anticipate.
The anarchic event is a truth that is not imposed, as is the libertarian communism that emerges again and again: an egalibertarian encounter within an aleatory materialism. Each singularity, misnamed individual, is a collectivity that can harmonise with others through cooperation, which constitutes an event-encounter between the possibles of freedom.
Badiou says it in these words in his Second Manifeste pour la philosophie:
“I call truths’ “eternity” this inviolate availability making it possible for them to be resuscitated and reactivated in worlds heterogeneous to those in which they were created, and crossing over, as such, unknown oceans and obscure millennia. It’s absolutely necessary that theory be able to account for this migration. It has to explain how ideal existences, often materialized in objects, can both be created at a precise point of space-time and possess this form of eternity.”
Again, I partially agree. Truths, in Badiou’s theory, are considered eternal, however, they are created from a defined and contingent material, which is why in our anarchist, less idealistic theory, they are also something material, multiple and contingent. And of course, this philosopher is right that (libertarian) communism can be reactivated, because in our opinion, it constantly is, but truths are not eternal, nor are those that are not imposed eternal, for none of them are. They are simply true truths, pardon the redundancy, while the imposed ones are false truths, which is why Debord and the Situationists told us that we were immersed in a false totality.
Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt focused on two essential events in their philosophical work: those of mortality and birth. The first, gloomy, pessimistic, typical of existentialism, implies the cessation of organic life and the disintegration of a previous, temporary and perishable aggregate. Only birth, as a potential opening to the world of a vital novelty, can be considered an anarchic event, the eruption of one more freedom in the world, which will become caged and exploited if the given world into which it emerges is that of the capitalist conditions of production and existence, struggling then for its liberation from the cradle. As Rousseau reminded us, one is born free, but then everywhere one finds chains.
We must also distinguish between events in which human beings intervene and events in which they do not intervene; we can call the former decisive and the latter inhuman. A slight moment of decision, a yes or a no, on an apparently unimportant aspect can change the destiny of a human being or of all of humanity. Along with those relevant decisions that are taken as important and definitive by the annals of History because they have been made by rulers or by large capitalists, there are the small event-decisions that disrupt a singular or collective life.
Regarding this typology of the decision-making event, there is no difference between micropolitics and macropolitics since the human decision is what triggers it and its consequences are a priori unpredictable.
There are decisive events and events without decision, depending on whether the human being intervenes or whether it is a variable that does not have any decision, in the transforming event.
Terra generates events that are destructive for us: from earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes to virus mutations. It also generates events that are constructive and edifying for us, but with respect to inhuman events they will be anarchic if they are ecologically convenient for the planet, to the point that the extinction of the human species could become an anarchic event that rids the earth of parasitic beings that are destroying it.
Among the radically transformative anarchic human events are love, art, science or philosophy, in which the novel and creative arises both by human decision and without it.
The event is a notion that exceeds its causes and opens up a new space, it is the unexpected appearance of something new that weakens any stable design, it is a change in the approach with which we perceive the world and the way we relate to it.
The philosopher Slavoj Zizek, in his book Event, clearly explains Heidegger’s famous, complex and abstruse notion of event:
“Heidegger: When Heidegger speaks about the ‘essence of technology’, he has in mind something like the frame of a fundamental fantasy which, as a transparent background, structures the way we relate to reality. Gestell, Heidegger’s word for the essence of technology, is often translated into English as ‘enframing’. At its most radical, technology does not designate a complex network of machines and activities, but rather the attitude towards reality which we assume when we are engaged in such activities: technology is the way reality discloses itself to us in contemporary times. The paradox of technology as the concluding moment of Western metaphysics is that it is a mode of enframing which poses a danger to enframing itself: the human being reduced to an object of technological manipulation is no longer properly human; it loses the very feature of being ecstatically open to reality. However, this danger also contains the potential for salvation: the moment we become aware and fully assume the fact that technology is, in its essence, a mode of enframing, we overcome it.”
Technology for Heidegger is the new God, for us, the instrument of the capitalist mode of production, which implies that it already constitutes the horizon of meaning in which all entities appear. There is even a language technology that makes us all speak and write in the same way and that needs to be subverted with new forms of enunciation.
Zizek rightly says in the aforementioned work: “When something radically New arises, this New retroactively creates its own possibility, its own causes and conditions.” What is truly new and thus anarchic liberates, while the new principle (arché) enslaves, therefore we must refuse to erect new principles that replace the perished ones. The fact that Technology follows God is nothing more than the succession of one principle of domination by another. But if the anarchists expect something, it is the event of events, the Great Event, which prevents, forever, the generation of new principles of domination.
Once we no longer admit permanent guiding principles, the very parameter to measure the change changes and the entire field of vision is transformed; in this way we point towards a radical inflection point that is no longer the repetition of the same thing.
Capitalism is where things have to change all the time to remain the same, but we anarchists do not want those apparent and dizzying changes with which the masses are deceived, but rather a rebellious attitude and activity, in the face of which, everything will have to change radically to become completely different and remain always that way.
Against Zizek, who continues to believe in Hegel and universality, we will say that the anarchic event is, ultimately, not a new universality, but the prelude to a Great Awakening, the coming of the anarchanthropos and the decline of humans.
Simón Royo Hernández is a philosopher, writer and teacher. He holds a PhD in philosophy and works at the Spanish Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations. He is the author of works such as: El Sujeto Anarquico: Reiner Schürmann y Michel Foucault, Arena Libros, 2019; Anarkía/Anarcolepsis. Ensayo-Filosofía. Madrid: Editorial Manuscritos, 2024.
Simón Royo Hernández: Event and Anarchy: The anarchic event
We publish below an essay generously shared with us by its author, Simón Royo Hernández. Hernández’s work has endeavoured to engage philosophically with the tradition of political anarchism, as others have tried to do, in significant ways.
We know that many criticise such endeavours, even perhaps citing Bakunin in their favour: “No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker.” And yet Bakunin was no stranger to philosophy and he did not hesitate to also criticise “philosophically” ideas that he thought problematic. More importantly, the refusal of the refusal of theoretical systems is not a refusal of philosophy, for what Hernández in part explores is precisely the anti-systemic or anti-totalising nature of anarchist thought.
Whatever one’s judgement about such an exercise, to dismiss it categorically is itself intellectually arrogant.
And what kind of action or praxis would be imaginable or possible without thought?
Event and Anarchy: The anarchic event
Simón Royo Hernández
Event is a concept used in philosophy to designate and indicate the so-called gift of Being, that is, the emergence of a novelty, the news of an exception, radical changes or discontinuity, whether in History or in any progressive and continuous process. The regular and stable course of something is interrupted, disrupted, suddenly, as in an eruption, but at the same time this outbreak incubates, develops little by little until it finds a trigger.
The discovery of America, a revolution, a pandemic, the demolition of the Twin Towers, a volcanic eruption, falling in love, the invention of penicillin, the discovery of the use of fire or electricity, the explosion of a star, a sudden terror or joyful mood, the repopulation of an abandoned town, an intuition, the emergence of a genius; all of these events and many more can be considered events.
But not all events are the same and we are interested in distinguishing here, above all, between events in general and the anarchic event in particular.
An event denotes the possibility of a presence previously ignored, which may be new, distinct, different, or may have been buried, forgotten, hidden or absent, and which has come to reveal itself, to emerge or to be revealed again, to be exhumed after a time of oblivion. An event involves surprise, the emergence of something unanticipated, therefore it is not possible to explain an event, and it cannot be the object of science, even if we can think about it.
Reason, objectivity, science and modernity have left no room to think about the event, that which implies a break with the principle of causality and the determinism of the calculable.
Religion, for its part, will understand the event as a miracle, incorporating it into its soteriology, a deceit of the spirit unacceptable to any atheistic and materialist thought. The event of the death of God implies the death of religion, at least in the West, where its praxis is already a mere narcissistic and hypocritical ornament, leaving current Islamism as a memory of what religiosity was before the death of God, sometimes an atrocious system of submission and dominance.
There is actually no form of permanent continuity in History. And it is always possible to take up failed experiences from humanity’s past and apply them to the praxis of the present, hence ghosts such as religion constantly return, or we once again believe that science helps us. It will be able to explain everything through a total worldview, but that is also why libertarian experiences reappear, updating themselves in their novelty to subvert and shatter the modern dream of the total administration of existence in general.
The pretensions of finding an absolute foundation and an end to History decline and the possibilities of a radical change in power relations open up, with each anarchic event.
Quantitative accumulation or loss can produce a qualitative leap and that would perhaps have happened in modernity, giving way to postmodernity. A simple example can be given of the famous second law of dialectic, of how quantity is transformed into quality, in the case of someone becoming bald: a person successively loses hair, each time they are a person with less hair, until they lose all of it and become bald. The accumulations and losses of modernity would have precipitated the breeding ground for the event of postmodernity, where the appearance of new anarchic subjects manifests itself in an unpredictable way.
Precisely in the capitalist world that seeks the total administration of life, under the technical immersion in a society in which it is almost impossible to position oneself in a way other than that of domination and submission, when all seeing is homologated, there nevertheless resonates the echoes of freedom, awakening in some and spreading the desire for inextinguishable and impregnable freedom that inhabits us. Contemporary capitalist nihilism and the transformation of humans into working material lead us to consider that the imposed regularity of our monotonous existences has the character of a disease, a caused illness that has a cure. The therapeutic healing of such virulence has a therapy, detachment, the detachment from the gerontoplasm of domination, distancing from what matters to the capitalist world, and it has an antidote, anarchy, with all the meanings to which that word refers: mutual care, independence, autonomy, absence of exploitation, rejection of governance, rejection of hierarchies and impositions.
We speak then of outbreaks of freedom, in short, of affirmations of wild becomings as truths that are not imposed, as anarchic events that have their non-causal correspondences with each other.
We speak of an anarchic event then to designate a genuine transformation of what exists that passes from domination to freedom. We call the emergence of such an event anarchic, for it is dictated by the unpredictable and unanticipated emergence of an an-arché, that is, of something liberating that did not exist before for the regime of the administration of life and that comes into existence for the first time.
As a novelty, this event, its original state, is free, although it may subsequently become alienated, exploited, enclosed and dominated, if the situation in which it emerges is of a slave, feudal or capitalist nature. But also, anarchic events can emerge in situations; in the human being, they provoke a mutation of subjectivity, a new situation or one that no longer supports what one has been supporting, assuming a new way of being, of being and of living.
With an anarchic event, which is openness and possibility, there is then a break with the current situation or state of things, a break that can be momentary, transitory or permanent. Initially it is not the solution to a problem but the opening of possibilities for overcoming such a problem. After such an anarchic event, if the implications of such an emergence are potent and powerful, then, they force the limits or positioning of the world to the point of destroying, reconstructing or deconstructing it, showing it first as a freer non-place, in which freedoms that did not exist before gain a certain degree of existence, until they consolidate themselves everywhere, generating a new state of affairs, thus moving in this way collectively to another dimension, giving rise to a subjective reconversion at a collective level. Accommodating the new, that which was not before, is terrifying for the psyche, individual and collective, since no step is ever assured.
What is of the nature of an event presupposes a retroactivity, a historicity, by which, what happens with each new happening, happens simultaneously in everything that had preceded it. The world is thus reconfigured and transfigured, in different ways.
The opposite of the anarchic event, which adds freedom to the world, would be the founding event, the emanation of new principles of domination, which subtract freedom from the world, turning it, increasingly, into a managed prison; although the anarchic event emerges with more force the more the founding event presses us, because the anarchic event emerges as a disruptive moment in the face of the absence or breakdown of a horizon of expectation.
The philosopher Alain Badiou, for his part, in L’Hypothèse communiste, considers that:
“An event is the creation of new possibilities. It is located not merely at the level of objective possibilities but at the level of the possibility of possibilities. Another way of putting this is: with respect to a situation or a world, an event paves the way for the possibility of what — from the limited perspective of the make-up of this situation or the legality of this world — is strictly impossible.”
We partially agree with Badiou, because we do consider libertarian communism as something possible, even in the conditions of possibility given by the capitalist situation of the world.
The event that will come, as a still post-eschatological promise, can urge us to carry out what still seems impossible to us, which refers to actions that are still anti-principled (an-archic), that is, opposition and destruction of the old, rupture with the principles, foundations, justifications and sustainability of the reigning capitalism. The anarchic event however urges us to carry through with what has always seemed and seems possible to us; the event thus points us to subsequent primary (anarchic) ??actions, that is, the construction of the new, now, without restraints or restrictions, with innovation and creativity. Firstly, domination ceases to be while freedom has not yet come, thus freedom can make its way; the anarchic, political event of libertarian communism is first the emergence of an improbable possibility in a field of possibles, the certainty that another something is possible of which the contours are still unknown. It is a reaction to a world that becomes intolerable and inadmissible. Secondly, it is already the construction of that new world that we cannot anticipate.
The anarchic event is a truth that is not imposed, as is the libertarian communism that emerges again and again: an egalibertarian encounter within an aleatory materialism. Each singularity, misnamed individual, is a collectivity that can harmonise with others through cooperation, which constitutes an event-encounter between the possibles of freedom.
Badiou says it in these words in his Second Manifeste pour la philosophie:
“I call truths’ “eternity” this inviolate availability making it possible for them to be resuscitated and reactivated in worlds heterogeneous to those in which they were created, and crossing over, as such, unknown oceans and obscure millennia. It’s absolutely necessary that theory be able to account for this migration. It has to explain how ideal existences, often materialized in objects, can both be created at a precise point of space-time and possess this form of eternity.”
Again, I partially agree. Truths, in Badiou’s theory, are considered eternal, however, they are created from a defined and contingent material, which is why in our anarchist, less idealistic theory, they are also something material, multiple and contingent. And of course, this philosopher is right that (libertarian) communism can be reactivated, because in our opinion, it constantly is, but truths are not eternal, nor are those that are not imposed eternal, for none of them are. They are simply true truths, pardon the redundancy, while the imposed ones are false truths, which is why Debord and the Situationists told us that we were immersed in a false totality.
Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt focused on two essential events in their philosophical work: those of mortality and birth. The first, gloomy, pessimistic, typical of existentialism, implies the cessation of organic life and the disintegration of a previous, temporary and perishable aggregate. Only birth, as a potential opening to the world of a vital novelty, can be considered an anarchic event, the eruption of one more freedom in the world, which will become caged and exploited if the given world into which it emerges is that of the capitalist conditions of production and existence, struggling then for its liberation from the cradle. As Rousseau reminded us, one is born free, but then everywhere one finds chains.
We must also distinguish between events in which human beings intervene and events in which they do not intervene; we can call the former decisive and the latter inhuman. A slight moment of decision, a yes or a no, on an apparently unimportant aspect can change the destiny of a human being or of all of humanity. Along with those relevant decisions that are taken as important and definitive by the annals of History because they have been made by rulers or by large capitalists, there are the small event-decisions that disrupt a singular or collective life.
Regarding this typology of the decision-making event, there is no difference between micropolitics and macropolitics since the human decision is what triggers it and its consequences are a priori unpredictable.
There are decisive events and events without decision, depending on whether the human being intervenes or whether it is a variable that does not have any decision, in the transforming event.
Terra generates events that are destructive for us: from earthquakes, tsunamis, erupting volcanoes to virus mutations. It also generates events that are constructive and edifying for us, but with respect to inhuman events they will be anarchic if they are ecologically convenient for the planet, to the point that the extinction of the human species could become an anarchic event that rids the earth of parasitic beings that are destroying it.
Among the radically transformative anarchic human events are love, art, science or philosophy, in which the novel and creative arises both by human decision and without it.
The event is a notion that exceeds its causes and opens up a new space, it is the unexpected appearance of something new that weakens any stable design, it is a change in the approach with which we perceive the world and the way we relate to it.
The philosopher Slavoj Zizek, in his book Event, clearly explains Heidegger’s famous, complex and abstruse notion of event:
“Heidegger: When Heidegger speaks about the ‘essence of technology’, he has in mind something like the frame of a fundamental fantasy which, as a transparent background, structures the way we relate to reality. Gestell, Heidegger’s word for the essence of technology, is often translated into English as ‘enframing’. At its most radical, technology does not designate a complex network of machines and activities, but rather the attitude towards reality which we assume when we are engaged in such activities: technology is the way reality discloses itself to us in contemporary times. The paradox of technology as the concluding moment of Western metaphysics is that it is a mode of enframing which poses a danger to enframing itself: the human being reduced to an object of technological manipulation is no longer properly human; it loses the very feature of being ecstatically open to reality. However, this danger also contains the potential for salvation: the moment we become aware and fully assume the fact that technology is, in its essence, a mode of enframing, we overcome it.”
Technology for Heidegger is the new God, for us, the instrument of the capitalist mode of production, which implies that it already constitutes the horizon of meaning in which all entities appear. There is even a language technology that makes us all speak and write in the same way and that needs to be subverted with new forms of enunciation.
Zizek rightly says in the aforementioned work: “When something radically New arises, this New retroactively creates its own possibility, its own causes and conditions.” What is truly new and thus anarchic liberates, while the new principle (arché) enslaves, therefore we must refuse to erect new principles that replace the perished ones. The fact that Technology follows God is nothing more than the succession of one principle of domination by another. But if the anarchists expect something, it is the event of events, the Great Event, which prevents, forever, the generation of new principles of domination.
Once we no longer admit permanent guiding principles, the very parameter to measure the change changes and the entire field of vision is transformed; in this way we point towards a radical inflection point that is no longer the repetition of the same thing.
Capitalism is where things have to change all the time to remain the same, but we anarchists do not want those apparent and dizzying changes with which the masses are deceived, but rather a rebellious attitude and activity, in the face of which, everything will have to change radically to become completely different and remain always that way.
Against Zizek, who continues to believe in Hegel and universality, we will say that the anarchic event is, ultimately, not a new universality, but the prelude to a Great Awakening, the coming of the anarchanthropos and the decline of humans.
Simón Royo Hernández is a philosopher, writer and teacher. He holds a PhD in philosophy and works at the Spanish Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations. He is the author of works such as: El Sujeto Anarquico: Reiner Schürmann y Michel Foucault, Arena Libros, 2019; Anarkía/Anarcolepsis. Ensayo-Filosofía. Madrid: Editorial Manuscritos, 2024.