FZ: Revolution isní­t just taking power, but also the revolution of the subject. The little revolutions that we have been part of have taken place in a microsphere. Although not so small, because each time it advances more toward other parts of the world. Those little revolutions, those little catharsises, those little invitations to the game, to reflect, to think, to again start throwing around those words that seemed old, that takes place at the micro level.

AOí­H: Those little revolutions are little actions that build links in a revolutionary chain. However, ití­s very complicated to define revolution. One builds from where one is standing.

FZ: Weí­re living another revolution right now, that of capitalism, because capitalism does believe in revolution. On the other hand, those who struggle question it. If the system is going through technological, scientific, neo-liberal revolutions, the other revolution is for another type of society. For that reason, it is difficult to state, in few words, what would be the program or general idea of a different society, because that would require a gigantic plurality of voices, and a participatory society, which requires maturity and responsibility. That is opposed to the idea of the avant-garde, which is clear in its objectives. It is questionable, but Ií­m not going to discriminate against those who think that way. If we accept this, we would have to have a counter-revolution, using capitalismí­s capacity and absorption methods. The imagination of 68 has been so limited, that today one may ask a young person how an alternative society to that of capitalism would be and he couldní­t imagine it. For me, that is the great triumph of the capitalist revolution: to leave us without the capacity to imagine a different world, a better world. I lean on the most primitive ideas of Marxism, in this case, in the idea that a revolutionary struggle against capitalism must necessarily eliminate the social classes.

SGN: I would emphasize the fact that the classic conception of revolution, as an interruption of the temporary, and the belief that, in following determined strategies, you arrive at a point at which definitive change takes place, have also crumbled. And there one could trace, carefully, the parallel between the a-historic conception of the Communist revolution, and the a-historic conception of the Capitalist revolution (Capitalism as historical plenty, etc.) In that point, there exists a peculiar relationship between both discourses. Today, we participate in a situation where it is evident that both discourses are false, for all the historical effect they have had, for all the lives theyí­ve moved, we are in a new situation. Therefore, in order to recover the term "revolution", it is necessary to radically rethink it. If in large scale terms you continue to aspire to definitive revolution, you are taking potential away from the idea of revolution as present. In the end, we realize that there is no human world without power. However, all of that represents a subject for a future discussion.

One final question, related to another line of thought inspired by Errorist error, and one which touches again upon a linguistic perspective, I refer to the fact that you talk of an concept in the middle of globalization, and that, materially, the IE (International Errorist ) has two important historical references: the International Communist and the International Situationist. How do these anachronisms fit in to the thinking of Etcetera...?

FZ: Obviously, the play on words was a decision we took. It speaks to the global war or the international war on terror, that is, that ití­s now not terrorism against the United States, but international. It has to do with the three international Communists also, to be sure. It is the same play on words as The goose to power. With respect to Situationism, it is clear that the action we took is very much related to it, for the kind of eruption it produces, for the utilization of philosophical elements such as direct questionnaires of the present moment, also for the semiotic provocation, the movement of easy displacement - a play on words, like errorism/terrorism.

LG: We love to use the old terms. To say "international" while being part of the anti-global movement represents a very questionable position.

SGN: You yourselves speak of metaphor, no? In contrast to the comparison that says "A like B", the metaphor says "A is B". In other words, the relationship of identification exploits, and immediately creates an outside of a permanent mobility. From this viewpoint, to revisit discourses, languages, figures, images of the 60s and 70s, is, at the same time, to establish a line of continuity and to appoint a new time. A direct relationship with the International Situationist appears in the relationship between error and to err, in the sense of errancia [wandering], because nomadism, practiced in the drift, is a constitutive element of situationist logic.

FZ: Yes, exactly, you explained it very well.

SGN: Well, what happens now with the IE?