Before going after Order, let us touch your earlier work and talk about where everything started. In one of your projects you republished the banned book ‘Against Democracy’. Since you describe yourself as anarchists, what is your position on democracy?

We understand democracy as the most sophisticated system of domination ever developed.

Does the group name come from an actual Graeberian stance and wish for a new direct democracy or is it rather a cynical critique of said system? Furthermore, can you describe how Democracia started and what are the basic premises of your practice?

When we first decided to use the name Democracia, our intention was to create a kind of “brand”. We considered Democracia a word that had been emptied, a meaningless signifier, in whose name anything could be justified, even its opposite. We could say that it responds to a cynical use of the word to the same extent that the term is cynically used by power. On one hand, our own name states a course of action, which implies a reflection on power. If we can somehow go to the core of what Democracy is, we would say that our work is that of agitation and propaganda, a propaganda against the hegemonic propaganda that constitutes a definite and unified vision of the world. Democracia started right after the El Perro collective split. El Perro ended due to individual differences that interfered negatively with the collective process. Whereas El Perro was a collective that closed itself off to other members, Democracia is way more open. Characterized by a purely functional division of roles, it allows everyone plenty of individual freedom.

Would you abolish the NSK State in Time too?

The NSK is precisely a tool to question the state from the very moment when its citizens freely adhere to it. Having a dual Spanish-NSK nationality, we can tell you that today the Spanish state is much more harmful to our lives than the NSK. But of course, once all the other states are abolished, we can culminate in the abolition of the NSK, even if it is only for a purely formal matter.

Order, your latest piece, is an opera in three acts. Your ouvre spans over various forms of performance, text and other media with inconsistent aesthetics. Why such a wide span? What leads you to a choice of the form of presentation of an idea? And if we dare to dig even deeper into Mcluhan’s thought “The medium is the message”, why did you choose the medium of art in your activism at all? Where do you see the border between art and activism?

Our practice has always been multidisciplinary, formalization is always subordinated to the idea. Usually, this variety of means is associated with projects that involve some type of action that is recorded, in those cases we show the documentation of the action (filmed and photographed) and the tools related to the development of the action. McLuhan began by saying “The Medium Is The Message” but ended up saying “The Medium Is The Massage”, maybe there’s the answer. Our practice has also always been aimed at occupying spaces other than those of art and was always influenced by other aspects of life that are not art. So, the question of borders for us has always been a question to problematize. Sometimes we are on the side of art and other times we are on the side of activism by engaging with social movements.