Political Statement of comrade A.D.Bourzoukos in the trial for the Velvedo double robbery case 31/7/14 – Athens

| 0 comments

Translated by Act for freedom now!
Comrade A.D. Bourzoukos made his political statement today.
Comrades D.Politis, G.Mihailidis, F.Harisis and A.Dalios were also
present in the court room.
The statement:
To beginning, I would like to clarify the reason I am here today, taking
advantage of the procedure of statements. What will follow therefore,
will in no way have an apologetic character since my acts and choices
are included in the wider anarchist struggle, the struggle for life and
freedom. Consequently, they are acts that I support with every aspect of
my being and I will continue to do so as long as this world remains as
it is.
So, no, I am not apologizing, I have to nothing to say and analyse on a
procedural level about my actions. I refuse the charges exactly because
I refuse civil legality. I refuse to legitimize your role and your
justice which is driven and instructed by those governing.
I therefore do not hope for your leniency, I will not bend before the
threat of your laws and the many years of prison that await me, even in
the worst of conditions that your state reserves for those who refuse to
bow the head. These new prisons called “C’type prisons”. I am here to
highlight the characteristics of my choices and exacerbate the dispute
between us. You, a part of the judicial authority, and me, a part of the
anarchist struggle. And when I say “you”, I do not mean just you
specifically, but all the people who hold authority positions. It is a
dispute that escapes the narrow frames of a inter-personal clash, it is
a class and social war that spreads in the space-time continuum, it
finds its roots in the initial forms of capitalism and the relations of
exploitation and authority which for centuries now have defined the
human race.

Therefore, although I am an anarchist and I do not recognize any court
as competent to judge my choices, I cannot ignore the authority of this
mechanism and not illustrate the perception and interpretation of the
laws and justice. I cannot remain silent before this covered up firing
squad and bow the head in fear that my turn has come.
I consider it therefore my obligation to bring the revolutionary
counterargument against the monolithic judicial authority, against the
silence you are trying to enforce.
To take things in order, I am in a special room, inside a special court,
I am tried under a special law and the future foresees special detention
conditions for me, my comrades and any troublemakers that bother the
smooth operations of this whole system. Special categories of people
amidst a mass of identical, docile and subjugated citizens, this is an
easier way to interpret this whole intentional differentiation. On the
other hand, all we have to do is see the role and use of the laws and
justice, to fully interpret the reasons behind this intention.
Justice is by definition a form of social control, a way to conserve
obedience and compliance in society through a system of rules that
define what can happen and what not, what remains in the frames of
systemically acceptable and what is out of this norm.
The state of justice that you claim, enforces the terms of subjugation
in a system of exploitation and wretchedness. “Justice” is fair
therefore, because its obeyed, but what happens with those who refuse to
comply, those who deviate and escape the predefined social behaviours?
“Law and Order”, the dogma that covers the gap, securing the maintenance
of civil legality with stricter laws, exterminating sentences and
rigorous oppression.
Thus, the state enlists the judicial authority in order to stomp out any
deviating behaviour, to maintain social and political stability.
Allegedly expressing the interests of society, basically however forcing
the citizens to follow the laws, giving thus, indirectly the monopoly of
violence to the state mechanism. Since the one who receives the state
violence cannot and is impossible to respond with the adequate
counter-violence, but only accepts the authority of the state and the
enforcing of laws for the “common good” with docility.
A precondition of capitalist-political stability is the legalization of
the system and the violence it produces and of course the custodians
could not be any others than the judicial authority, which is called to
“cover” all the structural unbalances of the system so it does not
collapse socially and economically.
Always, of course, executing the governmental orders and operating
invariably in favour of the state interests. The ability of multiple
interpretations of the law by the judges is the back door which always
remains open for the ruling class to intervene and guide the juridical
authority. Their role (your role) could be no other than the safekeeping
of the economic and political elite, the criteria on which justice is
served are deeply class orientated and therefore your violence is aimed
at outlaws, poor-devils, immigrants and of course those who factually
dispute your authority. On the other hand, the flexibility of your laws
runs out in the cases of major criminals, just like in the recent case
of Thessalonikis’ mayor Papageorgopoulos, who although was sentenced to
life in first instance for embezzling 17,9million euros, after a year,
the sentence is “broken” down to 12 years. Since probably, the 17.9m
this gentleman took from the citizens of this country is a crime of a
much smaller scale compared to immigrants who for petty theft get 14-15
year sentences. And I cannot but mention another example of how
extremely guided and class orientated your justice is. Of course, I am
talking of the decision of the Mixed Sworn court of Patras which
acquitted two of the four accused for the case of the shootings in
Manolada. Where 35 immigrants were shot for demanding their wages.
Truthfully, what kind of society do you envision and what common good do
you defend?
What is the social gain and the values you propose?
You envision a society in the dark, the whole of it frightened, where it
will passively accept the violence of the state and capital, and you are
accountable for this.
Who was convicted for the millions of euro the political authority has
been robbing the public money of all these years?
Who was convicted for the thousands that were led to suicide because of
the economic crisis?
Who was convicted for the uncountable (allegedly “isolated”) incidents
of torture in the police stations?
NO ONE!
Of course, I am not saying that you are not doing your job well, quite
the opposite! This is your job, to cover up the daily crimes of the
state. Even here, inside this room we saw numerous cops, who in a
glaringly and excess tenacity covered for their colleagues from Veria
police station for the torturing that took place inside there. The
oxymoron of the case however is not the cover up by the side of
authority, but the way torture is presented as the natural follow up of
this application of authority. Besides, the publication of our pictures
served this exact target: on one side the ethical legitimization of
torture and on the other the diffusing of fear through setting an
example for all those who chose to attack the system and its structures.
We are talking of an “aponeurosis” of society in its entirety, an
attempt to vanish and assimilate any reflexes it has left.
In the most blunt way, state and government form the terms of their
enforcement, through extreme fascist legislations and special acts of
legislative content. The most recent of examples is the C’type prisons
legislation, the legalization that is, of special detention conditions,
a permanent torture that restructures the correctional system on the
standards of generalized oppression ordered by foreign and domestic
capital, the biggest and best organized terrorist organization.
To make a synopsis, your intention to serve justice is exhausted in the
maintaining of political stability and the class divisions which are
lawfully created by the capitalist system.
But, since we are talking of terrorism, lets go on to the charges this
court of yours attributes to me.
First of all, the terrorist organization one, article 187A of the penal
code, or “the commission of certain offenses in a manner or to an extent
or in circumstances which may seriously damage a country or an
international organization with a view to seriously intimidate a
population or compel an illegal public authority or an international
organization to perform any act or to refrain from this or seriously
damage or destroy the fundamental constitutional policies, economic
structures of a country or an international organization”.
It is important to see this legal characterization and mainly what the
law seeks in its entirety.
Firstly, 187A is basically an idiom, an upgrade of 187, concerning
criminal organizations. The nature of the law contains a very important
duality, not so much from a legal-technical point of view -which does
not concern me anyway- as much as at a level of political feasibility.
In a nutshell, the judicial authority, in cooperation with the state
and government, follow the wild dogma of neo-liberalism inspired by
thatcher, that “there are no more classes, only individuals”. Thus,
there is no battle of classes, therefore no political crime, since the
state and ruling class define the means and limits of political
confrontation in the frames of legality. Authority therefore, cannot be
disputed.
Because, obviously, this demotion or to be exact the equation of
political crime with common crime means the penalization of every form
of resistance, let alone when this is carried out with the use of
violence.
We have therefore an idiom, which beyond discrediting the political
characteristics of every act, it aims also at the vanishing of every
form of resistance. An umbrella law whose range is constantly widening
and recently we even saw a whole village in Skouries being prosecuted
with the 187A, inaugurating the tactic of mass persecutions in the
frames of a terrorist organization simply because these people resisted
the expanding mania of capital.
And it is a natural follow up of the systemic crisis, that authority
will channel the fear to the resisting part of society, characterizing
more and more acts as terrorist, in the hope of maintaining the fragile
balances of the capitalist system.
Simultaneously, in the last 5 years we see an upgrade of the oppressive
policy. The persecutory authorities in Greece, following the ‘Marini’
dogma and having to deal with an anarchist movement constantly
increasing in dynamic, sets up a series of prosecutions from 2009 when
they found a bomb in a house in Halandri. Thus, a legitimate house was
baptised a lair and a “fresh” tank of prosecutions was created. Any
anarchists who had their prints in this house were (and probably remain)
possible terrorists, a theorem which the prosecutor in the trial for
comrades Sarafoudis and Naxakis took a step further, claiming that it is
enough to be an anarchist in order to also be a member of the CCF.
Using therefore the prosecution formula, the persecutory authorities
loaded us with indictments seeking our lengthy imprisonment and
exemplary punishment.
Your fairytale is nice, but the only terrorists are the state and
capital. Historically, from the first appearance of terrorism as a
political analysis, this identified itself with state violence.
Terrorism, is the transcendence through violence and terror. And those
who rush to condemn violence no matter where it comes from surely cannot
perceive (or it does not suit them to perceive) the unmistakeable
difference between primary and secondary violence.
Lets not fool ourselves, violence defines this system, it exists on a
daily level in the entire social web. As long as there are people who
live in cardboard boxes while others in luxury villas, there is
violence. As long as there are people killed in labour accidents and few
get rich, there is violence. As long there is exploitation of human by
human, there is violence.
Since forever, violence was a basic structural ingredient of the
capitalist system, it reproduces daily in various ways and has multiple
receivers.
It is a fact however, that there is a primary violence applied from
authority and is expressed in the most vicious way, systematically,
through the economic bloodsucking of the largest part of society in
order to feed the collapsing banking system with billions. Through
labour which instead of being a way for everyone to express their
creativity and cover their needs its more like a punishment, where
people are forced to work like slaves in the modern galleys of
capitalism, through the vicious oppression towards the fighting part of
society, through the 1,5 million unemployed who are indirectly sentenced
to a form of slow death.
Hundreds of ways of expression of this violence -state terrorism-
hundreds examples also, and there is no reason to speak further about
this. The matter is that from the state terrorism -which claims the
monopoly of violence- erupts also the only just violence, revolutionary
counter-violence. Because even if the world we are fighting for is that
of non-violence, solidarity and freedom, we know very well that the
privileged ones will not voluntarily give away their authority, without
the use of violence.
Against violence we promote violence, against power, power, at any cost.
Even at the price of our own freedom or life. In order to save our lives
we must be ready to lose it. Revolutionary violence, therefore, has
nothing to do with the use of terror. Terror was, is and will be the
tool of the ruling class in order to enforce itself.
The unmistakeable difference of revolutionary counter-violence from
state terrorism is summarized in the words of Malatesta: “If, in order
to win, we must set up guillotines in the squares, I would rather lose”.
Despite however, we are also a part of this corrupt and alienated world
and we inevitably carry it with us, we also carry the need for
revolution. We fight for a free future which, for good or for bad, we
can see only through the prism of the present. And in order to equip our
struggle in the present, expropriation is a revolutionary necessity.
First of all in order to liberate time from our lives, to not be boxed
in the web of waged slavery.
But mainly in order to fund the wider anarchist struggle in every
aspect. And the anarchist struggle is a course towards the total
emancipation of the human. A course towards the destruction of every
institution that cowers the human existence.
The expropriation of banks was is and will remain a diachronic choice of
revolutionary movements, an act of revolt against the economic
stronghold of capitalism. Of course, we do not delude ourselves that a
robbery will damage the bank, let alone the bank system in its entirety.
Either way it is a revolutionary act, a crack in the omnipotence of the
state and capital. Not, of course, by definition revolutionary but
always connected with the subject that defines the specific
characteristics of this act.
You speak of a robbery in the frames of a terrorist organization, let me
clarify, therefore, that I was never a member of an organization, but
only an anarchist.
As an anarchist, I carried out the robbery and therefore it was a
conscious act of resistance, a means necessary for the self-funding of
my life and the struggle. A choice that I would make again and still
support, since the reasons and motives that led me to this choice is the
nature of capitalism, the relations of exploitation and oppression.
And of course, when we speak of a robbery in the context of the
anarchist struggle, we speak of specific targeting and specific
characteristics during this. For example our target could not be the
44,3% of the population of the country that owes to banks and is led to
forced liquidations in order to survive and not have their house
repossessed.
We, contrary to the state mechanism, do not “tax” the lower social
classes, the poor and unemployed, those who have nothing. We expropriate
the places where the the state (and not only) money is over-accumulated,
we target those who steal 37,7 billion euros from society in order to
“rescue” the banking system.
We target that 5% of the major families in greece who for years now have
been oppressing the lower social layers of the country.
When we choose a robbery therefore, we choose a revolutionary means, an
act of struggle, and as every revolutionary action, is organized and
executed based on the ethics of the subject. An ethic completely
different from what the system enforces. An ethic in the frames of
anarchist propositions.
Thus, exactly because our targeting is specific, just like our aims, we
choose to arm ourselves and defend our freedom, tackle the armed and
ruthless guards of capital, deputies of order and security.
Of course, as anarchists we are completely against the state perception
of “collateral damage”. This is a term used by dominance to cover up its
most hideous and repulsive crimes. Thus, for us during a robbery the
weapons are not pointing at everyone, they aim at the expropriation of
the money and the necessary enforcement demanded by our act. Despite all
this, the same does not go for those who aim at depriving us of our
freedom.
In this case we found ourselves in a peculiar situation during our
pursuit. Our choice to steal the vehicle of a random driver who we found
in our path added a factor beyond us.
We chose to stop the driver from calling the cops to report the stolen
car and the only way was to take him with us for the time it took for
our comrades to escape.
The dilemma we found ourselves in when the chase started was answered by
us exclusively and definitely not guided by an uncritical humanism, but
our own personal code of values. Therefore there was no disarming by the
cops, I will not give them the pleasure to raise the work of the police
once again. Whatever happened was clearly our choice, a decision of
disengagement, based on our own criteria, considering all the factors
that have come up.
You believe therefore that these choices are is in the jurisdiction of a
court to judge, evaluate or even stand objectively across them? Of
course not, exactly because they are choices that consist a wider
struggle, which we are up against. And I am speaking of the total of the
choices, not only the moment of pursuit.
A lot was said during this trial and you many times attempted to
present a more “democratic” façade that gives room to the pluralism of
opinions, that you allegedly comprehend what we stand for and promote.
Or, that you do not execute orders, that you are not the representative
executioners of the system. That the decisions are not preordained and
that your job is to apply the “letter of the law”. Truthfully though,
where exactly do you apply the “letter of the law” since no law has a
one and sole evident meaning?
Substantially therefore, there is almost no case of derogation of the
judicial authority from the state policy. Even in the cases where there
human factor prevails or in a case where because of some judicial
activism, either the initiative will be assimilated by the system
itself, or the aim of the judicial activism will be the change of the
state policy and not the opposition to the state mechanism.
Moreover, your direct implication in this consciously bonds you at a
policy level also. Something that obviously cannot be hidden, comes to
the surface when the stability and the democratic façade of the system
is threatened. As for example, the exemplary devotion of the “chairman”
to systematically dictate the answers to the cops aimed at taking them
out of the tough position of exposing their colleagues.
Your are accomplices therefore, in the numerous crimes of state
terrorism, co-responsible for the desperate situation we experience
every day. Devoted defenders of a system of exploitation and decadence.
Murderers, with their hands soaked in the blood of all the free and
disobedient moments. Branches on the “tree” of authority and corruption,
you are obliged to wash off the blood in order to ease your conscience.
But, the vanity of your existence enforces more blood to wash off the
previous one. And of course, an alleged lenience does not clash with
your repulsive role. Our secured convictions and many indictments they
have loaded us with leave you room for democratic “sensitivities”.
The state of emergency we are experiencing is based on the hypnosis of
society, it continues to exist as long as fear prevails over militancy.
The state and capital demand passivity, the only way to survive without
becoming the target of vicious oppression is to simply close your eyes
and let your life go, let History be written without affecting it the
slightest.
A hibernation in a deep and endless “winter”. The “winter” of authority
and exploitation. The “winter” of terror, violence, state, oppression
forces, laws, judges and capitalism.
And still, in this constant “winter” there are some who defying the
darkness of the times and the undoubted weapon superiority of the
system, fight for tomorrows “spring”. They carry with them the
insistence of spring that always wins in the battle with winter. All
these people were guided by a common thing, they were never satisfied
with what was given to them allegedly open handed.
They collectivize against the ethical dictations of the time and make
the step towards the impossible. The step towards the unknown, but
simultaneously exciting, exactly because its unknown.
They threw themselves into the struggle first of all to change
themselves, but also in the hope of diffusing the struggle in the whole
of society.
It is all those people who refused the enforcement of authority and
exploitation, which over time have fought giving even their lives for
the dream of revolution.
People who fell in love with the Idea of subversion and the need for the
destruction of the civilization of fortified misery. Fortified behind
the moments of oppression, behind the diffused fear, behind the
continuous “murders” of disobedient desires.
A journey has started centuries ago, a path stepped on by hundreds of
people in the course of History. A course towards the total emancipation
of the human. A course towards the Utopia, towards freedom and anarchy.
And every step towards this direction -small or big- carries the weight
of the history of all these people. Every step is a moment of struggle
in the path for revolution.
We in turn give the promise that we will never betray the struggle, we
will never forget the beauty of this journey.
I declare therefore to be an unrepentant anarchist, a part of a struggle
that carries the special characteristics of each fighter, a
multi-tendency struggle but with the same target, the revolution.
And if one thing is sure, it is that nothing is over, now more than ever
we must continue and intensify our struggle, be the revolutionary
prospect for the final overcoming of capitalism.
EVERYTHING FOR FREEDOM, UNTIL THE REVOLUTION AND ANARCHY.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.