VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WALLS – A CRITIQUE ON THE R.O. CCF
The purpose of this text is first of all to refute the propaganda which structures reality based on personal hostilities, and also to contribute to a (re)consideration of the incidents and our relations going for the overcoming of long lasting problems in the anarchist movement.
It is difficult to resist the natural impulse to answer to sneaky discrediting with ways which do not correspond to our ideals. But going into our anarchist insurrectionist course, we sacrificed a lot and we do not intend to sell out our values. So once more we will answer the disrespect with the respect which is suited between anarchist revolutionaries. Instead of the infertile, intriguing, insulting and demeaning language of implying hints, which feeds the gossip its suppose to hate, we will speak the clear language of constructive critique.
AN ANSWER IN RELATION TO THE DEMEANING REFERENCES AGAINST US
First of all lets clarify that the fake id card upon which the recent indictment of G.Tsakalos was based on, was not kept for museum reasons but because we thought it was still useful.
A serious mistake of ours, which we made however, exactly because we had comrade relations with members of the CCF, and because we considered it still possible that he could come out of prison, despite the fact that he claims that we had cut all relations a year ago!
The fact that it was found in a house for which we did not have a ready emptying plan in case of our arrest is indisputably a second mistake of ours, consequently we would accept an (even public) critique on that.
Besides, no one went to prison willingly, but by mistakes, omissions arrogance. Because simply, mistakes are not made by those who do nothing. We accept the consequences of the law as a natural resultant of our choice to stand against the state and the diffuse civilization of authority, a choice which includes also mistakes that will cost us, as well as our comrades.
We for example, would never imagine to blame the warrants put out against us on the operational mistakes of counter-surveillance of members of the CCF, contrary to G.Tsakalos whose reference to “incapability or indifference” as well as the refusal to accept our identity as anarchist hostages using the definition “individuals”, betray hatred and malignity. The pretext of critique collapses, while its very clear how hypocritical is the justification of this shameful reference as advisory for new comrades.
Simple things. G.Tsakalos uses an operational mistake of ours to attack us publicly in a cheap and a-politic way, because of political and personal clashes and ruptures. It is really contradictory that the CCF itself, uses a “critique on mistakes”, similar to the one targeting it in the pits of inactivity and passivity, stepping on arrests of its members, especially when in their recent text they mercilessly rebuked such practices.
For history and only, our opinion is that in a rupture both sides make mistakes, have a responsibility. In a dialectic way there were choices and positions of the CCF which affected to a great degree our decisions as well, and vice versa. Of course whatever detail of this rupture has no place in a public text, but in order to avoid confusion and dispute the prejudices we want to mention that indisputably we have a large portion of the responsibility.
REFUTATION OF PROPAGANDISTIC SPEECH
A repetitive propagandistic technique is the projection of only the positive elements of the organization and the tactful hiding of the negatives combined with the over-stressing or even the invention of negative elements in their opponents. Like for example in the last text of the organization, where by speaking the language of confusion, it homogenized in one mixture all anarchist opinions which differentiate from its positions, even if they are antithetical between them. In these frames besides referring to us as co-accused of its members in the trial for the 160 attacks, it attributed us with perceptions hostile to us (i.e. the separation of guerrilla acts from the movement), it concludes to imply that we claim to be innocent based on their guilt!
That was the straw that broke the donkeys back and we had to answer by writing this text. Because we, were only at the first session of the trial mentioned above, and we left after reading an announcement, in which among other things we stated our hostility towards the court, that we are a piece of the anarchist action and its guerrilla form and we did not even refer to whether or not we are members of the CCF… Until now, we are not present at this trial, and we did not appoint a lawyer, resulting in us being “represented” by lawyers appointed by the court, a procedure we cannot avoid. If we make an intervention, just liked in every trial, it will always be of political and never of a legal character.
In the case that this confusion did not happen on purpose, we clarify, that it is the responsibility of the organization to speak clearly, but all indications show that it is one more propagandistic technique. Just like all verbal references to itself without a hint of substantial self-criticism.
FROM DIPOLES AND DIVISIONS…
The dipole “innocent” – “guilty” is a product of authority in order to create divisions. Unfortunately, in the previous years, it has been adopted also by the neo-nihilistic tension which the CCF and a part of the solidarian anarchists are a part of, reproducing the divisions the state itself imports among the anarchists. As we have said before, we do not reply to traps-dilemmas.
As for the vague hints concerning cowards who beg, do not support their choices etc, we really do not know what to reply. The position and thoughts of each one of us is publicly deposited and every intellectual person can judge for themselves.
We will not bother to prove that we are not elephants.
Besides the refutation of propaganda, lets go onto a more substantial critique. No, we will not enter the mud war, we will not return blows below the belt.
The problem is located in the logic of the anarchism-metre. That is, that some nominate themselves as the custodians of the anarchist purity. A purity which they themselves are incapable of following.
Critique on anarchists is not fertile when its not also self-criticism, when its not done in the direction of improvement and self-development but sows divisions to reap self-confirmation. The most dangerous of the neo-nihilistic propaganda in the end, is the self-suggestion caused by the self-proclamation of a perfect anarchist, making the other one look like trash.
Because for example, being imprisoned for 9 months, we know that for every anarchist who goes to prison, there will be moments where their actions will “contrast” with their values. Everyone at some point will look the other way, everyone’s dignity will be “wrinkled”, everyone will tolerate the screw locking up the cells like an absolutely natural procedure.
Because simply, some conventions we find the strength not to follow, while others no. This is why, neither us, nor anyone else is clean.
This does not however mean that a convention automatically enlists you as a person compromised with the world of authority.
It is not the first time a collectivity attempts to function as the custodian of anarchy. In the past mainly, but also recently, the Anarchist Coil (Sispirosi Anarhikon), mercilessly slandered their political opponents within the movement. The common element is that some revolutionaries judge that a rich history of struggle, deems them superior critics. The difference is that the “critique” of the CCF does not even pretend to “hit at logics and not individuals”. They deal with the people they criticize as non-evolutionary beings, without recognizing their own internal contradictions, that they can throw in the garbage. This exact logic led the members of the organization to consider society collectively as authoritarian, the anarchist movement collectively as trash, and themselves perfect.
They lack the ability to self-criticize and are incapable of facing the fluidity of tensions of authority or of anarchy, in society as well the movement we come from and therefore are connected with. Up to now the frame of thought of the CCF is based on divisions and the dealing of people as monolithic beings, instead of seeking the connection points, from where a co-existence can begin and simultaneously a substantial critique-self critique which aims at evolving and self-evolving. This is how they dig the grave of self-isolation.
…. TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF DOMINANT BEHAVIOURS
A result of this dividing logic which seeks enemies everywhere, and the lack of perceiving the community of struggle is that the solidarity relations of the organization are characterized by introversion. A direct consequence is the continuous attempt to impose itself, instead of seeking connective elements, on anything different.
Of course if in our critique we isolated these elements, and overlapped the organizations whole history of struggle, it would be like we were biting the bait of implacable hostility inherent in the dividing logic. Of course we do not consider that this organization has ceased to be anarchist, the mentality of denouncing does not express us. We recognize that the people who consist this organization have identified themselves with the anarchist insurrectionist action, daring and succeeding important things, from numerous attacks on targets-symbols of authority up to the choice of taking the responsibility which costs them harsh sentences, this is why we chose to connect with them for a period of time not caring about the legal consequences. And our avocation and critique expresses exactly this appreciation, since we did not bother to answer to any of the slander thrown against us by people who we discredit.
Thus, we do not think the part of the critique that follows fully expresses the logic of the organization, but a tension in its mentality, towards which we ring the emergency bell.
Concluding, the most substantial point of critique, is the obsession for accumulation of power by means and ways that contradict the anarchist values, as we understand them. As it has been written, means have a dialectic relation with the cause, they do not become sacred by it.
So when dominant practices are used, it betrays authoritarian targets. History has known many revolutionary authorities -lets not forget that powerful democracies are an evolution of revolutionary regimes- and an “anarchist” authority would not make the difference.
Of course something like this is not consistent with the anarchist-individualistic point of view of the organization either, since the relation of authority, despite seeming to strengthen the dominator, it does not cease to co-define it, contrary to the anarchist relation which completes all its parts.
Seeing our ex-comrades steadily leave the self-evident anarchist values, we remind them the outcome of the revolted animal farm of Orwell, where the rebelled animals who mutinied against the people oppressors, made the mistake to set leaders. Slowly slowly, their leaders turned into people…