Mexico – Anarchist comrade Carlos López ‘Chivo”s reply to Izquierda Revolucionaria Internacionalista (InternationalRevolutionary Left) ‘Buenaventura Durruti’

| 0 comments

NOTE: This is a text by comrade Carlos in reply to that of the IRI-BD: Amelie y Fallon, de la arrogancia imperialista a la miseria pequeñoburguesa 3 March.
 From RadioAzione
 Translated from Italian by act for freedom now
 I am responding on a personal level to the slanderous aggression against my comrades in affinity, Fallon and Amelie.
 One thing that characterizes internationalism is the struggle against the concept of nation, power and authority, so the physical and mental borders built by governments to fend off fraternal and free co-existence between people from different parts of the world are put in question.
 That is why, internationalist lefties, your reaching the point of saying that these two anarchists came to this region ‘to live an experience with the peoples of the developing world after leaving their lives in civilized Quebec’, made me think about the contempt you showed for some people from abroad who are resolved to realize their destructive passion against the State/Capital, be it Canadian, Mexican, European or wherever else.
 At least we are not looking for the partial destruction of just one State – in fact taken separately States are just the tentacles of world power – nor are we trying to unite efforts/capabilities exclusively between Mexican people or with ‘the revolutionaries of the developing world’. On the contrary we struggle along with any free person, whether they were born here or in China.

 But what can you expect from people who claim to belong to the ‘class wing of the Mexican revolutionary movement’ and accuse those who choose to organize through affinity or share moments of subversion with whoever they like of being arrogant imperialists or petty bourgeois ?
 Of course affinity is not exclusive to anarchists and libertarians; in fact it can appear among any individualities or groups that identify with the struggle for total liberation. A struggle where, rather than aiming for a ‘phase when no one will be imprisoned any longer’, claims to destroy every physical and mental prison and all authoritarian institutions, with all that that implies. All this might seem utopian but I believe it is better to put an end to lukewarm nice words, and rather than idealize the coming of utopia, continue with permanent daily conflictuality in the social context.
 Solidarity does not create conditions, in fact it materializes in diverse actions of support and by taking a stand. You can’t make waves on top of a mountain.*
 If Fallon and Amelie decided to avert any possibility of being confused with those who claim they are political prisoners, all the more so because they don’t want to be referred to as such, there’s nothing to do but respect their decision. To accuse them for this alone, as you have done, is vile and cowardly, you red bastards!
 We base ourselves on the reality in which we live, and the question of having a defence in the trial is more than necessary. It’s one thing to want to destroy the legal system, another to have already done it.
For us it’s not a question of ‘taking advantage’ of a legal defence, nor is this ‘negotiation’ with the State, as you say in your text.
We know that the legal game is played among politicians and our lawyer sees to that. We do not see him as a mediator but as a comrade in the anti-prison struggle, one who does not dedicate himself to getting political prisoners out but to prisoner solidarity, regardless of whether they are political prisoners or anarchist. To prove it is the fact that he took up our case without asking for a cent, and we are insurrectionalist informal anarchists.
 For the sake of clarity, in your slanderous text you mention that the same lawyer is also defending Jaqueline and Bryan, which is untrue. And even if that were so, it wouldn’t make any difference to me. It just demonstrates that you don’t even know what you are talking about.
 You fall into the classic position of attacking those who don’t accept your old/anachronistic methods of intervention based on the political rhetoric that points the finger at ‘foolhardy useless actions’. You talk of ‘first-world left’; for us any left, be it party or revolutionary, is far out in its claims. You talk of collective actions based on quantity but we know that this often nullifies the creative action of individualities; you talk of class struggle and the triumph of the working class, whereas many of us are neither workers nor classist, and support any liberatory action that concerns the total liberation of the person, be they worker, peasant, autonomous or whatever you want to call them. That is why we prefer to use the term social war, which embraces more sectors, not only workers’ or class struggle.
 In no way do I believe, as you say, that insurrectionalism is doomed to failure. The fact is, we’re not competing with anyone to see who is more revolutionary and efficient in the struggle against Capital. A critique of methods is necessary, both in form and content, but… I believe that what you wrote leaves no space for any exchange of ideas because you only dedicated yourselves to insulting my comrades, and bear in mind that if yours is a question of insulting we also know how to bite.
 Solidarity is solidarity with its great variety of forms but I want nothing from people like you, get it?
 Carlos López “Chivo”
 *Literal translation of: “no hay que hacer olas de agua en una alta montaña”.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.