CONTRIBUTION IN ANTICIPATION OF THE TRIAL FOR CRIME 414 OF THE PENAL CODE
On 7th May 2012 the then managing director of Ansaldo Nucleare Roberto Adinolfi was kneecapped in Genoa. Two anarchist comrades, Alfredo Cospito and Nicola Gai claimed the attack, and for this reason they are currently being held in the prison of Ferrara.
After receiving the blow, the system organized itself to preserve itself and diminish and challenge the meaning of what had happened, discrediting the action and criminalizing it to prevent it from having any continuation. While repressors and police carried out raids against several people in the city and elsewhere, Power put the press and the institutions into motion, which given their collusion, assured their full collaboration.
Nothing new in respect to the way dominion organizes itself on various levels against anyone who tries to subvert it, and in the actual case of revolutionary action tries to recuperate its meaning in order to prevent it from spreading and becoming historical memory. A dynamic typical of the system is that of revising or sometimes denying events in order to further its own interests. On the contrary, libertarians and those who oppose dominion give life to critical events and contribute to their analysis on a base of intellectual honesty that distinguishes critique from sneaky commentary and negative rhetoric; and it excludes all interpretations based on manipulation and falsification that lacking any in depth analysis.
In the case of the attack on Adinolfi something ambiguous came from ‘within the movement’, when some individuals decided to take a stance and distance themselves from the action carried out by the comrades.
Obviously this kind of intervention, besides being easily categorized as hysterical reactions due to persecution mania and panic about the repression, bring with them unpleasant dynamics of internal weakening.
In this respect a few reflections are needed.
Let’s start with the basic banality according to which only Power can find this kind of intervention useful. In fact on a more circumscribed level the judiciary can find good advice in this; and on a macroscopic scale, a certain ‘solidity’ useful to the ‘movement’ in the face of the most difficult situations of repression crumbles and causes fragmentation. It is always the case to firmly and decidedly criticize the attempt of those who try to make distinctions between the good and the bad from within, and the attention-seeking attitude of those who look for shelter in a tempest and are ready to leave ethics behind.
Taking a distance, dissociation, that we’ve been seeing recently and not so recently, certainly don’t help the trajectories of the struggle. On the contrary we think it particularly appropriate to dwell on these things in a critical way, on the danger they pose, where they are coming from and the consequences they bring. Especially if we consider the widespread confusion that leads people to take a distance, dissociate themselves, give statements against co-defendants during trials, make online defamatory insinuations, act as traitors in court, etc. Given that the contexts and singularities of each episode are different from one another, and therefore produce different consequences, effects and responsibilities, and regardless of the real motivations and intents of the perpetrators, the idea of taking a distance and/or negating – according to the case – the experience of direct action and the consequent process of denying solidarity with those who carried out the action, is incompatible with anarchist feelings and more generally feelings of revolt. The same goes for the attempts at ‘relativizing’ direct action and its validity. But if we don’t feel involved or represented when violence recognizes its target and challenges authority, when the anarchist sense of being against expresses itself in its efficiency, how can we feel alive?! In this respect it must be admitted that dissociation and taking a distance go towards recuperation rather than multiform struggle, in opposition to what is regarded as strength, that is to say solidarity, community and complicity.
Anyone who proposes the idea of permanent revolt should reflect on the opportunity and way of facing these unpleasant events efficiently, and perhaps this is not being done.
It is a fact that if we observe the current antagonist scene we see that the reciprocal acknowledgement of being one another’s comrades stops at theory and at the romantic idea, dangerously falsified, of movement. Some components of the movement implicitly or explicitly propose the idea of sporadic direct action and sporadic solidarity with comrades in struggle inside and outside prison who are responsible for or are accused of actions for the overthrowing of the existent. In addition to this, they often find it difficult to consider critique and debate as moments of enrichment, individual and collective growth; and as they are blinded by their desire to be political protagonists, they avoid or oppose such moments.
We always try to go forward, to analyse and improve the experiences of the past even if sometimes this isn’t easy because of the want of organization that characterizes the present.
Sometimes we witness a sort of virtualization of life and also of the struggle, namely when a spectacle of revolt is played out and political interpretations are given in order to assess the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the actions. We don’t accept that.
Anarchist action against structures and individuals is part of a trajectory of emancipation and overthrowing. Solidarity with comrades who are suffering the repression of the State and its apparatuses, ideological complicity and the reproducibility of the action are some of the steps of this trajectory, in the wealth of the multiform struggle. By ‘multiform’ we don’t mean that we include reformist practices in the revolutionary experience, but we rather express it in various forms, but always according to a logic of incompatibility and conflictuality with power and its offshoots and without giving in to any form of recuperation.
The crime described in article 414 of the penal code, involving purposes of terrorism
On the external front the State plunders, conquests, commits genocide and devastates lives and land in the name of profit; on the internal front it arms itself against dissent. Besides striking directly, it tries to isolate and parcel all actions of liberation and social justice. Punishment is also reserved for anyone who supports direct action from an ethical point of view. The Italian penal code contains article 414, ‘instigation to commit a crime, with the aggravating circumstance of purposes of terrorism’. We’ve seen this charge being pressed in court on several occasions; one of these is that of Carlo, a comrade from Genoa accused of writing a piece in solidarity with Alfredo and Nicola’s action, entitled ‘To those who don’t dissociate themselves’, written in response to a text called ‘The dots on the Is’, which took a distance from the action. It is not the first time a comrade is persecuted for this reason; other comrades were sentenced by the court of appeal following ‘operation Shadow’, and 3 were sentenced to three years for the publication of KNO3. Another two comrades went on trial in March 2016, and were then acquitted, because of a piece Nicola had written in 2014. Another case is that of a comrade from Trento sentenced in the first grade trial for an article published in the paper ‘Invece’. Recently, some anarchists from Palermo were notified of the end of an investigation against them for distributing posters and other publications.
All our solidarity goes to them!
On 24th May from 10am we’ll be outside the court in Genoa to express our support for Carlo on the day of the hearing against him. We’ll be there without falling into dogmatism, isolating ourselves or denying ourselves the possibility to meet new comrades of struggle, in struggle; we won’t give in to informal hierarchies or dangerous manipulations made by people who believe that to go on the offensive is all right on a certain day and not on another, it’s all right in one place and not in another, it’s all right if done by many and not all right if done by few, it’s all right if done by certain people and not all right if done by other people, and so on…
We’ll continue to express ourselves and hold high the value of the struggle. Let’s show solidarity with the imprisoned comrades and let’s support any attack and act of revolt and subversion. Only in this way do we feel alive…
Anarchists from Genoa and individuals in solidarity