#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #INTERNATIONAL #GREECE #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - (en) anarkismo.net: Organization against the company by Antonis Drakonakis * (ca, de, it, pt)[machine translation]

 So, as long as informalism continues to play the role of methadone, the Greek

anarchist movement will imagine a weak body, which consciously strives to
maintain its dependencies. And because history, it seems, with the practice so
far, is conveyed more orally than read by each generation, the
anti-organizational obsession runs the risk of ending anarchism in Greece with a
word "politically and socially harmless - a simple a whim that will amuse fun,
the petty bourgeois of all times ". ---- Design: Clifford Harper ----
Organization against the company ---- The process of over-autonomy and the
structural weaknesses of an anarchist collective

By Antonis Drakonakis

"From our experience so far we believe that the lack of social access is what
makes us harmless to state power. Because the social revolution will not be made
by us and our company, but by all the exploiters, making the anarchist dream come
true. This means that anyone who does not see the need for infrastructure and
organization of space - with simultaneously selected blows against the state -
unconsciously and with a dogmatic and short-sighted practice, creates obstacles
for the development of the anarchist movement in Greece and turns the anarchist
dream into a daily nightmare. .[1]

It is true that, in most cases, and due to the young ages that prevail in the
Greek anarchist movement, the process by which an a / a collective is formed and
operates, takes place in terms of company. This, in the first year, is not de
facto negative; no one can, for example, consider it an accident to create a
collective from an already existing group of friends that at the same time was
politicized in a provincial town or in a neighborhood of Athens. Structurally,
then, the creation of a political collective based, initially, on relations of
trust and friendship, is not judged negatively. The problem is located at a later
stage, in the evolution and formation of the team over time.

Once the respective collective is established, the process of building a common
place between the members begins. Its members are formed collectively, develop
their common political discourse and build a collective daily life, which most of
the time turns into "their" reality. In this last point is, in our opinion, the
source of evil.

With zero control from above (we obviously mean collective control within a
larger organization or a federation), the group creates an "all-encompassing"
perception of social and political becoming that, due to its non-commitment from
any other collective, becomes time with time and action with action more and more
real, as it takes on flesh and blood as a collectively experienced experience
(process of self-assembly assembly). This perception appears as a component of
various factors such as common readings, common everyday life, common cinematic
experiences and, finally, the influence of prominent personalities of each
assembly, who for various reasons supply the team and its members with
terminology, theoretical sources and the central structure of her thought.

The "invisible captains"[2]or "influential fighters"[3], according to the most
lenient term, are, in our opinion, a natural and inevitable phenomenon, inherent
in the principles of collective organization and human evolution (age ,
experience, insight, background), very close to the Foucaultian microphysics of
power. What makes it a problem is not the phenomenon itself, but the informal
framework in which it develops, as well as the dynamics it acquires.

The informal hierarchy is not confronted with grievances but with control;
collective, democratic and political, which will stem not from the will of some
but from the structure itself. The political consultation of some assemblies by
specific persons is not an exclusive problem of these persons but mainly of the
assembly itself, of the operating system itself. A personality steps into the
void left by the rest; it is no coincidence that there are groups, which if you
deprive them of one or two people, flourish; and here we come to the question of
the accumulation of empirical-cognitive capital[4]-level of an assembly).

The above proves that "influential fighters" possess some kind of know-how; a
know-how that, instead of spreading to the assembly, remains monopolized in the
hands of some individuals, who manage to dominate a relationship of dependence.
This know-how does not come exclusively from their rhetorical skill, but from a
process of extracting intellectual surplus value: from the accumulated empirical
capital of the whole assembly which, during its redistribution, undergoes a short
circuit.

More simply, every collective accumulates through its actions and experience an
empirical-cognitive chapter. Initially, this capital exists only as a collective
product; that is, it exists as a group capital as a whole, and has not been
individualized. The inaction of many members, however, in the absence of a
specific goal and political positions at group level (we place the
responsibilities on the structure and not on the individuals), combined with the
innate abilities of "influential fighters", lead this accumulated capital into
the hands of a few , thus benefiting (often unintentionally) from the structural
inequalities of informalism. What we need, then, is not the expulsion of these
few, but the creation of a mechanism that will distribute this chapter equally to
all members of the assembly.Informalism is the free market of a movement, and
where there is a free market there are capitalists.

The process of self-determination that we described earlier, is not stopped even
by the new members of a collective who are more or less forced to assimilate from
the small reality of the group and to be vigilant for the preservation of the
coveted autonomy.

The new members also face a number of problems: from an already established
internal communication system of the group (terminology, etiquette, internal
humor, taboo issues, political reports), to the informal (spontaneous) respect
for its most prominent / active members and, ultimately, the acceptance or
conflict with a structured conception of reality itself - the "reality" of the
collectivity mentioned above.

In charge of adapting to a new microcosm, structured without them, these new
members have three basic options: (a) to adapt to the existing framework and
accept the rules, (b) to try to change it to a greater or lesser degree, and ,
finally, (c) reject it and leave the group. The problem is that, between the
first two choices, there is an inherent inequality that, in our view, arises
again from a lack of structure.

On closer inspection we see that, in the vast majority of cases, the scales lean
towards the first choice (we do not consider the third); that is, a new member
adapts sooner or later to the already formed reality of the group, without even
trying challenge the existing framework. This is mainly due to the insecurity he
has, not only in terms of whether he has the ability to do so but also in terms
of whether he has understood the context itself; if he has understood well, that
is, what he is going to confront.

This inequality lies in the structural inability of new members to change the
existing framework. Weakness due to two main reasons: (a) the age difference
between young and "old", along with what else it entails, and (b) the relativity
of the political context of each collective.

First of all, it is known that the "space" attracts new members almost
exclusively from a young age, mainly from students and young people. Thus, for a
child, the difference in age, experience and theoretical background between him
and the older members is very noticeable - first and foremost by himself. Still,
the new member, most of the time, unfortunately, will not find in front of him a
framework of structured political positions, formed by a wider set of people who
go beyond the narrow confines of his collectivity; instead, he will be confronted
with a set of ideas and practices that constitute , as mentioned above, the
reality of a group of twenty people.[5]The relativity of the object, then, which
could potentially be challenged, deconstructs the challenge itself.

To make it clearer, this relativity lies in the lack of explicit political
positions and the (political) irresponsibility that thrives in small unknown
collectives, in the absence of a broader political body with a name and
recognition. As a result of this relevance, any criticism runs counter to an
almost ceremonial function[6]of the respective group which, in most cases,
results in the inability to resolve differences politically. In the absence of
structured political positions, statutes, etc., any criticism is made exclusively
on the "tactics" of a collective and not on the correspondence of this tactics
with its positions. Also,since the urgency of this or that action is judged each
time only by the perception or appetite of the people who make up a collective
and is not determined by the social necessity itself or by the weight of a
broader decision for action at the national level, the disagreement will take
place in terms of personal criticism within the collective and not in terms of
political consistency and social responsibility.

What we support, then, is that external pressures (within an Organization) do not
"subdue" a collective but, on the contrary, help it to clarify its political
context, to distance itself from controversial points and to politicize
disagreements and internal of conflicts. On the other hand, its autonomy
transforms it into a company, which resolves its differences with the sole
criterion of its coherence and the qualitative correspondence between its
respective political ambitions and the performance of its members. Under the
current context, if a collective manages to realize its political aspirations, no
matter what the political situation demands, it goes well. In other words, its
commitment begins and ends with the wishes and aspirations of its members.

summarizing

For example, five collectives, sometimes in cinematic processes and working
together in a framework of minimal political responsibility for each other (apart
from solidarity and mutual support), are essentially five different groups, with
a common - very general - ideological background[7], which carry and line up five
different realities each time. This happens, as we mentioned at the beginning,
because at the time of their formation there was no commitment, no substantial
(political) communication and no collective control by a higher political body
(Organization, Federation), with the result that the view of reality is not " is
"filtered" collectively and not to be directly challenged by any force other than
the collectivity itself. The company, thus, grows in its entire world,
experience, inclinations, etc., and is left to fight alone with her personal
demons. Without the assistance of a political body, the individual collectivity
perceives itself not as part of an organization that builds the social revolution
but as a separate organization, which cooperates with the others voluntarily and
not necessarily. As part of an organization you are forced to work in order for
the whole organization to work in an interdependent relationship while, as a
separate organization, it is enough to want to work with others at a given time,
in a context and under conditions that no one knows how to identify . experience,
inclinations, etc., and is left to fight alone with her personal demons. Without
the assistance of a political body, the individual collectivity perceives itself
not as part of an organization that builds the social revolution but as a
separate organization, which cooperates with the others voluntarily and not
necessarily. As part of an organization you are forced to work in order for the
whole organization to work in an interdependent relationship while, as a separate
organization, it is enough to want to work with others at a given time, in a
context and under conditions that no one knows how to identify . the individual
collectivity perceives itself not as part of an organization that builds the
social revolution but as a separate organization, which cooperates with the
others voluntarily and not necessarily. As part of an organization you are forced
to work in order for the whole organization to work in an interdependent
relationship while, as a separate organization, it is enough to want to work with
others at a given time, in a context and under conditions that no one knows how
to identify .

The autonomous organization / collective / company, is the king of its microcosm.
It has its own area, its own roof, its own army, its own council and the
periphery of close friends that occasionally fill its blocks and events. All
these kings together constitute the Greek anti-authoritarian space; a sparsely
populated world with strong formal intercommunication, built on a strange
principle: that formalism and the internal conflicts that this entails are the
basis of its existence, a means of internal cohesion and harmony.

In short, informalism dominates as the necessary evil to avoid stormy conflicts
within the anarchist space; solvency, to the detriment of the social and
political responsibility of their time.

The reality of the individual collectivity, its total view of things, which is
sometimes nothing more than the view of a single individual, the relativity of
its political context and its over-autonomy receive, through formalism, elements
of totalitarianism, alienation and heteronomy . On the other hand, the
organization in a wider anarchist political body creates the necessary mechanisms
of collective control, based on principles and positions that have been decided
collectively and publicly by all the collectives that will constitute it; thus
structurally disarming arbitrariness and abuse and consolidating the true
autonomy of every part of the body. Adopting in a few words the political
framework of a "social anarchism, which seeks freedom through structures and
mutual responsibilities (...)".[8]

So, as long as informalism continues to play the role of methadone, the Greek
anarchist movement will imagine a sick body, which consciously strives to
maintain its dependencies. And because history, it seems, with the practice so
far, is conveyed more orally than read by each generation, the
anti-organizational obsession runs the risk of ending anarchism in Greece with a
word "politically and socially harmless - a simple a whim that will amuse the
petty bourgeois of all times with amusement ".

At a time when the anarchist movement, as the most organic part of the mechanism
for overthrowing the existing one, is paying the price for its stance, structure
appears not merely as a choice but as a necessity for anarchism to remain a
politically and socially dangerous word.

Notes:
[1]Proclamation of 1985, signed by seven anarchist collectives of
Athens[2]Karytsas G., Mikhail Bakunin: the world and its work, published by
Ardin, p. 173.[3]Bookchin M., Introductory essay , Anarchist Collectives, Dolgoff
S., International Library, 1982, p. 39.
[4]mutual recognition "(trans. ours), Bourdieu P. (1980)," Le capital social.
Notes provisoires», Acts of the search in social sciences, n ° 31, ??????????,
??. 2-3.
[5]"An idea means to bring the truth under control[...], it is useless to talk
about ideas, when there is no acceptance of a higher authority that regulates
them, a set of rules, which you can invoke in a discussion[...]where there are no
rules, to which our companion can resort[...]where there is no acceptance of
certain final spiritual positions, to which a disagreement can be reduced ".
Gasset y Ortega, The Uprising of the Masses, Dodoni, 2006, p. 103.
[6]In ways, that is, of action and operation that the group consistently adopts
and is not very willing to change. If we were to describe it in phrases, these
would be "this is how we know", "this is how we work here", "this works" and so on.
[7]The anarchist sign between two collectives does not necessarily mean that the
two parties have a common view of the world and its history; political demands of
the time. Consequently, under a -abusively- common ideological umbrella, as many
views and assessments as individual collectives potentially fit.
[8]Bookchin M., Social or Lifestyle Anarchism, Isnafi, 2005, pp. 78-79.

* This text was published in the review "Social Anarchism", issue 2, published by
Kursal, Thessaloniki.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32522
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca