On Saturday, June 14, the event - presentation of the "Platform of the
General Union of Anarchists and the dialogue on it" as well as thediscussion on the anarchist organization in the here and now in the
occupation of Evangelismos in Heraklion, Crete, was successfully held
and with the active participation of dozens of comrades, as part of the
events for the anniversary of the occupation. We warmly thank the
comrades from Evangelismos for the invitation and of course all those
present for the long-lasting dialogue that took place around the burning
organizational and strategic issues of our movement.
What is always desired is that the findings from these discussions be
accompanied by the appropriate processes for our organizational and
political upgrading and that they be reflected directly at a political
and militant level within the battles of our times.
The following is our collective's proposal for the event:
Comrades and comrades, good evening,
We are particularly happy to be in Heraklion, Crete, in the context of
the events for the anniversary of the Occupy of Evangelismos, shortly
after a new evacuation and a new reoccupation. We wish, comrades, that
the building will remain occupied and a bastion of struggle for decades,
in defiance of the state and the government and in defiance of every enemy.
We are therefore here to present our publication "The Platform of the
General Anarchist Union and the Dialogue on It" as well as to discuss
the burning issue of anarchist organization in the here and now. In a
large city like Heraklion and in a place with significant footholds in
the local community, we consider the discussion that will follow an
important opportunity, first of all, for acquaintance and fermentation.
As we have mentioned in our previous presentations at a series of events
in Athens, Thessaloniki and Ioannina, our publication did not see the
light of day solely to fill a historiographical gap in domestic
anarchist bibliography. On the contrary, we put it forward with comrade
Dimitris Troaditis, mainly to contribute to the broader opening of the
discussion around the organizational issue and around the political and
strategic tasks of the anarchist movement in the present historical
juncture.
In fact, we have diagnosed a practical value in republishing the
"Platforma" and the dialogue that followed its publication among
anarchists of the time, since everything that is exposed, including the
disagreements and the struggle that the documents of the correspondence
illuminate, constitute key issues that plague the anarchist movement to
this day. In our opinion, in fact, they plague it with even greater
intensity. We would dare to say that the reason why this is the case is
based on the voluntary acceptance of the counter-argument in the
Platform, which struggled to convince of a synthetic anarchism without a
clear identity. The positions of the so-called "syntheticists" are those
that, as it seems, dominated the contemporary anarchist movement and not
those of Delo Truda. We will analyze these in the discussion that will
follow.
What is certain is that knowledge of historical experience, not as an
accumulation of information, but as a distillation of the active and
constantly moving flow of the historical evolution of class struggle and
anarchist political struggle, is important both for the interpretation
of "how we get to today", as well as for avoiding past mistakes and
charting our strategy for today. Consequently, knowledge of anarchist
history is crucial for us in terms of the theoretical and political
constitution of the anarchist space, but also an indispensable resource
for forging an anarchist ideological and political identity today, for
every comrade.
After all, the "Platform" was also published for these reasons nearly
100 years ago. The anxiety of the exiled anarchist revolutionaries of
"Delo Truda" for the formation of a "General Union of Anarchists" was in
response to historical errors and omissions, it was the result of Delo
Truda's account of the causes of the defeat of the anarchists in the
1917 revolution. At the same time, this anxiety was based on the
perception that the anarchist movement had lost its class and
revolutionary characteristics, in short, its existential identity. The
departure from class and revolutionary goals was the cause of the
"chronic disorganization", together with organizational fragmentation,
the "apotheosis of individuality" and certain "distortions in terms of
theory". All of this contributed to the anarchist movement being
condemned "as just a small episode in the history of working class
struggles."
What we point out in our texts contained in the publication, as well as
in every relevant event, is that the "Platform" cannot be seen as a
narrow "organizational text" as is often the case. This belief is
attested both by the smaller extent of the "organizational sector" of
the "Platform" in relation to the other chapters, and by the way in
which the necessity of organization is given meaning by its authors. The
principles, the goals and the anarchist revolutionary program were what
constituted the great stakes of Delo Truda. We believe that these are
still the case today. The organization is nothing more than the
necessary culmination, the one that will promote with its hard and
persistent struggle, the principles, the goals and the program, our
counter-proposal for another society, in the heart of the class struggle.
2nd part
It is true that we have spilled tons of ink to argue not only for the
necessity of the organization but also for its compatibility with the
anarchist worldview and tradition in the face of distortions that have
plagued anarchism since the time of Delo Truda. A significant part of
comrades seems to agree, another disagrees, and a not insignificant part
of comrades is indifferent, wandering in the clouds of informalism
consciously or not. What is certain is that few counterarguments have
been articulated to refute these positions.
From the perspective of consciously anti-organizational or informal
anarchists, there is perhaps not much to say at this stage. There are
historical differences in theory and practical goals, which have often
been contested in the sphere of ideological and political struggle
within the development of the anarchist movement. We speculate that once
the proposal of organization acquires the foundations for which we are
fighting, then such a confrontation will probably become inevitable.
However, we must admit at the outset that the real background of such a
confrontation will not concern the type of organization or the means and
methods. It will essentially concern a confrontation around the
character, identity, and goals of anarchism. In short, it will be a more
or less "traditional" confrontation around the class and revolutionary
issue, around the relationship between the individual and society, a
confrontation of competing agendas, which, with whatever arguments or
examples, will contrast the "rebellion of the individual" with the
Social Revolution.
On the other hand, we see anarchist forces with whom we seemingly do not
differ on the "big issues" not taking a position on the issue of
organization either because they do not immediately see the prospect of
starting a new organizational effort, either due to "fatigue" from
previous attempts, or because they are content with things "as they
are." There are also many hundreds of comrades who do not organize even
at a group-collective level, who are content to participate occasionally
as "individuals" in struggles or ephemeral formations, or other fighters
who are active in movement processes or thematic structures but not at a
stable political level.
We perceive certain problems in these attitudes. Without organization,
without a revolutionary strategy and without a proposal competitive with
the existing one, every small or large struggle is doomed to be trapped
in reformism and "lesser evil governmentism" as a result of the impasse
that always comes from the absence of foresight and planning for the
"after". This outcome is inevitable for every struggle that does not
have a clear crystallization of its purpose. It is not a matter of
intentions, it is the dialectic of things itself that leads to the
impasse. We are even frightened by the fact that many defend the
existing organizational form that is dominant in the space, in the name
of "massness". Thinking that a kinetic microcosm united not naturally
around agreements, but around the hubbub of temporary action, is "open",
while a movement that moves in a planned manner, on the basis of
agreements and looks outward and not only inward, is "closed".
We wonder: don't we see that our persistence in this model is shrinking
us year after year, both numerically and in terms of our social and
class influence? How can anyone believe that a marginalized microcosm
"open" only to "its own", which makes ideology a blender of
heterogeneous theories to "fit everyone", can ever acquire any influence
or mass appeal?
We even hear that the insistence on agreements, on organization, on a
program, etc. constitutes, in addition to "closedness", a certain
"ideological ankylosis". Reaching the point where these voices consider
that these positions against the ephemeral but sometimes noisy
informalism, they want to box the anarchist movement into "forms" and
cut off the vitality of informalist action. We will say two things.
First, the tendency that we advocate is not a tendency of
"philosophers", it did not bring in liberal academics through the back
door to sterilize the revolutionary vitality of anarchist ideas. And
secondly, the "ease" of informalism to produce action was filled with so
many illusions in previous years, that now that things have "tightened",
we see even more vividly its consequences and inadequacies. And of
course, things did not tighten up in general and indefinitely due to the
intensification of repression. The intensification of repression found a
movement weak and integrated, and instead of finding the answers that
suited it, we closed ourselves even more in our shells, believing that
this is how we will "survive."
The results of the weaknesses and impasses of action without a strategy
and proposal, we see in the lived experience itself. Thousands
demobilized in the previous decade when they realized that their efforts
and struggles in 2010-12 brought the party of the 3rd memorandum to the
government and that all their sweat, blood, tears from tons of chemicals
became glue for gluing ballots. Of course, there are also political
responsibilities for the defeat of 2010-12 and the existence of
satellites of the "winners" of the 2015 elections within the movements,
even within the anarchist space. However, everything starts from the
absence of organization and counter-proposal. For the satellites to take
root, there was a certain void. A void that is even more acute today,
and especially in a new period of enormous liquidity and absence of
counterweight. In a period when new, enormous historical opportunities
are opening up and we have unfortunately not realized it, instead of
learning from the past and making progress, others are hoping for the
"fall of Mitsotakis" and the change of government, and others have left
every central revolutionary goal "off the agenda", dealing detachedly
with "peripheral" issues, often with liberal means of reading society
and reality.
We say all this, being part of the problem and not from above and from
the outside. We all have responsibilities for the course of our
political space whether we walk together or apart. What we support is
that there should be decisions and developments in our political space,
to understand the criticality of the times and to answer the burning
question: do we want an anarchist space that is fighting, but without
foundations and without the ability to change the correlations and
become a catalyst of the times? Or a revolutionary anarchist movement, a
catalyst and vanguard in the struggle for the revolution? Our answer is
clear. Without even for a moment letting the immediate war wait, we must
within it, alongside the battles in the here and now, seek the ways,
methods, tactical and strategic steps that will allow us to dynamically
invade social and class antagonism, to become factors of developments
and not simply a noisy, but weak, voice of protest in the queue of the
great events of our time.
3rd part
With the aim of finding solutions to the above questions as our compass,
we will conclude our presentation in the way we "close" at every similar
event. With our proposal for the organization that will fight to
overcome the inadequacies of our political space to date, as well as
outlining the steps we believe are necessary towards its establishment.
Let us clarify that when we talk about organization, we mean the
formation of a single anarchist political body, with one name, with one
strategy for all its forces, with absolute ideological and tactical
unity among its members, but also with due autonomy (but not
autonomization) per city, on the basis of anarchist federalism and local
specificities at each time.
The structure we propose takes as its cell the regional or city nuclei
of the organization and not autonomous groups/collectivities. In other
words, we are not proposing a federation based on already existing
collectivities but a federation of groups that the organization itself
will create. We consider this step to be necessary in order to overcome
the weaknesses of today. We will also return to this issue in the
dialogue that will follow if we are asked for clarification, as it is an
issue that is always problematic in the events we hold on the issue of
organization.
Subsequently, at a second level, we propose suburban and prefectural
associations in regions and at a third level, a central pan-Hellenic
body (e.g. a political council) which will constitute the concentrated
expression of all individual forces, nuclei, regions, etc.
At the same time, sectoral and professional associations can be formed
with the aim of penetrating and ideologically engaging within labor
unions, for the promotion and elaboration of plans for strengthening and
radicalizing the trade union and labor movement in a libertarian and
revolutionary direction, as well as for the elaboration of issues
surrounding sectors of production, against the backdrop of today's
problems and with an eye on the collectively managed production of tomorrow.
The organization should open libertarian centers in every city and every
neighborhood, be a supporter of social and class initiatives, popular
assemblies and grassroots associations, while its position should be at
the forefront of social and class struggles.
Its strategic guidepost should be the revolution and the new society,
which its revolutionary program will foreshadow. The more the
organization grows, the more the realism of this program will be
perceived as a necessity by those who will be called upon to implement
it: the great social majority of workers, the unemployed, the young, all
those who suffer exploitation and oppression by the dominant economic
and political system. In addition, we should also work out ways of
directly implementing our proposal, namely an immediate program of
socialization of buildings and land, collective management structures
and mutual aid networks.
Furthermore, we should never forget that no revolution is possible not
only without a proposal for what will replace the existing, but also
without the fierce, material armed conflict with the existing and its
guardians. Revolutions are truly social phenomena and not islands of
freedom or upheavals in the sphere of ideas and spirit. They are carried
out by collective subjects and not by "individuities". The new society
that we will have to build in the shell of the old, in order to be truly
new, must not coexist, but develop in competition with the existing. And
in order to be new, too, it must clash with it and claim to succeed it.
Not to build structures in which we will boast that we "live anarchy in
the now" in an illiberal world of power, wars and harsh labor exploitation.
As for the pace, a necessary condition for the issue of organization to
come forward, is in our opinion the formation of a new movement pole
that will be made up of groups and comrades, which will be reflected
first of all in the struggles that are raging. Revolutionary
organizations are born within the struggle and not detached from it, in
literary greenhouses. What is needed is the strengthening of anarchist
groups that talk about organization, the creation of new ones in every
city, cooperation, interconnection and a common path so that as soon as
possible, the prospect of a nationwide anarchist organization can
realistically and with a plan be put on the agenda. To generally agree
on a theoretical level about deficiencies and necessities but not to
take initiatives for joint action in the here and now, practically means
abandoning the goal of the organization on the altar of the temporary
"run" that absorbs us, to the detriment, in our opinion, of even the
very sweat we pour into a temporary that becomes permanent and into a
marathon that without a strategic compass, we will never reach the end
of its course.
Finally, we must say that two years ago today, the waters of Pylos were
stained with blood by hundreds of people who were drowned by the Greek
state, in the most massive murder in modern Greek history. Pylos and
Tempi, comrades, are half of the post-memorandum Greece of "development
and prosperity" that the last government helmsmen have given us from
2018 to the present. The other half is in the genocidal war that Israel
is waging in the Gaza Strip against the Palestinian people, with the
Greek state as an accomplice. Therefore, no peace without justice, the
only solution is the global Social Revolution, from Greece to the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank and throughout the enslaved world.
INITIATIVE OF ANARCHIST SAINTS OF ANARGYROS - KAMATEROS
https://protaanka.espivblogs.net/2025/06/21/eisigisi-tis-protovoylias-anarchikon-agion-anargyron-kamateroy-stin-ekdilosi-gia-tin-anarchiki-organosi-stin-katalipsi-eyaggelismoy/
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten