Because of some matters that have erupted concerning recent incidents in Koridallos we believe it’s necessary to make some clarifications. What we find nodal is to not condemn or politically isolate the C.C.F. as a whole (we are referring only to the cell of prisoners, since cells sign with the same name abroad and possibly do not know, nor are they responsible for other people’s actions) and even more we think that this should not happen due to their theoretical orientation. It is the worst form of politics to blame a whole anarchist tension collectively for actions and choices that concern only a part of it. Whether it’s about anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-nihilists, critique is independent. What should concern us is the authoritarian behaviour that exists in the anarchist movement, which is often expressed through physical/verbal violence. We consider violence an inseparable part of life and political action when directed against state, capital and authority, but infertile, damaging and self-destructive when mediated in relations between anarchists. Because its objective target is imposition and it restores authoritarian relations between people who are supposed to be hostile towards it, in the worst possible way. The only result is entrenchment, the destruction of dialectic and in the end the cancellation in practice of our anarchist proposal.
Of course this is not a parthenogenesis. Besides, a natural inclination for authority and imposition exists in all of us, as does respectively the passion for freedom and the desire for equality in comradely relations. Often it arises spontaneously from the expression of our contradictory instincts and is expressed with or without moral or political pretexts, but usually with obvious reasons.
There is no reason to speak here about the violence manifested for personal reasons in interpersonal relations, we will only say that it is a matter of conscience and consistency of values to avoid such authoritarian methods.
We will speak about the use of violence as a tool of political imposition, which, when not aimed at the authoritarians and aimed towards anarchists, literally destroys the meaning of our anarchist vision: whether, for example, it’s exercised on a demonstration against comrades who chose a strategy of clashing with the cops when some others have a different strategy, or concerns a critique which someone considers insulting or slanderous. In the first case the only possible solution is the synthesis of strategies and if this is not feasible because of the gap in organization and community, the solution is the carving of different paths of struggle. In the second case, analyses should be in abundance. Since it is a common place that even if there is one reality, this is experienced differently by each one and the subjective truths of each comrade differ. Therefore, when someone criticizes, most likely the person being criticized will feel that they are being slandered. The limits between critique and slander are thin to non-existent. The only possible restoration of the subjective truth of the person being criticized is their expression through speech. No violent imposition can indicate who is telling the truth, only who has more force (physical, organizational or armed).
The substance however is that the invocation of an insulted code of honour or an image that got damaged cannot have any relation with the iconoclastic character of anarchist critique, which promotes perpetual dispute and desecrates the sacred, liberating the human spirit from mental ankyloses.
Therefore, to try and end the introversion of anarchists with an act of raw authoritarian violence can only have two outcomes: 1st the triggering of an even more violent clash-slaughter between anarchists in which plenty of blood, saliva and ink will spill, 2nd the subjection of all to the conservative code of chevalric honour, which means the amputation of critique through fear and the consequent castration of anarchy from its most important tool of self-development.
Of course we do not have any illusions that the beating of our comrade G.Naxakis was really aimed at curing the “syphilis of introversion”. Reading behind the lines, when the CCF write that there is no right or wrong but everything is subjective, they could easily baptize our truth a lie and directly target us as slanderers. Knowing therefore that the threat of murder indirectly also targets us, we also think that the fraudulent ambush on our comrade was a moment of political-military planning to impose silence around matters concerning the organization in question. Besides the fact that mafia-style blackmail circumvents anarchist values, it is a show of extreme authoritarian behaviour and also the expression of dangerous totalitarianism and fetishisation of violence, which is potentially turned towards everyone and this plan is completed with the threat to the comrade that if he does not remember it he will have a problem in all prisons and end up in an isolation/protection wing.
And of course totalitarianism is simply the logical outcome of the use of violence as a regulator of anarchist dialectic. It is known that from the ranks of the revolutionary movement came the terrorism of the democratic guillotine, the bloody censorship of stalinism and even fascism itself. We can therefore imagine, oxymoron as it might sound, an “anarchist” authority that demands acceptance of its anarchist nature as a prerequisite in order not to be characterized as a slanderer of the anarchist party and led to the hangman. The worst nightmare for the anarchist proposal and a real danger as long as it finds space and evolves in people’s thoughts, are the acts and words expressed by the imprisoned cell of the CCF.
There are however many other things that render the incident in question chilling, like choosing to risk triggering a cycle of blood between those considered anarchists in Koridallos (inside the hostile environment of prison) leaving the state in the role of referee, giving away life sentences in white cells and the media crows to slander and demean our struggle indirectly towards the anarchist movement, diffuse subjects who are seen as an indivisible whole, where the actions of one are blamed on all of us.
The fact that we believe that in the hostile environment of prison there is no room for returning to authoritarian violence as counter-violence, in no way means that we will accept the way out that has been left strategically by the text of the CCF, but will definitely break the silence they are trying to impose on us with threats, being ready to bear the consequences of what we say.
Another infuriating dimension of the incident is that the beaters used slander as a pretext, a practise they have used many times against us, as well as against many other anarchist projects they disagree with, using a language where tough critique is mixed with empathy and aggressive expression. Let alone when it’s to reply to the (unclear and therefore misunderstandable in our opinion) critique of comrade Naxakis (which is aimed at us too), not in order to separate himself, but to express his different opinion, where they slander him heavily. The groundless claim that the comrade criticized the CCF for a more lenient treatment in court, stumbles on the fact that he has chosen the complete refusal of legal defence. While at the same time accusations of selfishness and sponging are disproved by his permanent confrontational attitude towards the service. The use of physical violence as a means of imposing opinions within the anarchist/anti-authoritarian movement is exactly the consequence of transforming cafe discussions and personal hostilities into political texts, whether due to mental ankylosis or vanity. The verbal violence which for years now has been tolerated and reproduced by the anarchist movement uproots basic anarchist values such as mutual respect and understanding, has paved the way for the application of such practices.
To conclude, the matter for us is not to cite another black page in the history of anarchist struggle, it is not to isolate political tendencies or anarchist organizations, but to delete once and for all behaviour that denegrates the substance of our struggle. And of course, let’s not pretend to be sacred virgins, most of us have been involved in incidents of endo-anarchist violence.
The CCF-imprisoned cell have given us an example to avoid, which simply reveals the development of a culture of violence. Let’s go beyond it.
It is also not a question of applying an anarchist-measure and judging whether and how much an anarchist each prisoner is. This logic leads to the easy targeting of comrades. The matter is the intensity of the violence (broken arm and leg) applied as a means of pressure aimed at remembering the text, that troubles us and brings back the anarchist values of sensitivity and leniency which led us to be disgusted and fight this system of authority in the first place.
In order to uproot, once and for all, violence as a tool for endo-anarchist imposition and turn it against the state and authority.
Because the syphilis of introversion is only dealt with in action against the real enemy and not with macho shows of strength.
Because objective truth is only held by the inquisitors. People in revolt will always dispute it, bearing the weight of their choices.
This text is our position concerning the ambush set up against our comrade. We did not choose to speak about the matters raised by Giannis about the attitude of the CCF inside the prison since long before the recent incidents took place and the texts were written, we had decided not to do so since we thought that something like that would be counter-productive and not useful at this specific period in time. Either way, we know that our personal experience is more easily misunderstood than transferred.