The TRiSTERO collective (comrades from greece) writes:

"Critique of the 'Antiglobalization Movement'"

Tristero Collective)

Here is a critique to the “antiglobalization movement” as it was expressed in Thessaloniki during the EU Summit of 2003; about anarchists and antiauthoritarians in particular. This is because we regard ourselves as a part of this radical part of the movement. We deposit, as well, our self-criticism to the way we acted during and after a year in the preparation process, the choices we made concerning alliances, the decisions we took at the very last moment of the big demonstration (on Saturday). What should be taken into consideration is that both the social condition and the movements’ composition in Greece are much different from these abroad (we mean Western Europe mainly).We do not include here an analysis of social and class composition in Greece. We do not deal with it as it was not a priority of ours at that time. In fact, this is a critique we made on September 2003 — three months after the EU Summit in Thessaloniki — and it wishes to be a deposition of our experience and nothing more. It aims neither to be a didactive text nor to make specific suggestions. Readers should keep in mind that the following text is not the one that was published in Greek; in fact, these are extracts we consider to be representative.

Tristero Collective

Thessaloniki, October 2004

Preface

On the 20th of June, Friday night, it was a collective decision not to participate in the demonstration of the June 21st. It was a hard decision for several reasons.

At the beginning of 2002, we started a project, which initially involved conversations about internationalization, globalization, movements against or “against” it, our agreements or disagreements with other Greek anarchists’ views. More conversations about the ways of organizing ourselves through the semester of the Greek presidency and meetings in Athens and Thessaloniki took place. Yet, one and a half year’s procedure was found in a sad dead end that Friday night. We would feel like falling in an inconsistency between words and deeds, if we did participated on Saturday’s (June 21st) demonstration. The “anti-globalization movement” was in our city and we would watch it from afar. The anti-authoritarians’ organizational problems during the whole semester of the Greek presidency prepared us for what was going to follow.

This semester, and not only the Saturday demonstration, intensified our critical view about the organizing basis and the approaches of the Greek antiauthoritarian movement. And even if some of us were positive, although also critical, towards the anti-globalization movements, we are now more cautious. We played and it seems we lost the game. But… did we really lose? … And at which point exactly?

We lost because the Saturday’s demonstration lacked a certain political content and aim. We lost because the demonstration failed to realize its possible political power. We lost, not only because 7 demonstrators were behind bars 3 months later and 23 more are still being prosecuted, but also because we feel we cannot be part of the solidarity assemblies, which re-produce everything that we are not willing to.

We think that it’s too sad for the movement which passed through Thessaloniki to leave behind only a co-ordination of solidarity movements in many (it’s true) western countries. It’s not enough. Maybe we wanted more — but we believe that our time demands something more. We must find those powers —gravediggers of capitalism and creators of the structure of social autonomy. Nothing less, nothing more.

We don’t talk about defeat if everyone of the participants of this movement attempts to elucidate his wrong and right moves. No triumphs, no fetishes. With honesty. With our self-critical mood and our attempt to organize our political actions and create new approaches to the critique of capitalistic society, which will let us return in history’s central highway. And this is one of our bets…

We talk about “exodus”. We mean a particular exodus from re-producing self-evident ideas, contradictions and fetishisms that characterize a “non community”, which in Greece is called “anarchist community”. We don’t think we belong in this community, but this doesn’t mean that the basic direction of our collective doesn’t remain thoroughly an anti-authoritarian one. We think that our critical analysis makes more intense our anti-authoritarian aims. This analysis makes us more independent and willing to stand on our feet so as to make a new approach to other assemblies, to other people and finally to society as a whole. We give a promise to talk and write again about this in the following months, embodying this future critique in a more complete way of seeing things…

The Past

The second issue of the review published in January by Tristero included the concept of our approach as far as the political alliance was concerned: “Our political action involves three cooperation levels: firstly, we aim at meeting people and groups activated in Thessaloniki to which we believe discussion and cooperation are applicable. Then, we plan to address to political groups activated in the rest of the country with which we have come into contact at the past and whose intention is to act together during the first semester of Greek presidency in 2003. Taking into consideration the potential disagreements though, we do not regard the achievement of a common theoretical basis as necessary and binding. Those that are to be decided and agreed by both sides are a commitment. Each group or person is indisputably politically independent — outside the alliance — and can keep on the action they have chosen. The course of the alliance will determine also its after-the-June future. The third level has to do with the coordination (and only that) of the anti-authoritarian groups — at local and panhellenic level — which will be formed in view of EU’ s Greek presidency. In spite of the potential disagreements, we do not regard those groups as competitive.

There is a conclusion that anyone comes up to easily: we do not aim at a crowded demonstration (or a black block) to be formed at the days of EU Summit. There may be two, three or more demonstrations so as the political “differentia significa” of each group as well as the autonomy of every concept to be maintained. This is our view for all future mobilizations during the first semester of 2003.”

We should be clear from the very beginning: we failed at all these points. We invited some of the groups activated in Thessaloniki into discussion, but none of them took part in the meeting of March at the city of Athens. Our call for collaboration received verbal responses such as “it’s too late now” or no responses at all. They just said that this would mean that “they had to follow some people and leave some others behind”. It is a true thing since political choices cannot match altogether. Indubitably, it is the only way out. Political action cannot be neutral. Everyone makes his own choices about whom is to go with and this has consequences.

Concerning the two-day-meeting in Athens at the beginning of March we invited — in an arbitrary way, it’s true — nearly ten groups activated all over Greece. Our proposals concerning the distinctive features that would characterize the organizational collaboration movement — except our view about internationalization and the movements against it — included the following:

• We believe that we owe to keep our action away from interposition and against dominant institutions. It should not involve alliance with any parties, NGOs and mass media.

• We also have to try hard to make our action distinctive and autonomous. What we mean by that is to hold critical view against the reformists; our political proposals should be distinctive so as to show off the total overthrow of capitalism and not its humanization.

• The direct democracy should take place at the process of decision making; and together with the solidarity among militants, that must be not only unnegotiable characteristics, but also political proposals that distinguish us and work in a reconnoitering way for our action.

• Finally, the use of violence cannot be anything else than one of the means to give our political proposals a form; not a content itself.

We had also made a proposal for a concrete organizational outline, but there is no worth repeating it here. It is true that many comrades from all over Greece responded to our call; however, apart from very few specific proposals, most people just came to listen or ask. And it was surely something positive the fact that there was (especially by those who came the second day) inclination for collaboration. At the end of the second day’s meeting, we declared that it goes away from our hands and becomes a case that bothers anyone who wants to create an organizational structure. The next appointment was fixed at the end of March in Athens, but meanwhile it was agreed for proposals about specific political characteristics to be made. However, the beginning of the war in Iraq and the subsequent struggle blocked these procedures and no proposals were made (except our critical assessment).

The second appointment was carried away by the vortex of the anti-war movements. It was clear to us at the beginning of April that the organizational cooperative platform by antiauthoritarians, which was in our minds, and through which we would give out (together with our comrades) our political content in the demonstrations, had completely failed. What we decided to do was to hold a dignified presence of ours till June and the days of the Summit, trying to fulfill anything we can without having many requirements. Some of us took part in the creation of a informatory web site for people coming from abroad; some others were members of the medical team. All the above are not secondary things to us, but the specific overall political goal we imagined did not include them.

The exception to all these was the alliance which took place between us and some groups — with which we had already collaborated making demonstrations at the immigrants’ neighborhoods in Thessaloniki, during the war and after its official end. That led to an assembly of some antiauthoritarian groups and persons — the assembly that called for the Thursday’s solidarity-to-immigrants demonstration. This assembly succeeded in matching together all different political views of each group without invalidating them. On the one hand, this proves that communication among political collectives is possible; taking into consideration though that the basis of the alliance is not the usual stereotype of “all together”. On the other hand, the assembly reinforced each collective’s political action just because it was based on the differentiations of each collective’s choices. The views of the opposition to the capitalistic-dominant institution as well as the sharp cooperation outline are common. Nevertheless, the means through which opposition and the necessary creative project are expressed are different. The powerful and connective point of the assembly was exactly that kind of political choice, which included political commixture as well as respect towards any potential disagreements.

That alliance resulted in fulfilling demonstrations mainly at immigrants’ neighborhoods during the war, organizing happenings against EU Ministers-of-Culture Summit in Thessaloniki, the “resistance festival” and finally calling for the Thursday’s (19th of June) demonstration, which was the biggest demonstration organized by antiauthoritarians in Thessaloniki ever.

The week of the EU Summit (June 2003)

From the one side there was the “Antiauthoritarian movement Salonica 2003”’s view of the organized conflict against the “red zone” (no-go zone). From the other side there is the diffused concept of “smashing”, since … “red zone is everywhere”, laying at the absence of political significance of violence as a means, unarticulated at the reflection of a smashed bank and a cop-on-fire.

The days of the Summit revealed the nakedness of a political “community”, the absence of political substance among a large part of what is called anarchist movement in Greece and the failure of those collectives that tried to fulfill their political project. The single (and self-evident right from the beginning) goal was the conflict with cops. Thessaloniki showed off the total incompetence of anarchists, not only to promote the radical perspective into the “antiglobalization movement”, but also to create subversive institutions and relationships. The concept that there are more ideas than necessary for social change and now it is time for action is reproduced till today among many anarchists. They forget that views like this have been already set throughout revolutionary history by tendencies of the anarchist movement and ignore the critique against them and their own self-criticism, too. Even more, this view abandons what history means when it makes the assumption that the suitable forms for the transition to action have been already found and they are not going to change. Standing between the chaos of the violent version of lifestyle anarchist, on the one hand, and the disciplined organization of AKS2003, on the other, the very few political structures that really worked were the very well organized medical team, the Indy media information center, the legal team, the self-organized kitchen by comrades from abroad and the solidarity-to-immigrants demonstration. Despite the statement that the way the demonstration took place was a miracle, we do not believe in any “God of revolution” nor in accidents taking place in history. We think it’s clear, from what we have written above, how the intended result was achieved.

Moving away from the anarchist “community” and estimating the presence of the “antiglobalization movement” as a whole in Thessaloniki, we have to admit that the Greek State and its mediatory mechanisms (mass media mainly) handled the situation better than ever. They enforced total division and polarization taking into consideration the fact that the “movement” is not united anyway. The Reformist International was both State’s and opposition’s official interlocutor, expressing the civil society’s requests. Each party or faction, from the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) to Social Forum, and from NGOs to extra-parliamentary left, took its own share of political surplus value; they all rallied their supporters and everybody was satisfied. They were the “movement”. Every radical voice and practice outside dominant institutional channels was expelled; AKS2003 might be the only exception. Indeed, every kind of mass media used in a skillful way words such as “anarchists”, “vandals”, “gangs of hoods” to characterize the radical part of the movement. The image they formed was that of a few barbarians who destroy the “beautiful feast”. As far as Greek police is concerned, we already said that it handled the whole situation in the best way possible. Thessaloniki and Halkidiki were transformed into militarized zones. The stifling and therefore dissuasive to uncontrolled situations, presence of cops and special police forces and the image of a belligerent area was dissuasive to any thought of participation in the movement. However, tolerance was the strategy chosen for dealing with the “movement” — at least until repression was legalized. Taking into consideration that the “movement” is not so unforeseen and that violent practices are expressed only by the “black part” of it, they tried to control the latter; anarchists and antiauthoritarians. There was no preventive repression and the police maintained an attitude of patience — till vandalisms started. And that was the moment they attacked. The city centre was overwhelmed with teargases and demonstrators were harshly bitten (of course far away from the cameras). But they clearly avoided making massive arrests.

Thessaloniki seemed to belie some of our expectations. Not only the movement did not have a leg to stand on the society, but also the vast majority of the citizens came out against it, lost in State’s and mass media’s lies, which talked about hordes of barbarians, who came to loot the city. They kept their precious stores under lock and key and watched the riots on the TV screens. The fact that the radical area was incapable of prefixing the overall opposition to capitalism showed off the Reformist International as the absolute winners for the first time though.

Tristero collective

Thessaloniki, September 2003