Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Attention! The Lackeys of Counter-Revolution Circulate Among Us

On Saturday, April 5th, a large group of relatives of victims of state and parastate murders and state-capitalist massacres are about to meet in a public debate. The whole social movement welcomes such a broad manifestation with joy and humility. The coordination of the discussion was assigned to two journalists, one of whom, driven by his demonstrated ideological-political commitment to the defense of the bourgeois regime, has contributed in the recent past to the policy of criminal extermination of the people of the social resistance in general and me in particular for my political commitment to the guerrilla social struggle and its defense against the bourgeoisie. state judges. For this he has been publicly denounced (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1622067/). Writing political articles about the second instance trial against the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization and the Holargos case, he boldly sided with the policy of criminal repression of the revolutionary struggle, mocking the expression of guerrilla discourse in the courtroom, sucking up to the judges, advocating the “democratic” condemnation of the “guilty”, exaggerating the false objectivity that bourgeois criminal terrorism wears like a purifying coat and applauding the constant judicial attack for the depoliticization of the counter-revolutionary trial, the depoliticization of the disputed issues and the depoliticization of the subject to be exterminated.

What contribution to the public debate on social justice can a sculptural whistleblower dedicated to the Leviathan of the state-capitalist complex have? His invitation already gives movement justification and new energy to his dirty role. The extremes of the political assimilation of the antagonistic mindset into counter-revolutionary terrorism shift deeper into Leviathan, as the central position in the debate has been taken over by an ideological agent of special duties, who defends the judiciary, not only as a regulator of social justice in general, but as a “democratic” institution for the extermination of the armed movement. The organizers, masquerading as libertarians in the political arena, bring the butcher’s cradle to welcome the slaughterhouses. Now, it is reasonable that the sculptor of the counter-revolution will not mock the relatives of the victims for subjecting the judges to “procedural torture”, as he did against an armed militant, but he is here to validate the class-political competence of state judges to render justice, to punish the illegality according to bourgeois institutions, to define objectivity, to conduct a “fair trial”. Assistance in the depoliticization of counter-revolutionary trials is a vanguard in assisting in the conversion of the politicization of social anger, towards assimilation into the institutions of the regime and its defusement. A person who acts on the position that he has “closed his accounts” with revolutionary political ideas and ridicules the revolutionaries at a time when the judicial priesthood of anti-proletarian, anti-social and counter-revolutionary terrorism is fighting with dignity, can today intervene in the mass movement for state-capitalist massacres, only to de-revolutionize the issues at hand. To cause confusion, to instill loyalty and discord in the social movement, to introduce embankments to the common prospective path for the overthrow of genocidal class domination. His position next to the regime’s institutional complex then and now, a position that at that time called for the condemnation of the “guilty” of the revolutionary social struggle having first separated the armed and the unarmed ideas, today is a position of covering up the radical class-political causes of the political massacres, the “why?”, and the self-disguise of the institutional network of their legitimacy and cover-up. Because the truth that the people are looking for comes only through their subversive struggle, while reinvestment in universally discredited bourgeois institutions only brings terrorist silencing orders and new massacres.

The organizing political group should have known, if not in its entirety, the identity of the parastate journalist in question, since some of its cadres participated in procedures of support in the trial of the Holargos case – Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization. Those in the know, by placing the whistleblower among the bloody people of the social movement, have consciously assumed responsibility for an upgrade of provoking conflicts within the movement, something that the whistleblower had attempted. Nice social federalists! If they had at least a little honesty, they would not have called the apologist of the regime’s terrorism who wears the mask of the movement, they would have called directly Theodorikakos (former KKE), who rushed to embrace the murderers of Nikos Sambanis, they would have called Floridis (former PASOK), the rapporteur of the last penal code, they would have called the proud fascist Voridis.

It should be noted, apart from the prominent political hospitality of the sycophantic reporter in the lively dialogue of the resisting social subject, his name decorated with militant rhetoric was projected in the eminently open and federalist structure of the libertarian movement, in Athens Indymedia. The media’s management team cannot control the history of every person for whom a well-known political figure takes responsibility. Federalism is built on mutual trust. However, this raises political responsibilities and requires prudence. The depravity of opportunist arbitrariness must find its wall.

Parenthetically, the OmniaTV channel participates in the same event, members of which had been at the forefront of the reproduction of the imperialist and governmental terrorist propaganda of anti-health fascism and biotechnocratic colonialism on the social body. Fascism always has two legs: one of the traditional right and one of social democracy.

Bourgeois democracy does not prevent anyone from becoming the tail of the PASOK-SYRIZA party. It is the duty of anarchists not to allow the current insurrectionary movement to be driven in the teeth of reformism. The dirty reactionary strategy that exploits the libertarian struggles has a future only along the lines of parainstitutionalism and will sink with it. The revolutionary organization of anarchists is the only hope of a way out of the shackle and the slaughterhouse.

Together with those who come forward in search of justice against state and parastate crimes. Not even an inch of social ground for the reformist gravediggers.

There is no peace without justice

Scumbag snitch journalists

Thugs, opportunists, filth

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

3 April 2025

Domokos Prison

Source: https://blessed-is-the-flame.espivblogs.net/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-prosochi-oi-lakedes-tis-antepanastasis-kykloforoyn-anamesa-mas/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18378

D. Chatzivasileiadis: International Call for the Revolutionary Union of Anarchists

First part, introductory: 12th of February 2012

On 12 February 2012 the last big battle of the anti-austerity movement (in the Greek territory) took place. Other open battles followed in the following years, but after that day, when the movement realized that it had reached the limits of its power, it did not revive. The objective of this longstanding insurrectionary movement, which was to cancel the parliament during the passing of the controversial laws or even to occupy it, was lost for good during the popular attempt on 12/2/2012. It was the biggest militant gathering since 1973. Half a million people, once again, but for what would be the last time, surrounded the central institution of the regime and after being repelled by chemical bombardment, we made persistent efforts to reach the target again. The state’s military machine, without resorting to the use of standard weapons of warfare, overpowered a huge yet unarmed mass of people.

The turning point of the anti-austerity movement became a critical juncture for various poles of the anti-authoritarian movement that led them to prioritize the question of the revolutionary program and the question of organization. We all recognized the impasse of one-dimensional insurrectionism, that is, of the deferral of all questions to the dynamics of the insurgent mass and to the moment of insurrection. However, the road to overcoming all the culminated weaknesses remained blurred. The program and the political organization became the new points of deferral for all critical issues, while denouncing insurrectionary practice. On the other hand, for the political poles who denied the necessity of organizational unity, it was enough to distort the experience and the project of the insurrection into an ephemeral experience or into an expression of the prevalence of alternativist experimentation. The advocates of the need for organization of the popular power were few and weak within the political balances in the movement; they were voices that stemmed from armed practice and were therefore capable of being conscious of the material conditions of the current class-political conflict. Both those who replaced insurrectionism with organizationalism and those who removed the subversive substance of insurrection, underestimated the revolutionary qualities of the struggling mass. It is enough to make an observation from the depths of Bolshevik social democracy a century ago, not famous for its insurrectionism, in order to leave behind these conservative positions as the prehistory of bourgeois philosophy. Antonio Gramsci: “The use of the word spontaneous is elitist because it refers to a scholastic and academic conception that identifies as true and worthy of consideration only those insurrectionary movements that are 100% conscious, meaning movements that are guided by premeditation to the last detail or placed along an abstract theoretical line”1. Structurelessness [tn: otherwise known as informalismo] and alternativism fall under the same critique invertedly, because they also separate social spontaneity from revolutionary orientation and the capacity for readiness, so as to identify as genuine, spontaneous and authentic only those movements that seem to favor the validation of such a separation. A recent example is the separation of the 1st Palestinian Intifada from the organized armed resistance, in the service of the repudiation of the October 7 revolutionary initiative.

The reintroduction of the issues about program and organization also reactivated the questions of the relations between political and class or social organization, the question about competency over drafting the program and about its class basis. Within the course of the dialogue on the issue of organization in the past five years locally (Athens), collective proposals and personal theoretical positions have been formed with references to the Platform of Dielo Truda. Since 2020, from the state of exile and from prison, I have taken a position on these key issues in a number of analytical texts. The evolution of the class-political struggle on a global scale, the state of the anarchist movement internationally and the directions that the use of platformist ideas in the Greek movement have taken, require the articulation of a precise proposal on the union of anarchists today; a proposal for the renewal and not the distortion and burial of our revolutionary history. Many of us have participated in the struggle for organization over the last decade. Also many study history and the active dialogue. Judging that currently in the Greek movement there is no declared project of revolutionary anarchist organization, and from the state of being incarcerated, I aim to address directly (and therefore simultaneously) the whole of the anarchist movement locally and internationally. The very logic of my proposal, which I consider to emanate from the historical lessons of revolutionary anarchism, requires that it be communicated over the maximum geographical range without delay. As a prisoner of the revolutionary people’s war, who unwaveringly advocates subversive action and organization, I ought to give this political proposal the character of a call.

My text will come in segments, so that it may be easily understood. It will be published in sequences, and in order to save time I will avoid repeating the arguments I have already presented in previous texts. I am addressing the comrades who want to understand. I will briefly discuss the basics, the conclusions and the coherent train of thought. In the part where I describe the theoretical model and the general organizational path of the anarchist union, I will be particularly specific and accompany the text with diagrams.

With the invaluable solidarity of a few comrades, the text can initially be published in both Greek and English. Its republication and translation into other languages will be an indicator of its recognition or rejection as a fruitful proposal.

The first question that needs to be answered before I proceed is the productive order of the questions posed. First comes the program or the organization? First the political or the class/social organization? Past, present and future of practical theory, in what order? There are six different arrangements of time points and each gives a reading of the universe from a different starting point. Which is most appropriate for developing a proposal for revolutionary organization? I will directly note the general order and in the course the sequence of specific themes will become clear. The discussion about organizational questions presupposes that we determine the goal. The general revolutionary program comes first. Therefore, we begin with what follows and what is to come, in accordance with the revolutionary purpose and revolutionary practice as preconditions. Then we go through the history of our purpose, its practice and its organization, so that we can discuss on the current context bearing the knowledge of our history. Revolutionary practice is a restoration of the optimum of the evolutionary path of the human species and a rupture from the historical chains of our class-political weaknesses. This brings us to the topical program of struggle and after that particularly to the organizational program. Although the general revolutionary program, which refers to the whole of the revolutionary social subject, precedes the discussion on the matter of political organization, the questions about the general organization of the social/class movement and of the social revolution appear downsized and distorted when the revolutionary vision is actively absent. Thus, while the social movement is the matrix and not a mechanical extension of political organizations, it is misleading to discuss its development if we have not defined our basic commitments as comrades and interlocutors on the subject. The questions on social self-direction and classless reconstruction are the last to be dealt with, but we must certainly deal with them, although the last word is always with bodies much broader than political organizations.

Second part: A basic coherent program of class liberation and social self-management.

For ten years now, since the preliminary work for the formation of an anarchist political organization in the Greek movement, there has been much talk about the “revolutionary program”. The program is signified as the expected new testament that will solve the riddles of history. All the investments in the program, which is always postponed, focus on the revolutionary social transformation after the overthrow of state and capitalist power. Do we really need such a program? If so, why was the international revolutionary proletarian movement of the last two centuries incapable of drawing it up, but we, the modern Greek philosophers of anarchy are capable?

Yes, a defined revolutionary cause is required for the revolutionary struggle. Revolution is a total social transformation, since, even if it does not immediately change everything, it puts everything under trial under unified criteria. A general program of social transformation is necessary for the orientation of the revolutionary struggle.

The evolution of social intelligence in general and the struggles of the exploited classes during the centuries of domination of the capitalist mode of production in particular, made the drafting of an anti-capitalist revolutionary program necessary and feasible. We have had this program for centuries now, at least ever since Babeuf, or rather since the Münster Commune and beyond. Liberation of the producers from the domination of capital and social self-management through the producers’ associations and the communities [tn: otherwise, the demos]… As long as we are still within capitalism, the idea remains radical, but anyone who presents it as new is rather self-satisfied

Those convinced of the absence of the revolutionary program will object that the above statement is a truism of zero value in terms of the need they point out, because the general historical program is too abstract. We agree, but the discussion must begin with the recognition that we have the general program in many variations and with plenty of experiences of its imperfect application. Nor is there any lack of specificity. In the anarchist movement alone, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the revolution in Ukraine, Dielo Truda, the CNT, other libertarian revolutionary projects (Korea, China), etc., have formulated and/or implemented concrete programs. Were they all incomplete? There are two ways to answer the question, an idealist-elitist one and a materialist-prudent one. One version: they lacked a consistent concretization of the ideal. Who defines the criteria of consistency with the ideal? The concretization of the ideal and the determination of the criteria of consistency are a tautology. Only a new concretization can become a criterion of inconsistency. But then, since the judgment is applied retrospectively, it is authoritarian, claiming ownership of “authenticity”. Moreover, such judgments are ahistorical. So we go to the other version. Each program expresses a historically finite subjectivity. Therefore, the topical reformulation of the general program is constantly necessary. Let’s be cautious here. We are dealing with two dimensions of change: on the one hand, the general conditions of the class-political struggle and the material conditions evolve, and on the other hand, the subjects who through their struggle reassess, reformulate, etc. are renewed. An important evolutionary social contribution of the anarchist movement is the political cultivation of openly composing collective thought. The reformulation of historical reference data by every subject of revolutionary struggle brings history and writings to life. Each new reformulation is a piece that was inevitably missing due to historical dialectics and will become a new testament, but it cannot be “The Program”. This exists only in the most abstract political-social purpose, always within historical limits and has been formulated long before. Openness to reformulations is not of interest to us as a matter of epistemological relativism, although it is inherent as a natural parameter – it is of interest to us from the point of view of the needs, relations and possibilities of each struggling subject and, fundamentally, of the active and therefore primarily living subjects. In the movement of social self-direction, of liberation from all class domination and incidentally from heteronomous political management, each participating subject specifies and revises all programs. No political subject can specify a revolutionary program in the absence of the subjects who will implement it. What is called a program can only be common as a process of practical transformation through successive formulations of collective judgments and new proposals. Save this observation for later.

We go to the reflective dimension of change, to the historical objectivity of class-political conditions. Revolution is an antagonistic process. The time framework for the proposed program does not begin when the class-political enemy is eliminated, it begins every day anew, having as its horizon that catalytic moment. The separation of a stage of class-political antagonism from the stage of social transformation is mechanistic, socially unnatural and a figment of the crudest bourgeois mentality. To say from a materialist and not an idealist position that the end is determined by the means is to say that the process of conflict and the process of social transformation are a single process with two aspects at once, its relation to the class-historical establishment and its relation to the freedom it brings about. The general leaps are made thanks to the development of the unity of the two aspects; they do not confirm the postponement of social transformation and the reduction of the conflict to a mediating stage, a “necessary evil” in contradiction to the ideal end. The answer to “how do we get there?” is the practical “this is how we apply the purpose here and now”. The “grand program” is concretized in the set of current programs of immediate subversive action and social reconstruction, programs whose implementation began centuries ago and is still a long way off.

The real pivotal issue in any program is not the concretization of the ideal, but the concretization of the ways of struggle in the present evolutionary phase of the ongoing historical antagonism between revolution and counter-revolution and its forthcoming phases. The anti-austerity movement failed to block the bourgeois parliament, not because it did not know what to do next, but because it was not suitably and sufficiently organized class-wise, socially and politico-militarily to overpower the counterinsurgency at the contested point that would objectively open up the prospect of revolutionary directions, if there existed political subjects ready for that. Every program is determined through the day-to-day specific terms of the conflict between revolution and counter-revolution, and the program must be basic in terms of the temporally immediate correlation of ends and means and coherent in terms of the temporally immediate requirements of revolutionary unity. Great revolutionary ideas take concrete radical forms through these two practical immediacies (of becoming and totality).

Historically there is one ideal program common to all those who desire the abolition of exploitation. Even the liberal left agrees that the form of polity that has historically been called anarchy is the ideal. Political programs differ along the way. Marxists place stages in the program for overcoming bourgeois civilization, especially Leninists mediate evolution with the political party state, liberals do not recognize any way outside the gradual transformation of the present state, i.e. they are reformists in the narrow sense, while liberal anti-authoritarians hope for changes to occur in ideas and morals that will overpower and paralyze the power of the state. Historically, we have not been called anarchists in general those of us who value the anarchist vision – I know right-wingers who embrace it – but those who fight for the direct overthrow of capitalism and the state. The different programs may converge in the different partial albeit necessary struggles, even in projects of overthrowing political regimes. For example, I note only the collaboration of Italian anarchists and republicans in the Spanish anti-fascist front2 . However, different political programs define different and antagonistic intermediate goals and to varying degrees different practices and types of organization. Precisely because the points of conflict run through the general struggle and there come moments when non-anarchist co-fighters assume pro-regime positions and cross over to the enemy side or become the new counter-revolution, the distinct anarchist program demands an autonomous political base (drastically, productively/organizationally, programmatically/ideologically) to withstand the alternations of the counter-revolution and move forward stronger in its perspective. Thus the crucial concretization of the anarchist revolutionary program does not involve the theoretically specific questions of post-revolutionary social organization, but the immediate class-political conditions of foundation and coherence. The ways in which we struggle, before defining exactly the imaginary vision of the society we want, first define our determination to actually get there.

The political anarchist organization, that is, the united direct and programmatic action of people who are practically committed to the struggle for anarchy, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the implementation of an anarchist program of revolutionary struggle. A mass workers’ or broader social/proletarian movement in general does not suffice either. Revolutionary struggle does not move forward without the organizational correlation of its political purpose and its social/class basis. It requires the organization of the social/class struggle in politically autonomous terms (ideological, programmatic, material and practical). The development of class and social organizations of direct struggle in fundamental political terms is a basic condition for the unfolding of a revolutionary anarchist program. Based on its class-political, class-social and socio-political organic unity, the revolutionary anarchist movement can and does become coherent in direct struggle, co-forming conditions of politically broader co-organization and front-line struggles. In terms of its syntax, every class or even social organization has a political identity. Also the characteristics of social/class fronts express political relations. The revolutionary anarchist organization and its programmatic proposals do not intervene in what is falsely regarded as neutral organizational social spaces, instead they organize social space in libertarian revolutionary terms and thus intervene in the class-political struggle and position themselves within the popular world. The socio-political bases of the evolving anarchist program are furthermore the defining foundations for the revolutionary transformations that can be made after a defeat of the counter-revolution. The constants of the direct struggle on the class field concretize the ‘grand program’.

I think it’s clear that I entered the subject of so-called organizational dualism. I will come back to it later, analyzing the issues of revolutionary anarchist organization and program in their topicality. For now, however, take it for granted that, in this political proposal, duality (or trinity, by distinguishing community-based self-organization in class-political oppression and exploitation and the territorial self-organization of the free community) does not distinguish social/class identities from political ones and does not imply the recognition of an apolitical universal class organizational field. For which class organizations does it make sense to be based on the synthesis of different political identities? Those formations that can be open to the cooperation of existing class-political and socio-political organizations and their counterpart at the most elementary scale of organization, such as labour unions of a particular company or business and local popular assemblies. A grassroots sectoral union, a Nth grade federation or a social structure and a supra-local organ of social self-management are always created with a specific political vision, which is inscribed in their aims, in their modes of struggle and in their modes of internal functioning. Logically, the subordination of class or social organizations to the political organization puts a stranglehold on mass participation or grassroots autonomy. However, the anarchist revolutionary organization has a duty and need to take initiatives to build up and engage participation in grassroots organizations consistent with its program.

What distinguishes the anarchist revolutionary program from any other political program? I noted earlier that all other paths invest in stages contradictory to the ultimate goal. They do not simply anticipate that the struggle must cross successive antagonistic states, as any political subject would logically think, but more fundamentally they concentrate their forces on contradictory intermediate goals. All other currents characterize anarchism as utopian. Their discrediting claim against the anarchist struggle is based solely on the utopian character that their own programs ascribe to the ultimate cause. The liberal and Marxist left’s investment in intermediate stages, which bear elements of statism and capitalism, presents libertarian communism as utopian.3

So, it is true to say that anarchist practice predominantly focuses on the consistency of ends and means. But this observation only applies to the ultimate end that other programs characterize as utopian. Statist political organizations are for the most part consistent with the most direct of their intermediate ends. It is important to understand this in order to be aware of the strengths and difficulties of the anarchist struggle. We turn to the question. The anarchist revolutionary program is not characterized by its consistency to the immediate, intermediate or ultimate goal, but by the immediacy of the ultimate goal. The anarchist program denies the denunciatory utopianism of bourgeois socialist theories.

The power of our programmatic proposals is the immediate implementation of the conditions of the stated purpose. Immediacy in time: Now! Immediacy of subject: Us, here, the oppressed popular body. Here and now.

Immediate implementation of the conditions that the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization4 had summarized in the three basic directions for the contemporary international revolutionary movement that will abolish the domination of state and capital:

Α. The immediate aim is the overthrow of the political-military and financial regime, the overthrow of state institutions and the uprooting of mechanisms of authority. Β. The immediate aim is the socialization of all wealth through armed communes that should and must be established today by the revolutionary action of labor and community assemblies and the formation of open federal structures in an universal framework. Self-organization of the confrontation must aim at pushing back exploitation and control, it must also reinforce the self-defense of the social movement and of all its advances. Fighters have the socio-political duty to transfuse class and social resistances with the paradigm of direct counterattack against the political-military and economic regime and with the experience which conveys that we can crush terrorism and its domination. C. Mass revolutionary self-organization, social self-direction here and now.

Of course, if immediacy is not applied to the proposition itself, i.e. if the proposition is not manifested in practice, then the term of immediacy is false and the proposition loses its validity. The anarchist program does not wait for elections, some definitive insurrection or a universal ecumenical assembly and consensus to be implemented. It is from their immediate revolutionary deed that anarchist proposals derive their crystal clear and unparalleled truth and, incidentally, their social force.

The particularly great difficulties and the heavy tasks of the anarchist struggle derive from the same point. To fight today, cutting all bridges with the old world. This is what consistency to immediacy means. For a century and a half now the anarchist movement has built a legacy of paradigms of self-sacrificing immediacy. Its history and its truth have brought it to the strongest position of influence among the currents of resistance within the capitalist metropolis in the last half century.

Nevertheless, the rejection of intermediate stages in which established political conditions prevail, rejection which implies allowing for the direct responsibilities to be determined and scrutinized by the struggling subjects, is open to interpretations that are blatantly contradictory to the duty of immediacy and to the determination of any common criterion of consistency. Undoubtedly, the commitment to the immediacy of the social purpose makes the responsibilities vis a vis the objective conditions of domination, exploitation, extermination, etc., heavier and more radical; far from being relativistic or fragmentary and negligible. The ideology of “freedom of choice” between fields and forms of struggle is a cover for a self-serving conservatism, which, being uncommitted to any immediate duty with regards to the class-political conditions, tends to attribute a minimum of radicalism or even reactionary stances in its association with the class or political frontier (e.g. in relation to the Palestinian resistance). Where bourgeois conventions do not apply, there it becomes apparent whether the refusal of intermediate conventional goals is an expression of direct struggle and a commitment to march to the completion of the struggle or an idealistic evasion.

The ideology of “freedom of choice” is also projected deceptively with seemingly serious political terms by collective subjects who present themselves as advocates of robust organization: practical and programmatic commitments that are fundamental in the aforementioned terms of immediacy are respectively called tactics and strategies that are optional according to circumstances. This ideological modesty manifests itself precisely where circumstances are the product of conservative fixation on underlying weaknesses.

The culmination of this deconstructive relativism is the common use of the natural consequence of the consistency between ends and means (renamed as an anarchist ‘principle’), in order to claim inaction due to the condition about not violating the ‘principles’. Like the hypocrisy of the religious zealots, it doesn’t matter if you do what is necessary or you do nothing against the savagery of authority and the tragedy of the times, as long as you do nothing that falls into or resembles the political practices of the politically intermediate stages. In this normative context the ideologically safest option is to do nothing.

The evasions from the heavy tasks of immediacy confirm the reactionary denunciation of anarchism as a utopian political current. In the historical flow of the struggle, however, it is subversive acts, not unarmed declarations, that count more.

1. From the book by Raúl Zibechi, Dispersing Powers: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces (AK Press, 2010)
2. Umberto Tomazini, The Anarchist Blacksmith, ed. Eutopia, Athens 2024
3. The platformist organizations UNIPA and OPAR in their project have analyzed the historical reversal of the
   accusation about utopianism and the opportunist motive of Marxist utopianism.
   (https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/documentos/documentos-internacionais/)
4. https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1592926/

Received by email

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=16848

For a year now, every person on the planet who is not indifferent or excluded from the general forms of information, when they hear this date, they automatically associate it with a specific event of historical significance. And yet, all this time, apart from the Palestinian resistance, only the NATO imperialists and their subordinates have been referring to this date, in the terms of counter-revolution, the narratives of “counter-terrorism”, in order to exonerate the genocide of a revolted people. The testimony of resistance creates in immediate time the continuity of living memory, relaying and extending the power of revolutionary experience. Against this experience stand the narratives which take a distance from the testimony of the resistance subject, as well as the silence that, like a threateningly insidious command, objectively established, attempts to eliminate the historical intrusions of those revolutionary initiatives that are subversive for the rulers’ order. The silence about the world-changing initiative of October 7 is an irrevocably guilty readjustment of the narratives that then equated, in their capitulated consciousness, the revolution with the counter-revolution, describing two monsters in contrast to which the metaphysical “good” evaluates itself. Of course, this need to disassociate oneself from the inevitably violent revolutionary rupture into the standstill of history, is an expression of subservience to the militaristic and ideological totalitarianism of capital. Has the ideological obliteration of October 7 and of the organized armed Palestinian resistance produced a struggle? Yes, it has produced a protest movement against the NATO war machine, demanding the appeasement of the monster we aroused on October 7. Not by coincidence, the idealistic protest has had zero effect on the progress of the war.

If we speak from the point of view of the resistance today, we have a responsibility to speak through the living presence of October 7. How can we advance the revolutionary struggle by forgetting its historical achievements? How can we fight today, if we put a lid on what the resistance is achieving as we speak? Speaking through the resistance, its entire concurrent and historical experience speaks right here. Revolutionary testimony always has the tone of speaking in first person. It may, for the sake of accuracy, use third person for acts in which the bearer of the testimony was not directly active, and third person for general statements, but the voice of the testimony participates in a collective subjectivity that permeates the Earth and history. Third person interpretations, with the veneer of some third way or no way to freedom, comprise, in the here and now, counter-revolutionary fatalism with political assertions. Even before we talk about the actual struggle, in opting between first or the third person for doing so, lies the conflict between revolutionary popular testimony and counter-revolutionary domination. October 7 has shed plenty of light on the historical/evolutionary wall, after breaking through the wall of the imperialist-colonial prison. The political subjects who stayed behind the breach cannot speak from the perspective of the resistance (literally and not because of a supposed prohibition by revolutionary ethics). Those who broke the barrier did it for all of us. Anyone who wants to escape from the capitalist theocracy to be in the revolutionary flow must break down the walls he/she maintains.

Before October 7, for years, Palestine was finished for the imperialist metropolis, and also for the left and the anti-authoritarian movement. The m-l (tn: Marxists-Lenininsts) and a part of workerist libertarian Marxism that continued to refer to the Palestinian resistance were considered obsessive and dated. In current time, the international line of struggle was unable to go further than denouncing the apartheid in terms of liberal humanism. On October 7, dead Palestine returned in terms more revolutionary than ever before and shook up the Earth. Gaza was a closed field of genocidal terror because its people had chosen (or tolerated, it doesn’t matter) the government of a party that resisted the colonialists. On a different scale of size and time, Gaza’s resistance, the breaking of the wall and the subsequent razing Gaza to the ground, is reminiscent of the organized escape of Red Army Jews from the Sobibor extermination camp 80 years ago. Despite the success of the operation, very few survived at the time. The Nazis then dismantled the camp, to erase from history the point of revolutionary breach of the Holocaust. And today the losses are not counted in numbers, but the resistance has been victorious from day one.

October 7 demonstrated that the way out of the historical zionist and imperialist program of extermination of the Palestinian people, can only be revolutionary. The terrible technocratic scarecrow of imperialist domination collapsed as its colonial base was breached and exposed to resistance, for the first time radically. On October 7, the Palestinian resistance launched an organized mass offensive and took over the military bases and fascist settlements in the area of the frontal zone where the wall was breached. It was an operation of military neutralization, i.e. focused on neutralizing the enemy’s military power. The capture of colonists, which in social terms is a perfectly just and lenient means of resistance, was the link in the chain of the revolutionary battle. It was publicly demonstrated by numerous documents and testimonies from the colonists themselves that the resistance operation not only did not have characteristics antagonistic to its liberating political purpose, but was carried out with discipline in the use of the minimum necessary force.

The first reaction of the colonial army was to implement the standing order to exterminate the captured colonists, but also those who simply were present in places occupied by the Palestinian guerrillas. Combat helicopters and tanks bombed and burned down their own settlements, as well as many from the obscene rave party, in order for the colonialists to avoid negotiating from a position of weakness. The cannibalistic directive demonstrates that the state prefers to exterminate the last, most sectarian and discriminating shred of its humanity in order not to lose a single shred of its power. For bourgeois ideology, as for its set of laws in particular, the preemptive, blind extermination of its own citizens and soldiers is an unspeakable crime, a taboo1, because whatever contradictions and exceptions it invokes, it thoroughly abolishes its axiomatic foundations, both in the historical and logical dimensions. Despite the overwhelming documentation of the widespread application of this directive, the liberal and leftist zionist opposition has been unwilling to do anything more to defend its own colonial community against a self-destructive political regime, other than peaceful protests. The imperialists, their transnational institutions and their humanitarian organizations have legitimized the taboo by imposing absolute silence. This alone shows that the bourgeoisie consciously prefers and remains ready to exterminate all humanity rather than give up its power. Once again in history, it crudely demonstrates this.

One year later, how many of those who profess solidarity with the Palestinian people, who hasted to reproduce the counter-revolutionary propaganda about massacres and rapes, have apologized? What do they say today about the unspeakable torture, the shootings of pregnant women and children at the hands of their mothers and the rapes committed by the entire colonial army, systematically, with a political program and general consent from its fascist state? They are silent, if not continuing to belittle the crime of colonialism and thus protect it by equating it with the “crime” of armed resistance.

The revolutionary operation of October 7 had a horizon far beyond the first invasion; it was not a leap without a tomorrow. The resistance was ready for a long war, knowing the automatism of the arrogance of the zionists and imperialists and their excessive savagery. The breach of the colonial fortress was the necessary provocation for the spiraling down and collapse of the colonial army and subsequently of the entire colonial formation and imperialist planning, within the organized resistance trap, the Gaza fort. The capture of colonists was not intended to prevent counter-revolutionary counter-attack. Could the experienced Palestinian resistance invest in a conservative war measure? The captured colonists were the symbolic point that chained colonial arrogance to the trap. In the ultimate place of exclusion where the crucial battle has been fought for a year, the resistance stronghold stands defiant and the Palestinian people strong, the colonial system has been humiliated and its fascist polity has collapsed in a rapid dynamic of disintegration. The resistance holds the initiative, October 7 continues. Those who froze behind the broken wall have nowhere to stand today.

The Palestinian resistance of October 7, revealing the unlimited inhumanity of the imperialist system and its zionist gendarme, has awakened the broadest movement of internationalist solidarity of the last decades and especially the broadest solidarity in the history of the Palestinian struggle. The liberal fundamentalists who in October ’23 were whitewashing the road of zionist genocide by proclaiming that the Islamification of the resistance has isolated it from international solidarity, were proved wrong. In order to denounce the present resistance, an attempt is made to gentrify its history. If the Palestinian resistance is today capable of carrying out purely military operations and showing clemency to the butchers of its people, it has done so because, when it was necessary to take roots politically, surrounded by ruthless tyrants, it took up the responsibility of the provocation, with hijackings, the attack on the zionist mission of the Munich Olympics, etc. The whole history of the Palestinian resistance was condensed to a new level on October 7 and is moving forward with courage and faith until liberation, having once again dispelled fatalism. Memory is as vivid as the act of resistance. So today we inhabit the rift that we opened on October 7. As a comrade said 30 years ago, bringing to an assembly the example of our relationship with the Palestinian resistance, if you are traveling by plane and there is a hijack, you cannot say, “I am an anarchist, I am with you, let me get off”. We will go all the way together. As RAF taught us with its martyrs, the flight to the capitalist metropolis takes off from the ultimate places and in the ultimate ways.

EVERY DAY AND EVERYWHERE OCTOBER 7

PALESTINE, KURDISTAN, INTIFADA SERHILDAN

The Lebanese communist revolutionary, George Ibrahim Abdallah has spent 40 years in the captivity of the imperialists. On the 7th of October 2024 the french state will examine a new demand for his release, which is pending since last year. If on the 7th of October the french state does not release Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, it will have effectively taken responsibility, with the participation of its left wing, for the genocide of the Palestinian people and the terrorist antisocial attack against Lebanon.

From the streets, the guerrilla forts and the prisons we shout, FREEDOM to the unrelenting sun of resistance Georges Ibrahim Abdallah.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Septembre 2024

1Let us not forget that the preventive blind mass extermination of a regime’s own citizens was attempted to be legitimized by the imposition of biotechnological vaccination for Sars-CoV-2 on an ideological framework of statistical epidemiology.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/07/what-we-did-on-7-october-2023/

I can imagine many people resenting the term Palestinian revolution when reading the title of this article. Some have already written that revolution is one thing and resistance is another, that war is one thing and liberation is another. I chose this title, being literal, precisely because it would be provocative. Let us be open to any dialogue, knowing that the first thing that is at issue is the definition of the subject. In times of war, any political discourse is a polemic act. War is not a choice, it is not a means among other means, as statist positivism and its projections on the anti-authoritarian pretexts for capitulation assert; it is the incessant class condition in which we find ourselves and through which we liberate ourselves. Every phrase that has been uttered in the last 20, 50, hundreds and thousands of years flutters on the broken Gaza wall or hangs in the rubble of the city, among the dismembered children. If the well-meaning movement researchers who have produced numerous analyses of the class and social background of the Greek revolution of 1821 find it difficult to recognize the Palestinian revolution as such, this says something about their euroelitism and nationalism. As for those who deny resistance to colonialism and imperialism, as well as its revolutionary potential, by juxtaposing the “essential” antithesis of capital-labor, the totality or molecularity, today we can say that their abstractions and confines are filled with the stench of the carnivorous capitalist North. The thoughtless adoption of the dogmatic social-democratic scholasticism suggests a blind consumption of intellectualism, self-indulging in ideological garbage. If I pay you a regular salary, the relationship is class-based. But if I take your land to build a work camp or a prison, then not only the relationship is not class-based, but it is subordinate to that, even if I put you in the camp on a salary or put you in prison! If I put you up against the prison wall and shoot you, the relationship is not class-based, it is “essentially” indifferent outside of its interpretation into a monetary relationship. If I lock you up in the prison that I built by stealing your land, if I control your survival resources and bomb you day and night, the relationship is not class-based and the relation of power cannot be changed until the labor relation is universally and completely dismantled. This kind of idiocy goes around as scholastic proletarian theory.

We have entered the evolutionary phase of capitalist civilization where it is materialized as a total synchronic crisis and where every tick of the clock reveals the positioning of every political subject on the side of revolution or on the side of counter-revolution. All antitheses are condensed, they intersect and are confounded towards the maximum and the minimum and in the explosive way that they emerge they express their complexity. The anti-capitalist movement is shaped within this vortex, it does not stand still in some idealized apathetic position of an overseer. It is therefore traversed by the whole set of intersections, confusions and complexities. The war waged by the statist public health control revealed a deep rift in the anti-capitalist movement, the imperialist war in the Ukrainian territory revealed other rifts, which literally culminate into war. The revolutionary counterattack inside the territory of the zionist colonialist rule, illuminated the most fundamental rift within the movement. If we can schematically say that the first rupture concerned the fractional scope of imperialist colonialism over the social body and the second one concerned revolutionary autonomy in conditions where military rule, as fundamental to capitalism, is unveiled, then the Palestinian rupture concerns the very point of the history of capitalism and its destruction. The unfulfilled crusade of colonizing the Eurasian East (prior to the complete colonization of Africa and of the continent westward to Europe) reappears as a historically inescapable and globally universal definitive question. Incidentally, wage slavery, on which the capitalist mode of production is founded, emerged and prevailed in Europe through the colonialist war to the east (in particular, from the data so far it appears that the prime organism where the prevalence of the wage relation was incubated was crusading Venice).

The historical moment of the dissemination of CoV-2 and the culmination of the anti-health imperialist counter-revolution, through its militaristic and bio-technocratic experiment of the universal vaccination, brought to the fore the class and political subjectivity of the human body, i.e. the most elementary organic unit of human existence and society, making it the target of a totalitarian colonial campaign. Imperialist terrorism attempted to establish itself in new depths of primitive accumulation and to restructure all existing power relations with the guiding principle of the liquidation, expulsion and purging of surplus labour. This coincided with the powerful manifestation of the Black Revolt in so-called America and of the women’s revolt globally, the living subject of the history of slavery and capitalist colonization of the Earth. The war of state sanitation introduced a historically innovative regime of perpetual state of emergency, which through bio-politics gave primacy to militaristic terms of domination and to the ideology and morality that derives from that. The counter-revolutionary offensive, in the form of the emergency regime, within the metropolises of Euro-Atlantic imperialism, continued in relation to the war in the Ukrainian-Russian space and now continues in relation to the war in Palestine (the Chinese counter- revolution continues on the first axis). It is no coincidence that the Israeli techno-stratocracy is a pioneer in the production and export of technology and methodology of control and repression, of fascist organization and politics, of biotechnology, digital integration and post-humanist fiction ideology. It should be noted that Israeli fascism imposed universal compulsory biotechnological vaccination of its citizens. Zionist colonialism fuses on the one hand traditional religious totalitarianism and racism, and on the other hand the fundamentalist governmentalist and mechanistic mentality of the bourgeoisie, the theocracy of capital and its technocratic mysticism. That is why Israeli colonialism today is demonstrating worldwide, on behalf of the Western Empire, the might of its terrorism with unprecedented intensity.

In the ideological battle within the international movement, which of course expresses contradictory and now increasingly antagonistic tendencies on the line of conflict between revolution and counter- revolution, what emerges as a central rift is the koinonismos (1) of counter-revolution. In particular, the koinonismos of imperialism and more specifically the koinonismos of imperialist social democracy. In correlation to this, anti-imperialist social fascism reappears as a problem. In the Greek movement the concept of koinonismos has been defined as the internalization of the pervasive ideology of the regime by the social movement. I reinstate it here with a reverse definition, which, without negating what is historically recorded, it puts the title of social in the right causal relation: the social ground and the social relation are not constructed by power, but on the contrary, power pillages their material, their name and their value, in order to return them to the subjects, having reconstructed them with the necessary divisions. This rift concerns the underlying anti-proletarian, anti-social and counter-revolutionary roots of making a separation from the aggressive initiative of the Palestinians, from their Islamic vanguard, from the unholy revolutionary means, from the open class war, from anti-imperialist resistance, from the national identities of the global South, from the prevalence of faith over survival, from the devaluation of the ideological and normative claims and rhythms of the bourgeois positivism internalized in the movements of the North, etc.

The koinonismos of counter-revolution is defined by the class and political frontier that the ruling class erects against the savage proletariat, which in the historical narrative is presented as uncivilized and in politics as terrorist. The koinonismos of imperialism has as its central axes the peace of Christian ecumenism and bourgeois liberalism with its modern ecumenism. The peace of God presupposes the sovereignty of the crusading sword. Imperialist socialism, by demanding the disarmament of the ‘uncivilized’ in order for a peace to be recognized, expresses its militaristic totalitarianism. Let’s not forget that even when Euro-Atlantic imperialism declared war on Russian nationalism, it called Russian nationalism uncivilized and collectively criminalized Russian culture (arts, sports, history…).

The common joint of imperialist koinonismos is the Law of Empire, developed on a global model, in transnational conventions (treaties) and transnational institutions. The sword of peace of the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition is surrounded by legal trinkets and supposedly collective mediations. Around the slaughterhouse, the real class conditions of political warfare (military, biopolitical, moral-social) imperialist koinonismos bombards with a totalitarian morality, founded on the given biopolitical class divisions. Not only is not every death or freedom of every person measured equally, but more specifically, the more intense the class or political factors that determine a person’s life chances and local rights, the more necessary and just for the political economy of capital is the intensification of their oppression or even their killing.

In examining the ideological conflict around the Palestinian revolution, I will use as a model of reference the first statement of Syriza after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, because it contains in three sentences all the basic ideological points of imperialist social democracy that have been internalized in the anti-capitalist movement.

“SYRIZA unequivocally condemns today’s Hamas attack against Israel, calls for its immediate end and expresses its solidarity with the people of Israel. The ongoing violence by all sides in the region, is a threat to any prospect of resolving the differences and is brutally affecting the security and rights especially of civilians, Israelis and Palestinians. We stand firmly in favour of the immediate resumption of credible bilateral talks for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the capital of the Palestinian state being the city of east Jerusalem.”

Let us distinguish the ideological points that form the positions of imperialist social democracy:

1. Condemnation of the attack against the occupier’s national body inside its fort. This condemnation is the most basic position statement within the war. Various people try to convince that the condemnation of violence or of state violence from either side places them in a third position, morally and politically superior. The global proletariat understands, today as a whole, that the condemnation of the real military victory of the Palestinians is an expression of solidarity with imperialist koinonismos and thus a statement of consent to the extension of genocide, stronger than any tearful protest against it by the very subjects who condemn the attack.

In many statements, the condemnation, in its support, invokes the particular religious identity of the political organization that carried out the attack on the colonial fortress. This dogmatic demonization of Islam is identical with the fundamentalism of the crusades, which permeates conservative ideologies of capitalist times and culminates in imperialist/colonial elitism. Those who have been quick to denounce the religious character of Hamas identify with Netanyahu in his position that “we are the light, they are the darkness”. Koinonismos, the most subservient to imperialism, immediately assimilated the propaganda about rapes and massacres of civilians and children as if these practices, which characterize state warfare in general, are automatically derived from the Islamic identity of the resistance organization. The anti- theocratic guise of political condemnation is itself an attack on faith that transcends the carnal lust and fears of the bourgeois citizen, an attack on social morality that puts individualist autarchy under question, an attack on the collective and transcendentalist psyche that dismantles utilitarian positivism.

The ideological lackeys who, disgusted from the resistance’s attack joined the chorus of the liberal crusade, forgot that Hamas is the elected government of the marginal colonial territories, which was arbitrarily denied its bourgeois-democratic authority. The genocidal blockade of Gaza began in 2007, when Hamas ousted Fatah coup plotters, at whose hands the struggling Palestinians had been infamously tortured. Liberal fundamentalism, which sets up a la carte democracies, with coups, terrorism and mass purges, calls the “uncivilized” people fascists, whenever its bribery doesn’t work. The goal is the condemnation of their extended political autonomy.

Hamas was of no interest to the luminaries of imperialist social democracy during the years when the unrecognized Hamas government was tolerated by the colonialists, as it was managing the biopolitical and economic plight of the people of Gaza due to its total blockade. Once it breached the blockade, its militaristic armor and the security of its national reproduction, imperialist social democracy felt the need to join in denouncing the virtual hideous monster.

2. Recognition of the settlers and their genocidal state as a people. Subsequently, expressing solidarity with the colonialist organization. Only statism ascribes the concept of people to a state that is ethnically homogeneous. From the socio-revolutionary point of view, the popular always defines itself in class terms. The militarist colonists never and nowhere constituted a people. All Israelis are settlers because, in contrast to their abstract historical locality, their actual settlement, residence and expansion in the biblical land is by direct and continuous ethnic cleansing of another locality. If we were talking about the United States, only white fascists consider white Americans a distinct people. There is an Israeli nation, but it is not a people. The people of the Israeli state are the Palestinians, the hunted natives. Israeli citizens become a people to the extent that they betray their nation and fight with the Palestinian people. We will see this in a moment in their own words.

A side note, invoking the phantom Israeli people and expressing solidarity with this makes no class or political distinctions within the colonial nation. This phantom comes straight out of the most horrible statist nationalism, that is, colonialist nationalism. In any case, solidarity with the exploited classes of the colonial organism itself cannot possibly depend on submissiveness to its state of domination. On the contrary, class solidarity starts from the anti-colonial revolution, the social war for the destruction of the state-launching ground for imperialism.

The declarations of solidarity with the “Israeli people” are an invitation to complete the genocide of the Palestinians.

3. Condemnation of violence on both sides.

4. Focus on civilians and subjecting them to the imperialist conditions of rights and security. The focus on civilians completes the project of moral-ideological disarmament, depoliticization and passivization of the resisting people. At the same time that imperialism is blowing up the revolted prison of Gaza, it is also assuming the paternalistic responsibility of managing the survivors of genocide. More generally, the humanitarian infiltration of the transnational and parastatal (NGO) institutions of capital in the global South is paving the way for the formation of protectorate state institutions in the service of imperialism, with the assignment of managerial positions to collaborationists. We should note that the regional hegemonic powers are also playing in this field, always against the political autonomy and internationalist solidarity of the resisting people.

The external projection of the security claim as a primary need, annihilates the revolutionary needs of the people and extorts the recognition of the colonial interest, the security of its national fascist regime, as a universal need. The conclaves that hold the sword of imperialist peace can define the rights and the timeliness or untimeliness of their application. While international rights have been established in order to give the form of a contract to structural inequalities, the equation of the Palestinian people and of the zionist settlers under the category of ‘civilian’ legitimizes colonialism and currently justifies the attempt for a “final solution” for the sake of the security of the genocidal organization, i.e. total ethnic cleansing through genocide.

5. Proposing the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories that remained unconquered until 1967. On this point, libertarian imperialist social democracy is differentiated from the statist leftist social-democracy in terms of theoretical formulations and working field. However, they meet on the basic point of the relationship with the colonial state. Left social democracy expresses the imminent imperialist project of annihilating the Palestinian resistance and imposing on the wreckage of Gaza a collaborationist regime based on the experience of the Abbas management, who is an agent of the years-long ethnic cleansing. Libertarian social democracy, with a kind of Jesuit elitism and hypocrisy, advocates the fraternity of the exploited Palestinians and Israeli “peoples” or “societies”, without the destruction of the colonial state. I note that the workerist position that attributes the capacity for overthrowing the Israeli capitalist state formation exclusively to the Israeli working class, validates colonial nationalism and even lends it with an ideological envelope of pure national socialism (Nazism). Nothing new, Mussolini started out as a leftist and zionist settlers too, with strong socialist, workerist and communitarian roots.

All the ideological points of imperialist social democracy except the last one are replacing political polemics with a biopolitical ethics and managerial lingo. The biopolitical discourse objectifies existential experience in order to strip it of its class history and political subjectivity. Biopolitical ethics defines what violence is in order to exempt a set of capitalist-state practices from the category of violence and at the same time to criminalize resistance practices. Critical biopolitical ideology ratifies imperialism’s stripping of bodies of their collective identities and their resistance power. Vulnerability is transformed ideologically into an insurmountable anthropological condition, either as a class condition or as its weak consciousness. In this context, “civilians” become the central figures of the biopolitical narrative of war, with imperialist citizenship as their archetype of identification and measure of evaluation.

From a revolutionary point of view, the examination of experiences and the subordination of means to abstract ends that come from outside the immediate field of struggle is an ideological ploy to eliminate and replace the practical ends of direct resistance with the koinonistic ethics of the means, i.e. the anti-proletarian and counter-revolutionary values of the bourgeoisie, which reflect established inequalities. To judge the Palestinian resistance by the yardstick of anarchist or Marxist utopia is a project of ideological colonialism, but also of existential annihilation by the intelligentsia of dominant european humanism. Values that do not allow for taking sides with the existing resistance are values that are comfortable with the existing class slaughterhouse. In the offices where the fundamentalist critique on unholy means takes place, sits the Inquisition, which is certainly concerned with popular resistance, but only as an enemy. A Palestinian people separated from its armed struggle and its resistance organizations is the imaginary flock of the crusader church.

The Palestinian revolution awakens a multitude of questions of the international anti-capitalist movement, which are inevitably answered immediately by each one’s stance. I will only mention a few of these in which the class-political borders have already been drawn within the actual conflict, and then I will focus on the revolutionary lines given to us by the revolutionary anarchists from the ground of the conflict.

a. The identification of class relations in the actual composition of capitalist domination on a global scale. Who is an enemy and who is a friend at any particular point for the revolutionary anarchist movement? How is the distinction between direct and indirect political tasks concretized at each point, given anarchism’s characteristic historical stance of directly responding to the needs of our community as oppressed people, with the general perspective of freedom and equality? The most concrete answers, the only ones capable of bringing about alliance, immediacy and radical perspective, stem from the direct struggle of the subjects involved. This observation confirms the anarchist claim to the political autonomy of all resistance.

b. The correlation of ends and means. A question that many anarchists falsely and arrogantly declare that anarchism has solved, unlike the statist political currents. Whenever the class conflict brings this question to the fore, as did the revolutionary initiative on October 7, all those who claim to have answered this question without having a revolutionary organization on the ground, can and do validate their ideological position in only one way: by separating themselves from revolutionary action.

c. The strategic treatment of the relations between imperialism, the state and the social revolution.

d. The political mediation of the resistance. Here I am not referring to the mediation of the Palestinian movement by the Palestinian political organizations, the surrounding state or, more generally, political-military forces and the international imperialist institutions. The Palestinian people have felt on their own flesh the exploitative and usually treacherous attitude of the Arab and Islamic states. One sees no friends in the UN and in the various imperialist political interventions. Here I am referring to the ideological and political mediation of antagonistic positions of the international movement on behalf of the Palestinian movement. In particular, it is important within the internationalist movement, to deal with the internalized imperialist koinonismos and also with anti-imperialist social fascism, from the point of view of their colonialist political authoritarianism against the autonomy of the Palestinian revolution. In the sphere of political mediation which cancels the field of struggle itself, belongs also the usual koinonistic address to an imaginary apathetic mass as if it constituted the political public of resistance. The political public of resistance is of course the movements themselves, from their organic processes (and their collaborations) to the militant frontier of their development.

The confusion has spread to the internationalist movement. A simple example is the confrontation
within the anti-fascist football club St.Pauli. The critical response (2) of the local clubs to the club’s pro-Israeli statement sharply reproduced the positions of imperialist social democracy. An exception was the message of the Turkish club, a few days later, which highlighted the historical unity of the anti-colonial and anti- racist struggle. The radical position came from the key borderland between the global North and the global South. I will focus below on the first statement (3) of the Anarchist Federation of Afghanistan-Iran, because of the intensity of its reactionary positions, its locality in a place of struggle (Middle East, Kurdistan), and in connection to this because of its internal contradictions. In contrast, I will examine the social-fascist positions that present themselves as anti-imperialist. The last critical reference will focus on conspiratorial (4) positions.

The entirety of the ideological positions of imperialist social democracy have been eloquently and succinctly answered by the Palestinian refugee Nidal Khalaf in his intervention, “On ‘pro-Palestinian’ hypocrisy.” (5) I will only summarize at this point, but anyone who continues reading this text should read the aforementioned article as if it were interjected here. I adopt every word of it, considering it sufficient to deconstruct the scarecrows of imperialist koinonismos. N. Khalaf, after stating from the outset that “Israel” is a colonial entity created and existing as an advance military base for Western imperialism, makes it clear that a war is being waged with colonialism and that it is not a border or religious dispute. He then goes on to denounce pro-colonial pacifism and collaborationist case of the two-state solution, the condemnation of violence and international law. He explains that the western value systems underlying the allegedly friendly critique of the Palestinian resistance, exist due to and for the sake of imperialist genocide. According to the Palestinian refugee’s testimony, the real hypocrisy is not the imperialists’ policies and their propaganda, but the projection of a pro-Palestinian identity by subjects who conform to the western scheme of liberal values. The worst form of western hegemonism is the attempts at moral subjugation, which are condensed in the refusal to support the Palestinian resistance organizations. The article closes by returning back to the exponents of cultural imperialism the image of the dead civilian. The whole text decimates the ideological colonialism of imperialist koinonismos that is so internalized in the international movement.

I proceed to a political summary of the views expressed in two interviews by two anarchists from the field, one who spoke (6) on behalf of the Palestinian anarchist organization FAUDA and one with Israeli citizenship. (7) Political positions from reality, against the political mediation of imperialist koinonismos. As another testimony (8) from the refugee Palestinian diaspora notes: “There is plenty of temptation to wag fingers in the aftermath of the operation [of October 7], but surely that task is not the domain of academics and activists in the metropole. Nor should it be the priority of diaspora Palestinians (among whom I include myself). In our environs, filled with their own kind of hostility, the priority should be to defend Palestinians against the torment to which they have been subjected by the entire industrialized world. Among politicians, artists, celebrities, and intellectuals, Palestinians have no shortage of critics happy to cosign Zionist genocide. Those critiques don’t need or desire our validation, anyway. Abandoning our brethren in order to appease the Zionist establishment will deliver no accolades. In the end, the aspirant to respectability is left only with the shame of conciliation.

Palestinians are perfectly capable of formulating strategy and thinking through complex problems without the guidance of outsiders; they certainly don’t need half-baked moralism from dorks and social climbers in the West.”

The actual relationship between ends and means as testimonies from ground reveal, clarifies the issue of concretizing class-political relations and identifying enemies and friends. I begin with two quotes from the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. (9) “The Gaza Palestinians have decided they’re willing to pay any price for a moment of freedom.” Who would deny this cause and its consequences? “On Saturday, Israel saw pictures it has never seen before. Palestinian vehicles patrolling its cities, bike riders entering through the Gaza gates. These pictures tear away at that arrogance.” No consequence is capable of undoing the achieved unity of this cause and this means. The October 7 initiative drew a line of war, of revolution and counter-revolution in Gaza that defines the world in an inescapable way: you either tread on one hemisphere of the Earth or the other, either with the Palestinian revolution or with imperialist genocide. The word arrogance, couched as the self-consciousness of the colonial nation (self-consciousness can only ever be negative) dissolves the counter-revolutionary propaganda about innocent victims.

The comrade from FAUDA informs us that the common front of the Palestinian resistance under the same banner and with the common goal of liberation from zionism is a fundamental need and that their organization is fighting for the unity of the movement. It also points out the necessity of mobilizing the youth for this purpose. (10)

The comrade with Israeli nationality informs us that what characterizes the Palestinian resistance these days, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, is the common and broad fronts. Islamists, secularists, Marxists and even national-liberals, like some parts of Fatah, are fighting side by side. The immediate class and political frontier has been defined, the immediate revolutionary purpose has been defined, the practical consequences are inescapable.

The comrade, with their testimony, completes the revolutionary line by taking a radical stand at the rear of the colonial frontier. His words illuminate precisely what internationalist defeatism means. Already as he introduces himself he declares his place of birth, Haifa, as occupied Palestine and thus calls the occupation by its name, for all Palestinian land. Recognizing the anti-colonial resistance as the only revolutionary movement in the occupied territories and as the vanguard of any radical change, he declares his obligation to deny his Israeli identity, to become an enemy, a traitor to the colonial nation, to his “society” and to ally with the dispossessed. Here is a perception of class specific condition, of the specific consequences of ends and means. The comrade declares his duty to side with the oppressed, on their own terms and under their own leadership. And he notes on this that anarchism (11) gives him both the language and the tools to envision this politics. “For me, there is no ‘anarchist society’ to march towards, since we don’t have an end goal. I see anarchism as a resistance movement, an arsenal of tools for the oppressed all over the Earth to fight the present dystopia, and that is what attracts me to it.”

The comrade participated in the organization “Anarchists against the Wall” (now dissolved). Since the fall of the Berlin Wall to the present day, the walls between North and South have multiplied: Palestine, Mexico, Mediterranean, Evros (greek-turkish border), Kurdistan. The revolutionary initiative of October 7 was a powerful blow to the historical development of the global imperialist prison. The comrade from the settler hinterland explains that the idea of coexistence is a superficial show and that only by fighting against the wall did the two sides come together, not as enemies, but as fighters for the same purpose, comrades, co-conspirators and allies, on equal terms. “What Hamas did on Saturday, October 7, was to break the ghetto, both physically and symbolically. They broke the gates surrounding Gaza and reclaimed land inside Israel, positioning themselves as a force beyond their assigned role as the Gaza government. They put themselves at the forefront of the Palestinian liberation movement, directly decolonizing territory.” Class conditions, revolutionary consistency, ends, means, all crystal clear from the anarchist perspective that unites the oppressed in the war.

Let us return briefly to the question of defining the grid of class relations overall. Why is the anti-colonial struggle the key meeting point on both sides of the border? Why not the workers’ struggle, the anti-patriarchal struggle, etc.? Aside from the fact that the regime of national subordination and general exile in Palestine has implanted a condition of domination that superimposes the entirety of class relations there, the comrade points out an additional condition: the settler democracy allows everything, all kinds of radicalism, as long as it is committed to the zionist military rule.

I would like to make two comments on the information given to us by our comrades from Palestine. Both the relativist theory of the intersectional approach and the relativist theory of the abstract wage-relationship as a universal class identity, are incapable of dealing with the specific class needs and social currents that unite people in revolutionary struggle. This does not imply that the correct theory is the post- Leninist one that projects imperialism as the main antithesis in relation to which all other antitheses are indifferent. We will see this below. Direct action anarchism, even when aware of the various abstract theories of Marxist or sociological origin, goes beyond them, having at its disposal the wealth of knowledge offered by direct struggle. There are no issues that fall within a molecular sphere independent of class relations on a global scale, nor issues that fall within a mega-scale where relations are inevitably mediated by states. The scales are interrelated and the criticality of each antithesis is defined by the subjects of the resistance. There are contradictions that affect internationalist solidarity (e.g. Hamas’s links to the Turkish state and the ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories of Rojava) and direct contradictions that exclude any non polemic encounter (e.g. the participation of the working class and the queer community of the colonial Israeli nation in its war machine).

Many libertarians internationally are still investing in the working class of the colonialist establishment. Typical is the intervention of the Anarchist Communist Group of Melbourne (12) (11/10) which, while acknowledging the complicity of the majority of the Israeli working class and not expecting Jewish workers’ solidarity to be a major force in the near future, characterizes the targeting of Israeli workers as damaging. Although this intervention describes the Israeli state in real terms, pointing out that Israeli fascism is moving towards the “final solution”, it does not neglect the obligation to imperialist social democracy to condemn Hamas with a cultural shadow (abstractly “reactionary”) and to distance itself from the targeting of Israeli civilians. But why is equality in horror damaging, especially in a permanent condition where no other practice has been able to even remotely crack the arrogance of genocidal peace, as the Israeli writer D. Levi attests?

Both comrades from Palestine answered categorically to the questions put to them about workers’ solidarity: mass proletarian solidarity from within the colonialist entity towards the Palestinian people is an ideological ghost. The suggestion that the liberation of Palestine, and more broadly of the global South, from imperialist domination is dependent on the workers’ movement of the North, is a characteristic expression of imperialist social democracy, of the colonial capitalist conception of progress and its projection against the revolutionary class struggle. Without the direct struggle of the oppressed people, nothing else happens except the expansive reformism of genocide.

Immediately after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, the state of settler bosses detained the thousands of Palestinian workers who crossed from Gaza every day as if moving through a labour camp, tortured them and marked them with numbers. Some workers died from the torture. In what way did the settler workers express their solidarity? By continuing to enlist and work to murder 160 children of the uncivilized proletariat every day.

The popular movement of the citizens of the occupied colonial hinterland has a direct enemy and if it does not confront this enemy in a way proportional to the intensity and depth of the current nationalist offensive, it will leave the nationwide responsibility of Israelis for the culmination of the genocide intact. War with zionist fascism which suppresses even the slightest questioning of the “final solution” and which devalues even the Israeli hostages and their protesting relatives, must be internalized in the Israeli nation. During the Nazi occupation of Europe, Italian and German antifascists found a way to stand in solidarity with the peoples in the conquered lands and to put antifascist resistance into practice: they defected to the partisans. This was the clearest manifestation of proletarian internationalism.

Of course, the preconditions for solidarity to the Palestinian resistance are not put forth by the anti-nationalist anti-colonial movement of the colonial entity, which has expressed understanding for the loss of its own people in the revolutionary attack of October 7, but by the imperialist social democracy. The same fascism, especially its antiproletarian-counterrevolutionary expressions, must be confronted in the imperialist hinterland, such as the capitalists’ terrorism against the workers of Starbucks (13) or against Harvard students in the USA and the military rule in the streets of Europe.

As various people attempt to contrast the Kurdish Freedom Movement with the Palestinian movement, doing in this way great disservice to internationalist solidarity, let me remind that the internationalist connection of the PKK with the revolutionary proletarian movement in the turkish territory is the HBDH ( Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement) the front of the Turkish armed revolutionary organizations with the PKK.

Those who say that “resistance, uprisings and revolutions will either be social/class or nothing”, denying the class and social nature of the Palestinian resistance and the class and social elements of the political self-determination of the resistance organizations, are aiding the imperialist genocide. Their “nothing” is a gleeful applause for the cultural and physical ethnic cleansing of the oppressed who stray from the fundamentalist lines of colonial socialism. After all, the ideological totalitarianism of “All or Nothing” always comes to nothing anyway. (14)

Speaking of workers’ struggle, when the FAUDA comrade was asked about the possibility of a new general strike of Palestinians like in 2021, he replied that although it is not a trivial and useless practice, the struggle today has gone beyond this level. The situation and experience prove the necessity of armed struggle. The interdependence of means and ends is not deduced from some abstract interpretation of the conflict (e.g. workerism), nor from a mechanistic projection of abstractions onto practice. Even the purely economic struggle, as we move away from the reformism of the workers’ aristocracy, requires armed ways of protecting itself against military and penal repression, strike-breaking and anti-union terrorism (e.g. in the greek territory today). The political strike sharply raises the level of conflict. And finally, the whole historical experience of the workers’ movement showcases that the labor camp is a base for self-organization and for venturing into the struggle, but not a place of militant power, when the bourgeoisie is ready to extend its military means beyond limits.

The class conflict in Palestine reveals the hypocrisy of the ideological distinction, founded on an anti-armed struggle stance, between organized vanguardism and spontaneous insurrection, a construct propagated in the libertarian movement by the situationist lackeys of counter-revolution. Many political texts claiming the title of solidarity with Palestine, call for or wish for the emergence of an uprising in the image of the 1st Intifada, as opposed to the current military conflict. These vulgar euro-elitists, who pretend to be the generals of the correct ways of rebellion, underestimate the Palestinian people, as if they were not already rebellious, as if they were not involved in the resistance in a thousand ways, as if they cannot judge for themselves what the right ways are, and with no sense of responsibility, push a line of disarmament and non-organization within the slaughterhouse, only to promote the doctrine of their political subservience to the military rule’s monopoly, as the genuine liberal colonialists that they are.

On the actual ground, Gaza, the quality and size of the war production of the Palestinian resistance shows, in real terms, what the historical evolution of social horizontality means. Both the arsenal and infrastructure of resistance, with their particular characteristics within specific cultural and political conditions, express the breadth and depth of creative participation and social cohesion in relation to the conflict with colonialism. The main weapons of resistance are improvised. To manufacture the available quantity of rockets and various explosive devices required a huge amount of work. In addition, it required working space and an equally vast transport network. Even more work was needed to build the underground forts, which serve almost all the activities of the combative forces, and not only their cover at the time of close combat. In other words, this is an infrastructure project that serves far more needs than the classic concrete forts, such as those of the Maginot and Metaxa lines, with all the work being done underground and in incomparable territorial density. Additional work was required to ensure that all work was done invisibly and that no information would leak, within a geographically tiny space, overrun by people and which comprises the world model for technocratic surveillance and espionage.

None of these tasks, in the given guerrilla warfare conditions, could have be done for 30 pieces of silver or under gunpoint. Only volunteers with credibility for their dedication to the cause could accomplish this feat. A pan-popular army of unparalleled cohesion density, with no historical precedent, prepared the counterattack against the zionist class enemy and the long war of attrition. The conditions demanded an unprecedented density in the unity of social and armed resistance, and the revolted Palestinian people brought the evolution of humanity towards social self-direction one step further. A step further within the tightest universal prison, a step over an abyss that had to be bridged for us all to move forward, lest we be swallowed up by the history of capitalist and state rule.

In order to carry out the multidimensional program of the aforementioned work, improvisation was needed at all scales, in all phases. It is impossible for a structure of tight vertical direction to carry out all the interdependent productive objectives in the given conditions. It may be difficult for the individualist mentality that permeates part of the anti-capitalist movement to grasp the concept of coordinated self organization, its radicalism and its evolutionary force, but the revolutionary people are putting it into practice. I will not tire of saying it, the historical evolution of guerrilla struggle is the main natural field of development of the fractionally synthetic autonomy of the human animal, because it aims at its liberation from its cultural cannibalism and has developed explosively in the capitalist era, which has unified humanity in a negative way.

At this point we must note something that the guerrilla organization of the Kurdish Freedom Movement constantly emphasizes: capitalist technology is not capable of defeating determined resistance. The self-sacrifice, cooperativeness and resourcefulness of social resistance are capable of annihilating all the mechanical means of the enemy, its one-dimensional way of organizing and its inherent predisposition to take precautions by increasing distances and obstacles. Victory over modern industrial warfare depends on appropriate tactics, strategy and logistics, but it derives, like guerrilla tactics, strategy and logistics, from the moral forces and collective intelligence of the revolutionary people. Hamas has developed homemade rockets into precision guided systems and has expanded its arsenal with effective portable anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile systems, also of its own design. The ideological dogma that considers the proletariat capable only of tearing up bricks of the pavements, is a vile insult to the working class. If euro-elitism cannot understand that beneath the soil of Gaza a temple of popular culture has been built, catacombs that cut the legs off the modern empire, and if it cannot comprehend insurrection beyond setting up barricades with rubbish bins, it is because of insufficient imagination, but more fundamentally, because of insufficient determination.

Horizontalism is not a question of preference of certain closed communities, but a question of breaking down class relations, political heteronomy, all inequalities and especially the conditions of polemic power on which they are based. By what yardstick would horizontality be measured if, while the community of the oppressed filled the coffins, the masters stood unmoved like the columns of the Parthenon?

The authoritarian critique to the means of insurrection, a critique that is certainly directed against the insurrection itself, attempts to define what is ‘of the peoples’, in the way that bio-political critique validates totalitarian rule and its genocides by abolishing political self-determination. The juxtaposition of the 1st Intifada against the armed Palestinian resistance, by recognizing an uprising as popular only when unorganized and unarmed masses are involved, denies the people their status when they organize, arm themselves and try to fight back on as equal terms as possible. This reverse insurrectionalism is no different, neither in political position nor in morality, from the imperialists’ sarcastic statements, “We are against Hamas, not against the Palestinian people”, at the same time that they have unleashed their gendarme to slaughter the rebellious people. In the real conditions of Palestine (and beyond), denying the popular essence of armed resistance means not only to agree with the liquidation of armed resistance, but also, to give masked consent to genocide, since the separation of Hamas from the Palestinian people is precisely the pretext for the dehumanization of the entire Palestinian people, who have been branded as the “shield of terrorists”. He who holds the weapons defines the scope of the hostility. The movements that denounce the armed popular resistance of Palestine have nothing to offer up against the imperialist total massacre, that is being advertised live as the upcoming political management of the entire global South. To settle for throwing a rock or two, not to strike at those who ensure their well-being through displacement and genocide, but instead to implore them for humanity. The means do not tell us what the end is, but they do tell us what it is not. The separation of armed struggle from insurrection is certainly not a friend of Palestine, it is not a friend of political autonomy, nor of social liberation; it cannot go beyond the vortex of serfdom to military rule.

Unfortunately, calls for non-organization and disarmament are also heard from collectives active around the Kurdish revolutionary movement. How do they forget from one announcement to the next, the armed struggle in Rojava? Have they not understood the decisive contribution of the PKK’s party-popular guerrilla movement in the development of the entire movement over half a century? Have they never heard of the declared People’s Revolutionary War and the unity of its four fields: guerrilla, youth and women’s uprising, direct social self-defense and socialist workers’ movement? Have they overlooked the account of the battle of Heftanin (2020) and the evolution of its lessons in the three-year all-out war that followed in the Medya Defense Zones? Today’s Kurdish guerrilla resistance promotes itself as a model for the whole world.

Let’s see what the comrade from the colonial hinterland has to say about the issue of diffuse struggle: “Dana El-Kurd, a Palestinian academic, in her book ‘Polarized and Demobilized- Legacies of Authoritarianism in Palestine’ makes the argument that the Palestinian struggle is not only anti-colonial, but also anti-authoritarian in its roots. During the days of the first Intifada, Palestinians had a vibrant civil society, spontaneously organizing local committees to coordinate struggle, and address the needs of local communities. This uprising was democratic in its nature, and was fought against the will of the PLO. Even within the PLO, as Edward Said argues in his book ‘The Question of Palestine’, the structure was organized in a very democratic way, with internal discussions and open criticism, in complete contrast to politics in the Arab world, an area filled with reactionary regimes and self-appointed dictators and out of touch monarchs. The Palestine liberation movement was always the most democratic and progressive movement in the region, and inspired many other anti-authoritarian movements and uprisings, some of them we saw during the Arab Spring, and many are still ongoing. Many argue that the defeat of the Palestinian left in Lebanon, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo accords and the rise of political Islam have changed the picture, but I think many of the original characteristics are still in place.

Having said all that, I can’t really say that Palestinians ever had an anarchist movement per se. Palestinian anarchists do exist, but like among Israelis, it isn’t really organized as a movement, nor can I say it’s a popular idea. I do believe though that even if the name anarchism isn’t being used, Palestinians do tend to organize in an anarchist way, without calling it like that. New guerrilla groups in the West Bank in recent years like the Lion’s Den in Nablus, Jenin Brigade in Jenin and Balata Battalion in Balata refugee camp organize in a non-hierarchical way and are non-sectarian in principle, open to all the different factions to join. These youth groups are completely outside the control of the Palestinian Authority and the old politics of factions and parties, and their unpredictable, spontaneous nature is challenging to the Israeli authorities.”

It is logically consistent to note that the reproduction of imperialist koinonismos in the libertarian movement and the aberration of “insurrection, not armed conflict”, are expressed by a plethora of ideological schools that either openly oppose the platformist tradition or tend to smother the organizational approach within the boundaries of the national field and of legitimacy. The current class struggle demands that anarchist revolutionary organization be in its constitution borderless and guerrilla. The world that rises will be shaped by those revolutionary organizations that fight and take roots simultaneously in all corners of the Earth. If we anarchists miss this calling, the responsibility will not belong to history. From a historical evolutionary point of view, I reckon that these days are the last chance for anarchism, until the imminent collapse of capitalism, to become a real force for change. The fighting comrades in Kurdistan, Armenia, in the land of the Mapuche, in Palestine and perhaps in other parts of the South that do not come up in the northerners’ maps are paving the way.

The question of bankrupt anarchism and bankrupt leftism

The statement of the Federation of the Anarchist Era, Afghanistan-Iran (9/10/23) (15) exalts the polemics of imperialist social democracy. The condemnation of the October 7 revolutionary initiative is not limited to the act itself. The act is placed entirely in the sphere of the war between powers. The condemnation of Hamas adopts the rhetoric constructed by the genocidal and counter-revolutionary imperialist propaganda. Violence is denounced not as a method but as a tautology of statism. The distinction between civilians and resistance goes to an extent that is constitutive for political meanings: on one side are “peoples” as passive subjects without class determinants and on the other side are governments, which are equated as an ideological category. Referring to the specific field, however, the announcement focuses its aggressive assertion on one pole of power, the Islamist one. And peace is not put forward as a pragmatic perspective, always under the yoke of colonialism, but as an ultimate goal and at the same time an accepted social status which was destroyed by the resistance’s initiative. Peace and security.

Since when did security, the main pretext for state and imperialist terrorism, become a revolutionary project capable of inescapably canceling the struggle for freedom and equality? The conflict has begun anew, here is the evil, according to the statement. As if the years-long siege of Gaza by a nation of settlers were not one-sided war. And as if the preceding, “peaceful” status were not based on the threat of the new status, that is, the “final solution”. Did this particular anarchist collective ascertain from the prisoners of the Gaza strip that the state of their genocidal peonage is acceptable? This statement is an exaltation of voluntary servitude, transposed on the peoples by an ideological elite. Are the Iranian insurgents to be deemed deluded, as they fight for their freedom by risking their lives and continuing while the regime’s murderous terror intensifies? Let them be left to the peace and security offered by submission to power… Why is it that in one place freedom is life and in another place, where there is no guarantee of survival and tranquility, freedom is superfluous and the needs of the settlers (peace and security) are prioritized? Simply because the Federation of the Anarchist Era chooses enemies and friends based on localist criteria. Since the Palestinian resistance is led by forces linked to the regime we are directly confronting (Iranian), we are siding with the polemic of the colonizer. This reflects zero political autonomy and a scant utilitarian internationalism. This is of course campism with a sectarian motive. Idealistic neutrality, speaking in the language of counter revolution, is the most insidious form of campism. In the interpretation and utopia of the Federation, anti statism is the completion of liberalism, with class relations remaining intact, with the crimes of imperialism and zionist ethnic cleansing and counter-revolution going unpunished, with memory trashed.

By disregarding the fighting Palestinians and by nullifying their discourse, which declares that this is a war with colonialism, the statement reduces the war to a question of ideologies. The meaning that the Western ideological trend wants to imperiously impose is to strip the real class-political subjects of their class-political determinations. From the point of view of fundamentalist liberal consciousness, ideology is an illusion, without which citizens can peacefully regulate their relations. In the train of thought of liberal metaphysics, Thomas Hobbes’ classic scheme, which describes the state as a necessary evil for the safeguarding of the “social contract”, makes more sense than the version of the Federation, which regresses as to the determination of the cause: if ideology is the cause of the state and of war, then what is the cause of ideology? The answer, if we adhere to this theory, is illusory consciousness. Everything comes down to a question of enlightenment. And as usual, enlightenment is not aimed at promoting direct revolutionary action, but at preventing it and promoting class pacification. What does this metaphysics have to do with the revolutionary anarchist tradition? Nothing, not with any revolutionary tradition. Anarchist ethics and vision is the spawn and development of direct struggle, not an offshoot of bourgeois koinonismos and pacifism.

The reduction of this conflict to ideology agrees with the imperialist ideology about the “war of civilizations”. The aforementioned statement takes this provocative polemic beyond its general formulation; it targets the side of the resistance, describing its ideology as reactionary and inhuman, with the only evidence being its resistance activity. In this way, the counter-revolutionary terrorism of the colonialist regime is transformed into the logical and inevitable consequence of the unacceptable provocation of the resistance. Having assimilated itself to the counter-revolutionary line of imperialist ideology, due to its sectarian perspective, the Federation culminates its attack on the Palestinian resistance by reproducing the pretext of the colonial militarists for the massacre of the Palestinian people: “using innocents as human shields”. How obvious, the army of colonialists is bombing the Palestinian people, slaughtering their children, pushing them towards the Sinai desert, and attacking them on the route, in order to free them from the terrible power of Hamas! Journalists, nurses and international volunteers, who are unaware that they are being used as human shields by the barbarians, are bombarded by the progressive forces in order to free themselves from this delusion! There are several ways to endorse genocide. Erdogan has literally put his signature on drones that are hitting Rojava and Basur. The Federation of the Anarchist Era and others have put their signature on the bombs that flatten hospitals, schools, temples and refugee camps in Gaza and have put the blame up front on the resistance, with their polemic pen. A sign of the bankruptcy of anarchism in the era of liberal illusions.

The so-called libertarians who blame Hamas equally or primarily for the suffering of the people of Gaza are, like the imperialists, silencing the fact that the people of Gaza have been condemned to an exhausting blockade because they elected a government that disobeyed the colonialists. All those who criticize Hamas at the moment it attacked the wall and the settler prison guards are, like the imperialists, demanding that the Palestinians abandon anti-colonial resistance. They demand it by means of genocide. Their anti-statist or democratic sentiment is encapsulated in the disparagement and abandonment of the Palestinian people to genocide because they chose the “wrong” leadership.

According to the logic of liberal fundamentalism, the PKK is responsible for the razing of the Kurdish towns of Bakur in 2015, during the war of Democratic Self-Government, and the Kurdish youth should not get organized with the YDGH and YPS, but against them. In this way one sides with the special warfare of the Grey Wolves and of Mossad.

The Palestinians’ self-organization which the authoritarian liberals, so called libertarians, advocate, will never happen, because it is a historically arbitrary metonymy for submission to zionist colonialism and imperialism. The Palestinian people do not lie in wait for the luminaries of imperialist koinonismos, they are self-organizing in their daily uprising, in their armed struggle, in their survival, in their mutual aid and in the care of the wounds of genocide. The most radical form of self-organization is the collective memory of the martyrs, which turns into revolutionary organization and an endless river of revenge. Only this self-organization that rejects voluntary servitude and the inequality in life and death can be internationalist. Yes,there is a problem. If a statist religious party is leading the resistance and anarchism seems to be on the opposite side, there is a historical problem for anarchism.

Koinonistic neutrality has a common intersection with the leftist defense of counter-revolutionary regimes which are antagonistic to NATO imperialism, around which they complement each other. They both derive from the denial of proletarian and social political autonomy within the unremitting war of capitalism. Pacifist idealism, by denying war, makes the people a passive subject, compromised in the world class hierarchy, while statist anti-imperialism also makes the people a passive subject of the world class hierarchy, unable to change the general relations without the mediation of bourgeois power and unable to change the class and political relations at the grassroots level. This opportunism is a by-product of the historical bankruptcy of marxism. By investing in Islamism in order to have an effective anti-imperialism, leftism comes to terms with its historical end and changes sides, since political Islam was the investment of the imperialist counter-revolution in the South. It is common, and historically explicable, for would-be leaders of the left to shift from one pole of power to another on occasion, in order to hold the position of would-be leadership. It has happened even in the most radical revolutionary organizations. The adherents of the anti-NATO front of Iran, Russia, China or even Turkey, support the counter-revolution in order to continue having a say about the anti-imperialist struggle, because it is necessary for them to gloss over the defeated anti-imperialist strategy of Leninism. Since the leadership has been historically defeated, it demands that the people become servile too. This pretentiously anti-imperialist opportunism, being unable to lead the living subjects of resistance in the global South, refers to Khomeini and Saddam Hussein (16), the butchers of the proletarian movement, of the revolutions and of the marxist left in Iran and Iraq.

The arab and islamic states have sold Palestine out, many decades now. No state will take on a clash with NATO, unless its own existence is threatened. No bourgeoisie can lead the resistance to the end, because it will not risk its own existence, as Bakunin pointed out. The history of the PLO is yet another example. We saw how the Iranian counter-revolution sucked up the execution of Soleimani. No state will seriously go to war over Palestine. No state will throw more resources into the battle for Palestine than are necessary to spend in order to strengthen its own position in the inter-state power relations, by undermining its antagonizers. The pro-Palestinian war crowns are a preventive protection of the counter-revolution in the Middle East and are specifically aimed at maintaining discipline in the armies and paramilitary militias of the arab and islamic states. The above positions and predictions were written before Nasrallah’s backpedaling statement, which confirmed them. Also, before the Houthis take up action, but with knowledge of their expressed threats. The Houthis are a community that recently faced a genocidal war and remains under siege by local exploiters, NATO powers, the saudi monarchy and the Emirates, with the active participation of the greek army.

The revolutionary resurgence of Palestine, the worldwide popular mobilization, especially of the muslim world, and the surge of imperialist terrorism with unprecedented brutality, put the anti-imperialist struggle at the forefront of the internationalist social movement. In the Middle East, the urgency of the popular anti-imperialist resistance strengthens the need to overthrow the state-capitalist regimes, whether religious or purely bourgeois, dictatorial or parliamentary. The opportunists who support the counter-revolution in the name of anti-imperialism also undermine the anti-imperialist resistance, because they have betrayed its popular basis. On the other hand, liberals who separate the social revolution from the anti- imperialist resistance are dividing the popular uprising, giving away living radical forces to nationalist and religious fascism and thus undermining the social revolution.

Turkish fascism in particular, which incorporated Palestine in its neo-Ottoman conquest plans, is doing service to NATO imperialism, in parallel with zionist fascism. Turkish fascism is spreading war, fascism and genocide in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus and Europe. However, it doesn’t make a move, unless it serves the interests of American or Russian imperialism or both. Neo-Turkism was a child of imperialism. Turkish islamic-fascism is the product of the imperialists’ desperate plan to dismantle the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan and the turkish territory. The same plan that led to the transnational conspiracy to capture Abdullah Ocalan. Erdogan’s anti-imperialist speeches are also part of the special counter-revolutionary war that the Turkish state is waging in cooperation with all imperialist and regional reactionary forces. If the AKP-MHP regime offered any support to Hamas, it did so only to undermine revolutionary internationalism, to strengthen the repression and genocide in Kurdistan, to promote its colonialist plans, which also involve Palestine, and to enhance its negotiating position among the hegemonic powers of the World War III imperialist war. Behind the facade, the flow of oil and steel from Turkey to Israel has not been interrupted, according to a recent article (17), and there is direct military involvement of Turkey in the genocide of Palestinians, as the zionists use the Kürecik Radar Station in Malatya province.

Turkish fascism likens israeli fascism to the Islamic State, just as israeli fascism also identifies the Palestinian resistance with the Islamic State, the demon that NATO and the colonialists bred together. All the massacres carried out by the I.S. inside turkish territory were the plans of the MIT, and of the current Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan personally, as were also the anti-Kurdish assassinations in Europe. On the same day that the Palestinian revolutionary attack took place, the Turkish air force bombed a mosque in the Makhmur refugee camp in Basur, as part of the ongoing war against the social forces of democratic con- federalism. (18) An Israeli army spokesman sarcastically mocked the Turkish regime’s genocide accusations directed at Israeli fascism, pointing out that they are doing the same in northern Syria. Zionism, no longer having anything to gain by adorning imperialist humanism, speaks candidly: only we, the blessed ones, are human – the rest are just flesh, useful for our progress. Neo-Ottomanism is compelled to usurp the revolutionary movement. At the same time that the mercenaries of turkish colonialism in Rojava rape and murder women because the women’s revolution is gaining ground and femicide is multiplying in the turkish territory, Erdogan’s wife and daughter are crowning themselves as leaders of the regime’s “pro-palestine” movement. The political alignment with the staged manipulation of revolutionary internationalism cannot be justified, it has no innocence.

Imperialism must be defeated militarily wherever it lands or places its war proxies. Only the popular movements can achieve this. The zionist military rule must be defeated. In order to socially deconstruct the zionist organization, it is necessary to defeat it in war. Only popular resistance can achieve this. Turkish colonialism must be defeated. The Revolutionary People’s War of the Kurdish Freedom Movement and internationalist confederalism is achieving this. Fascism must be defeated everywhere, the insurrections must win by means of the political autonomy and military might of the proletarian social forces.

Anti-imperialism or social revolution, fascism or imperialist democracy, multiple poles or a single pole in the global capitalist order, european enlightenment or jihadism, anti-occupation or workers’ struggle, war or self-organization, insurrection or armed resistance, Palestine or Kurdistan? Artificial dilemmas. It is the job of the bosses to make such enforced divisions on the internationalist social revolution. The most important consequence of revolutionary anarchism is the immediacy of its commitment to the entirety of all particular points of struggle. This alone builds the cohesion of the revolutionary social front.

In these days of the crucial frontal confrontation with NATO terrorism in the Middle East and in the metropolises of the North, revolutionary internationalism has the responsibility to promote solidarity with the Kurdish and Palestinian resistance on a undivided basis. (19) It is crucial for the revolutionary social and anti-imperialist/anti-colonial character of any expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people to not neglect the task of highlighting the conflict in Kurdistan and informing about the current intensity of colonialist attacks in northern Syria and Armenia. At the same time, contrasting the social gains of the Kurdish movement against the Palestinian resistance is unacceptable. As organizations of the turkish- kurdish political front point out, “we support the struggle of the people of Kurdistan and Palestine without any ifs and buts.” (20) Sectarian attitudes are expressions of the conditions of repression of revolutionary internationalism. In practice, the state-capitalist leaderships that organize the military and bio-political rule of the Middle East and of the whole Earth are the same for both Kurdistan and Palestine. The same imperialist directorates, the same war industries, the same energy trusts, the same logistics chains.

As a revolutionary internationalist movement we have a duty to promote the arab-kurdish alliance, which has spread the social revolution in NE Syria and is defending the battle front against the turkish occupation. To promote it wherever we struggle.

From the message of an HPG guerrilla of Arab origin fighting in Medina of Basur (Siyar Ereb, 14/10) (21): “As a member of the brother Arab nations, I now take my place in the Free Movement. I joined the guerrillas to respond to enemy attacks. I am very happy and proud of this. […] Genocidal wars are being waged everywhere. […] We will resist until we fulfill our defensive duty and defeat the invading forces. Arab peoples must support this honorable struggle. Our young people need to join this struggle and fight against fascism.”

And the account of an internationalist fighter a few years before: “An experience full of hope? There are many in this case too. I can juxtapose another man whom I met, who is a boy from Raqqa, an Arab. He willingly chose to leave Raqqa. He was a worker in a garage, he was 15 years old, and, while at work, a civil guard approached him, one of those who in many Syrian cities goes around like they are a king and does whatever they want, who said to him: “Show me how you pray”. And after he prayed, the guard told him: “You are phony, you don’t believe, you don’t pray right”. Well, the boy said: “I am here in my city, I am working, and here comes someone who is not even from Raqqa to bother me and tell me I don’t know how to pray”. And so he decided to leave and to migrate to the North. In the end he joined the YPG because he saw the Kurdish people like people who behave in the opposite way to what he had experienced.

He was one of the first Arabs to join a force that was initially 100% Kurdish. I met him one year after this happened, and we were in the same Unit. He is an impressive person. Aside from the fact that he explained his plan to me, which was that he would participate in the liberation of Rojava which has then to become the liberation of all Syria. And he wanted to go fight in Turkey, in Iran and in Iraq. “Finally afterwards we will be able to liberate Palestine and in this way also Lebanon”, he would say. And if there was a need also in Italy, he would come here to fight too. He is a person, almost illiterate, who had never seen anything outside of Raqqa, of Kobane and maybe a bit further, but he has a genuine will and perspective, a real one. I am speaking in the present tense, even though I unfortunately cannot be sure if he is still alive, since I left him in September, and in Syria life expectancy is rather short. I fought by his side, and as a fighter he is just impressive, indescribable. There were scenes that, to a westerner like myself, seem like they come out of a movie, how a person can fight like this. As a proletarian and a man with no education, illiterate, condemned by his life to a limited reality, he is a revolutionary of the highest levels in history imaginable. This is how I know that in the north of Syria there are thousands like him, and this is inestimable.

I can say his nom de guerre, Zagros Raqqa, because no one in Rojava uses their real name…

The biggest lessons are two. The first is that there is an inequality, a divide, and I already knew this, between the West and the Middle East, or maybe between the West and the rest of the world. It is so great that you cannot imagine it, it cannot be described, and unfortunately, it is not even enough for one to go there and fight in order to bridge the gap, in the sense that it is a divide between those who have everything and those who have nothing, between one who is well and one who is suffering. This is a realization of the seriousness of this situation, made mainly by the one who goes to fight in such war situations.

The other lesson is that the revolution is just and necessary, however, when we say ‘revolution’ we must be conscientious about the gravity of this word in the sense of the pain, the tragedy and the pain it brings about, because a revolution is still a turning point for society, it is an upheaval of society that doesn’t happen peacefully, even though it is necessary, and so we should not use this term lightly. We don’t need to imagine simply that it is a ‘beautiful thing’. Those who think like this should better give up on politics and do something else, while it would be useful to have people who understand how terrible it is to have to have a revolution, but who continue to think it is necessary.” (Davide Grasso, former YPG fighter, Italy, September 2017)

Stories of spies and saints

“Palestinians have determined to proceed without their Western custodians. Decolonization is a grueling project, generally beyond the acumen of those weaned in comfort. The professional classes are stuck in bourgeois abstractions (from which they derive so many rewards) or profess a material politics they don’t in reality support. They demand a bloodless liberation, but only without the colonizer’s blood, even as the native bleeds out in full view of the world. They demand a revolt without consequence, a caucus of pristine victims politely asking to stay alive. They have taught Fanon but ignored his observation that decolonization ‘cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, a natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement.’

These erstwhile liberals don’t need to consult Palestinians to see how wrong they are. Zionists have been explaining for decades that Israel must be defeated by force.” (A Voice from Palestine) (22)

It is undeniable that Hamas is working with states. It does not hide it, since it is not ashamed of its statism. It is also plausible that the revolutionary initiative of 7 October was aimed, among other things, at significantly changing the inter-state power relations in the Middle East and at overturning the political relations as regards the imperialist hegemony. As Hamas confirmed after a month of fighting (in an interview with the New York Times), the initiative was founded on a decision to break free from the long and exhausting siege of Gaza, at any cost.

None of the above facts implies that the stated purposes are contrary to the will of the Palestinian people. This implication presupposes as an arbitrary rule that the people always choose peace, even when that means their long-term extermination, over desperate resistance. The lackeys of genocidal colonial peace silence the fact that the news of the invasion against the colonial fortress was greeted with mass celebrations in the besieged Palestinian territories. (23)

No one on the planet could have interpreted Hamas’ move as the product of anti-state struggle, nor of course as independent of any state assistance. However, the statist mediation of popular interests does not make these interests entirely artificial and alien; it does not cancel the existence of needs determined by the class-oppressed communities and exploited classes themselves, which are assigned to the political mediation of an agent of power. From the anarchist point of view, political mediation is a historical problem, precisely because there are always proletarian and social needs, which are confused with antagonistic needs wherever authoritarian mediation takes place. The idea that any mediated will expresses false needs and only hostile interests, expresses a vulgar aristocratic anti-popular elitism. As if the people are a thoughtless passive entity that will be redeemed only when it is enlightened by some blessed ones, or by chance.

Why should the upsurge of the Middle East or even of the whole Earth be a hostile prospect for those who permanently live and die inside the furnace of colonialist rule? How else will Palestine be liberated, if the colonial fortress is not blown up like a powder keg and thus, if the whole world does not flare up first? The scaremongering about ‘escalation’ is a central propaganda line of the imperialists. If there is a specific problem with state mediators here, it is their inherent incompetence and their insufficient motivation to engage in the anti-imperialist struggle to the degree that is necessary for the liberation of Palestine. The ideological elites of any social democracy have even less of a motivation and zero capacity.

In Greece, a group that brandishes an understanding of politics as an interplay between agents, surpassing even the greek Communist Party, added to the above that “the destruction of Gaza and the displacement of its inhabitants was and is among the plans of Hamas’ agents, was intended and indeed is a precondition for its continuation.” (24) This conclusion negates the fundamental axiom of the state that state expediency takes precedence over all other expediency and therefore of the interests of its citizens, because it completely equates the interests of Hamas with the interests of the supporting states and their interests with the interests of the enemy states (NATO, Israel, etc.). This is the typical Hitlerian reduction (propaganda manual in “My Struggle”), historically anti-Semitic, of all antitheses to the dark designs of a principal enemy. This mystical reduction is the pretext for stripping the meaning from the antitheses and subordinating them to a simplistic monolithic ideology. In this case, the contradictory factors in the imperialistic management of the Palestinian genocide are blatant. It has been shown by official documents that the colonialists are seeking the complete displacement of the disobedient people. But the vassal Arab states do not want the surplus Palestinian precariat and the displaced Palestinian resistance in their territories. Neither do the European imperialists. That’s why the Egyptian junta keeps them corralled in the slaughterhouse. Which state and why would it want the Palestinian resistance to diffuse, except the settlers, who have their own special interest as a priority? The NATOists have pulled out of the drawer the case of a collaborationist palestinian state, the ideal plan for them, however, as much as an open war was necessary in order to attempt the definitive annihilation of resistance throughout occupied Palestine, so too a war makes the prospect of annihilation unrealistically idealistic. The national disregard for the Palestinian Authority, its total weakness on an international level, the resistance’s ultimatums to Abbas (5-6/11/23, Organization ‘Children of Abu Jadal’, from inside the police forces of the Palestinian Authority), and the attack on him (7/11/23, questioned by the Palestinian Authority and the imperialists) confirm these lines, which were written prior to this. The interpretation that open war was a priori necessary and legitimate for the colonialists and imperialists, and by implication, the October 7 attack was a pretext, turns the causes and practical consequences upside down, with a preconceived position that resistance is irrational. Why would the imperialists seek to feed and diffuse anti-colonial anti-imperialist resistance, why would they want to compromise the relations of the Arab states with Israeli colonialism, why would they want to increase Iranian-Shiite influence and to hand over to the mediating Turkish hegemony more bargaining cards, while the Hamas state was quietly managing the Gaza camp? Why would the Iranian regime want the Palestinians scattered around rather than at the feet of the Israeli hinterland? There is only one answer: because this is how it suits the ideology that says that the powerful are always powerful and that they inevitably pull the strings of history.

All the current complications have one driving premise, which alone gives them coherent meaning: the settlers’ and NATO’s expectation to eliminate Palestinian resistance, because on October 7 it manifested itself powerfully. With the unhindered prolonged mass massacre of the people of Gaza, with the repeated bombings of refugee convoys, hospitals, schools and churches turned into refugee shelters, with the killing of 101 volunteers of the UN humanitarian mission (until 12 November), the targeted killing of dozens of Red Crescent nurses and doctors (an article published on 19/10 reports 192 deaths since 7/1025 and of 40 journalists (by the first week of November), the imperialists are sending the message to the people of the whole world, that those who do not get used to poverty, exclusion, displacement, incarceration and slow death, will be brutally exterminated. Resistance is not the pretext for this coordinated operation of global terror, it is its cause, its enemy. The ‘agents’ game’ theorists are capable of making up any nonsense in order to interpret the facts to suit their simplistic ideology, always against the resistance.

The more specific interpretations of the hypothesis that the attack on the colonial fortress was carried out to provoke the war and impose a new occupation of Gaza or an imperialist protectorate regime, refer to marine hydrocarbon deposits and pipelines. Some also link Turkish involvement with competition for energy routes. These interpretations have the advantage of reducing political conspiracies to specific economic interests and thus pretend to flirt with an anti-capitalist or even anti-imperialist perspective. On the specific field of conflict, it is a stupid ideology to suggest that while there was a semblance of capitulation there were more obstacles to the exploitation of the undersea resources west of Gaza than have now arisen due to open warfare. The only ideal footing of this view is the total disparagement of the Palestinian resistance or popular resistance in general. On 7 October a dynamic of total collapse of the colonialist organization was triggered, but the pseudo-intellectuals of the North could see nothing but the endless development of imperialist domination.

It is not only that they cannot see in any other way than through the language of subjugation. They can neither think in any other way than in the mentality of capital. The usual talk about oil is not class analysis, it is vulgar political economy. Besides, something that is a key issue in capitalist competition everywhere, energy resources, is not enough to describe and explain anything relevant to the specific forms that the class-political struggle takes. Then, politics is reduced entirely to the sphere of political economy and, as a corollary, war falls into the category of political guise. This scheme, of course, comes from the most extreme liberal school.

The conspiratorial pseudo-understanding of the October 7 revolutionary initiative offers the greatest ideological service to genocide, having eliminated the existence of resistance by statute. We can passively watch the massacre without guilt, since everything is pre-designed and inevitable and there is no popular resistance on the ground. The aforementioned group spews out its fatalism on the Palestinians: “The residents of [Gaza] are complying [!] with a directive from the Israeli state and are moving from the north to the south despite UN complaints that Israel is imposing a collective punishment, calling the ultimatum ‘horrible’.” Too much compliance by the elite of koinonismos.

Simplistic reductions in order to get rid of the real contradictions are also expressed in more subtle tones. E.g. (from another group’s text): “Hamas is an Islamist organization. Huge differences of all kinds separate us from it, including – but not limited to – the tactic of targeting civilians. Keeping in our hearts the days of the Palestinian intifada, we stand always and wholeheartedly with the Palestinian people and their resistance, but we see ourselves as far removed from any Islamist formation. We cannot ignore the fact that Hamas’s growth is largely due to its strengthening by Israel itself during the period when it was trying to weaken the secular and progressive forces of the Palestinian resistance. In a similar way, the US was funding and arming Islamist forces as a counterweight to the socialist and communist movements in the Arab and Islamic world. The truth is that Israel chose the enemy it considered most easily manageable. What it was trying to achieve (and it succeeded) was to reverse the internationalization of the Palestinian question (which was the greatest conquest of the resistance until the 1990s) and turn it into an issue of the Islamic world alone. This role was played by Hamas. A role destructive to the movement’s prospects. However, we cannot ignore the fact that at the moment Hamas is also the result of decades of oppression and humiliation of a people. That the young people, born and raised in a prison, seeing their families slaughtered again and again, are siding with those who oppose the inhuman conqueror with arms: and that, unfortunately, is Hamas, even though it is part of the problem and at the same time has the role of oppressor for the Palestinian people themselves.” I skip the points where all the positions of imperialist social democracy of counter-revolutionary pseudo-insurrectionalism, which I analyzed at the beginning, are reproduced. We go forward from the fact that, in the last century, political Islam was promoted by the imperialists to inhibit and reverse the revolution in Asia. The aphoristic ideological lumping together all Islamic movements, belongs precisely to the methods of this imperialist strategy, it reproduces the projection of religion as a dominant field, it vindicates Christian racism, since it recognizes the internationalization of a problem of the South only insofar as it speaks in the language of the North and, above all it veils, behind the conspiratorial mysticism, the class and political dynamics that lead an Islamic organization to the leadership of a resistance movement, the left to decline and anarchism to irrelevance, wherever this has happened. Authoritarian Euro-socialism gets away with an “unfortunately”. Without exaggeration I can say that this attitude does more damage to internationalist solidarity than the practice of provocation through funding (such as the scenarios about the funding of Hamas).

The revolutionary answer to political Islam is not atheistic fundamentalism, which can only dictatorially and colonially become a political identity. The answer has been given practically and effectively on the ground by the Kurdish Freedom Movement: democratization of Islam, in the way of social resistance, not in the way of imperialist assimilation and subjugation. Idealist abstractions and totalitarian aphorisms offer precisely the easy escape from the task of the struggle to transform contradictions. In this particular conflict, the clearest answer to the ideological construction of the ‘religious war’ comes from the joined mass demonstrations of rabbis, priests and mullahs against the zionist military rule.

The fundamentalist koinonismos of the above-mentioned group (that uses agents’ game rhetoric) had led it to nationalism a few years ago (the Macedonian issue). Now it mocks “the general prompt for victory to the weapons of Palestine”. It indirectly advocates refusing to support the resistance and accepting colonial peace, so that a new state is not imposed on the Palestinians and does not annihilate dissidents and insurgents, as if they were secure until then. As those who joined arms with Ukrainian fascism say, Zelensky’s racist regime offered more freedom for anarchists and they expect the same from an ideal post- war renewed bourgeois democracy. Revolutionary anarchism is not positioned laterally, and so from my own position I answer that it is the axioms of koinonismos, not the prompts of revolutionary solidarity, that are general and abstract. Victory to the arms of the specific organizations that are fighting the colonialists, victory to their struggle against the colonialists. No political conflict justifies undermining the anti-colonial struggle. To leave no room for intentional confusion, I note that resistance to Palestine’s long-term ethnic cleansing is not an isomorphic phenomenon with Ukrainian-NATO nationalism, nor with the Iranian counter-revolution, despite its nationalist anti-NATO interests. The differences between these struggles are predominantly class-based on a global and local scale, and moreover political.

Biopolitical ethics, based on its self-valorization, extends its polemic claims to a general and absolute distinction between the supposed revolutionary discipline towards it and the subjects who oppose it and are thus placed in the category of the authoritarians. The elitist project of denouncing real resistance begins with the rape of history and the proclamation of the sovereignty of colonialism over memory. In the words of the aforementioned groups: “No purge can ever and nowhere be a project of revolutionary movements”. Incidentally, the severity of the October 7 attack, across the colonialist entity, was not an attempt at purging, nor did it mean that the liberation of Palestine requires the extermination of all settlers. From the text of the aforementioned group: “The October 7 methodical massacre of hundreds of civilians, youth, children, women and elderly, carried out by the butchers sent by Hamas to carry out this religious ‘duty’ on the road to the establishment of a Palestinian state, the hostage-taking of old people, young children and women, the display of savagery even on the bodies of the murdered, is now added to the pantheon of similar acts of savagery that adorn the history of every form of power. But they will never be written in the pages that adorn the history of the struggles for social liberation and dignity, in the pages that adorn the world history of uprisings and revolutions of oppressed and exploited people.” Gentrification against “savagery”.

Should we erase from revolutionary proletarian history the Makhnovists who set up machine guns and shot at the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords at their feasts? Butchers, when they threw into the furnace of a locomotive a priest-snitch of the German colonialists? (26) The CNT fighters, who during the revolution of ’36 stormed the monasteries and spared no one? The barefoot Somalis who two and a half decades ago paraded as trophies on spikes the flesh of the American soldiers of a downed helicopter, under whose history should we register them? Popular hatred is the heart of liberational evolution, as Walter Benjamin had noted. It is the task of imperialist social democracy to extinguish proletarian hatred, replacing it with appeals for mercy to the theocracy of capitalist war. Thus koinonismos concludes its positions with abstract pacifism. E.g., “Stop the Israeli attack on Gaza now. Stop now the occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza.” Which forces will stop them and how? Not to ask how the return of the Palestinians to the main occupied territories will take place.

The moderate view of the aforementioned comrade with colonial citizenship, restores historical and contemporaneous truth, opening up as topic of discussion the humanitarian law of war. “The images coming from southern Israel the day of the attack 7th of October were of course very hard to process emotionally.Nothing to celebrate about the massacre of many civilians, and by all definitions and standards this is a war crime. Things should be seen in of context though. Also, there are zero examples in history of a pure, ‘clean’ resistance movement and liberation that didn’t kill innocent people. Be it resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the British colonization of India, the fight against slavery in America and resistance to nazi occupation throughout Europe- in all of those cases innocent people died. This is not to justify, but the demand of purism from the Palestinian liberation movement alone is unrealistic. The bigger responsibility is on the occupier.”

The Geneva Convention binds the parties to abide by it regardless of its violation by enemy forces. In any case, no state abides by it. Besides, the inter-state law of war does not apply to internal war, since the internal enemy is not presented as militarily distinct and with represented responsibilities. Indeed, only revolutionary armed forces are self-disciplined in the law of war. The Kurdish Freedom Movement is an example of such an attitude.

Does the imperialist humanitarian law of war consist a revolutionary self-worth? For biopolitical ethics, yes. But biopolitical ethics is grounded on the regime of class power inequality, biopolitical terrorism and biopolitical racism, and it is articulated so as to perpetuate these. The biopolitical ethics of war revolves around the ‘civilian’, but he is defined by the archetype of imperialist citizenship. The guerrilla and his community first and foremost, the unruly government and its supporters, the pariah state and its citizens, are excluded from bourgeois law. In this case this applies to all the people of Palestine before and after October 7. The citizen who joins arms with, who votes for and finances the class war of the tyrant is the definition of ‘civilian’, with the archetype of the innocence of the capitalist, the politician, the technocrat, the media baron, the soldier and the cop, who become targets of the revolutionary struggle. The identification of the ‘civilian’ with the ‘unarmed’, masks with the feudal aristocratic code of values, the protection of the capitalist-state division of responsibilities, from its war machine. Imperialist humanist law transforms the genocidal settlers into ‘the people’ and the people into an exemption from bourgeois civilization. That is why the UN officials do not say, “what Israel is doing is genocide,” but they say, “what is being done may amount to genocide.” The boundary between the recognizably real and the typical speculation is deeply classist and savagely lethal.

Thus, subservient koinonismos and pacifism put forward the historical legitimacy of the unstoppable century long genocide as “living in harmony and respecting diversity”. Diversity indeed, where one slaughters and steals the land of the other and the other is slaughtered and persecuted in exile. Some good comrades proposed the mutual rapprochement of the arab and jewish populations on an internationalist and proletarian basis, through the realization that they have nothing to divide and that they can coexist without religious differences, as they did for centuries in the region before the creation of the state of Israel. Both the myth and the utopia are equally true and necessary, but are interspersed with the real history of class struggle. The state of Israel also comes in the way. A history and a present that fatally divides Palestinians and settlers. The former have nothing but chains and death. The others have everything, have seized it with savagery and maintain this relationship with even greater savagery. “Israelis have the right to call the area home”, say some anarchists. “Because whatever happened in the past, all these people live there now.” Except it didn’t happen 3,000 years ago. The present class-political regime of the Palestinian land is the capitalization of the ethnic cleansing (not a vague ‘whatever’) that began in the recent past, a few generations ago, and continues unabated. The koinonists suck up to the colonialists, but the colonialists are not impressed by pacifist cajoling.

On the contrary, a single experience proved capable of instilling humanistic feelings, moderation, a sense of equality in a small part of the colonial nation: the hostage-taking of loved ones. The murderousness of the October 7 attack produced a consciousness of the insurmountable vulnerability of the dominant clan, and mass hostage-taking produced the prospect of a peace with a little more freedom for the class oppressed, which would not have been conceivable without the universal equation to death. “All hostages, for all of their prisoners”, chant the protesting settlers who are turning against their war-mongering government. The fact that these deeply and broadly nationalistic subjects still form the only opposition within the militaristic nation today, demonstrates something important. Dialectically, the barbarians’ method creates social progress, because it brings to light the means and subsequently the motives of capitalist civilization.

The vile tyranny says, “what’s done is done”. Restorative justice for the massacred and displaced Palestinian people requires the uprooting of the settlers. Projecting the ideal consent of the settlers to a peaceful settlement as a precondition, reflects the hypocrisy of imperialist social democracy and glosses over class ethnic cleansing. Revolutionary law directly restores cosmic harmony by the edge of the knife.
                                   “Whatever is necessary for the return”(27)

These days my soul dwells in the basements and rubble with the dying fighters who wait and stoically greet the settler army. Revenge! Revenge for all the history of tyranny. Revenge for the bloody hypocrisy of the imperialists and colonialists. Revenge for the children of Palestine.
                           Unconditionally with Spartacus, for the fall of the Empire.

“So it is fortunate that insurrection and revolution still remain absurd, because this is precisely what still remains their only potential to win”(28)
Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
November-December 2023
Domokos Prison

(1) In 1990, the term “κοινωνισμός” [koinonismos] was introduced in the critical thinking of greek speaking anarchists, which is literally translated into english as “socialism”. The word socialism has been conveyed into the greek language without etymological transformations (in greek: “σοσιαλισμός”). The term koinonismos means something different from socialism, so if we were to translate it as socialism based on the language roots, it would result in serious confusion. Writer and translator of this text jointly decided to use the direct transliteration from the greek to english, the word koinonismos, adding this linguistic and conceptual note. In short, the meaning of the term koinonismos, as was first expressed, was the political invocation of an ideologically artificial social whole, which, in communication practice, entails the reproduction of those ideological forms that are produced and infused by the state and capital.

(2) International statement of the clubs (10/10/23) – https://fcstpauliathensclub.wordpress.com/2023/1/10/%cf%83%cf%87%ce %b5%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ac-%ce%bc%ce%b5-%cf%84%ce%b7%c%bd-%ce%b4%ce%ae%ce%bb%cf%89%cf %83%ce%b7-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bb%ce%bb%cf%8c%ce%b3%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-s/, Statement of the Turkish club (28/10/23) – https://twitter.com/StPauli_TR

(3) The issue of Palestine is the issue of statism’s bankruptcy! – https://asranarshism.com/1402/07/18/palestine-issue-statism-failure-en/

(4) tn: The term conspiratorial is the nearest translation of the term that the writer in this text uses to refer not to conspiracy theories, but to an understanding of politics as an interplay between agents or proxies.

(5) On “Pro-Palestine” hypocricy – https://thepublicsource.org/palestine-solidarity

(6) Voices from the Front Line Against the Occupation: Interview with Palestinian Anarchists –

Voices from the Front Line Against the Occupation: Interview with Palestinian Anarchists

(7) We Can’t Afford to Remain Silent – Interview with an Israeli Anarchist – https://itsgoingdown.org/two-new-zines-interviews-with-israeli-and-palestinian-anarchists/

(8) A Practical Appraisal of Palestinian Violence – https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(9) Israel Can’t Imprison Two Million Gazans Without Paying a Cruel Price – https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israelis-made-to-suffer-the-cruel-price-for-oppression-of-palestinians-in-gaza

(10) A recent interview with three FAUDA members confirms the commitment to the unity of the resistance and adds the information that FAUDA is involved in the guerrilla struggle. One comrade states that their anarchist movement has opened up a path of popular self-sacrifice. Regarding Hamas, it deconstructs NATO propaganda and describes the political dialogue and cooperation of anarchists with other organizations in the resistance. Importantly, they points out that all resistance organizations have an inclusive political position for all religious communities. The case for Islamic dictatorship is imperialist black propaganda. Just as the addition of a new, Palestinian state is a case of imperialist designs. Anti-authoritarian criticism of the claim of a two-state status and the separation of religious communities throws the discussion off course. Maoists (PFLP), confederationists (DFLP) and pacifist democrats (such as Mussa’ab Bashir, used as a reference by certain ideological opponents of the Palestinian resistance), Islamists (Hamas and Jihad) and anarchists (FAUDA) agree as a program on a single inclusive polity. Such were the declarations of the Israeli constitution as well. Only the imperialists and the would-be exploiters of the Palestinian resistance want two states. But the crucial question is whether we are defending the colonial state as the agent of potential coexistence, against historical and current revolutionary realities, or are we defending the right of the oppressed to reorganize social culture on their own terms, correcting the accumulated injustices? For anarchism the answer is self-evident. Whether the Palestinian revolutionary polity will claim recognition from the inter-state matrix and take the title of state is nobody’s business outside the Palestinian resistance, just as it is nobody’s business outside the Kurdish resistance, the claim of official recognition for the confederation of N-E Syria as a constituent state entity of the unified Syrian territory. (The interview: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abolishtheusa-fauda-in-depth-interviews-with-3-members-of-fauda )

(11) The revolutionary South responds to the a-historical critique that describes anarchism as a eurocentric project. Only the anchorage to the post-Bakunin deconstructivism, that eroded the anarchist movement after the dissolution of the First International, can see in anti-imperialism conceptual and practical boundaries to anarchism. For example, “Anarchists in the Sahel” (18/9/23), (https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33233 ). Marxism had to go beyond the imperialist philosophy of its writings, with Lenin. Revolutionary anarchism never had that problem. From its birth it ventured all over the Earth.

(12) https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33399

(13) https://www.efsyn.gr/kosmos/boreia-ameriki/408433_i-starbucks-poinikopoiei-tin-allileggyi-stin-palaistini

(14) One group writes, “Clearly, we do not intend to dictate to the oppressed and exploited how they should fight […]”. Just before they wrote, “The only self-defense that we recognize -ethically and politically- is the collective social self-defense and social counter violence that the exploited and the oppressed co-opt to emancipate themselves and to shake off the bonds of authority over them”. What does this group mean behind the unclear invocation of collectivity and cooption? And who cares whether these here pharisees of anarchism recognize the Palestinian resistance as self-defense or not? To put the question in a different context: a person who has suffered patriarchal violence, do they need the opinion of these conclaves so as to decide whether to resort to the police, to the state, or if they will cut off the balls of the rapist or whatever else? This same group, ten years ago, in order not to spoil the self interest of some of its members, had covered up an attack against a squat, legitimized by the fact that they refused to recognize the squat as a community, refused to recognize the community’s egalitarian institutions and practices, the political dynamic proletarian social development taking place there, its autonomy in social self- direction and its self-defense. This is what “we do not recognize” means in the world of violence and terrorism: let Netanyahu do his dirty work. However, the Palestinian resistance is winning and the aforementioned squat, which offers refuge to the persecuted and has not put any terms on the Palestinian resistance, is still standing.

(15) https://asranarshism.com/1402/07/18/palestine-issue-statism-failure-en/

(16) Artistic intervention for Palestine, ΚΕΔ – https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627014/ & https://avantgarde2009.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/palaistinh-dikh-mas-ypothesh/ Two months after writing this text I received a text from Solidarity with migrants entitled “The avant-garde of retrogression: notes on the pro-russian and pro-china political tendencies in the greek society” (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1628404/). The political line of anti-american campism and its political conclusions that this text describes, make up a stance of active counter-revolution on the field. Political directions and practices that are anti-labour, anti-feminist, pro-imperialist and pro- fascist, anti-internationalist and totalitarian. The text correctly argues that the two tendencies inside the pro-Palestine movement are clashing and they will continue to do so. I will further note that this clash is not related only to the movement for Palestine. The fields of struggle are intersecting as is shown in the text. Social-fascism is lurking everywhere and is manifesting itself respectively to political priorities. The contradictions of the social-fascist lines are interesting. Eg, political subjects who converge in their defense of the Assad regime and in their anti kurdish stance, and who have allied in the past as a friendly opposition to SYRIZA in the re-negotiation of the greek state’s position in the imperialist pyramid, have taken antagonistic positions in the conflict over (or against) the capitalist-statist public health control. The former, who openly defend the anti-NATO imperialist front, openly supported the resistance to the unhealthy health-control repression and the dictatorial bio-technocratic subjugation. The latter, who are intensively trying to take the lead of the movement with reformist positions, joined arms with the vanguard of capitalist and statist progress. Despite this, the leftist group that the aforementioned text is denouncing has not “infiltrated” the movement; it comprises one of its constitutive subjects. Particularly in reference to the Palestinian struggle, where the subjects of the struggle are collaborating with state agents in their periphery, it is illogical to demand that the struggle be cleansed of statist ideological tendencies within the solidarity movement. In general, I have put down at length my arguments against the automated logic of exclusions.

(17) Middle East: Economy and Geo-strategy, https://trohia.espivblogs.net/2024/01/03/mesanatoliko-oikonomia-kai-geostratigiki/

(18) https://anfenglishmobile.com/features/kck-calls-on-muslim-peoples-to-take-a-stance-against-turkish-bombing-of-mosque-in-maxmur-69767

(19) A simple practical example: Larissa, solidarity gathering for the Palestinian and the Kurdish peoples, from Dugru Squat- https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627002/

(20) https://anfenglishmobile.com/news/kahilogullari-peace-in-the-middle-east-will-only-be-possible-if-people-struggle-together-69791

(21) https://anfenglishmobile.com/kurdistan/hpg-guerrilla-ereb-calls-on-arab-young-people-to-support-the-struggle-69811

(22) https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(23) as above

(24) The massacres of Hamas, the brutality of the Israeli state and the imminent global conflict, Syspeirosi Anarxikon-
https://anarchypress.wordpress.com/2023/10/14/%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%83%cf%86%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b5%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%83-%cf%87%ce%b1%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%83-%ce%bf%c%b9-%ce%b8%ce%b7%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%89%ce%b4%ce%b9%ce%b5%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%ce%b9%cf%83/

(25) Gaza 2023 — High-Tech War Revisited – https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/11/19/gaza-2023-high-tech-war-revisited/

(26) The roads of Nestor Makhno, B. Bielas & A. Bielas, Babylonia Press, October 2007 –

Οι Δρόμοι του Νέστορ Μαχνό | 1ος Τόμος (pdf-κατέβασμα)

(27) https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(28) Nikos Nikanoras, The right to self-defense – https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627291/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/13/the-palestinian-revolution-and-the-rift-in-the-international-movement/

“If the fate of tragedies is overturned in favor of freedom, then every year becomes bearable… […] Fate will have its share of defeat this time.”

Abdullah Öcalan

Does it make sense to defend a two-week hunger strike? Of course. We take stock of 60″ actions carried out by two people, will we not account for an act that carries the same risk of loss? So take stock.

I thank the Anares Action and Solidarity Group for its immediate initiative. This is how the world of solidarity is built. Thank you for the dedication, which is the promise, from the streets of fire, thank you also for the signs on the walls that say that we will organize a look-out in every neighborhood. I thank the solidarity assembly that was set up in Athens and all the individuals and collective bodies that responded in any way. These first moves, which do not weigh up, demonstrated that it is not possible for the king or his courtiers to cut down a tree from the forest and return to the mansion unscathed. These first moves prevented an attempt to wear and tear me by the state before its retreat.

Returning to the wing, I was greeted by a multitude of people to express joy, to tighten my hand, to see if I am well, to carry my things, to cook for me. I knew that the previous days there was discussions about some solidarity mobilization for me. With all their reluctance, efforts are important. D1 is the wing of the heaviest workers. With the exception of the workshop workers who do all prison repairs, it is the wing of cooks, rubbish and cleaners of all prison outside the wings. It is the wing of the proletarians or proletarized prisoners who save value for the state with unpaid work because they are determined to leave the fastest from here. In this condition where the blackmail of exclusion from wage and movement to another wing is an iron boot, the elementary social spontaneity expressed is important. It shows that solidarity does not even disappear under the heavier oppression. It also shows that when the people finds its weapons, it finds both a mind and unity. These weapons, of the unmistakable resistance, are not brought by God, fortune, the objective-subjective conditions (or upside down if you will), nor the anticipation of the Holy Rebellion: the revolutionary stratum brings them.

In the minutes of the disciplinary board, it appears that in the midst of the strike, the Directorate attempted to create a substrate for my isolation from my fellow detainees, even inciting confrontations, by handling or possibly fabricating the testimony of the third cell-mate, who was called to testify. Without illusions, in a-social bourgeois culture there can be no betrayal, since everyone betrays themselves in some way. But we must give confidence to our neighbours, this road points to anarchy. We are on the lookout for the course of the prison management’s policy. We did not exchange libations of honorable peace.

Any interpretation of the retreat of the class-political/cultural enemy before testing the limits of confrontation would be controversial, and therefore useless for a public account, which must be clear. Surely the government wants the field to be quiet for the summer, not to maintain some non-existent political peace, but in order to keep the initiative for its planned attacks. Alertness.

Fate this time had its share of defeat.

The struggle continues.

Victory in the struggles of imprisoned and captive refugees

Immediate release of the revolutionaries Nikos Maziotis, Dimitris Koufodinas and Savvas Xiros

Release of revolutionary Pola Roupa

Release of all those convicted for 17 November

Release and acquittal of fighter Andreas F. from Patras

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Domokos Prison

July 15, 2024

Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/06/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-greeting-report-on-end-of-hunger-strike/

Comrades, I have a sufficiently coherent political understanding and a firm commitment to collectively formed scholastic positions on the relation between ends and means, to be able to weigh the importance of the hunger strike as a means of struggle, whenever it is chosen. The main line of battle of the hunger strike is the body of the striker and the frontal force of this line is constituted by the movement it triggers. The breadth and cohesion of this front depend on the political significance of the cause and on its understanding by the solidarity movement and, furthermore, on its perception of the striker’s credibility in remaining on the front line until the end of the battle and his steadfastness to the declared cause.

During my 3 years of captivity I have carried out a solidarity strike with no predetermined end date, which I stopped at 3 weeks based on the development of the struggle, and also many short symbolic strikes (from 1 to 7 days). This strike is different. Now I am the one who opens up the struggle, I define the purpose and hold the front line. I ought to be transparent about the purpose, the circumstances that brought about the need and my practical intention.

The hunger strike is a very serious means of struggle, because it has a direct physical cost and endangers the life of the person struggling. This condition can and does give birth to an ad hoc mass and aggressive movement. Moreover, the results of the hunger strike shape the conditions for subsequent struggles with the same means. Since the main line of battle is the body of the striker, its might against the class-political enemy and its influence on the social movement depend on the determination of the striker to fight to the end. Whenever the escalating strike (i.e. the one that has no declared end) is used indiscriminately and ends in a retreat, the credibility of this means diminishes for the whole movement, the class-political enemy gets bolder and the next strikers have to march further in order to achieve the collapse of the enemy’s reaction line. Comrades, I have political understanding and self-discipline. I did not make a recklessly hasty decision, I am not feigning, I am not looking to a negotiation. The circumstances that led me to this choice are politically and personally borderline.

I’ve said before, that for prisoners the hunger strike is not the ultimate mean, it is the real means of resistance, besides those of revolt and of mass workers’ strike in prison. For prisoners there is no scale of means, no room for maneuver, no room for tactical moves. Under built-in borderline conditions, we must resist with the ultimate means.

However, I must leave no doubt about the importance of the cause and the urgency of the circumstances. It may seem disproportionate to give my life for 4 square meters inside the special prison. I am fighting for a minimum space where the rule of ‘might is right’ cannot prevail. I am fighting to de-legitimize the terrorizing and provocative use of cannibalism, by the state. So that the threat of penal burden, even of life incarceration, does not hang over any political prisoner who will stand up to the physical violence of any would-be ruler. This is my most basic self-defense in a place where there is no community combative force. I must survive both as a body, as a person, as a decent human being, in order to remain a political subject. The political meaning of my demand and its objective purpose are crystal clear.

If I made a bigger demand, either speculatively, to mobilize people more, or opportunistically, to make the most of the maximum means, I would be deceiving the movement. Moreover, in such a case, if I won the main objective, it would look like a retreat. What chance of victory would we have if I requested my transfer to another prison? The facts would not weigh in favor of the struggle, since I am convicted for armed guerrilla organization, and the walls of the special prison of Domokos have so far been immovable for unrepentant captive guerrillas. Moreover, in percentage terms, I am still, at best, in the first half of my captivity. The goal of my transfer from the special prison would be astronomical. No victory is assured, even for the minimum that I am now demanding. The seemingly minimal demand does not ensure that the state will not treat this as an opportunity to murder me, or, even more so if it retreats, that it will overlook the attempt to inflict maximum damage on me, at the least cost to itself. But to understand the gravity of the necessity which determined an apparently small purpose, the difference between my living in this special prison and living in any other prison, would be infinitesimally small in proportion to the difference between living under constant physical terror and living in a condition of elementary self-defense. The gravity of the need dictated that the claim be kept to its most basic terms. And it is a need that cannot wait until we talk with the movement, organize, etc. Those who are caught unprepared by the rapid developments of the class-political struggle probably have ways of organizing that are inappropriate for these times. As the Organization Revolutionary Self-Defense wrote: immediate response to the terror of the state and the bosses with whatever forces are available.

These days in the prison “infirmary” cell, even if they are my last, they are beautiful, in contrast to the prospect of years of captivity under physical terror, constant threat of torturous prison transfers and additive sentences. These are days when the terror of the state, direct or indirect, cannot touch me.

I will honour the fight I have taken up. I will not hand over to the next resistances from prison, the line of non-retreat further back from the point where previous hunger strikers in greek prisons and internationally have rooted it.

If we cannot fight for 4 square meters, how will we fight for the whole earth? In these 4 square meters of self-defense within the tightest captivity, lies the common struggle with Palestine, Kurdistan, the land of Mapuche, the global South, outside and inside the metropolis, the common struggle for an internationalist revolutionary movement. As comrade Duran Kalkan from the PKK noted, they want to politically or physically eliminate the guerrilla and the captured rebels, to eliminate the consciousness of self-defense and its organization by the free society.

Dialectic from the PKK, we do not fight when the objective conditions are favorable, but against them, because the objective conditions work towards our annihilation. This is not a hunger strike in forbidding objective and subjective conditions, but instead, it is a move that, by establishing that nothing can nullify resistance, is ready to open up space and perspective.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
Saturday 29 June, 9th day of hunger strike
from the special counter-revolutionary prison of Domokos

PS: Practical update: As in every hunger strike so far, I drink only water. I only find meaning in prolonged strikes, with sugar, salt and tea, when it comes to mobilization campaigns, as practiced by the Turkish and Kurdish revolutionary movements. Apart from that, in the present conditions and in the middle of the summer, delay will not strengthen the struggle. It is likely that I will intensify the struggle soon. So I am informing on time. With open cards on the table. The “fixed rendezvous’ are the main battles.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/04/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-open-letter-to-the-solidarity-movement-and-about-the-political-choice-of-the-hunger-strike/

– 21st of October 2019: injury during an appropriation in Cholargos, Athens. Flight, political clandestinity. November 2019: captivity of comrade Vagelis Stathopoulos (imprisoned for 3,5 years) and of my friend Dionysis Bakas (imprisoned for 1,5 years)

– April/March 2021: 1st degree trial for the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense, in my absence. Stathopoulos sentenced to 19 years, Bakas to 10 years with suspension, Chatzivasileiadis sentenced to 16 years.

-August 2021: I am held captive following a bank appropriation in Thessaloniki

-Winter 2022: the 2nd degree trial for the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense begins.

-June 2022: 1st degree trial for the bank appropriation in Thessaloniki, sentenced to 13 years and 8 months.

-January 2023: the 2nd degree trial on the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense ends. The decision is the acquittal and release of Stathopoulos, a short sentence for Bakas, which he had already served, and 14 years for Chatzivasileiadis (down from 16 years).

-March 2024: hearing of my appeal to the Supreme court against the decision of the 2nd degree court on the case of the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense, as to the existence of a “terrorist organization” on the terms of the special counterrevolutionary law and as to the evidence of my entry into the organization. If my appeal for cancellation of the 2nd degree court decision is granted (decision is due several months from now), then the trial will take place again only for some of the charges. In the case that I get acquitted for certain charges, specifically the one for “entry into terrorist organization”, then my sentence will be reduced by 3 years.

-March 2024: 2nd degree trial for the bank appropriation in Thessaloniki. I got sentenced to 11 years and 1 month (down from 13 years and 8 months). The main sentence (8 years) remained the same because, in the words of the prosecutor, I am “unrepentant”. The small reduction in the sentence is due to a legal correction the court made, (it would have been extremely arbitrary for them not to correct it), that is the merging of the charges of “possession of weapons” and “carrying weapons”.

-February 2024: 2nd degree trial of the 1st eviction of Gare squat (Athens, Exarchia). I got sentenced to 15 months suspended for 3 years (this is enforced after my release). The other 3 comrades are sentenced to 2,5 months on suspension. I was also charged for the second eviction of Gare but I was acquitted and on the 3rd eviction 3 other comrades were charged without being detained for this.

– I am now serving time in prison due to the sentences imposed (in addition and independently one from the other) for the cases of the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense and the bank appropriation in Thessaloniki. When the trial cycle ends (after the Supreme court decision on my appeal) the 2 final sentences will be merged. In this procedure part of the smaller sentence is added onto the longer one. Either way, whatever the sum of the sentences of a prisoner who is not convicted to a “life sentence”, the max real prison time limit is 20 years (as of now that the new penal code was voted in, this limit is increased to 25 years). In the worst case scenario (rejection of my appeal) my sentence will remain at that limit, 20 years. In the best case, my sentence will be reduced to about 16 years.

– In practice, 20 years can mean real time from 6yrs and 8months (by doing work days in prison and getting parole) to real time 20yrs if parole is not granted and you get disciplinary charges while in prison. And 16 yrs can mean anything between 5yrs and 4months to 16 years.
If there is no unforeseeable events (eg. prison uprisings or provocations), I will not be deprived of workdays. Workdays is a benefit that the state is (still) providing to political prisoners. And this is not a given for all prisoners. Work and deprivation of work is a method of extortion and blackmail in prison. Of course the recent altercation in Diavata prison in Thessaloniki may end up in disciplinary charges. However, it is equally standard that parole for captives of guerrilla organizations (November 17, Nikos Maziotis from Revolutionary Struggle) is postponed indefinitely as long as they remain unrepentant. So until my release I will not know how long I will actually spend in prison, it could be anything from 2,5 years from now to 17 years from now, or never! Most probably I will get released in 2029- 2030. These estimations cannot be solid, as they do not take into account political changes that can have an effect in the meantime.

Received by email.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/04/17/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-synopsis-of-judicial-cases-and-sentences/