Two Notes from Athens
By AK Press | November 25, 2011
A.G. Schwarz, co-editor of We Are an Image from the Future, has sent us this fascinating update on events in Greece and the response to the book by anarchist comrades here and abroad. It’s certainly an understatement to say “the book represents an extremely complicated project undertaken over a difficult, dangerous, and highly charged year of struggle.” Not that things have gotten less complicated, dangerous, or highly charged in the last couple years, but this useful account of events adds much needed clarity.
Two Notes from Athens
A.G. Schwarz
November 17th and the ongoing struggle in Greece
Before Greece joined the eurozone, the country exported a considerable sum of manufactured goods to the Middle East and Eastern Europe. With the transition from the drachma to the euro, the export market collapsed, as it is known to do when the domestic currency increases in value. With the collapse of the exports, consumption began to exceed production, creating the inevitable accumulation of debt that in the last couple years has been signaled as a crisis and blamed on Greek administrative incompetence or political corruption. As the crisis on its political level comes to a head, Papandreou, the populist prime minister from the Socialist Party (PASOK) is forced to step down, PASOK forms a unity government with Nea Demokratia (ND, conservatives, other largest party of Greece), and appoints an interim prime minister, Papademos, the former president of the Greek Central Bank and vice president of the European Central Bank.
The doctors of the social body will always be entrusted to remedy the ills they have caused.
Greece is now ruled by an unelected government. People talk of the return of the “junta.” The politicians, meanwhile, talk of the timely arrival of a technocratic government. And the truth is, Greece may have been the last of the modern democracies in the world, governed by charismatic politicians who lead through the formulation of distinct ruling strategies. The two party unity government symbolizes a transition that has already occurred elsewhere, in which politics, if it exists, exists only as spectacle and ruse, and government becomes nothing more than the technical administration of the unified strategy based on a high-level consensus of Capital.
What role the KKE, possibly the last truly Stalinist party in Europe, and PAME, their trade union, will play in all this is uncertain, though for now they are sticking to the script they have enacted since the Treaty of Varkiza at the end of WWII—that of loyal opposition who reserve their greatest violence for the uncompromising enemies of social order. Whether they subsequently disappear, as technocratic states have no great need for powerful labor unions or loyal oppositional parties, or whether Greece proves to be a unique situation, is a question they don’t seem to be asking, content for the moment with attacking demonstrators, protecting parliament, and, on November 17, leading the demonstration to the traditional destination at the American Embassy, which constitutes a trap both in the ideological dead-end of anti-imperialism as substitute for anticapitalism, and on the urban terrain, with the neighborhood geography distinctly favoring the inevitable police attack, which every year quickly succeeds in clearing the demonstration away.
While the plaza occupation movement, when it arrived at Syntagma in Athens, constituted an opportunity for nationalists and the ideologues of democracy to gain visibility, it also provided an opportunity to challenge these tendencies, which was taken up by the relatively few anarchists who participated. Perhaps more importantly, the Syntagma occupation that lasted for several months througout the spring and summer of this year shifted the locale of street-fighting to the square in front of the parliament, involved many older people who were not participating in other spaces of protest and struggle, and constituted a chaotic space in which the hegemony of the leftist parties and unions was absent.
Whereas the December 2008 uprising predated the austerity measures and the more acute symptoms of the crisis, and was infused with a distinctly anarchist character, the subsequent social movements in response to the bank bailouts and the economic situation, growing largely in 2010, allowed the leftists and the unions to regain much of their lost relevance, while leaving the anarchists relatively flatfooted.
When the popular response to the economic crisis began to get out of control, the KKE and PAME took a more aggressive role in imposing order, from recuperators to repressors, taking on paramilitary functions alongside the police to protect the parliament building from attack during the October general strike, on one occasion closing off Syntagma square, and on another occasion attacking anarchists and other demonstrators with sticks. When some anarchists responded not with sticks and rocks but with molotov cocktails and an old Communist died, even though his death was caused by a heart attack from police tear gas, the Communists and the media collaborated to blame the “hooded ones.” Subsequently, the anarchist space and Greek society have been divided, some arguing that the role of the Communists as protectors of order is more clear than in the past, others believing that the anarchists have come off looking like fascists.
In any case, the conflict has had a clear result. KKE’s practical absence from the events of November 15–17, although perhaps not a surprise, comes as a shock, as in past years they often dominated the annual commemoration of the 1973 Polytechnic occupation and, on the last day, its brutal suppression by the military. The Polytechnic through much of the year is the haunt of the anarchists and the (extraparliamentary) Left. But starting on November 15, it is usually the KKE more than any other group that fills the campus with their tables and propaganda, and that controls the gates, often locking out rioters during the protests. This year, however, they had no tables and the most minimal presence, and on the 17th, the day of the yearly march to the parliament and the American Embassy, they held a separate demonstration. As a political party, they naturally wanted to avoid confrontations with the anarchists and the Left, because they have their sights set on institutional power and ultimately disdain the power that exists in the streets. This is why, wherever there is a critical anarchist intervention, recuperation is alwas self-defeating and must always start anew, often with new organizations leading the process.
Despite the vacuum opened by the KKE’s absence, the anarchists only had a small presence in the Polytechnic, with most of them choosing to set up their tables outside. Most anarchists voice the idea that the 17th is a day that belongs to the Left, with the anarchist role being that of critical minority, as they were during the occupation in 1973.
The major protest of the 17th was no different, with most organized anarchists choosing not to go, or to go with a “wait and see” attitude. Crowd estimates range from 20,000 to 50,000 or higher, though I am more convinced by the lower numbers. More importantly, everyone I spoke with agreed that it was a smaller demonstration than in past years. The anarchists in attendance were poorly organized, and early on dissolved as a specific block in order to mingle with the leftists, which given their vulnerability and the police preparedness that day was probably the wiser decision.
Some people, possibly anarchists, possibly hooligans, attacked police outside of Parliament, though they chose a poor moment to do so, when the march was stretched thin, and the police counterattack sent everyone running. More extended rioting took place outside the American Embassy and then later on Leoforos Alexandras, though in the latter case it was a very sparse crowd involved in the burning and rock throwing, and a charge by the Delta motorcycle police quickly cleared them away. The traditional night time rioting in Exarchia was also lighter than in past years, with a small crowd of only about fifty people finally gathering up the courage and craziness to attack the riot police detachment on Stournari, just above the Polytechnic. One could tell they were inexperienced– half of the molotovs went out before impact, and the rest were poorly aimed, whereas the one comrade with a crowbar for prying up paving stones was erratic in his production of ammunition, and when he finally set to work, he did so in the front of the crowd, rather than the back, so a simple police advance was all it took to lose the entire pile of stones. For an hour or less, trash fires burned and the occasional missile streaked towards the police, before finally the cops advanced, surrounded the square, and put an end to the trouble-making. It was a mediocre day: the minimum for a dignified presence in the streets, and a little bit of practice for newcomers, but no more.
Beyond the events of one specific day, the anarchist space of Athens continues to develop. The occupied park of Exarchia is now filled with flowers and olive trees, and has become ever more real than the mayor’s threats against it. Exarchia square is now free of junkies and drug dealers, and a more diverse and multigenerational crowd makes it their home. After the police were again kicked out, having temporarily occupied the square at the end of 2009, people saw how while police agents were reasserting state control over the neighborhood, neighbors were getting fined for trivialities and shopkeepers had to pay taxes and follow regulations again, but the number of drug dealers only increased, right under the cops noses. So after they kicked the police out, the neighborhood assembly pushed the dealers and junkies out, not with fists and sticks as anarchists have done in the past but with consistent persuasion.
As for the fascists, while they continue to be stronger, and more encouraged by the political system, than before December 2008, the phenomenon does not seem to be getting out of control. Some travellers reported that fascists now had a space in Exarchia, which would have constituted a major shift to the balance of power in Athens, but in fact they were mistakenly referring to Aghios Panteleimos, a neighborhood about twenty minutes walk from the center where fascists have been harassing immigrants with police protection since 2009.
On November 12, to share one anecdote, fascists held a public meeting in a square in Nikea, a neighborhood quite far from the center. The 700 anarchists, autonomists, trotskyists, and leftists who tried to occupy the square beforehand were foiled by a large police presence, but two fascists were sent to the hospital and the antifascists gave battle to the police, mounting a respectable challenge given that this was to be a calm riot—no smashings, no throwing of rocks, out of respect for the neighbors, with whom local antifascists were trying to strengthen their relationships. Of course, when the police charged, a number of rocks were thrown, although never in a hail, always from close range and on target, so that neighbors and their cars were not endangered. However, the one person to throw an ekinesos (plastic bottle of benzine ignited by a firework equivalent to a quarter or half stick of dynamite) overshot his mark and almost immolated a shopkeeper and parked motor bike, though evidently there were no hard feelings, as he subsequently came out and cursed the police while pouring water on the closest of the many tear gas grenades they had thrown.
The biggest change in the last couple years seems to be the absence of the strategic clarity that so many people in the Greek anarchist space seemed to have in the months after December, 2008. Now a great pall seems to hang over everything. On the one hand, this should be expected, if one acts on such clarity and moves into a new situation. On the other hand, many of the people I talked to seemed to refer to a common shortcoming when they mentioned—their language differing in accordance with their different political perspectives—a lack of revolutionary perspective, of vision, of imagination, of a plan to offer society now that everyone knows capitalism is fucked. This sentiment mirrors the analysis offered by several different veterans of the social war I talked with two years ago, who each in their own way said that December illustrated the strategic limits of the Greek anarchists, and the lack of a proposal for what to do once all the banks and police stations were burned. Two years later, the same weaknesses remain, unresolved despite the clarity with which they were illuminated. Generally, tradition is stronger than good intentions.
I was also surprised to hear that some of the most gung-ho or aggressive comrades were talking disparagingly of the focus on rioting, and arguing the need for greater organization, or other changes in the anarchist practice. One group of ardent street fighters I had interviewed in 2009, who then were rightfully celebrating the spread of anarchist tactics throughout all the youth, were now bemoaning the fact that anarchist ideas had not also spread.
“23.10″ (who gave an interview for the book) told me he thought it was a mistake, after December, to not create more anarchist infrastructure that would have allowed more new people to participate. He also said the increased reperssion has not been successful in weakening the anarchists but it has succeeded in spreading fear, as now everyone has friends who have been sent to prison for rioting, sabotage, arsons, bankrobberies, and other crimes. Without a doubt, there have been fewer attacks in 2011 than in past years.
“Vaggelis” was not alone in arguing for greater unity and greater organization in the Greek anarchist space. We discussed how in other contexts, the call for greater organization serves to mask a fundamental weakness and disconnection. This is the farce of the federation composed of various isolated groups and individuals with no connections other than to the federation itself. But in Greece, there are a large number of anarchist and antiauthoritarian nuclei with their own identities, their own self-sustaining practice, and in some cases, connections with larger communities. Perhaps in this context, and keeping present the lessons from past mistakes, an anarchist federation would rise above the politicking and conservatism that have wrecked most such organizations, and create new possibilities for struggle. To find out, the comrades would have to break with deeply entrenched habits.
It will be interesting to see if Greek anarchists break out of a mode that has served them well in the past, now that they are facing a radically changed situation. For anarchists in the rest of the world, though, the next sources of inspiration may come (and already is coming) from other places, far away and perhaps closer to home.
A response to the denunciations
In the last year, two denunciations of We Are an Image from the Future have come from people who gave interviews for the book. Because these concern the credibility of the work, I wanted to respond.
One denunciation comes from “Alkis,” who was upset because he did not know Void Network were also editors of the book, and his group and Void Network have a strong difference of political perspective. I was introduced to Alkis by a friend who is close to several people in Void and also friends with people in Alkis’ group. I assumed this mutual friend had informed Alkis that people from Void Network were coeditors of the book. This turned out not to be the case. I also tried to talk with Alkis about Void Network, but he declined that conversation, as he also makes clear in the letter he published. Unfortunately, the mutual friend who made the introduction is now in prison, making it all the more difficult to clear up the misunderstanding. At no point did I hide my friendship or association with members of Void Network.
However, as a critical comrade pointed out, the responsibility was entirely on my shoulders to make the details of the book absolutely clear, as the political divisions in the Greek anarchist space represent serious conflicts. I finally managed to meet with Alkis, and offer my apology for not making one hundred percent certain that he understood who else was working on the book with me. I explained that the confusion was not at all malicious or intentional. It did not help that the Greek word ekdido (εκδίδω) usually applies to publishing and editing, so when I was asked “Who is publishing the book?” and I answered “AK Press,” in English my answer was completely forthright, whereas translated back into Greek it becomes murky.
As I understand it, Alkis’ position is that he was willing to give an interview to a foreigner for a book to be published abroad, even though Void Network or other groups also had their texts in that book, but once the name of Void Network appears on the cover of the book, the political meaning and direction of the entire project changes.
At the time, I did not know that members of Void Network would want to put the name of their group on the cover of the book, that is, to claim their participation in the project as a group rather than as individuals. Having my differences with Void Network, I leaned against that decision, but in the end acquiesced. In any case, it probably would not have made a difference in this case, because as I understand it now Alkis only agreed to do the interview on the understanding that I was editing the book alone (something I could not have done, as the book would have been impossible without the background knowledge and contacts of my coeditors).
To make matters worse, Alkis should have received a copy of the book much sooner than he did. In fact, it was months after the free copies arrived in Greece that the friend who was supposed to distribute these copies finally did so, and in the meantime Alkis had already paid to have a copy shipped to him, and only in this way did he find out definitively that Void were also named as editors of the book. This constitutes a lack of respect, and could only add to the impression that we were giving him the run around.
Out of respect for Alkis, I recommend that people read his interview in its entirety and separately from the rest of the book. It is available on the internet.
The more serious denunciation, from Panagiotis Kalamaras, contains the accusation that he never gave an interview with us, and that we falsified the one that appears in the book under his name. This accusation came as a great shock, as I conducted the interview myself, along with Tasos Sagris, and at the end of our talk I specifically asked Kalamaras what name he wanted to use, expecting a false name as was the habit with most other people we spoke to. Not only did he ask us to include his first and last name, he also specified that we should add the name of his publishing group.
After hearing of his accusation, I contacted a third comrade who was present that day, but not involved in the making of the book. I asked him if there had been any room for misunderstanding, and he told me he was equally surprised by Kalamaras’ letter and remembered the interview the same as I had. Tasos believes Kalamaras thought his interview would be a source for an article on the historical background of the Greek anarchist space, and not an essay to be published separately, though we did explain that the structure of the book would consist of separate interviews, that we would not attempt to synthesize the various perspectives but let each one speak in its own voice.
But while checking up, I also learned of a serious mistake on our part. After each interview was transcribed and edited, we presented the draft to the person in question to allow them to make changes. All the interviews that went into the book were divided up between me and my coeditors to be checked in this way. It turns out that the person who was supposed to get Kalamaras’ approval for his interview never did so, meaning Kalamaras never had a chance to make changes or corrections. I asked the comrade who was supposed to send Kalamaras the draft of his interview to apologize, but I don’t know if that will happen in the end. A common opinion I’ve heard is that in Greece, it is less common for such disputes to go from mistake to criticism to apology or denial, and more common for offenses to be followed by exaggerated accusations and denunciations, which are in turn met with a detente, all bridges having been burned. The Greek anarchist space is constantly fragmenting, and from what I have seen, new fractures are typically announced by a bright flash of strong words and then permanent silence, as the disputing parties subsequently avoid each other and maintain a permanent distance.
In any case, Kalamaras does not approve of the interview he gave us, and as he had no opportunity to edit or withdraw it, it cannot and should not be attributed to him. On the other hand, his dramatic accusation (which also included the rumor that I might be a CIA agent) should not reflect on the credibility of the book, but on his idea of an appropriate and mature response to an editorial error.
On the other hand, it has been encouraging to hear that multiple anarchist and antiauthoritarian groups here appreciated the book. The Greek anarchist space is highly fragmented and some of its different theoretical nuclei are extremely competitive in advancing their respective analyses. Most people who agreed to give interviews specified that they thought it was a valuable project to be published abroad, but they would not participate in a similar project intended for the Greek anarchist space. Over fifty people participated in this book with interviews or translations, people who between them have some very strong divisions, and although it was clear to all of us that this book was not being made for them, it is good to know that many of them were satisfied with the final product.
This does not negate the substance of the criticisms, but it does put them in perspective. The two mistakes we made, with regards to Alkis and Kalamaras, are serious, but I want to make clear that they were not the results of carelessness or dishonesty. The book represents an extremely complicated project undertaken over a difficult, dangerous, and highly charged year of struggle. Aside from strongly differing historical and strategic analyses, there are also accounts of illegal acts of struggle, made not in a sensationalist way but a way that may allow the extension of similar acts. Many people took a risk in spreading these words, and I am glad that the few mistakes we did make did not compromise this aspect of the project.
Ultimately, We Are an Image from the Future was only ever intended for people outside of Greece. The purpose was to share revolutionary lessons from Greece with comrades abroad, to document an important episode in our collective history, and to study what factors lead to an insurrection, how anarchists can continue to draw strength from the insurrection once the most visible fires have died down, and what strategic limitations are encountered in the insurrection. All of the critical responses from English-speaking comrades so far have been encouraging.
However, if the Greek anarchist space is a broad cosmos of nuclei that fission and fusion, sometimes leaving great enmity and distance, the American anarchist space—the primary audience for the book—is a high school cafeteria, replete with gossiping, status-jockeying, and the occasional food fight. Within this space, some of the responses have not been critical, but indirect, and I think it is important to respond.
A few of these have evinced the maturity of the riot tourist, who understands the insurrection as a simple outburst of noise and smoke, limited in time and space. One commentator opines that I “missed” the insurrection and consoled myself by trying to make a book of it afterwards. In this view, the important thing is to hop on a plane and to go to where the action is at, rather than sow the seeds of insurrection before and after the major riots, and to work for the extension of the revolt in other countries where the situation is less exciting. It would have been extremely easy for me to go to Athens within the first days—I had friends there, a place to stay, and the possibility of a cheap plane ticket—but I specifically chose to stay where I was to work for the extension of the revolt, in solidarity with the Greek insurrection, and to go there later specifically to analyze the post-insurrectionary moments that anarchists know so little about.
Other indirect responses have manifested in the spreading of rumors, perhaps by people who had been to Greece once or twice, thrown a molotov cocktail or two, and now felt their monopoly of Greece points challenged by a book that attempted to spread and share anarchist experiences of struggle, to bring the insurrection everywhere.
Some rather silly rumors targeted me, but the truth is I would rather have a bad reputation among low quality people.
More serious were the rumors circulated against Void Network. Aside from the typical and farfetched accusation that they talk with police or media, the general tone of the rumors was that they “not the real Greek anarchists,” which again gives the impression of people who profoundly misunderstand the Greek anarchist space. There is no homogeneity or common ground among the anarchists, antiauthoritarians, libertarians, and anti-state communists who make up this space. Some US anarchists have expressly created the image of an insurrectionary Greek anarchist who is the personification of the ideas of Bonano and other Italian comrades. This is especially erroneous, as Italian insurrectionary anarchism has been a minor influence in Greece. Few of the texts by Bonanno, Cavalieri and the others have been translated into Greek (“At Daggers Drawn” only came out recently) and after Bonano’s last talk in Greece, most of the comrades agreed that he was impractically abstract. The Greek space is much more fragmented than this, for better and for worse. There is no “real Greek anarchist.” Even Alpha Kappa, decidedly uncool among insurrectionary anarchists abroad, are more radical in some of their positions and more extreme in many of their actions than the most dedicated readers of 325.
I find myself in the strange position of defending Void Network, when I have strong political disagreements with them. These disagreements can be useful when based in their actual practice. Without a doubt, Void Network’s politics are eccentric, but many of the local criticisms against them are equally foreign to the American anarchist space. One group of anarchists, for example, denounces them for selling beer at parties, including fundraisers, even though this money goes to pay for the costs of the festivals or to pay for propaganda, and never into their own pockets. The question of commercialization in the anarchist space is a necessary one, but I wonder how many anarchists outside of Greece are against any form of selling. Others criticize them for placing a major focus on organizing free festivals, illegal street parties and other cultural activities (many of which devolve into riots), and I wonder how many anarchists in the US or the UK, where Reclaim the Streets and electro-communism have played important roles in reclaiming space and creating opportunities for confrontation, could unhypocritically make this criticism? Other comrades here criticize them for a superficial or false analysis. Should US comrades actually take up this debate and base it in a critical reading of Void Network texts, it would make for an interesting conversation.
The book, I had hoped, would be controversial. It does, after all, include divergent and conflicting points of view. It would be much more useful for all of us if that controversy took the form of criticism and debate, rather than rumors and popularity contests. In all likelihood, the rumors are the result of a small number of hipsters and internet trolls, though the approach to struggle and social ideas on the basis of coolness and popularity are much more generalized (one American comrade didn’t even want to be seen in Athens with certain former comrades, worried that it would hurt her status, and again misunderstanding the way political divisions work here). I think this cultural characteristic, which is also criticized by many other American comrades, is one of the most pernicious obstacles to the development of a stronger struggle there.
The greatest response to this book, and the true spirit of anarchy, can be found in those cities that have critically incorporated some lessons from Greece with their ongoing collective experiences, to take inspiration without mimicking, and where now the anarchist struggle is stronger and more mature than it has been in anyone’s memory. Already, these cities are starting to inform and inspire anarchists in other countries, eroding the monopoly that Greece has held over our attentions, and showing that we can find fertile ground for anarchy wherever we dare.
Topics: AK Authors! | No Comments »
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.