A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) anarkismo.net: Organization against the company by Anthony Drakonaki

Date Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:45:26 +0200

The following text, first published in the second issue of the theoretical journal Social Anarchism issued by the libertarian publications Koursal. ---- Organization against the company - The process of yperaftonomisis and structural weaknesses of an anarchist collective of Antoni Drakonaki ---- "From now until our experience we believe that the lack of social access is what makes us harmless for state power. Why social revolution will not do us and our friends, but all the exploited, making the anarchist dream reality. This means that anyone who does not see the need for infrastructure and organization of space -with parallel selected hits against member-unconsciously and with a dogmatic and shortsighted practice creates obstacles for the development of the anarchist movement in Greece and converts it into a daily nightmare anarchist dream "[1].

It is true that, in most cases, and because of the small age prevailing in the Greek anarchist movement, the process whereby formed and operated a a / a collectivity, takes place with gang conditions. This, the first time, is not considered as a de facto negative; no one can, for example, consider crash creating a collectivity of an existing group of friends at the same time politicized in a city district or a neighborhood of Athens. Structurally, therefore, the creation of a political collectivity based initially in trust and friendship, not judged negatively. The problem at a later stage in the development and group formation through time. Once constituted the respective collective, begins the manufacturing process of a common ground between members. Its members formed collectively develop their common political speech and build a collective daily life, which most often turns into "their" reality. On this last point is, in our opinion, the source of evil.

Grace zero above control (obviously meant the collective control in a broader organization or a federation), the group creates a "olodiki" the perception of the social and political process that, due to the non-commitment of any other collectivity becomes time time and action with action becoming increasingly real, as it takes shape as collective lived experience (yperaftonomisis process of assembly). This concept is shown as consisting of various factors such as the common readings, the common everyday, common kinematic experiences and, finally, the influence of the eminent personalities of each meeting, who for various reasons are supplying the group and members of the terminology, the theoretical sources and the main structure of thinking.

The "invisible captains"[2]or "militants influential"[3]in accordance with the softened condition, is, in our view, a natural and inevitable phenomenon, inherent to the principles of collective organization and human evolution (age , experience, insight, background), very close to the Foucauldian microphysics of power. What makes it a problem, is not itself a phenomenon, but aformalistiko context in which it grows, and the dynamic gains.

The informal hierarchy is not dealt with nagging but with control; collective, democratic and political, to be based not on the will of some, but by its very structure. The policy epivoulefsi some assemblies of such persons is not an exclusive problem of these persons but mainly of the assembly itself, the operating system itself. A personality rests in limbo she leave the rest; it is no coincidence that there are groups, if their privations a couple of people vegetate; and here we come to the question of empirical-cognitive capital accumulation[4](a kind of social capital at the micro -plane of a meeting).

The above demonstrates that "influential militants' hold some kind expertise; an expertise rather than dissipated in the Assembly remains a monopoly in the hands of some people who manage to dominate a relationship of dependence. This know-how is not exclusively derived from their rhetorical flair, but a process of intellectual goodwill pumping: the accumulated empirical section the entire assembly which, upon redistribution, is a short circuit. Simply put, each collectivity accumulates through the actions and experience of an empirical-cognitive capital. Initially, this capital exists only as a collective product; there is, ie, as capital of the group as a whole, and not individualized. Inaction But many members, without a specific goal setting and policies at group level positions (places a responsibility on the structure and not the persons), in conjunction with the inherent capabilities of the "fighters influential 'lead accumulated this capital in the hands of a few , benefiting so (often unintentionally) from the structural inequalities of aformalismou. What we need, then, is the expulsion of these few, but to create a mechanism that will equally distributes this chapter to all members of the Assembly. The aformalismos is the free market of a movement, and where there is free market there are capitalists.

The process of yperaftonomisis described earlier, is not inhibited by either the new members of a collectivity or less forced to assimilate the mikropragmatikotita team and be alert to preserve the cherished sovereign. New members have to deal with these a number of problems: from an already-established group internal communication system (terminology, quotes, inside humor, taboo themes, political references) to informal (spontaneous) respect the most prominent / active members and, finally, acceptance or conflict with a robust understanding of reality itself - the "reality" of collegiality that we mentioned. Responsible to adapt to a new microcosm built without them, these new members have three main options: (a) to adapt the existing framework and to accept the rules, (b) to try to change to a lesser or greater extent and finally, (c) to reject and to leave the group. The problem is that, between the first two options, there is an inherent inequality, in our opinion, shows again the lack of structure.

Upon closer observation, we see that the vast majority of cases, the scales tilted to the first option (not looking at the third), a new member, ie, adapt sooner or later already configured reality of the group, without even trying to challenge the existing framework. This is mainly due to the uncertainty that is not only with regard to whether it has the capacity to do so and whether he has understood the frame itself; if understood correctly, that is, what goes to confront.

This inequality is the structural weakness of the new members to change the existing framework. Weakness due to two main reasons: (a) the age difference of new and "old", along with everything else it involves, and (b) the relevance of the political context of each collectivity. First, it is known that the "space" draws new members almost exclusively from an early age, mainly students and youths. So, for a kid, the difference in age, experience and theoretical background between him and the older members is very noticeable - first and foremost by him. Still, the new member, most often, unfortunately, will not find in front of a framework of coherent political positions, shaped by a broader set of people exceeding the narrow limits of collegiality; on the contrary, will face with a set of ideas and practices that constitute as mentioned above, the reality of a group of twenty people.[5]The relevance of the object, then, which potentially could challenge, aponoimatodotei the contest itself.

To make it more clear, the relevance that is lack of clearly formulated policy positions and the (political) irresponsibility that thrives on small unknown collectives, in the absence of broader political entity with name recognition. As a result of relativity, any criticism encounters an almost ceremonial function[6]of the group which, in most cases, results can not resolve political differences. In the absence of coherent political positions, statutes, etc., any criticism made solely on the "regular" of a collectivity rather than matching this regular with its positions. Also, if the urgency of this or that action is judged each time only by the perception or the appetite of people who make up a collectivity and is not determined by the same social necessity or the importance of a broader decision to act on a national level, dispute will take place with personal criticism in terms of collegiality rather than political consistency conditions and social responsibility.

What, then support it is that the outside pressure (within an organization) is not "subordinate" a collectivity, but instead to help clarify the political context to distance the ambiguities and to politicize disputes and internal of conflicts. On the other hand, the yperaftonomisi converts it into a company, which solves its differences with the sole criterion of consistency and qualitative correlation between the respective political aspirations and the performance of its members. Under the existing framework, if a collectivity manages to realize its political desires, no matter what the political situation requires, wrong. The commitment that begins and ends in the resultant of desires and aspirations of its members.


For example, five collectives, which sometimes are kinematic processes and collaborate in a context meager political responsibility towards each other (apart from solidarity and mutually support) are essentially five different groups with common -very genika- ideological background[7], flying and line up each time five different realities. This is, as we mentioned in the beginning, because during their formation, there was no binding, no substantial (political) communication and no collective control of a senior political body (Organization Federation), so the reality visa not ' filtered "collectively and not directly challenged by some force other than the collective itself. The company thus grows inside its very own world, prey to the natural and social inequalities inherent in relations between people of different age, class, experiences, experience, talents, etc., and left to struggle alone with her personal demons. Without the assistance of a political entity, individual collectivity sees itself not as a part of an organization that builds social revolution but as a separate body which cooperates with the other voluntarist not necessarily.

As part of an organization are forced to work in order to work the whole body in an interdependent and, as a separate body, as long as you want to collaborate with others in a given time, in a context and in conditions that nobody knows how to define . The autonomous organization / collective / company is the king of the microcosm. Has the area, the roof, the army, the council and the periphery of sympathizers filled every so blocks and events. All these kings together make up the Greek antiauthoritarian space; a populated world with strong standard intercom, built on a strange principle: that aformalismos and internal conflicts, he implies, is the basis of existence, a means of internal cohesion and harmony. In short, aformalismos dominates as a necessary evil to avoid stormy conflicts within the anarchist milieu in return, that is, to maintain a friendship and an intercom, based on ideological proximity between collectives living together, prefixing an a-temporal, ideological abuse solvency at the expense of social and political responsibility of their time.

The reality of individual collegiate overview of the things that sometimes is only the vision of a single person, the relevance of the political framework and the yperaftonomisi of receiving, through aformalismo, totalitarian elements, alienation and heteronomy . On the other hand, the organization into a wider anarchist political organization creates the necessary collective control mechanisms, based on principles and positions that have collectively decided and publicly by all collectives that constitute the; disarming, so building the arbitrariness and abuse and consolidating its real autonomy of each body part. By adopting a few words the policy framework of a "social anarchism that seeks freedom through structures and mutual responsibilities (...)."[8]

As, therefore, the aformalismos continues to perform the role of methadone, both the Greek anarchist movement will seem a sickly body, consciously strives to preserve its dependencies. And because the story when it appears, the hitherto practice, transferred more verbally than read from the current generation, the anti-organizational obsession threatens to end anarchism in Greece word "politically and socially harmless - a simple caprice that would offend fun, the petty bourgeoisie of all time.

At a time when the anarchist movement, as the most organic piece of tilting mechanism of the existing, paying the price for his stance, the structure does not simply appear as an option but a necessity to remain a word anarchism politically and socially dangerous.


[1]Notice of 1985, signed by seven anarchist collectives in Athens
[2]Karytsas C., Michael Bakunin: the world and his work, ed. Radically, p. 173.
[3]M. Bookchin, introductory essay , Anarchist collectives, Dolgoff S., International library, 1982, p. 39.
[4]"the totality of the available or potentially available resources associated with its participation in a network of more or less institutionalized, sustainable dating and relationships mutually validated "(trans. ours), Bourdieu P. (1980), «Le capital social. Notes provisoires», Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n ° 31, January, pp. 2-3.
[5]"Idea means to you put the truth under control[...]no use talking about ideas, when there is no assumption of a higher authority that can regulate a series of rules, which may rely on discussion[...]where there are no rules, where can our partner to bring[...]where there is no assumption of certain final intellectual positions, which to a dispute can be reduced. " Gasset y Ortega, The revolt of the masses, Dodona, 2006, p. 103.
[6]In ways, namely, action and operation of the team consistently adopts and is not willing to change. If the descriptive phrases, they would be "so we know", "so we operate here," "it catches" and so on.
[7]The anarchist sign between two collectives not necessarily mean that the two parties share the view of the world and its history; the same, respectively, applies to a lesser extent, in other words assessment of the social situation and the perception of political requirements of the time. Consequently, under a -katachristika- common ideological umbrella, fit potentially, many considerations and estimates, as many as the individual collectives.
[8]Bookchin M., Social Anarchism or Lifestyle, isnafia, 2005, pp. 78-79.

* First published in the second issue of the theoretical journal Social Anarchism issued by the libertarian publications Koursal. https://koursal.wordpress.com/ We learned from Provo to http://provo.gr
Link Related: https://koursal.wordpress.com

A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center