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 | of 2018

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

(en) Greece, Public account of the first two years of operation of the Anarchist Federation Anarchist Federation (gr) [machine translation]

Date Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:29:40 +0200

It has come, in our view, the time for the public presentation of the assessment of the creation and functioning of the Anarchist Federation. The reason for this is twofold. On the one hand, it is a necessity based on the political ethos and the liberal culture that we are trying to have as anarchists. On the other hand, the ownership, both by us and by the rest of the movement, of the experience that has been painfully conquered by the course of the organizational struggle so far is an essential necessity. So today we have to define successes and failures, denials and victories, both inevitable and reckless mistakes. ---- In revolutionary history nothing is new but nothing is a copy of an old story. Experience of ventures is a tool that can only be dialectically useful: evaluating and evaluating what is already worthwhile for competitors, first and foremost as a tool for the future - what became important in what can be done.

The analysis of the "initiative of the four groups" that led to the beginning of the organizational effort remains clear today. The potentials, the momentum, the wealth that the anarchist space carries, but also our limits, weaknesses and inadequacies continue, in our opinion, to be there and to look at us all in the eyes.

This valuation text marks for us the completion of what we defined in our founding conference in 2015 as the "experimental period" of the Anarchist Federation, a period that is de facto our every move, our every structure, our every initiative would be experimental, just because neither and none of us had done it again, none and none of us had a ready recipe. With this text, we announce the results of this "experiment" and based on the new reality, we proceed to the 1st regular conference of the AO. which will determine its definitive physiognomy.

Starting with the presentation and evaluation text of the Anarchist Federation's functioning so far, it would be wrong and disingenuous not to publicly admit that the original plan on which the formation of the Anarchist Federation has failed has failed. The original plan - which collectivities we shared together - corresponded to another treaty and, necessarily - as is often the case when designs are actually impinging - has radically changed.

From the initiative of the four groups to the splitting of two panhellenic projects ...

The process

Four collectives, following a common course of several years in the "Assembly of Anarchists for Social Democracy" (the last, to date, such a group of collectives) began a courageous effort to overcome what those, and all the others who responded to their call, as an increasingly visible political impasse in the field.

The four-month fermentations of the four groups, despite the different strategies on the dispute (differences which partly left their echo after the effort) led to the production of an initial call, structured on 7 points, which constituted the political prerequisite for the participation of a collectivity in the organizational effort. The fact that prerequisites for participation were clear political positions and acceptance of the model of the federal approach (whose definition was left entirely in the processes that followed) was the best proof - much more than any assurances given by the four groups - that the organizational effort it never intended to "unify the space". The organization sought would not be based on the logic of "synthesis", it would not concern all of them / anarchist comrades / elders. It concerned the shapes that saw themselves within the seven points: it was, therefore, an attempt to organize a certain political tendency within the space. The developments that followed confirmed the correctness of this choice, as will be described below.

The effort was presented at a major event in ASOEE, where more than 40 teams from all over Greece attended and were assigned to the issue. Several different views have emerged. Some of the collegiates present did not agree with some of the seven points, while some did not agree with the "federal model" and put forward a logic of "pan-Hellenic network".

Twenty-one (21) groups accepted the call for the "Fourth Initiative" and eventually started the venture that led to the creation of both the Anarchist Federation and the Anarchist Political Organization.

The process began with its self-definition. Each group was invited to bring up a list of issues on which it considered it necessary to place the ongoing nationwide project so that there could be an anarchist federation with full content, common plan and effective structures. These issues were synthesized, thus defining the common agenda that should be discussed in a piece-piece, and which included more than 30 issues covering almost all of the anarchist political substance, strategy and possible structures. For each of these issues, each group had to be placed in writing. The process was structured with two-day pan-Hellenic meetings approximately every two months, while placements and part of the fermentation were done through a web forum. For each of the subjects of the agenda, a first conversation of representatives took place at the meetings, and a group of interlocutors took the task of composing opinions, presenting the commonplace, passing through a second stage of discussion, ending and approving the assemblies of teams after two days. The process was exhaustive. Each group had to discuss within each item on the agenda, get a placement for it, and plot it in text. From then on, her delegates traveled to Athens and for 2 days from morning till night they negotiated their positions. In the end he had to reconsider the final result. he will pass through a second stage of discussion, end up and be approved by the group assemblies after two days.
The process was exhaustive. Each group had to discuss within each item on the agenda, get a placement for it, and plot it in text. From then on, her delegates traveled to Athens and for 2 days from morning till night they negotiated their positions. In the end he had to reconsider the final result. he will pass through a second stage of discussion, end up and be approved by the group assemblies after two days. The process was exhaustive. Each group had to discuss within each item on the agenda, get a placement for it, and plot it in text. From then on, her delegates traveled to Athens and for 2 days from morning till night they negotiated their positions. In the end he had to reconsider the final result. her representatives traveled to Athens and for 2 days from morning till night they negotiated their positions. In the end he had to reconsider the final result. her representatives traveled to Athens and for 2 days from morning till night they negotiated their positions. In the end he had to reconsider the final result.

Despite the difficulty and the trouble, however, it could not in any case be otherwise, faster or more superficially, since the objective was a politically coherent federal structure. Among anarchist collectivities, it was commonly accepted that every subject that was considered important by each group had to be put on the table. Every issue had to be discussed as long as it was needed to produce, through long fermentation, a community of placements. With a look at the unformalist past, where everything was "left to the edge so we would not be killed", we decided not to leave disagreements under the table. With the look in the future, we all have to close as many as possible "wounds" so we can move as openly as possible to the inaccessible road that the movement faces in a time of crisis.

Problems and dead ends

Very quickly began to appear the first weaknesses and difficulties. Some were predicted - some did not. The original call concerned collectivities and even strict policies. The logic behind the call to political groups only - which led to the exclusion of schemes such as occupations and hangouts or anti-fascist / anti-fascist groups - that did not describe themselves as political groups was based on the prediction that such structures would not be able to manage such an agenda - which is very logical because of their structure, composition and targeting. Today we are confident that if there were such multipolar race schemes between us, the co-decision and decision process would be far more difficult as impracticable. In the long process, it seemed that even the political groups themselves were very heterogeneous in their positions on the thematic and proposed structures. Topics that were seriously treated in some groups, others were terra incognita, with the result that we are still confronted with conceptual and coding differences that blocked development and led to misunderstandings.

This heterogeneity, however, was much wider than that of "theoretical production potential". There were groups with very heterogeneous quantitative powers, with some of them numbering dozens and a few, which gave enormous weight to the latter, both for the preparation of their positions and for their representation. There were groups that made extensive preparation and fermentation inside, and others who came in rough directions from their collectivity and relied on the improvisation of their representatives. There were groups that had practically devoted themselves to the organizational effort, and others that although they had their own rich action, they did not feel this effort as a priority in the same way. From the beginning it was a goal for all of us to continue to exist as such, to continue to produce their political work, to speak, to act. The result, however, of the heterogeneity in the prioritization of the pan-Hellenic venture was some formations devoted to the organizational effort to neglect their political struggle, while others neglect the processes. One thing is certain: the amount of effort and time required by this effort had been devalued from the outset.

In addition, another problem that emerged, evident in every political process, concerned the division of labor within the groups themselves. Soon, for part of the groups, the representations were consolidated: they were constantly the same people who assumed the burden of representation. This produced within the federation's cells two speeds: some who lived the effort and some who saw it through the eyes of the first.

The cafes from the window

The organizational effort of the anarchist federation considered and regarded itself as part of the anarchist space and not as something that comes to substitute or try to work in a political contrast with it. Forms that had never before communicated and co-formed with each other, shapes with a long history of joint action but also shapes that had active confrontation and suspicion among themselves sat together at the same dialogue table. This was something that, of course, was predicted. From the first moment, it was an issue that could potentially destroy the entire venture, if not all of them were taken seriously. The way this challenge was addressed was the design and implementation of a robust political process that would translate into conflicts and speculations on concrete disputes for discussion and synthesis. But whatever you do with processes, in order for continuity to take place, a minimum of "good intent" is required. And this minimum we called it "restarting relationships". In fact, we all agreed to leave in the past existing contingencies and political (or not) dislikes, and to relaunch our relations with all the collectives involved in the project. For a long time, this approach worked very effectively. Procedures have progressed and a reality different from the "dogfugs" somewhere between the politician and the staff that make up the small village village has become feasible. And that was one of the most important experiences we have gained. Yes, it is feasible for anarchists and anarchists in today's circumstances to overcome the political and social misery of a small village with feuds and gossip battles in cafes and Indymedia. And all this, while outside the process, reality was flowing into its "normal" form. Groups continued to collide, issues continued to create "ice" among collectives. it is feasible for anarchists and anarchists in today's circumstances to overcome the political and social misery of a small village with feuds and gossip battles in cafes and Indymedia. And all this, while outside the process, reality was flowing into its "normal" form. Groups continued to collide, issues continued to create "ice" among collectives. it is feasible for anarchists and anarchists in today's circumstances to overcome the political and social misery of a small village with feuds and gossip battles in cafes and Indymedia. And all this, while outside the process, reality was flowing into its "normal" form. Groups continued to collide, issues continued to create "ice" among collectives.

The influence of the rest of the space on the project as a whole, on the collectives that it had and on its people should not be underestimated. All groups of the organizational venture never wanted to break away from the anarchist space: they move within it in general, and in different fields of its own. Comrades and comrades who participated in the federation's groups also found themselves in other ventures (clubs, neighborhood assemblies, squats, hangouts, other assemblies). The organizational endeavor from his first minute had to cope in addition to self-evident political criticism and a cloud

private attacks. The "work you / yourself / you / you" was a masterpiece, where "SELF" in one way or another included almost every participant group and many of their individual members. The process, however, with few exceptions, kept the door closed on the affections between people and the café mug bath. But the window could not be closed. It slowly and steadily fed a rupture background that could not be dealt with either by "good intentions" or by procedural measures.

In vitro

Every major attempt at her legs has an important chapter for the beginning: enthusiasm. And the organizational effort made the best use of this tool. Without it, a process of so fermenting between political groups would be impossible. The excitement, however, once declines, and then it is only the reality that can give the necessary fuel to replace it. Here was, in our estimation, the greatest weakness of the process: Sterilization from the act. The encroachment on a political test tube.

For a long time, despite the persistent suggestions made by some of the groups, it has not been possible to agree on a parallel action plan for all those involved in the effort. The communities conquered in theory have found no equivalent in practice. And consequently their very significance was degraded. For anarchists the main field is the road. The road is the one that seals the community. Without the road, a set of heterogeneous groups remains a set of disparate groups. Since, due to the lack of joint action, it was not able to fundamentally conquer a new community, the void of initial enthusiasm began to fill with fatigue and the external and internal devastating influences began to conquer. To put it simply: if you are discussing other things with others, these two will sooner or later break.

Within the gulf of the community being formed, there was a constant controversy over the possibility of a joint act before the conclusion of the process, expressed by specific groups - and it would be foolish to say that it was completely absurd: the community of action threatened to overcome the search for a political community, the process had to be completed before going to the next stage. But also the contradictory contradiction that came from outside and prompted us to end with the words and make a draft text to get into the fight was also not unreasonable. But this attitude, in both versions, rational within its linearity, ignored the dialectic nature of the struggle, the irreconcilable relationship of theory and act, the true terms of community building, and not only agreement or partnership.

Today we judge that the risk (which actually existed) to undermine political fermentation through joint action should have been taken. If in the field we often see the failure of communities based on the practice alone, the organizational venture saw the reverse failure. And this is a very important piece of experience about how "these things are done".

To rupture

Five of the 21 teams that started in the venture have gone on track, others on political disputes and others on procedural disputes. Given that the process was closed and until it was completed - for two years - no new team could get in, it meant that we did 16 teams in the project. There is a characteristic health specimen that has been preserved for the most part of the process, which is important to note: until a few minutes before the cleavage no poles were formed. "Common Positions" were differentiated from topic to agenda. Groups that found them on a "table" collided with each other. The risk of facial expression was predicted from the outset, and it was in everyone's mind. To such an extent that after the rejection of the proposal for joint action, which

mentioned above, the groups that proposed it refrained from collaborating separately in order not to introduce this so commonplace microbe into the revolutionary circles.

But as fatigue began to dominate after two years of cameralessness, and while external detrimental pressures grew, the special agenda of the groups took their heads from any community that had been built. Conflicts and remnants of the distant past have found development ground and have transformed the last 2-3 pan-Hellenic processes into a field of ongoing conflicts, often of very poor quality. This also contributed to the fact that the "toughest" themes such as the federal structure were left to the end.

At the center of the rupture a central disagreement has been found with regard to the autonomy or otherwise of the federal regions. A dispute that showed the existence of a breach both of the physiognomy of the desired organization and of its relations with the rest of the anarchist space and its mode of operation within it. This disagreement was a common disagreement among revolutionary organizations throughout the history, but could not be covered with semi-prints and artistic formalities, despite the efforts of all.

Was it inevitable, then, to divide the venture into two different forms? Yes and no.

The only way such an important dispute could perhaps be overcome would be to let the act guide you. That is, by recording the different positions, with one side retreating in part and with the joint commitment that if the act does not confirm the choice in the first "experimental period" then the other way will be tested. But to do this, a strong conquered community, a conquered trust, needs the initial enthusiasm that, when the clash actually emerged, did not exist. In its place were formed for the first time two poles.

At the same time as the breaks between groups in Athens, Thessalonica, Patras, and where these groups were divided in one or the other aspect of the autonomy of the regions, the choice was either a forced "unity "Or a decent separation.

The proposal for the separation of the two forms came from groups that continued in the Anarchist Federation and was exemplary of all, as it must be between anarchists and as is rarely the case. And even if it sounds ironic, the daily routine of political ruptures among collectives in the field itself highlights the importance of how an end to an undertaking, whether it pulls everyone's path by keeping the legacy it considers its own or whether it is circus.

The split of organizational effort marked the end of the initial organizational venture, but at the same time highlighted its political depth and culture.

The creation of the Anarchist Federation

The split in the organizational venture led to the creation of two organizations. The Anarchist Federation (AO) held its founding conference on 3 & 4/10/2015, starting to function. The A.O. found itself in a difficult for the same environment: It was a success story of a process that aspired to organize a political tendency within the anarchist world but this, after a two-year closed process that led to a split, had become politically impossible by having spent the capital of enthusiasm that initially had and having failed, as close as it may have come, to overcome the structural weaknesses of its cells, that is, the anarchist collectivities as they exist in today's circumstances.

The "relief" that we all felt when the initial goal of organizational effort led to a result, with the founding conference being a celebration for all of us, did not provide time for internal tolerance to solve the puzzles.

The negative climate of the last pan-Hellenic processes was inherited, along with all other weaknesses. Still, the teams were completely heterogeneous in dynamics, processes and priorities. Still, some groups have been committed to the pan-Hellenic venture and some dedicated to their action. Still some groups had long internal processes oriented to fermentation, making flesh out of their flesh all that related to the federation, while others ran out of the "fast-paced" themes. The problem of the same specific individuals from every college who participated in the pan-Hellenic processes and thus knew exclusively from their collegial union the federation from its viscera, continued to exist. It began to be unclear when the spokesperson speaks individually and when the team collectively, with the result that often the image and physiognomy of each group depends on the character and the temperament of their representative and consequently the serious issues of behavioral behaviors arise. Why, as it turned out, if the tedious political fermentation has great demands, the real struggle of an anarchist federation is even greater. There it became clear how devastating was the absence of joint action all the time.

The A.O. at the start of it had a rich community of political content but a minimal community of struggle. The teams had to conquer their trust, but not just that. Without a past of joint action, no tool from what we decided as a federation structure could be tested. All discussions about the structure and ways of operation were on paper. How finally we will work still has one question, while it should be a response.

In addition, as part of the federation's difficulty to set up and function as we had in mind, we must also take into account the great downturn in the anarchist movement (and the movement more widely) from 2012 until today. At stake in the initial call of the "4 initiative" was not just the creation of an organization, it was also the strengthening of the logic of "collectivization". The logic, that is, that wanted to overthrow a reality of an area where the vast majority of the comrades and co-workers that make up it operate on individual terms. We believed and believe that it is propitious for the anarchist space to increase the dynamics of existing groups more widely, and for those who do not find answers to these groups, to create new ones. We also saw this dynamics appear in the space during the previous period throughout Greece. Instead, the reverse was dominated. The space has lost some of its power-maker, and so far a prevalent spirit has prevailed, with unending conflicts sometimes driven to extremes, a problem that runs through all the tendencies, with the Indymedia cafes and disillusionments substituting every concept of public war . Over the years, beyond this organizational initiative and the two schemes it has produced, nothing else has claimed claims, political and organizational overcoming. Nor did any mention of a "pan-Hellenic network" happen, one attempt at a "platform" did not walk, wider thematic calls around anti-fascism, refugee or international solidarity failed or worked fireworks.

The first year of the Anarchist Federation

In its early stages AO attempted to move dynamically. We needed to take steps to cover the absence of our way and our fatigue. The strategic framework had already been defined with the production of 21 points and had to be put in a straightforward way.

The first initiative after the founding conference was to organize a central refugee course. The Athens teams addressed the Athenian area with a good response. As we could have predicted (but still nothing else we would have done) we were directly attacked. Severely worthwhile issues were raised from the "nowhere" for one of the collectives that participated in the federation, entirely irrespective of political stakes. Decades of decades that have been clearly answered since the first moment of the organizational effort have been attempted to come back with abusive and provocative terms.

There the A.O. has defined its culture regarding the handling of such intra-kinematic conflicts. Instead of rejoining and sharpening the conflict (and we had every right and possibility to do it), we chose to invite a political process where any accusations could be made public and confirmed or rejected in a definitive manner.

As predicted, there was no response. What, however, was also important for us was to determine how we handle such conflicts: we do not start paper money, we are not involved in battleships in bathtubs. We are prepared to respond to political issues only through political processes geared to their final solution. If this is not feasible, we prefer silence. Our perception of political time is about years, it does not involve quarterly gossip battles in the social influence networks of the area.

But the problem did not stop there. Shortly after the challenge to the refugee initiative, the same protagonists made an even greater challenge. A comradeship, member of one of our collectives, received a violent, conscious, and targeted attack during episodes of Gregoropoulos' assassination anniversary.

As logical, in such an event the first reason was his collectivity, with A.O. of course, to support collegiality in the political processes that have been called. The overall management of the second challenge was based on the same framework as the first. Although there was every possibility (and great temptation) to respond in the known ways in the field, the strictly political way was again chosen. Procedures and procedures only. Unfulfilled once again.

Here, however, the internal problem of AO was also revealed: the heterogeneity of the groups. Although the affected collectivity, despite the emotional load, followed the essence of the general framework of the AO. on the management of such intra-kinematic conflicts, failed in the formulas. The demonstration of arithmetic power in its processes drew attention to the political content of its attitude and the AO.

The fact that this choice of this group offered some justification for "equal distances" to some people within the space is not important. It is important, however, that this attitude led to a conflict within the AO. and therefore new introversion and ruptures.

In a new conflict environment within the AO. came the events of social cannibalism in Exarchia and the conflict with the mafias. A team of A.O. was found in the center of a cyclone that even threatened the lives of comrades. Both the collectivity itself and, more than that, the AA. found unprepared. Despite the enormous range of internal fermentation, the issue of social cannibalism, the flanking issues it raised, and the means of defense against him had not been dealt with. At the same time, other non-Athens teams objectively had very little opportunity to offer on an issue that they themselves felt as important because it concerned the physical integrity of members of the AO. As the fight against the mafias progressed, diverging tendencies and disagreements emerged for manipulations or the means of struggle,

The overall climate was again unpleasant. The events in Athens were causing embarrassment to groups other than those who were unable to understand all aspects of the issue and had to give political responses to their regions while resisting the pressures of the social networks of influence.

Confidence in the interior of the Athens area was lost, individual choices and bad behaviors of group representatives inside and outside of the processes constantly poured oil into the fire, and the crisis was transferred to the interior of the groups. Objectively, the region of Athens has created shocks in the whole of the AO. and reproduced, inadvertently, the Athenian-centric curse that characterizes Greek reality, whether it concerns the state or the place. In fact, collegiates in Athens were in open conflict with each other, while those outside it ended up staring at the former to intermarry.

The end of the first year of the AO in the summer of 2016 found it in a poor state: few actions and anecdotal initiatives far below the circumstances were undertaken, while the self-dissolution of some groups and the withdrawal of some others led the federation to a significant shrinkage.

The 2nd year

However, A.O. survived. This has not happened at random, nor could it simply happen "to avoid losing so much effort". The necessity of superior organizational formation, in the wake of the recession of the movement, became even more imperative. In spite of the group's co-operations and fronts, the federations' collectivities participated and participated, all assessed that participation in a nationwide scheme was, in the long run, indispensable to the case. So, knowing that every new organizational effort would have to go back on the same long way, and when the crisis produced a lot of lost revolutionary opportunities, we were again thrown into the effort.

On the other hand, this whole story changed decisively and separately the collectives that participated, but also the AO itself as a whole. The political / ideological arsenal of the teams has made leaps and great experience has been conquered at the level of procedures. So we rolled back and started again, even with somewhat lowered wings.

In the second year, at last in an internal environment of trust and companionship, we chose to take measured initiatives. The issue of screaming, the auctions, the Corkonas trial, solidarity with the Kurds and Turkish militants in Syria and Turkey, our presence on the road in the days of General Strikes and the vote on new measures, the stabilization of our presence in major political appointments, the TIF and the November 17th, the expression of political discourse at a rapid pace on topical issues, the acceleration of decisions and greater efficiency, the improvement of our infrastructures ...

The absence of groups formerly more devoted to the federation than others that remained was decisive at the level of procedures, but on the other hand it improved homogeneity, since now the A.O. consisted of groups that are predominantly looking outward with a rich racing presence and kinematic interventions. Homogeneity and community sentiment has also greatly improved from member mobility by an AO group. in another, but also by the interrelationships and actions between the groups, which is the aim and tool of the AO itself.

Both for the A.O. as well as for the groups that make up it, one thing is for us: we want collaborations to be action-oriented and competitive. At the same time, political fermentation is continuing and widening. Both regular and current analyzes issues and for broader political / theoretical, rather than at the level of "what issues we imagine that we have to agree," but what our issues raised our common course all this time, what you need to agree to we produce more and more effective social revolutionary struggle.

The second year of AO, the one that based on initial desires should have been its growth time, was found to be the time that determined its survival. This goal was imposed by the Treaty first of all on our own shortcomings and weaknesses as well as on the social and kinematic recession. We have achieved this goal.

Two words about the social-political conjuncture in which the venture was created and experimented

The spiral of the global capitalist crisis, which its impact struck a few months after the December uprising, led the Greek state administration to the formal -more- tradition of state keys to the international board. For seven years, at regular intervals state and capital "bite" and a new piece of the last means of survival of the world of labor. It looks like a natural phenomenon every 1.5 years, after a "tough" period of supposed negotiations between the Greek state and its patrons, the EU and the IMF, the announcement of new cuts in wages and pensions, the loss of new labor rights, our class is increasingly underestimated. Not even the phraseology changes from PASOK to SW and from SW to SYRIZANEL.

The state has continued. The parties that occupy the post in the regime sooner or later throw the mantle they used to win the election and stay in the uniform of power to do what the state and the capital have to do to continue to distract them from down. As every government has to do, SYRIZA has been forced to attack the internal and external enemy. In this regard, in the world of struggle, those who resist the barbarity imposed by the coordinated state and capital on immigrants, that is, the modern scapegoat.

The squabbles of squatting, the police crackdown on marching and demonstrations, the prosecution, the tortured trials and the murderous sentences imposed on anarchists, even to their relatives, the "hardening" of the conditions of imprisonment (with a more blatant example of the vote a new correctional code) and the systematic obstruction / obstruction of the licensing of political prisoners under the extortion of the declaration of political repentance protects the above-mentioned treaty.

Within this political setting, SYRIZA did what it promised. Not to us. But in the regime that is always served by the left wing and social democracy. He dismayed the momentum of the social counterattack of the first monumental years, dragged her into the humiliation of the ballot box and then exchanged it with a position not only in power today, but also as a constant pole of the new bi-mathematics in the years to come. Not too bad for Euro-communists of 4%, very bad for all of us. Why is the best way to get used to your chains that he promises to tell you that it is ultimately necessary to take them. SYRIZA was the best gift, the surest solution for the state and the capital that in the historical period we have been living has decided to "gather" everything.

In recent years I have been referring to the ruling classes, without social unrest and without resistances. Very soon the discontinuity between the illusion that expressed the SYRIZA program (and any similar social-democratic program of the continuation of capitalist barbarity with a "human face") to the reality of modern capitalism was revealed. Its failure reaffirms the only truth that can easily be derived from the real facts: on the territory of the current universal capitalist crisis two paths are opened, either accepting the terms of global totalitarianism or the Social Revolution. Average road does not exist.

For our class, these years were years of retreat. The attack she received did not turn it into "previous centuries" and "mediums" - instead she outlined and highlighted the image of her future. A future full-fledged state and capital attack on work, insurance, social freedoms, the environment and social goods. After the cuts in wages and pensions, the cuts in all public benefits, the gradual abolition of the Sunday holiday, the increase in taxation, the rise in prices for basic goods, the change in the insurance system came, the social security first-time auctions and the new labor bill that blocks the right to strike and challenges the collective workers' bodies.

The supposed anti-monumental bloc, therefore, has just assumed the power of power voted with hands and feet not one, but two memorandums, and continues indefinitely. Nothing succeeded it as a dominant version of counterproposal in the capitalist barbarity that is overtaking, and the only opposition now seems to be made exclusively from the right. False hope has succeeded in sacrifice and ultimately compromise and defeatism. Any reaction movements were uneven and fragmented. But for the world of the fight the failure to accept the defeat was and is - we hope - one way.

As mentioned earlier, from the earliest attempts to form the Anarchist Federation, our aim was to create a scheme that would primarily aim at organizing an organizational proposal within the anarchist / anti-authoritarian area but with an explicit perspective on the second level , more effective and effective intervention and strengthening of social-class struggles. We hope that it has already been made clear that our intention was by no means circumcision, introversion or the "cap", but the attempt to ensure the best possible conditions for intervention in the parts of society that may be willing to such a fermentation. For reasons that have to do with the issues and problems encountered by the process of creating the AO (and which we have described above) we believe that our presence so far has been windy and fragmented, without the necessary depth and breadth, and the similar methodality that would require this. To put it briefly, in an increasingly pressing social situation, our intervention on the central political scene and in the struggles in question was clearly incomplete.

In November 2015, the Federation published its "21 points", its organizational, tactical and strategic goals at the juncture. Within this text, the following two objectives were achieved:

" Organized presence of the federation in the great moments of central presence on the road (1st May, Polytechnic, strike strikes, etc.)" and

" Reason and presence in the central political scene and the issues that this creates as topicality. The anarchist federation as one of the peaks of the anarchist movement in a distinct and recognizable way intervenes by promoting its perceptions and propagating anarchist race choices. "

Can the weaknesses of the Federation lead us to not always be possible or sufficient to intervene or to be made by member collectives and not by the Federation as a whole, but for all of us, these goals remain topical and we put them for the next period.

The Anarchist Federation from here on

As we have already seen, the organizational stance of the anarchist movement in Greece (dishonor, inter-momental conflicts, etc.) makes the ground even harder for our efforts. Chronic organizational weakness and the historical absence of an anarchist political body is a legacy that creates rather suspicion of the venture, rather than a desire for collectivization and a willingness for personal and therefore collective involvement. At least for a large part of our political space.

From the experience of the past, it became evident that every new political organizational project in Greece is transformed from its first steps into a "gladiator". Unfortunately, the first arena in which to stand is the arena of "space". We are trying to cope, but we have to admit that we can not artificially overcome the physical limits of our political space. Sincerely, therefore, to comrades and comrades outside of AO, faith and commitment to the anarchist struggle, we are rebuilding and continuing our effort by evaluating our mistakes and our shortcomings.
The very reality of these deficiencies has forced us one year of experimental operation to double. However, as soon as it came to an end, A.O. is preparing its first regular congress.

Far from the initial volunteer goal of unifying a political tendency in the anarchist movement, AO. is now an anarchist revolutionary organization that is expressed both by the individual instances of the groups that make up it and by its own mechanism and its unified presence. We know that trust and companionship require a continuous and painful process to build and then lead to organizational robustness and efficiency. Especially within an area dominated by the occasional partnership between individual-autonomous societies or individuals and not a steady synergy in the demanding framework of an anarchist political entity.

We choose to operate with a non-centralized model offering to the collectors of the A.O. a substantial autonomy of action and reason - an autonomy that builds the Federation from bottom to top. In this way, it releases itself and its cells from the inhibiting-action-element of the "stamp" in every single move and initiative. The Federation operates primarily as a coordinating, fermenting and strategic design body. Wanting to grow it with the advent of existing collectivities or the targeted creation of new ones, AO is an organized strategic community based on the wealth that its cells produce, requiring the asterisks non-starved acceptance of these cells and companionship among members of them,
The upcoming conference will focus on issues that affect both its political identity and its structure. However, while conferences are moments of great symbolic significance and political impact, in reality the issues to be solved are solved in a long-term co-operation rather than in a moment.

And, of course, problems continue to exist. Economically, we always have shortcomings. The teams have great differences in their dynamics. Individuals from groups continue to bear a disproportionate burden on the operation of the AO. Structures, which due to the participation of a few collectives are simplified, are doubtful how much they will respond as well as more teams. Moreover, the formula has not yet been found that will allow individuals to participate in the project, something we have been discussing for years. And if it is finally found, we will find ourselves there in the face of improper lands. The themes of our interventions remain limited, with an emphasis on class but absence in many other critical areas. We have not achieved the fullness of our presence in central political events. We have profoundly exploited the wealth of possibilities and 'specializations' of the participating teams and their members. There is still a lot of work to be done on conflicting relationships and initiatives. Unlike the groups that compose it, A.O. has so far had zero relations with the international anarchist movement. Such are, therefore, the issues that AO will have to resolve. the next session of the conference.

Revolutionary history has shown the importance and necessity of revolutionary organizations and the upsurge to go. If at some point our uphill drifts, if the enthusiasm is lost, if the partnerships break up, if the need is replaced by the sadness that "our effort is gone," then we certainly will not care to keep the sign of a non-existent political shop in terms of graphical leaning. We know that we got involved: we joined the social revolution, the anarchy, as well as hundreds of other comrades and comrades who collectively or individually have chosen other roads. This is the goal of the AO. and all political collectivities involved in it: victory, social and individual liberation, the realization of anarchy.

Anarchist Federation
twitter: witter.com/anarchistfedGr
fb: facebook.com/anarxikiomospondia2015/
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