Conspiracy Cells of Fire [Archive]

View Full Version : Conspiracy Cells of Fire

BIXX

16th October 2014, 08:51

So, what do you folks think of them?

Personally I think they're pretty awesome, a really inspiring group to check out if you're into that sorta thing.

For the uninitiated:

http://anarchistnews.org/content/why-we-set-your-nights-fire-collected-communiques-greek-nihilists-conspiracy-cells-fire

I heard about this group a while ago but only really got into them kinda recently. Anyway, worth a look.

Art Vandelay

16th October 2014, 09:20

Os Cangaceiros

16th October 2014, 10:28

Revolutionary Struggle had better politics but both groups (RS and Conspiracy) were sorely lacking as far as tactics go.

The traditionally left-wing anarchist organizations in Greece like the anarcho-syndicalists and AK are also ineffective, but for different reasons.

Conspiracy's politics were actually pretty strange. Their whole position as the "third pole" of anarchism was interesting, distancing themselves from both the anarchists trying to "mobilize the class" and also the anarchists who were out in the street demos. That tradition in Greek (and Italian) politics of small armed groups blowing stuff up, robbing bank & shooting at people is long & storied, and hasn't really resulted in anything good...Conspiracy's defense is basically, "we just hate this system and this is how we choose to express that hate and attempt to become more free", to which I say fair enough but that doesn't really give any useful political lessons.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

16th October 2014, 13:39

Sasha

16th October 2014, 14:43

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ccf-prisoners-hospitalise-t186297/index.html

BIXX

16th October 2014, 17:16

I can't really disagree with them on much, but I can't paint them as very important either. I get it, but I also get why someone would want to ditch out and hide in a homemade bunker out in the desert.

I can't help but think that having 'internet fans' who gush over their actions is like the exact opposite of what they want to achieve though.
There is, I would say, a difference between an interest in them (being inspired) and gushing. I have to say I disagree with them in a lot of ways, but on the other hand they have sine really interesting shit to say and are unafraid to act on it.

BIXX

16th October 2014, 17:31

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ccf-prisoners-hospitalise-t186297/index.html
I can't read the original link, and also are the letter that dude wrote available to the public?

Sasha

16th October 2014, 17:52

LETTER OF GIANNIS NAXAKIS FROM KORIDALLOS PRISONS

January 6, 2014 by actforfreedom | 0 comments (http://actforfree.nostate.net/?p=15853#respond)
Translated by BoubourAs/actforfree

Note* On sunday 5/1/13, (two days after this letter was released in greek (https://gutneffntqonah7l.onion.to/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=1509123) )

Giannis was ambushed outside the 1st wing of Koridallos prisons and beaten by atleast 5 members of the CCF (http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/2014/01/05/koridallos-prisons-anarchist-prisoner-yannis-naxakis-beaten-and-hospitalized/) who were carrying sticks. He is now in hospital.

On February 3rdI am to be tried by the official authority, with all its honours, like one more “terrorist” of the domestic line. I don’t give a fuck about my accusers and obviously I will not step foot in the courtroom. We are from veeeeeeeeeeeeery far away worlds, no need to analyse this. To put it simply, I shit on their justice. The charges do not concern me. The case of the arrests in Nea Filadelphia is more or less known and either way, I am accused of usual anarchist practices, so there is no point in repeating things that have been said a thousand times already.

Lets put it differently. When someone has thrown the “normal” life offered by this boring world, in the garbage, how can he/she not dismiss the ethical matters of restriction such as the laws of the state and commitments with it such as labour?

As for the other charge, that of the organization, it sucks a bit, because I was always against the idea of “organizations”. There are far too bureaucratic for my anarchist tastes. I prefer the free, informal clusters, or my loneliness, to fight the existing.

Concerning the trial procedure, I do not need a defence let alone representation, this is why I am not bringing any witnesses nor will I have a lawyer. I do not need the ethical shows of lies of the former neither the legal nonsense of the latter. The only legal move I will make is to appeal the sentence (if I get it and its not the minimal) when the trial ends, clearly in the mind frame that at the appellate sentences always go down a bit.

Also, because its a lie more than anything, the argument that is heard even in anarchist circles that the presence in the trial has great importance because we have the opportunity to be on a public stand of speech, must cease to be heard since for years now we can freely publish whatever texts we like on the internet, accessible to anyone interested. As if there is a point to tell them what we think from the dock while they give a yawning recital from their elevated seat. The worst thing is that these arrogant scum are existentially confirmed through this.

Of course, since I am not interested in the procedure, there is no way I want other people to be interested and gather outside the courts or something to show solidarity to me. I imagine solidarity as a permanent condition of war against authority which does not fit in the calendars of the movement. I imagine it as a conspiratorial journey with no return, to illegal lands, like a new struggle and simultaneously revenge for the dead and imprisoned comrades. Like a series of violent and loud sudden interventions against the smooth flow of authoritarian time, an energetic and inevitably blackmailing exercise of “pressure” on the judges of freedom, for the good of all captive deniers but above all, for the gain of the whole world of anarchy.

An addition written because of the recent developments in Koridallos prisons

I have been behind bars for 8 months now and besides the forced stage of “adjustment” in prison, I admit there were also good moments within the general misery of the whole situation. Moments of disobedience and rupture with the prison authorities at different levels and points, individual and more collective. Along with my attempt to manage the surrealism of the situation with the over-compressed reality of a few square metres and the daily nightmarish realization that I cannot just open a fucking door and get out of this brothel, there was also a situation that kind of balanced the whole thing. I had the opportunity to share the moments I described above, next to good comrades, old acquaintances and not, a warm community of people whose difference of perceptions and ideas did not become an obstacle in our common strategy of rupture. Together therefore with most anarchists of the 1st wing (those with which we are together now in the 4th wing), poked, provoked, annoyed and angered the service a lot, the most immediate sample of authority in front of us. Battles with their own special meaning, small for sure, because the absolute battle in the mind of someone incarcerated must be the escape.

So that morning, on 13/12, a usual human-guard chose to make a direct report to the sergeants office concerning an incident of aggressive reaction he received by some of the comrades, in which, mistakenly in my opinion, he was slapped around. I say mistakenly -by the result- because I believe these slaps could have been withheld and be turned into something heavier at another incident more serious which would have been caused, sooner or later, by one of these bastard guards who raise their hands to hit prisoners. We are talking about this guy, the human-guard Giannis Milonas, who while on service and when everyone is locked up in the wing, takes out his pen and writes the names of his songs that are on youtube in a desperate move of self-confirmation. Only, the results of the search worsen his position. My ears were distressed after this poor musical attempt. Next, the sergeants office immediately informed the prosecutor. The same afternoon, slimy sergeant Vasilis Lambrakis, together with 40 prison and police officers, took all 8 of us from the office, at different times, and “broke” us into different wings of the prison, as its known, with me ending up in the 4th.

A natural reaction of the prison therefore, with a notable cooperation of leader-like prisoners, who from the moment they saw the danger of blowing up their -otherwise envious worthy- vested privileges (one way for example, search of all or specific cells except ours. Far fetched but also possible only as a strategy from the fucking prison to create internal frictions between prisoners, in the logic of divide and conquer), rushed to communicate with the service on how these disrespectful anarchists will be ousted from the wing. Obviously, the conclusion after this is that the privileges of the 1st wing are inextricably connected with the calmness of the wing. Of course, to tell the truth, all this was more or less expected. In relation now to the oppression from the side of the service, a deterministic approach would absolutely suit the description of the situation. Nothing weird therefore, since as I said we were always clashing clashing clashing while the small actions/experimentations in a passive and weird environment increased with geometrical progression. With mathematical accuracy we found ourselves -beyond the distance part- transferred basically, and in a few days probably loaded with disciplinary penalties. For me up to a 2year disciplinary penalty is ok because it costs me nothing (unless something extreme happens concerning the outcome of the trial). The above is all descriptive, awkward and risky moments, but also a reminder to ourselves of what the fuck we are in this, otherwise, assimilative repetitive daily life, inside the general rotten climate with the race fights, hierarchies, homophobic complexes and the surplus macho-ness of the majority.

And although I am not surprised by the despicable attitude of many prisoners, because I did not expect much from closed -formal and not- hierarchical groups such as those created in the 1st wing by many who are from countries of the ex USSR, many of the albanians and the bouncers, I do not hide that I was shocked when another organized group, the CCF, began to stand in contrast with our anti-authoritarian attitude. I would like to believe that this expresses only those individuals who I have heard expressing themselves aggressively sometimes in the past, but I cant, judging also from how they move around generally. So the blames is collective. The reason why I am saying this is the recent “comments” (those who need to, know what I mean) they made on the recent developments and the hunger/thirst strike, which many are identical with things they told us in unplanned discussions over the last months. And because these are serious matters, when you say “these scenes you cause are pointless in prison” openly, taking into consideration the authoritative behaviours and the general attitude of the last months with their stressful attempt of transmitting exaggerated scenarios around the consequences of a rupture with the service, either fucking way, you will be exposed. Disgusting. People who left their own piece in the history of war against the existing, with long sentences awaiting those who haven’t already gotten them, people I always supported against the mud of the scared anarchist loud-mouths -and I will continue where is necessary- dropped before my eyes. If they remained in a neutral attitude, that is, to distance themselves and mind their own business, I would remain at a level of surprise like when I first got in and I would not bother like now. But no excuse -no matter how good- is enough to patch up the ridicule of going against, using sick tactics of slander, the only, almost, who create a direct -as graphic as it may be- rupture with the regime of prison.

The incident with the guard therefore, was the reason for the well-expected end credits of our short passing through the 1st wing of Koridallos prisons to fall. From the 1st wing, I will never forget the intense movement by some prisoners who were always seen in the sergeants office, especially when there was some small fuss in the wing. Unfortunately, this was the only kind of “movement” of prisoners I saw as long as i’ve been in prison, because of course the strikes that took place in the 1st wing, besides one we carried out with the comrades and 2-3 more people without any real participation of other prisoners, I don’t even count, since they were always carried out after an….. arrangement with the sergeant on duty. The only sure thing is that after the oppressive move many things change. How things will go from now on is a question that is left for us to decide. I salute you for now…

Giannis Naxakis, 4th wing-Koridallos prisons

3/1/2014

P.S. 1 honour to Sebastian Oversluij Seguel (http://actforfree.nostate.net/?p=15776)who on 11/12/13 was killed during a robbery from the bullets of a bank guard in Sandiago Chile.

P.S. 2 Strength to hunger striker Spiros Stratoulis (http://actforfree.nostate.net/?s=r+Spiros+Stratoulis)

source:
http://actforfree.nostate.net/?p=15853

Sasha

16th October 2014, 17:55

TEXT BY ANARCHIST PRISONERS FROM THE 4TH WING OF KORIDALLOS PRISON(EN-ES-IT) – Athens – Greece

January 15, 2014 by actforfreedom | 0 comments (http://actforfree.nostate.net/?p=15936#respond)
Translated by Actforfreedomnow.boubourAs

source (https://gutneffntqonah7l.onion.to/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=1510749)

Because of some matters that have erupted concerning recent incidents in Koridallos we believe it’s necessary to make some clarifications. What we find nodal is to not condemn or politically isolate the C.C.F. as a whole (we are referring only to the cell of prisoners, since cells sign with the same name abroad and possibly do not know, nor are they responsible for other people’s actions) and even more we think that this should not happen due to their theoretical orientation. It is the worst form of politics to blame a whole anarchist tension collectively for actions and choices that concern only a part of it. Whether it’s about anarcho-syndicalists or anarcho-nihilists, critique is independent. What should concern us is the authoritarian behaviour that exists in the anarchist movement, which is often expressed through physical/verbal violence. We consider violence an inseparable part of life and political action when directed against state, capital and authority, but infertile, damaging and self-destructive when mediated in relations between anarchists. Because its objective target is imposition and it restores authoritarian relations between people who are supposed to be hostile towards it, in the worst possible way. The only result is entrenchment, the destruction of dialectic and in the end the cancellation in practice of our anarchist proposal.

Of course this is not a parthenogenesis. Besides, a natural inclination for authority and imposition exists in all of us, as does respectively the passion for freedom and the desire for equality in comradely relations. Often it arises spontaneously from the expression of our contradictory instincts and is expressed with or without moral or political pretexts, but usually with obvious reasons.

There is no reason to speak here about the violence manifested for personal reasons in interpersonal relations, we will only say that it is a matter of conscience and consistency of values to avoid such authoritarian methods.

We will speak about the use of violence as a tool of political imposition, which, when not aimed at the authoritarians and aimed towards anarchists, literally destroys the meaning of our anarchist vision: whether, for example, it’s exercised on a demonstration against comrades who chose a strategy of clashing with the cops when some others have a different strategy, or concerns a critique which someone considers insulting or slanderous. In the first case the only possible solution is the synthesis of strategies and if this is not feasible because of the gap in organization and community, the solution is the carving of different paths of struggle. In the second case, analyses should be in abundance. Since it is a common place that even if there is one reality, this is experienced differently by each one and the subjective truths of each comrade differ. Therefore, when someone criticizes, most likely the person being criticized will feel that they are being slandered. The limits between critique and slander are thin to non-existent. The only possible restoration of the subjective truth of the person being criticized is their expression through speech. No violent imposition can indicate who is telling the truth, only who has more force (physical, organizational or armed).

The substance however is that the invocation of an insulted code of honour or an image that got damaged cannot have any relation with the iconoclastic character of anarchist critique, which promotes perpetual dispute and desecrates the sacred, liberating the human spirit from mental ankyloses.

Therefore, to try and end the introversion of anarchists with an act of raw authoritarian violence can only have two outcomes: 1st the triggering of an even more violent clash-slaughter between anarchists in which plenty of blood, saliva and ink will spill, 2nd the subjection of all to the conservative code of chevalric honour, which means the amputation of critique through fear and the consequent castration of anarchy from its most important tool of self-development.

Of course we do not have any illusions that the beating of our comrade G.Naxakis was really aimed at curing the “syphilis of introversion”. Reading behind the lines, when the CCF write that there is no right or wrong but everything is subjective, they could easily baptize our truth a lie and directly target us as slanderers. Knowing therefore that the threat of murder indirectly also targets us, we also think that the fraudulent ambush on our comrade was a moment of political-military planning to impose silence around matters concerning the organization in question. Besides the fact that mafia-style blackmail circumvents anarchist values, it is a show of extreme authoritarian behaviour and also the expression of dangerous totalitarianism and fetishisation of violence, which is potentially turned towards everyone and this plan is completed with the threat to the comrade that if he does not remember it he will have a problem in all prisons and end up in an isolation/protection wing.

And of course totalitarianism is simply the logical outcome of the use of violence as a regulator of anarchist dialectic. It is known that from the ranks of the revolutionary movement came the terrorism of the democratic guillotine, the bloody censorship of stalinism and even fascism itself. We can therefore imagine, oxymoron as it might sound, an “anarchist” authority that demands acceptance of its anarchist nature as a prerequisite in order not to be characterized as a slanderer of the anarchist party and led to the hangman. The worst nightmare for the anarchist proposal and a real danger as long as it finds space and evolves in people’s thoughts, are the acts and words expressed by the imprisoned cell of the CCF.

There are however many other things that render the incident in question chilling, like choosing to risk triggering a cycle of blood between those considered anarchists in Koridallos (inside the hostile environment of prison) leaving the state in the role of referee, giving away life sentences in white cells and the media crows to slander and demean our struggle indirectly towards the anarchist movement, diffuse subjects who are seen as an indivisible whole, where the actions of one are blamed on all of us.

The fact that we believe that in the hostile environment of prison there is no room for returning to authoritarian violence as counter-violence, in no way means that we will accept the way out that has been left strategically by the text of the CCF, but will definitely break the silence they are trying to impose on us with threats, being ready to bear the consequences of what we say.

Another infuriating dimension of the incident is that the beaters used slander as a pretext, a practise they have used many times against us, as well as against many other anarchist projects they disagree with, using a language where tough critique is mixed with empathy and aggressive expression. Let alone when it’s to reply to the (unclear and therefore misunderstandable in our opinion) critique of comrade Naxakis (which is aimed at us too), not in order to separate himself, but to express his different opinion, where they slander him heavily. The groundless claim that the comrade criticized the CCF for a more lenient treatment in court, stumbles on the fact that he has chosen the complete refusal of legal defence. While at the same time accusations of selfishness and sponging are disproved by his permanent confrontational attitude towards the service. The use of physical violence as a means of imposing opinions within the anarchist/anti-authoritarian movement is exactly the consequence of transforming cafe discussions and personal hostilities into political texts, whether due to mental ankylosis or vanity. The verbal violence which for years now has been tolerated and reproduced by the anarchist movement uproots basic anarchist values such as mutual respect and understanding, has paved the way for the application of such practices.

To conclude, the matter for us is not to cite another black page in the history of anarchist struggle, it is not to isolate political tendencies or anarchist organizations, but to delete once and for all behaviour that denegrates the substance of our struggle. And of course, let’s not pretend to be sacred virgins, most of us have been involved in incidents of endo-anarchist violence.

The CCF-imprisoned cell have given us an example to avoid, which simply reveals the development of a culture of violence. Let’s go beyond it.

It is also not a question of applying an anarchist-measure and judging whether and how much an anarchist each prisoner is. This logic leads to the easy targeting of comrades. The matter is the intensity of the violence (broken arm and leg) applied as a means of pressure aimed at remembering the text, that troubles us and brings back the anarchist values of sensitivity and leniency which led us to be disgusted and fight this system of authority in the first place.

In order to uproot, once and for all, violence as a tool for endo-anarchist imposition and turn it against the state and authority.

Because the syphilis of introversion is only dealt with in action against the real enemy and not with macho shows of strength.

Because objective truth is only held by the inquisitors. People in revolt will always dispute it, bearing the weight of their choices.

Anarchists:

Giannis Mihailidis

Babis Tsilianidis

Dimitris Politis

Tasos Theofilou

Alexandros Mitrousias

Grigoris Sarafoudis

Giorgos Karagiannidis

Argiris Dalios

Fivos Harisis

P.S.

This text is our position concerning the ambush set up against our comrade. We did not choose to speak about the matters raised by Giannis about the attitude of the CCF inside the prison since long before the recent incidents took place and the texts were written, we had decided not to do so since we thought that something like that would be counter-productive and not useful at this specific period in time. Either way, we know that our personal experience is more easily misunderstood than transferred.

....

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2014, 18:15

"In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more ‘effective’ the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy.

The efforts of reaction to put an end to strikes and to the mass workers’ movement in general have always, everywhere, ended in failure. Capitalist society needs an active, mobile and intelligent proletariat; it cannot, therefore, bind the proletariat hand and foot for very long. On the other hand, the anarchist ‘propaganda of the deed’ has shown every time that the state is much richer in the means of physical destruction and mechanical repression than are the terrorist groups.

If that is so, where does it leave the revolution? Is it rendered impossible by this state of affairs? Not at all. For the revolution is not a simple aggregate of mechanical means. The revolution can arise only out of the sharpening of the class struggle, and it can find a guarantee of victory only in the social functions of the proletariat. The mass political strike, the armed insurrection, the conquest of state power...

If we oppose terrorist acts, it is only because individual revenge does not satisfy us. The account we have to settle with the capitalist system is too great to be presented to some functionary called a minister. To learn to see all the crimes against humanity, all the indignities to which the human body and spirit are subjected, as the twisted outgrowths and expressions of the existing social system, in order to direct all our energies into a collective struggle against this system—that is the direction in which the burning desire for revenge can find its highest moral satisfaction." - Leon Trotsky; Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism, 1911.

A few things: Firstly, I don't think this organisation follows the principles of 'propaganda of the deed' so this criticism is entirely redundant. Prescribing 'propaganda of the deed' as a central political basis for their activity is to misunderstand them (unless of course I've missed something). The use of violence comes from a more nuanced position than the one you are accusing them of having.

Secondly, the motivation for Trotsky writing this view has to be considered within the framework of what his political objectives were. Trotsky's main political objective was the capture of the state and the centralisation of political institutions into the hands of the communist party. If that was not his objective, then it is certainly what he did. So one has to bring this particular text into question when you consider what acts of "terror," as they are called here, means. Fundamentally, they are acts of political (whether you agree with the politics or not) autonomy. They require workers taking matters into their own hands. If your political objective is to centralise political authority into the hands of a minority (the politburo, central committee etcetera), it is very clear to see that workers acting independently and autonomously of your control is a fundamental problem.

Thirdly, acts of "terror" against your political enemies are, as Trotsky well knows, since he was instrumental in some of the most brutal terror against his political enemies, is justified as retribution. It is justified not because of Trotsky's patronising assumption that the workers (politicised or not) will somehow seek out a mythical entity (that incidentally probably wouldn't be the communist party), but because the politics of political retribution is grounded in the notion that class war exists right now; that seeking to achieve retribution against your class/political enemies is part of that ongoing conflict as it exists in our daily lives. Of course, this view presupposes that the workers (again, politicised or not) have the agency to wage war in their daily lives without some guiding political force -- of which Trotsky was eminently placed.

One interesting part of the text is this, "only the police repression grows more savage and brazen." It is a decidedly liberal attitude to point out that the police, when confronted with conflict, will act like the police. Of course repression will grow more savage -- it's called escalation. But again, escalation outside of the authority and control of Trotsky or his political machine is totally antithetical to his modus operandi and therefore is going to significantly prejudice his critiques of political tactics. It is not that he objects to escalation or that he objects to terror, it is that he objects to escalation and terror if it is not under his control and performed for his own political objectives.

Another interesting part of the text is this, "the state is much richer in the means of physical destruction and mechanical repression than are the terrorist groups." When you consider that Trotsky would later be central to the execution of that "mechanical repression" against anarchists and anti-Bolsheviks alike, the fact he notes the power of the state so significantly strikes me as rather a sinister omen.

BIXX

16th October 2014, 18:20

A few things: Firstly, I don't think this organisation follows the principles of 'propaganda of the deed' so this criticism is entirely redundant. Prescribing 'propaganda of the deed' as a central political basis for their activity is to misunderstand them (unless of course I've missed something). The use of violence comes from a more nuanced position that the one you are accusing them of having.

Secondly, the motivation for Trotsky writing this view has to be considered within the framework of what his political objectives were. Trotsky's main political objective was the capture of the state and the centralisation of political institutions into the hands of the communist party. If that was not his objective, then it is certainly what he did.

So one has to bring this particular text into question when you consider what acts of "terror, "as they are called here, means. Fundamentally, they are acts of political (whether you agree with the politics or not) autonomy. They require workers taking matters into their own hands. If your political objective is to centralise political authority into the hands of a minority (the politburo, central committee etcetera), it is very clear to see that workers acting independently and autonomously of your control is a fundamental problem.

Thirdly, acts of "terror" against your political enemies are, as Trotsky well knows, since he was instrumental in some of the most brutal terror against his political enemies, is justified as retribution. It is justified not because of Trotsky's patronising assumption that the workers (politicised or not) will somehow seek out a mythical entity (that incidentally probably wouldn't be the communist party), but because the politics of political retribution is grounded in the notion that class war exists right now; that seeking to achieve retribution against your class/political enemies is part of that ongoing conflict as it exists in our daily lives. Of course, this view presupposes that the workers (again, politicised or not) have the agency to wage war in their daily lives without some guiding political force -- of which Trotsky was eminently placed.

One interesting part of the text is this, "only the police repression grows more savage and brazen." It is a decidedly liberal attitude to point out that the police, when confronted with conflict, will act like the police. Of course repression will grow more savage -- it's called escalation. But again, escalation outside of the authority and control of Trotsky or his political machine is totally antithetical to his modus operandi and therefore is going to significantly prejudice his critiques of political tactics.

Another interesting part of the text is this, "the state is much richer in the means of physical destruction and mechanical repression than are the terrorist groups." When you consider that Trotsky would later be central to the execution of that "mechanical repression," against anarchists and anti-Bolsheviks alike, noting the power of the state strikes as rather a sinister omen.
Do you have any comment on the prison beating?

To Sasha: thank you for posting it up I'll get right on reading that.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

16th October 2014, 19:12

There is, I would say, a difference between an interest in them (being inspired) and gushing. I have to say I disagree with them in a lot of ways, but on the other hand they have sine really interesting shit to say and are unafraid to act on it.

Oh I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything

BIXX

16th October 2014, 19:42

Oh I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything
Oh I was pretty sure, you just can't be too careful around here hahahaha.

The Feral Underclass

16th October 2014, 20:23

Do you have any comment on the prison beating?

I don't really understand what happened...

BIXX

16th October 2014, 21:02

I cant exactly figure it out either tbh. Like, it seems out of character for them. They apparently beat the dude for criticizing them in a letter but to me that seems like maybe there is more to the story. Especially as the letter seems to be poorly translated. And I can't fund anything from the CCF about the incident, which is also strange cause they take responsibility for like, all their actions. Idk. I'm at work so u haven't had much time to think on it.

BIXX

16th October 2014, 21:05

Revolutionary Struggle had better politics but both groups (RS and Conspiracy) were sorely lacking as far as tactics go.
What tactics would be better?

The traditionally left-wing anarchist organizations in Greece like the anarcho-syndicalists and AK are also ineffective, but for different reasons.

Conspiracy's politics were actually pretty strange. Their whole position as the "third pole" of anarchism was interesting, distancing themselves from both the anarchists trying to "mobilize the class" and also the anarchists who were out in the street demos. That tradition in Greek (and Italian) politics of small armed groups blowing stuff up, robbing bank & shooting at people is long & storied, and hasn't really resulted in anything good...Conspiracy's defense is basically, "we just hate this system and this is how we choose to express that hate and attempt to become more free", to which I say fair enough but that doesn't really give any useful political lessons.

I suspect they weren't going for any real lessons politically, other than maybe other terrorist organizations learning from them.

Also, what do you find strange about their politics?

BIXX

16th October 2014, 21:07

I can't really disagree with them on much, but I can't paint them as very important either. I get it, but I also get why someone would want to ditch out and hide in a homemade bunker out in the desert.

I can't help but think that having 'internet fans' who gush over their actions is like the exact opposite of what they want to achieve though.
I forgot to comment on the rest of this earlier, I just wanted to say that I don't really think that any group (of this type) is very significant, but I definitely find them interesting.

Os Cangaceiros

17th October 2014, 01:04

What tactics would be better?

I'm not entirely sure, I just know that the tactics of Conspiracy (and similar groups) do not really amount to anything productive. I don't need to know what works in order to know what doesn't work...to quote an old example, if my car breaks down, I don't need to know exactly what's wrong with it to know that it will no longer start.

I suspect they weren't going for any real lessons politically, other than maybe other terrorist organizations learning from them.

Well they're obviously concerned about how their actions are received beyond the participants who took part in the actions themselves, that's why they've written so many communiques justifying them. They're proud declarations of being "terrorists", regardless of how the word is simply a smear-term by those in power, also strikes me as being kind of dumb, as it tends to alienate people needlessly.

Also, what do you find strange about their politics?

Their critique of the present state of things goes way beyond political economy, way beyond capitalism, and goes down into a critique of "society" and how every day people replicate systems of power/forms of life/what-have-you with their day-to-day actions. Which, if we just assume that this is true, it doesn't follow that the solution to this dilemma is a CCF-style campaign against institutions of the state and business. If the ideology of dominance and hierarchy is so firmly entrenched and replicated every day by ordinary people, then CCF's actions are not going to shake up the system in any way.

Now, there's the argument that CCF isn't doing this for other people, just for themselves, but if that's the case then I don't really see how their significantly different from a right-wing survivalist who, in his disgust with society, hikes off into the mountains and lives off the land (or a bunker, as previously mentioned). Society has all sorts of malcontents and why should this set be any more interesting to the political left than other ones.

BIXX

17th October 2014, 01:25

I'm not entirely sure, I just know that the tactics of Conspiracy (and similar groups) do not really amount to anything productive. I don't need to know what works in order to know what doesn't work...to quote an old example, if my car breaks down, I don't need to know exactly what's wrong with it to know that it will no longer start.
Fair enough. I guess the first question I should ask is what makes an action productive?

Well they're obviously concerned about how their actions are received beyond the participants who took part in the actions themselves, that's why they've written so many communiques justifying them. They're proud declarations of being "terrorists", regardless of how the word is simply a smear-term by those in power, also strikes me as being kind of dumb, as it tends to alienate people needlessly.
The way they accept "terrorist" I think is meant for the folks who will understand, I suspect. Idk, I see it as being for those who are in the same mindset already. They are communicating with their counterparts, IMO.

Their critique of the present state of things goes way beyond political economy, way beyond capitalism, and goes down into a critique of "society" and how every day people replicate systems of power/forms of life/what-have-you with their day-to-day actions.
Many people (including myself) have this critique, in fact I arrived at it independently of CCF, or Bædan, or anyone else, just as I suspect those groups did themselves. Others, such as Renzo Novatore and the Italian nihilists did as well- its fairly common for folks to arrive at this point.

Which, if we just assume that this is true, it doesn't follow that the solution to this dilemma is a CCF-style campaign against institutions of the state and business. If the ideology of dominance and hierarchy is so firmly entrenched and replicated every day by ordinary people, then CCF's actions are not going to shake up the system in any way.
No one who has this critique (nihilists) expect to really change anything, I don't think.

Now, there's the argument that CCF isn't doing this for other people, just for themselves, but if that's the case then I don't really see how their significantly different from a right-wing survivalist who, in his disgust with society, hikes off into the mountains and lives off the land (or a bunker, as previously mentioned). Society has all sorts of malcontents and why should this set be any more interesting to the political left than other ones.
I'm not posting this for the political left but for other individuals like myself.

They are however significantly different to people like myself from the right wingers who hide in their bunkers or whatever.