The other face of the frappe

NOT FOR SALE !

το άλλο πρόσωπο του φραπέ

theotherfaceofthefrappe.squat.gr

A mix of texts written in the first person, recorded conversations and other materials by people from Athens who

discuss how to change the society in order to live free

from any kind of authority and hierarchical institutions.

The people involved in this project talk from their personal point of view, there is no delegation of

responsibility and each of us has inevitably different visions and way to communicate.

No name will appear ments are anonymous, not the name or the action in itself, the A 2

T

0

in this book, all the texts and docuin the belief that what is important is authorship of someone, but rather the testimony as an example of possibility.

H

E

1

N

S 4

In several respects my ideas have changed, and I will only give importance to what really matters to me; the “Person”, “Atom”, “Ego”, “Self” or any of the other names that have been given in order to examine the reason of existence.

Existence and consciousness that make us act and determine the rest of our life, Dostoevsky wrote that “the second half of our life is the following of the first half, and Einstein said that a body/person/mind cannot accept big changes in a short period of time and that in order to happen it requires time. I undergo personal changes fast, and with this, I realise that the person is the only thing that matters and that all goes back to that person.

That came up after realising that you cannot understand yourself according to Freud, Jung or Krishnamurti. The theories of other people have no importance. All systems are useless and the teacher/guru is harmful. All ideologies are utterly stupid, because they always operate within the boundaries of a standard, and the template becomes ideology and then authentic that should be followed. You cannot count on saviours and teachers. You cannot depend on anyone. There is no teacher, no instructions, there is no authority. There is only you and your relationship with others and the world. There is nothing else. To understand yourself, you do not need any top experts, you do not need your own inner authority either: you do not need your own experiences, knowledge, ideas and ideals, they are all acquisitions of the mind from the influences of your environment. With the knowledge of self and not by faith in other symbols, you can reach eternal reality, which is the foundation of existence. When you completely discharge all ideologies, religions, philosophies, saints, heroes, anarchists, that you have learned to follow, you are left face to face with yourself, with who you really are. Being freed from all the pundits, and your (supposed) own top expert, it is identical to provoking the death of everything you have carried around until now, so your mind is constantly new, innocent, full of strength and passion. Only when your mind is constantly new, without the “burden” of yesterday, you can observe and learn. If you can see this, then the mind is free, to get there, there should be freedom from every tradition, every top expert, so the mind can observe and learn. The so-called religious, pious or holy men throughout the ages, in a monastery, in the desert, or in a cave, under tyranny have tried to “save” their minds by conforming to a set standard. So a tormented dissolved mind has become stupid from discipline and obedience. It is surprising that although most people are opposed to political tyranny and dictatorship, they accept the power of another, (teachings of the guru, the saint) that deforms the spirit and lifestyle. Most people perceive themselves according to a person who they have built with much care. That is why we must know ourselves, ignoring the models we have been presented with, or without following others. So no more following for me, I’ll create my own way, Einstein again defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Too much said, I think I have become confusing..  What I mean in sum, is that if each one of us took care of himself or herself we wouldn’t be in this situation, that’s why we should look out by our selves and not allow others to determine our way. Chaos in a beautiful way.

>>>> Anti-Propaganda I grew up in the 90s, the golden period of fake prosperity and consumerism, when most families had more than two cars, a cottage and the well polished advantage of vacations to luxury destinations, their biggest ‘problem’ being (since ,“they” i.e.

The government and media, had told them so) was the Albanian immigrants who were stealing their jobs (jobs of course, that actually most of the Greeks weren’t doing) such as construction, fieldwork on farms etc. Now “they” have left people with nothing, and they keep playing the blame game with this story of «The Immigrant’s Fault» spreading the news in every possible direction.The sad thing is that people still believe it.

Even though as a younger person I had anti-fascist beliefs and sometimes took part in protests, I was too politically immature to decide if Anarchism was what best represented me. I took part in the insurrection of 2008 after the death of a 16-year-old boy, and that made me wonder “Is this the society we live in? A cop can raise his gun and shoot a kid in cold blood?” The answer felt like a kick in the head: “Shit, if we do not fight back, each of us in his own way and all together against them, against this – by their constitutional law- brutality, they will continue to screw with our lives.” This feeling is similar to Anarchism, since being an anarchist is a way of life to be taken seriously. Firstly, it’s yourself you should change; your perspective on life itself and the existing society. You can approach that as you wish, from beginning to re-examine family values to working on whatever else troubles your mind: your daily actions, how you stand to other people, understanding yourself and other people’s real needs, you name it and think about whatever it is. Through this self-liberating process I found what I really wanted to do about this, and I realized that we have to struggle for freedom and we had better start acting on things.

Practising direct action means acting directly to meet one’s needs, rather than relying on representatives or choosing from prescribed options. Today the term is commonly applied to the use of illegal protest tactics to pressure governments and corporations to make certain decisions, which actually is not much different from voting or making campaign contributions; but it most properly describes actions that cut out the middleman entirely to solve problems without mediation.

I support almost every kind of action, all the pieces that compose the mosaic of the anarchy movement from the most extreme front to the most moderate line. Not everyone can do everything and it is all vital to the revolution against the minority of the world that is oppressing the majority of the world’s populations.

The anarchist movement has to be in many places (everywhere actually). It must be in the neighbourhood, on the main square and be organized by open assemblies and for activities like food supply, self-organized entertainment -theatre, concerts and so on- using anti-violence against government violence. Everyone should have the possibility to join us and participate in a common aim. Interestingly, in my neighborhood at the beginning the assembly was gathered in an unexpected way because there was only a group of four to five individuals who decided to announce a call for creating an open assembly of anarchists in the area. Therefore, a good number of people gathered up at the first meeting -people that didn’t know each other- and in a short period of time, after three or four assemblies, we selforganized daily anti-fascist & anti-racism events, that hosted these days “running� the Athens antifa league (antifa teams playing football to all neighbourhoods, near parks or small court, spreading the ANTIFA spirit), social & collective kitchen, exchange and donation bazaars, discussions with immigrants in which they shared their fascist and state repression experiences with other people, film screenings relative to festivals, music and so on. All these things organized by a small group of determined people. The beauty in all of this is the fact that very few people knew each other from the past and all together managed to accomplish a common action, with the power of their will.

In this period the schools are closed, so, during the night, I am in the habit of going inside -for example high schools- and expressing my political opinion making “street art”, which is a creative resource using critical images that can trigger doubt in the viewer. Stickers or Stencils like the one depicting a monkey behind bars with the saying “Welcome to the schoolroom of boredom”: I’m trying to pass the message not only onto the students but also to the teachers and parents who used to be students of this well-organized “gear factory” (and by this I mean the human gears of capitalism) that goes in a different direction from libertarian education which is really needed. So the schools are not right or good, you might ask or say? No, they are not, because they are also controlled by the same governments that want to transform you into sheep for the slaughter – birth then learn, work, earn, spend and die. All the “battles” that government fight in order to defend public and free education just means the advocacy of free and public dissemination of organized ignorance, of free and public dissemination of the ideology of the system, of free and public class stratification of youths, of free and public support of the role of family life and choices of adolescents – all to produce obedient and disciplined workers. Whether this training takes place in private or public schools, in both cases one learns the same things.

School is the thumbnail of the society we will see, as the new generation is the future (you have surely heard the expression: “We are the very image of the future”). So I actively support anarchism against the state’s ideological and poisonous propaganda inspired by their own bullshit. I shall re-create an antipicture as answer. I say re-create because my choices are to be made between already (mostly) existing art that in some way strikes me as an answer together with a slogan. Express yourself, it will make you feel better!! In co-operation with other assemblies like young anarchists from high schools that nowadays have organised ‘social centres’ where they can meet to discuss and organize activities, in the spirit of libertarian education. I have found new ideas through discussion on how nowadays kids see the state of things in contemporary society that I in turn have ‘expounded’ on (though already written, stated and expressed). The task of anti-propaganda is to facilitate this process.

At the moment I am working on a project that consists in translating English pieces of anarchy texts into Greek in order to make a kind of manual about revolutionary practice. For example, I am taking some parts of the anarchist cookbook ‘Recipes for disaster’ as well as other important and similar material. The goal is to reach everyone informing them about revolutionary practice. By the way, I am already laughing at those people who do not understand what will follow - about police brutality - they used to see all those demonstrations for years on television saying to themselves ‘tsk, tsk, tsk, why are these things happening and what do these protesters want?’ -so even though they have never had any real experience with friendly and human cops they will surely be shocked, when they really do go into

the streets, in reality. Recipes for Disaster –and it is not the only good cookbook or manual you can find- suggests and provides information on how you can organize a team by yourself – even with your friends – and take action against the repressors of our lives. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security - where the real question is from whom these guys are protecting us? it describes in lurid detail how sensible, law-abiding citizens can be transformed into mayhem-making mobs”, and that is the poisonous propaganda I was talking about before. In my opinion with every passing day, they get stronger, see the mutations and the militarization of the police who use weapons for repressing the crowd (these are called lessthan-lethal weapons). For example “The scream of Shophar” is a gun (mounted on a moving vehicle), unleashing repetitive sound pulses against targets, causing dizziness and nausea. Then there are the LRAD used at G20 in Pittsburgh, ADS (Active Denial system), SMU 100 and let us not forget water cannons, armoured fighting vehicles, aerial surveillance, police dogs or the mounted police wearing protective equipment such as riot helmets, face visors, body armour (vests, neck protectors, knee pads, etc.) and gas masks –who could forget old-school tear gas – as well as riot shields. All these good guys guided and protected under the warm hug of governments and the judicial system, beating and even killing children like Trayvon Martin, Aleksis Grigoropoulos or Nikolas Sakelion who was beaten by 4 policemen when he was handcuffed, with blows to the head until he collapsed on the pavement – beaten by the very ones here to protect us.

Participating in direct action in every possible way you can, against this system, is the only way to bring an end to it. Direct action is anti-violence and the “Recipes for disaster” and all its contents are at the disposal of those who, in good faith, would read, circulate, plagiarize, revise, and otherwise make use of them in the course of making the world a better place. The world in which we live is in a mess and, sadly, there are a lot of things that need to be done. I believe I won’t be around to see the state of things change but I won’t just sit around hanging my head, following and obeying every kind of possible perversion. It’s easy to imagine an ideal world where people get along together. It will certainly have much in common with Anarchism (i’m not sure if that’s the right word... i’ll check that) just get rid of cultural monotheism and accept ‘multi -formity’ which will guide you - freely and of your own free will - to unexpected feelings and perception. After that, you can decide what to do.

-“But what if i get caught?”

-“Motherfucker, you’re already caught. Better ask yourself, what if you get free?”

You’re not only responsible for what you do… but also for those things that you do not do.

Errico Malatesta

What anti-authoritarian could mean?

As Michel Foucault says if the meaning of power fell down we are part of the system and we would fall down together with the meaning. So, at the moment it’s very difficult create new ways. At the same time, since the meaning has fallen, we need to re-occupy the place of the institution, not just the buildings like the parliament, but the institution’s places as a language, technique, sexual relationship, the culture in all its forms and interrelated aspects. We need to occupy all the old institutions that nowadays are lacking in meaning. I think that today we must create free social institutions in order to stop the attack from the system, that means creating a front line in order to stop the violence of the State. The second thing to do is occupy the space that the authority is no more able to express. For example, we can define new meaning about the work - first, without a boss - making social institutions regarding social economy. That means creating two things: first of all, people can find something like a job and continue to live. On the other hand, you can make new social relations because work is a generator of sociability. We need to create other kinds of institutions. Free social centres not just for anarchists or for people that strongly believe in a traditional and anachronistic ideology, but for everyone.

Cornelius Castoriadis is not wholly right but he said a lot of interesting things about the idea of autonomy. But not in ideological terms. For example, how can we make a revolution now? We cannot imagine that the revolution will be with guns taking the palace of the parliament. Yet, we cannot accept that the society will become anarchist to make a revolution. We must fight to create new institutions, new free social institutions. Of course, there will be fighting, and there will probably be blood. Anyway, we must not imagine something like the Russian revolution. To this regard, if you read Dostoyevsky you can understand what the Russian

society was like. The trigger of the Russian revolution was not just the lacking of basic needs, food or the cold winter.

In that period, the meaning of the society was fallen. Today, the system is completely different as much as capitalism is different. In Russia you knew who was the authority, there was the king. Today we don’t know who has the authority, it’s not just the parliament for sure. Who is the capital now?

You don’t know who is the authority: the power has assumed other forms, conquered other places and it’s often unpredictable.

I did research for my masters about the anarchist movement in the 1980s. Here in Greece we have a big problem: we created an anarchy tradition that is very strange. Lets give an example, anarchists that talk in general, don’t want to publish their writings to the mass media newspaper. Me too!

But how can my speech reach the society? So, should we send text to the newspaper? I know it’s difficult because the newspaper can change the content. We must use them but they probably use and manipulate us, for sure. Doing our self philosophy like we are doing today is not enough. Therefore, how can my work reach the society? We need to use the mass media, and always read before a journalist publishes your opinion in order to control and validate what they write.

The anarchist movement here in Greece is not very openminded. I’m critical of the traditional anarchist. The anarchist movement is old and predictable. They don’t try to create something new. They just use the meanings of the past. And this is a very big problem. Because they created an identity. Congenital, physical identity. I think that creating identities is something very human. But then, let’s say “I’m an anarchist”. Who the fuck gives a shit. They create and keep an identity in a way to create an identity just for themselves. “I’m an anarchist! I’m an anarchist!”. “I don’t give a

fuck what you are!”. You know the movement of the square?

In Greece we had the Indignados. I was in Syntagma all the time in 2010 during the occupation. The people there don’t care what you are, if you are an anarchist, if you are a communist, if you are a social democrat.

N - “What’s your name?”

P - “P” N - “Ok P, what can you tell me about what we can do now?

You said for example “I don’t know” - “Ok, fuck you!”. I don’t give a shit if you are an anarchist. “Can you tell me something?” You said for example “Yes, we must do the revolution! - “Fuck you!”, What can we do now!?

Many Anarchists were against the movement of the square because the people there were not revolutionary. This is a big problem. Most of the group here do not agree with the Syntagma movement because they think that “the people of the square” were not politically mature, they were not conscious enough. For me all of this is bullshit, because you must start on something. There, in Syntagma, you had the occasion to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who is not exactly like you. Open yourself to him, talk to him… If we have a revolution, most of the anarchists will be against the revolution. Because the revolution will not be like what they imagined. This is my big problem. We have here a social revolt, but we can’t wait for all of the society to become anarchist! And let me say: “You are anarchist. Ok. Why should I believe to you?” If you are an anarchist that means that you are not sexist?”. Here in Exarchia we had sexist attacks from the anarchists. They hit two gay people. So, in some case, “I’m an anarchist” does not mean that you are against the authority. I don’t give a shit about someone who says what he or she is.

So, I’m an anarchist, but I prefer to say I’m anti authoritarian. I prefer this, and for me being an anarchist has the same meaning of being anti authoritarian.

We had the movement of Syntagma square, but now, to get out of the Syntagma, we need to make social centres everywhere, in Pakriati, in Tesseranì… Make free social centres that express the meaning of Syntagma movement. No ideological things, occupy buildings and open them to all the society. In Syntagma, the proposal of direct democracy was very popular. A lot of people accept this concept. This is very important. And I don’t want to leave the meaning of democracy to the authority. We can make new meaning of “democracy” if you want. About it, the main point of the democratic topic is “who decides?”. I don’t want 10.000.000 people and just one parliament. I think we should have many communities and then other assemblies where people express the opinions of the communities, and go on in this direction. And let me say: Kropotkin said something different from this?

Was Kropotkin not an anarchist? Yes, he was, and he wrote about the federalist way of organising society: another kind of society and organization. I can’t find another way. Let’s say, how does the Zapatista community work? In a federalist way. Or like during the Spanish revolution when the anarchist made collectives? In this way we must go.

The big question in my opinion about the revolution is in which mode you are in relation with the minority. This is a big problem. The people are not like Madre Teresa of Calcutta, they are not angels. So, general example, the majority of people want to create a street outside here, let’s say the 80%, the other 20% don’t want to create the street. If you create a street it will be the dictatorship of the majority. Otherwise, it will be the dictatorship of the minority. Also, we don’t have a result through the discussion. So, in this case I think the

majority should choose… But in a way to respect the minority. Ok, but in which way? This is one of the big problems concerning the revolution. Why didn’t Trotsky respect anarchists in the Russian revolution? The majority must decide and, at the same time, they must find the way – I don’t have an answer - to respect the minority. But we must not send the minority to the Gulag.

N - Let me ask you something, tell me the truth.

P - Sure.

N – During the Spanish revolution what would have happened with the minority if the anarchists had taken power?

What do you believe?

This is the question that David Graeber writes in his book: “Do you think that anarchists would not have created the Gulag? I believe yes, If they had taken power they would have created the gulags. Be realistic. Nestor Makhno wanted to make jew-hunts. That’s why I don’t agree with some anarchists: because I want to be realistic. I don’t want to say that we are all angels and some bullshit. I don’t believe that humans are fundamentally good in their nature like the classical anarchist said. They are neither good, nor bad. To be practical, if you disagree with someone, what do you do? You kill him? Yet, for example, should we have some kind of police? Don’t misunderstand. If you and I want to destroy the free society, how will the institutions defend themselves?

In the Spanish revolution they had a kind of police. Not the police that we have today, but should we have a kind of police? How do you protect the society from the people that want to destroy it? These questions, I don’t have an answer of course. But these are practical issues.

I’m not a pacifist. You cannot destroy the system with peaceful means. But how can you use violence? First of all, you have to respect violence in order to use it.

An introduction to Cornelius Castoriadis

Ο Κορνήλιος Καστοριάδης υπήρξε ένας από τους πιο σημαντικούς στοχαστές του αιώνα που πέρασε. Το εύρος των θεμάτων που τον απασχόλησαν στα έργα του είναι τεράστιο. Από την πολιτική θεωρία και την οικονομία μέχρι τη φιλοσοφία, τη ψυχανάλυση και τις φυσικές επιστήμες, ο Καστοριάδης μας παρέδωσε ένα πλούτο στοχασμών και ερωτημάτων που αποτελούν ένα γονιμοποιό σπέρμα για όποιον θέλει σήμερα να σκεφτεί και να διερωτηθεί σοβαρά, αποφεύγοντας κάθε είδους σκόπελο που δημιουργούν οι εκάστοτε ορθοδοξίες. Αυτό όμως που αποτελεί κοινό τόπο είναι ότι ο Καστοριάδης δικαίως έχει χαρακτηριστεί ως ο φιλόσοφος της Αυτονομίας, μιας και η έννοια αυτή διαπερνά όλη τη σκέψη και την οντολογία του. Στην παρούσα μελέτη ο Αλέξανδρος Σχισμένος καταπιάνεται με την έννοια της ψυχής και του ατόμου, μια πλευρά της καστοριαδικής φιλοσοφίας που δεν έχει τύχει της ανάλογης μελέτης και προσοχής. Η ψυχή για τον Καστοριάδη, όπως αναφέρει ο Σχισμένος, γίνεται αντιληπτή ως ριζική φαντασία, ως ένας παραστασιακός ρους, όπου η παράσταση δεν αποτελεί ένα χαώδες κόσμο αλλά αποτελεί η ίδια ριζική φαντασία. Η ψυχή μέσα από τη διαδικασία της μετουσίωσης, που ορίζεται στο καστοριαδικό σχήμα ως ο εκκοινωνισμός της ψυχής και αποτελεί την ουσιαστική ρήξη με τον Φρόϋντ, συγκροτεί το εκκοινωνισμένο Εγώ, δηλαδή το κοινωνικό άτομο.1 Στη μελέτη του Σχισμένου γίνεται ξεκάθαρα αντιληπτή η καστοριαδική θεώρηση του ατόμου ως μη διαχωρισμένου από την κοινωνία. Το εκκοινωνισμένο άτομο, το οποίο έχει αρχίσει να συγκροτεί τις πρωταρχικές φαντασιακές σημασίες μετά τη διαδικασία της μετουσίωσης, αποτελεί το ίδιο θεσμό. Είναι θεσμισμένο αλλά και θεσμίζον, κοινωνικοποιημένο αλλά και ανατρεπτικό. Η ατομική αυτονομία για τον καστοριάδη είναι η αναστοχαστική και διαυγής ικανότητα κάποιου να συγκροτεί, να διατηρεί αλλά και να αναθεωρεί μια συνεκτική ταυτότητα, τις σημασίες και τα νοήματα που αυτό επιλέγει. Στο επίπεδο της κοινωνικής θέσμισης για τον Καστοριάδη αυτόνομα άτομα είναι εκείνα τα άτομα που ρητά και με διαυγαστικό τρόπο είναι τα ίδια οι δημιουργοί των νόμων αλλά ταυτόχρονα και οι ίδιοι οι οποίοι μπορούν να τους μετατρέψουν.

(...)Ο Καστοριάδης μας επισημαίνει ότι αυτονομία δεν είναι ότι ο καθένας ως άτομο ή ως ομάδα, χρησιμοποιώντας τον όρο αυτονομία, κάνει ό,τι θέλει χωρίς κανένα περιορισμό η αυτοπειθαρχία.2 Αντίθετα σημαίνει ότι το άτομο, η κοινωνία η ίδια δίνει το Νόμο στον εαυτό της κι ως τέτοιον τον σέβεται. Κι αυτή η αντιπαραβολή είναι αρκετά ουσιαστική, ειδικά εάν σκεφτούμε την κατάχρηση του όρου που έγινε από πολιτικά κινήματα και θεωρήσεις, τα οποία χρησιμοποίησαν τη λέξη αυτονομία περισσότερο για να δηλώσουν μια προσπάθεια απογαλακτισμού από παραδοσιακές επαναστατικές θεωρίες παρά να συγκροτήσουν μια ουσιαστική και διαυγασμένη θεώρηση για έναν ριζικό κοινωνικό μετασχηματισμό. Σύμφωνα με τον Καστοριάδη υπάρχουν δύο περίοδοι στην ανθρώπινη Ιστορία όπου η Αυτονομία αποτέλεσε κοινωνικό πρόταγμα και βούληση. Μία είναι στην Αρχαία Αθήνα την περίοδο της Αθηναϊκής Δημοκρατίας και η δεύτερη ξεκινά τον Ύστερο Μεσαίωνα στο πλαίσιο συγκρότησης των ευρωπαϊκών πόλεων, συνεχίζει με τις μεγάλες επαναστάσεις που έλαβαν χώρα καθώς και με το επαναστατικό εργατικό κίνημα που αναπτύχθηκε σχεδόν ταυτόχρονα με τη δημιουργία του καπιταλισμού. Η Αυτονομία είναι ένα οντολογικό άνοιγμα, μια ρήξη με το γνωσιακό και οργανωτικό κλείσιμο που χαρακτηρίζει μια ετερόνομη κοινωνία. Και λέμε ότι είναι οντολογικό άνοιγμα μιας και το άνοιγμα της κλειστότητας σημαίνει αλλοίωση και ριζική αλλαγή του οργανωτικού, σημασιολογικού και γνωσιακού συστήματος του υπάρχοντος, δηλαδή τη δημιουργία ενός άλλου κόσμου και ενός άλλου εαυτού σύμφωνα με άλλους κανόνες και παραστάσεις. Ένα νέο δηλαδή οντολογικό είδος, έναν εαυτό άλλο μέσα σε έναν άλλο κόσμο. Γι αυτό το λόγο μπορούμε να συλλάβουμε την αυτονομία ως μια ριζική ρήξη, ως μια οντολογική δημιουργία.3 Για τον Καστοριάδη η πεποίθηση ότι βασικές έννοιες ή επιδιώξεις (όπως ελευθερία, δικαιοσύνη, νόμος, αλήθεια κ.τ.λ.) αποτέλεσαν πάντα ερωτήματα που απασχολούσαν τις ανθρώπινες κοινωνίες συνιστά στην ουσία μια ιστορική αυταπάτη. Θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι στο μεγαλύτερο

μέρος της ανθρώπινης Ιστορίας και των κοινωνιών, οι άνθρωποι δέχονταν ως απολύτως αναμφισβήτητα αυτά που η θεσμισμένη παράδοση τους είχε επιβάλει ως τρόπο ζωής.4 Μιλάμε δηλαδή για υποκείμενα και κατεπέκτασιν για κοινωνίες που η απορρόφησή τους σε ένα ντετερμινιστικό ή συνολοταυτιστικό σύμπαν, όχι μόνο δεν τους επέτρεπε να αλλάξουν τον κόσμο που ζούσαν αλλά πολύ περισσότερο δεν γνώριζαν ότι ήταν εγκλωβισμένοι σε έναν τέτοιο.(...) Ο κοινωνικός θεσμός είναι πρωταρχικά ο σκοπός του εαυτού του, δηλαδή μία από τις βασικές λειτουργίες του είναι η αυτοσυντήρησή του. Περιέχει μέσα του μηχανισμούς που τείνουν να τον αναπαράγουν ώστε να τροφοδοτεί τη δημιουργία παραστάσεων και σημασιών για την κατασκευή κοινωνικών ατόμων κατάλληλων και συμμορφωμένων. Αυτό που κυρίως όμως χαρακτηρίζει τη λειτουργικότητά του είναι ότι οφείλει να παράγει νόημα στα άτομα τα οποία τον δημιούργησαν. Έτσι η κοινωνία δεν μπορεί να δομηθεί πέρα των θεσμών και των σημασιών που η ίδια δημιουργεί.5 Ο Καστοριάδης παρατηρεί ότι η θεσμίζουσα δραστηριότητα των κοινωνιών ήταν και είναι πάντα αυτοθέσμιση.6 Δηλαδή οι κοινωνίες πάντα δίνουν οι ίδιες τους θεσμούς, τις σημασίες, τους κανόνες στον ίδιο τους τον εαυτό.(...) Έτσι οι κοινωνίες είναι ετερόνομες διότι υποδουλώνονται στην ίδια τους τη δημιουργία, αλλοτριώνονται στους ίδιους της τους νόμους και τους θεσμούς, τους οποίους θεωρούν ότι είναι «υπερβατικοί και αμετάτρεπτοι» μιας και δόθηκαν από πηγές αυθεντίας και ανώτερης των ατόμων και των κοινωνιών. Για τη δημιουργία μιας αυτόνομης κοινωνίας χρειάζονται αυτόνομα άτομα και το αντίστροφο. Όταν δηλαδή ο πληθυσμός σχηματίζει τα ίδια του τα αυτόνομα άτομα για να δώσει στον εαυτό του τις μορφές οργάνωσης.7 Μια κοινωνία είναι αυτόνομη, μας λέει ο Καστοριάδης, όταν ξέρει ότι η ίδια είναι η πηγή των θεσμών και των νόμων. Ότι δεν υπάρχει καμία εξωγενής ή υπερβατική πηγή των θεσμών. Ότι δηλαδή οι θεσμοί της είναι ανθρώπινα δημιουργήματα, τα οποία δεν έλκουν την καταγωγή τους

από τη θεία θέληση ή από την πραγμάτωση κάποιων τελεολογικών και αδήριτων ιστορικών ή φυσικών νόμων. Μια κοινωνία η οποία έχει επίγνωση της θνητότητάς της. Μια βασική προϋπόθεση της αυτονομίας είναι η αμφισβήτηση της θεσμισμένης παράδοσης, των ιερών αληθειών που υπάρχουν στις ετερόνομες κοινωνίες. Συνήθως οι κοινωνίες δομούνται πάνω σε συνολιστικά-ταυτιστικά ή ντετερμινιστικά κοινωνικά φαντασιακά. Από διάχυτα πολιτικά φαντασιακά και μάγματα τα οποία «εκλογικεύουν» και «ορθολογοποιούν» οι Ιδεολογίες.8 (...)Η κίνηση προς μια αυτόνομη κοινωνία προϋποθέτει τη ρήξη με κάθε τι ψευδο-ορθολογικό, το οποίο έρχεται μεσσιανικά ως αποκάλυψη ώστε να δώσει τις έτοιμες απαντήσεις. Αυτό που γνωρίζει μια αυτόνομη κοινωνία είναι ότι εμείς κάνουμε τους νόμους και εμείς είμαστε υπεύθυνοι γι’ αυτούς. Έτσι θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι αυτονομία είναι η ρητή και διαυγασμένη αυτοθέσμιση της κοινωνίας και του ατόμου. Μια κοινωνία η οποία όχι μόνο ξέρει ότι αυτή δημιουργεί τους νόμους αλλά θεσμίζει τον εαυτό της με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να απελευθερώσει όλη τη δημιουργική ικανότητα του συλλογικού φαντασιακού, αλλά παράλληλα να είναι ικανή να μετασχηματίσει τους θεσμούς της με μια δραστηριότητα αυτοστοχαστική και διαβουλευτική.9 Πρωταρχικός σκοπός ενός προγράμματος αυτονομίας είναι η συγκρότηση μιας δημοκρατικής βούλησης. Δηλαδή ότι η κοινωνική οργάνωση θα βασίζεται στη δημοκρατία και συγκεκριμένα στην άμεση δημοκρατία. Η ατομική αυτονομία έχει ως περιεχόμενο την ίση συμμετοχή όλων στην εξουσία. Χωρίς την ίση συμμετοχή δεν υπάρχει ελευθερία όπως επίσης δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει ισότητα χωρίς ελευθερία. Εάν η αυτόνομη κοινωνία είναι αυτή που αυτοθεσμίζεται ρητά και με διαυγαστικό τρόπο, τότε γνωρίζει ότι οι νόμοι είναι αποτέλεσμα των δικών της σημασιών και του δικού της θεσμίζοντος φαντασιακού. Κι εδώ έρχεται το ζήτημα της δημοκρατίας. Για να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τα λόγια του Καστοριάδη «Η δημοκρατία, όταν είναι αληθινή, είναι το καθεστώς που αρνείται ρητά κάθε έσχατη “εγγύηση”, και που δεν γνωρίζει άλλον περιορισμό από

τον αυτοπεριορισμό του».10 Και αυτό με τη σειρά του δεν μπορεί παρά να είναι έργο ατόμων εκπαιδευμένων μέσα, από και για την δημοκρατία. Για τη συγκρότηση μιας αυτόνομης κοινωνίας, μας λέει ο Καστοριάδης, υπάρχει η ανάγκη δημιουργίας ενός «κοινού εδάφους», οργανωμένου γύρω από κοινές σημασίες και νοήματα και το οποίο θα αποτελεί τον κοινό τόπο που θα συγκλίνουν οι διαφορετικές ταυτότητες και παραστάσεις, τις οποίες έχει το κάθε υποκείμενο.11 Αλλιώς δεν είναι δυνατό όχι μόνο να υπάρξει αυτόνομη κοινωνία αλλά ούτε κοινωνία ως συγκροτημένο σύνολο. Ο αγώνας λοιπόν για αυτονομία, σύμφωνα με τον Καστοριάδη, είναι ένας αγώνας γύρω από τους θεσμούς, γύρω από τη μεταβολή των θεσμών και τη δημιουργία νέων. Αν είναι λοιπόν να αναδυθεί μια αυτόνομη κοινωνία δεν μπορεί παρά να στηρίζεται στην εξουσία των αυτόνομων οργανισμών του πληθυσμού, εξουσία δηλαδή που διαχέεται σε όλες τις δραστηριότητες της συλλογικής ύπαρξης. Από την πολιτική και την οικονομία μέχρι την παραγωγή, την εκπαίδευση και την καθημερινή ζωή. Η αυτοοργάνωση και η αυτοδιαχείριση δεν έχει κανένα νόημα παρά μόνο εάν καταλύσoυν τις ετερόνομες δομές που υπάρχουν. Θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι κληρονόμοι του αιτήματος για αυτονομία και χειραφέτηση, που ξεκίνησε στη νεωτερική Ιστορία από τις πόλεις του Μεσαίωνα στη Δυτική Ευρώπη έως και σήμερα, είναι τα κοινωνικά κινήματα τα οποία ακόμη δίνουν αγώνες για ελευθερία και αυτονομία. Στο ερώτημα πως θα μπορούσε να δημιουργηθεί μια αυτόνομη κοινωνία, η απάντηση είναι τόσο απλή όσο και περίπλοκη. Χρειάζεται η κοινωνία να το φανταστεί, να το επιθυμήσει και να το κάνει πράξη, θα μας πει ο Καστοριάδης.12 Ο μετασχηματισμός της κοινωνίας μέσα από την αυτόνομη δράση των ανθρώπων και την εγκαθίδρυση μιας κοινωνίας οργανωμένης για την αυτονομία όλων αποτελεί ένα πρόταγμα. Το πρόταγμα στηρίζεται στην κοινωνική πραγματικότητα και στην κριτική και αμφισβήτηση της καθεστηκυίας τάξης από ένα συνεχώς αυξανόμενο μέρος του πληθυσμού. Για να χρησιμοποιήσουμε τα λόγια του: «Ο,τι ονομάζω επαναστατικό πρόταγμα, το πρόταγμα της ατομικής και συλλογικής αυτονομίας (που είναι αδιαχώριστες), δεν είναι ουτοπία αλλά

κοινωνικο-ιστορικό πρόταγμα, το οποίο μπορεί να πραγματοποιηθεί, για το οποίο τίποτε δεν δείχνει ότι είναι αδύνατο. Η πραγματοποίησή του εξαρτάται μονάχα από τη διαυγή δραστηριότητα των ατόμων και των λαών, από την κατανόησή τους, από τη θέλησή τους, από τη φαντασία τους»13 Η έννοια της αυτονομίας αποτελεί την κεντρική σημασία του καστοριαδικού έργου, γύρω από την οποία περιστρέφεται ο πολιτικός στοχασμός του αλλά και η φιλοσοφική του οντολογία.

1 Η Φαντασιακή θέσμιση της κοινωνίας, εκδ. Κέδρος, σελ. 445 2 Είμαστε υπεύθυνοι για την Ιστορία μας, στον τόμο Του Κορνήλιου Καστοριάδη, εκδ. Πόλις, σελ. 49 3 Η Λογική των Μαγμάτων και το ζήτημα της αυτονομίας, στον τόμο Χώροι του Ανθρώπου, εκδ. Ύψιλον, σελ. 327 4 Είμαστε υπεύθυνοι για την Ιστορία μας, στον τόμο Του Κορνήλιου Καστοριάδη, εκδ. Πόλις, σελ. 52 5 Η λογική των μαγμάτων και το ζήτημα της αυτονομίας, στον τόμο Χώροι του Ανθρώπου, εκδ. Ύψιλον, σελ. 334 6 ό.π., σελ. 332 7 ό.π., σελ 330 8 ό.π., σελ. 329 9 Η Ψυχανάλυση και το πρόταγμα της αυτονομίας, στον τόμο Οι ομιλίες στην Ελλάδα, εκδ. Ύψιλον σελ. 98 10 Η λογική των μαγμάτων και το ζήτημα της αυτονομίας, στον τόμο Χώροι του Ανθρώπου, εκδ. Ύψιλον 11 Η Δημοκρατία ως διαδικασία και ως καθεστώς, στον τόμο Η άνοδος της ασημαντότητας, εκδ. Ύψιλον 12 Η Φαντασιακή θέσμιση της κοινωνίας. εκδ. Κέδρος, σελ. 158 13 Το πρόταγμα της αυτονομίας δεν είναι ουτοπία, στον τόμο Ακυβέρνητη Κοινωνία, εκδ. Ευρασία, σελ. 27

REPLY TO NESTOR MAKHNO Errico Malatesta (1929)

Dear Comrade, I have finally seen the letter you sent me more than a year ago, about my criticism of the Project for organising a General Union of anarchists, published by a group of Russian anarchists abroad and known in our movement by the name of ‘Platform’.

say and do. Thus, I knew that the ‘Platform’ and my criticism of it had been widely discussed, but I knew little or nothing about what had been said; and your letter is the first written document on the subject that I have managed to see.

Knowing my situation as you do, you will certainly have understood why I did not reply.

If we could correspond freely, I would ask you, before entering into the discussion, to clarify your views which, perhaps owing to an imperfect translation of the Russian into French, seem to me to be in part somewhat obscure.

But things being as they are, I will reply to what I have understood, and hope that I shall then be able to see your response.

I cannot take part as I would like in discussion of the questions which interest us most, because censorship prevents me from receiving either the publications that are considered subversive or the letters which deal with political and social topics, and only after long intervals and by fortunate chance do I hear the dying echo of what the comrades

You are surprised that I do not accept the principle of collective responsibility, which you believe

to be a fundamental principle that guides, and must guide the revolutionaries of the past, present and future.

For my part, I wonder what that notion of collective responsibility can ever mean from the lips of an anarchist.

I know that the military are in the habit of decimating corps of rebellious soldiers or soldiers who have behaved badly in the face of the enemy by shooting at them indiscriminately. I know that the army chiefs have no scruples about destroying villages or cities and massacring an entire population, including children, because someone attempted to put up resistance to invasion. I know that throughout the ages governments have in various ways threatened with and applied the system of collective responsibility to put a brake on the rebels, demand taxes, etc. And I understand that this could be an effective means of intimidation and oppression.

But how can people who fight for liberty and justice talk of collective responsibility when they can only be concerned with

moral responsibility, whether or not material sanctions follow?!!!

If, for example, in a conflict with an armed enemy force the man beside me acts as a coward, he may do harm to me and to everyone, but the shame can only be his for lacking the courage to sustain the role he took upon himself. If in a conspiracy a co-conspirator betrays and sends his companions to prison, are the betrayed the ones responsible for the betrayal?

The ‘Platform’ said: ‘The whole Union is responsible for the revolutionary and political activity of every member and each member will be responsible for the revolutionary and political activity of the Union.’

Can this be reconciled with the principles of autonomy and free initiative which the anarchists profess? I answered then: ‘If the Union is responsible for what each member does, how can it leave to its individual members and to the various groups the freedom to apply the common programme in the way they see it? How can it be responsible for an action if it does not have the means to prevent it?

Thus, the Union and through it the Executive Committee, would need to monitor the action of the individual members and order them what to do and what not to do; and since disapproval after the event cannot put right a previously accepted responsibility, no one would be able to do anything before having obtained the go-ahead, permission from the committee. And then, can an individual accept responsibility for the action of a collectivity before knowing what the latter will do and if he cannot prevent it doing what he disapproves?’ Certainly I accept and support the view that anyone who associates and cooperates with others for a common purpose must feel the need to coordinate his actions with those of his fellow members and do nothing that harms the work of others and, thus, the common cause; and respect the agreements that have been made - except when wishing sincerely to leave the association when emerging differences of opinion or changed circumstances or conflict over preferred methods make cooperation impossible or inappropriate. Just as I maintain

that those who do not feel and do not practise that duty should be thrown out of the association.

Perhaps, speaking of collective responsibility, you mean precisely that accord and solidarity that must exist among the members of an association. And if that is so, your expression amounts, in my view, to an incorrect use of language, but basically it would only be an unimportant question of wording and agreement would soon be reached.

The really important question that you raise in your letter concerns the function (*le role*) of the anarchists in the social movement and the way they mean to carry it out. This is a matter of basics, of the raison d’etre of anarchism and one needs to be quite clear as to what one means.

You ask if the anarchists should (in the revolutionary movement and communistic organisation of society) assume a directional and therefore responsible role, or limit themselves to being irresponsible auxiliaries.

Your question leaves me perplexed, because it lacks precision.

It is possible to direct through advice and example, leaving the people - provided with the opportunities and means of supplying their own needs themselves - to adopt our methods and solutions if these are, or seem to be, better than those suggested and carried out by others. But it is also possible to direct by taking over command, that is by becoming a government and imposing one’s own ideas and interests through police methods.

In which way would you want to direct?

We are anarchists because we believe that government (any government) is an evil, and that it is not possible to gain liberty, solidarity and justice without liberty. We cannot therefore aspire to government and we must do everything possible to prevent others - classes, parties or individuals from taking power and becoming governments.

The responsibility of the leaders, a notion by which it seems to me that you want to guarantee that the public are protected from their abuses and errors, means nothing

to me. Those in power are not truly responsible except when faced with a revolution, and we cannot make the revolution every day, and generally it is only made after the government has already done all the evil it can.

You will understand that I am far from thinking that the anarchists should be satisfied with being the simple auxiliaries of other revolutionaries who, not being anarchists, naturally aspire to become the government.

On the contrary, I believe that we, anarchists, convinced of the validity of our programme, must strive to acquire overwhelming influence in order to draw the movement towards the realisation of our ideals. But such influence must be won by doing more and better than others, and will only be useful if won in that way.

Today we must deepen, develop and propagate our ideas and coordinate our forces in a common action. We must act within the labour movement to prevent it being limited to and corrupted by the exclusive pursuit of small

improvements compatible with the capitalist system; and we must act in such a way that it contributes to preparing for a complete social transformation. We must work with the unorganised, and perhaps unorganisable, masses to awaken the spirit of revolt and the desire and hope for a free and happy life. We must initiate and support all movements that tend to weaken the forces of the State and of capitalism and to raise the mental level and material conditions of the workers. We must, in short, prepare, and prepare ourselves, morally and materially, for the revolutionary act which will open the way to the future.

And then, in the revolution, we must take an energetic part (if possible before and more effectively than the others) in the essential material struggle and drive it to the utmost limit in destroying all the repressive forces of the State.

We must encourage the workers to take possession of the means of production (land, mines, factories and workshops, means of transport, etc.) and of stocks of manufactured goods; to organise immediately, on their own, an equitable distribution of

consumer goods, and at the same time supply products for trade between communes and regions and for the continuation and intensification of production and all services useful to the public.

We must, in all ways possible and according to local circumstances and opportunities, promote action by the workers’ associations, the cooperatives, the voluntary groups - to prevent the emergence of new authoritarian powers, new governments, opposing them with violence if necessary, but above all rendering them useless. And where we do not find sufficient consensus among the people and cannot prevent the re-establishment of the State with its authoritarian institutions and its coercive bodies, we must refuse to take part or to recognise it, rebelling against its impositions and demanding full autonomy for ourselves and for all the dissident minorities.

In other words, we must remain in an actual or potential state of rebellion and, unable to win in the present, must at least prepare for the future.

Is this what you too mean by the part the anarchists should take in

the preparation and carrying out of the revolution?

From what I know of you and your work I am inclined to believe that you do.

But, when I see that in the Union that you support there is an Executive Committee to give ideological and organisational direction to the association I am assailed by the doubt that you would also like to see, within the general movement, a central body that would, in an authoritarian manner, dictate the theoretical and practical programme of the revolution.

If this is so we are poles apart.

Your organisation, or your managerial organs, may be composed of anarchists but they would only become nothing other than a government. Believing, in completely good faith, that they are necessary to the triumph of the revolution, they would, as a priority, make sure that they were well placed enough and strong enough to impose their will. They would therefore create armed corps for material defence and a bureaucracy for carrying out their com-

mands and in the process they would paralyse the popular movement and kill the revolution.

That is what, I believe, has happened to the Bolsheviks.

There it is. I believe that the important thing is not the victory of our plans, our projects, our utopias, which in any case need the confirmation of experience and can be modified by experience, developed and adapted to the real moral and material conditions of the age and place. What matters most is that the people. men and women lose the sheeplike instincts and habits which thousands of years of slavery have instilled in them, and learn to think and act freely.

And it is to this great work of moral liberation that the anarchists must specially dedicate themselves.

I thank you for the attention you have given to my letter and, in the hope of hearing from you further, send you my cordial greetings.

Risveglio (Geneva) Deceber1929

FIND YOUR OWN WAY OUT

I don’t know if there are any solutions to the problem of getting out of a capitalistic system. Certainly we need to be more active in order to make a revolution happen; otherwise we are just part of the system. Yet, for some, especially for some young people, it is a kind of joke. It is a kind of lifestyle, and not a revolution. Take bicycles for example. It is a good example. I have had bicycles since I was very young and I like bicycles, I can move about in the town and I’m faster than a motorbike, I’m even faster than cars and I don’t get stressed, but now there are so many bicycles. You can’t really see this in town so much as when at the weekend you go to the mountains and see a lot of cyclists who are just doing a kind of sport which is lifestyle, because suddenly the bicycle, that is an alternative idea on how to move in the town can be something that can destroy the mountains, where you can see just how terrible they can be: there are some old routes that are impossible to fix now, having been completely destroyed by the cyclists going down. They go up with the car and then all together they go down these paths that were once very nice and are now covered with potholes and are impossible to walk down. To make a revolution is sometimes a kind of lifestyle.

I think you need serious plans to make a real revolution. If you want to create another kind of life, you have to change a lot of things. Yet, it is not easy to live without money, to be less consumer, to use less electricity, less money… Ok, we are “guilty” anyway, if you think about what you use everyday, it is a lot.

Maybe we have just to sleep more and more, that could cost less and less, and maybe we could do something better when we are just dreaming. Sleep is a kind of therapy and also sleeping could be a way of making economy. Because there is also this part: it’s nobody to care about. We speak about reality and if you want to go deeper you have to just catch reality. Perhaps that is what many people are wondering about, so they want to see something of somebody else’s fantasies. If you read a book or you just get somebody else’s philosophy you just go and catch him when he is meditating to do the thing, for example, by reading. You are thinking and you get the thinking. You see a movie you get all these other lives when you are just bored about in this life, I mean, reality is so boring and you are going to get things because of that reason. If you are bored and reality is fixed like that, you have to smoke cigarette you have to drink coffee, to open the lights, you get crazy in a way, you have to find a way out, you have to find your own way out, which can be a pattern or a model, I think everybody has his or her own model of getting out of it, getting out of here and now.

Also dreams are possibilities for just having another life. It costs nothing and you have a lot of experience there. This could be real revolution. Yet nobody is talking about dreams. Today it seems that we need more real and logical stories. However, some people they can work while asleep, I’m working too when I sleep.

If I’m thinking about something and I’m trying to find a solution I go to sleep and then I get the answer. My mind gets powerful answers. I was thinking about a newspaper of dreams where everyone could write and send his or her dream to it. Everyday the newspaper would be full of the dreams of humanity. It would be possible that the dream, it could be more real than everyday life, within the same reality. You know Carlos Castaneda, there’s something about Mexico and magic. I say that because we are talking about life and changing in a better way to find another alternative way of living. There are some people there, and they are working with the dream, they study, it has to do with experience and the work that you do for it, they concentrate and in the end they can do it, they are flying, it’s like they have another personality during the dream. But they exist, they are in reality. I mean they can catch reality by dreaming.

Dreams are not what we think, it is not just the brain that makes you a little bit ‘defracted’ so you see a little picture of just what we remember from the day before, if we remember, rather, these ‘memories’ become something more interesting that you can catch if you know how. I’ve tried to, because this one is also a way out of the way we live but we normally don’t get it at all, we don’t think about it.

I’m glad when I remember my dreams, because they are a little bit like short movies. There was this film about dreams and psychedelic stuff and there was someone that was dreaming and he had taken some chemical gas in order to alter his body’s chemical balance, and at the end he changed a lot, suddenly his skin began getting a little bigger. There is also a film by Cronenberg called “Existence” which was a video game, and they were playing this videogame in another videogame. Another film was “Tron”, a very nice one, a very old one. “The Matrix” comes from this idea, from Castaneda’s work, because in “The Matrix” they made two lives. And the other film was “Experience...”, well I don’t remember the title, but it was somebody who was making an experiment on himself, he made this special place and it was full of water, his body was floating, it was like he was without a body though. So he took this drug making his dream much more powerful, some peyote or something... It’s all about a chemical change in the body. If you eat everyday normal food your chemical type is always the same. If you drink a little bit of wine you’ve just changed, but just a very little bit and then you are again in a ‘flat’ chemical state like everybody else.

One’s chemical type is what makes logic, what makes communication now, because we all have the same chemical type. if you have an-

other chemical type, well, let’s say, you would be crazy for me and I would be crazy too, for you. We connect because we have the same chemical type, this is our ‘driver’ that gives us the possibility of communicating and ‘catching’ reality the way it is or how it’s built, I guess... There are people that don’t have the same chemical type because something is wrong in their body and they just go crazy; they need other chemicals just to get back in the right chemical state to be able to live.

Simple things. I don’t need something grand or anything. But one could just take some stuff from nature: the ‘driver’, let’s say, peyote, datura or natural magic mushrooms which are the best. It is a mind-expanding experience, you get these images, and you have more information about what can be. They are not the common stuff that you need just to get a little high, like grass or chemical stuff like heroin and cocaine. No, I don’t like that. But with this natural stuff are other things that are not really drugs the way we commonly mean, but they could change the ‘driver’ of the system we have, to be more sensitive. They could be considered as a different point of view generally. And perhaps, we could get stronger, and not be so into consumerism. You wouldn’t need to take it every day - it’s not like wine, alcohol or nicotine.

It would be a hard experiment, but we need a new ‘driver’ that is not in our life now. We can see that something is amiss. We need something but we can’t find it, let’s say. At the same time, there

is a ‘driver’ that we need and perhaps it is natural. Obviously, everything is natural but there are natural things which are forbidden, for our system of logic. We are living in a fixed and unchanging situation also because we consume the same things every day, but we need also something different. Other things that are not necessarily poisons and, perhaps, we need them too: try to change diet as well, but not the way we take drugs or we drink and smoke. I think we need to put more things in the general diet. You will go onto another higher level of seeing and feeling things.

Maybe it is not just ideas that change the world. It is also what you eat. As the old saying goes, “You are what you eat”.

A COMMON KITCHEN AS A PART OF THE STRUGGLE My point of view is that we are trying to collectivise things and in a solidaristic way in order to be against the crises of the capitalistic system.

Most of the people of the movement are Greek and we are poor now.

You start from a necessity but it is not only that. We have human crises, one million and a half unemployed, people committing suicide, people that have no money and the long-term unemployed… From things like that we want, first of all, to say that we must fight in our everyday life beside the difficulty of everyday life. But we must collectively go against that situation, starting from a point of practicality and simplicity - from the community of eating, from exchanging things amongst people and to abandon the need for money as exchange, resuming sociability by hosting self-organized bars with cheap beverages as a way to contest the hold that capitalism claims on social space through price increases. Starting from such small things we fight for bigger things, to assume the struggle toward larger aims. This has happened here and in other places and neighbourhoods of Athens, things like this have happened in the last three years.

In this place from the villages we take food from the farmers, biological food and there is a Common kitchen that is something that we do our selves, it is self-organized and it is open to the neighbourhood. It is against fascism and with a non commercial ideology behind that. This is part of the political things that we are doing. It is not something separated. Yet, it is not a job that we are making: we try to fight together, we work together and we eat together. From two o’clock in the afternoon, those involved cook collectively, and from six o’clock onwards by those who wish to be part of the “canteen policy” who are invited to eat, after which, those who have eaten participate in cleaning, washing the dishes, and leaving whatever money one could afford to pay for their share. Those who come to eat at the Common kitchen are invited to also cook and in doing so, to become part of the group, creating new relationships and fuelling the energy, strength, and sustainability of the group. The Common-kitchen extends beyond an eatery and is a location where someone can get help when he/she needs it in terms of peer support. It is a reflection of a collective commitment of solidarity with the immigrant community, with the unemployed, and with the political struggle of the working classes in which we are immersed within as a real struggle.

The State doesn’t have a Common kitchen, it has a government organization that gives food and stuff like that; we are against that. It is different from solidarity. Contrary to the State that has government organizations that give food to the poor in a very simple way i.e. someone can come to a given location at a particular time, eat and then leave, the Common kitchen operates differently. It is not overseen by a state administrative authority but rather it functions and operates spontaneously and collectively. Yet, we want the people that are coming here to be part of a common struggle, not just solve the problem of salvation that the capitalistic system and the State make. So it is the same system that has created this situation that now wants to collect our poverties, but we don’t want to collect our poverties, rather we want to go against our poverties and, at the same time, against the State and the capitalistic system.

For one week we have been collecting money in the box of the Common kitchen in order to help a person who is accused by the State of the murder of a person in a another city of Greece, there was a demonstration and one person was dead, then the State accused one anarchist of killing that person. He is innocent and for solidarity to him we are gathering money to give it to him for his trial.

We have also a solidarity fund so every month we put money in a box in order to have this money available whenever someone of the group has problems with the State, like trials or other things, because generally we help each other in terms of political actions that we are doing and for everyday problems. So that, for example, no one is forced to return to the home village because he or she has no more money or no one is forced to became an immigrant who will travel around Europe. We try collectively to avoid such situations.

In order to change the situations we have to understand that there is not just one thing that will change everything. All these things that we are doing in this place are part of the movement that wants to change everything and all these basic solidarity actions should be seen together with the other political actions, like demonstration, strikes, etc. that nowadays, are not going very well because after the ‘movement of the square’, the elections and things like that, we don’t have a strong movement, rather we have fascists and a lot of people are disappointed that nothing will change. We have this situation nowadays in Greece.

OK… The food is ready!

Anarchy sounds utopian in a world that was set up many years ago to c money and all that greed the comes along with it. Humans are used to leaders to make their lives easier, like animals who follow the leade pack. In order to be able to live in absolute freedom we need to kill what is known as obvious enemy, by this meaning we need to kill our o evolve into something new! I think that this will happen sooner or la issue is on its way to speed up.

Some fellow anarchists along with other individuals think that we hav violence bringing down the old establishment with fire and blood. My g doesn’t have vivid memories of the civil war, when half of the Greeks different fate than the others and started a war. The winner? no one: on both sides and an even more difficult oppressing period was the con I suggest this time to work it out in a more creative way. If we can examples of a different, more fair living maybe they will start to se from today’s shithole. People need inspiration more than ever, someth believe in and be part of and not follow like sheep. There are many a can help in this direction such as:

Trading: education, food, skills and in general to try to let money o everyday lives as much as we can.

Solidarity: Help each other rather than stepping on others to get wha Uninvited art: Street art, theatre and events to give new images and thought to the blind, to give people their curiosity for something ne the same time get them out of their homes and reoccupy the streets an neighbourhoods and give them life and a meeting place for fun, educat of all communication.

Life has to be a never ending learning process. Educated people are m to be easy target for dangerous wolves like Neo-Nazis, Religion, Capi even for the Leftish opportunists that see that all this Revolution i and it is the right time for them to get a piece of the pie.

All the people that think out of the box and want something more huma future should not have a sponsor or a tag upon them. I don’t want to anyone, even if its called Anarchy. I want a new start, clean of tags people and setting them rules like all the other oppressors did. I wa decide for themselves how they want to Live rather than follow the am others.

Last but not least we should have good understanding of history. In h see all our past mistakes and realize that there are patterns that ha and again. We are at a crossroad: the capitalistic system has bugs an working right, it has become a monster that consumes humans. Just lik that knows it is going to die. We must be prepared for its last stand temporary chaos that will follow after the death of the old establish slowly build up the new era of man as part of nature, and stop playin to reinvent the wheel.

click around having er of the l more than old nature and ater. The

ve to act with generation s wanted a : people died nclusion. give them ee the exit hing to actions that

out of our

at we want. food for ew back and at nd the tion and most

more difficult italism and is in fashion

an for our belong to s that scare ant people to mbition of

history we can appen again nd it is not ke a beast d and for the hment and ng god trying

A place of health

I’m quite new in this squat. I was searching in the neighbourhood to find some political group active in the area and I found this squat, I read some of their brochures: they had two brochures that were very good about the whole health complex; both of them were about the whole State organization system but also about the relationship between expert and “patient”, so it examines the whole idea about what we mean by health and the Health system on many levels and I liked the political arguments conceived. It is actually an analysis of the health system in Greece, of the role of the expert in this system, also about the Health system’s genealogy and about what is happening now in terms of the crises and State of emergency. So, I came here and what I like is that this place is good for such matters, we call this place: “place of health”.

This is a squat in which psychologists, psychiatrists, engineers, doctors, educators, cardiologists, pathologists, and dentists work together with other people, in a completely independent and united way. There is a drug deposit, a kids’ playground - where kids can play together with their parents even- and on some days each week there is a psychological group support team, concerning panic-attacks, for example, and there is a group of friends and family for people who hear voices – a “voices network” - for people with so-called psychosis and schizophrenia (where what they want to stress is not the diagnostic label but rather the experience of hearing voices), and there is a plant therapy group. The general assembly of the squat is there as well.

I always had difficulties participating in an assembly without a concrete identity from where I speak, and this place gave me more space to speak from a certain place. I like when in an assembly you speak as a person who lives in the neighbourhood, you have a social identity inside the assembly.

In many assemblies where I have been you are just a person in a form of equality and freedom that is superficial. It is important for me to participate politically with the social knowledge that you have outside. As

a part of the neighbourhood, as a psychologist, as a worker, as a student.

It is important to know your place inside society, not just participating as some one. Your social role makes up your interests, your point of view, you have to speak from this place, otherwise you speak in the air.

This place is not just a doctor’s office or a pharmacy where you go to see the doctor or buy drugs. People here tend to take a different approach towards health in which you are not just a subject or an object of the analysis of a symptom or a clinical description, you are a person (referring to human being). It is not easy because we study the same shit as the people who are working in a hospital or pharmacy, so it has an effect on the way we think, but we try to go beyond this. We try to explore new possibilities around the relationship between “patient” and expert. Yet, there is the idea of solidarity, this is not a State or private institution, this is something which works in terms of political relations, in the broad sense of the word, between us. This is the most important thing: the political

relationship you build. If someone comes here, and she or he has problems with his family et cetera, we are here, there is someone to talk to from the neighbourhood, so he does not feel isolated at home. This is important because today fear is very strong, it is like a commodity, in Athens at least for sure. It is a commodity with which we communicate and we must break away from this by forming relationships with each other and listening to and taking into account what each person has to say, so we want to say things all together in as horizontal a way as possible.

I have finished my studies in psychology, I have a degree in psychology but just a degree: today we have a group of psycho-social support, I’m here, I can speak with people but I don’t feel ready to tell to anyone “I’m an expert”, to take this position of knowing. I don’t have a lot of experience yet. Maybe I can say that, there are some expertise, but generally, here,

we want to explore possibilities beyond the expert -“patient” relationship.

If you ask me personally, I think that there are expertise in terms of experience. But this experience should be open to anyone. Generally, in terms of health issue - psychological and psychiatric issue - I think you have to approach them differently and compare with the other medical issues, in general.

Tomorrow I will participate in a group we have about panic disorder and panic attacks. The group focus is on the spectrum of anxiety, fear and panic as symptoms and as experiences. We start with this experience and all together we try to see what it means for us if we can do something to make our daily life better and how to move and operate this experience. I will participate there not as a psychologist but as someone who experiences anxiety, so as a person with my own experience. It is not like the position of the expert. There are trained psychologists and psychiatrists and I think they work more from the position of knowledge, from expertise. You know.. When something happens to you and you are afraid, for example a panic disorder, you have panic attack, “I lose my mind, what’s going on?” you want someone to tell you what’s going on: if you are healthy, if you are sane or if you are insane. So, you want someone to hold this position of knowing. It’s very crucial to you, to get some answers. That’s why I told you before that mental heath is something a bit more problematic to approach politically than the other health issues. Does it make sense?

About the difference between the training that I did for my university and what I’m doing here, the first thing that I can tell you is that you don’t know for sure what you are doing sometimes. No... This is was in both places… Well, I did my training in a psychiatric hospital which had very different kind of cases, different people went there, with acute psychotic breaks and schizophrenia. In the hospital they stay inside for one month more or less, and they take drugs, while here we don’t oblige some one to take drugs. Here, there is a different approach. If we assume that there is a spectrum (and I don’t know if there is a spectrum in mental health) these people that were in the hospital were definitely on the other part of the spectrum. For the experience that they had it is much more painful and it is much more difficult for them to control. People who came here, they may have problems and feeling emotional pain and may have problems

in living their lives as all of us, but, it is not the same. Here it is more like a “network of support”. So you know that there is a place, when something flips you can go and have a talk, that’s for sure. You assume that when we have a social psychological support the psychiatric, the psychologist knows what you have, have experience with that, and we have to stress that we are not in a position of knowing and I don’t think there is some kind of definitive knowledge in psychiatric psychology. I mean, from my experience in the hospital, there were five different diagnostic on the same patients, so, I cannot say that there is some kind of definite knowledge.

Here you don’t have to pay, there is a box in which you can put as much money as you want. And this is a place where someone can get help when he needs it: all of us I suppose that feel nice to help someone who is in need, not only in this place, in the street or anywhere, we will help someone who is in serious need, but, apart from this, we expect people - of course you can not force any one - but we want people to come together to what we are doing, we are not doing it because we are good people or to feel superior because we help people… You know, sometimes people do something for others without expecting anything from them so they think that they are superior, a good person, whatever. We do this for, obviously, political reasons, OK this is the part of the health issue but it is part of the broader opposition to how society works. The part of the health issue it is part of broader opposition to how our own society works, there are no political parties involved here, it is from the roots, from the bottom.

We try to engage people. But there is a woman, for example who came here a few times and last time she said to me, “OK I’m going to the Church now to take what I need…” sometimes the people don’t understand the difference and, OK, they don’t have to. There is a church, there are other places, like TV channels (SKY), they too, they are gathering drugs to give to people in order to make them selves feel better, they clean the environment and so on. They do that to keep the name, to appear socially sensitive. The whole idea, that I see, is also in talent TV, there are songs about fixing the body and there are songs about fixing the house, by taking a person who is fun and happy and giving them money or they take one family who doesn’t like their house and they reconstruct the house from the beginning, so it is

the whole idea that the TV will reconstruct your life. In this occasion, in Greece, it is more connected with the crisis, they take people in terms of covering their needs, give food, give medicine.

Some times an old lady comes to take pills and she is not mentally prepared to hear what we are trying to say and to support this, ok you understand that. But we are asking for, we are asking to do things together, we ask people to participate. There was a guy who came here for a psychological issue, and now he is coming not because we asked him, but because he likes the place. We need people to be here, in case whatever happens, like if there are just three of us and the police came we would be powerless, if people support this place… You don’t need to be a doctor or a psychologist, simple, normal people I mean. The same guy who was here playing in the football league, he plays with the football “team” of the people of the assembly -against the modern football kind of play-. So, as an example, he came as a person with this problem and now he is part of what’s going on here. Just because a person came and he likes the place, he found the place lively and he continues to stay with me, him and the others. It is completely different if you go to a doctor for some time and that’s it.

There is a political cause, forging relationships and trying to understand if individual wishes and individual problems are connected somehow with the wishes and problems of the others, and if we have a common ground from which to start to make wishes become reality. This is the cheapest way, in a broader political context not only for health.

So, if your teeth are in bad shape here you can have a dentist without having to pay. You get your teeth fixed, but this relationship with someone who is a dentist or someone who has a problem with his teeth can take many different forms, even if we assume that this relationship is not a relationship that is mediated by mind, even then it can take the form of: “OK, you are poor and I know how to fix you” or it can take the relationship of solidarity. Giving help is a very specific kind of relation you build with people. We don’t want to emphasise just this thing, there are many other relations that you build. But help is just one of the relations among many others, and if you want to focus just on this relation it will be problematic.

I think that the form that the relationship has to take is something in

everyday practice, and it having your intentions quite clear and all the time you have to think about it. Because you know, now with the crises there are problems that we discuss a lot, for example: is what we are doing here good for the State? The State is abandoning many traditional working class roles in general, like education, the health system, it is privatising them, it is leaving many territories, which used to be State organized, in the air.

So, we may be the ones who come and fill this gap, because there is a need, there is an objective need. In this sense, someone could say that what we do here may be good for the State, because the State doesn’t want to pay for health anymore. So, the State could say: OK you do it, your self, solidarity has no problem with it.

It is easy to get engulfed in the State logic, It is easy to share the purpose, no matter what the intentions are… Do you understand? For us it is a different approach, this is the crucial thing and people who are here stress this point a lot: it is not just filling the gap! We didn’t start because of the crisis and you have to keep in mind that there are very different aspects of what we call crises, for some people don’t disagree that we have an economical crisis, but they disagree with the whole idea of an emergency State, the discourse of the crisis makes you think that everything is attributed to some kind of scientific economic reason, so you have to be carful with that.

This place was created before the crisis, the economic problems were not so big and strong for so many people at that period, but the point is: we don’t do this as an answer to the crisis, people of the assembly gather this before the crisis because we have another perspective, another point of view, in opposition to government politic and elected politicians. It began a different prospective to society and to relationships. It can be part of the crisis because crisis is what is happens today, but this one is an independent place, also from the crisis. If you say that this whole squat because of the crisis, a project like a response of the crisis, you adopt what the whole State of emergency discusses, that is challenged by the State. If you say that you are operating in response to some kind of crisis, then, it is like adopting the perspective of the State of emergency and we don’t want to do that. There are other issues, also, apart from the crisis.

Of course it is important to be independent from the State, because you recognise the State as your enemy. The way the State thinks, the way the

State marginalizes groups of people… I’ll give you an example about how the State connects the issue of health with the marginalization of people.

Now, this place is going to show a documentary about what’s happened in 2012, last year, when, five days before the elections, the government took from the street eleven women, most of them were drug users, heroin users, and the State accused them of having HIV and being sexual workers. It accused them of having the virus and transmitting the virus on the general Greek population. They were arrested with this accusation. I am referring to this example because the State wants to emphasise that these women were immigrants, it didn’t announce that ten of them were Greek. It has to do with the idea that there is a part of the population that is hostile to the rest of the population, like a virus. It is important because you see the whole new role that the State wants to assume: five months before this happens, there was a programme that gave free syringes to drug addicts so that you don’t get infected by the HIV virus, this programme stopped.

So you see how the State’s social support system is reduced to merely a system of penalties and discrimination, assuming control over people’s bodies. You understand the idea?

What happens if you remain alone?

Even alone you can do something great...

The thing we try to do is to combine the ideas and thoughts that each person has in order to make something, to take actions. This is what anarchy is all about. Each of us comes here as a person with their ego, package of “self-knowledge� and starts to work in terms of solidarity. We are a group and each of us contributes to put something freely in the group.

Anarchy comes as a way of thinking about society. A person starts reading, thinking and taking part in solidarity actions and then he or she will realize what anarchy is all about. When you learn to live and think like an anarchist, you will never stop evolving. You will always learn new things about anarchy that will show you your path and the things that you want to focus your attention on. This normally happens through mental and practical processes. It is like when you make bread, you put some

stuff in and then you bake them. So, first you have different ingredients, you put them all together, and then, you make yourself, your anarchic self. When you have a true knowledge of what you want, you see what you want to change.

Anarchy is not cool. Many young people find that anarchy is intriguing, but most of them will forget about it when they grow up or will be influenced by other ways of thinking. There are many people who come here and are very serious at the beginning, they want to do stuff, but after some time has passed they stop being serious and they become impatient. There are also some people who come here and think they will find girls, parties, etc. This is not a place to have sex and parties. Anarchy needs patience and will power, something that most of these people don’t have. New people come here and want to

participate and help, but they fundamentally need a practical knowledge of themselves: they have to find out what anarchy means to them personally. When they find it, they will be ready to take action in a more practical way because they will learn what they would like to change. We don’t start talking to them about anarchy.

There is not a single guy here who will tell you to do this and do that. First of all you have to understand what anarchy means to you, not to someone else. Secondly, you have to realize that your actions are not just for your own benefit, but for the benefit of the group.

There is a difference between a group and an open discussion among anarchists. We usually talk about open anarchist discussion and not group, because generally, if you want to be part of a group you have to pass a “test” that will show to the others if they can trust you or not. For example, at the beginning they might send you into the streets to put flyers on the walls as a first step of participation. In the open discussion of anarchists everyone can come and participate freely, it is about spreading ideas, anarchy ideas. In our group we are all

equal. If you see how a communist group functions, you see that they have hierarchy. I only agree with open procedures and discussions, not close and hierarchical groups. If there is a result in a discussion and one person doesn’t agree, my opinion is that we have to find something else that everyone agrees on. The only way to achieve something is through open discussions. Yet, there is no solution but proposals which come out of the discussions.

It is all about the construction of a society where everyone, like a doctor, worker, vegetable grower and so on, can do what they are able to do, working together without begging anything. It is creation through solidarity: give something without expecting something else, I give you so you give me this.

Everyone will work for each other without government.

Autonomous villages will exist and will communicate with others, imagine something like a federation.

The open discussions between the villages will be the crucial pole. Talking about small societies we can recognize that this is more difficult to happen in big cities like Athens which has a population of five

million people. We are still talking about this subject and there are many different opinions concerning it.

Nowadays, we have three million unemployed here: there is a chance for us to approach them and do something in order to change the situation.

First of all, we have to gain their trust and then cooperate and create something. These things need patience and hard work. Besides that, in the current situation poor people don’t really trust anarchists.

There was a period of time in which anarchists used to be part of the working class, but now they are not. Now anarchists are more philosophical. They are musicians, writers, they organize parties, etc. Villa Amalias existed 20 years in the region of Agios Pantelehmonas, and Golden Dawn has existed for four months and they have changed the whole scenery of the region with their hatred attacks on immigrants and left-wingers.

We need to be more socially active than musicians and party makers if we want to survive and affect reality. We cannot focus just on music.

Nowadays, there is a very good chance for anarchists to do what they did in Italy in the XX century.

But in that period it was better because they were really Anarchist.

There was a time in which, during the 1st of May protest, we managed to gather six thousand people. When the other non-cooperative groups, like the anarcho-communist group, saw it, they disbanded the demonstration. They did that because, in many cases, here “anarchist groups” work like party groups, like the government party, they argue with each other, they are not a group of independent people taken as an “atomo”, everyone with his or her own mind. They work on the organizational part more than the strike and in doing so, they reduce the struggle to organization as much as the movement in political parties.

That happens especially with the anarcho-communists, communists, Marxists, etc.

Unlike them, we are not a political party. Looking at the flags in Exarheia, everyone now uses a red - black flag, like the anarcho-communist and antifa one, for example. It is a kind of trap because they are something completely different compared with anarchy. That’s why our flag that used to be black and red, now is just black. It symbolizes that we are anarchists.

Athens 2014 theotherfaceofthefrappe.squat.gr

το άλλο πρόσωπο του φραπέ