REVOLT AND CRISIS IN GREECE
290
blame anarchists as ideologically fixated into a grand-narrative, which constitutes them as an authoritarian, (crypto-)fascist vanguard claiming exclusive possession of an absolute truth.17 On this basis, they set to associate the anarchists with a strange assemblage of events, ranging from past assassinations of comrades by the Greek police, to the Soviet invasions in Hungary and Prague. These accusations hold testimony to the seriousness of the analysis informing them: they are symptomatic of a mechanistic application of a dogma into a lived reality they seem to know nothing about—and to which they hardly refer to. Indeed, the analysis contains nothing else than a resounding affirmation of the authors’ dogma, and moralistic indignation expressed in dramatic overtones. As contributions to a meaningful dialogue, these texts are absolutely inconsequential. On the contrary, the second sub-category includes texts by some of the largest, most active, and most influential collectivities in Greek Anarchy—the anarchist “mainstream.” These texts portray the perpetrators and their informing mentalities as in collision with Anarchy itself.18 The groupings responsible for the incident are seen as sliding into a separation of violence from its political rationale and objectives, constituting it thus as a fetish, and introducing it firmly in the universe of the spectacle. De-politicised and self-referential, this violence is inherently nihilistic and anti-social. It becomes a dynastic force, the diametrical opposite of Anarchy (and its counter-violence) that constitutes the par excellence liberating force in/of society. The groupings responsible for the arson act in the name of Anarchy, but never discuss or inform others about their tactics and intentions. They are therefore acting parasitically, exploiting Anarchy while distorting its worldviews and practices into their complete opposite. Most of these collectivities acknowledge some responsibility for the 5 of May. It consists in admitting to having tolerated the hatching of such mentalities in their proximity over the years; and in rooting them out from now on. Essentially, these texts try to draw a bold separation of Anarchy into unconnected, uneven, and hostile camps, with real and proper anarchy on one side, and pseudo-anarchist, nihilist thuggery on the other. In a typical “bad apple” move, the responsibility they pretend to acknowledge is firmly fixed on the other side. Reflection on whether problematic practices and attitudes have—occasionally or systematically—crept into the repertoire of the groups now throwing anathemas is ruled out, and selfreflecting is eclipsed by self-congratulating. Here, Anarchy proceeds to a rare and significant move: it identifies and ostracises its own heretics and misfits. This symbolic extermination of someone within one’s own