#dimitrischatzivasiliadis — Public Fediverse posts

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Small Map

Introduction

This text was written at the outset of the collective hunger strike in British prisons against anti-Palestinian terrorism and militarism. Following the U.S. attack on Venezuela, certain points have been updated. The international revolutionary strategy of the global anarchist movement must be built—and can be built—only through international fronts of struggle, through the breaking down of borders, and through the redirection of military action toward the centers of monopoly.

 Postscript (at the time of publication of the text in greek)

By the time of publication, the attack by the fascist regime of Syria and the occupation of territories of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria had taken place, according to a U.S. plan and with the agreement of the Zionist and Turkish colonial powers. This was followed by the attack on Iran. These developments fully confirm the analytical perspective presented in this text.

Palestine, Kurdistan, Intifada, Serildan

 Immediately after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, 2023, analyzing the rift that was revealed within the international anti-capitalist movement, I noted that, especially at this moment, the defense of the Kurdish and Palestinian struggles must be placed on a unified basis. Any antagonism between the two movements is reactionary and provocative. We internationalists, in particular, had a responsibility to contribute to the unity of the resistances. Our duty towards this remains.

I have explained in detail and defended the military cooperation of the North-East Syrian confederation with the imperialists against the Islamic State. It is inappropriate to now put the issue up for judgment by third parties. Our solidarity must be uncompromising, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the political strategy of the resistance movement in question. However, I would like to emphasize once again, because at least in the Greek movement some people act as if they have never heard it, that if it were not for the apoist movement in Rojava, Syria would have been torn apart by the Americans a decade ago, with the northern part completely controlled by Turkish colonialism and the central part by Islamofascists, always on behalf of the Americans. The PKK is not responsible for the internal collapse of the Assad dictatorship and its sellout by Russian imperialism. An alliance with the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria would have been Assad’s only salvation, had he been open to the democratic transformation of the Syrian state. Under the guidance of the Russian and Turkish overlords, he refused to do so for years. Even when Assad’s father was in power, the regime had betrayed the Palestinian resistance, at the same time that the PKK was fighting alongside the PLO in Lebanon. Again, we did not need this evidence to determine our solidarity.

The political rule of solidarity certainly applies bilaterally. We defend the Palestinian resistance as a whole. Its unity would not allow for any other political choice, even if ideological elitism were acceptable. I defend the anti-colonial resistance of Islamic Palestinian organizations, without reservations. The fundamental position of solidarity does not oblige us to defend their programs and policies in general. Just as defending the anti-imperialist resistance of the people of Iran does not imply defending the dictatorial capitalist regime with a theocratic mask, but rather the opposite: it makes it all the more urgent to overthrow the bosses, who always prefer to capitulate and collaborate with a stronger power rather than to manifest total resistance, as Bakunin prophetically pointed out about the Franco-Prussian War.

We defend all anti-colonial resistance, whatever leadership it may have at any given moment. The political leadership of Gaza, which until October 7 managed the state of total blockade, is involved in the colonization of occupied Afrin, due to its ideological ties to the Erdogan regime. The slander of the apoist movement and the revolution in northern and eastern Syria in the name of the Palestinian struggle is a miserable hypocrisy. Hamas’s central leadership has enjoyed and continues to enjoy luxurious refuge in Istanbul and Doha, while the leadership of the PKK and KCK is fighting in the caves and is wanted by the State Department (US). Hamas claims to have strong fraternal ties with the regime in Qatar, which is responsible for the murder of thousands of workers on the construction sites for the last World Cup and is a major US base. Some in Europe, however, see only the American bases in Rojava. Nevertheless, based on the historical line of revolutionary anarchism, I unconditionally defend the Islamic resistance of Palestine. To the ultimate practical consequences. It would be an honor, a liberating dream, to fight in the tunnels of the global social fortress of Gaza or in the tunnels of the Mediya Defense Zones. If anarchist ideas do not lead the mass struggle here or there, that is a serious problem for us anarchists, not for the resisting masses and their leadership. History records that the Martyr Workers of Gaza fortified it and stormed into the colonial hinterland, under the leadership of Martyr Yahya al-Sinwar. And history cannot be erased.

Some of those who slander the Kurdish movement justify their biased judgments by extending their sectarianism to the Palestinian movement, saying that they are aligning themselves specifically with its left wing. They overlook the fact that the resistance has a united political front. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the PFLP’s sister organization, the TKP-ML, as well as the other Maoist and Stalinist organizations of the Turkish movement, have a long-standing strategic alliance with the PKK and are fighting in Rojava and Qandil. And perhaps they have not read anywhere, because they only read what they already know, that the DFLP participates in international conferences on global democratic confederalism, which are organized on the initiative of the Kurdish movement. The suggestion of ideological sectarianism on the revolutionary struggle of the masses of the capitalist periphery constitutes an abandonment of both the revolutionary anarchist tradition and of Leninism, with its Bakuninist influences especially on the question of international struggle, and a transition to revisioned anarchism and while it underestimates the class struggle in all its dimensions, it leads to pacifism, or to a return to the bourgeois influences of Marxism, which predicted the annihilation of “historically insignificant nations,” that is, to a return to the glorification of colonialism. Thus, the idea of proletarian solidarity beyond the North- South border is left to the economistic, puritanical academic laborism of the metropolis, which expects the disintegrated workers elite of the North to save the whole Earth, and indeed without a civil war.

 Both movements, Palestinian and Kurdish, have the same main political enemy and they know it: the capitalist metropolis, the global monopolies of power. At this stage of the global confrontation between North and South, both movements avoid directly attacking the central imperialist powers, as long as the latter do not directly attack their specific territories. Both are engaged in a long and bitter conflict with the proxies of the center, islamic and zionist fascism. Is perhaps the task of direct confrontation with the militarism of the metropolis the responsibility primarily of the class revolutionary movement of the countries from where it launches?

From the Atlantic to the Gulf

 The Palestinian left resistance calls on the Arab masses to rise up. Comrade Georges Ibrahim Abdallah sees the Arab revolution coming from the Atlantic to the Gulf, due to the deep economic crisis of all reactionary regimes. He sees the revolution echoing between the north and south of the Mediterranean.

 Arab nationalism brought victories for the Arab popular classes in the last century, but it was unable to free itself from the class bonds of imperialist control and was eventually fully integrated and ended up being outright counter-revolutionary. Neither its secular nor its religious versions can break free from the framework of control set by the central imperialist powers, because they are based on capitalist exploitation and state authoritarianism. Such is their class structure.

 The problem cannot be solved by escaping into abstract theory about the basic class relation of the capitalist mode of production. As was proven 15 years ago, the revolution of the Arab masses is imminent. Those who underestimate the importance of cultural identities within the class struggle are essentially playing on the ideological side of colonialism. Monopoly accumulation begins with the opposition between city and countryside, center and periphery, and with military conquests. Social identities have been targeted by capitalist expansion and development since long before the formation of the industrial working class. The capitalist mode of production may have first appeared in Venice and then spread further northwest, but let us not forget that Venice was the hub of circulation for capital and plunder between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, that is, between European hegemony on the one hand and the Middle East and the Mediterranean world on the other. The Arab revolution is intertwined with the global socialist revolution, as is the revolution of all communities, social bonds and cultures that have been trampled on by empires and capitalism. The Commune of 1871 was sparked by the uprising against occupation. Bulgarian revolutionary anarchism, a powerful example from our history, was fertilized by the seeds of Bakunin’s political line in the resistance against the Ottoman Empire. Also, the revolutionary tradition of the Iberian peoples as well stemmed from the resistance to the Napoleonic French occupation.

 However, cultural identity and the conditions of oppression and exploitation do not determine the course of the struggle. The third element determines whether the struggle will develop in a revolutionary or reactionary direction: the political program. The Arab revolution will only succeed if it takes the form of a proletarian revolution for universal equality and social self-determination, uprooting class and related political dependencies on imperialist monopolies. The task of the proletariat on the northern side of the Mediterranean is to break down the objective and subjective class barriers between North and South, striking at the unequal and genocidal economic policies and military structures of the metropolis. It is an idea with historical experience, but one that needs to be upgraded in terms of its class-social roots, its political coherence, and its objectives.

The Janus of the South?

 Throughout its historical development, the state has appeared in two forms. On the one hand, within its borders, since the state is always a demarcated occupation over land, it is the political structure in which class relations are concentrated in a given territory. On the other hand, it is a structure of military, economic, and political attack or defense against anything that is not under its control and thus has not been incorporated into its own class formation. The metropolitan, i.e., model state, is the historical structure of exploitative expansionism. In various historical phases, the internal structure of the metropolitan state exhibits elements of equality for certain classes, in contrast to its structured external relations. For example, the hegemonic Athenian democracy. In any case, the real elements of popular power are the product of a fierce class struggle, while the fictitious elements of equality are the political management of class relations by the exploiting classes. In this context, the state is a system for integrating the social achievements of internal class struggle into its military, political and economic expansion. From the perspective of class struggle, the two aspects are interrelated. It is impossible to view class struggle on a national scale as independent from international power relations and the relationship between the exploited social forces and the state. Unless, of course, we settle for metropolitan nationalism.

 In the South, the unity of the two aspects is also inherent, and we will see this specifically in Kurdistan and the Arab world. While in general the nation state is the establishment and organization of the city’s sovereignty over the countryside and its competitive relationship with the rest of the world, its spread outside Europe (and here we must be able to distinguish it from pre-existing empires) is a development of resistance to colonialism, but on the terms of the dominant capitalist culture. In this sense, comrade Georges Ibrahim Abdallah noted the following: “The Americans, together with Israel and the reactionary Arabs, are destroying everything we have achieved historically. The state itself is a construct that was won through hard struggles. Nevertheless, they are working to dismantle this state and all its institutions, transforming the region into chaos where ethnic groups, religious minorities, and barbarians tear each other apart, while the Israelis and Americans sit back and decide which “human animals” deserve their protection today and which will be sacrificed […] Of course, the bourgeoisie and its political pawns are the enemies of our army. They don’t want us to have a national army. They don’t want us to have a nation-state. They want a bunch of thugs and criminals running around so they can use them to bring our people to their knees. […] I hope that we will manage to build a strong army, capable of defending us, one that will replace all resistance.”1

 At this point, comrade Abdullah Ocalan has updated the historical anarchist view, concluding after the assimilation of the state-monopoly bloc that the spread of the nation state did not liberate peoples and ethnic groups from capitalism, but instead tied them to dependence on global economic and political-military monopolies. In general, the conclusion is correct, but we need to look at its variations more specifically. It is crucial not to lose sight of the interconnection between the external and internal substance of the state, which is only by way of exception univocal from the outside in.

 Any state that does not belong to the monopolistic centers, to the extent that it wants to have economic relations with the global market and therefore with other states, is directly or indirectly subject to unequal exchange relations, due to the historically accumulated unequal development of capital productivity and due to the military-political and economic control of markets, and especially of innovation, by the central monopolies. Thus, a virtually unchanging pyramid of domination and accumulation, center, periphery, and semi-periphery has historically been formed. Every state outside the center chooses between the inevitable blackmail of exploitation and exclusion. Such is the external appearance of inter-state relations, as relations between states and not as direct class relations. The internal appearance of these same relations is the overexploitation of the proletariat of the (semi)periphery. The reproduction of international inequalities is not based on exploitation in general, across class lines, of some nations by other nations, but on exploitation of the popular classes of the state class formations of the (semi)periphery. The local exploiting classes, which mediate the relations of overexploitation, increase them for their own benefit, simply because they exist within this chain. In the 20th century, class peace within (semi)peripheral states was generally attempted through national policies of partial independence from central monopolies and the distribution of preserved value between the local bourgeoisie and the popular classes. Of course, these reformist policies of national unity do not overturn the coercion of overexploitation or exclusion, while the profits of the local exploiting classes increase either way.

 The inherent and inevitable tendency of capital to evolve/develop, compels every section of the international bourgeoisie to participate in the global market. Slowly, quickly, or fundamentally, every post-metropolitan state has entered into relationships of dependence and unequal accumulation. Every state, regardless of the historical and social depth of its nationalism, decomposes and recomposes class relations under the domination of central monopolies. Economic, political and cultural assimilation is insurmountable in capitalism.

 Instead of being an exception, social-capitalist states proved the historical impasse of state-led independence from unequal international accumulation. From the 1950s onwards, the USSR made gradual transformations towards private accumulation. The “allied” states were economically dependent and bound by unequal exchange relations with Russian imperialism. A typical example was Guevara’s denunciation of the exploitation of Cubans through the wheat sold to them by the “mother of the revolution.” Or the Albanian socialist state, which, in order to abstain from international exploitation, ended up completely isolating itself from economic cooperation, with the result that its productive capital remained stagnant for three decades. So today, states that open up to Chinese capital investment are putting their working classes in a relationship of overexploitation and colonial anti-social plunder, which seems alternative but is class-wise identical. In any case, the dominant imperialist powers are on the march. This process includes the serious loss of popular support for the Venezuelan government, the American military campaign and the kidnapping and hostage-taking of its president.

 The collapse of the Russian state-monopoly empire paved the way for the imperialist plunder of the nation states of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, and then the Middle East and Africa. Through military and economic terrorism, the Euro-American center attacked every structure of relative national independence and regulated overexploitation. In the Middle East, there remain two major ethno-state structures that the Euro-American monopolies want to liquidate in order to complete their absolute domination there: the Iranian and Turkish states. This liquidation is attempted both directly, through military terrorism and economic blockade, and indirectly, through the triggering of conflicts, coups, right-wing and fascist movements, etc. Where possible, the destabilisation takes the form of the dismemberment of the nation-state, so that it can be replaced by more, but competitive, inadequate and therefore completely dependent state formations. Whether through national resistance and the eventual levelling of what was once a politically autonomous nation-state, or through the adaptation of the local exploiting classes to the demands of the central monopolies, neither the territorial integrity of the state nor the continued rule of the established dominant classes can be guaranteed. The imperialists always want their own mediators of overexploitation. The fact that the Turkish state remains a member of NATO and for many decades has taken on the role of provocateur on behalf of the American center, does not make it protected, but rather ripe for the provocation its own disintegration.

 The policy pursued by the PKK, whatever it may be, has a decisive influence on the evolution of the Turkish state and imperialist plans for the Middle East, not only because it is a powerful revolutionary movement, but also, purely objectively, because it is a wedge in the restructuring of Middle Eastern states, insurmountable by all capitalist forces. The Kurdish movement understood the historical process in time and evolved its political theory and goals. It rejected the claim to a national state, the mechanism of attachment to the monopoly pyramid. Instead, it linked historical experience to the prospect of social transcendence of the state, removing the national struggle from its conservative heritage. Faced with the blackmail, exploitation or exclusion, it countered this in practice with the internationalist and cross-border confederalism of the self-organized society. Bakunin’s proposals for the revolutionary commune and federalism are blooming here. Federalist communist politics has a class character. Rejecting the nationalism that inevitably accompanies statism, the PKK and KCK refused to take a profitable position of mediation in the overexploitation of the Kurdish people.

 It is important to understand the depth of the anti-nationalist position of the apoist national movement. Rejecting separatist programs, it took the most critical position against the central monopoly policy of disintegration and plunder of the Middle East. By defending the integrity of existing state entities, nation-states within their borders, the apoist movement resists the imposition of new class and political barriers. In one way or another, the local exploiting classes are attached to transnational networks of overexploitation, because this is in their class interest, and so their resistance is always limited. In northern and eastern Syria and northern Iraq, it has been proven that only the confederal self-management movement has the motivation and the strength to resist military invasions. As Bakunin predicted before the Commune of 1871, the national resistance of the bourgeoisie is inherently sold-out, but popular defense can succeed. In Syria, it has also been proven that only the confederal grassroots movement is historically capable of overcoming collaborative nationalism, suppressing sectarianism, and preventing national disintegration. This form of national resistance, although it may occasionally ally itself with the state, which is inevitably a mechanism of class exploitation, aims to prevent the imposition of heavier forms of domination in the context of the monopoly offensive.

 On both sides, the Kurdish movement and, belatedly, the deep core of Turkish nationalism, understand that peace in the Turkish heartland and the unity of the Turkish state are at stake. The peace proposals of Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan to the Turkish state respond to this perception, with a view of preventing widespread war and defending the integrity of the Turkish state. Peace between the Kurdish movement and the Turkish state could be a powerful barrier to the advance of the central imperialist powers in the Middle East. The slander of various historically uneducated sectarians who see an American hand behind every move of the apoist movement is not worth discussing. It is easy to exaggerate one’s revolutionary and anti-imperialist credentials, but how many forces has each mobilized and how much popular power has each built against Turkish fascism and the imperialist pyramid?

 Like any popular movement, the Kurdish movement does not fight with nihilistic motives. The military conflict serves specific socio-political purposes. Since secession has been rejected as a goal, the conflict aims to overturn the balance of political power within the established territorial borders. As anarchists we rightly reject any assimilation of the social movement into the state, but any conflict with the state demands an immediate political victory for social forces, whether or not its recognition by institutions is sought. The peace proposals of the Kurdish movement have been demands to secure the power of resistance. The current negotiations in the isolation of Imrali are, for the Kurdish movement and its allied revolutionary forces, a deliberate step towards the political crystallisation of the political and military victories they have achieved through decades of multifaceted resistance. The recognition of Kurdish self-determination and equality, the abolition of counter-revolutionary policies and institutions, part of which will be the release of many political prisoners, and finally, a reform of the political system towards the long-standing goals of the PKK and of almost the entire Turkish revolutionary left. Moreover, the political line of the People’s Front, the only different line that has a militant basis, does not seek the destruction of the state, but the immediate transition to a “people’s state,” as popular as a state can be. From an anarchist point of view, the question of stages or immediacy in the seizure of power is irrelevant, since either way it negates the immediacy of popular power.

 Ideological criteria are effective when they enrich the understanding of the reality of competing subjects, not when they are projected onto subjects who do not recognize them as their own. We are obliged to understand the Kurdish movement, like the Palestinian movement, as national movements. The PKK and the KCK identify themselves within the socialist tradition and, indeed, within the anti-state, anti-capitalist current. However, their main political goal is not the historical victory of certain ideas, but the development of the historical steps of an ethnicity in its struggle for liberation. As long as the state exists, the consolidation of the gains of the masses depends on a relationship of political power with the state, whether this is political overthrow, so-called dual power, secession, or institutional integration of victory. The institutional demands of the Kurdish movement are as natural as was the establishment of the eight-hour working day after Chicago for the labor movement. It would be unrealistic to ascribe a critique about a reformist turn at a time when a national movement is achieving a political goal for which it has fought hard for half a century.

 Since the goal of secession has been rejected, any resistance movement in relation to the state looks either to political overthrow or political reform. In the anti-colonial struggle, political overthrow can mean the expulsion of the settlers. Kemalist colonialism was not a settler enterprise: it was the continuation of an empire, while colonization had taken place centuries earlier. The Turkish state committed genocides with the aim of ethnically cleansing its territory, but the Turkish ethnicity had long been established. To define the issue in class terms, the Turkish nation is not a class of colonists with active roots in the capitalist metropolis of the North or the steppes of Mongolia; it is a multifaceted class formation, a large people under the authority of the bourgeoisie and central monopolies. As the Kurdish movement emphasizes, Turks and Kurds have walked together through history and cannot be separated today. It is not up to the Kurdish movement to overthrow the class power of the Turkish state, at least not on its own.

 These specific conditions complicate the position of the national question within class relations. Since the Turkish revolutionary movement made its historic mass advance (1970…), two paths have emerged: One was to demote the issues of national oppression and, more generally, the colonial nature of the Turkish state into the general class struggle. This path sacrificed the political autonomy of the Kurdish movement, its demands, and the struggle against the particular class relations brought about by national oppression. The other path brought the buried social subjectivity to the fore, relegating the class demands of the struggle to second place. Historically, it is not self-evident that the anti-colonial struggle relegates the class struggle to second place. There have been different examples. The peculiarity of Turkish genocidal nationalism produced this particular complication. It is inappropriate for me to argue here theoretically against the apoistic idea of a historically generalized democratic society, which is placed above class struggle. However, it is clear that this particular ideological framework responds to the needs of the specific national struggle, given the current class-political conditions. For the intelligentsia of the metropolis, what matters is the soundness of the theory, and from this derive both the exorcisms and the idealization of apoism. For the internationalist socialist movement, what matters is how the struggle progresses and what its limits are.

 We can and must understand the apoist position of underestimating class struggle and the position of coexistence with the state (“democracy plus state”), both simultaneously and independently. The particular historical conditions in which the Kurdish anti-colonial struggle is being waged have, on the one hand, forced the emergence of national oppression and exploitation independantly from a general proletarian revolutionary program for the Turkish class formation, even though this specific national oppression is undoubtedly part of the sequence of class relations. On the other hand, they have forced the formation of a program of coexistence with the Turkish class formation until a socialist revolution takes place. Consequently, institutionalization of coexistence (also) in the state. The two positions, on class struggle and on the state, automatically produce mutual consequences: a double loop of positive feedback, which locks the two positions in their conservative intensity. Acceptance of appeasement with the state implies the rejection of the political overthrow of class power. That is why the apoist movement falsely characterizes the party state established by the Bolsheviks as a workers’ state. With a historical distortion that resists the libertarian assessment of the Russian Revolution, the proletarian revolution is condemned along with the party dictatorship. Of course, this political narrative is bourgeois liberal and, in fact, of the right-wing tradition. The state is perceived as a mechanism of heteronomy, oppression, and exploitation, but it is not opposed by the exploited classes, but by a cross-class democratic society. We know that without the abolition of wage labor and the value of capital, direct and universal deliberative democracy cannot be achieved: it is limited and dependent on the given accumulation of capital. On the other hand, the devaluation of class struggle puts on the agenda the peaceful marginalization of the state and its gradual transformation. This is an idea that spread in the 1990s, from the fusion of liberal social democracy with anti-authoritarian academia. It also intersects with Murray Bookchin’s powerless reformist democracy. The programmatic proposals and practices it has produced clearly belong to the line of alternativism and reformism. A. Öcalan has aptly noted that the primary revisionism of the socialist program was the retreat to statism. However, apoist theory itself makes concessions on this point, because it has relegated class struggle to second place. This retreat did not arise now, during negotiations with the Turkish state; it is ideologically constitutional. It must be understood that the retreat is not a right or wrong approach for global socialism; it is intertwined with the specific class, political, and social conditions in which the Kurdish struggle is being waged.

 The historical materialist understanding of the ideological positions of each resistance subject is concretized and confirmed by examining the transformations of its applied political practices. At the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the subsequent invasion of the Islamic State, the Kurdish movement had no ideological reservations about replacing the collapsing state with autonomous revolutionary institutions. Nor did it give in to the unfounded hope of peaceful coexistence with the Islamic State. And today, it is not surrendering militarily or politically to the new Islamofascist regime. In Turkish territory in 2015, the Kurdish movement defended the democratic autonomy of Kurdish cities with an armed uprising, and the Kurdish leader even criticized his organization for not supporting the uprising with all its might.

 The apoist position on the fundamental importance of social self-defense de facto calls into question the political power of the state. The broader class movement cannot be excluded from this political right, which the Kurdish movement, with the women’s revolution, has brought to its ultimate class consistency. If the basis for the abolition of patriarchy is the abolition of male domination over women and over life as a whole, the basis for the abolition of capitalism is the abolition of the domination of labor by capital, that is, the abolition of the extraction of surplus value from wage labor, the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. If the abolition of patriarchy is a prerequisite for the free coexistence of the genders, then the abolition of the wage labor-capital relationship and the equalization of the value of labor internationally are prerequisites for the abolition of class exploitation and the free coexistence of nations. However, attributing responsibilities that do not belong to the Kurdish or Palestinian movements is worse than unfair: it is hypocritical and reactionary, because the task of revolutionary class struggle with complete terms belongs to the still politically powerless international anarchist movement or, from the point of view of the left, to the turkish or european anti-capitalist movement, that is, to those who lay the blame. Movements that take responsibility for their actions can distinguish social victories from political compromises. The recognition of kurdish self-determination within the turkish class formation will be an important victory for the Kurdish people, for the internationalist movement, and for anti-monopoly resistance in the Middle East. The abolition of counterrevolutionary and dictatorial laws, which will lead to the release of political prisoners, will be a victory for the social movement. The extent of these changes is influenced by the participation of the turkish anti-capitalist movement in the struggle for the release of A. Öcalan and the resolution of the Kurdish question. Sectarian attitudes have led to fragmented victories, while a united front opens the way for everyone. The possibility of the destruction of the turkish state by a federalist socialist revolution is open, as it is open for all states worldwide. In the immediate term, the Kurdish leader’s long-standing peace promoting stance and his current response to the turkish state’s call protect the multiethnic people of the turkish class formation from a sectarian war for the sake of the central monopolies.

 Within the world of states, the establishment of institutions of popular self-government and socialist transformations appears as a state within a state, because it presupposes the territorial uprooting, if not the total overthrow, of the political power of the state. Let us just consider that until recently, the Greek oligarchic media referred to Exarchia as the “state of Exarchia” because of the long-standing daily practice of opposition to police authority in our neighborhood. From the perspective of political power competition, the external appearance of revolutionary relations and institutions is always the competition for dominance, regardless of their qualitative characteristics. From an anarchist perspective, popular political institutions that realize economic equality and direct universal democracy are not a form of authority, since they abolish heteronomy on the basis of social production. However, for the world of power, revolution is inevitably a competitive power. The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria was from the outset, and continues to be after the change of regime, a state within a state. This fact is a huge revolutionary achievement, not only for the Syrian people, but for the social movement internationally. The same applies to Zapatistas autonomy, which is why the institutional Mexican left opposes it. The stage of the struggle in which revolutionary socio-political institutions are established has been called a situation of dual power. In an internal coup, the change of political rulers takes place rapidly. Social revolution, on the other hand, always goes through the stage of so-called dual power, precisely because it liberates social territory before political overthrow, which it cannot achieve without a revolutionary social base. When the revolutionary social movement delays in replacing state institutions with autonomous popular institutions and in implementing socialist transformations, the counter-revolution advances to uproot the movement. The idealistic anarcho-communists who in 1936 and ’37 in Spain blocked workers’ and social self-management and socialization, juxtaposing a flimsy anti-authoritarian ethic of power sharing with the statist political forces, ended up joining one side of the state’s dual authority, ultimately leaving its sole sovereignty intact.

 In the test of civil war, the tendency toward fragmentation of political power can be unleashed. Different forces within or against the state find the opportunity to assert their own needs or are forced to resist independently in order to survive. This is also the case in the relationship between anti-colonial and broader anti-occupation movements and the state. Resistance forms one or more poles of political power against an occupying administration or even a collaborationist national government. Such is the situation in the occupied areas of Rojava, with the settlers of Turkish colonialism, such is the situation in Bashur, with the collaborative regime of Barzani, such as in Palestine with the collaborationist regime of the Palestinian Authority, such as in Lebanon, with a NATO protectorate state and its pro-Zionist sects. Anti-colonial resistance always appears as a state within a state, regardless of the particular characteristics of class relations and political institutions within it. Revolutionary anarchism aims at a federalist socialist revolution in all social resistance movements, not underestimating the political power or the resistance itself to colonialism, national oppression, and imperialism, but understanding the historical class-political character of these forms of power.

 When effective resistance appears as a state within a state in relation to the pre-established state, it is treated by other states, which, being states themselves, think in terms of political power and territorial sovereignty, as a de facto but shadow state. Each state, according to its interests, seeks to ally itself with and integrate the new de facto state into its international policy or to eliminate it. As soon as a piece of land is freed from an established power structure, the entire capitalist world wants to devour it in one way or another. The blackmail, exploitation or exclusion, is immediately activated against any autonomous territorial resistance. No state recognizes de facto political power within a resistant social formation before the latter submits to the exploitative and assimilative terms of the former. This means that, in addition to establishing relations of economic dependence and unequal exchange, the “friendly” existing states demand the transformation into a new state with all the characteristics of the state as a system of political heteronomy and exploitation, or its integration into the pre-established state. That is why the Zapatista autonomous administration of Chiapas has been for three decades and will remain a shadow socio-political entity for the Mexican state and the central monopolies, as long as it does not succumb to the blackmail of assimilation and exploitation. The de facto state of Hamas in Gaza was razed to the ground along with all its basic infrastructure when the Palestinian resistance organization refused to play the role of the administrator of the large prison. Although the DAANES maintains good diplomatic relations and military cooperation with NATO and Russian imperialists, it has no official political recognition, nor was it even invited to the inter-state dialogues on Syria, while the new fascist regime of Al Qaeda was immediately recognized by the EU, with high-level envoys, and also passed by the White House. The Syrian state of confederal self-government continues to be terrorized by Turkish colonialism and Islamic State gangs because it does not bow to the monopolistic extortion of exploitation. The EU continues to treat the PKK with counter-revolutionary “terrorism” policies because the apoist movement resists the dissolution and plunder of the Middle East.

 The Kurdish Freedom Movement has accumulated analytical intelligence and experience sufficient to understand political developments more deeply than anyone else and in a timely manner. Even before Assad left, it saw that the Syrian state had entered the orbit of the American mandate and that its harmonization with the Abraham Accords was imminent. The position of the Kurds is no longer determined by political-military relations within Syria, but exclusively by the relations surrounding the New Middle East plan and, specifically, by relations with Israel as the appointed guardian of the Euro-American center. For the central monopolies, the integrated self-determination of the Kurds will remain a legitimate goal, as a counterweight to sunni fascism and turkish nationalism; a two-sided lever of control. However, this means increased pressure for political and economic subjugation. After the regime change, the military alliance against the Islamic State ceased to be an advantage for the autonomous social movement in Syria and became a tool of blackmail to impose dependence through the relentless stirring up of multifaceted attacks by the turkish occupation forces and their mercenaries, by the Islamic State, and by the new regime against the confederation.

 As the imperialist realignment of the Middle East accelerates, the weakness of the Kurdish movement in the web of inter-state relations intensifies. Due to the territorial and political strategic position of the Kurdish people, the radical achievements of the intercommunity and women’s revolution in North and East Syria leave a serious control gap in the middle of the monopoly plan.

 Peace between the Turkish state and the Kurdish movement will protect the Kurds in the four regions of Kurdistan and all communities in Turkish territory from the slaughter of imperialist policies. From the perspective of the internationalist movement, the question remains open as to which direction the Turkish-Kurdish peace will strengthen: monopolistic hegemony or anti-capitalist social autonomy? This will be determined by the position taken by the Kurdish movement in the class struggle and the likely upcoming popular revolution due to the economic collapse of the Turkish class formation. It will be determined more fundamentally by the resilience of social autonomy in Syria and, primarily, by whether the Kurdish Freedom Movement will invest in stabilizing monopoly control and advancing the New Middle East plan or in the social revolution around the Mediterranean, supporting its historical vanguard, the Palestinian revolution. Let us remember that the programmatic declaration of the HBDH (United Revolutionary Liberation Movement), the alliance of the Turkish revolutionary left and the PKK, founded in 2016, proposes democratic confederalism for Kurdistan and popular democracy for Turkey. The spread throughout Syria and the deepening of the revolutionary achievements of the confederal movement will be an indicator. Comrade Bese Hozat from the KCK said a year ago: “If the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria cannot secure and protect its existence and freedom, there will be no ground for a democratic solution in Northern Kurdistan. These developments are interdependent. Without a democratic solution in Northern Kurdistan, it is not possible for the democratic autonomous system of Rojava to maintain its existence and freedom.”

 The reflections between the internal and external aspects of resistance, seen through the prism of the state, are also recognizable in the Lebanese resistance. Hezbollah and its allies in the national resistance are a state within a state, and this relationship is the objective aspect of popular power against Zionist invasions and collaborationist forces. Half a century ago, the imperialists dismantled Lebanon, resulting in the perpetuation of a situation of multipolar power. The anti-occupation resistance condensed this situation into a central duality between itself and forces subservient to the central monopolies. After the great victory against the Zionist invasion of 2006, the duality institutionally took over the state itself. The national resistance participates in governments, the army, etc. However, the transnational front of Euro-American imperialism continues to treat anti-Zionist resistance in terms of “counterterrorism.” As the resistance movement grows stronger, so does the coercion, assimilation and exploitation or exclusion. When a movement actively intervenes against the military supremacy of the central monopolies, the exclusion escalates into brutal terrorism, as happened against the Lebanese people after 2023, due to their alliance with the Palestinian resistance. Even before the Lebanese resistance entered the fray, a NATO fleet (including Greek ships) was deployed and lined up opposite Lebanon. Regardless of its class composition and its relationship with the state, the Lebanese resistance will never receive institutional recognition from Western European and American centers, nor as a legitimate government, unless it adapts to an opening of the Iranian state to their monopolies and political directives. Under the current conditions of imperialist terrorism, military invasions, and the fomenting of antisocial internal conflicts, comrade G. I. Abdallah’s position that the Lebanese people want a strong state and a strong army with a resistance mentality and leadership echoes the demands of the resistance against monopolistic encroachment. What will be the class-political composition and form of the social institutions of the de facto pariah state? This is determined by the Lebanese people through their struggle. The class-political composition of the national resistance shapes the state institutions. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.. Certainly, however, the mediation of overexploitation by secular or religious capitalist forces makes resistance to monopoly domination open to sellout just when it becomes strong. Equally certain is that passive or active political acceptance of imperialist campaigns to change regimes or dismantle states in the global (semi-)periphery plunges the popular classes into disaster.

 Let us shift our analytical lens a little further south. Let us answer the ideological and political question of whether there should be a state of Israel that includes the Palestinians and/or a state of Palestine, starting with the most important issue: What would be the definitive victory for the Palestinian people within the global capitalist system? The position that a revolution cannot take place in the South without a proletarian revolution in the capitalist metropolis is out of the question, because it expresses bourgeois positivism and is politically colonialist. A class-based view does not mean abstract generalization—that is the objective work of capital—but holistic concretization in the social terrain in question. As part of the multinational migrant proletariat, the displaced Palestinians inside and outside the occupied or besieged land have the right to conditions of security and freedom not inferior to those available to the popular classes of the imperialist metropolises. The possibility of a free life for the displaced in their place of origin is a fundamental demand of the migrant struggle. Free return. The revolutionary Palestinian goal is to objectively secure the self-determination of the Palestinians in the historical lands of their community. Does the international recognition of a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel serve this goal? It certainly does not serve it as a whole, since it divides Palestine between two states. A state reduced in size compared to the historical Palestinian territories was and remains a plan of the central monopolies. Acceptance of limited borders and coexistence with the Zionist colony signals the abandonment of the national revolutionary goal and any prospect of class liberation for the Palestinian people, because it brings about legal coexistence with the terrorism of the Zionist guard and political dependence on the imperialists. The results of the Oslo compromise agreements have confirmed this historical view. As far as the external appearance of the state is concerned, the Palestinian Authority is a puppet of the imperialists, the Zionists, and the reactionary Arab regimes. Internally, it is a brutal dictatorship and a ruthless class guardian – a profiteer of monopolistic overexploitation. Incidentally, let us not forget that the Palestinian left initially supported the Oslo Accords. The key issue is the recognition of the Zionist colony, which is necessary for all the central monopolies in order to terrorize the Middle East and, in particular, to keep rebellious Palestine in permanent subjugation. The permanent Zionist military threat is a prerequisite for the dependence of the Palestinians. The two-state plan is a demand for the definitive subjugation of the Palestinians and the entire Middle East to the terror of the colonial state and the central powers behind it. The ethnic-class apartheid established after Oslo in the West Bank, Gaza, and the colonial hinterland will be upgraded to an international institutional level with the demarcation of the two states. A Palestinian state that will come from outside cannot be anything else. The plan was put back on the table after the revolutionary operation “Flood of Al-Aqsa” in order to divide the Palestinian people and manipulate their resistance. The latest relevant UN resolution was the result of stubborn resistance to genocide, but its purpose is solely to deceive the Palestinian people and the internationalist movement.

 The slogan, “from the river to the sea,” is not rhetorical hyperbole: it expresses the main political goal of the Palestinian revolution. The historical liberation of all the territories in which the Palestinian community is rooted must be achieved objectively, through national and internationalist struggle, without waiting for its recognition by other states. The institutional recognition of free social territories comes with the strengthening and expansion of the internationalist struggle. Palestine free from Zionism, from a class-social perspective, will not be another state instead of the previous one, Israel, a scenario that devalues the liberation war. The abstract generalization of the concept of the state obscures historical inequalities and the class background of the anti-colonial struggle and thus, however idealistic its intentions may be, contributes to monopolistic counter-revolutionary propaganda. The settlers, that is, all Israelis, have stolen the land from the Palestinians, with endless genocide and terrorism. Even if the colonial state could become a little internationalist (which it cannot), it would never return the land to the Palestinians and the productive infrastructure built by the multinational proletariat to the international proletariat. Historical justice is not a matter of religious or racial rivalry, as bourgeois ideology conveniently misinterprets it. Palestinian resistance organizations, both secular and religious, emphasize and affirm that Jews were and will remain welcome in Palestine, on condition that they respect the freedom of the Palestinians. But land and freedom go hand in hand.

 The apoist critique of the fragmentation and multiplication of states, which aptly focuses on dependence on monopolies and the capitalist basis of state mediation of social and international relations, is certainly valid in the case of adding a Palestinian state next to the Zionist one. However, the same criticism is misguided insofar as it promotes the theory and experience of the Democratic Nation and democratic confederalism in the coexistence of Palestinians and Jews within and alongside the state of Israel. The historical differences between the Turkish, Syrian, and Israeli states are crucial. The Turkish state originated from an empire with a multi-ethnic and multi-religious population. The Turkish ethnicity, which is the majority within the state’s borders, is composed of all class strata and mainly of the exploited popular classes. Under the given circumstances, the separatist stance on the Kurdish question, a reality of national oppression, caused contradictions in terms of the unity of the class struggle. The Syrian state also has historical roots and, at the same time, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition of its people. The Kurdish movement there remained patient in the given situation of ethno-class oppression for thirty years, until the Arab uprising, when it sowed the seeds of inter-communal confederalism, not through integration into the Syrian state, but through the de facto state of the Kurdish and broader social revolution. Israel is a modern construct of monopolies, without broad popular roots in the territory. In general, the nation-state is a capitalist construct, but specifically, the state of Israel is the absolute construct of a state of military settlers. Based on its radical origins and structural connection to the central monopolies, and based on continuous primitive accumulation, i.e., the plundering of Palestinian land and the management of the Palestinian proletariat as surplus, discredited and at any moment biopolitically annihilable, a class wall rises between the two ethnic groups, determining all their relations, regardless of class divisions within the Palestinian ethnicity. The development of class divisions within the Israeli formation is an internal leakage and reproduction of the racist class relationship with the indigenous people. The colony, born with a strong national-socialist base, slipped into the expansion of internal class inequalities, not only because it is capitalist, but more specifically because of the intersection of its identity-based racism with the need to expand its fascist-militarist base. There is no hope for this policy to evolve in an internationalist socialist direction, since once Israeli citizens are deprived of their private and collective national ownership of the land and the wealth built upon it, they will lose all incentive to remain in Palestine. That is why the majority of them will fight to the end, with all the inhumanity they have shown for a hundred years, in order to maintain their class privilege, until the revolution throws them into the sea. It is no coincidence that there has never been a revolutionary struggle within the colonial national formation in the history of the state of Israel, while on the contrary, the Turkish people have a huge revolutionary tradition and the PKK was born from its womb. Anarchists and other dissidents of Israeli nationality themselves understand and declare that the state of Israel must be destroyed, not in general because every state must be destroyed, but specifically because this state can be nothing other than a colony of extermination. When asked whether this position is a rule against every settler state, such as the US, the answer has been given by the indigenous and black movements, which advocate the destruction of the American colony (abolish American plantation). The chronic weakness of the white left and white anarchism in the US is due, among other reasons, primarily to the absence of contact with this main political goal and, instead, to subservience to bourgeois progressivism.

 The Constitution of the DAANES secures free migration and settlement in its territories. At the same time, the liberation of Afrin, Serakaniye, and Gire Spi from the settlers brought in by Turkish colonialism is an indisputable demand for justice. Class justice precedes peaceful coexistence and transformative justice. The displaced people of Afrin must return to their homes and embrace their olive trees. Likewise, the displaced people of Palestine must return to the flattened land of their parents, from the river to the sea. The revolutionary invasion to the colonial hinterland on October 7, 2023, reminded us that no oppressive force and no revisionism can erase the historical social purpose.

 With what political program, with what form of militant vanguard, will the South be liberated? This is decided every time by social resistance, since it shapes and nourishes its vanguards. The choice between exploitation and exclusion is a decision of the people. This determines the political form of the struggle. And it is always a popular choice. No political power can make this decision without popular consent. Otherwise, it faces popular uprising. Dictatorships that serve imperialist monopolies can withstand opposition. The choice of self-exclusion from certain forms of overexploitation cannot stand without a popular base. Historical experience provides guidance for this general rule, which applies to various forms of political formations. Albania under Enver Hoxha, anti-American Cuba, autonomous Chiapas, autonomous North and South Syria, and even Bolivarian Venezuela in the early years of Chávez’s rule, which, having self-sufficiency and international power in basic minerals, participated in economic exchanges outside US control, make up a variety of class and political backgrounds with the common characteristic of resistance to exclusion thanks to popular consensus. The class-political background, constituting the internal aspect of international class relations, influences their dynamics. Let us not forget that the Zapatista uprising referred to the NAFTA Agreement and that the democratic confederalism that was implemented was a response to the ongoing imperialist war in the Middle East. On the other hand, any administrative organization that is detached from the collective forces of labor and free society forms a managerial (controlling and repressive) class that has an interest in integrating into the transnational chain of overexploitation in order to increase the surplus value it reaps. The state has a persistent reactionary tendency, both in relation to monopoly domination and towards the people it governs. Sali Berisha and Fatos Nano left the core of the Party. Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin did so too, and indeed, from a gradual transition to private profit in an imperialist state that had no problem with exclusion. We saw how Arab nationalism was integrated, we saw the consequences of the economic liberalization of the Syrian bourgeoisie, we saw the bourgeoisie of Bolivarian Venezuela tied to Chinese imperialism, the intensification of the exploitation of its popular classes and the opening up to American monopolies (before Maduro’s abduction), and we still see the balancing efforts of the Iranian state, a semi-regional imperialist power that has no problem surviving due to exclusion but has a problem of popular consensus, on the one hand on capitalist exploitation and on the other on its internal tension due to the exclusion .

 The popular overthrow of mediation politics of monopolistic overexploitation or bourgeois exploitation in conditions of exclusion does not remove the coercion of exclusion, nor does it ensure better conditions of monopolistic overexploitation. When a popular community decides to resist exploitation by accepting the burden of exclusion, it has every reason to do so without the state’s or external political mediation. However, when it accepts a certain degree of exploitation in order to avoid total exclusion, the dynamics are more complex. Unmediated exploitation is met with reaction, which includes the maintenance of forms of exclusion and harsher conditions of exploitation. Imperialists want class and political agents within the territory they plunder in order to control the relationship. That is why when the people of the South decide to enter into an unequal exchange relationship, they also choose the corresponding political mediation, despite the fact that this will develop its own super-exploitative class interests. There is no question of “delayed consciousness”; there is a question of unreversed historical inequalities. Every political program and every network of international political ties expresses a specific synthesis of relations of monopolistic overexploitation and/or exclusion. This is how the exploited classes of the periphery and semi-periphery choose their political leaders.

 For the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority represents submission to blackmail without ensuring the lifting of the general exclusion, since the Zionist plan does not aim at their overexploitation, but at their universal displacement. The resistance wing of Fatah represents a network of international ties of dependence that could potentially break the blockade, Hamas represents another network, which has indeed broken the blockade in various areas and in various ways, while the armed left (the Popular Front, its Syrian faction, and the Democratic Front) represent a historical program that has been wandering without objective foundations on an international scale against the central monopolies for the last three decades.

 What program and what open path do we as anarchists represent against the blackmail, exploitation or exclusion, and more specifically for the struggle of the Palestinian people against the blackmail, “voluntary” adaptation to ethnic cleansing or through genocide? Participation in humanitarian activism and political protest is not a distinctive feature of an anarchist program, nor is it a powerful path against monopoly terrorism: it is the least that anyone who is ashamed that genocides are possible thanks to the wealth produced by the working class worldwide can do. Anarchism should not simply take the lead in expressions of internationalist solidarity, but more fundamentally, be at the forefront of the organized fight against transnational counterrevolution, as it was the socialist current that, since the First International, raised the question of proletarian power based on the direct control of production on an international scale. The focal points of historical revolutionary anarchism are more specific than the general political and social expressions of internationalist solidarity: direct opposition to economic and military terrorism, focusing on the deactivation of its productive base and mobilization in the war on the fronts and in the hinterland of the class-political enemy. In simple terms, the first, which is the implementation of the social revolution program itself in the current year, involves, on the one hand, blocking the monopoly capital involved in the counterrevolutionary enterprise in question, through strikes, blockades, sabotage, and auxiliary boycotts, and on the other hand, the solidarity-based circulation of labor power, goods, and money. Mobilization in the war conflict realizes federalism in the immediate field of physical confrontation between living forces. Physical confrontation means, above and beyond the quantitative elements of resistance to violence, a confrontation of intellect and morality. Without joint mobilization, the labor movement falls into bourgeois humanism and pacifism, freezing the subjective and objective revolutionary development of the proletariat and international solidarity.

 These two paths are not novel proposals. From the time of Bakunin’s international Alliance and Cipriani’s expeditionary forces, to international participation in the confederal revolution in Syria and anti-militarist sabotage in the metropolis of the North today, revolutionary anarchism has not forgotten its duty of equal participation in the international class war. Recently, we saw blockades in Greek commercial ports against the chain of Zionist military supply, and strikes in Italian ports, while a short time ago, various unions participated in the campaign for the release of A. Ocalan. Nevertheless, the internationalist grassroots movement has a long way to go before it will be able to influence the balance of power and thus dismantle imperialist terrorism. The organic depth and breadth necessary for the autonomous popular movement to become effective on an international scale requires the development of revolutionary syndicalism with the support of an international anarchist political-military organization. The common strategic line is the reproduction of the federal revolutionary commune in the capitalist periphery and in the movement of the metropolis; it continues to be the one suggested by Bakunin.

 Palestine endures like no other place on Earth, but in order to break the blockade without depending on warmongering capitalist powers, it needs to be embraced by the Arab and Mediterranean socialist struggle. The Arab people are the critical mass that can drive out the occupiers. The multinational proletariat of the Euro-Mediterranean states and Turkey has a responsibility to destroy the bases of military aggression of the central monopolies and make the Mediterranean impassable for their military rule. If these goals seem distant, it means that we must revise our horizons. The transition from nationally confined local horizons to international ones is not an idealistic leap that follows national revolutions: it is the evolution of class struggle since the First International.

 The siege of fortified Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank will continue until the next major blow to the terrorism of the central monopolies behind Zionism, a new October 7 that will break down the North-South wall. Right now, we must resist the dispatch of any occupying force to Gaza, which will aim to accomplish what the Zionist army failed to do: the destruction of the armed Palestinian resistance. After the latest prisoner exchange, the war has not frozen, it has escalated on an international scale.

 Revolutionary anarchism does not invest in the “peace” of the monopolies; it acts to smash the transnational pyramid.

 Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

 Domokos Prison

 December 2025, during the international struggle with prisoners in British prisons, in solidarity with Palestine.

1.  Interviews with Georges Ibrahim Abdallah [ENG]: https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/22318/ & audio in Greek: https://kraygesapotakelia.espivblogs.net/2025/12/02/2-12-2025-2i-synenteyxi-toy-zorz-impraim-ampntalla-exo-apo-tin-fylaki-se-metafrasi-toy-anarchikoy-syntrofoy-d-chatzivasileiadi-apo-tis-fylakes-domokoy/

Small_map_ENG.pdf

The original publication is here: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1640329/ and the english translation is here: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1641064/

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Small Map

Introduction

This text was written at the outset of the collective hunger strike in British prisons against anti-Palestinian terrorism and militarism. Following the U.S. attack on Venezuela, certain points have been updated. The international revolutionary strategy of the global anarchist movement must be built—and can be built—only through international fronts of struggle, through the breaking down of borders, and through the redirection of military action toward the centers of monopoly.

 Postscript (at the time of publication of the text in greek)

By the time of publication, the attack by the fascist regime of Syria and the occupation of territories of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria had taken place, according to a U.S. plan and with the agreement of the Zionist and Turkish colonial powers. This was followed by the attack on Iran. These developments fully confirm the analytical perspective presented in this text.

Palestine, Kurdistan, Intifada, Serildan

 Immediately after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, 2023, analyzing the rift that was revealed within the international anti-capitalist movement, I noted that, especially at this moment, the defense of the Kurdish and Palestinian struggles must be placed on a unified basis. Any antagonism between the two movements is reactionary and provocative. We internationalists, in particular, had a responsibility to contribute to the unity of the resistances. Our duty towards this remains.

I have explained in detail and defended the military cooperation of the North-East Syrian confederation with the imperialists against the Islamic State. It is inappropriate to now put the issue up for judgment by third parties. Our solidarity must be uncompromising, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the political strategy of the resistance movement in question. However, I would like to emphasize once again, because at least in the Greek movement some people act as if they have never heard it, that if it were not for the apoist movement in Rojava, Syria would have been torn apart by the Americans a decade ago, with the northern part completely controlled by Turkish colonialism and the central part by Islamofascists, always on behalf of the Americans. The PKK is not responsible for the internal collapse of the Assad dictatorship and its sellout by Russian imperialism. An alliance with the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria would have been Assad’s only salvation, had he been open to the democratic transformation of the Syrian state. Under the guidance of the Russian and Turkish overlords, he refused to do so for years. Even when Assad’s father was in power, the regime had betrayed the Palestinian resistance, at the same time that the PKK was fighting alongside the PLO in Lebanon. Again, we did not need this evidence to determine our solidarity.

The political rule of solidarity certainly applies bilaterally. We defend the Palestinian resistance as a whole. Its unity would not allow for any other political choice, even if ideological elitism were acceptable. I defend the anti-colonial resistance of Islamic Palestinian organizations, without reservations. The fundamental position of solidarity does not oblige us to defend their programs and policies in general. Just as defending the anti-imperialist resistance of the people of Iran does not imply defending the dictatorial capitalist regime with a theocratic mask, but rather the opposite: it makes it all the more urgent to overthrow the bosses, who always prefer to capitulate and collaborate with a stronger power rather than to manifest total resistance, as Bakunin prophetically pointed out about the Franco-Prussian War.

We defend all anti-colonial resistance, whatever leadership it may have at any given moment. The political leadership of Gaza, which until October 7 managed the state of total blockade, is involved in the colonization of occupied Afrin, due to its ideological ties to the Erdogan regime. The slander of the apoist movement and the revolution in northern and eastern Syria in the name of the Palestinian struggle is a miserable hypocrisy. Hamas’s central leadership has enjoyed and continues to enjoy luxurious refuge in Istanbul and Doha, while the leadership of the PKK and KCK is fighting in the caves and is wanted by the State Department (US). Hamas claims to have strong fraternal ties with the regime in Qatar, which is responsible for the murder of thousands of workers on the construction sites for the last World Cup and is a major US base. Some in Europe, however, see only the American bases in Rojava. Nevertheless, based on the historical line of revolutionary anarchism, I unconditionally defend the Islamic resistance of Palestine. To the ultimate practical consequences. It would be an honor, a liberating dream, to fight in the tunnels of the global social fortress of Gaza or in the tunnels of the Mediya Defense Zones. If anarchist ideas do not lead the mass struggle here or there, that is a serious problem for us anarchists, not for the resisting masses and their leadership. History records that the Martyr Workers of Gaza fortified it and stormed into the colonial hinterland, under the leadership of Martyr Yahya al-Sinwar. And history cannot be erased.

Some of those who slander the Kurdish movement justify their biased judgments by extending their sectarianism to the Palestinian movement, saying that they are aligning themselves specifically with its left wing. They overlook the fact that the resistance has a united political front. Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the PFLP’s sister organization, the TKP-ML, as well as the other Maoist and Stalinist organizations of the Turkish movement, have a long-standing strategic alliance with the PKK and are fighting in Rojava and Qandil. And perhaps they have not read anywhere, because they only read what they already know, that the DFLP participates in international conferences on global democratic confederalism, which are organized on the initiative of the Kurdish movement. The suggestion of ideological sectarianism on the revolutionary struggle of the masses of the capitalist periphery constitutes an abandonment of both the revolutionary anarchist tradition and of Leninism, with its Bakuninist influences especially on the question of international struggle, and a transition to revisioned anarchism and while it underestimates the class struggle in all its dimensions, it leads to pacifism, or to a return to the bourgeois influences of Marxism, which predicted the annihilation of “historically insignificant nations,” that is, to a return to the glorification of colonialism. Thus, the idea of proletarian solidarity beyond the North- South border is left to the economistic, puritanical academic laborism of the metropolis, which expects the disintegrated workers elite of the North to save the whole Earth, and indeed without a civil war.

 Both movements, Palestinian and Kurdish, have the same main political enemy and they know it: the capitalist metropolis, the global monopolies of power. At this stage of the global confrontation between North and South, both movements avoid directly attacking the central imperialist powers, as long as the latter do not directly attack their specific territories. Both are engaged in a long and bitter conflict with the proxies of the center, islamic and zionist fascism. Is perhaps the task of direct confrontation with the militarism of the metropolis the responsibility primarily of the class revolutionary movement of the countries from where it launches?

From the Atlantic to the Gulf

 The Palestinian left resistance calls on the Arab masses to rise up. Comrade Georges Ibrahim Abdallah sees the Arab revolution coming from the Atlantic to the Gulf, due to the deep economic crisis of all reactionary regimes. He sees the revolution echoing between the north and south of the Mediterranean.

 Arab nationalism brought victories for the Arab popular classes in the last century, but it was unable to free itself from the class bonds of imperialist control and was eventually fully integrated and ended up being outright counter-revolutionary. Neither its secular nor its religious versions can break free from the framework of control set by the central imperialist powers, because they are based on capitalist exploitation and state authoritarianism. Such is their class structure.

 The problem cannot be solved by escaping into abstract theory about the basic class relation of the capitalist mode of production. As was proven 15 years ago, the revolution of the Arab masses is imminent. Those who underestimate the importance of cultural identities within the class struggle are essentially playing on the ideological side of colonialism. Monopoly accumulation begins with the opposition between city and countryside, center and periphery, and with military conquests. Social identities have been targeted by capitalist expansion and development since long before the formation of the industrial working class. The capitalist mode of production may have first appeared in Venice and then spread further northwest, but let us not forget that Venice was the hub of circulation for capital and plunder between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, that is, between European hegemony on the one hand and the Middle East and the Mediterranean world on the other. The Arab revolution is intertwined with the global socialist revolution, as is the revolution of all communities, social bonds and cultures that have been trampled on by empires and capitalism. The Commune of 1871 was sparked by the uprising against occupation. Bulgarian revolutionary anarchism, a powerful example from our history, was fertilized by the seeds of Bakunin’s political line in the resistance against the Ottoman Empire. Also, the revolutionary tradition of the Iberian peoples as well stemmed from the resistance to the Napoleonic French occupation.

 However, cultural identity and the conditions of oppression and exploitation do not determine the course of the struggle. The third element determines whether the struggle will develop in a revolutionary or reactionary direction: the political program. The Arab revolution will only succeed if it takes the form of a proletarian revolution for universal equality and social self-determination, uprooting class and related political dependencies on imperialist monopolies. The task of the proletariat on the northern side of the Mediterranean is to break down the objective and subjective class barriers between North and South, striking at the unequal and genocidal economic policies and military structures of the metropolis. It is an idea with historical experience, but one that needs to be upgraded in terms of its class-social roots, its political coherence, and its objectives.

The Janus of the South?

 Throughout its historical development, the state has appeared in two forms. On the one hand, within its borders, since the state is always a demarcated occupation over land, it is the political structure in which class relations are concentrated in a given territory. On the other hand, it is a structure of military, economic, and political attack or defense against anything that is not under its control and thus has not been incorporated into its own class formation. The metropolitan, i.e., model state, is the historical structure of exploitative expansionism. In various historical phases, the internal structure of the metropolitan state exhibits elements of equality for certain classes, in contrast to its structured external relations. For example, the hegemonic Athenian democracy. In any case, the real elements of popular power are the product of a fierce class struggle, while the fictitious elements of equality are the political management of class relations by the exploiting classes. In this context, the state is a system for integrating the social achievements of internal class struggle into its military, political and economic expansion. From the perspective of class struggle, the two aspects are interrelated. It is impossible to view class struggle on a national scale as independent from international power relations and the relationship between the exploited social forces and the state. Unless, of course, we settle for metropolitan nationalism.

 In the South, the unity of the two aspects is also inherent, and we will see this specifically in Kurdistan and the Arab world. While in general the nation state is the establishment and organization of the city’s sovereignty over the countryside and its competitive relationship with the rest of the world, its spread outside Europe (and here we must be able to distinguish it from pre-existing empires) is a development of resistance to colonialism, but on the terms of the dominant capitalist culture. In this sense, comrade Georges Ibrahim Abdallah noted the following: “The Americans, together with Israel and the reactionary Arabs, are destroying everything we have achieved historically. The state itself is a construct that was won through hard struggles. Nevertheless, they are working to dismantle this state and all its institutions, transforming the region into chaos where ethnic groups, religious minorities, and barbarians tear each other apart, while the Israelis and Americans sit back and decide which “human animals” deserve their protection today and which will be sacrificed […] Of course, the bourgeoisie and its political pawns are the enemies of our army. They don’t want us to have a national army. They don’t want us to have a nation-state. They want a bunch of thugs and criminals running around so they can use them to bring our people to their knees. […] I hope that we will manage to build a strong army, capable of defending us, one that will replace all resistance.”1

 At this point, comrade Abdullah Ocalan has updated the historical anarchist view, concluding after the assimilation of the state-monopoly bloc that the spread of the nation state did not liberate peoples and ethnic groups from capitalism, but instead tied them to dependence on global economic and political-military monopolies. In general, the conclusion is correct, but we need to look at its variations more specifically. It is crucial not to lose sight of the interconnection between the external and internal substance of the state, which is only by way of exception univocal from the outside in.

 Any state that does not belong to the monopolistic centers, to the extent that it wants to have economic relations with the global market and therefore with other states, is directly or indirectly subject to unequal exchange relations, due to the historically accumulated unequal development of capital productivity and due to the military-political and economic control of markets, and especially of innovation, by the central monopolies. Thus, a virtually unchanging pyramid of domination and accumulation, center, periphery, and semi-periphery has historically been formed. Every state outside the center chooses between the inevitable blackmail of exploitation and exclusion. Such is the external appearance of inter-state relations, as relations between states and not as direct class relations. The internal appearance of these same relations is the overexploitation of the proletariat of the (semi)periphery. The reproduction of international inequalities is not based on exploitation in general, across class lines, of some nations by other nations, but on exploitation of the popular classes of the state class formations of the (semi)periphery. The local exploiting classes, which mediate the relations of overexploitation, increase them for their own benefit, simply because they exist within this chain. In the 20th century, class peace within (semi)peripheral states was generally attempted through national policies of partial independence from central monopolies and the distribution of preserved value between the local bourgeoisie and the popular classes. Of course, these reformist policies of national unity do not overturn the coercion of overexploitation or exclusion, while the profits of the local exploiting classes increase either way.

 The inherent and inevitable tendency of capital to evolve/develop, compels every section of the international bourgeoisie to participate in the global market. Slowly, quickly, or fundamentally, every post-metropolitan state has entered into relationships of dependence and unequal accumulation. Every state, regardless of the historical and social depth of its nationalism, decomposes and recomposes class relations under the domination of central monopolies. Economic, political and cultural assimilation is insurmountable in capitalism.

 Instead of being an exception, social-capitalist states proved the historical impasse of state-led independence from unequal international accumulation. From the 1950s onwards, the USSR made gradual transformations towards private accumulation. The “allied” states were economically dependent and bound by unequal exchange relations with Russian imperialism. A typical example was Guevara’s denunciation of the exploitation of Cubans through the wheat sold to them by the “mother of the revolution.” Or the Albanian socialist state, which, in order to abstain from international exploitation, ended up completely isolating itself from economic cooperation, with the result that its productive capital remained stagnant for three decades. So today, states that open up to Chinese capital investment are putting their working classes in a relationship of overexploitation and colonial anti-social plunder, which seems alternative but is class-wise identical. In any case, the dominant imperialist powers are on the march. This process includes the serious loss of popular support for the Venezuelan government, the American military campaign and the kidnapping and hostage-taking of its president.

 The collapse of the Russian state-monopoly empire paved the way for the imperialist plunder of the nation states of Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, and then the Middle East and Africa. Through military and economic terrorism, the Euro-American center attacked every structure of relative national independence and regulated overexploitation. In the Middle East, there remain two major ethno-state structures that the Euro-American monopolies want to liquidate in order to complete their absolute domination there: the Iranian and Turkish states. This liquidation is attempted both directly, through military terrorism and economic blockade, and indirectly, through the triggering of conflicts, coups, right-wing and fascist movements, etc. Where possible, the destabilisation takes the form of the dismemberment of the nation-state, so that it can be replaced by more, but competitive, inadequate and therefore completely dependent state formations. Whether through national resistance and the eventual levelling of what was once a politically autonomous nation-state, or through the adaptation of the local exploiting classes to the demands of the central monopolies, neither the territorial integrity of the state nor the continued rule of the established dominant classes can be guaranteed. The imperialists always want their own mediators of overexploitation. The fact that the Turkish state remains a member of NATO and for many decades has taken on the role of provocateur on behalf of the American center, does not make it protected, but rather ripe for the provocation its own disintegration.

 The policy pursued by the PKK, whatever it may be, has a decisive influence on the evolution of the Turkish state and imperialist plans for the Middle East, not only because it is a powerful revolutionary movement, but also, purely objectively, because it is a wedge in the restructuring of Middle Eastern states, insurmountable by all capitalist forces. The Kurdish movement understood the historical process in time and evolved its political theory and goals. It rejected the claim to a national state, the mechanism of attachment to the monopoly pyramid. Instead, it linked historical experience to the prospect of social transcendence of the state, removing the national struggle from its conservative heritage. Faced with the blackmail, exploitation or exclusion, it countered this in practice with the internationalist and cross-border confederalism of the self-organized society. Bakunin’s proposals for the revolutionary commune and federalism are blooming here. Federalist communist politics has a class character. Rejecting the nationalism that inevitably accompanies statism, the PKK and KCK refused to take a profitable position of mediation in the overexploitation of the Kurdish people.

 It is important to understand the depth of the anti-nationalist position of the apoist national movement. Rejecting separatist programs, it took the most critical position against the central monopoly policy of disintegration and plunder of the Middle East. By defending the integrity of existing state entities, nation-states within their borders, the apoist movement resists the imposition of new class and political barriers. In one way or another, the local exploiting classes are attached to transnational networks of overexploitation, because this is in their class interest, and so their resistance is always limited. In northern and eastern Syria and northern Iraq, it has been proven that only the confederal self-management movement has the motivation and the strength to resist military invasions. As Bakunin predicted before the Commune of 1871, the national resistance of the bourgeoisie is inherently sold-out, but popular defense can succeed. In Syria, it has also been proven that only the confederal grassroots movement is historically capable of overcoming collaborative nationalism, suppressing sectarianism, and preventing national disintegration. This form of national resistance, although it may occasionally ally itself with the state, which is inevitably a mechanism of class exploitation, aims to prevent the imposition of heavier forms of domination in the context of the monopoly offensive.

 On both sides, the Kurdish movement and, belatedly, the deep core of Turkish nationalism, understand that peace in the Turkish heartland and the unity of the Turkish state are at stake. The peace proposals of Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan to the Turkish state respond to this perception, with a view of preventing widespread war and defending the integrity of the Turkish state. Peace between the Kurdish movement and the Turkish state could be a powerful barrier to the advance of the central imperialist powers in the Middle East. The slander of various historically uneducated sectarians who see an American hand behind every move of the apoist movement is not worth discussing. It is easy to exaggerate one’s revolutionary and anti-imperialist credentials, but how many forces has each mobilized and how much popular power has each built against Turkish fascism and the imperialist pyramid?

 Like any popular movement, the Kurdish movement does not fight with nihilistic motives. The military conflict serves specific socio-political purposes. Since secession has been rejected as a goal, the conflict aims to overturn the balance of political power within the established territorial borders. As anarchists we rightly reject any assimilation of the social movement into the state, but any conflict with the state demands an immediate political victory for social forces, whether or not its recognition by institutions is sought. The peace proposals of the Kurdish movement have been demands to secure the power of resistance. The current negotiations in the isolation of Imrali are, for the Kurdish movement and its allied revolutionary forces, a deliberate step towards the political crystallisation of the political and military victories they have achieved through decades of multifaceted resistance. The recognition of Kurdish self-determination and equality, the abolition of counter-revolutionary policies and institutions, part of which will be the release of many political prisoners, and finally, a reform of the political system towards the long-standing goals of the PKK and of almost the entire Turkish revolutionary left. Moreover, the political line of the People’s Front, the only different line that has a militant basis, does not seek the destruction of the state, but the immediate transition to a “people’s state,” as popular as a state can be. From an anarchist point of view, the question of stages or immediacy in the seizure of power is irrelevant, since either way it negates the immediacy of popular power.

 Ideological criteria are effective when they enrich the understanding of the reality of competing subjects, not when they are projected onto subjects who do not recognize them as their own. We are obliged to understand the Kurdish movement, like the Palestinian movement, as national movements. The PKK and the KCK identify themselves within the socialist tradition and, indeed, within the anti-state, anti-capitalist current. However, their main political goal is not the historical victory of certain ideas, but the development of the historical steps of an ethnicity in its struggle for liberation. As long as the state exists, the consolidation of the gains of the masses depends on a relationship of political power with the state, whether this is political overthrow, so-called dual power, secession, or institutional integration of victory. The institutional demands of the Kurdish movement are as natural as was the establishment of the eight-hour working day after Chicago for the labor movement. It would be unrealistic to ascribe a critique about a reformist turn at a time when a national movement is achieving a political goal for which it has fought hard for half a century.

 Since the goal of secession has been rejected, any resistance movement in relation to the state looks either to political overthrow or political reform. In the anti-colonial struggle, political overthrow can mean the expulsion of the settlers. Kemalist colonialism was not a settler enterprise: it was the continuation of an empire, while colonization had taken place centuries earlier. The Turkish state committed genocides with the aim of ethnically cleansing its territory, but the Turkish ethnicity had long been established. To define the issue in class terms, the Turkish nation is not a class of colonists with active roots in the capitalist metropolis of the North or the steppes of Mongolia; it is a multifaceted class formation, a large people under the authority of the bourgeoisie and central monopolies. As the Kurdish movement emphasizes, Turks and Kurds have walked together through history and cannot be separated today. It is not up to the Kurdish movement to overthrow the class power of the Turkish state, at least not on its own.

 These specific conditions complicate the position of the national question within class relations. Since the Turkish revolutionary movement made its historic mass advance (1970…), two paths have emerged: One was to demote the issues of national oppression and, more generally, the colonial nature of the Turkish state into the general class struggle. This path sacrificed the political autonomy of the Kurdish movement, its demands, and the struggle against the particular class relations brought about by national oppression. The other path brought the buried social subjectivity to the fore, relegating the class demands of the struggle to second place. Historically, it is not self-evident that the anti-colonial struggle relegates the class struggle to second place. There have been different examples. The peculiarity of Turkish genocidal nationalism produced this particular complication. It is inappropriate for me to argue here theoretically against the apoistic idea of a historically generalized democratic society, which is placed above class struggle. However, it is clear that this particular ideological framework responds to the needs of the specific national struggle, given the current class-political conditions. For the intelligentsia of the metropolis, what matters is the soundness of the theory, and from this derive both the exorcisms and the idealization of apoism. For the internationalist socialist movement, what matters is how the struggle progresses and what its limits are.

 We can and must understand the apoist position of underestimating class struggle and the position of coexistence with the state (“democracy plus state”), both simultaneously and independently. The particular historical conditions in which the Kurdish anti-colonial struggle is being waged have, on the one hand, forced the emergence of national oppression and exploitation independantly from a general proletarian revolutionary program for the Turkish class formation, even though this specific national oppression is undoubtedly part of the sequence of class relations. On the other hand, they have forced the formation of a program of coexistence with the Turkish class formation until a socialist revolution takes place. Consequently, institutionalization of coexistence (also) in the state. The two positions, on class struggle and on the state, automatically produce mutual consequences: a double loop of positive feedback, which locks the two positions in their conservative intensity. Acceptance of appeasement with the state implies the rejection of the political overthrow of class power. That is why the apoist movement falsely characterizes the party state established by the Bolsheviks as a workers’ state. With a historical distortion that resists the libertarian assessment of the Russian Revolution, the proletarian revolution is condemned along with the party dictatorship. Of course, this political narrative is bourgeois liberal and, in fact, of the right-wing tradition. The state is perceived as a mechanism of heteronomy, oppression, and exploitation, but it is not opposed by the exploited classes, but by a cross-class democratic society. We know that without the abolition of wage labor and the value of capital, direct and universal deliberative democracy cannot be achieved: it is limited and dependent on the given accumulation of capital. On the other hand, the devaluation of class struggle puts on the agenda the peaceful marginalization of the state and its gradual transformation. This is an idea that spread in the 1990s, from the fusion of liberal social democracy with anti-authoritarian academia. It also intersects with Murray Bookchin’s powerless reformist democracy. The programmatic proposals and practices it has produced clearly belong to the line of alternativism and reformism. A. Öcalan has aptly noted that the primary revisionism of the socialist program was the retreat to statism. However, apoist theory itself makes concessions on this point, because it has relegated class struggle to second place. This retreat did not arise now, during negotiations with the Turkish state; it is ideologically constitutional. It must be understood that the retreat is not a right or wrong approach for global socialism; it is intertwined with the specific class, political, and social conditions in which the Kurdish struggle is being waged.

 The historical materialist understanding of the ideological positions of each resistance subject is concretized and confirmed by examining the transformations of its applied political practices. At the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the subsequent invasion of the Islamic State, the Kurdish movement had no ideological reservations about replacing the collapsing state with autonomous revolutionary institutions. Nor did it give in to the unfounded hope of peaceful coexistence with the Islamic State. And today, it is not surrendering militarily or politically to the new Islamofascist regime. In Turkish territory in 2015, the Kurdish movement defended the democratic autonomy of Kurdish cities with an armed uprising, and the Kurdish leader even criticized his organization for not supporting the uprising with all its might.

 The apoist position on the fundamental importance of social self-defense de facto calls into question the political power of the state. The broader class movement cannot be excluded from this political right, which the Kurdish movement, with the women’s revolution, has brought to its ultimate class consistency. If the basis for the abolition of patriarchy is the abolition of male domination over women and over life as a whole, the basis for the abolition of capitalism is the abolition of the domination of labor by capital, that is, the abolition of the extraction of surplus value from wage labor, the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. If the abolition of patriarchy is a prerequisite for the free coexistence of the genders, then the abolition of the wage labor-capital relationship and the equalization of the value of labor internationally are prerequisites for the abolition of class exploitation and the free coexistence of nations. However, attributing responsibilities that do not belong to the Kurdish or Palestinian movements is worse than unfair: it is hypocritical and reactionary, because the task of revolutionary class struggle with complete terms belongs to the still politically powerless international anarchist movement or, from the point of view of the left, to the turkish or european anti-capitalist movement, that is, to those who lay the blame. Movements that take responsibility for their actions can distinguish social victories from political compromises. The recognition of kurdish self-determination within the turkish class formation will be an important victory for the Kurdish people, for the internationalist movement, and for anti-monopoly resistance in the Middle East. The abolition of counterrevolutionary and dictatorial laws, which will lead to the release of political prisoners, will be a victory for the social movement. The extent of these changes is influenced by the participation of the turkish anti-capitalist movement in the struggle for the release of A. Öcalan and the resolution of the Kurdish question. Sectarian attitudes have led to fragmented victories, while a united front opens the way for everyone. The possibility of the destruction of the turkish state by a federalist socialist revolution is open, as it is open for all states worldwide. In the immediate term, the Kurdish leader’s long-standing peace promoting stance and his current response to the turkish state’s call protect the multiethnic people of the turkish class formation from a sectarian war for the sake of the central monopolies.

 Within the world of states, the establishment of institutions of popular self-government and socialist transformations appears as a state within a state, because it presupposes the territorial uprooting, if not the total overthrow, of the political power of the state. Let us just consider that until recently, the Greek oligarchic media referred to Exarchia as the “state of Exarchia” because of the long-standing daily practice of opposition to police authority in our neighborhood. From the perspective of political power competition, the external appearance of revolutionary relations and institutions is always the competition for dominance, regardless of their qualitative characteristics. From an anarchist perspective, popular political institutions that realize economic equality and direct universal democracy are not a form of authority, since they abolish heteronomy on the basis of social production. However, for the world of power, revolution is inevitably a competitive power. The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria was from the outset, and continues to be after the change of regime, a state within a state. This fact is a huge revolutionary achievement, not only for the Syrian people, but for the social movement internationally. The same applies to Zapatistas autonomy, which is why the institutional Mexican left opposes it. The stage of the struggle in which revolutionary socio-political institutions are established has been called a situation of dual power. In an internal coup, the change of political rulers takes place rapidly. Social revolution, on the other hand, always goes through the stage of so-called dual power, precisely because it liberates social territory before political overthrow, which it cannot achieve without a revolutionary social base. When the revolutionary social movement delays in replacing state institutions with autonomous popular institutions and in implementing socialist transformations, the counter-revolution advances to uproot the movement. The idealistic anarcho-communists who in 1936 and ’37 in Spain blocked workers’ and social self-management and socialization, juxtaposing a flimsy anti-authoritarian ethic of power sharing with the statist political forces, ended up joining one side of the state’s dual authority, ultimately leaving its sole sovereignty intact.

 In the test of civil war, the tendency toward fragmentation of political power can be unleashed. Different forces within or against the state find the opportunity to assert their own needs or are forced to resist independently in order to survive. This is also the case in the relationship between anti-colonial and broader anti-occupation movements and the state. Resistance forms one or more poles of political power against an occupying administration or even a collaborationist national government. Such is the situation in the occupied areas of Rojava, with the settlers of Turkish colonialism, such is the situation in Bashur, with the collaborative regime of Barzani, such as in Palestine with the collaborationist regime of the Palestinian Authority, such as in Lebanon, with a NATO protectorate state and its pro-Zionist sects. Anti-colonial resistance always appears as a state within a state, regardless of the particular characteristics of class relations and political institutions within it. Revolutionary anarchism aims at a federalist socialist revolution in all social resistance movements, not underestimating the political power or the resistance itself to colonialism, national oppression, and imperialism, but understanding the historical class-political character of these forms of power.

 When effective resistance appears as a state within a state in relation to the pre-established state, it is treated by other states, which, being states themselves, think in terms of political power and territorial sovereignty, as a de facto but shadow state. Each state, according to its interests, seeks to ally itself with and integrate the new de facto state into its international policy or to eliminate it. As soon as a piece of land is freed from an established power structure, the entire capitalist world wants to devour it in one way or another. The blackmail, exploitation or exclusion, is immediately activated against any autonomous territorial resistance. No state recognizes de facto political power within a resistant social formation before the latter submits to the exploitative and assimilative terms of the former. This means that, in addition to establishing relations of economic dependence and unequal exchange, the “friendly” existing states demand the transformation into a new state with all the characteristics of the state as a system of political heteronomy and exploitation, or its integration into the pre-established state. That is why the Zapatista autonomous administration of Chiapas has been for three decades and will remain a shadow socio-political entity for the Mexican state and the central monopolies, as long as it does not succumb to the blackmail of assimilation and exploitation. The de facto state of Hamas in Gaza was razed to the ground along with all its basic infrastructure when the Palestinian resistance organization refused to play the role of the administrator of the large prison. Although the DAANES maintains good diplomatic relations and military cooperation with NATO and Russian imperialists, it has no official political recognition, nor was it even invited to the inter-state dialogues on Syria, while the new fascist regime of Al Qaeda was immediately recognized by the EU, with high-level envoys, and also passed by the White House. The Syrian state of confederal self-government continues to be terrorized by Turkish colonialism and Islamic State gangs because it does not bow to the monopolistic extortion of exploitation. The EU continues to treat the PKK with counter-revolutionary “terrorism” policies because the apoist movement resists the dissolution and plunder of the Middle East.

 The Kurdish Freedom Movement has accumulated analytical intelligence and experience sufficient to understand political developments more deeply than anyone else and in a timely manner. Even before Assad left, it saw that the Syrian state had entered the orbit of the American mandate and that its harmonization with the Abraham Accords was imminent. The position of the Kurds is no longer determined by political-military relations within Syria, but exclusively by the relations surrounding the New Middle East plan and, specifically, by relations with Israel as the appointed guardian of the Euro-American center. For the central monopolies, the integrated self-determination of the Kurds will remain a legitimate goal, as a counterweight to sunni fascism and turkish nationalism; a two-sided lever of control. However, this means increased pressure for political and economic subjugation. After the regime change, the military alliance against the Islamic State ceased to be an advantage for the autonomous social movement in Syria and became a tool of blackmail to impose dependence through the relentless stirring up of multifaceted attacks by the turkish occupation forces and their mercenaries, by the Islamic State, and by the new regime against the confederation.

 As the imperialist realignment of the Middle East accelerates, the weakness of the Kurdish movement in the web of inter-state relations intensifies. Due to the territorial and political strategic position of the Kurdish people, the radical achievements of the intercommunity and women’s revolution in North and East Syria leave a serious control gap in the middle of the monopoly plan.

 Peace between the Turkish state and the Kurdish movement will protect the Kurds in the four regions of Kurdistan and all communities in Turkish territory from the slaughter of imperialist policies. From the perspective of the internationalist movement, the question remains open as to which direction the Turkish-Kurdish peace will strengthen: monopolistic hegemony or anti-capitalist social autonomy? This will be determined by the position taken by the Kurdish movement in the class struggle and the likely upcoming popular revolution due to the economic collapse of the Turkish class formation. It will be determined more fundamentally by the resilience of social autonomy in Syria and, primarily, by whether the Kurdish Freedom Movement will invest in stabilizing monopoly control and advancing the New Middle East plan or in the social revolution around the Mediterranean, supporting its historical vanguard, the Palestinian revolution. Let us remember that the programmatic declaration of the HBDH (United Revolutionary Liberation Movement), the alliance of the Turkish revolutionary left and the PKK, founded in 2016, proposes democratic confederalism for Kurdistan and popular democracy for Turkey. The spread throughout Syria and the deepening of the revolutionary achievements of the confederal movement will be an indicator. Comrade Bese Hozat from the KCK said a year ago: “If the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria cannot secure and protect its existence and freedom, there will be no ground for a democratic solution in Northern Kurdistan. These developments are interdependent. Without a democratic solution in Northern Kurdistan, it is not possible for the democratic autonomous system of Rojava to maintain its existence and freedom.”

 The reflections between the internal and external aspects of resistance, seen through the prism of the state, are also recognizable in the Lebanese resistance. Hezbollah and its allies in the national resistance are a state within a state, and this relationship is the objective aspect of popular power against Zionist invasions and collaborationist forces. Half a century ago, the imperialists dismantled Lebanon, resulting in the perpetuation of a situation of multipolar power. The anti-occupation resistance condensed this situation into a central duality between itself and forces subservient to the central monopolies. After the great victory against the Zionist invasion of 2006, the duality institutionally took over the state itself. The national resistance participates in governments, the army, etc. However, the transnational front of Euro-American imperialism continues to treat anti-Zionist resistance in terms of “counterterrorism.” As the resistance movement grows stronger, so does the coercion, assimilation and exploitation or exclusion. When a movement actively intervenes against the military supremacy of the central monopolies, the exclusion escalates into brutal terrorism, as happened against the Lebanese people after 2023, due to their alliance with the Palestinian resistance. Even before the Lebanese resistance entered the fray, a NATO fleet (including Greek ships) was deployed and lined up opposite Lebanon. Regardless of its class composition and its relationship with the state, the Lebanese resistance will never receive institutional recognition from Western European and American centers, nor as a legitimate government, unless it adapts to an opening of the Iranian state to their monopolies and political directives. Under the current conditions of imperialist terrorism, military invasions, and the fomenting of antisocial internal conflicts, comrade G. I. Abdallah’s position that the Lebanese people want a strong state and a strong army with a resistance mentality and leadership echoes the demands of the resistance against monopolistic encroachment. What will be the class-political composition and form of the social institutions of the de facto pariah state? This is determined by the Lebanese people through their struggle. The class-political composition of the national resistance shapes the state institutions. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.. Certainly, however, the mediation of overexploitation by secular or religious capitalist forces makes resistance to monopoly domination open to sellout just when it becomes strong. Equally certain is that passive or active political acceptance of imperialist campaigns to change regimes or dismantle states in the global (semi-)periphery plunges the popular classes into disaster.

 Let us shift our analytical lens a little further south. Let us answer the ideological and political question of whether there should be a state of Israel that includes the Palestinians and/or a state of Palestine, starting with the most important issue: What would be the definitive victory for the Palestinian people within the global capitalist system? The position that a revolution cannot take place in the South without a proletarian revolution in the capitalist metropolis is out of the question, because it expresses bourgeois positivism and is politically colonialist. A class-based view does not mean abstract generalization—that is the objective work of capital—but holistic concretization in the social terrain in question. As part of the multinational migrant proletariat, the displaced Palestinians inside and outside the occupied or besieged land have the right to conditions of security and freedom not inferior to those available to the popular classes of the imperialist metropolises. The possibility of a free life for the displaced in their place of origin is a fundamental demand of the migrant struggle. Free return. The revolutionary Palestinian goal is to objectively secure the self-determination of the Palestinians in the historical lands of their community. Does the international recognition of a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel serve this goal? It certainly does not serve it as a whole, since it divides Palestine between two states. A state reduced in size compared to the historical Palestinian territories was and remains a plan of the central monopolies. Acceptance of limited borders and coexistence with the Zionist colony signals the abandonment of the national revolutionary goal and any prospect of class liberation for the Palestinian people, because it brings about legal coexistence with the terrorism of the Zionist guard and political dependence on the imperialists. The results of the Oslo compromise agreements have confirmed this historical view. As far as the external appearance of the state is concerned, the Palestinian Authority is a puppet of the imperialists, the Zionists, and the reactionary Arab regimes. Internally, it is a brutal dictatorship and a ruthless class guardian – a profiteer of monopolistic overexploitation. Incidentally, let us not forget that the Palestinian left initially supported the Oslo Accords. The key issue is the recognition of the Zionist colony, which is necessary for all the central monopolies in order to terrorize the Middle East and, in particular, to keep rebellious Palestine in permanent subjugation. The permanent Zionist military threat is a prerequisite for the dependence of the Palestinians. The two-state plan is a demand for the definitive subjugation of the Palestinians and the entire Middle East to the terror of the colonial state and the central powers behind it. The ethnic-class apartheid established after Oslo in the West Bank, Gaza, and the colonial hinterland will be upgraded to an international institutional level with the demarcation of the two states. A Palestinian state that will come from outside cannot be anything else. The plan was put back on the table after the revolutionary operation “Flood of Al-Aqsa” in order to divide the Palestinian people and manipulate their resistance. The latest relevant UN resolution was the result of stubborn resistance to genocide, but its purpose is solely to deceive the Palestinian people and the internationalist movement.

 The slogan, “from the river to the sea,” is not rhetorical hyperbole: it expresses the main political goal of the Palestinian revolution. The historical liberation of all the territories in which the Palestinian community is rooted must be achieved objectively, through national and internationalist struggle, without waiting for its recognition by other states. The institutional recognition of free social territories comes with the strengthening and expansion of the internationalist struggle. Palestine free from Zionism, from a class-social perspective, will not be another state instead of the previous one, Israel, a scenario that devalues the liberation war. The abstract generalization of the concept of the state obscures historical inequalities and the class background of the anti-colonial struggle and thus, however idealistic its intentions may be, contributes to monopolistic counter-revolutionary propaganda. The settlers, that is, all Israelis, have stolen the land from the Palestinians, with endless genocide and terrorism. Even if the colonial state could become a little internationalist (which it cannot), it would never return the land to the Palestinians and the productive infrastructure built by the multinational proletariat to the international proletariat. Historical justice is not a matter of religious or racial rivalry, as bourgeois ideology conveniently misinterprets it. Palestinian resistance organizations, both secular and religious, emphasize and affirm that Jews were and will remain welcome in Palestine, on condition that they respect the freedom of the Palestinians. But land and freedom go hand in hand.

 The apoist critique of the fragmentation and multiplication of states, which aptly focuses on dependence on monopolies and the capitalist basis of state mediation of social and international relations, is certainly valid in the case of adding a Palestinian state next to the Zionist one. However, the same criticism is misguided insofar as it promotes the theory and experience of the Democratic Nation and democratic confederalism in the coexistence of Palestinians and Jews within and alongside the state of Israel. The historical differences between the Turkish, Syrian, and Israeli states are crucial. The Turkish state originated from an empire with a multi-ethnic and multi-religious population. The Turkish ethnicity, which is the majority within the state’s borders, is composed of all class strata and mainly of the exploited popular classes. Under the given circumstances, the separatist stance on the Kurdish question, a reality of national oppression, caused contradictions in terms of the unity of the class struggle. The Syrian state also has historical roots and, at the same time, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious composition of its people. The Kurdish movement there remained patient in the given situation of ethno-class oppression for thirty years, until the Arab uprising, when it sowed the seeds of inter-communal confederalism, not through integration into the Syrian state, but through the de facto state of the Kurdish and broader social revolution. Israel is a modern construct of monopolies, without broad popular roots in the territory. In general, the nation-state is a capitalist construct, but specifically, the state of Israel is the absolute construct of a state of military settlers. Based on its radical origins and structural connection to the central monopolies, and based on continuous primitive accumulation, i.e., the plundering of Palestinian land and the management of the Palestinian proletariat as surplus, discredited and at any moment biopolitically annihilable, a class wall rises between the two ethnic groups, determining all their relations, regardless of class divisions within the Palestinian ethnicity. The development of class divisions within the Israeli formation is an internal leakage and reproduction of the racist class relationship with the indigenous people. The colony, born with a strong national-socialist base, slipped into the expansion of internal class inequalities, not only because it is capitalist, but more specifically because of the intersection of its identity-based racism with the need to expand its fascist-militarist base. There is no hope for this policy to evolve in an internationalist socialist direction, since once Israeli citizens are deprived of their private and collective national ownership of the land and the wealth built upon it, they will lose all incentive to remain in Palestine. That is why the majority of them will fight to the end, with all the inhumanity they have shown for a hundred years, in order to maintain their class privilege, until the revolution throws them into the sea. It is no coincidence that there has never been a revolutionary struggle within the colonial national formation in the history of the state of Israel, while on the contrary, the Turkish people have a huge revolutionary tradition and the PKK was born from its womb. Anarchists and other dissidents of Israeli nationality themselves understand and declare that the state of Israel must be destroyed, not in general because every state must be destroyed, but specifically because this state can be nothing other than a colony of extermination. When asked whether this position is a rule against every settler state, such as the US, the answer has been given by the indigenous and black movements, which advocate the destruction of the American colony (abolish American plantation). The chronic weakness of the white left and white anarchism in the US is due, among other reasons, primarily to the absence of contact with this main political goal and, instead, to subservience to bourgeois progressivism.

 The Constitution of the DAANES secures free migration and settlement in its territories. At the same time, the liberation of Afrin, Serakaniye, and Gire Spi from the settlers brought in by Turkish colonialism is an indisputable demand for justice. Class justice precedes peaceful coexistence and transformative justice. The displaced people of Afrin must return to their homes and embrace their olive trees. Likewise, the displaced people of Palestine must return to the flattened land of their parents, from the river to the sea. The revolutionary invasion to the colonial hinterland on October 7, 2023, reminded us that no oppressive force and no revisionism can erase the historical social purpose.

 With what political program, with what form of militant vanguard, will the South be liberated? This is decided every time by social resistance, since it shapes and nourishes its vanguards. The choice between exploitation and exclusion is a decision of the people. This determines the political form of the struggle. And it is always a popular choice. No political power can make this decision without popular consent. Otherwise, it faces popular uprising. Dictatorships that serve imperialist monopolies can withstand opposition. The choice of self-exclusion from certain forms of overexploitation cannot stand without a popular base. Historical experience provides guidance for this general rule, which applies to various forms of political formations. Albania under Enver Hoxha, anti-American Cuba, autonomous Chiapas, autonomous North and South Syria, and even Bolivarian Venezuela in the early years of Chávez’s rule, which, having self-sufficiency and international power in basic minerals, participated in economic exchanges outside US control, make up a variety of class and political backgrounds with the common characteristic of resistance to exclusion thanks to popular consensus. The class-political background, constituting the internal aspect of international class relations, influences their dynamics. Let us not forget that the Zapatista uprising referred to the NAFTA Agreement and that the democratic confederalism that was implemented was a response to the ongoing imperialist war in the Middle East. On the other hand, any administrative organization that is detached from the collective forces of labor and free society forms a managerial (controlling and repressive) class that has an interest in integrating into the transnational chain of overexploitation in order to increase the surplus value it reaps. The state has a persistent reactionary tendency, both in relation to monopoly domination and towards the people it governs. Sali Berisha and Fatos Nano left the core of the Party. Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin did so too, and indeed, from a gradual transition to private profit in an imperialist state that had no problem with exclusion. We saw how Arab nationalism was integrated, we saw the consequences of the economic liberalization of the Syrian bourgeoisie, we saw the bourgeoisie of Bolivarian Venezuela tied to Chinese imperialism, the intensification of the exploitation of its popular classes and the opening up to American monopolies (before Maduro’s abduction), and we still see the balancing efforts of the Iranian state, a semi-regional imperialist power that has no problem surviving due to exclusion but has a problem of popular consensus, on the one hand on capitalist exploitation and on the other on its internal tension due to the exclusion .

 The popular overthrow of mediation politics of monopolistic overexploitation or bourgeois exploitation in conditions of exclusion does not remove the coercion of exclusion, nor does it ensure better conditions of monopolistic overexploitation. When a popular community decides to resist exploitation by accepting the burden of exclusion, it has every reason to do so without the state’s or external political mediation. However, when it accepts a certain degree of exploitation in order to avoid total exclusion, the dynamics are more complex. Unmediated exploitation is met with reaction, which includes the maintenance of forms of exclusion and harsher conditions of exploitation. Imperialists want class and political agents within the territory they plunder in order to control the relationship. That is why when the people of the South decide to enter into an unequal exchange relationship, they also choose the corresponding political mediation, despite the fact that this will develop its own super-exploitative class interests. There is no question of “delayed consciousness”; there is a question of unreversed historical inequalities. Every political program and every network of international political ties expresses a specific synthesis of relations of monopolistic overexploitation and/or exclusion. This is how the exploited classes of the periphery and semi-periphery choose their political leaders.

 For the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority represents submission to blackmail without ensuring the lifting of the general exclusion, since the Zionist plan does not aim at their overexploitation, but at their universal displacement. The resistance wing of Fatah represents a network of international ties of dependence that could potentially break the blockade, Hamas represents another network, which has indeed broken the blockade in various areas and in various ways, while the armed left (the Popular Front, its Syrian faction, and the Democratic Front) represent a historical program that has been wandering without objective foundations on an international scale against the central monopolies for the last three decades.

 What program and what open path do we as anarchists represent against the blackmail, exploitation or exclusion, and more specifically for the struggle of the Palestinian people against the blackmail, “voluntary” adaptation to ethnic cleansing or through genocide? Participation in humanitarian activism and political protest is not a distinctive feature of an anarchist program, nor is it a powerful path against monopoly terrorism: it is the least that anyone who is ashamed that genocides are possible thanks to the wealth produced by the working class worldwide can do. Anarchism should not simply take the lead in expressions of internationalist solidarity, but more fundamentally, be at the forefront of the organized fight against transnational counterrevolution, as it was the socialist current that, since the First International, raised the question of proletarian power based on the direct control of production on an international scale. The focal points of historical revolutionary anarchism are more specific than the general political and social expressions of internationalist solidarity: direct opposition to economic and military terrorism, focusing on the deactivation of its productive base and mobilization in the war on the fronts and in the hinterland of the class-political enemy. In simple terms, the first, which is the implementation of the social revolution program itself in the current year, involves, on the one hand, blocking the monopoly capital involved in the counterrevolutionary enterprise in question, through strikes, blockades, sabotage, and auxiliary boycotts, and on the other hand, the solidarity-based circulation of labor power, goods, and money. Mobilization in the war conflict realizes federalism in the immediate field of physical confrontation between living forces. Physical confrontation means, above and beyond the quantitative elements of resistance to violence, a confrontation of intellect and morality. Without joint mobilization, the labor movement falls into bourgeois humanism and pacifism, freezing the subjective and objective revolutionary development of the proletariat and international solidarity.

 These two paths are not novel proposals. From the time of Bakunin’s international Alliance and Cipriani’s expeditionary forces, to international participation in the confederal revolution in Syria and anti-militarist sabotage in the metropolis of the North today, revolutionary anarchism has not forgotten its duty of equal participation in the international class war. Recently, we saw blockades in Greek commercial ports against the chain of Zionist military supply, and strikes in Italian ports, while a short time ago, various unions participated in the campaign for the release of A. Ocalan. Nevertheless, the internationalist grassroots movement has a long way to go before it will be able to influence the balance of power and thus dismantle imperialist terrorism. The organic depth and breadth necessary for the autonomous popular movement to become effective on an international scale requires the development of revolutionary syndicalism with the support of an international anarchist political-military organization. The common strategic line is the reproduction of the federal revolutionary commune in the capitalist periphery and in the movement of the metropolis; it continues to be the one suggested by Bakunin.

 Palestine endures like no other place on Earth, but in order to break the blockade without depending on warmongering capitalist powers, it needs to be embraced by the Arab and Mediterranean socialist struggle. The Arab people are the critical mass that can drive out the occupiers. The multinational proletariat of the Euro-Mediterranean states and Turkey has a responsibility to destroy the bases of military aggression of the central monopolies and make the Mediterranean impassable for their military rule. If these goals seem distant, it means that we must revise our horizons. The transition from nationally confined local horizons to international ones is not an idealistic leap that follows national revolutions: it is the evolution of class struggle since the First International.

 The siege of fortified Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank will continue until the next major blow to the terrorism of the central monopolies behind Zionism, a new October 7 that will break down the North-South wall. Right now, we must resist the dispatch of any occupying force to Gaza, which will aim to accomplish what the Zionist army failed to do: the destruction of the armed Palestinian resistance. After the latest prisoner exchange, the war has not frozen, it has escalated on an international scale.

 Revolutionary anarchism does not invest in the “peace” of the monopolies; it acts to smash the transnational pyramid.

 Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

 Domokos Prison

 December 2025, during the international struggle with prisoners in British prisons, in solidarity with Palestine.

1.  Interviews with Georges Ibrahim Abdallah [ENG]: https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/22318/ & audio in Greek: https://kraygesapotakelia.espivblogs.net/2025/12/02/2-12-2025-2i-synenteyxi-toy-zorz-impraim-ampntalla-exo-apo-tin-fylaki-se-metafrasi-toy-anarchikoy-syntrofoy-d-chatzivasileiadi-apo-tis-fylakes-domokoy/

Small_map_ENG.pdf

The original publication is here: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1640329/ and the english translation is here: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1641064/

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis: The Highest Popular Institution

“Everyone’s freedom, then, can only be realized in the equality of all. The realization of freedom within the equality of law and action is justice” Mikhail Bakunin

A year ago, a giant social mass demonstrated demanding justice. The judge to whom the people turned, however, was the executioner himself, the state. From the beginning we knew and communicated it, that the critical turn of the struggle will take place after the anticipated cancellation is established. If last year rage became arrogance and hope, now despair must become awareness and resilient counterattack.

The cancellation completed its cycle, with the assimilation of leading figures of the specific social movement, into the institutions of the executioners. Nothing new, whoever takes the path of power acquires the morality of the executioner, becomes bilingual and murders the truth in the landfill of Tempe and in the darkness of the Aegean. The voice of the people’s nemesis, who last year after the massacre of Pylos, had something to say stating that the victims of state massacres have no borders, now wearing the mask of Creon polishes his weapons, counting votes from the blood of the outcasts; always with “humanity”, as every politician should say.

We hold the step in the highest popular institution, in the rebellion. Against the one and only colonial invader and slave trader of the last centuries: capitalism.

This February we can easily distinguish the voice of justice from the audience of the executioner: the path of the former will be led by the dead of the multinational proletariat.

Aegean, Violanda, Tempi

death to the nation of cannibals

Let the invading Greek stratocrats, servants of global monopolies, return in coffins from the Red Sea and tomorrow from Gaza (if they set foot on this holy land).

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis

Domoko prisons

February 2026

Source: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1639773/

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis: The Highest Popular Institution

“Everyone’s freedom, then, can only be realized in the equality of all. The realization of freedom within the equality of law and action is justice” Mikhail Bakunin

A year ago, a giant social mass demonstrated demanding justice. The judge to whom the people turned, however, was the executioner himself, the state. From the beginning we knew and communicated it, that the critical turn of the struggle will take place after the anticipated cancellation is established. If last year rage became arrogance and hope, now despair must become awareness and resilient counterattack.

The cancellation completed its cycle, with the assimilation of leading figures of the specific social movement, into the institutions of the executioners. Nothing new, whoever takes the path of power acquires the morality of the executioner, becomes bilingual and murders the truth in the landfill of Tempe and in the darkness of the Aegean. The voice of the people’s nemesis, who last year after the massacre of Pylos, had something to say stating that the victims of state massacres have no borders, now wearing the mask of Creon polishes his weapons, counting votes from the blood of the outcasts; always with “humanity”, as every politician should say.

We hold the step in the highest popular institution, in the rebellion. Against the one and only colonial invader and slave trader of the last centuries: capitalism.

This February we can easily distinguish the voice of justice from the audience of the executioner: the path of the former will be led by the dead of the multinational proletariat.

Aegean, Violanda, Tempi

death to the nation of cannibals

Let the invading Greek stratocrats, servants of global monopolies, return in coffins from the Red Sea and tomorrow from Gaza (if they set foot on this holy land).

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis

Domoko prisons

February 2026

Source: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1639773/

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Victory to the Mass Hunger Strike for Palestine Action

Victory to the mass hunger strike for Palestine Action – Let’s crush the alliance 1+3

Since the 2nd of November, a rolling collective hunger strike has been taking place in British prisons against the UK’s involvement in the colonial war in Palestine and the crackdown on the Palestine Action organisation. Thirty-three prisoners have committed themselves in advance, Amu Gib and Qesser Zuhrah were the first to start, and gradually the number of strikers is increasing. The struggle inside the prisons has already gone international, with the participation of comrades Massimo Passamani and Luca Dolce (Italy).

The demands:
– Immediate end to all censorship and restrictions on their correspondence and communications.
– Immediate and unconditional release on bail.
– Right to a fair and transparent trial.
– Deproscription of Palestine Action.
– Permanent closure of all Elbit Systems facilities in the United Kingdom.
1

All demands serve the Palestinian resistance and the common struggle against capitalist counter-revolution. The last demand places the hunger strike within the objective aim of the political campaign for which Palestine Action was placed on the “terrorism” list. Thus, the struggle continues from within prison.

The Israeli company Elbit supplies a big part of the Israeli army’s equipment. Palestine Action, through sabotage and blockades, has caused serious damage to the company and the closure of factories. It has also carried out serious sabotage at RAF bases and aircrafts, upgrading the more moderate forms of anti-militarist resistance to the level of the objective needs determined by the conflict in Palestine.

On the 28th of November, Palestinian activist Anan Yaeesh, who was a political prisoner in occupied Palestine, will be tried by the Italian state. He is accused, without evidence, of collaborating with the Tulkarm Brigades (West Bank), which are linked to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed component of Fateh that resists the occupation. The EU is fighting on the front lines of the Zionist occupation with all means at its disposal. Comrade Anan stated: “You want me to defend myself against the accusations against me, but I am ashamed to seek acquittal on charges that, for me, represent a source of honour. I do not want to defend myself against the accusation of having rights and having claimed them, or of having tried to liberate my people and my country from colonial oppression. I swear that I have no intention of being acquitted of the legitimate resistance against the Zionist occupation. The Palestinian resistance is one of the noblest phenomena known to history.”

I express my respect for the memory of the two martyrs of the self-sacrificing attack on an Israeli settlement south of Bethlehem on 18/11. As the Brigades of Al-Shahid Abu Ali Mustafa, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wrote in their commemorative announcement, “Our plegde is eternal revenge that does not fade. Tomorrow the fog will clear from the hills.”

The mass hunger strike was announced to be launched on the anniversary day of the Balfour Declaration, the British mandate to implement the Zionist plan. The historical development of capital has been founded on relentless genocide. We need to view genocides from an anti-state, anti-capitalist perspective. The massacre and famine in Gaza and the hundred-year war of destruction and displacement of the Palestinian people are processes of primitive accumulation, class discipline and of extermination of surplus proletariat. The brutality of the imperialist war machine and its Zionist vanguard is openly displayed with the aim of establishing its terrorism worldwide. Faced with the heroic resistance of a people, the capitalist butchers have made the people’s bread and water the subject of war negotiations. The unanimous decision of the UN Security Council (17/11), with the agreement of the Chinese and Russian imperialists, proclaims the assumption of responsibility for the completion of the occupation. What Zionism failed to achieve through constant wars, its patrons are now taking over. The planned International Stabilisation Force is tasked with disarming the resistance “by all necessary means”, i.e. by continuing the genocidal war. As the Popular Resistance Committees stated on the same day, “We will not accept the deployment of any international or foreign forces inside the Gaza Strip to replace the occupation, nor will we accept an American role in controlling the administration of Gaza. Any international support for this decision will be considered alignment, bias, and legitimization of the foreign presence on the land of Gaza.”

The Palestinian resistance does not go back on its political goals: the liberation of Gaza, militarily and economically; a halt to the settlement of the West Bank, which was approved by the Zionist Knesset; and the release of all prisoners. Punishment of all war criminals. No peace with the occupation. The only language the enemy understands is the language of force.

Two years after the revolutionary initiative of October 7 managed to bring back to the fore, more strongly than ever before, the cause of the destruction of the imperialist colony, I repeat and will say as many times as necessary, that any compromise on the demands of popular freedom for the sake of peace, by devaluing and burying resistance in silence or in the melting pot of bourgeois rights, sharpens the weapons of counter-revolution. If the left is haunted by the historical curse of colonial social democracy, the anti-authoritarian current and academic Marxism are haunted by the curse of elitist utopian idealism, which conveniently transforms masters into victims. But there is no federalism without justice, nor socialism without land and freedom.

Israeli conscientious objector Daniela Schultz with her statement, thwarted all those who undermine the Palestinian resistance: “Israeli society in its entirety has a role in shaping the horrible reality of the Palestinian people. It isn’t ‘complicated’, there aren’t ‘exceptions to the rule’, and talks of the innocence or morality of individuals in a society whose whole essence is bloodshed and racial supremacy are irrelevant”. On fascist voluntarism, which neoliberalism and its post-socialdemocracy present as alternativism: “The Gaza genocide has also taken its toll on Israeli society – but instead of rising against it, civil NGOs went out of their way to accommodate it. Supporting reservists’ families, renovating shelters, civil operation rooms, all meant to minimise the price Israelis pay for the genocide. Instead of civil disobedience, we created a civil backbone. Instead of resisting the genocide, the government’s critics complain about the efficiency of managing the ‘war’”. And as for the ‘social’ opposition, so highly regarded by Western pacifists: “Instead of refusing to enlist, they compete in the number of days of reserve service. The opposition and protest groups declare ‘not in our name’ and simultaneously salute the IDF and its combatants”. In this way she puts the disobedience of Israeli citizens into its true perspective: “My refusal isn’t a heroic act. I’m not refusing because I believe my individual action will change reality, and I don’t think my choices as an Israeli deserve central attention in the conversation of Palestinian liberation. I’m refusing because it is the most human thing to do”. The anti-militarist movement of the occupying state recognizes the goal of resistance: “A country whose security requires the extermination of another people has no right to security. A people determined to commit a Holocaust on another people has no right to self-determination”.

This also applies to Greek nationalism and its state. The strategic bloc of America-Israel-Greece-Cyprus (1+3) has joint political responsibility for the genocidal war. The Greek bourgeoisie, along with the middle classes associated with it, is tied to the imperialist plan of a “New Middle East”, of the “Greater Israel” of IMEC, of the endless slaughter and extermination of societies in the global war with the Chinese competitor and of militaristic terrorism. The Greek state is by its foundation a storming base of Western Christian capitalism. From the counter-revolutionary campaign in Ukraine, to the civil war and the war in Korea, Somalia and Afghanistan, to the thirty-year genocide of the migrant proletariat, to the last decade against rebellious Yemen, the colonial alliance for the Sahel and the NATO-Nazi front in Ukraine, the Greek army is a deadly tool of the capitalist metropolis.

Revolutionary solidarity means organically connecting all resistance movements on Earth and extending every front line wherever we are. Here, in the Greek-NATO territory, solidarity with Palestine means civil class war. The same is true, of course, for all collaborative Arab and Islamic regimes. The Greek bourgeoisie, with its political parties, technocrats and academics, cynically defends the strategic support for the genocidal war in Palestine in the name of the national interest. This is nothing new. Kostas Simitis had supported the bombing of Yugoslavia with the slogan ‘Greece first’. Eternal collaborators, lackeys of the ruling power. Such is capitalist morality, which demands national collective responsibility for its heinous crimes, with the vote of the working classes. As Daniela Shultz said about Zionist security: “Israeli public discourse has always made the freedom of the Palestinian people — even their right to exist — conditional on the impact on Israeli ‘security’. From the right, which claims that security can only be achieved through occupation and settlements, to the Zionist left, which says ‘security will bring peace’”.

The Palestinian resistance demands the punishment of war criminals. The Greek prime minister was the first to meet with Netanyahu after he was indicted by the International Court of Justice. No Greek prosecutor has indicted Mitsotakis for harbouring an international war criminal. It was the left-wing government, with the complicity of all its current factions, that upgraded the strategic alliance with Zionism ten years ago. They bear collective political responsibility for the levelling of Gaza, for the colonisation of the West Bank, for the mass torture and indiscriminate executions of civilians in Gaza and in prisons, for the bombed hospitals, for the hundreds of murdered doctors, nurses and journalists, for the schools, mosques and churches that have been turned from shelters into mass graves. All of this has the signature of the slogan, ‘Greece first’. In the same national spirit, right-wing and left-wing governors are demanding that the working classes make further sacrifices to arm Western European imperialism, openly provoking an inter-imperialist war. A few days ago, the Greek Minister of War advised the European peoples to be prepared to see their children in coffins, implying that the Greeks are already prepared to receive their youth in coffins. The punishment of these genocidal murderers is not the responsibility of the Palestinian resistance, and no court of their own system will judge them.

They have been taking our measurements for a long time now, but they have miscalculated. Let us take our measures, let us nail them to the board with the same nails they have for our coffins. As Macron recently said, to survive in today’s world, you have to be feared, and to be feared, you have to be strong.

In solidarity with the struggle in British prisons, from Sunday 30/11 I will go on a week-long hunger strike (drinking water) and after that, for one day a week or depending on the progress of the situation of the hunger strikers who are on the front line.

History has taught us that prison is a crucial field of resistance. But let’s not get confused, the resisting political prisoners are a full moon on the dark side of the Earth. The sunny side is where rebellion and direct action are on the rise. Let us spread Palestine Action everywhere. Let us thicken the forest of revolutionary internationalism (with the real parallel drawn by comrade Massimo).

Freedom to the fighters of Palestine Action
Freedom for Elias Rodriguez and Casey Goonan
Honour to the anarchist revolutionary Aaron Bushnell
Freedom to all the hostages of the Zionist camp

“I am afraid of hunger, of losing people, of having nothing to lose, of rivers running dry, of poisoned land, of forest fires, of the invention, manufacture, and release of bombs that can evaporate people and leave holes in the earth where they stood. I’m scared of our silence, and what it’s apparently possible to normalise. I’m scared of what we can stomach. I’m scared of how easily you can be put in prison for not having money. I’m scared of war, of no one coming when we need them. But our silence, our fear, our productivity will not protect us,”
Amu Gib

“Elbit, while you boast of how your weapons have been ‘battle tested on Palestinians’, our Resistance will inform you that your tests have failed. Because Gaza will rise and Palestine will never die,” the hunger strikers.

To our anarchist comrades of post-industrial theory: No awe is due to the rotten state capitalist technology. The algorithm does nothing real: it is merely a metonymy, a veil over sweeping death. It is deceptive and incapacitating to see power where there is nothing but self-referential fear of the innovation of life.

“The difference between a nation rooted in its land and the campaigns of invasion that have repeatedly broken against the rock of its determination has not yet been understood”,
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

(No act of solidarity should be done in my name. The immediate goal is to make the British state yield in the face of the common struggle. In the Greek-NATO territory, the target is the war machine of the 1+3 alliance. As Comrade Anan said: “I am ashamed to find myself in a warm room, even in prison, while children in Gaza die of cold, hunger, and thirst”.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
Domokos Prison
Greece

Received by email

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=24574

#dimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #hungerStrike #internationalSolidarity #palestineAction

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Victory to the Mass Hunger Strike for Palestine Action

Victory to the mass hunger strike for Palestine Action – Let’s crush the alliance 1+3

Since the 2nd of November, a rolling collective hunger strike has been taking place in British prisons against the UK’s involvement in the colonial war in Palestine and the crackdown on the Palestine Action organisation. Thirty-three prisoners have committed themselves in advance, Amu Gib and Qesser Zuhrah were the first to start, and gradually the number of strikers is increasing. The struggle inside the prisons has already gone international, with the participation of comrades Massimo Passamani and Luca Dolce (Italy).

The demands:
– Immediate end to all censorship and restrictions on their correspondence and communications.
– Immediate and unconditional release on bail.
– Right to a fair and transparent trial.
– Deproscription of Palestine Action.
– Permanent closure of all Elbit Systems facilities in the United Kingdom.
1

All demands serve the Palestinian resistance and the common struggle against capitalist counter-revolution. The last demand places the hunger strike within the objective aim of the political campaign for which Palestine Action was placed on the “terrorism” list. Thus, the struggle continues from within prison.

The Israeli company Elbit supplies a big part of the Israeli army’s equipment. Palestine Action, through sabotage and blockades, has caused serious damage to the company and the closure of factories. It has also carried out serious sabotage at RAF bases and aircrafts, upgrading the more moderate forms of anti-militarist resistance to the level of the objective needs determined by the conflict in Palestine.

On the 28th of November, Palestinian activist Anan Yaeesh, who was a political prisoner in occupied Palestine, will be tried by the Italian state. He is accused, without evidence, of collaborating with the Tulkarm Brigades (West Bank), which are linked to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed component of Fateh that resists the occupation. The EU is fighting on the front lines of the Zionist occupation with all means at its disposal. Comrade Anan stated: “You want me to defend myself against the accusations against me, but I am ashamed to seek acquittal on charges that, for me, represent a source of honour. I do not want to defend myself against the accusation of having rights and having claimed them, or of having tried to liberate my people and my country from colonial oppression. I swear that I have no intention of being acquitted of the legitimate resistance against the Zionist occupation. The Palestinian resistance is one of the noblest phenomena known to history.”

I express my respect for the memory of the two martyrs of the self-sacrificing attack on an Israeli settlement south of Bethlehem on 18/11. As the Brigades of Al-Shahid Abu Ali Mustafa, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wrote in their commemorative announcement, “Our plegde is eternal revenge that does not fade. Tomorrow the fog will clear from the hills.”

The mass hunger strike was announced to be launched on the anniversary day of the Balfour Declaration, the British mandate to implement the Zionist plan. The historical development of capital has been founded on relentless genocide. We need to view genocides from an anti-state, anti-capitalist perspective. The massacre and famine in Gaza and the hundred-year war of destruction and displacement of the Palestinian people are processes of primitive accumulation, class discipline and of extermination of surplus proletariat. The brutality of the imperialist war machine and its Zionist vanguard is openly displayed with the aim of establishing its terrorism worldwide. Faced with the heroic resistance of a people, the capitalist butchers have made the people’s bread and water the subject of war negotiations. The unanimous decision of the UN Security Council (17/11), with the agreement of the Chinese and Russian imperialists, proclaims the assumption of responsibility for the completion of the occupation. What Zionism failed to achieve through constant wars, its patrons are now taking over. The planned International Stabilisation Force is tasked with disarming the resistance “by all necessary means”, i.e. by continuing the genocidal war. As the Popular Resistance Committees stated on the same day, “We will not accept the deployment of any international or foreign forces inside the Gaza Strip to replace the occupation, nor will we accept an American role in controlling the administration of Gaza. Any international support for this decision will be considered alignment, bias, and legitimization of the foreign presence on the land of Gaza.”

The Palestinian resistance does not go back on its political goals: the liberation of Gaza, militarily and economically; a halt to the settlement of the West Bank, which was approved by the Zionist Knesset; and the release of all prisoners. Punishment of all war criminals. No peace with the occupation. The only language the enemy understands is the language of force.

Two years after the revolutionary initiative of October 7 managed to bring back to the fore, more strongly than ever before, the cause of the destruction of the imperialist colony, I repeat and will say as many times as necessary, that any compromise on the demands of popular freedom for the sake of peace, by devaluing and burying resistance in silence or in the melting pot of bourgeois rights, sharpens the weapons of counter-revolution. If the left is haunted by the historical curse of colonial social democracy, the anti-authoritarian current and academic Marxism are haunted by the curse of elitist utopian idealism, which conveniently transforms masters into victims. But there is no federalism without justice, nor socialism without land and freedom.

Israeli conscientious objector Daniela Schultz with her statement, thwarted all those who undermine the Palestinian resistance: “Israeli society in its entirety has a role in shaping the horrible reality of the Palestinian people. It isn’t ‘complicated’, there aren’t ‘exceptions to the rule’, and talks of the innocence or morality of individuals in a society whose whole essence is bloodshed and racial supremacy are irrelevant”. On fascist voluntarism, which neoliberalism and its post-socialdemocracy present as alternativism: “The Gaza genocide has also taken its toll on Israeli society – but instead of rising against it, civil NGOs went out of their way to accommodate it. Supporting reservists’ families, renovating shelters, civil operation rooms, all meant to minimise the price Israelis pay for the genocide. Instead of civil disobedience, we created a civil backbone. Instead of resisting the genocide, the government’s critics complain about the efficiency of managing the ‘war’”. And as for the ‘social’ opposition, so highly regarded by Western pacifists: “Instead of refusing to enlist, they compete in the number of days of reserve service. The opposition and protest groups declare ‘not in our name’ and simultaneously salute the IDF and its combatants”. In this way she puts the disobedience of Israeli citizens into its true perspective: “My refusal isn’t a heroic act. I’m not refusing because I believe my individual action will change reality, and I don’t think my choices as an Israeli deserve central attention in the conversation of Palestinian liberation. I’m refusing because it is the most human thing to do”. The anti-militarist movement of the occupying state recognizes the goal of resistance: “A country whose security requires the extermination of another people has no right to security. A people determined to commit a Holocaust on another people has no right to self-determination”.

This also applies to Greek nationalism and its state. The strategic bloc of America-Israel-Greece-Cyprus (1+3) has joint political responsibility for the genocidal war. The Greek bourgeoisie, along with the middle classes associated with it, is tied to the imperialist plan of a “New Middle East”, of the “Greater Israel” of IMEC, of the endless slaughter and extermination of societies in the global war with the Chinese competitor and of militaristic terrorism. The Greek state is by its foundation a storming base of Western Christian capitalism. From the counter-revolutionary campaign in Ukraine, to the civil war and the war in Korea, Somalia and Afghanistan, to the thirty-year genocide of the migrant proletariat, to the last decade against rebellious Yemen, the colonial alliance for the Sahel and the NATO-Nazi front in Ukraine, the Greek army is a deadly tool of the capitalist metropolis.

Revolutionary solidarity means organically connecting all resistance movements on Earth and extending every front line wherever we are. Here, in the Greek-NATO territory, solidarity with Palestine means civil class war. The same is true, of course, for all collaborative Arab and Islamic regimes. The Greek bourgeoisie, with its political parties, technocrats and academics, cynically defends the strategic support for the genocidal war in Palestine in the name of the national interest. This is nothing new. Kostas Simitis had supported the bombing of Yugoslavia with the slogan ‘Greece first’. Eternal collaborators, lackeys of the ruling power. Such is capitalist morality, which demands national collective responsibility for its heinous crimes, with the vote of the working classes. As Daniela Shultz said about Zionist security: “Israeli public discourse has always made the freedom of the Palestinian people — even their right to exist — conditional on the impact on Israeli ‘security’. From the right, which claims that security can only be achieved through occupation and settlements, to the Zionist left, which says ‘security will bring peace’”.

The Palestinian resistance demands the punishment of war criminals. The Greek prime minister was the first to meet with Netanyahu after he was indicted by the International Court of Justice. No Greek prosecutor has indicted Mitsotakis for harbouring an international war criminal. It was the left-wing government, with the complicity of all its current factions, that upgraded the strategic alliance with Zionism ten years ago. They bear collective political responsibility for the levelling of Gaza, for the colonisation of the West Bank, for the mass torture and indiscriminate executions of civilians in Gaza and in prisons, for the bombed hospitals, for the hundreds of murdered doctors, nurses and journalists, for the schools, mosques and churches that have been turned from shelters into mass graves. All of this has the signature of the slogan, ‘Greece first’. In the same national spirit, right-wing and left-wing governors are demanding that the working classes make further sacrifices to arm Western European imperialism, openly provoking an inter-imperialist war. A few days ago, the Greek Minister of War advised the European peoples to be prepared to see their children in coffins, implying that the Greeks are already prepared to receive their youth in coffins. The punishment of these genocidal murderers is not the responsibility of the Palestinian resistance, and no court of their own system will judge them.

They have been taking our measurements for a long time now, but they have miscalculated. Let us take our measures, let us nail them to the board with the same nails they have for our coffins. As Macron recently said, to survive in today’s world, you have to be feared, and to be feared, you have to be strong.

In solidarity with the struggle in British prisons, from Sunday 30/11 I will go on a week-long hunger strike (drinking water) and after that, for one day a week or depending on the progress of the situation of the hunger strikers who are on the front line.

History has taught us that prison is a crucial field of resistance. But let’s not get confused, the resisting political prisoners are a full moon on the dark side of the Earth. The sunny side is where rebellion and direct action are on the rise. Let us spread Palestine Action everywhere. Let us thicken the forest of revolutionary internationalism (with the real parallel drawn by comrade Massimo).

Freedom to the fighters of Palestine Action
Freedom for Elias Rodriguez and Casey Goonan
Honour to the anarchist revolutionary Aaron Bushnell
Freedom to all the hostages of the Zionist camp

“I am afraid of hunger, of losing people, of having nothing to lose, of rivers running dry, of poisoned land, of forest fires, of the invention, manufacture, and release of bombs that can evaporate people and leave holes in the earth where they stood. I’m scared of our silence, and what it’s apparently possible to normalise. I’m scared of what we can stomach. I’m scared of how easily you can be put in prison for not having money. I’m scared of war, of no one coming when we need them. But our silence, our fear, our productivity will not protect us,”
Amu Gib

“Elbit, while you boast of how your weapons have been ‘battle tested on Palestinians’, our Resistance will inform you that your tests have failed. Because Gaza will rise and Palestine will never die,” the hunger strikers.

To our anarchist comrades of post-industrial theory: No awe is due to the rotten state capitalist technology. The algorithm does nothing real: it is merely a metonymy, a veil over sweeping death. It is deceptive and incapacitating to see power where there is nothing but self-referential fear of the innovation of life.

“The difference between a nation rooted in its land and the campaigns of invasion that have repeatedly broken against the rock of its determination has not yet been understood”,
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

(No act of solidarity should be done in my name. The immediate goal is to make the British state yield in the face of the common struggle. In the Greek-NATO territory, the target is the war machine of the 1+3 alliance. As Comrade Anan said: “I am ashamed to find myself in a warm room, even in prison, while children in Gaza die of cold, hunger, and thirst”.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
Domokos Prison
Greece

Received by email

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=24574

#dimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #hungerStrike #internationalSolidarity #palestineAction

Anarchist Political Prisoner Dimitris Chatzivasieliadis Solidarity Message For Prisoner Anan Yaeesh

On November 28 2025, the Palestinian activist Anan Yaeesh, who was a political prisoner in occupied Palestine, will be tried by the Italian state. He is accused, without evidence, of collaborating with the Tulkarm Brigades (West Bank), an organisation linked to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed group of Fateh that resists the occupation. The EU is fighting on the front lines of the Zionist occupation with all means at its disposal. Comrade Anan stated: “You want me to defend myself against the accusations against me, but I am ashamed to seek acquittal on charges that, for me, represent a source of honor. I do not want to defend myself against the accusation of having rights and having claimed them, or of having tried to liberate my people and my country from colonial oppression. I swear that I have no intention of being acquitted of the legitimate resistance against the Zionist occupation. The Palestinian resistance is one of the noblest phenomena known to history”.

I express my respect for the memory of the two martyrs of the self-sacrificing attack on an Israeli settlement south of Bethlehem on November 18. As the Al-Shahid Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wrote in their tribute, “Our pledge is eternal revenge that does not fade. Tomorrow, fog will clear from hills”

Solidarity with Palestinian activist Anan Yaeesh
Freedom for the activists of Palestinian Action
Freedom for Elias Rodriguez and Casey Goonan
Honor to the anarchist revolutionary Aaron Bushnell
Freedom for all the hostages of the Zionist camp

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
27th of November
Domokos prison
Greece

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=24352

#anarchist #dimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #italy #palestine #politicalPrisoners #tulkaremBrigade

Anarchist Political Prisoner Dimitris Chatzivasieliadis Solidarity Message For Prisoner Anan Yaeesh

On November 28 2025, the Palestinian activist Anan Yaeesh, who was a political prisoner in occupied Palestine, will be tried by the Italian state. He is accused, without evidence, of collaborating with the Tulkarm Brigades (West Bank), an organisation linked to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed group of Fateh that resists the occupation. The EU is fighting on the front lines of the Zionist occupation with all means at its disposal. Comrade Anan stated: “You want me to defend myself against the accusations against me, but I am ashamed to seek acquittal on charges that, for me, represent a source of honor. I do not want to defend myself against the accusation of having rights and having claimed them, or of having tried to liberate my people and my country from colonial oppression. I swear that I have no intention of being acquitted of the legitimate resistance against the Zionist occupation. The Palestinian resistance is one of the noblest phenomena known to history”.

I express my respect for the memory of the two martyrs of the self-sacrificing attack on an Israeli settlement south of Bethlehem on November 18. As the Al-Shahid Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine wrote in their tribute, “Our pledge is eternal revenge that does not fade. Tomorrow, fog will clear from hills”

Solidarity with Palestinian activist Anan Yaeesh
Freedom for the activists of Palestinian Action
Freedom for Elias Rodriguez and Casey Goonan
Honor to the anarchist revolutionary Aaron Bushnell
Freedom for all the hostages of the Zionist camp

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
27th of November
Domokos prison
Greece

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=24352

#anarchist #dimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #italy #palestine #politicalPrisoners #tulkaremBrigade

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: 23/7 Christoforos Marinos, 11/7 Vasos Tsironis, 19/7 Willem Van Spronsen

They are waiting for us on the balcony

July 23 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the political assassination of the anarchist comrade Christoforos Marinos by EKAM by government order. The extrajudicial executions of social activists, by government decisions during the current political regime, aimed to secure it in the face of the danger of the emergence of an open subversive movement. The murder of Marinos took place in order to lock in the anarchist movement the political results that the assassination of Michalis Prekas (October 7, 1987) had produced, the internalization of military terrorism and the separation from the subversive struggle.

Comrade Christoforos was by Michalis’ side in his last battle. Preka’s exit to a balcony with the guns held high, the impetuous meeting with the firing squad, instead of negotiating a surrender, constituted a steel political message, a call that would reverberate until the death of the state and capital: the irreversible historical passage to the unyielding revolutionary struggle. As a prisoner, the killers of Marinos’ partner manipulated him to consolidate their terrorist order. His close friends were sold out in tactics. Those who understood what was at stake politically, moved backwards from the passage that was opened with the exit of Kalogreza. The others found an opportunity to cannibalize those targeted by the state in order to bury everything that had a reference to the subversive struggle. Marinos himself revived the passage. When it was kidnapped in Bulgaria, it overthrew the rule of its torturers. It has taken to the streets again on all social fronts. It embraced the younger fighters like no other. It was rearmed. It confronted internalized terrorism and its political products and finally cleared the passage from hypocritical relativisms. Since then, everyone has come to know that the two worlds are irreconcilable: In front of the passage is the revolution that springs up fighting and bleeding. Behind the mockery of rotting culture.

On July 11, 1978, doctor Tsironis was also murdered. On a balcony and this unyielding revolutionary, with a gun in his hand and the people in his heart. These balconies are the door to our home.

The crossing has been kept open until today. Anarchy flourished on the free side of history. But the passage stands there for every now, not for the reminiscence of the fragrance of past flowers. In these three decades the tyrants have departed, the seas and the earth have turned red like fire, the chains have become unbearable, one on top of the other they have shaded the sky. The nation of bosses is at war, more work is needed and the human surplus is in the landfill. The masses wake up, naked they regress back and forth. The predatory opportunists of the left and the right make the nakedness of the masses a new political surplus.

In a neighborhood today, on the platform of the Propylaea and in Paris, London, Berlin tomorrow, the balcony of the doctor, Michalis and Christoforos, they eagerly await the embrace of an armed forest. The screams of history will set the pace along the way. Release the comrades from the balcony guard. They will leave a banner on the railing, written on the foot with their stone patience, a note for the latecomers: “I MOVE AGAIN”.

Willem the Captain

I saw Willem last week among the workers of the United Farmer Workers of America, outside a farm, facing the prison guards of the American colony. He took the place of a brother who was to testify under the boots of ICE. Four days ago, on July 19, on the anniversary of his attack on an immigrant prison in Washington, D.C., he sent me a message. He rigged a ship in Barbaria. He took his Cretan rifle and has set fire to the yachts and the cruises, the five-star shacks and the clubs in the Greek brothel of the imperialists and their Zionist gendarmes. Chapter is the common sun, the water of the dispossessed, the sand of the Athenian desert, the bloody salt of the Mediterranean, the sweat of the workers who are called upon not to raise their heads so as not to be slaughtered like the barbarians of the South. Harmful flows from the looted places invade the brothel. They spoil the harmony of European capitalism in Christ. Yes, Captain! Rules from Gavdos to the North Pole, not to stay swimming from the two-millennial Roman Empire. Let’s bring my bright captain.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Source: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1637209/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=20497

#anarchist #AnarchistPrisoners #ChristoforosMarinos #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #VasosTsironis #WillemVanSpronsen

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: 23/7 Christoforos Marinos, 11/7 Vasos Tsironis, 19/7 Willem Van Spronsen

They are waiting for us on the balcony

July 23 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the political assassination of the anarchist comrade Christoforos Marinos by EKAM by government order. The extrajudicial executions of social activists, by government decisions during the current political regime, aimed to secure it in the face of the danger of the emergence of an open subversive movement. The murder of Marinos took place in order to lock in the anarchist movement the political results that the assassination of Michalis Prekas (October 7, 1987) had produced, the internalization of military terrorism and the separation from the subversive struggle.

Comrade Christoforos was by Michalis’ side in his last battle. Preka’s exit to a balcony with the guns held high, the impetuous meeting with the firing squad, instead of negotiating a surrender, constituted a steel political message, a call that would reverberate until the death of the state and capital: the irreversible historical passage to the unyielding revolutionary struggle. As a prisoner, the killers of Marinos’ partner manipulated him to consolidate their terrorist order. His close friends were sold out in tactics. Those who understood what was at stake politically, moved backwards from the passage that was opened with the exit of Kalogreza. The others found an opportunity to cannibalize those targeted by the state in order to bury everything that had a reference to the subversive struggle. Marinos himself revived the passage. When it was kidnapped in Bulgaria, it overthrew the rule of its torturers. It has taken to the streets again on all social fronts. It embraced the younger fighters like no other. It was rearmed. It confronted internalized terrorism and its political products and finally cleared the passage from hypocritical relativisms. Since then, everyone has come to know that the two worlds are irreconcilable: In front of the passage is the revolution that springs up fighting and bleeding. Behind the mockery of rotting culture.

On July 11, 1978, doctor Tsironis was also murdered. On a balcony and this unyielding revolutionary, with a gun in his hand and the people in his heart. These balconies are the door to our home.

The crossing has been kept open until today. Anarchy flourished on the free side of history. But the passage stands there for every now, not for the reminiscence of the fragrance of past flowers. In these three decades the tyrants have departed, the seas and the earth have turned red like fire, the chains have become unbearable, one on top of the other they have shaded the sky. The nation of bosses is at war, more work is needed and the human surplus is in the landfill. The masses wake up, naked they regress back and forth. The predatory opportunists of the left and the right make the nakedness of the masses a new political surplus.

In a neighborhood today, on the platform of the Propylaea and in Paris, London, Berlin tomorrow, the balcony of the doctor, Michalis and Christoforos, they eagerly await the embrace of an armed forest. The screams of history will set the pace along the way. Release the comrades from the balcony guard. They will leave a banner on the railing, written on the foot with their stone patience, a note for the latecomers: “I MOVE AGAIN”.

Willem the Captain

I saw Willem last week among the workers of the United Farmer Workers of America, outside a farm, facing the prison guards of the American colony. He took the place of a brother who was to testify under the boots of ICE. Four days ago, on July 19, on the anniversary of his attack on an immigrant prison in Washington, D.C., he sent me a message. He rigged a ship in Barbaria. He took his Cretan rifle and has set fire to the yachts and the cruises, the five-star shacks and the clubs in the Greek brothel of the imperialists and their Zionist gendarmes. Chapter is the common sun, the water of the dispossessed, the sand of the Athenian desert, the bloody salt of the Mediterranean, the sweat of the workers who are called upon not to raise their heads so as not to be slaughtered like the barbarians of the South. Harmful flows from the looted places invade the brothel. They spoil the harmony of European capitalism in Christ. Yes, Captain! Rules from Gavdos to the North Pole, not to stay swimming from the two-millennial Roman Empire. Let’s bring my bright captain.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Source: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1637209/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=20497

#anarchist #AnarchistPrisoners #ChristoforosMarinos #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #VasosTsironis #WillemVanSpronsen

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Attention! The Lackeys of Counter-Revolution Circulate Among Us

On Saturday, April 5th, a large group of relatives of victims of state and parastate murders and state-capitalist massacres are about to meet in a public debate. The whole social movement welcomes such a broad manifestation with joy and humility. The coordination of the discussion was assigned to two journalists, one of whom, driven by his demonstrated ideological-political commitment to the defense of the bourgeois regime, has contributed in the recent past to the policy of criminal extermination of the people of the social resistance in general and me in particular for my political commitment to the guerrilla social struggle and its defense against the bourgeoisie state judges. For this he has been publicly denounced (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1622067/). Writing political articles about the second instance trial against the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization and the Holargos case, he boldly sided with the policy of criminal repression of the revolutionary struggle, mocking the expression of guerrilla discourse in the courtroom, sucking up to the judges, advocating the “democratic” condemnation of the “guilty”, exaggerating the false objectivity that bourgeois criminal terrorism wears like a purifying coat and applauding the constant judicial attack for the depoliticization of the counter-revolutionary trial, the depoliticization of the disputed issues and the depoliticization of the subject to be exterminated.

What contribution to the public debate on social justice can a sculptural whistleblower dedicated to the Leviathan of the state-capitalist complex have? His invitation already gives movement justification and new energy to his dirty role. The extremes of the political assimilation of the antagonistic mindset into counter-revolutionary terrorism shift deeper into Leviathan, as the central position in the debate has been taken over by an ideological agent of special duties, who defends the judiciary, not only as a regulator of social justice in general, but as a “democratic” institution for the extermination of the armed movement. The organizers, masquerading as libertarians in the political arena, bring the butcher’s cradle to welcome the slaughterhouses. Now, it is reasonable that the sculptor of the counter-revolution will not mock the relatives of the victims for subjecting the judges to “procedural torture”, as he did against an armed militant, but he is here to validate the class-political competence of state judges to render justice, to punish the illegality according to bourgeois institutions, to define objectivity, to conduct a “fair trial”. Assistance in the depoliticization of counter-revolutionary trials is a vanguard in assisting in the conversion of the politicization of social anger, towards assimilation into the institutions of the regime and its defusement. A person who acts on the position that he has “closed his accounts” with revolutionary political ideas and ridicules the revolutionaries at a time when the judicial priesthood of anti-proletarian, anti-social and counter-revolutionary terrorism is fighting with dignity, can today intervene in the mass movement for state-capitalist massacres, only to de-revolutionize the issues at hand. To cause confusion, to instill loyalty and discord in the social movement, to introduce embankments to the common prospective path for the overthrow of genocidal class domination. His position next to the regime’s institutional complex then and now, a position that at that time called for the condemnation of the “guilty” of the revolutionary social struggle having first separated the armed and the unarmed ideas, today is a position of covering up the radical class-political causes of the political massacres, the “why?”, and the self-disguise of the institutional network of their legitimacy and cover-up. Because the truth that the people are looking for comes only through their subversive struggle, while reinvestment in universally discredited bourgeois institutions only brings terrorist silencing orders and new massacres.

The organizing political group should have known, if not in its entirety, the identity of the parastate journalist in question, since some of its cadres participated in procedures of support in the trial of the Holargos case – Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization. Those in the know, by placing the whistleblower among the bloody people of the social movement, have consciously assumed responsibility for an upgrade of provoking conflicts within the movement, something that the whistleblower had attempted. Nice social federalists! If they had at least a little honesty, they would not have called the apologist of the regime’s terrorism who wears the mask of the movement, they would have called directly Theodorikakos (former KKE), who rushed to embrace the murderers of Nikos Sambanis, they would have called Floridis (former PASOK), the rapporteur of the last penal code, they would have called the proud fascist Voridis.

It should be noted, apart from the prominent political hospitality of the sycophantic reporter in the lively dialogue of the resisting social subject, his name decorated with militant rhetoric was projected in the eminently open and federalist structure of the libertarian movement, in Athens Indymedia. The media’s management team cannot control the history of every person for whom a well-known political figure takes responsibility. Federalism is built on mutual trust. However, this raises political responsibilities and requires prudence. The depravity of opportunist arbitrariness must find its wall.

Parenthetically, the OmniaTV channel participates in the same event, members of which had been at the forefront of the reproduction of the imperialist and governmental terrorist propaganda of anti-health fascism and biotechnocratic colonialism on the social body. Fascism always has two legs: one of the traditional right and one of social democracy.

Bourgeois democracy does not prevent anyone from becoming the tail of the PASOK-SYRIZA party. It is the duty of anarchists not to allow the current insurrectionary movement to be driven in the teeth of reformism. The dirty reactionary strategy that exploits the libertarian struggles has a future only along the lines of parainstitutionalism and will sink with it. The revolutionary organization of anarchists is the only hope of a way out of the shackle and the slaughterhouse.

Together with those who come forward in search of justice against state and parastate crimes. Not even an inch of social ground for the reformist gravediggers.

There is no peace without justice

Scumbag snitch journalists

Thugs, opportunists, filth

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

3 April 2025

Domokos Prison

Source: https://blessed-is-the-flame.espivblogs.net/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-prosochi-oi-lakedes-tis-antepanastasis-kykloforoyn-anamesa-mas/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18378

#AnarchistPrisoners #counterRevolution #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #reformism #revolutionarySelfDefense

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis: Attention! The Lackeys of Counter-Revolution Circulate Among Us

On Saturday, April 5th, a large group of relatives of victims of state and parastate murders and state-capitalist massacres are about to meet in a public debate. The whole social movement welcomes such a broad manifestation with joy and humility. The coordination of the discussion was assigned to two journalists, one of whom, driven by his demonstrated ideological-political commitment to the defense of the bourgeois regime, has contributed in the recent past to the policy of criminal extermination of the people of the social resistance in general and me in particular for my political commitment to the guerrilla social struggle and its defense against the bourgeoisie state judges. For this he has been publicly denounced (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1622067/). Writing political articles about the second instance trial against the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization and the Holargos case, he boldly sided with the policy of criminal repression of the revolutionary struggle, mocking the expression of guerrilla discourse in the courtroom, sucking up to the judges, advocating the “democratic” condemnation of the “guilty”, exaggerating the false objectivity that bourgeois criminal terrorism wears like a purifying coat and applauding the constant judicial attack for the depoliticization of the counter-revolutionary trial, the depoliticization of the disputed issues and the depoliticization of the subject to be exterminated.

What contribution to the public debate on social justice can a sculptural whistleblower dedicated to the Leviathan of the state-capitalist complex have? His invitation already gives movement justification and new energy to his dirty role. The extremes of the political assimilation of the antagonistic mindset into counter-revolutionary terrorism shift deeper into Leviathan, as the central position in the debate has been taken over by an ideological agent of special duties, who defends the judiciary, not only as a regulator of social justice in general, but as a “democratic” institution for the extermination of the armed movement. The organizers, masquerading as libertarians in the political arena, bring the butcher’s cradle to welcome the slaughterhouses. Now, it is reasonable that the sculptor of the counter-revolution will not mock the relatives of the victims for subjecting the judges to “procedural torture”, as he did against an armed militant, but he is here to validate the class-political competence of state judges to render justice, to punish the illegality according to bourgeois institutions, to define objectivity, to conduct a “fair trial”. Assistance in the depoliticization of counter-revolutionary trials is a vanguard in assisting in the conversion of the politicization of social anger, towards assimilation into the institutions of the regime and its defusement. A person who acts on the position that he has “closed his accounts” with revolutionary political ideas and ridicules the revolutionaries at a time when the judicial priesthood of anti-proletarian, anti-social and counter-revolutionary terrorism is fighting with dignity, can today intervene in the mass movement for state-capitalist massacres, only to de-revolutionize the issues at hand. To cause confusion, to instill loyalty and discord in the social movement, to introduce embankments to the common prospective path for the overthrow of genocidal class domination. His position next to the regime’s institutional complex then and now, a position that at that time called for the condemnation of the “guilty” of the revolutionary social struggle having first separated the armed and the unarmed ideas, today is a position of covering up the radical class-political causes of the political massacres, the “why?”, and the self-disguise of the institutional network of their legitimacy and cover-up. Because the truth that the people are looking for comes only through their subversive struggle, while reinvestment in universally discredited bourgeois institutions only brings terrorist silencing orders and new massacres.

The organizing political group should have known, if not in its entirety, the identity of the parastate journalist in question, since some of its cadres participated in procedures of support in the trial of the Holargos case – Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization. Those in the know, by placing the whistleblower among the bloody people of the social movement, have consciously assumed responsibility for an upgrade of provoking conflicts within the movement, something that the whistleblower had attempted. Nice social federalists! If they had at least a little honesty, they would not have called the apologist of the regime’s terrorism who wears the mask of the movement, they would have called directly Theodorikakos (former KKE), who rushed to embrace the murderers of Nikos Sambanis, they would have called Floridis (former PASOK), the rapporteur of the last penal code, they would have called the proud fascist Voridis.

It should be noted, apart from the prominent political hospitality of the sycophantic reporter in the lively dialogue of the resisting social subject, his name decorated with militant rhetoric was projected in the eminently open and federalist structure of the libertarian movement, in Athens Indymedia. The media’s management team cannot control the history of every person for whom a well-known political figure takes responsibility. Federalism is built on mutual trust. However, this raises political responsibilities and requires prudence. The depravity of opportunist arbitrariness must find its wall.

Parenthetically, the OmniaTV channel participates in the same event, members of which had been at the forefront of the reproduction of the imperialist and governmental terrorist propaganda of anti-health fascism and biotechnocratic colonialism on the social body. Fascism always has two legs: one of the traditional right and one of social democracy.

Bourgeois democracy does not prevent anyone from becoming the tail of the PASOK-SYRIZA party. It is the duty of anarchists not to allow the current insurrectionary movement to be driven in the teeth of reformism. The dirty reactionary strategy that exploits the libertarian struggles has a future only along the lines of parainstitutionalism and will sink with it. The revolutionary organization of anarchists is the only hope of a way out of the shackle and the slaughterhouse.

Together with those who come forward in search of justice against state and parastate crimes. Not even an inch of social ground for the reformist gravediggers.

There is no peace without justice

Scumbag snitch journalists

Thugs, opportunists, filth

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

3 April 2025

Domokos Prison

Source: https://blessed-is-the-flame.espivblogs.net/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-prosochi-oi-lakedes-tis-antepanastasis-kykloforoyn-anamesa-mas/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=18378

#AnarchistPrisoners #counterRevolution #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #reformism #revolutionarySelfDefense

Message of Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis for the Trial of Comrade Daniela Klette

The whole game of the German state on the comrades Daniela Klette, Ernst Volker Staub and Burkhard Garweg is an operation of psychological warfare, what they call in their terminology psy ops. In addition to the always fruitless attempt of the counter-insurgency to isolate revolutionary struggle, in this hunt it wants to torture the living history, to bury it under the concrete, in order to spread the idea that all resistance is eventually exterminated, to instill terror in the new revolutionary generations. The act of evading from the counter-insurgency’s dragnet is an important resistance: It removes from the state the opportunity to hold the ritual of the “final act”. For this reason, its vengeance against defiant history, now manifested on the body and person of comrade Daniela, is rampant.

The fugitives prove that the passage to free life cannot be blocked. Despite the capitulation of the revolutionary organization, the three comrades have lived for decades in the struggle for the self-organization of proletarian life against the chains of class discipline and bourgeois civilization that kills for money. Now it is in the hands of all of us to pass on the history of the comrades to the current resistances. The hearts that refuse to live enslaved do not leave the final act to any master. And because every “final” word of the state, political, judicial, economic, scientific, determines the crushing of the common body, we will do everything to end Daniela Klette’s captivity.

The most important political legacy of the German revolutionary movement is the strategic and organic internationalism. Burkhard to this day is not hiding, he is singing for the bloodied body of Palestine, of Kurdistan, of the poly-ethnic proletariat and the Earth. The familiar old Europe of colonial war, nationalism and imperialism wants to put Daniela on trial. Let the vampires understand that our people are not for their teeth.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

20-03-2025

Domokos prison

https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1634702/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17825

#AnarchistPrisoners #danielaKlette #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #germany #PoliticalPrisoners #raf

Message of Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis for the Trial of Comrade Daniela Klette

The whole game of the German state on the comrades Daniela Klette, Ernst Volker Staub and Burkhard Garweg is an operation of psychological warfare, what they call in their terminology psy ops. In addition to the always fruitless attempt of the counter-insurgency to isolate revolutionary struggle, in this hunt it wants to torture the living history, to bury it under the concrete, in order to spread the idea that all resistance is eventually exterminated, to instill terror in the new revolutionary generations. The act of evading from the counter-insurgency’s dragnet is an important resistance: It removes from the state the opportunity to hold the ritual of the “final act”. For this reason, its vengeance against defiant history, now manifested on the body and person of comrade Daniela, is rampant.

The fugitives prove that the passage to free life cannot be blocked. Despite the capitulation of the revolutionary organization, the three comrades have lived for decades in the struggle for the self-organization of proletarian life against the chains of class discipline and bourgeois civilization that kills for money. Now it is in the hands of all of us to pass on the history of the comrades to the current resistances. The hearts that refuse to live enslaved do not leave the final act to any master. And because every “final” word of the state, political, judicial, economic, scientific, determines the crushing of the common body, we will do everything to end Daniela Klette’s captivity.

The most important political legacy of the German revolutionary movement is the strategic and organic internationalism. Burkhard to this day is not hiding, he is singing for the bloodied body of Palestine, of Kurdistan, of the poly-ethnic proletariat and the Earth. The familiar old Europe of colonial war, nationalism and imperialism wants to put Daniela on trial. Let the vampires understand that our people are not for their teeth.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

20-03-2025

Domokos prison

https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1634702/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=17825

#AnarchistPrisoners #danielaKlette #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #germany #PoliticalPrisoners #raf

D. Chatzivasileiadis: International Call for the Revolutionary Union of Anarchists

First part, introductory: 12th of February 2012

On 12 February 2012 the last big battle of the anti-austerity movement (in the Greek territory) took place. Other open battles followed in the following years, but after that day, when the movement realized that it had reached the limits of its power, it did not revive. The objective of this longstanding insurrectionary movement, which was to cancel the parliament during the passing of the controversial laws or even to occupy it, was lost for good during the popular attempt on 12/2/2012. It was the biggest militant gathering since 1973. Half a million people, once again, but for what would be the last time, surrounded the central institution of the regime and after being repelled by chemical bombardment, we made persistent efforts to reach the target again. The state’s military machine, without resorting to the use of standard weapons of warfare, overpowered a huge yet unarmed mass of people.

The turning point of the anti-austerity movement became a critical juncture for various poles of the anti-authoritarian movement that led them to prioritize the question of the revolutionary program and the question of organization. We all recognized the impasse of one-dimensional insurrectionism, that is, of the deferral of all questions to the dynamics of the insurgent mass and to the moment of insurrection. However, the road to overcoming all the culminated weaknesses remained blurred. The program and the political organization became the new points of deferral for all critical issues, while denouncing insurrectionary practice. On the other hand, for the political poles who denied the necessity of organizational unity, it was enough to distort the experience and the project of the insurrection into an ephemeral experience or into an expression of the prevalence of alternativist experimentation. The advocates of the need for organization of the popular power were few and weak within the political balances in the movement; they were voices that stemmed from armed practice and were therefore capable of being conscious of the material conditions of the current class-political conflict. Both those who replaced insurrectionism with organizationalism and those who removed the subversive substance of insurrection, underestimated the revolutionary qualities of the struggling mass. It is enough to make an observation from the depths of Bolshevik social democracy a century ago, not famous for its insurrectionism, in order to leave behind these conservative positions as the prehistory of bourgeois philosophy. Antonio Gramsci: “The use of the word spontaneous is elitist because it refers to a scholastic and academic conception that identifies as true and worthy of consideration only those insurrectionary movements that are 100% conscious, meaning movements that are guided by premeditation to the last detail or placed along an abstract theoretical line”1. Structurelessness [tn: otherwise known as informalismo] and alternativism fall under the same critique invertedly, because they also separate social spontaneity from revolutionary orientation and the capacity for readiness, so as to identify as genuine, spontaneous and authentic only those movements that seem to favor the validation of such a separation. A recent example is the separation of the 1st Palestinian Intifada from the organized armed resistance, in the service of the repudiation of the October 7 revolutionary initiative.

The reintroduction of the issues about program and organization also reactivated the questions of the relations between political and class or social organization, the question about competency over drafting the program and about its class basis. Within the course of the dialogue on the issue of organization in the past five years locally (Athens), collective proposals and personal theoretical positions have been formed with references to the Platform of Dielo Truda. Since 2020, from the state of exile and from prison, I have taken a position on these key issues in a number of analytical texts. The evolution of the class-political struggle on a global scale, the state of the anarchist movement internationally and the directions that the use of platformist ideas in the Greek movement have taken, require the articulation of a precise proposal on the union of anarchists today; a proposal for the renewal and not the distortion and burial of our revolutionary history. Many of us have participated in the struggle for organization over the last decade. Also many study history and the active dialogue. Judging that currently in the Greek movement there is no declared project of revolutionary anarchist organization, and from the state of being incarcerated, I aim to address directly (and therefore simultaneously) the whole of the anarchist movement locally and internationally. The very logic of my proposal, which I consider to emanate from the historical lessons of revolutionary anarchism, requires that it be communicated over the maximum geographical range without delay. As a prisoner of the revolutionary people’s war, who unwaveringly advocates subversive action and organization, I ought to give this political proposal the character of a call.

My text will come in segments, so that it may be easily understood. It will be published in sequences, and in order to save time I will avoid repeating the arguments I have already presented in previous texts. I am addressing the comrades who want to understand. I will briefly discuss the basics, the conclusions and the coherent train of thought. In the part where I describe the theoretical model and the general organizational path of the anarchist union, I will be particularly specific and accompany the text with diagrams.

With the invaluable solidarity of a few comrades, the text can initially be published in both Greek and English. Its republication and translation into other languages will be an indicator of its recognition or rejection as a fruitful proposal.

The first question that needs to be answered before I proceed is the productive order of the questions posed. First comes the program or the organization? First the political or the class/social organization? Past, present and future of practical theory, in what order? There are six different arrangements of time points and each gives a reading of the universe from a different starting point. Which is most appropriate for developing a proposal for revolutionary organization? I will directly note the general order and in the course the sequence of specific themes will become clear. The discussion about organizational questions presupposes that we determine the goal. The general revolutionary program comes first. Therefore, we begin with what follows and what is to come, in accordance with the revolutionary purpose and revolutionary practice as preconditions. Then we go through the history of our purpose, its practice and its organization, so that we can discuss on the current context bearing the knowledge of our history. Revolutionary practice is a restoration of the optimum of the evolutionary path of the human species and a rupture from the historical chains of our class-political weaknesses. This brings us to the topical program of struggle and after that particularly to the organizational program. Although the general revolutionary program, which refers to the whole of the revolutionary social subject, precedes the discussion on the matter of political organization, the questions about the general organization of the social/class movement and of the social revolution appear downsized and distorted when the revolutionary vision is actively absent. Thus, while the social movement is the matrix and not a mechanical extension of political organizations, it is misleading to discuss its development if we have not defined our basic commitments as comrades and interlocutors on the subject. The questions on social self-direction and classless reconstruction are the last to be dealt with, but we must certainly deal with them, although the last word is always with bodies much broader than political organizations.

Second part: A basic coherent program of class liberation and social self-management.

For ten years now, since the preliminary work for the formation of an anarchist political organization in the Greek movement, there has been much talk about the “revolutionary program”. The program is signified as the expected new testament that will solve the riddles of history. All the investments in the program, which is always postponed, focus on the revolutionary social transformation after the overthrow of state and capitalist power. Do we really need such a program? If so, why was the international revolutionary proletarian movement of the last two centuries incapable of drawing it up, but we, the modern Greek philosophers of anarchy are capable?

Yes, a defined revolutionary cause is required for the revolutionary struggle. Revolution is a total social transformation, since, even if it does not immediately change everything, it puts everything under trial under unified criteria. A general program of social transformation is necessary for the orientation of the revolutionary struggle.

The evolution of social intelligence in general and the struggles of the exploited classes during the centuries of domination of the capitalist mode of production in particular, made the drafting of an anti-capitalist revolutionary program necessary and feasible. We have had this program for centuries now, at least ever since Babeuf, or rather since the Münster Commune and beyond. Liberation of the producers from the domination of capital and social self-management through the producers’ associations and the communities [tn: otherwise, the demos]… As long as we are still within capitalism, the idea remains radical, but anyone who presents it as new is rather self-satisfied

Those convinced of the absence of the revolutionary program will object that the above statement is a truism of zero value in terms of the need they point out, because the general historical program is too abstract. We agree, but the discussion must begin with the recognition that we have the general program in many variations and with plenty of experiences of its imperfect application. Nor is there any lack of specificity. In the anarchist movement alone, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the revolution in Ukraine, Dielo Truda, the CNT, other libertarian revolutionary projects (Korea, China), etc., have formulated and/or implemented concrete programs. Were they all incomplete? There are two ways to answer the question, an idealist-elitist one and a materialist-prudent one. One version: they lacked a consistent concretization of the ideal. Who defines the criteria of consistency with the ideal? The concretization of the ideal and the determination of the criteria of consistency are a tautology. Only a new concretization can become a criterion of inconsistency. But then, since the judgment is applied retrospectively, it is authoritarian, claiming ownership of “authenticity”. Moreover, such judgments are ahistorical. So we go to the other version. Each program expresses a historically finite subjectivity. Therefore, the topical reformulation of the general program is constantly necessary. Let’s be cautious here. We are dealing with two dimensions of change: on the one hand, the general conditions of the class-political struggle and the material conditions evolve, and on the other hand, the subjects who through their struggle reassess, reformulate, etc. are renewed. An important evolutionary social contribution of the anarchist movement is the political cultivation of openly composing collective thought. The reformulation of historical reference data by every subject of revolutionary struggle brings history and writings to life. Each new reformulation is a piece that was inevitably missing due to historical dialectics and will become a new testament, but it cannot be “The Program”. This exists only in the most abstract political-social purpose, always within historical limits and has been formulated long before. Openness to reformulations is not of interest to us as a matter of epistemological relativism, although it is inherent as a natural parameter – it is of interest to us from the point of view of the needs, relations and possibilities of each struggling subject and, fundamentally, of the active and therefore primarily living subjects. In the movement of social self-direction, of liberation from all class domination and incidentally from heteronomous political management, each participating subject specifies and revises all programs. No political subject can specify a revolutionary program in the absence of the subjects who will implement it. What is called a program can only be common as a process of practical transformation through successive formulations of collective judgments and new proposals. Save this observation for later.

We go to the reflective dimension of change, to the historical objectivity of class-political conditions. Revolution is an antagonistic process. The time framework for the proposed program does not begin when the class-political enemy is eliminated, it begins every day anew, having as its horizon that catalytic moment. The separation of a stage of class-political antagonism from the stage of social transformation is mechanistic, socially unnatural and a figment of the crudest bourgeois mentality. To say from a materialist and not an idealist position that the end is determined by the means is to say that the process of conflict and the process of social transformation are a single process with two aspects at once, its relation to the class-historical establishment and its relation to the freedom it brings about. The general leaps are made thanks to the development of the unity of the two aspects; they do not confirm the postponement of social transformation and the reduction of the conflict to a mediating stage, a “necessary evil” in contradiction to the ideal end. The answer to “how do we get there?” is the practical “this is how we apply the purpose here and now”. The “grand program” is concretized in the set of current programs of immediate subversive action and social reconstruction, programs whose implementation began centuries ago and is still a long way off.

The real pivotal issue in any program is not the concretization of the ideal, but the concretization of the ways of struggle in the present evolutionary phase of the ongoing historical antagonism between revolution and counter-revolution and its forthcoming phases. The anti-austerity movement failed to block the bourgeois parliament, not because it did not know what to do next, but because it was not suitably and sufficiently organized class-wise, socially and politico-militarily to overpower the counterinsurgency at the contested point that would objectively open up the prospect of revolutionary directions, if there existed political subjects ready for that. Every program is determined through the day-to-day specific terms of the conflict between revolution and counter-revolution, and the program must be basic in terms of the temporally immediate correlation of ends and means and coherent in terms of the temporally immediate requirements of revolutionary unity. Great revolutionary ideas take concrete radical forms through these two practical immediacies (of becoming and totality).

Historically there is one ideal program common to all those who desire the abolition of exploitation. Even the liberal left agrees that the form of polity that has historically been called anarchy is the ideal. Political programs differ along the way. Marxists place stages in the program for overcoming bourgeois civilization, especially Leninists mediate evolution with the political party state, liberals do not recognize any way outside the gradual transformation of the present state, i.e. they are reformists in the narrow sense, while liberal anti-authoritarians hope for changes to occur in ideas and morals that will overpower and paralyze the power of the state. Historically, we have not been called anarchists in general those of us who value the anarchist vision – I know right-wingers who embrace it – but those who fight for the direct overthrow of capitalism and the state. The different programs may converge in the different partial albeit necessary struggles, even in projects of overthrowing political regimes. For example, I note only the collaboration of Italian anarchists and republicans in the Spanish anti-fascist front2 . However, different political programs define different and antagonistic intermediate goals and to varying degrees different practices and types of organization. Precisely because the points of conflict run through the general struggle and there come moments when non-anarchist co-fighters assume pro-regime positions and cross over to the enemy side or become the new counter-revolution, the distinct anarchist program demands an autonomous political base (drastically, productively/organizationally, programmatically/ideologically) to withstand the alternations of the counter-revolution and move forward stronger in its perspective. Thus the crucial concretization of the anarchist revolutionary program does not involve the theoretically specific questions of post-revolutionary social organization, but the immediate class-political conditions of foundation and coherence. The ways in which we struggle, before defining exactly the imaginary vision of the society we want, first define our determination to actually get there.

The political anarchist organization, that is, the united direct and programmatic action of people who are practically committed to the struggle for anarchy, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the implementation of an anarchist program of revolutionary struggle. A mass workers’ or broader social/proletarian movement in general does not suffice either. Revolutionary struggle does not move forward without the organizational correlation of its political purpose and its social/class basis. It requires the organization of the social/class struggle in politically autonomous terms (ideological, programmatic, material and practical). The development of class and social organizations of direct struggle in fundamental political terms is a basic condition for the unfolding of a revolutionary anarchist program. Based on its class-political, class-social and socio-political organic unity, the revolutionary anarchist movement can and does become coherent in direct struggle, co-forming conditions of politically broader co-organization and front-line struggles. In terms of its syntax, every class or even social organization has a political identity. Also the characteristics of social/class fronts express political relations. The revolutionary anarchist organization and its programmatic proposals do not intervene in what is falsely regarded as neutral organizational social spaces, instead they organize social space in libertarian revolutionary terms and thus intervene in the class-political struggle and position themselves within the popular world. The socio-political bases of the evolving anarchist program are furthermore the defining foundations for the revolutionary transformations that can be made after a defeat of the counter-revolution. The constants of the direct struggle on the class field concretize the ‘grand program’.

I think it’s clear that I entered the subject of so-called organizational dualism. I will come back to it later, analyzing the issues of revolutionary anarchist organization and program in their topicality. For now, however, take it for granted that, in this political proposal, duality (or trinity, by distinguishing community-based self-organization in class-political oppression and exploitation and the territorial self-organization of the free community) does not distinguish social/class identities from political ones and does not imply the recognition of an apolitical universal class organizational field. For which class organizations does it make sense to be based on the synthesis of different political identities? Those formations that can be open to the cooperation of existing class-political and socio-political organizations and their counterpart at the most elementary scale of organization, such as labour unions of a particular company or business and local popular assemblies. A grassroots sectoral union, a Nth grade federation or a social structure and a supra-local organ of social self-management are always created with a specific political vision, which is inscribed in their aims, in their modes of struggle and in their modes of internal functioning. Logically, the subordination of class or social organizations to the political organization puts a stranglehold on mass participation or grassroots autonomy. However, the anarchist revolutionary organization has a duty and need to take initiatives to build up and engage participation in grassroots organizations consistent with its program.

What distinguishes the anarchist revolutionary program from any other political program? I noted earlier that all other paths invest in stages contradictory to the ultimate goal. They do not simply anticipate that the struggle must cross successive antagonistic states, as any political subject would logically think, but more fundamentally they concentrate their forces on contradictory intermediate goals. All other currents characterize anarchism as utopian. Their discrediting claim against the anarchist struggle is based solely on the utopian character that their own programs ascribe to the ultimate cause. The liberal and Marxist left’s investment in intermediate stages, which bear elements of statism and capitalism, presents libertarian communism as utopian.3

So, it is true to say that anarchist practice predominantly focuses on the consistency of ends and means. But this observation only applies to the ultimate end that other programs characterize as utopian. Statist political organizations are for the most part consistent with the most direct of their intermediate ends. It is important to understand this in order to be aware of the strengths and difficulties of the anarchist struggle. We turn to the question. The anarchist revolutionary program is not characterized by its consistency to the immediate, intermediate or ultimate goal, but by the immediacy of the ultimate goal. The anarchist program denies the denunciatory utopianism of bourgeois socialist theories.

The power of our programmatic proposals is the immediate implementation of the conditions of the stated purpose. Immediacy in time: Now! Immediacy of subject: Us, here, the oppressed popular body. Here and now.

Immediate implementation of the conditions that the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization4 had summarized in the three basic directions for the contemporary international revolutionary movement that will abolish the domination of state and capital:

Α. The immediate aim is the overthrow of the political-military and financial regime, the overthrow of state institutions and the uprooting of mechanisms of authority. Β. The immediate aim is the socialization of all wealth through armed communes that should and must be established today by the revolutionary action of labor and community assemblies and the formation of open federal structures in an universal framework. Self-organization of the confrontation must aim at pushing back exploitation and control, it must also reinforce the self-defense of the social movement and of all its advances. Fighters have the socio-political duty to transfuse class and social resistances with the paradigm of direct counterattack against the political-military and economic regime and with the experience which conveys that we can crush terrorism and its domination. C. Mass revolutionary self-organization, social self-direction here and now.

Of course, if immediacy is not applied to the proposition itself, i.e. if the proposition is not manifested in practice, then the term of immediacy is false and the proposition loses its validity. The anarchist program does not wait for elections, some definitive insurrection or a universal ecumenical assembly and consensus to be implemented. It is from their immediate revolutionary deed that anarchist proposals derive their crystal clear and unparalleled truth and, incidentally, their social force.

The particularly great difficulties and the heavy tasks of the anarchist struggle derive from the same point. To fight today, cutting all bridges with the old world. This is what consistency to immediacy means. For a century and a half now the anarchist movement has built a legacy of paradigms of self-sacrificing immediacy. Its history and its truth have brought it to the strongest position of influence among the currents of resistance within the capitalist metropolis in the last half century.

Nevertheless, the rejection of intermediate stages in which established political conditions prevail, rejection which implies allowing for the direct responsibilities to be determined and scrutinized by the struggling subjects, is open to interpretations that are blatantly contradictory to the duty of immediacy and to the determination of any common criterion of consistency. Undoubtedly, the commitment to the immediacy of the social purpose makes the responsibilities vis a vis the objective conditions of domination, exploitation, extermination, etc., heavier and more radical; far from being relativistic or fragmentary and negligible. The ideology of “freedom of choice” between fields and forms of struggle is a cover for a self-serving conservatism, which, being uncommitted to any immediate duty with regards to the class-political conditions, tends to attribute a minimum of radicalism or even reactionary stances in its association with the class or political frontier (e.g. in relation to the Palestinian resistance). Where bourgeois conventions do not apply, there it becomes apparent whether the refusal of intermediate conventional goals is an expression of direct struggle and a commitment to march to the completion of the struggle or an idealistic evasion.

The ideology of “freedom of choice” is also projected deceptively with seemingly serious political terms by collective subjects who present themselves as advocates of robust organization: practical and programmatic commitments that are fundamental in the aforementioned terms of immediacy are respectively called tactics and strategies that are optional according to circumstances. This ideological modesty manifests itself precisely where circumstances are the product of conservative fixation on underlying weaknesses.

The culmination of this deconstructive relativism is the common use of the natural consequence of the consistency between ends and means (renamed as an anarchist ‘principle’), in order to claim inaction due to the condition about not violating the ‘principles’. Like the hypocrisy of the religious zealots, it doesn’t matter if you do what is necessary or you do nothing against the savagery of authority and the tragedy of the times, as long as you do nothing that falls into or resembles the political practices of the politically intermediate stages. In this normative context the ideologically safest option is to do nothing.

The evasions from the heavy tasks of immediacy confirm the reactionary denunciation of anarchism as a utopian political current. In the historical flow of the struggle, however, it is subversive acts, not unarmed declarations, that count more.

1. From the book by Raúl Zibechi, Dispersing Powers: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces (AK Press, 2010)
2. Umberto Tomazini, The Anarchist Blacksmith, ed. Eutopia, Athens 2024
3. The platformist organizations UNIPA and OPAR in their project have analyzed the historical reversal of the
   accusation about utopianism and the opportunist motive of Marxist utopianism.
   (https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/documentos/documentos-internacionais/)
4. https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1592926/

Received by email

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=16848

#anarchist #AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #internationalist #platformism

D. Chatzivasileiadis: International Call for the Revolutionary Union of Anarchists

First part, introductory: 12th of February 2012

On 12 February 2012 the last big battle of the anti-austerity movement (in the Greek territory) took place. Other open battles followed in the following years, but after that day, when the movement realized that it had reached the limits of its power, it did not revive. The objective of this longstanding insurrectionary movement, which was to cancel the parliament during the passing of the controversial laws or even to occupy it, was lost for good during the popular attempt on 12/2/2012. It was the biggest militant gathering since 1973. Half a million people, once again, but for what would be the last time, surrounded the central institution of the regime and after being repelled by chemical bombardment, we made persistent efforts to reach the target again. The state’s military machine, without resorting to the use of standard weapons of warfare, overpowered a huge yet unarmed mass of people.

The turning point of the anti-austerity movement became a critical juncture for various poles of the anti-authoritarian movement that led them to prioritize the question of the revolutionary program and the question of organization. We all recognized the impasse of one-dimensional insurrectionism, that is, of the deferral of all questions to the dynamics of the insurgent mass and to the moment of insurrection. However, the road to overcoming all the culminated weaknesses remained blurred. The program and the political organization became the new points of deferral for all critical issues, while denouncing insurrectionary practice. On the other hand, for the political poles who denied the necessity of organizational unity, it was enough to distort the experience and the project of the insurrection into an ephemeral experience or into an expression of the prevalence of alternativist experimentation. The advocates of the need for organization of the popular power were few and weak within the political balances in the movement; they were voices that stemmed from armed practice and were therefore capable of being conscious of the material conditions of the current class-political conflict. Both those who replaced insurrectionism with organizationalism and those who removed the subversive substance of insurrection, underestimated the revolutionary qualities of the struggling mass. It is enough to make an observation from the depths of Bolshevik social democracy a century ago, not famous for its insurrectionism, in order to leave behind these conservative positions as the prehistory of bourgeois philosophy. Antonio Gramsci: “The use of the word spontaneous is elitist because it refers to a scholastic and academic conception that identifies as true and worthy of consideration only those insurrectionary movements that are 100% conscious, meaning movements that are guided by premeditation to the last detail or placed along an abstract theoretical line”1. Structurelessness [tn: otherwise known as informalismo] and alternativism fall under the same critique invertedly, because they also separate social spontaneity from revolutionary orientation and the capacity for readiness, so as to identify as genuine, spontaneous and authentic only those movements that seem to favor the validation of such a separation. A recent example is the separation of the 1st Palestinian Intifada from the organized armed resistance, in the service of the repudiation of the October 7 revolutionary initiative.

The reintroduction of the issues about program and organization also reactivated the questions of the relations between political and class or social organization, the question about competency over drafting the program and about its class basis. Within the course of the dialogue on the issue of organization in the past five years locally (Athens), collective proposals and personal theoretical positions have been formed with references to the Platform of Dielo Truda. Since 2020, from the state of exile and from prison, I have taken a position on these key issues in a number of analytical texts. The evolution of the class-political struggle on a global scale, the state of the anarchist movement internationally and the directions that the use of platformist ideas in the Greek movement have taken, require the articulation of a precise proposal on the union of anarchists today; a proposal for the renewal and not the distortion and burial of our revolutionary history. Many of us have participated in the struggle for organization over the last decade. Also many study history and the active dialogue. Judging that currently in the Greek movement there is no declared project of revolutionary anarchist organization, and from the state of being incarcerated, I aim to address directly (and therefore simultaneously) the whole of the anarchist movement locally and internationally. The very logic of my proposal, which I consider to emanate from the historical lessons of revolutionary anarchism, requires that it be communicated over the maximum geographical range without delay. As a prisoner of the revolutionary people’s war, who unwaveringly advocates subversive action and organization, I ought to give this political proposal the character of a call.

My text will come in segments, so that it may be easily understood. It will be published in sequences, and in order to save time I will avoid repeating the arguments I have already presented in previous texts. I am addressing the comrades who want to understand. I will briefly discuss the basics, the conclusions and the coherent train of thought. In the part where I describe the theoretical model and the general organizational path of the anarchist union, I will be particularly specific and accompany the text with diagrams.

With the invaluable solidarity of a few comrades, the text can initially be published in both Greek and English. Its republication and translation into other languages will be an indicator of its recognition or rejection as a fruitful proposal.

The first question that needs to be answered before I proceed is the productive order of the questions posed. First comes the program or the organization? First the political or the class/social organization? Past, present and future of practical theory, in what order? There are six different arrangements of time points and each gives a reading of the universe from a different starting point. Which is most appropriate for developing a proposal for revolutionary organization? I will directly note the general order and in the course the sequence of specific themes will become clear. The discussion about organizational questions presupposes that we determine the goal. The general revolutionary program comes first. Therefore, we begin with what follows and what is to come, in accordance with the revolutionary purpose and revolutionary practice as preconditions. Then we go through the history of our purpose, its practice and its organization, so that we can discuss on the current context bearing the knowledge of our history. Revolutionary practice is a restoration of the optimum of the evolutionary path of the human species and a rupture from the historical chains of our class-political weaknesses. This brings us to the topical program of struggle and after that particularly to the organizational program. Although the general revolutionary program, which refers to the whole of the revolutionary social subject, precedes the discussion on the matter of political organization, the questions about the general organization of the social/class movement and of the social revolution appear downsized and distorted when the revolutionary vision is actively absent. Thus, while the social movement is the matrix and not a mechanical extension of political organizations, it is misleading to discuss its development if we have not defined our basic commitments as comrades and interlocutors on the subject. The questions on social self-direction and classless reconstruction are the last to be dealt with, but we must certainly deal with them, although the last word is always with bodies much broader than political organizations.

Second part: A basic coherent program of class liberation and social self-management.

For ten years now, since the preliminary work for the formation of an anarchist political organization in the Greek movement, there has been much talk about the “revolutionary program”. The program is signified as the expected new testament that will solve the riddles of history. All the investments in the program, which is always postponed, focus on the revolutionary social transformation after the overthrow of state and capitalist power. Do we really need such a program? If so, why was the international revolutionary proletarian movement of the last two centuries incapable of drawing it up, but we, the modern Greek philosophers of anarchy are capable?

Yes, a defined revolutionary cause is required for the revolutionary struggle. Revolution is a total social transformation, since, even if it does not immediately change everything, it puts everything under trial under unified criteria. A general program of social transformation is necessary for the orientation of the revolutionary struggle.

The evolution of social intelligence in general and the struggles of the exploited classes during the centuries of domination of the capitalist mode of production in particular, made the drafting of an anti-capitalist revolutionary program necessary and feasible. We have had this program for centuries now, at least ever since Babeuf, or rather since the Münster Commune and beyond. Liberation of the producers from the domination of capital and social self-management through the producers’ associations and the communities [tn: otherwise, the demos]… As long as we are still within capitalism, the idea remains radical, but anyone who presents it as new is rather self-satisfied

Those convinced of the absence of the revolutionary program will object that the above statement is a truism of zero value in terms of the need they point out, because the general historical program is too abstract. We agree, but the discussion must begin with the recognition that we have the general program in many variations and with plenty of experiences of its imperfect application. Nor is there any lack of specificity. In the anarchist movement alone, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the revolution in Ukraine, Dielo Truda, the CNT, other libertarian revolutionary projects (Korea, China), etc., have formulated and/or implemented concrete programs. Were they all incomplete? There are two ways to answer the question, an idealist-elitist one and a materialist-prudent one. One version: they lacked a consistent concretization of the ideal. Who defines the criteria of consistency with the ideal? The concretization of the ideal and the determination of the criteria of consistency are a tautology. Only a new concretization can become a criterion of inconsistency. But then, since the judgment is applied retrospectively, it is authoritarian, claiming ownership of “authenticity”. Moreover, such judgments are ahistorical. So we go to the other version. Each program expresses a historically finite subjectivity. Therefore, the topical reformulation of the general program is constantly necessary. Let’s be cautious here. We are dealing with two dimensions of change: on the one hand, the general conditions of the class-political struggle and the material conditions evolve, and on the other hand, the subjects who through their struggle reassess, reformulate, etc. are renewed. An important evolutionary social contribution of the anarchist movement is the political cultivation of openly composing collective thought. The reformulation of historical reference data by every subject of revolutionary struggle brings history and writings to life. Each new reformulation is a piece that was inevitably missing due to historical dialectics and will become a new testament, but it cannot be “The Program”. This exists only in the most abstract political-social purpose, always within historical limits and has been formulated long before. Openness to reformulations is not of interest to us as a matter of epistemological relativism, although it is inherent as a natural parameter – it is of interest to us from the point of view of the needs, relations and possibilities of each struggling subject and, fundamentally, of the active and therefore primarily living subjects. In the movement of social self-direction, of liberation from all class domination and incidentally from heteronomous political management, each participating subject specifies and revises all programs. No political subject can specify a revolutionary program in the absence of the subjects who will implement it. What is called a program can only be common as a process of practical transformation through successive formulations of collective judgments and new proposals. Save this observation for later.

We go to the reflective dimension of change, to the historical objectivity of class-political conditions. Revolution is an antagonistic process. The time framework for the proposed program does not begin when the class-political enemy is eliminated, it begins every day anew, having as its horizon that catalytic moment. The separation of a stage of class-political antagonism from the stage of social transformation is mechanistic, socially unnatural and a figment of the crudest bourgeois mentality. To say from a materialist and not an idealist position that the end is determined by the means is to say that the process of conflict and the process of social transformation are a single process with two aspects at once, its relation to the class-historical establishment and its relation to the freedom it brings about. The general leaps are made thanks to the development of the unity of the two aspects; they do not confirm the postponement of social transformation and the reduction of the conflict to a mediating stage, a “necessary evil” in contradiction to the ideal end. The answer to “how do we get there?” is the practical “this is how we apply the purpose here and now”. The “grand program” is concretized in the set of current programs of immediate subversive action and social reconstruction, programs whose implementation began centuries ago and is still a long way off.

The real pivotal issue in any program is not the concretization of the ideal, but the concretization of the ways of struggle in the present evolutionary phase of the ongoing historical antagonism between revolution and counter-revolution and its forthcoming phases. The anti-austerity movement failed to block the bourgeois parliament, not because it did not know what to do next, but because it was not suitably and sufficiently organized class-wise, socially and politico-militarily to overpower the counterinsurgency at the contested point that would objectively open up the prospect of revolutionary directions, if there existed political subjects ready for that. Every program is determined through the day-to-day specific terms of the conflict between revolution and counter-revolution, and the program must be basic in terms of the temporally immediate correlation of ends and means and coherent in terms of the temporally immediate requirements of revolutionary unity. Great revolutionary ideas take concrete radical forms through these two practical immediacies (of becoming and totality).

Historically there is one ideal program common to all those who desire the abolition of exploitation. Even the liberal left agrees that the form of polity that has historically been called anarchy is the ideal. Political programs differ along the way. Marxists place stages in the program for overcoming bourgeois civilization, especially Leninists mediate evolution with the political party state, liberals do not recognize any way outside the gradual transformation of the present state, i.e. they are reformists in the narrow sense, while liberal anti-authoritarians hope for changes to occur in ideas and morals that will overpower and paralyze the power of the state. Historically, we have not been called anarchists in general those of us who value the anarchist vision – I know right-wingers who embrace it – but those who fight for the direct overthrow of capitalism and the state. The different programs may converge in the different partial albeit necessary struggles, even in projects of overthrowing political regimes. For example, I note only the collaboration of Italian anarchists and republicans in the Spanish anti-fascist front2 . However, different political programs define different and antagonistic intermediate goals and to varying degrees different practices and types of organization. Precisely because the points of conflict run through the general struggle and there come moments when non-anarchist co-fighters assume pro-regime positions and cross over to the enemy side or become the new counter-revolution, the distinct anarchist program demands an autonomous political base (drastically, productively/organizationally, programmatically/ideologically) to withstand the alternations of the counter-revolution and move forward stronger in its perspective. Thus the crucial concretization of the anarchist revolutionary program does not involve the theoretically specific questions of post-revolutionary social organization, but the immediate class-political conditions of foundation and coherence. The ways in which we struggle, before defining exactly the imaginary vision of the society we want, first define our determination to actually get there.

The political anarchist organization, that is, the united direct and programmatic action of people who are practically committed to the struggle for anarchy, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the implementation of an anarchist program of revolutionary struggle. A mass workers’ or broader social/proletarian movement in general does not suffice either. Revolutionary struggle does not move forward without the organizational correlation of its political purpose and its social/class basis. It requires the organization of the social/class struggle in politically autonomous terms (ideological, programmatic, material and practical). The development of class and social organizations of direct struggle in fundamental political terms is a basic condition for the unfolding of a revolutionary anarchist program. Based on its class-political, class-social and socio-political organic unity, the revolutionary anarchist movement can and does become coherent in direct struggle, co-forming conditions of politically broader co-organization and front-line struggles. In terms of its syntax, every class or even social organization has a political identity. Also the characteristics of social/class fronts express political relations. The revolutionary anarchist organization and its programmatic proposals do not intervene in what is falsely regarded as neutral organizational social spaces, instead they organize social space in libertarian revolutionary terms and thus intervene in the class-political struggle and position themselves within the popular world. The socio-political bases of the evolving anarchist program are furthermore the defining foundations for the revolutionary transformations that can be made after a defeat of the counter-revolution. The constants of the direct struggle on the class field concretize the ‘grand program’.

I think it’s clear that I entered the subject of so-called organizational dualism. I will come back to it later, analyzing the issues of revolutionary anarchist organization and program in their topicality. For now, however, take it for granted that, in this political proposal, duality (or trinity, by distinguishing community-based self-organization in class-political oppression and exploitation and the territorial self-organization of the free community) does not distinguish social/class identities from political ones and does not imply the recognition of an apolitical universal class organizational field. For which class organizations does it make sense to be based on the synthesis of different political identities? Those formations that can be open to the cooperation of existing class-political and socio-political organizations and their counterpart at the most elementary scale of organization, such as labour unions of a particular company or business and local popular assemblies. A grassroots sectoral union, a Nth grade federation or a social structure and a supra-local organ of social self-management are always created with a specific political vision, which is inscribed in their aims, in their modes of struggle and in their modes of internal functioning. Logically, the subordination of class or social organizations to the political organization puts a stranglehold on mass participation or grassroots autonomy. However, the anarchist revolutionary organization has a duty and need to take initiatives to build up and engage participation in grassroots organizations consistent with its program.

What distinguishes the anarchist revolutionary program from any other political program? I noted earlier that all other paths invest in stages contradictory to the ultimate goal. They do not simply anticipate that the struggle must cross successive antagonistic states, as any political subject would logically think, but more fundamentally they concentrate their forces on contradictory intermediate goals. All other currents characterize anarchism as utopian. Their discrediting claim against the anarchist struggle is based solely on the utopian character that their own programs ascribe to the ultimate cause. The liberal and Marxist left’s investment in intermediate stages, which bear elements of statism and capitalism, presents libertarian communism as utopian.3

So, it is true to say that anarchist practice predominantly focuses on the consistency of ends and means. But this observation only applies to the ultimate end that other programs characterize as utopian. Statist political organizations are for the most part consistent with the most direct of their intermediate ends. It is important to understand this in order to be aware of the strengths and difficulties of the anarchist struggle. We turn to the question. The anarchist revolutionary program is not characterized by its consistency to the immediate, intermediate or ultimate goal, but by the immediacy of the ultimate goal. The anarchist program denies the denunciatory utopianism of bourgeois socialist theories.

The power of our programmatic proposals is the immediate implementation of the conditions of the stated purpose. Immediacy in time: Now! Immediacy of subject: Us, here, the oppressed popular body. Here and now.

Immediate implementation of the conditions that the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization4 had summarized in the three basic directions for the contemporary international revolutionary movement that will abolish the domination of state and capital:

Α. The immediate aim is the overthrow of the political-military and financial regime, the overthrow of state institutions and the uprooting of mechanisms of authority. Β. The immediate aim is the socialization of all wealth through armed communes that should and must be established today by the revolutionary action of labor and community assemblies and the formation of open federal structures in an universal framework. Self-organization of the confrontation must aim at pushing back exploitation and control, it must also reinforce the self-defense of the social movement and of all its advances. Fighters have the socio-political duty to transfuse class and social resistances with the paradigm of direct counterattack against the political-military and economic regime and with the experience which conveys that we can crush terrorism and its domination. C. Mass revolutionary self-organization, social self-direction here and now.

Of course, if immediacy is not applied to the proposition itself, i.e. if the proposition is not manifested in practice, then the term of immediacy is false and the proposition loses its validity. The anarchist program does not wait for elections, some definitive insurrection or a universal ecumenical assembly and consensus to be implemented. It is from their immediate revolutionary deed that anarchist proposals derive their crystal clear and unparalleled truth and, incidentally, their social force.

The particularly great difficulties and the heavy tasks of the anarchist struggle derive from the same point. To fight today, cutting all bridges with the old world. This is what consistency to immediacy means. For a century and a half now the anarchist movement has built a legacy of paradigms of self-sacrificing immediacy. Its history and its truth have brought it to the strongest position of influence among the currents of resistance within the capitalist metropolis in the last half century.

Nevertheless, the rejection of intermediate stages in which established political conditions prevail, rejection which implies allowing for the direct responsibilities to be determined and scrutinized by the struggling subjects, is open to interpretations that are blatantly contradictory to the duty of immediacy and to the determination of any common criterion of consistency. Undoubtedly, the commitment to the immediacy of the social purpose makes the responsibilities vis a vis the objective conditions of domination, exploitation, extermination, etc., heavier and more radical; far from being relativistic or fragmentary and negligible. The ideology of “freedom of choice” between fields and forms of struggle is a cover for a self-serving conservatism, which, being uncommitted to any immediate duty with regards to the class-political conditions, tends to attribute a minimum of radicalism or even reactionary stances in its association with the class or political frontier (e.g. in relation to the Palestinian resistance). Where bourgeois conventions do not apply, there it becomes apparent whether the refusal of intermediate conventional goals is an expression of direct struggle and a commitment to march to the completion of the struggle or an idealistic evasion.

The ideology of “freedom of choice” is also projected deceptively with seemingly serious political terms by collective subjects who present themselves as advocates of robust organization: practical and programmatic commitments that are fundamental in the aforementioned terms of immediacy are respectively called tactics and strategies that are optional according to circumstances. This ideological modesty manifests itself precisely where circumstances are the product of conservative fixation on underlying weaknesses.

The culmination of this deconstructive relativism is the common use of the natural consequence of the consistency between ends and means (renamed as an anarchist ‘principle’), in order to claim inaction due to the condition about not violating the ‘principles’. Like the hypocrisy of the religious zealots, it doesn’t matter if you do what is necessary or you do nothing against the savagery of authority and the tragedy of the times, as long as you do nothing that falls into or resembles the political practices of the politically intermediate stages. In this normative context the ideologically safest option is to do nothing.

The evasions from the heavy tasks of immediacy confirm the reactionary denunciation of anarchism as a utopian political current. In the historical flow of the struggle, however, it is subversive acts, not unarmed declarations, that count more.

1. From the book by Raúl Zibechi, Dispersing Powers: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces (AK Press, 2010)
2. Umberto Tomazini, The Anarchist Blacksmith, ed. Eutopia, Athens 2024
3. The platformist organizations UNIPA and OPAR in their project have analyzed the historical reversal of the
   accusation about utopianism and the opportunist motive of Marxist utopianism.
   (https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/documentos/documentos-internacionais/)
4. https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1592926/

Received by email

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=16848

#anarchist #AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #internationalist #platformism

On the occasion of the appeal court of the prosecution initiated by party members of SYRIZA against the anarchist prisoner Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis, we put up banners in the center of Agrinio. The appeals court is scheduled to start on Tuesday 5-11-2024.

SOLIDARITY WITH THE ANARCHIST DIMITRIS CHATZIVASILEIAADIS

CAPTURED SINCE 9-8-2021 FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE GUERRILLA STRUGGLE

Source: Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/11/04/agrinio-greece-banner-in-solidarity-with-the-anarchist-prisoner-dimitris-chatzivasileiadis/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece

On the occasion of the appeal court of the prosecution initiated by party members of SYRIZA against the anarchist prisoner Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis, we put up banners in the center of Agrinio. The appeals court is scheduled to start on Tuesday 5-11-2024.

SOLIDARITY WITH THE ANARCHIST DIMITRIS CHATZIVASILEIAADIS

CAPTURED SINCE 9-8-2021 FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE GUERRILLA STRUGGLE

Source: Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/11/04/agrinio-greece-banner-in-solidarity-with-the-anarchist-prisoner-dimitris-chatzivasileiadis/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece

On Wednesday, October 9, comrade George Angeletakis died. George Angeletakis was the constant comrade in the front line of the unity of the whole movement with the revolutionary organizations and in the struggle of solidarity with the persecuted and captured fighters. Comrade George had cultivated an awareness of the importance and knowledge of organizing and caring for the essentials, responding to immediate need and adapting to real conditions. In recent years, the comrade was plagued by serious health problems that had limited his ability to move to a minimum. However, keeping his faith in life and struggle, he resisted the fall to the end, did not surrender to pessimism and continued to participate in the common struggle. For the last few days in a hospital, he fought patiently until the last breath, in pain and long-term exhaustion, having chosen the inexhaustible resistance of life instead of a less painful escape. We will keep comrade George Angeletakis by our side on the way to a free world.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Source: Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/15/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-for-comrade-george-angeletakis/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #rip

On Wednesday, October 9, comrade George Angeletakis died. George Angeletakis was the constant comrade in the front line of the unity of the whole movement with the revolutionary organizations and in the struggle of solidarity with the persecuted and captured fighters. Comrade George had cultivated an awareness of the importance and knowledge of organizing and caring for the essentials, responding to immediate need and adapting to real conditions. In recent years, the comrade was plagued by serious health problems that had limited his ability to move to a minimum. However, keeping his faith in life and struggle, he resisted the fall to the end, did not surrender to pessimism and continued to participate in the common struggle. For the last few days in a hospital, he fought patiently until the last breath, in pain and long-term exhaustion, having chosen the inexhaustible resistance of life instead of a less painful escape. We will keep comrade George Angeletakis by our side on the way to a free world.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Source: Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/15/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-for-comrade-george-angeletakis/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #rip

For a year now, every person on the planet who is not indifferent or excluded from the general forms of information, when they hear this date, they automatically associate it with a specific event of historical significance. And yet, all this time, apart from the Palestinian resistance, only the NATO imperialists and their subordinates have been referring to this date, in the terms of counter-revolution, the narratives of “counter-terrorism”, in order to exonerate the genocide of a revolted people. The testimony of resistance creates in immediate time the continuity of living memory, relaying and extending the power of revolutionary experience. Against this experience stand the narratives which take a distance from the testimony of the resistance subject, as well as the silence that, like a threateningly insidious command, objectively established, attempts to eliminate the historical intrusions of those revolutionary initiatives that are subversive for the rulers’ order. The silence about the world-changing initiative of October 7 is an irrevocably guilty readjustment of the narratives that then equated, in their capitulated consciousness, the revolution with the counter-revolution, describing two monsters in contrast to which the metaphysical “good” evaluates itself. Of course, this need to disassociate oneself from the inevitably violent revolutionary rupture into the standstill of history, is an expression of subservience to the militaristic and ideological totalitarianism of capital. Has the ideological obliteration of October 7 and of the organized armed Palestinian resistance produced a struggle? Yes, it has produced a protest movement against the NATO war machine, demanding the appeasement of the monster we aroused on October 7. Not by coincidence, the idealistic protest has had zero effect on the progress of the war.

If we speak from the point of view of the resistance today, we have a responsibility to speak through the living presence of October 7. How can we advance the revolutionary struggle by forgetting its historical achievements? How can we fight today, if we put a lid on what the resistance is achieving as we speak? Speaking through the resistance, its entire concurrent and historical experience speaks right here. Revolutionary testimony always has the tone of speaking in first person. It may, for the sake of accuracy, use third person for acts in which the bearer of the testimony was not directly active, and third person for general statements, but the voice of the testimony participates in a collective subjectivity that permeates the Earth and history. Third person interpretations, with the veneer of some third way or no way to freedom, comprise, in the here and now, counter-revolutionary fatalism with political assertions. Even before we talk about the actual struggle, in opting between first or the third person for doing so, lies the conflict between revolutionary popular testimony and counter-revolutionary domination. October 7 has shed plenty of light on the historical/evolutionary wall, after breaking through the wall of the imperialist-colonial prison. The political subjects who stayed behind the breach cannot speak from the perspective of the resistance (literally and not because of a supposed prohibition by revolutionary ethics). Those who broke the barrier did it for all of us. Anyone who wants to escape from the capitalist theocracy to be in the revolutionary flow must break down the walls he/she maintains.

Before October 7, for years, Palestine was finished for the imperialist metropolis, and also for the left and the anti-authoritarian movement. The m-l (tn: Marxists-Lenininsts) and a part of workerist libertarian Marxism that continued to refer to the Palestinian resistance were considered obsessive and dated. In current time, the international line of struggle was unable to go further than denouncing the apartheid in terms of liberal humanism. On October 7, dead Palestine returned in terms more revolutionary than ever before and shook up the Earth. Gaza was a closed field of genocidal terror because its people had chosen (or tolerated, it doesn’t matter) the government of a party that resisted the colonialists. On a different scale of size and time, Gaza’s resistance, the breaking of the wall and the subsequent razing Gaza to the ground, is reminiscent of the organized escape of Red Army Jews from the Sobibor extermination camp 80 years ago. Despite the success of the operation, very few survived at the time. The Nazis then dismantled the camp, to erase from history the point of revolutionary breach of the Holocaust. And today the losses are not counted in numbers, but the resistance has been victorious from day one.

October 7 demonstrated that the way out of the historical zionist and imperialist program of extermination of the Palestinian people, can only be revolutionary. The terrible technocratic scarecrow of imperialist domination collapsed as its colonial base was breached and exposed to resistance, for the first time radically. On October 7, the Palestinian resistance launched an organized mass offensive and took over the military bases and fascist settlements in the area of the frontal zone where the wall was breached. It was an operation of military neutralization, i.e. focused on neutralizing the enemy’s military power. The capture of colonists, which in social terms is a perfectly just and lenient means of resistance, was the link in the chain of the revolutionary battle. It was publicly demonstrated by numerous documents and testimonies from the colonists themselves that the resistance operation not only did not have characteristics antagonistic to its liberating political purpose, but was carried out with discipline in the use of the minimum necessary force.

The first reaction of the colonial army was to implement the standing order to exterminate the captured colonists, but also those who simply were present in places occupied by the Palestinian guerrillas. Combat helicopters and tanks bombed and burned down their own settlements, as well as many from the obscene rave party, in order for the colonialists to avoid negotiating from a position of weakness. The cannibalistic directive demonstrates that the state prefers to exterminate the last, most sectarian and discriminating shred of its humanity in order not to lose a single shred of its power. For bourgeois ideology, as for its set of laws in particular, the preemptive, blind extermination of its own citizens and soldiers is an unspeakable crime, a taboo1, because whatever contradictions and exceptions it invokes, it thoroughly abolishes its axiomatic foundations, both in the historical and logical dimensions. Despite the overwhelming documentation of the widespread application of this directive, the liberal and leftist zionist opposition has been unwilling to do anything more to defend its own colonial community against a self-destructive political regime, other than peaceful protests. The imperialists, their transnational institutions and their humanitarian organizations have legitimized the taboo by imposing absolute silence. This alone shows that the bourgeoisie consciously prefers and remains ready to exterminate all humanity rather than give up its power. Once again in history, it crudely demonstrates this.

One year later, how many of those who profess solidarity with the Palestinian people, who hasted to reproduce the counter-revolutionary propaganda about massacres and rapes, have apologized? What do they say today about the unspeakable torture, the shootings of pregnant women and children at the hands of their mothers and the rapes committed by the entire colonial army, systematically, with a political program and general consent from its fascist state? They are silent, if not continuing to belittle the crime of colonialism and thus protect it by equating it with the “crime” of armed resistance.

The revolutionary operation of October 7 had a horizon far beyond the first invasion; it was not a leap without a tomorrow. The resistance was ready for a long war, knowing the automatism of the arrogance of the zionists and imperialists and their excessive savagery. The breach of the colonial fortress was the necessary provocation for the spiraling down and collapse of the colonial army and subsequently of the entire colonial formation and imperialist planning, within the organized resistance trap, the Gaza fort. The capture of colonists was not intended to prevent counter-revolutionary counter-attack. Could the experienced Palestinian resistance invest in a conservative war measure? The captured colonists were the symbolic point that chained colonial arrogance to the trap. In the ultimate place of exclusion where the crucial battle has been fought for a year, the resistance stronghold stands defiant and the Palestinian people strong, the colonial system has been humiliated and its fascist polity has collapsed in a rapid dynamic of disintegration. The resistance holds the initiative, October 7 continues. Those who froze behind the broken wall have nowhere to stand today.

The Palestinian resistance of October 7, revealing the unlimited inhumanity of the imperialist system and its zionist gendarme, has awakened the broadest movement of internationalist solidarity of the last decades and especially the broadest solidarity in the history of the Palestinian struggle. The liberal fundamentalists who in October ’23 were whitewashing the road of zionist genocide by proclaiming that the Islamification of the resistance has isolated it from international solidarity, were proved wrong. In order to denounce the present resistance, an attempt is made to gentrify its history. If the Palestinian resistance is today capable of carrying out purely military operations and showing clemency to the butchers of its people, it has done so because, when it was necessary to take roots politically, surrounded by ruthless tyrants, it took up the responsibility of the provocation, with hijackings, the attack on the zionist mission of the Munich Olympics, etc. The whole history of the Palestinian resistance was condensed to a new level on October 7 and is moving forward with courage and faith until liberation, having once again dispelled fatalism. Memory is as vivid as the act of resistance. So today we inhabit the rift that we opened on October 7. As a comrade said 30 years ago, bringing to an assembly the example of our relationship with the Palestinian resistance, if you are traveling by plane and there is a hijack, you cannot say, “I am an anarchist, I am with you, let me get off”. We will go all the way together. As RAF taught us with its martyrs, the flight to the capitalist metropolis takes off from the ultimate places and in the ultimate ways.

EVERY DAY AND EVERYWHERE OCTOBER 7

PALESTINE, KURDISTAN, INTIFADA SERHILDAN

The Lebanese communist revolutionary, George Ibrahim Abdallah has spent 40 years in the captivity of the imperialists. On the 7th of October 2024 the french state will examine a new demand for his release, which is pending since last year. If on the 7th of October the french state does not release Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, it will have effectively taken responsibility, with the participation of its left wing, for the genocide of the Palestinian people and the terrorist antisocial attack against Lebanon.

From the streets, the guerrilla forts and the prisons we shout, FREEDOM to the unrelenting sun of resistance Georges Ibrahim Abdallah.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Septembre 2024

1Let us not forget that the preventive blind mass extermination of a regime’s own citizens was attempted to be legitimized by the imposition of biotechnological vaccination for Sars-CoV-2 on an ideological framework of statistical epidemiology.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/07/what-we-did-on-7-october-2023/

#alAqsaFlood #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #greece #palestine #Solidarity #westAsia

For a year now, every person on the planet who is not indifferent or excluded from the general forms of information, when they hear this date, they automatically associate it with a specific event of historical significance. And yet, all this time, apart from the Palestinian resistance, only the NATO imperialists and their subordinates have been referring to this date, in the terms of counter-revolution, the narratives of “counter-terrorism”, in order to exonerate the genocide of a revolted people. The testimony of resistance creates in immediate time the continuity of living memory, relaying and extending the power of revolutionary experience. Against this experience stand the narratives which take a distance from the testimony of the resistance subject, as well as the silence that, like a threateningly insidious command, objectively established, attempts to eliminate the historical intrusions of those revolutionary initiatives that are subversive for the rulers’ order. The silence about the world-changing initiative of October 7 is an irrevocably guilty readjustment of the narratives that then equated, in their capitulated consciousness, the revolution with the counter-revolution, describing two monsters in contrast to which the metaphysical “good” evaluates itself. Of course, this need to disassociate oneself from the inevitably violent revolutionary rupture into the standstill of history, is an expression of subservience to the militaristic and ideological totalitarianism of capital. Has the ideological obliteration of October 7 and of the organized armed Palestinian resistance produced a struggle? Yes, it has produced a protest movement against the NATO war machine, demanding the appeasement of the monster we aroused on October 7. Not by coincidence, the idealistic protest has had zero effect on the progress of the war.

If we speak from the point of view of the resistance today, we have a responsibility to speak through the living presence of October 7. How can we advance the revolutionary struggle by forgetting its historical achievements? How can we fight today, if we put a lid on what the resistance is achieving as we speak? Speaking through the resistance, its entire concurrent and historical experience speaks right here. Revolutionary testimony always has the tone of speaking in first person. It may, for the sake of accuracy, use third person for acts in which the bearer of the testimony was not directly active, and third person for general statements, but the voice of the testimony participates in a collective subjectivity that permeates the Earth and history. Third person interpretations, with the veneer of some third way or no way to freedom, comprise, in the here and now, counter-revolutionary fatalism with political assertions. Even before we talk about the actual struggle, in opting between first or the third person for doing so, lies the conflict between revolutionary popular testimony and counter-revolutionary domination. October 7 has shed plenty of light on the historical/evolutionary wall, after breaking through the wall of the imperialist-colonial prison. The political subjects who stayed behind the breach cannot speak from the perspective of the resistance (literally and not because of a supposed prohibition by revolutionary ethics). Those who broke the barrier did it for all of us. Anyone who wants to escape from the capitalist theocracy to be in the revolutionary flow must break down the walls he/she maintains.

Before October 7, for years, Palestine was finished for the imperialist metropolis, and also for the left and the anti-authoritarian movement. The m-l (tn: Marxists-Lenininsts) and a part of workerist libertarian Marxism that continued to refer to the Palestinian resistance were considered obsessive and dated. In current time, the international line of struggle was unable to go further than denouncing the apartheid in terms of liberal humanism. On October 7, dead Palestine returned in terms more revolutionary than ever before and shook up the Earth. Gaza was a closed field of genocidal terror because its people had chosen (or tolerated, it doesn’t matter) the government of a party that resisted the colonialists. On a different scale of size and time, Gaza’s resistance, the breaking of the wall and the subsequent razing Gaza to the ground, is reminiscent of the organized escape of Red Army Jews from the Sobibor extermination camp 80 years ago. Despite the success of the operation, very few survived at the time. The Nazis then dismantled the camp, to erase from history the point of revolutionary breach of the Holocaust. And today the losses are not counted in numbers, but the resistance has been victorious from day one.

October 7 demonstrated that the way out of the historical zionist and imperialist program of extermination of the Palestinian people, can only be revolutionary. The terrible technocratic scarecrow of imperialist domination collapsed as its colonial base was breached and exposed to resistance, for the first time radically. On October 7, the Palestinian resistance launched an organized mass offensive and took over the military bases and fascist settlements in the area of the frontal zone where the wall was breached. It was an operation of military neutralization, i.e. focused on neutralizing the enemy’s military power. The capture of colonists, which in social terms is a perfectly just and lenient means of resistance, was the link in the chain of the revolutionary battle. It was publicly demonstrated by numerous documents and testimonies from the colonists themselves that the resistance operation not only did not have characteristics antagonistic to its liberating political purpose, but was carried out with discipline in the use of the minimum necessary force.

The first reaction of the colonial army was to implement the standing order to exterminate the captured colonists, but also those who simply were present in places occupied by the Palestinian guerrillas. Combat helicopters and tanks bombed and burned down their own settlements, as well as many from the obscene rave party, in order for the colonialists to avoid negotiating from a position of weakness. The cannibalistic directive demonstrates that the state prefers to exterminate the last, most sectarian and discriminating shred of its humanity in order not to lose a single shred of its power. For bourgeois ideology, as for its set of laws in particular, the preemptive, blind extermination of its own citizens and soldiers is an unspeakable crime, a taboo1, because whatever contradictions and exceptions it invokes, it thoroughly abolishes its axiomatic foundations, both in the historical and logical dimensions. Despite the overwhelming documentation of the widespread application of this directive, the liberal and leftist zionist opposition has been unwilling to do anything more to defend its own colonial community against a self-destructive political regime, other than peaceful protests. The imperialists, their transnational institutions and their humanitarian organizations have legitimized the taboo by imposing absolute silence. This alone shows that the bourgeoisie consciously prefers and remains ready to exterminate all humanity rather than give up its power. Once again in history, it crudely demonstrates this.

One year later, how many of those who profess solidarity with the Palestinian people, who hasted to reproduce the counter-revolutionary propaganda about massacres and rapes, have apologized? What do they say today about the unspeakable torture, the shootings of pregnant women and children at the hands of their mothers and the rapes committed by the entire colonial army, systematically, with a political program and general consent from its fascist state? They are silent, if not continuing to belittle the crime of colonialism and thus protect it by equating it with the “crime” of armed resistance.

The revolutionary operation of October 7 had a horizon far beyond the first invasion; it was not a leap without a tomorrow. The resistance was ready for a long war, knowing the automatism of the arrogance of the zionists and imperialists and their excessive savagery. The breach of the colonial fortress was the necessary provocation for the spiraling down and collapse of the colonial army and subsequently of the entire colonial formation and imperialist planning, within the organized resistance trap, the Gaza fort. The capture of colonists was not intended to prevent counter-revolutionary counter-attack. Could the experienced Palestinian resistance invest in a conservative war measure? The captured colonists were the symbolic point that chained colonial arrogance to the trap. In the ultimate place of exclusion where the crucial battle has been fought for a year, the resistance stronghold stands defiant and the Palestinian people strong, the colonial system has been humiliated and its fascist polity has collapsed in a rapid dynamic of disintegration. The resistance holds the initiative, October 7 continues. Those who froze behind the broken wall have nowhere to stand today.

The Palestinian resistance of October 7, revealing the unlimited inhumanity of the imperialist system and its zionist gendarme, has awakened the broadest movement of internationalist solidarity of the last decades and especially the broadest solidarity in the history of the Palestinian struggle. The liberal fundamentalists who in October ’23 were whitewashing the road of zionist genocide by proclaiming that the Islamification of the resistance has isolated it from international solidarity, were proved wrong. In order to denounce the present resistance, an attempt is made to gentrify its history. If the Palestinian resistance is today capable of carrying out purely military operations and showing clemency to the butchers of its people, it has done so because, when it was necessary to take roots politically, surrounded by ruthless tyrants, it took up the responsibility of the provocation, with hijackings, the attack on the zionist mission of the Munich Olympics, etc. The whole history of the Palestinian resistance was condensed to a new level on October 7 and is moving forward with courage and faith until liberation, having once again dispelled fatalism. Memory is as vivid as the act of resistance. So today we inhabit the rift that we opened on October 7. As a comrade said 30 years ago, bringing to an assembly the example of our relationship with the Palestinian resistance, if you are traveling by plane and there is a hijack, you cannot say, “I am an anarchist, I am with you, let me get off”. We will go all the way together. As RAF taught us with its martyrs, the flight to the capitalist metropolis takes off from the ultimate places and in the ultimate ways.

EVERY DAY AND EVERYWHERE OCTOBER 7

PALESTINE, KURDISTAN, INTIFADA SERHILDAN

The Lebanese communist revolutionary, George Ibrahim Abdallah has spent 40 years in the captivity of the imperialists. On the 7th of October 2024 the french state will examine a new demand for his release, which is pending since last year. If on the 7th of October the french state does not release Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, it will have effectively taken responsibility, with the participation of its left wing, for the genocide of the Palestinian people and the terrorist antisocial attack against Lebanon.

From the streets, the guerrilla forts and the prisons we shout, FREEDOM to the unrelenting sun of resistance Georges Ibrahim Abdallah.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Septembre 2024

1Let us not forget that the preventive blind mass extermination of a regime’s own citizens was attempted to be legitimized by the imposition of biotechnological vaccination for Sars-CoV-2 on an ideological framework of statistical epidemiology.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/10/07/what-we-did-on-7-october-2023/

#alAqsaFlood #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #greece #palestine #Solidarity #westAsia

The anarchist Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis has been held captive in Domokos prison since August ’21 for his participation in the revolutionary struggle through the political processes of the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization. On 21/6 he began a hunger strike on the occasion of an incident of cannibalistic violence and attempted domination by another prisoner inside the ward, after which the management brought disciplinary proceedings against the comrade and ordered him to be removed from the cell. The comrade does not accept it and, armed with the hunger strike, demands not to change cells and for the service to stop using thugs as a tool of repression. This battle was won. On 4/7, on the 14th day of strike, with the intervention of a prosecutor who met the hunger striker in prison, his request was granted and the comrade returned to his cell. “Since the main line of battle is the striker’s body, his strength against the class-political enemy and his influence on the social movement depend on the striker’s determination to fight to the end.”

We are on guard to defend the comrade against the state manipulations mediated by the respective prison management. To defend the victory of the struggle he gave for all prisoners against the cannibal structure of power.

JUSTICE IS CLASS

FIRE TO EVERY PRISON

Solidarity, Solidarity

From: Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/08/12/banners-hung-in-solidarity-with-anarchist-comrade-dimitris-chatzivasileiadis/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #Solidarity

The anarchist Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis has been held captive in Domokos prison since August ’21 for his participation in the revolutionary struggle through the political processes of the Revolutionary Self-Defense Organization. On 21/6 he began a hunger strike on the occasion of an incident of cannibalistic violence and attempted domination by another prisoner inside the ward, after which the management brought disciplinary proceedings against the comrade and ordered him to be removed from the cell. The comrade does not accept it and, armed with the hunger strike, demands not to change cells and for the service to stop using thugs as a tool of repression. This battle was won. On 4/7, on the 14th day of strike, with the intervention of a prosecutor who met the hunger striker in prison, his request was granted and the comrade returned to his cell. “Since the main line of battle is the striker’s body, his strength against the class-political enemy and his influence on the social movement depend on the striker’s determination to fight to the end.”

We are on guard to defend the comrade against the state manipulations mediated by the respective prison management. To defend the victory of the struggle he gave for all prisoners against the cannibal structure of power.

JUSTICE IS CLASS

FIRE TO EVERY PRISON

Solidarity, Solidarity

From: Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/08/12/banners-hung-in-solidarity-with-anarchist-comrade-dimitris-chatzivasileiadis/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #Solidarity

I can imagine many people resenting the term Palestinian revolution when reading the title of this article. Some have already written that revolution is one thing and resistance is another, that war is one thing and liberation is another. I chose this title, being literal, precisely because it would be provocative. Let us be open to any dialogue, knowing that the first thing that is at issue is the definition of the subject. In times of war, any political discourse is a polemic act. War is not a choice, it is not a means among other means, as statist positivism and its projections on the anti-authoritarian pretexts for capitulation assert; it is the incessant class condition in which we find ourselves and through which we liberate ourselves. Every phrase that has been uttered in the last 20, 50, hundreds and thousands of years flutters on the broken Gaza wall or hangs in the rubble of the city, among the dismembered children. If the well-meaning movement researchers who have produced numerous analyses of the class and social background of the Greek revolution of 1821 find it difficult to recognize the Palestinian revolution as such, this says something about their euroelitism and nationalism. As for those who deny resistance to colonialism and imperialism, as well as its revolutionary potential, by juxtaposing the “essential” antithesis of capital-labor, the totality or molecularity, today we can say that their abstractions and confines are filled with the stench of the carnivorous capitalist North. The thoughtless adoption of the dogmatic social-democratic scholasticism suggests a blind consumption of intellectualism, self-indulging in ideological garbage. If I pay you a regular salary, the relationship is class-based. But if I take your land to build a work camp or a prison, then not only the relationship is not class-based, but it is subordinate to that, even if I put you in the camp on a salary or put you in prison! If I put you up against the prison wall and shoot you, the relationship is not class-based, it is “essentially” indifferent outside of its interpretation into a monetary relationship. If I lock you up in the prison that I built by stealing your land, if I control your survival resources and bomb you day and night, the relationship is not class-based and the relation of power cannot be changed until the labor relation is universally and completely dismantled. This kind of idiocy goes around as scholastic proletarian theory.

We have entered the evolutionary phase of capitalist civilization where it is materialized as a total synchronic crisis and where every tick of the clock reveals the positioning of every political subject on the side of revolution or on the side of counter-revolution. All antitheses are condensed, they intersect and are confounded towards the maximum and the minimum and in the explosive way that they emerge they express their complexity. The anti-capitalist movement is shaped within this vortex, it does not stand still in some idealized apathetic position of an overseer. It is therefore traversed by the whole set of intersections, confusions and complexities. The war waged by the statist public health control revealed a deep rift in the anti-capitalist movement, the imperialist war in the Ukrainian territory revealed other rifts, which literally culminate into war. The revolutionary counterattack inside the territory of the zionist colonialist rule, illuminated the most fundamental rift within the movement. If we can schematically say that the first rupture concerned the fractional scope of imperialist colonialism over the social body and the second one concerned revolutionary autonomy in conditions where military rule, as fundamental to capitalism, is unveiled, then the Palestinian rupture concerns the very point of the history of capitalism and its destruction. The unfulfilled crusade of colonizing the Eurasian East (prior to the complete colonization of Africa and of the continent westward to Europe) reappears as a historically inescapable and globally universal definitive question. Incidentally, wage slavery, on which the capitalist mode of production is founded, emerged and prevailed in Europe through the colonialist war to the east (in particular, from the data so far it appears that the prime organism where the prevalence of the wage relation was incubated was crusading Venice).

The historical moment of the dissemination of CoV-2 and the culmination of the anti-health imperialist counter-revolution, through its militaristic and bio-technocratic experiment of the universal vaccination, brought to the fore the class and political subjectivity of the human body, i.e. the most elementary organic unit of human existence and society, making it the target of a totalitarian colonial campaign. Imperialist terrorism attempted to establish itself in new depths of primitive accumulation and to restructure all existing power relations with the guiding principle of the liquidation, expulsion and purging of surplus labour. This coincided with the powerful manifestation of the Black Revolt in so-called America and of the women’s revolt globally, the living subject of the history of slavery and capitalist colonization of the Earth. The war of state sanitation introduced a historically innovative regime of perpetual state of emergency, which through bio-politics gave primacy to militaristic terms of domination and to the ideology and morality that derives from that. The counter-revolutionary offensive, in the form of the emergency regime, within the metropolises of Euro-Atlantic imperialism, continued in relation to the war in the Ukrainian-Russian space and now continues in relation to the war in Palestine (the Chinese counter- revolution continues on the first axis). It is no coincidence that the Israeli techno-stratocracy is a pioneer in the production and export of technology and methodology of control and repression, of fascist organization and politics, of biotechnology, digital integration and post-humanist fiction ideology. It should be noted that Israeli fascism imposed universal compulsory biotechnological vaccination of its citizens. Zionist colonialism fuses on the one hand traditional religious totalitarianism and racism, and on the other hand the fundamentalist governmentalist and mechanistic mentality of the bourgeoisie, the theocracy of capital and its technocratic mysticism. That is why Israeli colonialism today is demonstrating worldwide, on behalf of the Western Empire, the might of its terrorism with unprecedented intensity.

In the ideological battle within the international movement, which of course expresses contradictory and now increasingly antagonistic tendencies on the line of conflict between revolution and counter- revolution, what emerges as a central rift is the koinonismos (1) of counter-revolution. In particular, the koinonismos of imperialism and more specifically the koinonismos of imperialist social democracy. In correlation to this, anti-imperialist social fascism reappears as a problem. In the Greek movement the concept of koinonismos has been defined as the internalization of the pervasive ideology of the regime by the social movement. I reinstate it here with a reverse definition, which, without negating what is historically recorded, it puts the title of social in the right causal relation: the social ground and the social relation are not constructed by power, but on the contrary, power pillages their material, their name and their value, in order to return them to the subjects, having reconstructed them with the necessary divisions. This rift concerns the underlying anti-proletarian, anti-social and counter-revolutionary roots of making a separation from the aggressive initiative of the Palestinians, from their Islamic vanguard, from the unholy revolutionary means, from the open class war, from anti-imperialist resistance, from the national identities of the global South, from the prevalence of faith over survival, from the devaluation of the ideological and normative claims and rhythms of the bourgeois positivism internalized in the movements of the North, etc.

The koinonismos of counter-revolution is defined by the class and political frontier that the ruling class erects against the savage proletariat, which in the historical narrative is presented as uncivilized and in politics as terrorist. The koinonismos of imperialism has as its central axes the peace of Christian ecumenism and bourgeois liberalism with its modern ecumenism. The peace of God presupposes the sovereignty of the crusading sword. Imperialist socialism, by demanding the disarmament of the ‘uncivilized’ in order for a peace to be recognized, expresses its militaristic totalitarianism. Let’s not forget that even when Euro-Atlantic imperialism declared war on Russian nationalism, it called Russian nationalism uncivilized and collectively criminalized Russian culture (arts, sports, history…).

The common joint of imperialist koinonismos is the Law of Empire, developed on a global model, in transnational conventions (treaties) and transnational institutions. The sword of peace of the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition is surrounded by legal trinkets and supposedly collective mediations. Around the slaughterhouse, the real class conditions of political warfare (military, biopolitical, moral-social) imperialist koinonismos bombards with a totalitarian morality, founded on the given biopolitical class divisions. Not only is not every death or freedom of every person measured equally, but more specifically, the more intense the class or political factors that determine a person’s life chances and local rights, the more necessary and just for the political economy of capital is the intensification of their oppression or even their killing.

In examining the ideological conflict around the Palestinian revolution, I will use as a model of reference the first statement of Syriza after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, because it contains in three sentences all the basic ideological points of imperialist social democracy that have been internalized in the anti-capitalist movement.

“SYRIZA unequivocally condemns today’s Hamas attack against Israel, calls for its immediate end and expresses its solidarity with the people of Israel. The ongoing violence by all sides in the region, is a threat to any prospect of resolving the differences and is brutally affecting the security and rights especially of civilians, Israelis and Palestinians. We stand firmly in favour of the immediate resumption of credible bilateral talks for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the capital of the Palestinian state being the city of east Jerusalem.”

Let us distinguish the ideological points that form the positions of imperialist social democracy:

1. Condemnation of the attack against the occupier’s national body inside its fort. This condemnation is the most basic position statement within the war. Various people try to convince that the condemnation of violence or of state violence from either side places them in a third position, morally and politically superior. The global proletariat understands, today as a whole, that the condemnation of the real military victory of the Palestinians is an expression of solidarity with imperialist koinonismos and thus a statement of consent to the extension of genocide, stronger than any tearful protest against it by the very subjects who condemn the attack.

In many statements, the condemnation, in its support, invokes the particular religious identity of the political organization that carried out the attack on the colonial fortress. This dogmatic demonization of Islam is identical with the fundamentalism of the crusades, which permeates conservative ideologies of capitalist times and culminates in imperialist/colonial elitism. Those who have been quick to denounce the religious character of Hamas identify with Netanyahu in his position that “we are the light, they are the darkness”. Koinonismos, the most subservient to imperialism, immediately assimilated the propaganda about rapes and massacres of civilians and children as if these practices, which characterize state warfare in general, are automatically derived from the Islamic identity of the resistance organization. The anti- theocratic guise of political condemnation is itself an attack on faith that transcends the carnal lust and fears of the bourgeois citizen, an attack on social morality that puts individualist autarchy under question, an attack on the collective and transcendentalist psyche that dismantles utilitarian positivism.

The ideological lackeys who, disgusted from the resistance’s attack joined the chorus of the liberal crusade, forgot that Hamas is the elected government of the marginal colonial territories, which was arbitrarily denied its bourgeois-democratic authority. The genocidal blockade of Gaza began in 2007, when Hamas ousted Fatah coup plotters, at whose hands the struggling Palestinians had been infamously tortured. Liberal fundamentalism, which sets up a la carte democracies, with coups, terrorism and mass purges, calls the “uncivilized” people fascists, whenever its bribery doesn’t work. The goal is the condemnation of their extended political autonomy.

Hamas was of no interest to the luminaries of imperialist social democracy during the years when the unrecognized Hamas government was tolerated by the colonialists, as it was managing the biopolitical and economic plight of the people of Gaza due to its total blockade. Once it breached the blockade, its militaristic armor and the security of its national reproduction, imperialist social democracy felt the need to join in denouncing the virtual hideous monster.

2. Recognition of the settlers and their genocidal state as a people. Subsequently, expressing solidarity with the colonialist organization. Only statism ascribes the concept of people to a state that is ethnically homogeneous. From the socio-revolutionary point of view, the popular always defines itself in class terms. The militarist colonists never and nowhere constituted a people. All Israelis are settlers because, in contrast to their abstract historical locality, their actual settlement, residence and expansion in the biblical land is by direct and continuous ethnic cleansing of another locality. If we were talking about the United States, only white fascists consider white Americans a distinct people. There is an Israeli nation, but it is not a people. The people of the Israeli state are the Palestinians, the hunted natives. Israeli citizens become a people to the extent that they betray their nation and fight with the Palestinian people. We will see this in a moment in their own words.

A side note, invoking the phantom Israeli people and expressing solidarity with this makes no class or political distinctions within the colonial nation. This phantom comes straight out of the most horrible statist nationalism, that is, colonialist nationalism. In any case, solidarity with the exploited classes of the colonial organism itself cannot possibly depend on submissiveness to its state of domination. On the contrary, class solidarity starts from the anti-colonial revolution, the social war for the destruction of the state-launching ground for imperialism.

The declarations of solidarity with the “Israeli people” are an invitation to complete the genocide of the Palestinians.

3. Condemnation of violence on both sides.

4. Focus on civilians and subjecting them to the imperialist conditions of rights and security. The focus on civilians completes the project of moral-ideological disarmament, depoliticization and passivization of the resisting people. At the same time that imperialism is blowing up the revolted prison of Gaza, it is also assuming the paternalistic responsibility of managing the survivors of genocide. More generally, the humanitarian infiltration of the transnational and parastatal (NGO) institutions of capital in the global South is paving the way for the formation of protectorate state institutions in the service of imperialism, with the assignment of managerial positions to collaborationists. We should note that the regional hegemonic powers are also playing in this field, always against the political autonomy and internationalist solidarity of the resisting people.

The external projection of the security claim as a primary need, annihilates the revolutionary needs of the people and extorts the recognition of the colonial interest, the security of its national fascist regime, as a universal need. The conclaves that hold the sword of imperialist peace can define the rights and the timeliness or untimeliness of their application. While international rights have been established in order to give the form of a contract to structural inequalities, the equation of the Palestinian people and of the zionist settlers under the category of ‘civilian’ legitimizes colonialism and currently justifies the attempt for a “final solution” for the sake of the security of the genocidal organization, i.e. total ethnic cleansing through genocide.

5. Proposing the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories that remained unconquered until 1967. On this point, libertarian imperialist social democracy is differentiated from the statist leftist social-democracy in terms of theoretical formulations and working field. However, they meet on the basic point of the relationship with the colonial state. Left social democracy expresses the imminent imperialist project of annihilating the Palestinian resistance and imposing on the wreckage of Gaza a collaborationist regime based on the experience of the Abbas management, who is an agent of the years-long ethnic cleansing. Libertarian social democracy, with a kind of Jesuit elitism and hypocrisy, advocates the fraternity of the exploited Palestinians and Israeli “peoples” or “societies”, without the destruction of the colonial state. I note that the workerist position that attributes the capacity for overthrowing the Israeli capitalist state formation exclusively to the Israeli working class, validates colonial nationalism and even lends it with an ideological envelope of pure national socialism (Nazism). Nothing new, Mussolini started out as a leftist and zionist settlers too, with strong socialist, workerist and communitarian roots.

All the ideological points of imperialist social democracy except the last one are replacing political polemics with a biopolitical ethics and managerial lingo. The biopolitical discourse objectifies existential experience in order to strip it of its class history and political subjectivity. Biopolitical ethics defines what violence is in order to exempt a set of capitalist-state practices from the category of violence and at the same time to criminalize resistance practices. Critical biopolitical ideology ratifies imperialism’s stripping of bodies of their collective identities and their resistance power. Vulnerability is transformed ideologically into an insurmountable anthropological condition, either as a class condition or as its weak consciousness. In this context, “civilians” become the central figures of the biopolitical narrative of war, with imperialist citizenship as their archetype of identification and measure of evaluation.

From a revolutionary point of view, the examination of experiences and the subordination of means to abstract ends that come from outside the immediate field of struggle is an ideological ploy to eliminate and replace the practical ends of direct resistance with the koinonistic ethics of the means, i.e. the anti-proletarian and counter-revolutionary values of the bourgeoisie, which reflect established inequalities. To judge the Palestinian resistance by the yardstick of anarchist or Marxist utopia is a project of ideological colonialism, but also of existential annihilation by the intelligentsia of dominant european humanism. Values that do not allow for taking sides with the existing resistance are values that are comfortable with the existing class slaughterhouse. In the offices where the fundamentalist critique on unholy means takes place, sits the Inquisition, which is certainly concerned with popular resistance, but only as an enemy. A Palestinian people separated from its armed struggle and its resistance organizations is the imaginary flock of the crusader church.

The Palestinian revolution awakens a multitude of questions of the international anti-capitalist movement, which are inevitably answered immediately by each one’s stance. I will only mention a few of these in which the class-political borders have already been drawn within the actual conflict, and then I will focus on the revolutionary lines given to us by the revolutionary anarchists from the ground of the conflict.

a. The identification of class relations in the actual composition of capitalist domination on a global scale. Who is an enemy and who is a friend at any particular point for the revolutionary anarchist movement? How is the distinction between direct and indirect political tasks concretized at each point, given anarchism’s characteristic historical stance of directly responding to the needs of our community as oppressed people, with the general perspective of freedom and equality? The most concrete answers, the only ones capable of bringing about alliance, immediacy and radical perspective, stem from the direct struggle of the subjects involved. This observation confirms the anarchist claim to the political autonomy of all resistance.

b. The correlation of ends and means. A question that many anarchists falsely and arrogantly declare that anarchism has solved, unlike the statist political currents. Whenever the class conflict brings this question to the fore, as did the revolutionary initiative on October 7, all those who claim to have answered this question without having a revolutionary organization on the ground, can and do validate their ideological position in only one way: by separating themselves from revolutionary action.

c. The strategic treatment of the relations between imperialism, the state and the social revolution.

d. The political mediation of the resistance. Here I am not referring to the mediation of the Palestinian movement by the Palestinian political organizations, the surrounding state or, more generally, political-military forces and the international imperialist institutions. The Palestinian people have felt on their own flesh the exploitative and usually treacherous attitude of the Arab and Islamic states. One sees no friends in the UN and in the various imperialist political interventions. Here I am referring to the ideological and political mediation of antagonistic positions of the international movement on behalf of the Palestinian movement. In particular, it is important within the internationalist movement, to deal with the internalized imperialist koinonismos and also with anti-imperialist social fascism, from the point of view of their colonialist political authoritarianism against the autonomy of the Palestinian revolution. In the sphere of political mediation which cancels the field of struggle itself, belongs also the usual koinonistic address to an imaginary apathetic mass as if it constituted the political public of resistance. The political public of resistance is of course the movements themselves, from their organic processes (and their collaborations) to the militant frontier of their development.

The confusion has spread to the internationalist movement. A simple example is the confrontation
within the anti-fascist football club St.Pauli. The critical response (2) of the local clubs to the club’s pro-Israeli statement sharply reproduced the positions of imperialist social democracy. An exception was the message of the Turkish club, a few days later, which highlighted the historical unity of the anti-colonial and anti- racist struggle. The radical position came from the key borderland between the global North and the global South. I will focus below on the first statement (3) of the Anarchist Federation of Afghanistan-Iran, because of the intensity of its reactionary positions, its locality in a place of struggle (Middle East, Kurdistan), and in connection to this because of its internal contradictions. In contrast, I will examine the social-fascist positions that present themselves as anti-imperialist. The last critical reference will focus on conspiratorial (4) positions.

The entirety of the ideological positions of imperialist social democracy have been eloquently and succinctly answered by the Palestinian refugee Nidal Khalaf in his intervention, “On ‘pro-Palestinian’ hypocrisy.” (5) I will only summarize at this point, but anyone who continues reading this text should read the aforementioned article as if it were interjected here. I adopt every word of it, considering it sufficient to deconstruct the scarecrows of imperialist koinonismos. N. Khalaf, after stating from the outset that “Israel” is a colonial entity created and existing as an advance military base for Western imperialism, makes it clear that a war is being waged with colonialism and that it is not a border or religious dispute. He then goes on to denounce pro-colonial pacifism and collaborationist case of the two-state solution, the condemnation of violence and international law. He explains that the western value systems underlying the allegedly friendly critique of the Palestinian resistance, exist due to and for the sake of imperialist genocide. According to the Palestinian refugee’s testimony, the real hypocrisy is not the imperialists’ policies and their propaganda, but the projection of a pro-Palestinian identity by subjects who conform to the western scheme of liberal values. The worst form of western hegemonism is the attempts at moral subjugation, which are condensed in the refusal to support the Palestinian resistance organizations. The article closes by returning back to the exponents of cultural imperialism the image of the dead civilian. The whole text decimates the ideological colonialism of imperialist koinonismos that is so internalized in the international movement.

I proceed to a political summary of the views expressed in two interviews by two anarchists from the field, one who spoke (6) on behalf of the Palestinian anarchist organization FAUDA and one with Israeli citizenship. (7) Political positions from reality, against the political mediation of imperialist koinonismos. As another testimony (8) from the refugee Palestinian diaspora notes: “There is plenty of temptation to wag fingers in the aftermath of the operation [of October 7], but surely that task is not the domain of academics and activists in the metropole. Nor should it be the priority of diaspora Palestinians (among whom I include myself). In our environs, filled with their own kind of hostility, the priority should be to defend Palestinians against the torment to which they have been subjected by the entire industrialized world. Among politicians, artists, celebrities, and intellectuals, Palestinians have no shortage of critics happy to cosign Zionist genocide. Those critiques don’t need or desire our validation, anyway. Abandoning our brethren in order to appease the Zionist establishment will deliver no accolades. In the end, the aspirant to respectability is left only with the shame of conciliation.

Palestinians are perfectly capable of formulating strategy and thinking through complex problems without the guidance of outsiders; they certainly don’t need half-baked moralism from dorks and social climbers in the West.”

The actual relationship between ends and means as testimonies from ground reveal, clarifies the issue of concretizing class-political relations and identifying enemies and friends. I begin with two quotes from the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. (9) “The Gaza Palestinians have decided they’re willing to pay any price for a moment of freedom.” Who would deny this cause and its consequences? “On Saturday, Israel saw pictures it has never seen before. Palestinian vehicles patrolling its cities, bike riders entering through the Gaza gates. These pictures tear away at that arrogance.” No consequence is capable of undoing the achieved unity of this cause and this means. The October 7 initiative drew a line of war, of revolution and counter-revolution in Gaza that defines the world in an inescapable way: you either tread on one hemisphere of the Earth or the other, either with the Palestinian revolution or with imperialist genocide. The word arrogance, couched as the self-consciousness of the colonial nation (self-consciousness can only ever be negative) dissolves the counter-revolutionary propaganda about innocent victims.

The comrade from FAUDA informs us that the common front of the Palestinian resistance under the same banner and with the common goal of liberation from zionism is a fundamental need and that their organization is fighting for the unity of the movement. It also points out the necessity of mobilizing the youth for this purpose. (10)

The comrade with Israeli nationality informs us that what characterizes the Palestinian resistance these days, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, is the common and broad fronts. Islamists, secularists, Marxists and even national-liberals, like some parts of Fatah, are fighting side by side. The immediate class and political frontier has been defined, the immediate revolutionary purpose has been defined, the practical consequences are inescapable.

The comrade, with their testimony, completes the revolutionary line by taking a radical stand at the rear of the colonial frontier. His words illuminate precisely what internationalist defeatism means. Already as he introduces himself he declares his place of birth, Haifa, as occupied Palestine and thus calls the occupation by its name, for all Palestinian land. Recognizing the anti-colonial resistance as the only revolutionary movement in the occupied territories and as the vanguard of any radical change, he declares his obligation to deny his Israeli identity, to become an enemy, a traitor to the colonial nation, to his “society” and to ally with the dispossessed. Here is a perception of class specific condition, of the specific consequences of ends and means. The comrade declares his duty to side with the oppressed, on their own terms and under their own leadership. And he notes on this that anarchism (11) gives him both the language and the tools to envision this politics. “For me, there is no ‘anarchist society’ to march towards, since we don’t have an end goal. I see anarchism as a resistance movement, an arsenal of tools for the oppressed all over the Earth to fight the present dystopia, and that is what attracts me to it.”

The comrade participated in the organization “Anarchists against the Wall” (now dissolved). Since the fall of the Berlin Wall to the present day, the walls between North and South have multiplied: Palestine, Mexico, Mediterranean, Evros (greek-turkish border), Kurdistan. The revolutionary initiative of October 7 was a powerful blow to the historical development of the global imperialist prison. The comrade from the settler hinterland explains that the idea of coexistence is a superficial show and that only by fighting against the wall did the two sides come together, not as enemies, but as fighters for the same purpose, comrades, co-conspirators and allies, on equal terms. “What Hamas did on Saturday, October 7, was to break the ghetto, both physically and symbolically. They broke the gates surrounding Gaza and reclaimed land inside Israel, positioning themselves as a force beyond their assigned role as the Gaza government. They put themselves at the forefront of the Palestinian liberation movement, directly decolonizing territory.” Class conditions, revolutionary consistency, ends, means, all crystal clear from the anarchist perspective that unites the oppressed in the war.

Let us return briefly to the question of defining the grid of class relations overall. Why is the anti-colonial struggle the key meeting point on both sides of the border? Why not the workers’ struggle, the anti-patriarchal struggle, etc.? Aside from the fact that the regime of national subordination and general exile in Palestine has implanted a condition of domination that superimposes the entirety of class relations there, the comrade points out an additional condition: the settler democracy allows everything, all kinds of radicalism, as long as it is committed to the zionist military rule.

I would like to make two comments on the information given to us by our comrades from Palestine. Both the relativist theory of the intersectional approach and the relativist theory of the abstract wage-relationship as a universal class identity, are incapable of dealing with the specific class needs and social currents that unite people in revolutionary struggle. This does not imply that the correct theory is the post- Leninist one that projects imperialism as the main antithesis in relation to which all other antitheses are indifferent. We will see this below. Direct action anarchism, even when aware of the various abstract theories of Marxist or sociological origin, goes beyond them, having at its disposal the wealth of knowledge offered by direct struggle. There are no issues that fall within a molecular sphere independent of class relations on a global scale, nor issues that fall within a mega-scale where relations are inevitably mediated by states. The scales are interrelated and the criticality of each antithesis is defined by the subjects of the resistance. There are contradictions that affect internationalist solidarity (e.g. Hamas’s links to the Turkish state and the ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories of Rojava) and direct contradictions that exclude any non polemic encounter (e.g. the participation of the working class and the queer community of the colonial Israeli nation in its war machine).

Many libertarians internationally are still investing in the working class of the colonialist establishment. Typical is the intervention of the Anarchist Communist Group of Melbourne (12) (11/10) which, while acknowledging the complicity of the majority of the Israeli working class and not expecting Jewish workers’ solidarity to be a major force in the near future, characterizes the targeting of Israeli workers as damaging. Although this intervention describes the Israeli state in real terms, pointing out that Israeli fascism is moving towards the “final solution”, it does not neglect the obligation to imperialist social democracy to condemn Hamas with a cultural shadow (abstractly “reactionary”) and to distance itself from the targeting of Israeli civilians. But why is equality in horror damaging, especially in a permanent condition where no other practice has been able to even remotely crack the arrogance of genocidal peace, as the Israeli writer D. Levi attests?

Both comrades from Palestine answered categorically to the questions put to them about workers’ solidarity: mass proletarian solidarity from within the colonialist entity towards the Palestinian people is an ideological ghost. The suggestion that the liberation of Palestine, and more broadly of the global South, from imperialist domination is dependent on the workers’ movement of the North, is a characteristic expression of imperialist social democracy, of the colonial capitalist conception of progress and its projection against the revolutionary class struggle. Without the direct struggle of the oppressed people, nothing else happens except the expansive reformism of genocide.

Immediately after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, the state of settler bosses detained the thousands of Palestinian workers who crossed from Gaza every day as if moving through a labour camp, tortured them and marked them with numbers. Some workers died from the torture. In what way did the settler workers express their solidarity? By continuing to enlist and work to murder 160 children of the uncivilized proletariat every day.

The popular movement of the citizens of the occupied colonial hinterland has a direct enemy and if it does not confront this enemy in a way proportional to the intensity and depth of the current nationalist offensive, it will leave the nationwide responsibility of Israelis for the culmination of the genocide intact. War with zionist fascism which suppresses even the slightest questioning of the “final solution” and which devalues even the Israeli hostages and their protesting relatives, must be internalized in the Israeli nation. During the Nazi occupation of Europe, Italian and German antifascists found a way to stand in solidarity with the peoples in the conquered lands and to put antifascist resistance into practice: they defected to the partisans. This was the clearest manifestation of proletarian internationalism.

Of course, the preconditions for solidarity to the Palestinian resistance are not put forth by the anti-nationalist anti-colonial movement of the colonial entity, which has expressed understanding for the loss of its own people in the revolutionary attack of October 7, but by the imperialist social democracy. The same fascism, especially its antiproletarian-counterrevolutionary expressions, must be confronted in the imperialist hinterland, such as the capitalists’ terrorism against the workers of Starbucks (13) or against Harvard students in the USA and the military rule in the streets of Europe.

As various people attempt to contrast the Kurdish Freedom Movement with the Palestinian movement, doing in this way great disservice to internationalist solidarity, let me remind that the internationalist connection of the PKK with the revolutionary proletarian movement in the turkish territory is the HBDH ( Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement) the front of the Turkish armed revolutionary organizations with the PKK.

Those who say that “resistance, uprisings and revolutions will either be social/class or nothing”, denying the class and social nature of the Palestinian resistance and the class and social elements of the political self-determination of the resistance organizations, are aiding the imperialist genocide. Their “nothing” is a gleeful applause for the cultural and physical ethnic cleansing of the oppressed who stray from the fundamentalist lines of colonial socialism. After all, the ideological totalitarianism of “All or Nothing” always comes to nothing anyway. (14)

Speaking of workers’ struggle, when the FAUDA comrade was asked about the possibility of a new general strike of Palestinians like in 2021, he replied that although it is not a trivial and useless practice, the struggle today has gone beyond this level. The situation and experience prove the necessity of armed struggle. The interdependence of means and ends is not deduced from some abstract interpretation of the conflict (e.g. workerism), nor from a mechanistic projection of abstractions onto practice. Even the purely economic struggle, as we move away from the reformism of the workers’ aristocracy, requires armed ways of protecting itself against military and penal repression, strike-breaking and anti-union terrorism (e.g. in the greek territory today). The political strike sharply raises the level of conflict. And finally, the whole historical experience of the workers’ movement showcases that the labor camp is a base for self-organization and for venturing into the struggle, but not a place of militant power, when the bourgeoisie is ready to extend its military means beyond limits.

The class conflict in Palestine reveals the hypocrisy of the ideological distinction, founded on an anti-armed struggle stance, between organized vanguardism and spontaneous insurrection, a construct propagated in the libertarian movement by the situationist lackeys of counter-revolution. Many political texts claiming the title of solidarity with Palestine, call for or wish for the emergence of an uprising in the image of the 1st Intifada, as opposed to the current military conflict. These vulgar euro-elitists, who pretend to be the generals of the correct ways of rebellion, underestimate the Palestinian people, as if they were not already rebellious, as if they were not involved in the resistance in a thousand ways, as if they cannot judge for themselves what the right ways are, and with no sense of responsibility, push a line of disarmament and non-organization within the slaughterhouse, only to promote the doctrine of their political subservience to the military rule’s monopoly, as the genuine liberal colonialists that they are.

On the actual ground, Gaza, the quality and size of the war production of the Palestinian resistance shows, in real terms, what the historical evolution of social horizontality means. Both the arsenal and infrastructure of resistance, with their particular characteristics within specific cultural and political conditions, express the breadth and depth of creative participation and social cohesion in relation to the conflict with colonialism. The main weapons of resistance are improvised. To manufacture the available quantity of rockets and various explosive devices required a huge amount of work. In addition, it required working space and an equally vast transport network. Even more work was needed to build the underground forts, which serve almost all the activities of the combative forces, and not only their cover at the time of close combat. In other words, this is an infrastructure project that serves far more needs than the classic concrete forts, such as those of the Maginot and Metaxa lines, with all the work being done underground and in incomparable territorial density. Additional work was required to ensure that all work was done invisibly and that no information would leak, within a geographically tiny space, overrun by people and which comprises the world model for technocratic surveillance and espionage.

None of these tasks, in the given guerrilla warfare conditions, could have be done for 30 pieces of silver or under gunpoint. Only volunteers with credibility for their dedication to the cause could accomplish this feat. A pan-popular army of unparalleled cohesion density, with no historical precedent, prepared the counterattack against the zionist class enemy and the long war of attrition. The conditions demanded an unprecedented density in the unity of social and armed resistance, and the revolted Palestinian people brought the evolution of humanity towards social self-direction one step further. A step further within the tightest universal prison, a step over an abyss that had to be bridged for us all to move forward, lest we be swallowed up by the history of capitalist and state rule.

In order to carry out the multidimensional program of the aforementioned work, improvisation was needed at all scales, in all phases. It is impossible for a structure of tight vertical direction to carry out all the interdependent productive objectives in the given conditions. It may be difficult for the individualist mentality that permeates part of the anti-capitalist movement to grasp the concept of coordinated self organization, its radicalism and its evolutionary force, but the revolutionary people are putting it into practice. I will not tire of saying it, the historical evolution of guerrilla struggle is the main natural field of development of the fractionally synthetic autonomy of the human animal, because it aims at its liberation from its cultural cannibalism and has developed explosively in the capitalist era, which has unified humanity in a negative way.

At this point we must note something that the guerrilla organization of the Kurdish Freedom Movement constantly emphasizes: capitalist technology is not capable of defeating determined resistance. The self-sacrifice, cooperativeness and resourcefulness of social resistance are capable of annihilating all the mechanical means of the enemy, its one-dimensional way of organizing and its inherent predisposition to take precautions by increasing distances and obstacles. Victory over modern industrial warfare depends on appropriate tactics, strategy and logistics, but it derives, like guerrilla tactics, strategy and logistics, from the moral forces and collective intelligence of the revolutionary people. Hamas has developed homemade rockets into precision guided systems and has expanded its arsenal with effective portable anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile systems, also of its own design. The ideological dogma that considers the proletariat capable only of tearing up bricks of the pavements, is a vile insult to the working class. If euro-elitism cannot understand that beneath the soil of Gaza a temple of popular culture has been built, catacombs that cut the legs off the modern empire, and if it cannot comprehend insurrection beyond setting up barricades with rubbish bins, it is because of insufficient imagination, but more fundamentally, because of insufficient determination.

Horizontalism is not a question of preference of certain closed communities, but a question of breaking down class relations, political heteronomy, all inequalities and especially the conditions of polemic power on which they are based. By what yardstick would horizontality be measured if, while the community of the oppressed filled the coffins, the masters stood unmoved like the columns of the Parthenon?

The authoritarian critique to the means of insurrection, a critique that is certainly directed against the insurrection itself, attempts to define what is ‘of the peoples’, in the way that bio-political critique validates totalitarian rule and its genocides by abolishing political self-determination. The juxtaposition of the 1st Intifada against the armed Palestinian resistance, by recognizing an uprising as popular only when unorganized and unarmed masses are involved, denies the people their status when they organize, arm themselves and try to fight back on as equal terms as possible. This reverse insurrectionalism is no different, neither in political position nor in morality, from the imperialists’ sarcastic statements, “We are against Hamas, not against the Palestinian people”, at the same time that they have unleashed their gendarme to slaughter the rebellious people. In the real conditions of Palestine (and beyond), denying the popular essence of armed resistance means not only to agree with the liquidation of armed resistance, but also, to give masked consent to genocide, since the separation of Hamas from the Palestinian people is precisely the pretext for the dehumanization of the entire Palestinian people, who have been branded as the “shield of terrorists”. He who holds the weapons defines the scope of the hostility. The movements that denounce the armed popular resistance of Palestine have nothing to offer up against the imperialist total massacre, that is being advertised live as the upcoming political management of the entire global South. To settle for throwing a rock or two, not to strike at those who ensure their well-being through displacement and genocide, but instead to implore them for humanity. The means do not tell us what the end is, but they do tell us what it is not. The separation of armed struggle from insurrection is certainly not a friend of Palestine, it is not a friend of political autonomy, nor of social liberation; it cannot go beyond the vortex of serfdom to military rule.

Unfortunately, calls for non-organization and disarmament are also heard from collectives active around the Kurdish revolutionary movement. How do they forget from one announcement to the next, the armed struggle in Rojava? Have they not understood the decisive contribution of the PKK’s party-popular guerrilla movement in the development of the entire movement over half a century? Have they never heard of the declared People’s Revolutionary War and the unity of its four fields: guerrilla, youth and women’s uprising, direct social self-defense and socialist workers’ movement? Have they overlooked the account of the battle of Heftanin (2020) and the evolution of its lessons in the three-year all-out war that followed in the Medya Defense Zones? Today’s Kurdish guerrilla resistance promotes itself as a model for the whole world.

Let’s see what the comrade from the colonial hinterland has to say about the issue of diffuse struggle: “Dana El-Kurd, a Palestinian academic, in her book ‘Polarized and Demobilized- Legacies of Authoritarianism in Palestine’ makes the argument that the Palestinian struggle is not only anti-colonial, but also anti-authoritarian in its roots. During the days of the first Intifada, Palestinians had a vibrant civil society, spontaneously organizing local committees to coordinate struggle, and address the needs of local communities. This uprising was democratic in its nature, and was fought against the will of the PLO. Even within the PLO, as Edward Said argues in his book ‘The Question of Palestine’, the structure was organized in a very democratic way, with internal discussions and open criticism, in complete contrast to politics in the Arab world, an area filled with reactionary regimes and self-appointed dictators and out of touch monarchs. The Palestine liberation movement was always the most democratic and progressive movement in the region, and inspired many other anti-authoritarian movements and uprisings, some of them we saw during the Arab Spring, and many are still ongoing. Many argue that the defeat of the Palestinian left in Lebanon, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo accords and the rise of political Islam have changed the picture, but I think many of the original characteristics are still in place.

Having said all that, I can’t really say that Palestinians ever had an anarchist movement per se. Palestinian anarchists do exist, but like among Israelis, it isn’t really organized as a movement, nor can I say it’s a popular idea. I do believe though that even if the name anarchism isn’t being used, Palestinians do tend to organize in an anarchist way, without calling it like that. New guerrilla groups in the West Bank in recent years like the Lion’s Den in Nablus, Jenin Brigade in Jenin and Balata Battalion in Balata refugee camp organize in a non-hierarchical way and are non-sectarian in principle, open to all the different factions to join. These youth groups are completely outside the control of the Palestinian Authority and the old politics of factions and parties, and their unpredictable, spontaneous nature is challenging to the Israeli authorities.”

It is logically consistent to note that the reproduction of imperialist koinonismos in the libertarian movement and the aberration of “insurrection, not armed conflict”, are expressed by a plethora of ideological schools that either openly oppose the platformist tradition or tend to smother the organizational approach within the boundaries of the national field and of legitimacy. The current class struggle demands that anarchist revolutionary organization be in its constitution borderless and guerrilla. The world that rises will be shaped by those revolutionary organizations that fight and take roots simultaneously in all corners of the Earth. If we anarchists miss this calling, the responsibility will not belong to history. From a historical evolutionary point of view, I reckon that these days are the last chance for anarchism, until the imminent collapse of capitalism, to become a real force for change. The fighting comrades in Kurdistan, Armenia, in the land of the Mapuche, in Palestine and perhaps in other parts of the South that do not come up in the northerners’ maps are paving the way.

The question of bankrupt anarchism and bankrupt leftism

The statement of the Federation of the Anarchist Era, Afghanistan-Iran (9/10/23) (15) exalts the polemics of imperialist social democracy. The condemnation of the October 7 revolutionary initiative is not limited to the act itself. The act is placed entirely in the sphere of the war between powers. The condemnation of Hamas adopts the rhetoric constructed by the genocidal and counter-revolutionary imperialist propaganda. Violence is denounced not as a method but as a tautology of statism. The distinction between civilians and resistance goes to an extent that is constitutive for political meanings: on one side are “peoples” as passive subjects without class determinants and on the other side are governments, which are equated as an ideological category. Referring to the specific field, however, the announcement focuses its aggressive assertion on one pole of power, the Islamist one. And peace is not put forward as a pragmatic perspective, always under the yoke of colonialism, but as an ultimate goal and at the same time an accepted social status which was destroyed by the resistance’s initiative. Peace and security.

Since when did security, the main pretext for state and imperialist terrorism, become a revolutionary project capable of inescapably canceling the struggle for freedom and equality? The conflict has begun anew, here is the evil, according to the statement. As if the years-long siege of Gaza by a nation of settlers were not one-sided war. And as if the preceding, “peaceful” status were not based on the threat of the new status, that is, the “final solution”. Did this particular anarchist collective ascertain from the prisoners of the Gaza strip that the state of their genocidal peonage is acceptable? This statement is an exaltation of voluntary servitude, transposed on the peoples by an ideological elite. Are the Iranian insurgents to be deemed deluded, as they fight for their freedom by risking their lives and continuing while the regime’s murderous terror intensifies? Let them be left to the peace and security offered by submission to power… Why is it that in one place freedom is life and in another place, where there is no guarantee of survival and tranquility, freedom is superfluous and the needs of the settlers (peace and security) are prioritized? Simply because the Federation of the Anarchist Era chooses enemies and friends based on localist criteria. Since the Palestinian resistance is led by forces linked to the regime we are directly confronting (Iranian), we are siding with the polemic of the colonizer. This reflects zero political autonomy and a scant utilitarian internationalism. This is of course campism with a sectarian motive. Idealistic neutrality, speaking in the language of counter revolution, is the most insidious form of campism. In the interpretation and utopia of the Federation, anti statism is the completion of liberalism, with class relations remaining intact, with the crimes of imperialism and zionist ethnic cleansing and counter-revolution going unpunished, with memory trashed.

By disregarding the fighting Palestinians and by nullifying their discourse, which declares that this is a war with colonialism, the statement reduces the war to a question of ideologies. The meaning that the Western ideological trend wants to imperiously impose is to strip the real class-political subjects of their class-political determinations. From the point of view of fundamentalist liberal consciousness, ideology is an illusion, without which citizens can peacefully regulate their relations. In the train of thought of liberal metaphysics, Thomas Hobbes’ classic scheme, which describes the state as a necessary evil for the safeguarding of the “social contract”, makes more sense than the version of the Federation, which regresses as to the determination of the cause: if ideology is the cause of the state and of war, then what is the cause of ideology? The answer, if we adhere to this theory, is illusory consciousness. Everything comes down to a question of enlightenment. And as usual, enlightenment is not aimed at promoting direct revolutionary action, but at preventing it and promoting class pacification. What does this metaphysics have to do with the revolutionary anarchist tradition? Nothing, not with any revolutionary tradition. Anarchist ethics and vision is the spawn and development of direct struggle, not an offshoot of bourgeois koinonismos and pacifism.

The reduction of this conflict to ideology agrees with the imperialist ideology about the “war of civilizations”. The aforementioned statement takes this provocative polemic beyond its general formulation; it targets the side of the resistance, describing its ideology as reactionary and inhuman, with the only evidence being its resistance activity. In this way, the counter-revolutionary terrorism of the colonialist regime is transformed into the logical and inevitable consequence of the unacceptable provocation of the resistance. Having assimilated itself to the counter-revolutionary line of imperialist ideology, due to its sectarian perspective, the Federation culminates its attack on the Palestinian resistance by reproducing the pretext of the colonial militarists for the massacre of the Palestinian people: “using innocents as human shields”. How obvious, the army of colonialists is bombing the Palestinian people, slaughtering their children, pushing them towards the Sinai desert, and attacking them on the route, in order to free them from the terrible power of Hamas! Journalists, nurses and international volunteers, who are unaware that they are being used as human shields by the barbarians, are bombarded by the progressive forces in order to free themselves from this delusion! There are several ways to endorse genocide. Erdogan has literally put his signature on drones that are hitting Rojava and Basur. The Federation of the Anarchist Era and others have put their signature on the bombs that flatten hospitals, schools, temples and refugee camps in Gaza and have put the blame up front on the resistance, with their polemic pen. A sign of the bankruptcy of anarchism in the era of liberal illusions.

The so-called libertarians who blame Hamas equally or primarily for the suffering of the people of Gaza are, like the imperialists, silencing the fact that the people of Gaza have been condemned to an exhausting blockade because they elected a government that disobeyed the colonialists. All those who criticize Hamas at the moment it attacked the wall and the settler prison guards are, like the imperialists, demanding that the Palestinians abandon anti-colonial resistance. They demand it by means of genocide. Their anti-statist or democratic sentiment is encapsulated in the disparagement and abandonment of the Palestinian people to genocide because they chose the “wrong” leadership.

According to the logic of liberal fundamentalism, the PKK is responsible for the razing of the Kurdish towns of Bakur in 2015, during the war of Democratic Self-Government, and the Kurdish youth should not get organized with the YDGH and YPS, but against them. In this way one sides with the special warfare of the Grey Wolves and of Mossad.

The Palestinians’ self-organization which the authoritarian liberals, so called libertarians, advocate, will never happen, because it is a historically arbitrary metonymy for submission to zionist colonialism and imperialism. The Palestinian people do not lie in wait for the luminaries of imperialist koinonismos, they are self-organizing in their daily uprising, in their armed struggle, in their survival, in their mutual aid and in the care of the wounds of genocide. The most radical form of self-organization is the collective memory of the martyrs, which turns into revolutionary organization and an endless river of revenge. Only this self-organization that rejects voluntary servitude and the inequality in life and death can be internationalist. Yes,there is a problem. If a statist religious party is leading the resistance and anarchism seems to be on the opposite side, there is a historical problem for anarchism.

Koinonistic neutrality has a common intersection with the leftist defense of counter-revolutionary regimes which are antagonistic to NATO imperialism, around which they complement each other. They both derive from the denial of proletarian and social political autonomy within the unremitting war of capitalism. Pacifist idealism, by denying war, makes the people a passive subject, compromised in the world class hierarchy, while statist anti-imperialism also makes the people a passive subject of the world class hierarchy, unable to change the general relations without the mediation of bourgeois power and unable to change the class and political relations at the grassroots level. This opportunism is a by-product of the historical bankruptcy of marxism. By investing in Islamism in order to have an effective anti-imperialism, leftism comes to terms with its historical end and changes sides, since political Islam was the investment of the imperialist counter-revolution in the South. It is common, and historically explicable, for would-be leaders of the left to shift from one pole of power to another on occasion, in order to hold the position of would-be leadership. It has happened even in the most radical revolutionary organizations. The adherents of the anti-NATO front of Iran, Russia, China or even Turkey, support the counter-revolution in order to continue having a say about the anti-imperialist struggle, because it is necessary for them to gloss over the defeated anti-imperialist strategy of Leninism. Since the leadership has been historically defeated, it demands that the people become servile too. This pretentiously anti-imperialist opportunism, being unable to lead the living subjects of resistance in the global South, refers to Khomeini and Saddam Hussein (16), the butchers of the proletarian movement, of the revolutions and of the marxist left in Iran and Iraq.

The arab and islamic states have sold Palestine out, many decades now. No state will take on a clash with NATO, unless its own existence is threatened. No bourgeoisie can lead the resistance to the end, because it will not risk its own existence, as Bakunin pointed out. The history of the PLO is yet another example. We saw how the Iranian counter-revolution sucked up the execution of Soleimani. No state will seriously go to war over Palestine. No state will throw more resources into the battle for Palestine than are necessary to spend in order to strengthen its own position in the inter-state power relations, by undermining its antagonizers. The pro-Palestinian war crowns are a preventive protection of the counter-revolution in the Middle East and are specifically aimed at maintaining discipline in the armies and paramilitary militias of the arab and islamic states. The above positions and predictions were written before Nasrallah’s backpedaling statement, which confirmed them. Also, before the Houthis take up action, but with knowledge of their expressed threats. The Houthis are a community that recently faced a genocidal war and remains under siege by local exploiters, NATO powers, the saudi monarchy and the Emirates, with the active participation of the greek army.

The revolutionary resurgence of Palestine, the worldwide popular mobilization, especially of the muslim world, and the surge of imperialist terrorism with unprecedented brutality, put the anti-imperialist struggle at the forefront of the internationalist social movement. In the Middle East, the urgency of the popular anti-imperialist resistance strengthens the need to overthrow the state-capitalist regimes, whether religious or purely bourgeois, dictatorial or parliamentary. The opportunists who support the counter-revolution in the name of anti-imperialism also undermine the anti-imperialist resistance, because they have betrayed its popular basis. On the other hand, liberals who separate the social revolution from the anti- imperialist resistance are dividing the popular uprising, giving away living radical forces to nationalist and religious fascism and thus undermining the social revolution.

Turkish fascism in particular, which incorporated Palestine in its neo-Ottoman conquest plans, is doing service to NATO imperialism, in parallel with zionist fascism. Turkish fascism is spreading war, fascism and genocide in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus and Europe. However, it doesn’t make a move, unless it serves the interests of American or Russian imperialism or both. Neo-Turkism was a child of imperialism. Turkish islamic-fascism is the product of the imperialists’ desperate plan to dismantle the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan and the turkish territory. The same plan that led to the transnational conspiracy to capture Abdullah Ocalan. Erdogan’s anti-imperialist speeches are also part of the special counter-revolutionary war that the Turkish state is waging in cooperation with all imperialist and regional reactionary forces. If the AKP-MHP regime offered any support to Hamas, it did so only to undermine revolutionary internationalism, to strengthen the repression and genocide in Kurdistan, to promote its colonialist plans, which also involve Palestine, and to enhance its negotiating position among the hegemonic powers of the World War III imperialist war. Behind the facade, the flow of oil and steel from Turkey to Israel has not been interrupted, according to a recent article (17), and there is direct military involvement of Turkey in the genocide of Palestinians, as the zionists use the Kürecik Radar Station in Malatya province.

Turkish fascism likens israeli fascism to the Islamic State, just as israeli fascism also identifies the Palestinian resistance with the Islamic State, the demon that NATO and the colonialists bred together. All the massacres carried out by the I.S. inside turkish territory were the plans of the MIT, and of the current Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan personally, as were also the anti-Kurdish assassinations in Europe. On the same day that the Palestinian revolutionary attack took place, the Turkish air force bombed a mosque in the Makhmur refugee camp in Basur, as part of the ongoing war against the social forces of democratic con- federalism. (18) An Israeli army spokesman sarcastically mocked the Turkish regime’s genocide accusations directed at Israeli fascism, pointing out that they are doing the same in northern Syria. Zionism, no longer having anything to gain by adorning imperialist humanism, speaks candidly: only we, the blessed ones, are human – the rest are just flesh, useful for our progress. Neo-Ottomanism is compelled to usurp the revolutionary movement. At the same time that the mercenaries of turkish colonialism in Rojava rape and murder women because the women’s revolution is gaining ground and femicide is multiplying in the turkish territory, Erdogan’s wife and daughter are crowning themselves as leaders of the regime’s “pro-palestine” movement. The political alignment with the staged manipulation of revolutionary internationalism cannot be justified, it has no innocence.

Imperialism must be defeated militarily wherever it lands or places its war proxies. Only the popular movements can achieve this. The zionist military rule must be defeated. In order to socially deconstruct the zionist organization, it is necessary to defeat it in war. Only popular resistance can achieve this. Turkish colonialism must be defeated. The Revolutionary People’s War of the Kurdish Freedom Movement and internationalist confederalism is achieving this. Fascism must be defeated everywhere, the insurrections must win by means of the political autonomy and military might of the proletarian social forces.

Anti-imperialism or social revolution, fascism or imperialist democracy, multiple poles or a single pole in the global capitalist order, european enlightenment or jihadism, anti-occupation or workers’ struggle, war or self-organization, insurrection or armed resistance, Palestine or Kurdistan? Artificial dilemmas. It is the job of the bosses to make such enforced divisions on the internationalist social revolution. The most important consequence of revolutionary anarchism is the immediacy of its commitment to the entirety of all particular points of struggle. This alone builds the cohesion of the revolutionary social front.

In these days of the crucial frontal confrontation with NATO terrorism in the Middle East and in the metropolises of the North, revolutionary internationalism has the responsibility to promote solidarity with the Kurdish and Palestinian resistance on a undivided basis. (19) It is crucial for the revolutionary social and anti-imperialist/anti-colonial character of any expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people to not neglect the task of highlighting the conflict in Kurdistan and informing about the current intensity of colonialist attacks in northern Syria and Armenia. At the same time, contrasting the social gains of the Kurdish movement against the Palestinian resistance is unacceptable. As organizations of the turkish- kurdish political front point out, “we support the struggle of the people of Kurdistan and Palestine without any ifs and buts.” (20) Sectarian attitudes are expressions of the conditions of repression of revolutionary internationalism. In practice, the state-capitalist leaderships that organize the military and bio-political rule of the Middle East and of the whole Earth are the same for both Kurdistan and Palestine. The same imperialist directorates, the same war industries, the same energy trusts, the same logistics chains.

As a revolutionary internationalist movement we have a duty to promote the arab-kurdish alliance, which has spread the social revolution in NE Syria and is defending the battle front against the turkish occupation. To promote it wherever we struggle.

From the message of an HPG guerrilla of Arab origin fighting in Medina of Basur (Siyar Ereb, 14/10) (21): “As a member of the brother Arab nations, I now take my place in the Free Movement. I joined the guerrillas to respond to enemy attacks. I am very happy and proud of this. […] Genocidal wars are being waged everywhere. […] We will resist until we fulfill our defensive duty and defeat the invading forces. Arab peoples must support this honorable struggle. Our young people need to join this struggle and fight against fascism.”

And the account of an internationalist fighter a few years before: “An experience full of hope? There are many in this case too. I can juxtapose another man whom I met, who is a boy from Raqqa, an Arab. He willingly chose to leave Raqqa. He was a worker in a garage, he was 15 years old, and, while at work, a civil guard approached him, one of those who in many Syrian cities goes around like they are a king and does whatever they want, who said to him: “Show me how you pray”. And after he prayed, the guard told him: “You are phony, you don’t believe, you don’t pray right”. Well, the boy said: “I am here in my city, I am working, and here comes someone who is not even from Raqqa to bother me and tell me I don’t know how to pray”. And so he decided to leave and to migrate to the North. In the end he joined the YPG because he saw the Kurdish people like people who behave in the opposite way to what he had experienced.

He was one of the first Arabs to join a force that was initially 100% Kurdish. I met him one year after this happened, and we were in the same Unit. He is an impressive person. Aside from the fact that he explained his plan to me, which was that he would participate in the liberation of Rojava which has then to become the liberation of all Syria. And he wanted to go fight in Turkey, in Iran and in Iraq. “Finally afterwards we will be able to liberate Palestine and in this way also Lebanon”, he would say. And if there was a need also in Italy, he would come here to fight too. He is a person, almost illiterate, who had never seen anything outside of Raqqa, of Kobane and maybe a bit further, but he has a genuine will and perspective, a real one. I am speaking in the present tense, even though I unfortunately cannot be sure if he is still alive, since I left him in September, and in Syria life expectancy is rather short. I fought by his side, and as a fighter he is just impressive, indescribable. There were scenes that, to a westerner like myself, seem like they come out of a movie, how a person can fight like this. As a proletarian and a man with no education, illiterate, condemned by his life to a limited reality, he is a revolutionary of the highest levels in history imaginable. This is how I know that in the north of Syria there are thousands like him, and this is inestimable.

I can say his nom de guerre, Zagros Raqqa, because no one in Rojava uses their real name…

The biggest lessons are two. The first is that there is an inequality, a divide, and I already knew this, between the West and the Middle East, or maybe between the West and the rest of the world. It is so great that you cannot imagine it, it cannot be described, and unfortunately, it is not even enough for one to go there and fight in order to bridge the gap, in the sense that it is a divide between those who have everything and those who have nothing, between one who is well and one who is suffering. This is a realization of the seriousness of this situation, made mainly by the one who goes to fight in such war situations.

The other lesson is that the revolution is just and necessary, however, when we say ‘revolution’ we must be conscientious about the gravity of this word in the sense of the pain, the tragedy and the pain it brings about, because a revolution is still a turning point for society, it is an upheaval of society that doesn’t happen peacefully, even though it is necessary, and so we should not use this term lightly. We don’t need to imagine simply that it is a ‘beautiful thing’. Those who think like this should better give up on politics and do something else, while it would be useful to have people who understand how terrible it is to have to have a revolution, but who continue to think it is necessary.” (Davide Grasso, former YPG fighter, Italy, September 2017)

Stories of spies and saints

“Palestinians have determined to proceed without their Western custodians. Decolonization is a grueling project, generally beyond the acumen of those weaned in comfort. The professional classes are stuck in bourgeois abstractions (from which they derive so many rewards) or profess a material politics they don’t in reality support. They demand a bloodless liberation, but only without the colonizer’s blood, even as the native bleeds out in full view of the world. They demand a revolt without consequence, a caucus of pristine victims politely asking to stay alive. They have taught Fanon but ignored his observation that decolonization ‘cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, a natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement.’

These erstwhile liberals don’t need to consult Palestinians to see how wrong they are. Zionists have been explaining for decades that Israel must be defeated by force.” (A Voice from Palestine) (22)

It is undeniable that Hamas is working with states. It does not hide it, since it is not ashamed of its statism. It is also plausible that the revolutionary initiative of 7 October was aimed, among other things, at significantly changing the inter-state power relations in the Middle East and at overturning the political relations as regards the imperialist hegemony. As Hamas confirmed after a month of fighting (in an interview with the New York Times), the initiative was founded on a decision to break free from the long and exhausting siege of Gaza, at any cost.

None of the above facts implies that the stated purposes are contrary to the will of the Palestinian people. This implication presupposes as an arbitrary rule that the people always choose peace, even when that means their long-term extermination, over desperate resistance. The lackeys of genocidal colonial peace silence the fact that the news of the invasion against the colonial fortress was greeted with mass celebrations in the besieged Palestinian territories. (23)

No one on the planet could have interpreted Hamas’ move as the product of anti-state struggle, nor of course as independent of any state assistance. However, the statist mediation of popular interests does not make these interests entirely artificial and alien; it does not cancel the existence of needs determined by the class-oppressed communities and exploited classes themselves, which are assigned to the political mediation of an agent of power. From the anarchist point of view, political mediation is a historical problem, precisely because there are always proletarian and social needs, which are confused with antagonistic needs wherever authoritarian mediation takes place. The idea that any mediated will expresses false needs and only hostile interests, expresses a vulgar aristocratic anti-popular elitism. As if the people are a thoughtless passive entity that will be redeemed only when it is enlightened by some blessed ones, or by chance.

Why should the upsurge of the Middle East or even of the whole Earth be a hostile prospect for those who permanently live and die inside the furnace of colonialist rule? How else will Palestine be liberated, if the colonial fortress is not blown up like a powder keg and thus, if the whole world does not flare up first? The scaremongering about ‘escalation’ is a central propaganda line of the imperialists. If there is a specific problem with state mediators here, it is their inherent incompetence and their insufficient motivation to engage in the anti-imperialist struggle to the degree that is necessary for the liberation of Palestine. The ideological elites of any social democracy have even less of a motivation and zero capacity.

In Greece, a group that brandishes an understanding of politics as an interplay between agents, surpassing even the greek Communist Party, added to the above that “the destruction of Gaza and the displacement of its inhabitants was and is among the plans of Hamas’ agents, was intended and indeed is a precondition for its continuation.” (24) This conclusion negates the fundamental axiom of the state that state expediency takes precedence over all other expediency and therefore of the interests of its citizens, because it completely equates the interests of Hamas with the interests of the supporting states and their interests with the interests of the enemy states (NATO, Israel, etc.). This is the typical Hitlerian reduction (propaganda manual in “My Struggle”), historically anti-Semitic, of all antitheses to the dark designs of a principal enemy. This mystical reduction is the pretext for stripping the meaning from the antitheses and subordinating them to a simplistic monolithic ideology. In this case, the contradictory factors in the imperialistic management of the Palestinian genocide are blatant. It has been shown by official documents that the colonialists are seeking the complete displacement of the disobedient people. But the vassal Arab states do not want the surplus Palestinian precariat and the displaced Palestinian resistance in their territories. Neither do the European imperialists. That’s why the Egyptian junta keeps them corralled in the slaughterhouse. Which state and why would it want the Palestinian resistance to diffuse, except the settlers, who have their own special interest as a priority? The NATOists have pulled out of the drawer the case of a collaborationist palestinian state, the ideal plan for them, however, as much as an open war was necessary in order to attempt the definitive annihilation of resistance throughout occupied Palestine, so too a war makes the prospect of annihilation unrealistically idealistic. The national disregard for the Palestinian Authority, its total weakness on an international level, the resistance’s ultimatums to Abbas (5-6/11/23, Organization ‘Children of Abu Jadal’, from inside the police forces of the Palestinian Authority), and the attack on him (7/11/23, questioned by the Palestinian Authority and the imperialists) confirm these lines, which were written prior to this. The interpretation that open war was a priori necessary and legitimate for the colonialists and imperialists, and by implication, the October 7 attack was a pretext, turns the causes and practical consequences upside down, with a preconceived position that resistance is irrational. Why would the imperialists seek to feed and diffuse anti-colonial anti-imperialist resistance, why would they want to compromise the relations of the Arab states with Israeli colonialism, why would they want to increase Iranian-Shiite influence and to hand over to the mediating Turkish hegemony more bargaining cards, while the Hamas state was quietly managing the Gaza camp? Why would the Iranian regime want the Palestinians scattered around rather than at the feet of the Israeli hinterland? There is only one answer: because this is how it suits the ideology that says that the powerful are always powerful and that they inevitably pull the strings of history.

All the current complications have one driving premise, which alone gives them coherent meaning: the settlers’ and NATO’s expectation to eliminate Palestinian resistance, because on October 7 it manifested itself powerfully. With the unhindered prolonged mass massacre of the people of Gaza, with the repeated bombings of refugee convoys, hospitals, schools and churches turned into refugee shelters, with the killing of 101 volunteers of the UN humanitarian mission (until 12 November), the targeted killing of dozens of Red Crescent nurses and doctors (an article published on 19/10 reports 192 deaths since 7/1025 and of 40 journalists (by the first week of November), the imperialists are sending the message to the people of the whole world, that those who do not get used to poverty, exclusion, displacement, incarceration and slow death, will be brutally exterminated. Resistance is not the pretext for this coordinated operation of global terror, it is its cause, its enemy. The ‘agents’ game’ theorists are capable of making up any nonsense in order to interpret the facts to suit their simplistic ideology, always against the resistance.

The more specific interpretations of the hypothesis that the attack on the colonial fortress was carried out to provoke the war and impose a new occupation of Gaza or an imperialist protectorate regime, refer to marine hydrocarbon deposits and pipelines. Some also link Turkish involvement with competition for energy routes. These interpretations have the advantage of reducing political conspiracies to specific economic interests and thus pretend to flirt with an anti-capitalist or even anti-imperialist perspective. On the specific field of conflict, it is a stupid ideology to suggest that while there was a semblance of capitulation there were more obstacles to the exploitation of the undersea resources west of Gaza than have now arisen due to open warfare. The only ideal footing of this view is the total disparagement of the Palestinian resistance or popular resistance in general. On 7 October a dynamic of total collapse of the colonialist organization was triggered, but the pseudo-intellectuals of the North could see nothing but the endless development of imperialist domination.

It is not only that they cannot see in any other way than through the language of subjugation. They can neither think in any other way than in the mentality of capital. The usual talk about oil is not class analysis, it is vulgar political economy. Besides, something that is a key issue in capitalist competition everywhere, energy resources, is not enough to describe and explain anything relevant to the specific forms that the class-political struggle takes. Then, politics is reduced entirely to the sphere of political economy and, as a corollary, war falls into the category of political guise. This scheme, of course, comes from the most extreme liberal school.

The conspiratorial pseudo-understanding of the October 7 revolutionary initiative offers the greatest ideological service to genocide, having eliminated the existence of resistance by statute. We can passively watch the massacre without guilt, since everything is pre-designed and inevitable and there is no popular resistance on the ground. The aforementioned group spews out its fatalism on the Palestinians: “The residents of [Gaza] are complying [!] with a directive from the Israeli state and are moving from the north to the south despite UN complaints that Israel is imposing a collective punishment, calling the ultimatum ‘horrible’.” Too much compliance by the elite of koinonismos.

Simplistic reductions in order to get rid of the real contradictions are also expressed in more subtle tones. E.g. (from another group’s text): “Hamas is an Islamist organization. Huge differences of all kinds separate us from it, including – but not limited to – the tactic of targeting civilians. Keeping in our hearts the days of the Palestinian intifada, we stand always and wholeheartedly with the Palestinian people and their resistance, but we see ourselves as far removed from any Islamist formation. We cannot ignore the fact that Hamas’s growth is largely due to its strengthening by Israel itself during the period when it was trying to weaken the secular and progressive forces of the Palestinian resistance. In a similar way, the US was funding and arming Islamist forces as a counterweight to the socialist and communist movements in the Arab and Islamic world. The truth is that Israel chose the enemy it considered most easily manageable. What it was trying to achieve (and it succeeded) was to reverse the internationalization of the Palestinian question (which was the greatest conquest of the resistance until the 1990s) and turn it into an issue of the Islamic world alone. This role was played by Hamas. A role destructive to the movement’s prospects. However, we cannot ignore the fact that at the moment Hamas is also the result of decades of oppression and humiliation of a people. That the young people, born and raised in a prison, seeing their families slaughtered again and again, are siding with those who oppose the inhuman conqueror with arms: and that, unfortunately, is Hamas, even though it is part of the problem and at the same time has the role of oppressor for the Palestinian people themselves.” I skip the points where all the positions of imperialist social democracy of counter-revolutionary pseudo-insurrectionalism, which I analyzed at the beginning, are reproduced. We go forward from the fact that, in the last century, political Islam was promoted by the imperialists to inhibit and reverse the revolution in Asia. The aphoristic ideological lumping together all Islamic movements, belongs precisely to the methods of this imperialist strategy, it reproduces the projection of religion as a dominant field, it vindicates Christian racism, since it recognizes the internationalization of a problem of the South only insofar as it speaks in the language of the North and, above all it veils, behind the conspiratorial mysticism, the class and political dynamics that lead an Islamic organization to the leadership of a resistance movement, the left to decline and anarchism to irrelevance, wherever this has happened. Authoritarian Euro-socialism gets away with an “unfortunately”. Without exaggeration I can say that this attitude does more damage to internationalist solidarity than the practice of provocation through funding (such as the scenarios about the funding of Hamas).

The revolutionary answer to political Islam is not atheistic fundamentalism, which can only dictatorially and colonially become a political identity. The answer has been given practically and effectively on the ground by the Kurdish Freedom Movement: democratization of Islam, in the way of social resistance, not in the way of imperialist assimilation and subjugation. Idealist abstractions and totalitarian aphorisms offer precisely the easy escape from the task of the struggle to transform contradictions. In this particular conflict, the clearest answer to the ideological construction of the ‘religious war’ comes from the joined mass demonstrations of rabbis, priests and mullahs against the zionist military rule.

The fundamentalist koinonismos of the above-mentioned group (that uses agents’ game rhetoric) had led it to nationalism a few years ago (the Macedonian issue). Now it mocks “the general prompt for victory to the weapons of Palestine”. It indirectly advocates refusing to support the resistance and accepting colonial peace, so that a new state is not imposed on the Palestinians and does not annihilate dissidents and insurgents, as if they were secure until then. As those who joined arms with Ukrainian fascism say, Zelensky’s racist regime offered more freedom for anarchists and they expect the same from an ideal post- war renewed bourgeois democracy. Revolutionary anarchism is not positioned laterally, and so from my own position I answer that it is the axioms of koinonismos, not the prompts of revolutionary solidarity, that are general and abstract. Victory to the arms of the specific organizations that are fighting the colonialists, victory to their struggle against the colonialists. No political conflict justifies undermining the anti-colonial struggle. To leave no room for intentional confusion, I note that resistance to Palestine’s long-term ethnic cleansing is not an isomorphic phenomenon with Ukrainian-NATO nationalism, nor with the Iranian counter-revolution, despite its nationalist anti-NATO interests. The differences between these struggles are predominantly class-based on a global and local scale, and moreover political.

Biopolitical ethics, based on its self-valorization, extends its polemic claims to a general and absolute distinction between the supposed revolutionary discipline towards it and the subjects who oppose it and are thus placed in the category of the authoritarians. The elitist project of denouncing real resistance begins with the rape of history and the proclamation of the sovereignty of colonialism over memory. In the words of the aforementioned groups: “No purge can ever and nowhere be a project of revolutionary movements”. Incidentally, the severity of the October 7 attack, across the colonialist entity, was not an attempt at purging, nor did it mean that the liberation of Palestine requires the extermination of all settlers. From the text of the aforementioned group: “The October 7 methodical massacre of hundreds of civilians, youth, children, women and elderly, carried out by the butchers sent by Hamas to carry out this religious ‘duty’ on the road to the establishment of a Palestinian state, the hostage-taking of old people, young children and women, the display of savagery even on the bodies of the murdered, is now added to the pantheon of similar acts of savagery that adorn the history of every form of power. But they will never be written in the pages that adorn the history of the struggles for social liberation and dignity, in the pages that adorn the world history of uprisings and revolutions of oppressed and exploited people.” Gentrification against “savagery”.

Should we erase from revolutionary proletarian history the Makhnovists who set up machine guns and shot at the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords at their feasts? Butchers, when they threw into the furnace of a locomotive a priest-snitch of the German colonialists? (26) The CNT fighters, who during the revolution of ’36 stormed the monasteries and spared no one? The barefoot Somalis who two and a half decades ago paraded as trophies on spikes the flesh of the American soldiers of a downed helicopter, under whose history should we register them? Popular hatred is the heart of liberational evolution, as Walter Benjamin had noted. It is the task of imperialist social democracy to extinguish proletarian hatred, replacing it with appeals for mercy to the theocracy of capitalist war. Thus koinonismos concludes its positions with abstract pacifism. E.g., “Stop the Israeli attack on Gaza now. Stop now the occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza.” Which forces will stop them and how? Not to ask how the return of the Palestinians to the main occupied territories will take place.

The moderate view of the aforementioned comrade with colonial citizenship, restores historical and contemporaneous truth, opening up as topic of discussion the humanitarian law of war. “The images coming from southern Israel the day of the attack 7th of October were of course very hard to process emotionally.Nothing to celebrate about the massacre of many civilians, and by all definitions and standards this is a war crime. Things should be seen in of context though. Also, there are zero examples in history of a pure, ‘clean’ resistance movement and liberation that didn’t kill innocent people. Be it resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the British colonization of India, the fight against slavery in America and resistance to nazi occupation throughout Europe- in all of those cases innocent people died. This is not to justify, but the demand of purism from the Palestinian liberation movement alone is unrealistic. The bigger responsibility is on the occupier.”

The Geneva Convention binds the parties to abide by it regardless of its violation by enemy forces. In any case, no state abides by it. Besides, the inter-state law of war does not apply to internal war, since the internal enemy is not presented as militarily distinct and with represented responsibilities. Indeed, only revolutionary armed forces are self-disciplined in the law of war. The Kurdish Freedom Movement is an example of such an attitude.

Does the imperialist humanitarian law of war consist a revolutionary self-worth? For biopolitical ethics, yes. But biopolitical ethics is grounded on the regime of class power inequality, biopolitical terrorism and biopolitical racism, and it is articulated so as to perpetuate these. The biopolitical ethics of war revolves around the ‘civilian’, but he is defined by the archetype of imperialist citizenship. The guerrilla and his community first and foremost, the unruly government and its supporters, the pariah state and its citizens, are excluded from bourgeois law. In this case this applies to all the people of Palestine before and after October 7. The citizen who joins arms with, who votes for and finances the class war of the tyrant is the definition of ‘civilian’, with the archetype of the innocence of the capitalist, the politician, the technocrat, the media baron, the soldier and the cop, who become targets of the revolutionary struggle. The identification of the ‘civilian’ with the ‘unarmed’, masks with the feudal aristocratic code of values, the protection of the capitalist-state division of responsibilities, from its war machine. Imperialist humanist law transforms the genocidal settlers into ‘the people’ and the people into an exemption from bourgeois civilization. That is why the UN officials do not say, “what Israel is doing is genocide,” but they say, “what is being done may amount to genocide.” The boundary between the recognizably real and the typical speculation is deeply classist and savagely lethal.

Thus, subservient koinonismos and pacifism put forward the historical legitimacy of the unstoppable century long genocide as “living in harmony and respecting diversity”. Diversity indeed, where one slaughters and steals the land of the other and the other is slaughtered and persecuted in exile. Some good comrades proposed the mutual rapprochement of the arab and jewish populations on an internationalist and proletarian basis, through the realization that they have nothing to divide and that they can coexist without religious differences, as they did for centuries in the region before the creation of the state of Israel. Both the myth and the utopia are equally true and necessary, but are interspersed with the real history of class struggle. The state of Israel also comes in the way. A history and a present that fatally divides Palestinians and settlers. The former have nothing but chains and death. The others have everything, have seized it with savagery and maintain this relationship with even greater savagery. “Israelis have the right to call the area home”, say some anarchists. “Because whatever happened in the past, all these people live there now.” Except it didn’t happen 3,000 years ago. The present class-political regime of the Palestinian land is the capitalization of the ethnic cleansing (not a vague ‘whatever’) that began in the recent past, a few generations ago, and continues unabated. The koinonists suck up to the colonialists, but the colonialists are not impressed by pacifist cajoling.

On the contrary, a single experience proved capable of instilling humanistic feelings, moderation, a sense of equality in a small part of the colonial nation: the hostage-taking of loved ones. The murderousness of the October 7 attack produced a consciousness of the insurmountable vulnerability of the dominant clan, and mass hostage-taking produced the prospect of a peace with a little more freedom for the class oppressed, which would not have been conceivable without the universal equation to death. “All hostages, for all of their prisoners”, chant the protesting settlers who are turning against their war-mongering government. The fact that these deeply and broadly nationalistic subjects still form the only opposition within the militaristic nation today, demonstrates something important. Dialectically, the barbarians’ method creates social progress, because it brings to light the means and subsequently the motives of capitalist civilization.

The vile tyranny says, “what’s done is done”. Restorative justice for the massacred and displaced Palestinian people requires the uprooting of the settlers. Projecting the ideal consent of the settlers to a peaceful settlement as a precondition, reflects the hypocrisy of imperialist social democracy and glosses over class ethnic cleansing. Revolutionary law directly restores cosmic harmony by the edge of the knife.
                                   “Whatever is necessary for the return”(27)

These days my soul dwells in the basements and rubble with the dying fighters who wait and stoically greet the settler army. Revenge! Revenge for all the history of tyranny. Revenge for the bloody hypocrisy of the imperialists and colonialists. Revenge for the children of Palestine.
                           Unconditionally with Spartacus, for the fall of the Empire.

“So it is fortunate that insurrection and revolution still remain absurd, because this is precisely what still remains their only potential to win”(28)
Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
November-December 2023
Domokos Prison

(1) In 1990, the term “κοινωνισμός” [koinonismos] was introduced in the critical thinking of greek speaking anarchists, which is literally translated into english as “socialism”. The word socialism has been conveyed into the greek language without etymological transformations (in greek: “σοσιαλισμός”). The term koinonismos means something different from socialism, so if we were to translate it as socialism based on the language roots, it would result in serious confusion. Writer and translator of this text jointly decided to use the direct transliteration from the greek to english, the word koinonismos, adding this linguistic and conceptual note. In short, the meaning of the term koinonismos, as was first expressed, was the political invocation of an ideologically artificial social whole, which, in communication practice, entails the reproduction of those ideological forms that are produced and infused by the state and capital.

(2) International statement of the clubs (10/10/23) – https://fcstpauliathensclub.wordpress.com/2023/1/10/%cf%83%cf%87%ce %b5%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ac-%ce%bc%ce%b5-%cf%84%ce%b7%c%bd-%ce%b4%ce%ae%ce%bb%cf%89%cf %83%ce%b7-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bb%ce%bb%cf%8c%ce%b3%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-s/, Statement of the Turkish club (28/10/23) – https://twitter.com/StPauli_TR

(3) The issue of Palestine is the issue of statism’s bankruptcy! – https://asranarshism.com/1402/07/18/palestine-issue-statism-failure-en/

(4) tn: The term conspiratorial is the nearest translation of the term that the writer in this text uses to refer not to conspiracy theories, but to an understanding of politics as an interplay between agents or proxies.

(5) On “Pro-Palestine” hypocricy – https://thepublicsource.org/palestine-solidarity

(6) Voices from the Front Line Against the Occupation: Interview with Palestinian Anarchists –

Voices from the Front Line Against the Occupation: Interview with Palestinian Anarchists

(7) We Can’t Afford to Remain Silent – Interview with an Israeli Anarchist – https://itsgoingdown.org/two-new-zines-interviews-with-israeli-and-palestinian-anarchists/

(8) A Practical Appraisal of Palestinian Violence – https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(9) Israel Can’t Imprison Two Million Gazans Without Paying a Cruel Price – https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israelis-made-to-suffer-the-cruel-price-for-oppression-of-palestinians-in-gaza

(10) A recent interview with three FAUDA members confirms the commitment to the unity of the resistance and adds the information that FAUDA is involved in the guerrilla struggle. One comrade states that their anarchist movement has opened up a path of popular self-sacrifice. Regarding Hamas, it deconstructs NATO propaganda and describes the political dialogue and cooperation of anarchists with other organizations in the resistance. Importantly, they points out that all resistance organizations have an inclusive political position for all religious communities. The case for Islamic dictatorship is imperialist black propaganda. Just as the addition of a new, Palestinian state is a case of imperialist designs. Anti-authoritarian criticism of the claim of a two-state status and the separation of religious communities throws the discussion off course. Maoists (PFLP), confederationists (DFLP) and pacifist democrats (such as Mussa’ab Bashir, used as a reference by certain ideological opponents of the Palestinian resistance), Islamists (Hamas and Jihad) and anarchists (FAUDA) agree as a program on a single inclusive polity. Such were the declarations of the Israeli constitution as well. Only the imperialists and the would-be exploiters of the Palestinian resistance want two states. But the crucial question is whether we are defending the colonial state as the agent of potential coexistence, against historical and current revolutionary realities, or are we defending the right of the oppressed to reorganize social culture on their own terms, correcting the accumulated injustices? For anarchism the answer is self-evident. Whether the Palestinian revolutionary polity will claim recognition from the inter-state matrix and take the title of state is nobody’s business outside the Palestinian resistance, just as it is nobody’s business outside the Kurdish resistance, the claim of official recognition for the confederation of N-E Syria as a constituent state entity of the unified Syrian territory. (The interview: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abolishtheusa-fauda-in-depth-interviews-with-3-members-of-fauda )

(11) The revolutionary South responds to the a-historical critique that describes anarchism as a eurocentric project. Only the anchorage to the post-Bakunin deconstructivism, that eroded the anarchist movement after the dissolution of the First International, can see in anti-imperialism conceptual and practical boundaries to anarchism. For example, “Anarchists in the Sahel” (18/9/23), (https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33233 ). Marxism had to go beyond the imperialist philosophy of its writings, with Lenin. Revolutionary anarchism never had that problem. From its birth it ventured all over the Earth.

(12) https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33399

(13) https://www.efsyn.gr/kosmos/boreia-ameriki/408433_i-starbucks-poinikopoiei-tin-allileggyi-stin-palaistini

(14) One group writes, “Clearly, we do not intend to dictate to the oppressed and exploited how they should fight […]”. Just before they wrote, “The only self-defense that we recognize -ethically and politically- is the collective social self-defense and social counter violence that the exploited and the oppressed co-opt to emancipate themselves and to shake off the bonds of authority over them”. What does this group mean behind the unclear invocation of collectivity and cooption? And who cares whether these here pharisees of anarchism recognize the Palestinian resistance as self-defense or not? To put the question in a different context: a person who has suffered patriarchal violence, do they need the opinion of these conclaves so as to decide whether to resort to the police, to the state, or if they will cut off the balls of the rapist or whatever else? This same group, ten years ago, in order not to spoil the self interest of some of its members, had covered up an attack against a squat, legitimized by the fact that they refused to recognize the squat as a community, refused to recognize the community’s egalitarian institutions and practices, the political dynamic proletarian social development taking place there, its autonomy in social self- direction and its self-defense. This is what “we do not recognize” means in the world of violence and terrorism: let Netanyahu do his dirty work. However, the Palestinian resistance is winning and the aforementioned squat, which offers refuge to the persecuted and has not put any terms on the Palestinian resistance, is still standing.

(15) https://asranarshism.com/1402/07/18/palestine-issue-statism-failure-en/

(16) Artistic intervention for Palestine, ΚΕΔ – https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627014/ & https://avantgarde2009.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/palaistinh-dikh-mas-ypothesh/ Two months after writing this text I received a text from Solidarity with migrants entitled “The avant-garde of retrogression: notes on the pro-russian and pro-china political tendencies in the greek society” (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1628404/). The political line of anti-american campism and its political conclusions that this text describes, make up a stance of active counter-revolution on the field. Political directions and practices that are anti-labour, anti-feminist, pro-imperialist and pro- fascist, anti-internationalist and totalitarian. The text correctly argues that the two tendencies inside the pro-Palestine movement are clashing and they will continue to do so. I will further note that this clash is not related only to the movement for Palestine. The fields of struggle are intersecting as is shown in the text. Social-fascism is lurking everywhere and is manifesting itself respectively to political priorities. The contradictions of the social-fascist lines are interesting. Eg, political subjects who converge in their defense of the Assad regime and in their anti kurdish stance, and who have allied in the past as a friendly opposition to SYRIZA in the re-negotiation of the greek state’s position in the imperialist pyramid, have taken antagonistic positions in the conflict over (or against) the capitalist-statist public health control. The former, who openly defend the anti-NATO imperialist front, openly supported the resistance to the unhealthy health-control repression and the dictatorial bio-technocratic subjugation. The latter, who are intensively trying to take the lead of the movement with reformist positions, joined arms with the vanguard of capitalist and statist progress. Despite this, the leftist group that the aforementioned text is denouncing has not “infiltrated” the movement; it comprises one of its constitutive subjects. Particularly in reference to the Palestinian struggle, where the subjects of the struggle are collaborating with state agents in their periphery, it is illogical to demand that the struggle be cleansed of statist ideological tendencies within the solidarity movement. In general, I have put down at length my arguments against the automated logic of exclusions.

(17) Middle East: Economy and Geo-strategy, https://trohia.espivblogs.net/2024/01/03/mesanatoliko-oikonomia-kai-geostratigiki/

(18) https://anfenglishmobile.com/features/kck-calls-on-muslim-peoples-to-take-a-stance-against-turkish-bombing-of-mosque-in-maxmur-69767

(19) A simple practical example: Larissa, solidarity gathering for the Palestinian and the Kurdish peoples, from Dugru Squat- https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627002/

(20) https://anfenglishmobile.com/news/kahilogullari-peace-in-the-middle-east-will-only-be-possible-if-people-struggle-together-69791

(21) https://anfenglishmobile.com/kurdistan/hpg-guerrilla-ereb-calls-on-arab-young-people-to-support-the-struggle-69811

(22) https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(23) as above

(24) The massacres of Hamas, the brutality of the Israeli state and the imminent global conflict, Syspeirosi Anarxikon-
https://anarchypress.wordpress.com/2023/10/14/%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%83%cf%86%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b5%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%83-%cf%87%ce%b1%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%83-%ce%bf%c%b9-%ce%b8%ce%b7%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%89%ce%b4%ce%b9%ce%b5%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%ce%b9%cf%83/

(25) Gaza 2023 — High-Tech War Revisited – https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/11/19/gaza-2023-high-tech-war-revisited/

(26) The roads of Nestor Makhno, B. Bielas & A. Bielas, Babylonia Press, October 2007 –

Οι Δρόμοι του Νέστορ Μαχνό | 1ος Τόμος (pdf-κατέβασμα)

(27) https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(28) Nikos Nikanoras, The right to self-defense – https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627291/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/13/the-palestinian-revolution-and-the-rift-in-the-international-movement/

#anarchism #counterRevolution #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #greece #palestine #platformism

I can imagine many people resenting the term Palestinian revolution when reading the title of this article. Some have already written that revolution is one thing and resistance is another, that war is one thing and liberation is another. I chose this title, being literal, precisely because it would be provocative. Let us be open to any dialogue, knowing that the first thing that is at issue is the definition of the subject. In times of war, any political discourse is a polemic act. War is not a choice, it is not a means among other means, as statist positivism and its projections on the anti-authoritarian pretexts for capitulation assert; it is the incessant class condition in which we find ourselves and through which we liberate ourselves. Every phrase that has been uttered in the last 20, 50, hundreds and thousands of years flutters on the broken Gaza wall or hangs in the rubble of the city, among the dismembered children. If the well-meaning movement researchers who have produced numerous analyses of the class and social background of the Greek revolution of 1821 find it difficult to recognize the Palestinian revolution as such, this says something about their euroelitism and nationalism. As for those who deny resistance to colonialism and imperialism, as well as its revolutionary potential, by juxtaposing the “essential” antithesis of capital-labor, the totality or molecularity, today we can say that their abstractions and confines are filled with the stench of the carnivorous capitalist North. The thoughtless adoption of the dogmatic social-democratic scholasticism suggests a blind consumption of intellectualism, self-indulging in ideological garbage. If I pay you a regular salary, the relationship is class-based. But if I take your land to build a work camp or a prison, then not only the relationship is not class-based, but it is subordinate to that, even if I put you in the camp on a salary or put you in prison! If I put you up against the prison wall and shoot you, the relationship is not class-based, it is “essentially” indifferent outside of its interpretation into a monetary relationship. If I lock you up in the prison that I built by stealing your land, if I control your survival resources and bomb you day and night, the relationship is not class-based and the relation of power cannot be changed until the labor relation is universally and completely dismantled. This kind of idiocy goes around as scholastic proletarian theory.

We have entered the evolutionary phase of capitalist civilization where it is materialized as a total synchronic crisis and where every tick of the clock reveals the positioning of every political subject on the side of revolution or on the side of counter-revolution. All antitheses are condensed, they intersect and are confounded towards the maximum and the minimum and in the explosive way that they emerge they express their complexity. The anti-capitalist movement is shaped within this vortex, it does not stand still in some idealized apathetic position of an overseer. It is therefore traversed by the whole set of intersections, confusions and complexities. The war waged by the statist public health control revealed a deep rift in the anti-capitalist movement, the imperialist war in the Ukrainian territory revealed other rifts, which literally culminate into war. The revolutionary counterattack inside the territory of the zionist colonialist rule, illuminated the most fundamental rift within the movement. If we can schematically say that the first rupture concerned the fractional scope of imperialist colonialism over the social body and the second one concerned revolutionary autonomy in conditions where military rule, as fundamental to capitalism, is unveiled, then the Palestinian rupture concerns the very point of the history of capitalism and its destruction. The unfulfilled crusade of colonizing the Eurasian East (prior to the complete colonization of Africa and of the continent westward to Europe) reappears as a historically inescapable and globally universal definitive question. Incidentally, wage slavery, on which the capitalist mode of production is founded, emerged and prevailed in Europe through the colonialist war to the east (in particular, from the data so far it appears that the prime organism where the prevalence of the wage relation was incubated was crusading Venice).

The historical moment of the dissemination of CoV-2 and the culmination of the anti-health imperialist counter-revolution, through its militaristic and bio-technocratic experiment of the universal vaccination, brought to the fore the class and political subjectivity of the human body, i.e. the most elementary organic unit of human existence and society, making it the target of a totalitarian colonial campaign. Imperialist terrorism attempted to establish itself in new depths of primitive accumulation and to restructure all existing power relations with the guiding principle of the liquidation, expulsion and purging of surplus labour. This coincided with the powerful manifestation of the Black Revolt in so-called America and of the women’s revolt globally, the living subject of the history of slavery and capitalist colonization of the Earth. The war of state sanitation introduced a historically innovative regime of perpetual state of emergency, which through bio-politics gave primacy to militaristic terms of domination and to the ideology and morality that derives from that. The counter-revolutionary offensive, in the form of the emergency regime, within the metropolises of Euro-Atlantic imperialism, continued in relation to the war in the Ukrainian-Russian space and now continues in relation to the war in Palestine (the Chinese counter- revolution continues on the first axis). It is no coincidence that the Israeli techno-stratocracy is a pioneer in the production and export of technology and methodology of control and repression, of fascist organization and politics, of biotechnology, digital integration and post-humanist fiction ideology. It should be noted that Israeli fascism imposed universal compulsory biotechnological vaccination of its citizens. Zionist colonialism fuses on the one hand traditional religious totalitarianism and racism, and on the other hand the fundamentalist governmentalist and mechanistic mentality of the bourgeoisie, the theocracy of capital and its technocratic mysticism. That is why Israeli colonialism today is demonstrating worldwide, on behalf of the Western Empire, the might of its terrorism with unprecedented intensity.

In the ideological battle within the international movement, which of course expresses contradictory and now increasingly antagonistic tendencies on the line of conflict between revolution and counter- revolution, what emerges as a central rift is the koinonismos (1) of counter-revolution. In particular, the koinonismos of imperialism and more specifically the koinonismos of imperialist social democracy. In correlation to this, anti-imperialist social fascism reappears as a problem. In the Greek movement the concept of koinonismos has been defined as the internalization of the pervasive ideology of the regime by the social movement. I reinstate it here with a reverse definition, which, without negating what is historically recorded, it puts the title of social in the right causal relation: the social ground and the social relation are not constructed by power, but on the contrary, power pillages their material, their name and their value, in order to return them to the subjects, having reconstructed them with the necessary divisions. This rift concerns the underlying anti-proletarian, anti-social and counter-revolutionary roots of making a separation from the aggressive initiative of the Palestinians, from their Islamic vanguard, from the unholy revolutionary means, from the open class war, from anti-imperialist resistance, from the national identities of the global South, from the prevalence of faith over survival, from the devaluation of the ideological and normative claims and rhythms of the bourgeois positivism internalized in the movements of the North, etc.

The koinonismos of counter-revolution is defined by the class and political frontier that the ruling class erects against the savage proletariat, which in the historical narrative is presented as uncivilized and in politics as terrorist. The koinonismos of imperialism has as its central axes the peace of Christian ecumenism and bourgeois liberalism with its modern ecumenism. The peace of God presupposes the sovereignty of the crusading sword. Imperialist socialism, by demanding the disarmament of the ‘uncivilized’ in order for a peace to be recognized, expresses its militaristic totalitarianism. Let’s not forget that even when Euro-Atlantic imperialism declared war on Russian nationalism, it called Russian nationalism uncivilized and collectively criminalized Russian culture (arts, sports, history…).

The common joint of imperialist koinonismos is the Law of Empire, developed on a global model, in transnational conventions (treaties) and transnational institutions. The sword of peace of the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition is surrounded by legal trinkets and supposedly collective mediations. Around the slaughterhouse, the real class conditions of political warfare (military, biopolitical, moral-social) imperialist koinonismos bombards with a totalitarian morality, founded on the given biopolitical class divisions. Not only is not every death or freedom of every person measured equally, but more specifically, the more intense the class or political factors that determine a person’s life chances and local rights, the more necessary and just for the political economy of capital is the intensification of their oppression or even their killing.

In examining the ideological conflict around the Palestinian revolution, I will use as a model of reference the first statement of Syriza after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, because it contains in three sentences all the basic ideological points of imperialist social democracy that have been internalized in the anti-capitalist movement.

“SYRIZA unequivocally condemns today’s Hamas attack against Israel, calls for its immediate end and expresses its solidarity with the people of Israel. The ongoing violence by all sides in the region, is a threat to any prospect of resolving the differences and is brutally affecting the security and rights especially of civilians, Israelis and Palestinians. We stand firmly in favour of the immediate resumption of credible bilateral talks for a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, with the capital of the Palestinian state being the city of east Jerusalem.”

Let us distinguish the ideological points that form the positions of imperialist social democracy:

1. Condemnation of the attack against the occupier’s national body inside its fort. This condemnation is the most basic position statement within the war. Various people try to convince that the condemnation of violence or of state violence from either side places them in a third position, morally and politically superior. The global proletariat understands, today as a whole, that the condemnation of the real military victory of the Palestinians is an expression of solidarity with imperialist koinonismos and thus a statement of consent to the extension of genocide, stronger than any tearful protest against it by the very subjects who condemn the attack.

In many statements, the condemnation, in its support, invokes the particular religious identity of the political organization that carried out the attack on the colonial fortress. This dogmatic demonization of Islam is identical with the fundamentalism of the crusades, which permeates conservative ideologies of capitalist times and culminates in imperialist/colonial elitism. Those who have been quick to denounce the religious character of Hamas identify with Netanyahu in his position that “we are the light, they are the darkness”. Koinonismos, the most subservient to imperialism, immediately assimilated the propaganda about rapes and massacres of civilians and children as if these practices, which characterize state warfare in general, are automatically derived from the Islamic identity of the resistance organization. The anti- theocratic guise of political condemnation is itself an attack on faith that transcends the carnal lust and fears of the bourgeois citizen, an attack on social morality that puts individualist autarchy under question, an attack on the collective and transcendentalist psyche that dismantles utilitarian positivism.

The ideological lackeys who, disgusted from the resistance’s attack joined the chorus of the liberal crusade, forgot that Hamas is the elected government of the marginal colonial territories, which was arbitrarily denied its bourgeois-democratic authority. The genocidal blockade of Gaza began in 2007, when Hamas ousted Fatah coup plotters, at whose hands the struggling Palestinians had been infamously tortured. Liberal fundamentalism, which sets up a la carte democracies, with coups, terrorism and mass purges, calls the “uncivilized” people fascists, whenever its bribery doesn’t work. The goal is the condemnation of their extended political autonomy.

Hamas was of no interest to the luminaries of imperialist social democracy during the years when the unrecognized Hamas government was tolerated by the colonialists, as it was managing the biopolitical and economic plight of the people of Gaza due to its total blockade. Once it breached the blockade, its militaristic armor and the security of its national reproduction, imperialist social democracy felt the need to join in denouncing the virtual hideous monster.

2. Recognition of the settlers and their genocidal state as a people. Subsequently, expressing solidarity with the colonialist organization. Only statism ascribes the concept of people to a state that is ethnically homogeneous. From the socio-revolutionary point of view, the popular always defines itself in class terms. The militarist colonists never and nowhere constituted a people. All Israelis are settlers because, in contrast to their abstract historical locality, their actual settlement, residence and expansion in the biblical land is by direct and continuous ethnic cleansing of another locality. If we were talking about the United States, only white fascists consider white Americans a distinct people. There is an Israeli nation, but it is not a people. The people of the Israeli state are the Palestinians, the hunted natives. Israeli citizens become a people to the extent that they betray their nation and fight with the Palestinian people. We will see this in a moment in their own words.

A side note, invoking the phantom Israeli people and expressing solidarity with this makes no class or political distinctions within the colonial nation. This phantom comes straight out of the most horrible statist nationalism, that is, colonialist nationalism. In any case, solidarity with the exploited classes of the colonial organism itself cannot possibly depend on submissiveness to its state of domination. On the contrary, class solidarity starts from the anti-colonial revolution, the social war for the destruction of the state-launching ground for imperialism.

The declarations of solidarity with the “Israeli people” are an invitation to complete the genocide of the Palestinians.

3. Condemnation of violence on both sides.

4. Focus on civilians and subjecting them to the imperialist conditions of rights and security. The focus on civilians completes the project of moral-ideological disarmament, depoliticization and passivization of the resisting people. At the same time that imperialism is blowing up the revolted prison of Gaza, it is also assuming the paternalistic responsibility of managing the survivors of genocide. More generally, the humanitarian infiltration of the transnational and parastatal (NGO) institutions of capital in the global South is paving the way for the formation of protectorate state institutions in the service of imperialism, with the assignment of managerial positions to collaborationists. We should note that the regional hegemonic powers are also playing in this field, always against the political autonomy and internationalist solidarity of the resisting people.

The external projection of the security claim as a primary need, annihilates the revolutionary needs of the people and extorts the recognition of the colonial interest, the security of its national fascist regime, as a universal need. The conclaves that hold the sword of imperialist peace can define the rights and the timeliness or untimeliness of their application. While international rights have been established in order to give the form of a contract to structural inequalities, the equation of the Palestinian people and of the zionist settlers under the category of ‘civilian’ legitimizes colonialism and currently justifies the attempt for a “final solution” for the sake of the security of the genocidal organization, i.e. total ethnic cleansing through genocide.

5. Proposing the creation of a Palestinian state in the territories that remained unconquered until 1967. On this point, libertarian imperialist social democracy is differentiated from the statist leftist social-democracy in terms of theoretical formulations and working field. However, they meet on the basic point of the relationship with the colonial state. Left social democracy expresses the imminent imperialist project of annihilating the Palestinian resistance and imposing on the wreckage of Gaza a collaborationist regime based on the experience of the Abbas management, who is an agent of the years-long ethnic cleansing. Libertarian social democracy, with a kind of Jesuit elitism and hypocrisy, advocates the fraternity of the exploited Palestinians and Israeli “peoples” or “societies”, without the destruction of the colonial state. I note that the workerist position that attributes the capacity for overthrowing the Israeli capitalist state formation exclusively to the Israeli working class, validates colonial nationalism and even lends it with an ideological envelope of pure national socialism (Nazism). Nothing new, Mussolini started out as a leftist and zionist settlers too, with strong socialist, workerist and communitarian roots.

All the ideological points of imperialist social democracy except the last one are replacing political polemics with a biopolitical ethics and managerial lingo. The biopolitical discourse objectifies existential experience in order to strip it of its class history and political subjectivity. Biopolitical ethics defines what violence is in order to exempt a set of capitalist-state practices from the category of violence and at the same time to criminalize resistance practices. Critical biopolitical ideology ratifies imperialism’s stripping of bodies of their collective identities and their resistance power. Vulnerability is transformed ideologically into an insurmountable anthropological condition, either as a class condition or as its weak consciousness. In this context, “civilians” become the central figures of the biopolitical narrative of war, with imperialist citizenship as their archetype of identification and measure of evaluation.

From a revolutionary point of view, the examination of experiences and the subordination of means to abstract ends that come from outside the immediate field of struggle is an ideological ploy to eliminate and replace the practical ends of direct resistance with the koinonistic ethics of the means, i.e. the anti-proletarian and counter-revolutionary values of the bourgeoisie, which reflect established inequalities. To judge the Palestinian resistance by the yardstick of anarchist or Marxist utopia is a project of ideological colonialism, but also of existential annihilation by the intelligentsia of dominant european humanism. Values that do not allow for taking sides with the existing resistance are values that are comfortable with the existing class slaughterhouse. In the offices where the fundamentalist critique on unholy means takes place, sits the Inquisition, which is certainly concerned with popular resistance, but only as an enemy. A Palestinian people separated from its armed struggle and its resistance organizations is the imaginary flock of the crusader church.

The Palestinian revolution awakens a multitude of questions of the international anti-capitalist movement, which are inevitably answered immediately by each one’s stance. I will only mention a few of these in which the class-political borders have already been drawn within the actual conflict, and then I will focus on the revolutionary lines given to us by the revolutionary anarchists from the ground of the conflict.

a. The identification of class relations in the actual composition of capitalist domination on a global scale. Who is an enemy and who is a friend at any particular point for the revolutionary anarchist movement? How is the distinction between direct and indirect political tasks concretized at each point, given anarchism’s characteristic historical stance of directly responding to the needs of our community as oppressed people, with the general perspective of freedom and equality? The most concrete answers, the only ones capable of bringing about alliance, immediacy and radical perspective, stem from the direct struggle of the subjects involved. This observation confirms the anarchist claim to the political autonomy of all resistance.

b. The correlation of ends and means. A question that many anarchists falsely and arrogantly declare that anarchism has solved, unlike the statist political currents. Whenever the class conflict brings this question to the fore, as did the revolutionary initiative on October 7, all those who claim to have answered this question without having a revolutionary organization on the ground, can and do validate their ideological position in only one way: by separating themselves from revolutionary action.

c. The strategic treatment of the relations between imperialism, the state and the social revolution.

d. The political mediation of the resistance. Here I am not referring to the mediation of the Palestinian movement by the Palestinian political organizations, the surrounding state or, more generally, political-military forces and the international imperialist institutions. The Palestinian people have felt on their own flesh the exploitative and usually treacherous attitude of the Arab and Islamic states. One sees no friends in the UN and in the various imperialist political interventions. Here I am referring to the ideological and political mediation of antagonistic positions of the international movement on behalf of the Palestinian movement. In particular, it is important within the internationalist movement, to deal with the internalized imperialist koinonismos and also with anti-imperialist social fascism, from the point of view of their colonialist political authoritarianism against the autonomy of the Palestinian revolution. In the sphere of political mediation which cancels the field of struggle itself, belongs also the usual koinonistic address to an imaginary apathetic mass as if it constituted the political public of resistance. The political public of resistance is of course the movements themselves, from their organic processes (and their collaborations) to the militant frontier of their development.

The confusion has spread to the internationalist movement. A simple example is the confrontation
within the anti-fascist football club St.Pauli. The critical response (2) of the local clubs to the club’s pro-Israeli statement sharply reproduced the positions of imperialist social democracy. An exception was the message of the Turkish club, a few days later, which highlighted the historical unity of the anti-colonial and anti- racist struggle. The radical position came from the key borderland between the global North and the global South. I will focus below on the first statement (3) of the Anarchist Federation of Afghanistan-Iran, because of the intensity of its reactionary positions, its locality in a place of struggle (Middle East, Kurdistan), and in connection to this because of its internal contradictions. In contrast, I will examine the social-fascist positions that present themselves as anti-imperialist. The last critical reference will focus on conspiratorial (4) positions.

The entirety of the ideological positions of imperialist social democracy have been eloquently and succinctly answered by the Palestinian refugee Nidal Khalaf in his intervention, “On ‘pro-Palestinian’ hypocrisy.” (5) I will only summarize at this point, but anyone who continues reading this text should read the aforementioned article as if it were interjected here. I adopt every word of it, considering it sufficient to deconstruct the scarecrows of imperialist koinonismos. N. Khalaf, after stating from the outset that “Israel” is a colonial entity created and existing as an advance military base for Western imperialism, makes it clear that a war is being waged with colonialism and that it is not a border or religious dispute. He then goes on to denounce pro-colonial pacifism and collaborationist case of the two-state solution, the condemnation of violence and international law. He explains that the western value systems underlying the allegedly friendly critique of the Palestinian resistance, exist due to and for the sake of imperialist genocide. According to the Palestinian refugee’s testimony, the real hypocrisy is not the imperialists’ policies and their propaganda, but the projection of a pro-Palestinian identity by subjects who conform to the western scheme of liberal values. The worst form of western hegemonism is the attempts at moral subjugation, which are condensed in the refusal to support the Palestinian resistance organizations. The article closes by returning back to the exponents of cultural imperialism the image of the dead civilian. The whole text decimates the ideological colonialism of imperialist koinonismos that is so internalized in the international movement.

I proceed to a political summary of the views expressed in two interviews by two anarchists from the field, one who spoke (6) on behalf of the Palestinian anarchist organization FAUDA and one with Israeli citizenship. (7) Political positions from reality, against the political mediation of imperialist koinonismos. As another testimony (8) from the refugee Palestinian diaspora notes: “There is plenty of temptation to wag fingers in the aftermath of the operation [of October 7], but surely that task is not the domain of academics and activists in the metropole. Nor should it be the priority of diaspora Palestinians (among whom I include myself). In our environs, filled with their own kind of hostility, the priority should be to defend Palestinians against the torment to which they have been subjected by the entire industrialized world. Among politicians, artists, celebrities, and intellectuals, Palestinians have no shortage of critics happy to cosign Zionist genocide. Those critiques don’t need or desire our validation, anyway. Abandoning our brethren in order to appease the Zionist establishment will deliver no accolades. In the end, the aspirant to respectability is left only with the shame of conciliation.

Palestinians are perfectly capable of formulating strategy and thinking through complex problems without the guidance of outsiders; they certainly don’t need half-baked moralism from dorks and social climbers in the West.”

The actual relationship between ends and means as testimonies from ground reveal, clarifies the issue of concretizing class-political relations and identifying enemies and friends. I begin with two quotes from the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy. (9) “The Gaza Palestinians have decided they’re willing to pay any price for a moment of freedom.” Who would deny this cause and its consequences? “On Saturday, Israel saw pictures it has never seen before. Palestinian vehicles patrolling its cities, bike riders entering through the Gaza gates. These pictures tear away at that arrogance.” No consequence is capable of undoing the achieved unity of this cause and this means. The October 7 initiative drew a line of war, of revolution and counter-revolution in Gaza that defines the world in an inescapable way: you either tread on one hemisphere of the Earth or the other, either with the Palestinian revolution or with imperialist genocide. The word arrogance, couched as the self-consciousness of the colonial nation (self-consciousness can only ever be negative) dissolves the counter-revolutionary propaganda about innocent victims.

The comrade from FAUDA informs us that the common front of the Palestinian resistance under the same banner and with the common goal of liberation from zionism is a fundamental need and that their organization is fighting for the unity of the movement. It also points out the necessity of mobilizing the youth for this purpose. (10)

The comrade with Israeli nationality informs us that what characterizes the Palestinian resistance these days, both in the West Bank and in Gaza, is the common and broad fronts. Islamists, secularists, Marxists and even national-liberals, like some parts of Fatah, are fighting side by side. The immediate class and political frontier has been defined, the immediate revolutionary purpose has been defined, the practical consequences are inescapable.

The comrade, with their testimony, completes the revolutionary line by taking a radical stand at the rear of the colonial frontier. His words illuminate precisely what internationalist defeatism means. Already as he introduces himself he declares his place of birth, Haifa, as occupied Palestine and thus calls the occupation by its name, for all Palestinian land. Recognizing the anti-colonial resistance as the only revolutionary movement in the occupied territories and as the vanguard of any radical change, he declares his obligation to deny his Israeli identity, to become an enemy, a traitor to the colonial nation, to his “society” and to ally with the dispossessed. Here is a perception of class specific condition, of the specific consequences of ends and means. The comrade declares his duty to side with the oppressed, on their own terms and under their own leadership. And he notes on this that anarchism (11) gives him both the language and the tools to envision this politics. “For me, there is no ‘anarchist society’ to march towards, since we don’t have an end goal. I see anarchism as a resistance movement, an arsenal of tools for the oppressed all over the Earth to fight the present dystopia, and that is what attracts me to it.”

The comrade participated in the organization “Anarchists against the Wall” (now dissolved). Since the fall of the Berlin Wall to the present day, the walls between North and South have multiplied: Palestine, Mexico, Mediterranean, Evros (greek-turkish border), Kurdistan. The revolutionary initiative of October 7 was a powerful blow to the historical development of the global imperialist prison. The comrade from the settler hinterland explains that the idea of coexistence is a superficial show and that only by fighting against the wall did the two sides come together, not as enemies, but as fighters for the same purpose, comrades, co-conspirators and allies, on equal terms. “What Hamas did on Saturday, October 7, was to break the ghetto, both physically and symbolically. They broke the gates surrounding Gaza and reclaimed land inside Israel, positioning themselves as a force beyond their assigned role as the Gaza government. They put themselves at the forefront of the Palestinian liberation movement, directly decolonizing territory.” Class conditions, revolutionary consistency, ends, means, all crystal clear from the anarchist perspective that unites the oppressed in the war.

Let us return briefly to the question of defining the grid of class relations overall. Why is the anti-colonial struggle the key meeting point on both sides of the border? Why not the workers’ struggle, the anti-patriarchal struggle, etc.? Aside from the fact that the regime of national subordination and general exile in Palestine has implanted a condition of domination that superimposes the entirety of class relations there, the comrade points out an additional condition: the settler democracy allows everything, all kinds of radicalism, as long as it is committed to the zionist military rule.

I would like to make two comments on the information given to us by our comrades from Palestine. Both the relativist theory of the intersectional approach and the relativist theory of the abstract wage-relationship as a universal class identity, are incapable of dealing with the specific class needs and social currents that unite people in revolutionary struggle. This does not imply that the correct theory is the post- Leninist one that projects imperialism as the main antithesis in relation to which all other antitheses are indifferent. We will see this below. Direct action anarchism, even when aware of the various abstract theories of Marxist or sociological origin, goes beyond them, having at its disposal the wealth of knowledge offered by direct struggle. There are no issues that fall within a molecular sphere independent of class relations on a global scale, nor issues that fall within a mega-scale where relations are inevitably mediated by states. The scales are interrelated and the criticality of each antithesis is defined by the subjects of the resistance. There are contradictions that affect internationalist solidarity (e.g. Hamas’s links to the Turkish state and the ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories of Rojava) and direct contradictions that exclude any non polemic encounter (e.g. the participation of the working class and the queer community of the colonial Israeli nation in its war machine).

Many libertarians internationally are still investing in the working class of the colonialist establishment. Typical is the intervention of the Anarchist Communist Group of Melbourne (12) (11/10) which, while acknowledging the complicity of the majority of the Israeli working class and not expecting Jewish workers’ solidarity to be a major force in the near future, characterizes the targeting of Israeli workers as damaging. Although this intervention describes the Israeli state in real terms, pointing out that Israeli fascism is moving towards the “final solution”, it does not neglect the obligation to imperialist social democracy to condemn Hamas with a cultural shadow (abstractly “reactionary”) and to distance itself from the targeting of Israeli civilians. But why is equality in horror damaging, especially in a permanent condition where no other practice has been able to even remotely crack the arrogance of genocidal peace, as the Israeli writer D. Levi attests?

Both comrades from Palestine answered categorically to the questions put to them about workers’ solidarity: mass proletarian solidarity from within the colonialist entity towards the Palestinian people is an ideological ghost. The suggestion that the liberation of Palestine, and more broadly of the global South, from imperialist domination is dependent on the workers’ movement of the North, is a characteristic expression of imperialist social democracy, of the colonial capitalist conception of progress and its projection against the revolutionary class struggle. Without the direct struggle of the oppressed people, nothing else happens except the expansive reformism of genocide.

Immediately after the revolutionary initiative of October 7, the state of settler bosses detained the thousands of Palestinian workers who crossed from Gaza every day as if moving through a labour camp, tortured them and marked them with numbers. Some workers died from the torture. In what way did the settler workers express their solidarity? By continuing to enlist and work to murder 160 children of the uncivilized proletariat every day.

The popular movement of the citizens of the occupied colonial hinterland has a direct enemy and if it does not confront this enemy in a way proportional to the intensity and depth of the current nationalist offensive, it will leave the nationwide responsibility of Israelis for the culmination of the genocide intact. War with zionist fascism which suppresses even the slightest questioning of the “final solution” and which devalues even the Israeli hostages and their protesting relatives, must be internalized in the Israeli nation. During the Nazi occupation of Europe, Italian and German antifascists found a way to stand in solidarity with the peoples in the conquered lands and to put antifascist resistance into practice: they defected to the partisans. This was the clearest manifestation of proletarian internationalism.

Of course, the preconditions for solidarity to the Palestinian resistance are not put forth by the anti-nationalist anti-colonial movement of the colonial entity, which has expressed understanding for the loss of its own people in the revolutionary attack of October 7, but by the imperialist social democracy. The same fascism, especially its antiproletarian-counterrevolutionary expressions, must be confronted in the imperialist hinterland, such as the capitalists’ terrorism against the workers of Starbucks (13) or against Harvard students in the USA and the military rule in the streets of Europe.

As various people attempt to contrast the Kurdish Freedom Movement with the Palestinian movement, doing in this way great disservice to internationalist solidarity, let me remind that the internationalist connection of the PKK with the revolutionary proletarian movement in the turkish territory is the HBDH ( Peoples’ United Revolutionary Movement) the front of the Turkish armed revolutionary organizations with the PKK.

Those who say that “resistance, uprisings and revolutions will either be social/class or nothing”, denying the class and social nature of the Palestinian resistance and the class and social elements of the political self-determination of the resistance organizations, are aiding the imperialist genocide. Their “nothing” is a gleeful applause for the cultural and physical ethnic cleansing of the oppressed who stray from the fundamentalist lines of colonial socialism. After all, the ideological totalitarianism of “All or Nothing” always comes to nothing anyway. (14)

Speaking of workers’ struggle, when the FAUDA comrade was asked about the possibility of a new general strike of Palestinians like in 2021, he replied that although it is not a trivial and useless practice, the struggle today has gone beyond this level. The situation and experience prove the necessity of armed struggle. The interdependence of means and ends is not deduced from some abstract interpretation of the conflict (e.g. workerism), nor from a mechanistic projection of abstractions onto practice. Even the purely economic struggle, as we move away from the reformism of the workers’ aristocracy, requires armed ways of protecting itself against military and penal repression, strike-breaking and anti-union terrorism (e.g. in the greek territory today). The political strike sharply raises the level of conflict. And finally, the whole historical experience of the workers’ movement showcases that the labor camp is a base for self-organization and for venturing into the struggle, but not a place of militant power, when the bourgeoisie is ready to extend its military means beyond limits.

The class conflict in Palestine reveals the hypocrisy of the ideological distinction, founded on an anti-armed struggle stance, between organized vanguardism and spontaneous insurrection, a construct propagated in the libertarian movement by the situationist lackeys of counter-revolution. Many political texts claiming the title of solidarity with Palestine, call for or wish for the emergence of an uprising in the image of the 1st Intifada, as opposed to the current military conflict. These vulgar euro-elitists, who pretend to be the generals of the correct ways of rebellion, underestimate the Palestinian people, as if they were not already rebellious, as if they were not involved in the resistance in a thousand ways, as if they cannot judge for themselves what the right ways are, and with no sense of responsibility, push a line of disarmament and non-organization within the slaughterhouse, only to promote the doctrine of their political subservience to the military rule’s monopoly, as the genuine liberal colonialists that they are.

On the actual ground, Gaza, the quality and size of the war production of the Palestinian resistance shows, in real terms, what the historical evolution of social horizontality means. Both the arsenal and infrastructure of resistance, with their particular characteristics within specific cultural and political conditions, express the breadth and depth of creative participation and social cohesion in relation to the conflict with colonialism. The main weapons of resistance are improvised. To manufacture the available quantity of rockets and various explosive devices required a huge amount of work. In addition, it required working space and an equally vast transport network. Even more work was needed to build the underground forts, which serve almost all the activities of the combative forces, and not only their cover at the time of close combat. In other words, this is an infrastructure project that serves far more needs than the classic concrete forts, such as those of the Maginot and Metaxa lines, with all the work being done underground and in incomparable territorial density. Additional work was required to ensure that all work was done invisibly and that no information would leak, within a geographically tiny space, overrun by people and which comprises the world model for technocratic surveillance and espionage.

None of these tasks, in the given guerrilla warfare conditions, could have be done for 30 pieces of silver or under gunpoint. Only volunteers with credibility for their dedication to the cause could accomplish this feat. A pan-popular army of unparalleled cohesion density, with no historical precedent, prepared the counterattack against the zionist class enemy and the long war of attrition. The conditions demanded an unprecedented density in the unity of social and armed resistance, and the revolted Palestinian people brought the evolution of humanity towards social self-direction one step further. A step further within the tightest universal prison, a step over an abyss that had to be bridged for us all to move forward, lest we be swallowed up by the history of capitalist and state rule.

In order to carry out the multidimensional program of the aforementioned work, improvisation was needed at all scales, in all phases. It is impossible for a structure of tight vertical direction to carry out all the interdependent productive objectives in the given conditions. It may be difficult for the individualist mentality that permeates part of the anti-capitalist movement to grasp the concept of coordinated self organization, its radicalism and its evolutionary force, but the revolutionary people are putting it into practice. I will not tire of saying it, the historical evolution of guerrilla struggle is the main natural field of development of the fractionally synthetic autonomy of the human animal, because it aims at its liberation from its cultural cannibalism and has developed explosively in the capitalist era, which has unified humanity in a negative way.

At this point we must note something that the guerrilla organization of the Kurdish Freedom Movement constantly emphasizes: capitalist technology is not capable of defeating determined resistance. The self-sacrifice, cooperativeness and resourcefulness of social resistance are capable of annihilating all the mechanical means of the enemy, its one-dimensional way of organizing and its inherent predisposition to take precautions by increasing distances and obstacles. Victory over modern industrial warfare depends on appropriate tactics, strategy and logistics, but it derives, like guerrilla tactics, strategy and logistics, from the moral forces and collective intelligence of the revolutionary people. Hamas has developed homemade rockets into precision guided systems and has expanded its arsenal with effective portable anti-tank and anti-helicopter missile systems, also of its own design. The ideological dogma that considers the proletariat capable only of tearing up bricks of the pavements, is a vile insult to the working class. If euro-elitism cannot understand that beneath the soil of Gaza a temple of popular culture has been built, catacombs that cut the legs off the modern empire, and if it cannot comprehend insurrection beyond setting up barricades with rubbish bins, it is because of insufficient imagination, but more fundamentally, because of insufficient determination.

Horizontalism is not a question of preference of certain closed communities, but a question of breaking down class relations, political heteronomy, all inequalities and especially the conditions of polemic power on which they are based. By what yardstick would horizontality be measured if, while the community of the oppressed filled the coffins, the masters stood unmoved like the columns of the Parthenon?

The authoritarian critique to the means of insurrection, a critique that is certainly directed against the insurrection itself, attempts to define what is ‘of the peoples’, in the way that bio-political critique validates totalitarian rule and its genocides by abolishing political self-determination. The juxtaposition of the 1st Intifada against the armed Palestinian resistance, by recognizing an uprising as popular only when unorganized and unarmed masses are involved, denies the people their status when they organize, arm themselves and try to fight back on as equal terms as possible. This reverse insurrectionalism is no different, neither in political position nor in morality, from the imperialists’ sarcastic statements, “We are against Hamas, not against the Palestinian people”, at the same time that they have unleashed their gendarme to slaughter the rebellious people. In the real conditions of Palestine (and beyond), denying the popular essence of armed resistance means not only to agree with the liquidation of armed resistance, but also, to give masked consent to genocide, since the separation of Hamas from the Palestinian people is precisely the pretext for the dehumanization of the entire Palestinian people, who have been branded as the “shield of terrorists”. He who holds the weapons defines the scope of the hostility. The movements that denounce the armed popular resistance of Palestine have nothing to offer up against the imperialist total massacre, that is being advertised live as the upcoming political management of the entire global South. To settle for throwing a rock or two, not to strike at those who ensure their well-being through displacement and genocide, but instead to implore them for humanity. The means do not tell us what the end is, but they do tell us what it is not. The separation of armed struggle from insurrection is certainly not a friend of Palestine, it is not a friend of political autonomy, nor of social liberation; it cannot go beyond the vortex of serfdom to military rule.

Unfortunately, calls for non-organization and disarmament are also heard from collectives active around the Kurdish revolutionary movement. How do they forget from one announcement to the next, the armed struggle in Rojava? Have they not understood the decisive contribution of the PKK’s party-popular guerrilla movement in the development of the entire movement over half a century? Have they never heard of the declared People’s Revolutionary War and the unity of its four fields: guerrilla, youth and women’s uprising, direct social self-defense and socialist workers’ movement? Have they overlooked the account of the battle of Heftanin (2020) and the evolution of its lessons in the three-year all-out war that followed in the Medya Defense Zones? Today’s Kurdish guerrilla resistance promotes itself as a model for the whole world.

Let’s see what the comrade from the colonial hinterland has to say about the issue of diffuse struggle: “Dana El-Kurd, a Palestinian academic, in her book ‘Polarized and Demobilized- Legacies of Authoritarianism in Palestine’ makes the argument that the Palestinian struggle is not only anti-colonial, but also anti-authoritarian in its roots. During the days of the first Intifada, Palestinians had a vibrant civil society, spontaneously organizing local committees to coordinate struggle, and address the needs of local communities. This uprising was democratic in its nature, and was fought against the will of the PLO. Even within the PLO, as Edward Said argues in his book ‘The Question of Palestine’, the structure was organized in a very democratic way, with internal discussions and open criticism, in complete contrast to politics in the Arab world, an area filled with reactionary regimes and self-appointed dictators and out of touch monarchs. The Palestine liberation movement was always the most democratic and progressive movement in the region, and inspired many other anti-authoritarian movements and uprisings, some of them we saw during the Arab Spring, and many are still ongoing. Many argue that the defeat of the Palestinian left in Lebanon, the establishment of the Palestinian Authority after the Oslo accords and the rise of political Islam have changed the picture, but I think many of the original characteristics are still in place.

Having said all that, I can’t really say that Palestinians ever had an anarchist movement per se. Palestinian anarchists do exist, but like among Israelis, it isn’t really organized as a movement, nor can I say it’s a popular idea. I do believe though that even if the name anarchism isn’t being used, Palestinians do tend to organize in an anarchist way, without calling it like that. New guerrilla groups in the West Bank in recent years like the Lion’s Den in Nablus, Jenin Brigade in Jenin and Balata Battalion in Balata refugee camp organize in a non-hierarchical way and are non-sectarian in principle, open to all the different factions to join. These youth groups are completely outside the control of the Palestinian Authority and the old politics of factions and parties, and their unpredictable, spontaneous nature is challenging to the Israeli authorities.”

It is logically consistent to note that the reproduction of imperialist koinonismos in the libertarian movement and the aberration of “insurrection, not armed conflict”, are expressed by a plethora of ideological schools that either openly oppose the platformist tradition or tend to smother the organizational approach within the boundaries of the national field and of legitimacy. The current class struggle demands that anarchist revolutionary organization be in its constitution borderless and guerrilla. The world that rises will be shaped by those revolutionary organizations that fight and take roots simultaneously in all corners of the Earth. If we anarchists miss this calling, the responsibility will not belong to history. From a historical evolutionary point of view, I reckon that these days are the last chance for anarchism, until the imminent collapse of capitalism, to become a real force for change. The fighting comrades in Kurdistan, Armenia, in the land of the Mapuche, in Palestine and perhaps in other parts of the South that do not come up in the northerners’ maps are paving the way.

The question of bankrupt anarchism and bankrupt leftism

The statement of the Federation of the Anarchist Era, Afghanistan-Iran (9/10/23) (15) exalts the polemics of imperialist social democracy. The condemnation of the October 7 revolutionary initiative is not limited to the act itself. The act is placed entirely in the sphere of the war between powers. The condemnation of Hamas adopts the rhetoric constructed by the genocidal and counter-revolutionary imperialist propaganda. Violence is denounced not as a method but as a tautology of statism. The distinction between civilians and resistance goes to an extent that is constitutive for political meanings: on one side are “peoples” as passive subjects without class determinants and on the other side are governments, which are equated as an ideological category. Referring to the specific field, however, the announcement focuses its aggressive assertion on one pole of power, the Islamist one. And peace is not put forward as a pragmatic perspective, always under the yoke of colonialism, but as an ultimate goal and at the same time an accepted social status which was destroyed by the resistance’s initiative. Peace and security.

Since when did security, the main pretext for state and imperialist terrorism, become a revolutionary project capable of inescapably canceling the struggle for freedom and equality? The conflict has begun anew, here is the evil, according to the statement. As if the years-long siege of Gaza by a nation of settlers were not one-sided war. And as if the preceding, “peaceful” status were not based on the threat of the new status, that is, the “final solution”. Did this particular anarchist collective ascertain from the prisoners of the Gaza strip that the state of their genocidal peonage is acceptable? This statement is an exaltation of voluntary servitude, transposed on the peoples by an ideological elite. Are the Iranian insurgents to be deemed deluded, as they fight for their freedom by risking their lives and continuing while the regime’s murderous terror intensifies? Let them be left to the peace and security offered by submission to power… Why is it that in one place freedom is life and in another place, where there is no guarantee of survival and tranquility, freedom is superfluous and the needs of the settlers (peace and security) are prioritized? Simply because the Federation of the Anarchist Era chooses enemies and friends based on localist criteria. Since the Palestinian resistance is led by forces linked to the regime we are directly confronting (Iranian), we are siding with the polemic of the colonizer. This reflects zero political autonomy and a scant utilitarian internationalism. This is of course campism with a sectarian motive. Idealistic neutrality, speaking in the language of counter revolution, is the most insidious form of campism. In the interpretation and utopia of the Federation, anti statism is the completion of liberalism, with class relations remaining intact, with the crimes of imperialism and zionist ethnic cleansing and counter-revolution going unpunished, with memory trashed.

By disregarding the fighting Palestinians and by nullifying their discourse, which declares that this is a war with colonialism, the statement reduces the war to a question of ideologies. The meaning that the Western ideological trend wants to imperiously impose is to strip the real class-political subjects of their class-political determinations. From the point of view of fundamentalist liberal consciousness, ideology is an illusion, without which citizens can peacefully regulate their relations. In the train of thought of liberal metaphysics, Thomas Hobbes’ classic scheme, which describes the state as a necessary evil for the safeguarding of the “social contract”, makes more sense than the version of the Federation, which regresses as to the determination of the cause: if ideology is the cause of the state and of war, then what is the cause of ideology? The answer, if we adhere to this theory, is illusory consciousness. Everything comes down to a question of enlightenment. And as usual, enlightenment is not aimed at promoting direct revolutionary action, but at preventing it and promoting class pacification. What does this metaphysics have to do with the revolutionary anarchist tradition? Nothing, not with any revolutionary tradition. Anarchist ethics and vision is the spawn and development of direct struggle, not an offshoot of bourgeois koinonismos and pacifism.

The reduction of this conflict to ideology agrees with the imperialist ideology about the “war of civilizations”. The aforementioned statement takes this provocative polemic beyond its general formulation; it targets the side of the resistance, describing its ideology as reactionary and inhuman, with the only evidence being its resistance activity. In this way, the counter-revolutionary terrorism of the colonialist regime is transformed into the logical and inevitable consequence of the unacceptable provocation of the resistance. Having assimilated itself to the counter-revolutionary line of imperialist ideology, due to its sectarian perspective, the Federation culminates its attack on the Palestinian resistance by reproducing the pretext of the colonial militarists for the massacre of the Palestinian people: “using innocents as human shields”. How obvious, the army of colonialists is bombing the Palestinian people, slaughtering their children, pushing them towards the Sinai desert, and attacking them on the route, in order to free them from the terrible power of Hamas! Journalists, nurses and international volunteers, who are unaware that they are being used as human shields by the barbarians, are bombarded by the progressive forces in order to free themselves from this delusion! There are several ways to endorse genocide. Erdogan has literally put his signature on drones that are hitting Rojava and Basur. The Federation of the Anarchist Era and others have put their signature on the bombs that flatten hospitals, schools, temples and refugee camps in Gaza and have put the blame up front on the resistance, with their polemic pen. A sign of the bankruptcy of anarchism in the era of liberal illusions.

The so-called libertarians who blame Hamas equally or primarily for the suffering of the people of Gaza are, like the imperialists, silencing the fact that the people of Gaza have been condemned to an exhausting blockade because they elected a government that disobeyed the colonialists. All those who criticize Hamas at the moment it attacked the wall and the settler prison guards are, like the imperialists, demanding that the Palestinians abandon anti-colonial resistance. They demand it by means of genocide. Their anti-statist or democratic sentiment is encapsulated in the disparagement and abandonment of the Palestinian people to genocide because they chose the “wrong” leadership.

According to the logic of liberal fundamentalism, the PKK is responsible for the razing of the Kurdish towns of Bakur in 2015, during the war of Democratic Self-Government, and the Kurdish youth should not get organized with the YDGH and YPS, but against them. In this way one sides with the special warfare of the Grey Wolves and of Mossad.

The Palestinians’ self-organization which the authoritarian liberals, so called libertarians, advocate, will never happen, because it is a historically arbitrary metonymy for submission to zionist colonialism and imperialism. The Palestinian people do not lie in wait for the luminaries of imperialist koinonismos, they are self-organizing in their daily uprising, in their armed struggle, in their survival, in their mutual aid and in the care of the wounds of genocide. The most radical form of self-organization is the collective memory of the martyrs, which turns into revolutionary organization and an endless river of revenge. Only this self-organization that rejects voluntary servitude and the inequality in life and death can be internationalist. Yes,there is a problem. If a statist religious party is leading the resistance and anarchism seems to be on the opposite side, there is a historical problem for anarchism.

Koinonistic neutrality has a common intersection with the leftist defense of counter-revolutionary regimes which are antagonistic to NATO imperialism, around which they complement each other. They both derive from the denial of proletarian and social political autonomy within the unremitting war of capitalism. Pacifist idealism, by denying war, makes the people a passive subject, compromised in the world class hierarchy, while statist anti-imperialism also makes the people a passive subject of the world class hierarchy, unable to change the general relations without the mediation of bourgeois power and unable to change the class and political relations at the grassroots level. This opportunism is a by-product of the historical bankruptcy of marxism. By investing in Islamism in order to have an effective anti-imperialism, leftism comes to terms with its historical end and changes sides, since political Islam was the investment of the imperialist counter-revolution in the South. It is common, and historically explicable, for would-be leaders of the left to shift from one pole of power to another on occasion, in order to hold the position of would-be leadership. It has happened even in the most radical revolutionary organizations. The adherents of the anti-NATO front of Iran, Russia, China or even Turkey, support the counter-revolution in order to continue having a say about the anti-imperialist struggle, because it is necessary for them to gloss over the defeated anti-imperialist strategy of Leninism. Since the leadership has been historically defeated, it demands that the people become servile too. This pretentiously anti-imperialist opportunism, being unable to lead the living subjects of resistance in the global South, refers to Khomeini and Saddam Hussein (16), the butchers of the proletarian movement, of the revolutions and of the marxist left in Iran and Iraq.

The arab and islamic states have sold Palestine out, many decades now. No state will take on a clash with NATO, unless its own existence is threatened. No bourgeoisie can lead the resistance to the end, because it will not risk its own existence, as Bakunin pointed out. The history of the PLO is yet another example. We saw how the Iranian counter-revolution sucked up the execution of Soleimani. No state will seriously go to war over Palestine. No state will throw more resources into the battle for Palestine than are necessary to spend in order to strengthen its own position in the inter-state power relations, by undermining its antagonizers. The pro-Palestinian war crowns are a preventive protection of the counter-revolution in the Middle East and are specifically aimed at maintaining discipline in the armies and paramilitary militias of the arab and islamic states. The above positions and predictions were written before Nasrallah’s backpedaling statement, which confirmed them. Also, before the Houthis take up action, but with knowledge of their expressed threats. The Houthis are a community that recently faced a genocidal war and remains under siege by local exploiters, NATO powers, the saudi monarchy and the Emirates, with the active participation of the greek army.

The revolutionary resurgence of Palestine, the worldwide popular mobilization, especially of the muslim world, and the surge of imperialist terrorism with unprecedented brutality, put the anti-imperialist struggle at the forefront of the internationalist social movement. In the Middle East, the urgency of the popular anti-imperialist resistance strengthens the need to overthrow the state-capitalist regimes, whether religious or purely bourgeois, dictatorial or parliamentary. The opportunists who support the counter-revolution in the name of anti-imperialism also undermine the anti-imperialist resistance, because they have betrayed its popular basis. On the other hand, liberals who separate the social revolution from the anti- imperialist resistance are dividing the popular uprising, giving away living radical forces to nationalist and religious fascism and thus undermining the social revolution.

Turkish fascism in particular, which incorporated Palestine in its neo-Ottoman conquest plans, is doing service to NATO imperialism, in parallel with zionist fascism. Turkish fascism is spreading war, fascism and genocide in the Middle East, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus and Europe. However, it doesn’t make a move, unless it serves the interests of American or Russian imperialism or both. Neo-Turkism was a child of imperialism. Turkish islamic-fascism is the product of the imperialists’ desperate plan to dismantle the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan and the turkish territory. The same plan that led to the transnational conspiracy to capture Abdullah Ocalan. Erdogan’s anti-imperialist speeches are also part of the special counter-revolutionary war that the Turkish state is waging in cooperation with all imperialist and regional reactionary forces. If the AKP-MHP regime offered any support to Hamas, it did so only to undermine revolutionary internationalism, to strengthen the repression and genocide in Kurdistan, to promote its colonialist plans, which also involve Palestine, and to enhance its negotiating position among the hegemonic powers of the World War III imperialist war. Behind the facade, the flow of oil and steel from Turkey to Israel has not been interrupted, according to a recent article (17), and there is direct military involvement of Turkey in the genocide of Palestinians, as the zionists use the Kürecik Radar Station in Malatya province.

Turkish fascism likens israeli fascism to the Islamic State, just as israeli fascism also identifies the Palestinian resistance with the Islamic State, the demon that NATO and the colonialists bred together. All the massacres carried out by the I.S. inside turkish territory were the plans of the MIT, and of the current Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan personally, as were also the anti-Kurdish assassinations in Europe. On the same day that the Palestinian revolutionary attack took place, the Turkish air force bombed a mosque in the Makhmur refugee camp in Basur, as part of the ongoing war against the social forces of democratic con- federalism. (18) An Israeli army spokesman sarcastically mocked the Turkish regime’s genocide accusations directed at Israeli fascism, pointing out that they are doing the same in northern Syria. Zionism, no longer having anything to gain by adorning imperialist humanism, speaks candidly: only we, the blessed ones, are human – the rest are just flesh, useful for our progress. Neo-Ottomanism is compelled to usurp the revolutionary movement. At the same time that the mercenaries of turkish colonialism in Rojava rape and murder women because the women’s revolution is gaining ground and femicide is multiplying in the turkish territory, Erdogan’s wife and daughter are crowning themselves as leaders of the regime’s “pro-palestine” movement. The political alignment with the staged manipulation of revolutionary internationalism cannot be justified, it has no innocence.

Imperialism must be defeated militarily wherever it lands or places its war proxies. Only the popular movements can achieve this. The zionist military rule must be defeated. In order to socially deconstruct the zionist organization, it is necessary to defeat it in war. Only popular resistance can achieve this. Turkish colonialism must be defeated. The Revolutionary People’s War of the Kurdish Freedom Movement and internationalist confederalism is achieving this. Fascism must be defeated everywhere, the insurrections must win by means of the political autonomy and military might of the proletarian social forces.

Anti-imperialism or social revolution, fascism or imperialist democracy, multiple poles or a single pole in the global capitalist order, european enlightenment or jihadism, anti-occupation or workers’ struggle, war or self-organization, insurrection or armed resistance, Palestine or Kurdistan? Artificial dilemmas. It is the job of the bosses to make such enforced divisions on the internationalist social revolution. The most important consequence of revolutionary anarchism is the immediacy of its commitment to the entirety of all particular points of struggle. This alone builds the cohesion of the revolutionary social front.

In these days of the crucial frontal confrontation with NATO terrorism in the Middle East and in the metropolises of the North, revolutionary internationalism has the responsibility to promote solidarity with the Kurdish and Palestinian resistance on a undivided basis. (19) It is crucial for the revolutionary social and anti-imperialist/anti-colonial character of any expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people to not neglect the task of highlighting the conflict in Kurdistan and informing about the current intensity of colonialist attacks in northern Syria and Armenia. At the same time, contrasting the social gains of the Kurdish movement against the Palestinian resistance is unacceptable. As organizations of the turkish- kurdish political front point out, “we support the struggle of the people of Kurdistan and Palestine without any ifs and buts.” (20) Sectarian attitudes are expressions of the conditions of repression of revolutionary internationalism. In practice, the state-capitalist leaderships that organize the military and bio-political rule of the Middle East and of the whole Earth are the same for both Kurdistan and Palestine. The same imperialist directorates, the same war industries, the same energy trusts, the same logistics chains.

As a revolutionary internationalist movement we have a duty to promote the arab-kurdish alliance, which has spread the social revolution in NE Syria and is defending the battle front against the turkish occupation. To promote it wherever we struggle.

From the message of an HPG guerrilla of Arab origin fighting in Medina of Basur (Siyar Ereb, 14/10) (21): “As a member of the brother Arab nations, I now take my place in the Free Movement. I joined the guerrillas to respond to enemy attacks. I am very happy and proud of this. […] Genocidal wars are being waged everywhere. […] We will resist until we fulfill our defensive duty and defeat the invading forces. Arab peoples must support this honorable struggle. Our young people need to join this struggle and fight against fascism.”

And the account of an internationalist fighter a few years before: “An experience full of hope? There are many in this case too. I can juxtapose another man whom I met, who is a boy from Raqqa, an Arab. He willingly chose to leave Raqqa. He was a worker in a garage, he was 15 years old, and, while at work, a civil guard approached him, one of those who in many Syrian cities goes around like they are a king and does whatever they want, who said to him: “Show me how you pray”. And after he prayed, the guard told him: “You are phony, you don’t believe, you don’t pray right”. Well, the boy said: “I am here in my city, I am working, and here comes someone who is not even from Raqqa to bother me and tell me I don’t know how to pray”. And so he decided to leave and to migrate to the North. In the end he joined the YPG because he saw the Kurdish people like people who behave in the opposite way to what he had experienced.

He was one of the first Arabs to join a force that was initially 100% Kurdish. I met him one year after this happened, and we were in the same Unit. He is an impressive person. Aside from the fact that he explained his plan to me, which was that he would participate in the liberation of Rojava which has then to become the liberation of all Syria. And he wanted to go fight in Turkey, in Iran and in Iraq. “Finally afterwards we will be able to liberate Palestine and in this way also Lebanon”, he would say. And if there was a need also in Italy, he would come here to fight too. He is a person, almost illiterate, who had never seen anything outside of Raqqa, of Kobane and maybe a bit further, but he has a genuine will and perspective, a real one. I am speaking in the present tense, even though I unfortunately cannot be sure if he is still alive, since I left him in September, and in Syria life expectancy is rather short. I fought by his side, and as a fighter he is just impressive, indescribable. There were scenes that, to a westerner like myself, seem like they come out of a movie, how a person can fight like this. As a proletarian and a man with no education, illiterate, condemned by his life to a limited reality, he is a revolutionary of the highest levels in history imaginable. This is how I know that in the north of Syria there are thousands like him, and this is inestimable.

I can say his nom de guerre, Zagros Raqqa, because no one in Rojava uses their real name…

The biggest lessons are two. The first is that there is an inequality, a divide, and I already knew this, between the West and the Middle East, or maybe between the West and the rest of the world. It is so great that you cannot imagine it, it cannot be described, and unfortunately, it is not even enough for one to go there and fight in order to bridge the gap, in the sense that it is a divide between those who have everything and those who have nothing, between one who is well and one who is suffering. This is a realization of the seriousness of this situation, made mainly by the one who goes to fight in such war situations.

The other lesson is that the revolution is just and necessary, however, when we say ‘revolution’ we must be conscientious about the gravity of this word in the sense of the pain, the tragedy and the pain it brings about, because a revolution is still a turning point for society, it is an upheaval of society that doesn’t happen peacefully, even though it is necessary, and so we should not use this term lightly. We don’t need to imagine simply that it is a ‘beautiful thing’. Those who think like this should better give up on politics and do something else, while it would be useful to have people who understand how terrible it is to have to have a revolution, but who continue to think it is necessary.” (Davide Grasso, former YPG fighter, Italy, September 2017)

Stories of spies and saints

“Palestinians have determined to proceed without their Western custodians. Decolonization is a grueling project, generally beyond the acumen of those weaned in comfort. The professional classes are stuck in bourgeois abstractions (from which they derive so many rewards) or profess a material politics they don’t in reality support. They demand a bloodless liberation, but only without the colonizer’s blood, even as the native bleeds out in full view of the world. They demand a revolt without consequence, a caucus of pristine victims politely asking to stay alive. They have taught Fanon but ignored his observation that decolonization ‘cannot be accomplished by the wave of a magic wand, a natural cataclysm, or a gentleman’s agreement.’

These erstwhile liberals don’t need to consult Palestinians to see how wrong they are. Zionists have been explaining for decades that Israel must be defeated by force.” (A Voice from Palestine) (22)

It is undeniable that Hamas is working with states. It does not hide it, since it is not ashamed of its statism. It is also plausible that the revolutionary initiative of 7 October was aimed, among other things, at significantly changing the inter-state power relations in the Middle East and at overturning the political relations as regards the imperialist hegemony. As Hamas confirmed after a month of fighting (in an interview with the New York Times), the initiative was founded on a decision to break free from the long and exhausting siege of Gaza, at any cost.

None of the above facts implies that the stated purposes are contrary to the will of the Palestinian people. This implication presupposes as an arbitrary rule that the people always choose peace, even when that means their long-term extermination, over desperate resistance. The lackeys of genocidal colonial peace silence the fact that the news of the invasion against the colonial fortress was greeted with mass celebrations in the besieged Palestinian territories. (23)

No one on the planet could have interpreted Hamas’ move as the product of anti-state struggle, nor of course as independent of any state assistance. However, the statist mediation of popular interests does not make these interests entirely artificial and alien; it does not cancel the existence of needs determined by the class-oppressed communities and exploited classes themselves, which are assigned to the political mediation of an agent of power. From the anarchist point of view, political mediation is a historical problem, precisely because there are always proletarian and social needs, which are confused with antagonistic needs wherever authoritarian mediation takes place. The idea that any mediated will expresses false needs and only hostile interests, expresses a vulgar aristocratic anti-popular elitism. As if the people are a thoughtless passive entity that will be redeemed only when it is enlightened by some blessed ones, or by chance.

Why should the upsurge of the Middle East or even of the whole Earth be a hostile prospect for those who permanently live and die inside the furnace of colonialist rule? How else will Palestine be liberated, if the colonial fortress is not blown up like a powder keg and thus, if the whole world does not flare up first? The scaremongering about ‘escalation’ is a central propaganda line of the imperialists. If there is a specific problem with state mediators here, it is their inherent incompetence and their insufficient motivation to engage in the anti-imperialist struggle to the degree that is necessary for the liberation of Palestine. The ideological elites of any social democracy have even less of a motivation and zero capacity.

In Greece, a group that brandishes an understanding of politics as an interplay between agents, surpassing even the greek Communist Party, added to the above that “the destruction of Gaza and the displacement of its inhabitants was and is among the plans of Hamas’ agents, was intended and indeed is a precondition for its continuation.” (24) This conclusion negates the fundamental axiom of the state that state expediency takes precedence over all other expediency and therefore of the interests of its citizens, because it completely equates the interests of Hamas with the interests of the supporting states and their interests with the interests of the enemy states (NATO, Israel, etc.). This is the typical Hitlerian reduction (propaganda manual in “My Struggle”), historically anti-Semitic, of all antitheses to the dark designs of a principal enemy. This mystical reduction is the pretext for stripping the meaning from the antitheses and subordinating them to a simplistic monolithic ideology. In this case, the contradictory factors in the imperialistic management of the Palestinian genocide are blatant. It has been shown by official documents that the colonialists are seeking the complete displacement of the disobedient people. But the vassal Arab states do not want the surplus Palestinian precariat and the displaced Palestinian resistance in their territories. Neither do the European imperialists. That’s why the Egyptian junta keeps them corralled in the slaughterhouse. Which state and why would it want the Palestinian resistance to diffuse, except the settlers, who have their own special interest as a priority? The NATOists have pulled out of the drawer the case of a collaborationist palestinian state, the ideal plan for them, however, as much as an open war was necessary in order to attempt the definitive annihilation of resistance throughout occupied Palestine, so too a war makes the prospect of annihilation unrealistically idealistic. The national disregard for the Palestinian Authority, its total weakness on an international level, the resistance’s ultimatums to Abbas (5-6/11/23, Organization ‘Children of Abu Jadal’, from inside the police forces of the Palestinian Authority), and the attack on him (7/11/23, questioned by the Palestinian Authority and the imperialists) confirm these lines, which were written prior to this. The interpretation that open war was a priori necessary and legitimate for the colonialists and imperialists, and by implication, the October 7 attack was a pretext, turns the causes and practical consequences upside down, with a preconceived position that resistance is irrational. Why would the imperialists seek to feed and diffuse anti-colonial anti-imperialist resistance, why would they want to compromise the relations of the Arab states with Israeli colonialism, why would they want to increase Iranian-Shiite influence and to hand over to the mediating Turkish hegemony more bargaining cards, while the Hamas state was quietly managing the Gaza camp? Why would the Iranian regime want the Palestinians scattered around rather than at the feet of the Israeli hinterland? There is only one answer: because this is how it suits the ideology that says that the powerful are always powerful and that they inevitably pull the strings of history.

All the current complications have one driving premise, which alone gives them coherent meaning: the settlers’ and NATO’s expectation to eliminate Palestinian resistance, because on October 7 it manifested itself powerfully. With the unhindered prolonged mass massacre of the people of Gaza, with the repeated bombings of refugee convoys, hospitals, schools and churches turned into refugee shelters, with the killing of 101 volunteers of the UN humanitarian mission (until 12 November), the targeted killing of dozens of Red Crescent nurses and doctors (an article published on 19/10 reports 192 deaths since 7/1025 and of 40 journalists (by the first week of November), the imperialists are sending the message to the people of the whole world, that those who do not get used to poverty, exclusion, displacement, incarceration and slow death, will be brutally exterminated. Resistance is not the pretext for this coordinated operation of global terror, it is its cause, its enemy. The ‘agents’ game’ theorists are capable of making up any nonsense in order to interpret the facts to suit their simplistic ideology, always against the resistance.

The more specific interpretations of the hypothesis that the attack on the colonial fortress was carried out to provoke the war and impose a new occupation of Gaza or an imperialist protectorate regime, refer to marine hydrocarbon deposits and pipelines. Some also link Turkish involvement with competition for energy routes. These interpretations have the advantage of reducing political conspiracies to specific economic interests and thus pretend to flirt with an anti-capitalist or even anti-imperialist perspective. On the specific field of conflict, it is a stupid ideology to suggest that while there was a semblance of capitulation there were more obstacles to the exploitation of the undersea resources west of Gaza than have now arisen due to open warfare. The only ideal footing of this view is the total disparagement of the Palestinian resistance or popular resistance in general. On 7 October a dynamic of total collapse of the colonialist organization was triggered, but the pseudo-intellectuals of the North could see nothing but the endless development of imperialist domination.

It is not only that they cannot see in any other way than through the language of subjugation. They can neither think in any other way than in the mentality of capital. The usual talk about oil is not class analysis, it is vulgar political economy. Besides, something that is a key issue in capitalist competition everywhere, energy resources, is not enough to describe and explain anything relevant to the specific forms that the class-political struggle takes. Then, politics is reduced entirely to the sphere of political economy and, as a corollary, war falls into the category of political guise. This scheme, of course, comes from the most extreme liberal school.

The conspiratorial pseudo-understanding of the October 7 revolutionary initiative offers the greatest ideological service to genocide, having eliminated the existence of resistance by statute. We can passively watch the massacre without guilt, since everything is pre-designed and inevitable and there is no popular resistance on the ground. The aforementioned group spews out its fatalism on the Palestinians: “The residents of [Gaza] are complying [!] with a directive from the Israeli state and are moving from the north to the south despite UN complaints that Israel is imposing a collective punishment, calling the ultimatum ‘horrible’.” Too much compliance by the elite of koinonismos.

Simplistic reductions in order to get rid of the real contradictions are also expressed in more subtle tones. E.g. (from another group’s text): “Hamas is an Islamist organization. Huge differences of all kinds separate us from it, including – but not limited to – the tactic of targeting civilians. Keeping in our hearts the days of the Palestinian intifada, we stand always and wholeheartedly with the Palestinian people and their resistance, but we see ourselves as far removed from any Islamist formation. We cannot ignore the fact that Hamas’s growth is largely due to its strengthening by Israel itself during the period when it was trying to weaken the secular and progressive forces of the Palestinian resistance. In a similar way, the US was funding and arming Islamist forces as a counterweight to the socialist and communist movements in the Arab and Islamic world. The truth is that Israel chose the enemy it considered most easily manageable. What it was trying to achieve (and it succeeded) was to reverse the internationalization of the Palestinian question (which was the greatest conquest of the resistance until the 1990s) and turn it into an issue of the Islamic world alone. This role was played by Hamas. A role destructive to the movement’s prospects. However, we cannot ignore the fact that at the moment Hamas is also the result of decades of oppression and humiliation of a people. That the young people, born and raised in a prison, seeing their families slaughtered again and again, are siding with those who oppose the inhuman conqueror with arms: and that, unfortunately, is Hamas, even though it is part of the problem and at the same time has the role of oppressor for the Palestinian people themselves.” I skip the points where all the positions of imperialist social democracy of counter-revolutionary pseudo-insurrectionalism, which I analyzed at the beginning, are reproduced. We go forward from the fact that, in the last century, political Islam was promoted by the imperialists to inhibit and reverse the revolution in Asia. The aphoristic ideological lumping together all Islamic movements, belongs precisely to the methods of this imperialist strategy, it reproduces the projection of religion as a dominant field, it vindicates Christian racism, since it recognizes the internationalization of a problem of the South only insofar as it speaks in the language of the North and, above all it veils, behind the conspiratorial mysticism, the class and political dynamics that lead an Islamic organization to the leadership of a resistance movement, the left to decline and anarchism to irrelevance, wherever this has happened. Authoritarian Euro-socialism gets away with an “unfortunately”. Without exaggeration I can say that this attitude does more damage to internationalist solidarity than the practice of provocation through funding (such as the scenarios about the funding of Hamas).

The revolutionary answer to political Islam is not atheistic fundamentalism, which can only dictatorially and colonially become a political identity. The answer has been given practically and effectively on the ground by the Kurdish Freedom Movement: democratization of Islam, in the way of social resistance, not in the way of imperialist assimilation and subjugation. Idealist abstractions and totalitarian aphorisms offer precisely the easy escape from the task of the struggle to transform contradictions. In this particular conflict, the clearest answer to the ideological construction of the ‘religious war’ comes from the joined mass demonstrations of rabbis, priests and mullahs against the zionist military rule.

The fundamentalist koinonismos of the above-mentioned group (that uses agents’ game rhetoric) had led it to nationalism a few years ago (the Macedonian issue). Now it mocks “the general prompt for victory to the weapons of Palestine”. It indirectly advocates refusing to support the resistance and accepting colonial peace, so that a new state is not imposed on the Palestinians and does not annihilate dissidents and insurgents, as if they were secure until then. As those who joined arms with Ukrainian fascism say, Zelensky’s racist regime offered more freedom for anarchists and they expect the same from an ideal post- war renewed bourgeois democracy. Revolutionary anarchism is not positioned laterally, and so from my own position I answer that it is the axioms of koinonismos, not the prompts of revolutionary solidarity, that are general and abstract. Victory to the arms of the specific organizations that are fighting the colonialists, victory to their struggle against the colonialists. No political conflict justifies undermining the anti-colonial struggle. To leave no room for intentional confusion, I note that resistance to Palestine’s long-term ethnic cleansing is not an isomorphic phenomenon with Ukrainian-NATO nationalism, nor with the Iranian counter-revolution, despite its nationalist anti-NATO interests. The differences between these struggles are predominantly class-based on a global and local scale, and moreover political.

Biopolitical ethics, based on its self-valorization, extends its polemic claims to a general and absolute distinction between the supposed revolutionary discipline towards it and the subjects who oppose it and are thus placed in the category of the authoritarians. The elitist project of denouncing real resistance begins with the rape of history and the proclamation of the sovereignty of colonialism over memory. In the words of the aforementioned groups: “No purge can ever and nowhere be a project of revolutionary movements”. Incidentally, the severity of the October 7 attack, across the colonialist entity, was not an attempt at purging, nor did it mean that the liberation of Palestine requires the extermination of all settlers. From the text of the aforementioned group: “The October 7 methodical massacre of hundreds of civilians, youth, children, women and elderly, carried out by the butchers sent by Hamas to carry out this religious ‘duty’ on the road to the establishment of a Palestinian state, the hostage-taking of old people, young children and women, the display of savagery even on the bodies of the murdered, is now added to the pantheon of similar acts of savagery that adorn the history of every form of power. But they will never be written in the pages that adorn the history of the struggles for social liberation and dignity, in the pages that adorn the world history of uprisings and revolutions of oppressed and exploited people.” Gentrification against “savagery”.

Should we erase from revolutionary proletarian history the Makhnovists who set up machine guns and shot at the bourgeoisie and the feudal lords at their feasts? Butchers, when they threw into the furnace of a locomotive a priest-snitch of the German colonialists? (26) The CNT fighters, who during the revolution of ’36 stormed the monasteries and spared no one? The barefoot Somalis who two and a half decades ago paraded as trophies on spikes the flesh of the American soldiers of a downed helicopter, under whose history should we register them? Popular hatred is the heart of liberational evolution, as Walter Benjamin had noted. It is the task of imperialist social democracy to extinguish proletarian hatred, replacing it with appeals for mercy to the theocracy of capitalist war. Thus koinonismos concludes its positions with abstract pacifism. E.g., “Stop the Israeli attack on Gaza now. Stop now the occupation of the West Bank and the siege of Gaza.” Which forces will stop them and how? Not to ask how the return of the Palestinians to the main occupied territories will take place.

The moderate view of the aforementioned comrade with colonial citizenship, restores historical and contemporaneous truth, opening up as topic of discussion the humanitarian law of war. “The images coming from southern Israel the day of the attack 7th of October were of course very hard to process emotionally.Nothing to celebrate about the massacre of many civilians, and by all definitions and standards this is a war crime. Things should be seen in of context though. Also, there are zero examples in history of a pure, ‘clean’ resistance movement and liberation that didn’t kill innocent people. Be it resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the British colonization of India, the fight against slavery in America and resistance to nazi occupation throughout Europe- in all of those cases innocent people died. This is not to justify, but the demand of purism from the Palestinian liberation movement alone is unrealistic. The bigger responsibility is on the occupier.”

The Geneva Convention binds the parties to abide by it regardless of its violation by enemy forces. In any case, no state abides by it. Besides, the inter-state law of war does not apply to internal war, since the internal enemy is not presented as militarily distinct and with represented responsibilities. Indeed, only revolutionary armed forces are self-disciplined in the law of war. The Kurdish Freedom Movement is an example of such an attitude.

Does the imperialist humanitarian law of war consist a revolutionary self-worth? For biopolitical ethics, yes. But biopolitical ethics is grounded on the regime of class power inequality, biopolitical terrorism and biopolitical racism, and it is articulated so as to perpetuate these. The biopolitical ethics of war revolves around the ‘civilian’, but he is defined by the archetype of imperialist citizenship. The guerrilla and his community first and foremost, the unruly government and its supporters, the pariah state and its citizens, are excluded from bourgeois law. In this case this applies to all the people of Palestine before and after October 7. The citizen who joins arms with, who votes for and finances the class war of the tyrant is the definition of ‘civilian’, with the archetype of the innocence of the capitalist, the politician, the technocrat, the media baron, the soldier and the cop, who become targets of the revolutionary struggle. The identification of the ‘civilian’ with the ‘unarmed’, masks with the feudal aristocratic code of values, the protection of the capitalist-state division of responsibilities, from its war machine. Imperialist humanist law transforms the genocidal settlers into ‘the people’ and the people into an exemption from bourgeois civilization. That is why the UN officials do not say, “what Israel is doing is genocide,” but they say, “what is being done may amount to genocide.” The boundary between the recognizably real and the typical speculation is deeply classist and savagely lethal.

Thus, subservient koinonismos and pacifism put forward the historical legitimacy of the unstoppable century long genocide as “living in harmony and respecting diversity”. Diversity indeed, where one slaughters and steals the land of the other and the other is slaughtered and persecuted in exile. Some good comrades proposed the mutual rapprochement of the arab and jewish populations on an internationalist and proletarian basis, through the realization that they have nothing to divide and that they can coexist without religious differences, as they did for centuries in the region before the creation of the state of Israel. Both the myth and the utopia are equally true and necessary, but are interspersed with the real history of class struggle. The state of Israel also comes in the way. A history and a present that fatally divides Palestinians and settlers. The former have nothing but chains and death. The others have everything, have seized it with savagery and maintain this relationship with even greater savagery. “Israelis have the right to call the area home”, say some anarchists. “Because whatever happened in the past, all these people live there now.” Except it didn’t happen 3,000 years ago. The present class-political regime of the Palestinian land is the capitalization of the ethnic cleansing (not a vague ‘whatever’) that began in the recent past, a few generations ago, and continues unabated. The koinonists suck up to the colonialists, but the colonialists are not impressed by pacifist cajoling.

On the contrary, a single experience proved capable of instilling humanistic feelings, moderation, a sense of equality in a small part of the colonial nation: the hostage-taking of loved ones. The murderousness of the October 7 attack produced a consciousness of the insurmountable vulnerability of the dominant clan, and mass hostage-taking produced the prospect of a peace with a little more freedom for the class oppressed, which would not have been conceivable without the universal equation to death. “All hostages, for all of their prisoners”, chant the protesting settlers who are turning against their war-mongering government. The fact that these deeply and broadly nationalistic subjects still form the only opposition within the militaristic nation today, demonstrates something important. Dialectically, the barbarians’ method creates social progress, because it brings to light the means and subsequently the motives of capitalist civilization.

The vile tyranny says, “what’s done is done”. Restorative justice for the massacred and displaced Palestinian people requires the uprooting of the settlers. Projecting the ideal consent of the settlers to a peaceful settlement as a precondition, reflects the hypocrisy of imperialist social democracy and glosses over class ethnic cleansing. Revolutionary law directly restores cosmic harmony by the edge of the knife.
                                   “Whatever is necessary for the return”(27)

These days my soul dwells in the basements and rubble with the dying fighters who wait and stoically greet the settler army. Revenge! Revenge for all the history of tyranny. Revenge for the bloody hypocrisy of the imperialists and colonialists. Revenge for the children of Palestine.
                           Unconditionally with Spartacus, for the fall of the Empire.

“So it is fortunate that insurrection and revolution still remain absurd, because this is precisely what still remains their only potential to win”(28)
Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
November-December 2023
Domokos Prison

(1) In 1990, the term “κοινωνισμός” [koinonismos] was introduced in the critical thinking of greek speaking anarchists, which is literally translated into english as “socialism”. The word socialism has been conveyed into the greek language without etymological transformations (in greek: “σοσιαλισμός”). The term koinonismos means something different from socialism, so if we were to translate it as socialism based on the language roots, it would result in serious confusion. Writer and translator of this text jointly decided to use the direct transliteration from the greek to english, the word koinonismos, adding this linguistic and conceptual note. In short, the meaning of the term koinonismos, as was first expressed, was the political invocation of an ideologically artificial social whole, which, in communication practice, entails the reproduction of those ideological forms that are produced and infused by the state and capital.

(2) International statement of the clubs (10/10/23) – https://fcstpauliathensclub.wordpress.com/2023/1/10/%cf%83%cf%87%ce %b5%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ac-%ce%bc%ce%b5-%cf%84%ce%b7%c%bd-%ce%b4%ce%ae%ce%bb%cf%89%cf %83%ce%b7-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bb%ce%bb%cf%8c%ce%b3%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%82-s/, Statement of the Turkish club (28/10/23) – https://twitter.com/StPauli_TR

(3) The issue of Palestine is the issue of statism’s bankruptcy! – https://asranarshism.com/1402/07/18/palestine-issue-statism-failure-en/

(4) tn: The term conspiratorial is the nearest translation of the term that the writer in this text uses to refer not to conspiracy theories, but to an understanding of politics as an interplay between agents or proxies.

(5) On “Pro-Palestine” hypocricy – https://thepublicsource.org/palestine-solidarity

(6) Voices from the Front Line Against the Occupation: Interview with Palestinian Anarchists –

Voices from the Front Line Against the Occupation: Interview with Palestinian Anarchists

(7) We Can’t Afford to Remain Silent – Interview with an Israeli Anarchist – https://itsgoingdown.org/two-new-zines-interviews-with-israeli-and-palestinian-anarchists/

(8) A Practical Appraisal of Palestinian Violence – https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(9) Israel Can’t Imprison Two Million Gazans Without Paying a Cruel Price – https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/israelis-made-to-suffer-the-cruel-price-for-oppression-of-palestinians-in-gaza

(10) A recent interview with three FAUDA members confirms the commitment to the unity of the resistance and adds the information that FAUDA is involved in the guerrilla struggle. One comrade states that their anarchist movement has opened up a path of popular self-sacrifice. Regarding Hamas, it deconstructs NATO propaganda and describes the political dialogue and cooperation of anarchists with other organizations in the resistance. Importantly, they points out that all resistance organizations have an inclusive political position for all religious communities. The case for Islamic dictatorship is imperialist black propaganda. Just as the addition of a new, Palestinian state is a case of imperialist designs. Anti-authoritarian criticism of the claim of a two-state status and the separation of religious communities throws the discussion off course. Maoists (PFLP), confederationists (DFLP) and pacifist democrats (such as Mussa’ab Bashir, used as a reference by certain ideological opponents of the Palestinian resistance), Islamists (Hamas and Jihad) and anarchists (FAUDA) agree as a program on a single inclusive polity. Such were the declarations of the Israeli constitution as well. Only the imperialists and the would-be exploiters of the Palestinian resistance want two states. But the crucial question is whether we are defending the colonial state as the agent of potential coexistence, against historical and current revolutionary realities, or are we defending the right of the oppressed to reorganize social culture on their own terms, correcting the accumulated injustices? For anarchism the answer is self-evident. Whether the Palestinian revolutionary polity will claim recognition from the inter-state matrix and take the title of state is nobody’s business outside the Palestinian resistance, just as it is nobody’s business outside the Kurdish resistance, the claim of official recognition for the confederation of N-E Syria as a constituent state entity of the unified Syrian territory. (The interview: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/abolishtheusa-fauda-in-depth-interviews-with-3-members-of-fauda )

(11) The revolutionary South responds to the a-historical critique that describes anarchism as a eurocentric project. Only the anchorage to the post-Bakunin deconstructivism, that eroded the anarchist movement after the dissolution of the First International, can see in anti-imperialism conceptual and practical boundaries to anarchism. For example, “Anarchists in the Sahel” (18/9/23), (https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33233 ). Marxism had to go beyond the imperialist philosophy of its writings, with Lenin. Revolutionary anarchism never had that problem. From its birth it ventured all over the Earth.

(12) https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33399

(13) https://www.efsyn.gr/kosmos/boreia-ameriki/408433_i-starbucks-poinikopoiei-tin-allileggyi-stin-palaistini

(14) One group writes, “Clearly, we do not intend to dictate to the oppressed and exploited how they should fight […]”. Just before they wrote, “The only self-defense that we recognize -ethically and politically- is the collective social self-defense and social counter violence that the exploited and the oppressed co-opt to emancipate themselves and to shake off the bonds of authority over them”. What does this group mean behind the unclear invocation of collectivity and cooption? And who cares whether these here pharisees of anarchism recognize the Palestinian resistance as self-defense or not? To put the question in a different context: a person who has suffered patriarchal violence, do they need the opinion of these conclaves so as to decide whether to resort to the police, to the state, or if they will cut off the balls of the rapist or whatever else? This same group, ten years ago, in order not to spoil the self interest of some of its members, had covered up an attack against a squat, legitimized by the fact that they refused to recognize the squat as a community, refused to recognize the community’s egalitarian institutions and practices, the political dynamic proletarian social development taking place there, its autonomy in social self- direction and its self-defense. This is what “we do not recognize” means in the world of violence and terrorism: let Netanyahu do his dirty work. However, the Palestinian resistance is winning and the aforementioned squat, which offers refuge to the persecuted and has not put any terms on the Palestinian resistance, is still standing.

(15) https://asranarshism.com/1402/07/18/palestine-issue-statism-failure-en/

(16) Artistic intervention for Palestine, ΚΕΔ – https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627014/ & https://avantgarde2009.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/palaistinh-dikh-mas-ypothesh/ Two months after writing this text I received a text from Solidarity with migrants entitled “The avant-garde of retrogression: notes on the pro-russian and pro-china political tendencies in the greek society” (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1628404/). The political line of anti-american campism and its political conclusions that this text describes, make up a stance of active counter-revolution on the field. Political directions and practices that are anti-labour, anti-feminist, pro-imperialist and pro- fascist, anti-internationalist and totalitarian. The text correctly argues that the two tendencies inside the pro-Palestine movement are clashing and they will continue to do so. I will further note that this clash is not related only to the movement for Palestine. The fields of struggle are intersecting as is shown in the text. Social-fascism is lurking everywhere and is manifesting itself respectively to political priorities. The contradictions of the social-fascist lines are interesting. Eg, political subjects who converge in their defense of the Assad regime and in their anti kurdish stance, and who have allied in the past as a friendly opposition to SYRIZA in the re-negotiation of the greek state’s position in the imperialist pyramid, have taken antagonistic positions in the conflict over (or against) the capitalist-statist public health control. The former, who openly defend the anti-NATO imperialist front, openly supported the resistance to the unhealthy health-control repression and the dictatorial bio-technocratic subjugation. The latter, who are intensively trying to take the lead of the movement with reformist positions, joined arms with the vanguard of capitalist and statist progress. Despite this, the leftist group that the aforementioned text is denouncing has not “infiltrated” the movement; it comprises one of its constitutive subjects. Particularly in reference to the Palestinian struggle, where the subjects of the struggle are collaborating with state agents in their periphery, it is illogical to demand that the struggle be cleansed of statist ideological tendencies within the solidarity movement. In general, I have put down at length my arguments against the automated logic of exclusions.

(17) Middle East: Economy and Geo-strategy, https://trohia.espivblogs.net/2024/01/03/mesanatoliko-oikonomia-kai-geostratigiki/

(18) https://anfenglishmobile.com/features/kck-calls-on-muslim-peoples-to-take-a-stance-against-turkish-bombing-of-mosque-in-maxmur-69767

(19) A simple practical example: Larissa, solidarity gathering for the Palestinian and the Kurdish peoples, from Dugru Squat- https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627002/

(20) https://anfenglishmobile.com/news/kahilogullari-peace-in-the-middle-east-will-only-be-possible-if-people-struggle-together-69791

(21) https://anfenglishmobile.com/kurdistan/hpg-guerrilla-ereb-calls-on-arab-young-people-to-support-the-struggle-69811

(22) https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(23) as above

(24) The massacres of Hamas, the brutality of the Israeli state and the imminent global conflict, Syspeirosi Anarxikon-
https://anarchypress.wordpress.com/2023/10/14/%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%83%cf%86%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b5%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%b7%cf%83-%cf%87%ce%b1%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%83-%ce%bf%c%b9-%ce%b8%ce%b7%cf%81%ce%b9%cf%89%ce%b4%ce%b9%ce%b5%cf%83-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%ce%b9%cf%83/

(25) Gaza 2023 — High-Tech War Revisited – https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/11/19/gaza-2023-high-tech-war-revisited/

(26) The roads of Nestor Makhno, B. Bielas & A. Bielas, Babylonia Press, October 2007 –

Οι Δρόμοι του Νέστορ Μαχνό | 1ος Τόμος (pdf-κατέβασμα)

(27) https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2023/10/21/a-practical-appraisal-of-palestinian-violence/

(28) Nikos Nikanoras, The right to self-defense – https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1627291/

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/13/the-palestinian-revolution-and-the-rift-in-the-international-movement/

#anarchism #counterRevolution #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #greece #palestine #platformism

“If the fate of tragedies is overturned in favor of freedom, then every year becomes bearable… […] Fate will have its share of defeat this time.”

Abdullah Öcalan

Does it make sense to defend a two-week hunger strike? Of course. We take stock of 60″ actions carried out by two people, will we not account for an act that carries the same risk of loss? So take stock.

I thank the Anares Action and Solidarity Group for its immediate initiative. This is how the world of solidarity is built. Thank you for the dedication, which is the promise, from the streets of fire, thank you also for the signs on the walls that say that we will organize a look-out in every neighborhood. I thank the solidarity assembly that was set up in Athens and all the individuals and collective bodies that responded in any way. These first moves, which do not weigh up, demonstrated that it is not possible for the king or his courtiers to cut down a tree from the forest and return to the mansion unscathed. These first moves prevented an attempt to wear and tear me by the state before its retreat.

Returning to the wing, I was greeted by a multitude of people to express joy, to tighten my hand, to see if I am well, to carry my things, to cook for me. I knew that the previous days there was discussions about some solidarity mobilization for me. With all their reluctance, efforts are important. D1 is the wing of the heaviest workers. With the exception of the workshop workers who do all prison repairs, it is the wing of cooks, rubbish and cleaners of all prison outside the wings. It is the wing of the proletarians or proletarized prisoners who save value for the state with unpaid work because they are determined to leave the fastest from here. In this condition where the blackmail of exclusion from wage and movement to another wing is an iron boot, the elementary social spontaneity expressed is important. It shows that solidarity does not even disappear under the heavier oppression. It also shows that when the people finds its weapons, it finds both a mind and unity. These weapons, of the unmistakable resistance, are not brought by God, fortune, the objective-subjective conditions (or upside down if you will), nor the anticipation of the Holy Rebellion: the revolutionary stratum brings them.

In the minutes of the disciplinary board, it appears that in the midst of the strike, the Directorate attempted to create a substrate for my isolation from my fellow detainees, even inciting confrontations, by handling or possibly fabricating the testimony of the third cell-mate, who was called to testify. Without illusions, in a-social bourgeois culture there can be no betrayal, since everyone betrays themselves in some way. But we must give confidence to our neighbours, this road points to anarchy. We are on the lookout for the course of the prison management’s policy. We did not exchange libations of honorable peace.

Any interpretation of the retreat of the class-political/cultural enemy before testing the limits of confrontation would be controversial, and therefore useless for a public account, which must be clear. Surely the government wants the field to be quiet for the summer, not to maintain some non-existent political peace, but in order to keep the initiative for its planned attacks. Alertness.

Fate this time had its share of defeat.

The struggle continues.

Victory in the struggles of imprisoned and captive refugees

Immediate release of the revolutionaries Nikos Maziotis, Dimitris Koufodinas and Savvas Xiros

Release of revolutionary Pola Roupa

Release of all those convicted for 17 November

Release and acquittal of fighter Andreas F. from Patras

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Domokos Prison

July 15, 2024

Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/06/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-greeting-report-on-end-of-hunger-strike/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #hungerStrike

“If the fate of tragedies is overturned in favor of freedom, then every year becomes bearable… […] Fate will have its share of defeat this time.”

Abdullah Öcalan

Does it make sense to defend a two-week hunger strike? Of course. We take stock of 60″ actions carried out by two people, will we not account for an act that carries the same risk of loss? So take stock.

I thank the Anares Action and Solidarity Group for its immediate initiative. This is how the world of solidarity is built. Thank you for the dedication, which is the promise, from the streets of fire, thank you also for the signs on the walls that say that we will organize a look-out in every neighborhood. I thank the solidarity assembly that was set up in Athens and all the individuals and collective bodies that responded in any way. These first moves, which do not weigh up, demonstrated that it is not possible for the king or his courtiers to cut down a tree from the forest and return to the mansion unscathed. These first moves prevented an attempt to wear and tear me by the state before its retreat.

Returning to the wing, I was greeted by a multitude of people to express joy, to tighten my hand, to see if I am well, to carry my things, to cook for me. I knew that the previous days there was discussions about some solidarity mobilization for me. With all their reluctance, efforts are important. D1 is the wing of the heaviest workers. With the exception of the workshop workers who do all prison repairs, it is the wing of cooks, rubbish and cleaners of all prison outside the wings. It is the wing of the proletarians or proletarized prisoners who save value for the state with unpaid work because they are determined to leave the fastest from here. In this condition where the blackmail of exclusion from wage and movement to another wing is an iron boot, the elementary social spontaneity expressed is important. It shows that solidarity does not even disappear under the heavier oppression. It also shows that when the people finds its weapons, it finds both a mind and unity. These weapons, of the unmistakable resistance, are not brought by God, fortune, the objective-subjective conditions (or upside down if you will), nor the anticipation of the Holy Rebellion: the revolutionary stratum brings them.

In the minutes of the disciplinary board, it appears that in the midst of the strike, the Directorate attempted to create a substrate for my isolation from my fellow detainees, even inciting confrontations, by handling or possibly fabricating the testimony of the third cell-mate, who was called to testify. Without illusions, in a-social bourgeois culture there can be no betrayal, since everyone betrays themselves in some way. But we must give confidence to our neighbours, this road points to anarchy. We are on the lookout for the course of the prison management’s policy. We did not exchange libations of honorable peace.

Any interpretation of the retreat of the class-political/cultural enemy before testing the limits of confrontation would be controversial, and therefore useless for a public account, which must be clear. Surely the government wants the field to be quiet for the summer, not to maintain some non-existent political peace, but in order to keep the initiative for its planned attacks. Alertness.

Fate this time had its share of defeat.

The struggle continues.

Victory in the struggles of imprisoned and captive refugees

Immediate release of the revolutionaries Nikos Maziotis, Dimitris Koufodinas and Savvas Xiros

Release of revolutionary Pola Roupa

Release of all those convicted for 17 November

Release and acquittal of fighter Andreas F. from Patras

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis

Domokos Prison

July 15, 2024

Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/06/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-greeting-report-on-end-of-hunger-strike/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #hungerStrike

Comrades, I have a sufficiently coherent political understanding and a firm commitment to collectively formed scholastic positions on the relation between ends and means, to be able to weigh the importance of the hunger strike as a means of struggle, whenever it is chosen. The main line of battle of the hunger strike is the body of the striker and the frontal force of this line is constituted by the movement it triggers. The breadth and cohesion of this front depend on the political significance of the cause and on its understanding by the solidarity movement and, furthermore, on its perception of the striker’s credibility in remaining on the front line until the end of the battle and his steadfastness to the declared cause.

During my 3 years of captivity I have carried out a solidarity strike with no predetermined end date, which I stopped at 3 weeks based on the development of the struggle, and also many short symbolic strikes (from 1 to 7 days). This strike is different. Now I am the one who opens up the struggle, I define the purpose and hold the front line. I ought to be transparent about the purpose, the circumstances that brought about the need and my practical intention.

The hunger strike is a very serious means of struggle, because it has a direct physical cost and endangers the life of the person struggling. This condition can and does give birth to an ad hoc mass and aggressive movement. Moreover, the results of the hunger strike shape the conditions for subsequent struggles with the same means. Since the main line of battle is the body of the striker, its might against the class-political enemy and its influence on the social movement depend on the determination of the striker to fight to the end. Whenever the escalating strike (i.e. the one that has no declared end) is used indiscriminately and ends in a retreat, the credibility of this means diminishes for the whole movement, the class-political enemy gets bolder and the next strikers have to march further in order to achieve the collapse of the enemy’s reaction line. Comrades, I have political understanding and self-discipline. I did not make a recklessly hasty decision, I am not feigning, I am not looking to a negotiation. The circumstances that led me to this choice are politically and personally borderline.

I’ve said before, that for prisoners the hunger strike is not the ultimate mean, it is the real means of resistance, besides those of revolt and of mass workers’ strike in prison. For prisoners there is no scale of means, no room for maneuver, no room for tactical moves. Under built-in borderline conditions, we must resist with the ultimate means.

However, I must leave no doubt about the importance of the cause and the urgency of the circumstances. It may seem disproportionate to give my life for 4 square meters inside the special prison. I am fighting for a minimum space where the rule of ‘might is right’ cannot prevail. I am fighting to de-legitimize the terrorizing and provocative use of cannibalism, by the state. So that the threat of penal burden, even of life incarceration, does not hang over any political prisoner who will stand up to the physical violence of any would-be ruler. This is my most basic self-defense in a place where there is no community combative force. I must survive both as a body, as a person, as a decent human being, in order to remain a political subject. The political meaning of my demand and its objective purpose are crystal clear.

If I made a bigger demand, either speculatively, to mobilize people more, or opportunistically, to make the most of the maximum means, I would be deceiving the movement. Moreover, in such a case, if I won the main objective, it would look like a retreat. What chance of victory would we have if I requested my transfer to another prison? The facts would not weigh in favor of the struggle, since I am convicted for armed guerrilla organization, and the walls of the special prison of Domokos have so far been immovable for unrepentant captive guerrillas. Moreover, in percentage terms, I am still, at best, in the first half of my captivity. The goal of my transfer from the special prison would be astronomical. No victory is assured, even for the minimum that I am now demanding. The seemingly minimal demand does not ensure that the state will not treat this as an opportunity to murder me, or, even more so if it retreats, that it will overlook the attempt to inflict maximum damage on me, at the least cost to itself. But to understand the gravity of the necessity which determined an apparently small purpose, the difference between my living in this special prison and living in any other prison, would be infinitesimally small in proportion to the difference between living under constant physical terror and living in a condition of elementary self-defense. The gravity of the need dictated that the claim be kept to its most basic terms. And it is a need that cannot wait until we talk with the movement, organize, etc. Those who are caught unprepared by the rapid developments of the class-political struggle probably have ways of organizing that are inappropriate for these times. As the Organization Revolutionary Self-Defense wrote: immediate response to the terror of the state and the bosses with whatever forces are available.

These days in the prison “infirmary” cell, even if they are my last, they are beautiful, in contrast to the prospect of years of captivity under physical terror, constant threat of torturous prison transfers and additive sentences. These are days when the terror of the state, direct or indirect, cannot touch me.

I will honour the fight I have taken up. I will not hand over to the next resistances from prison, the line of non-retreat further back from the point where previous hunger strikers in greek prisons and internationally have rooted it.

If we cannot fight for 4 square meters, how will we fight for the whole earth? In these 4 square meters of self-defense within the tightest captivity, lies the common struggle with Palestine, Kurdistan, the land of Mapuche, the global South, outside and inside the metropolis, the common struggle for an internationalist revolutionary movement. As comrade Duran Kalkan from the PKK noted, they want to politically or physically eliminate the guerrilla and the captured rebels, to eliminate the consciousness of self-defense and its organization by the free society.

Dialectic from the PKK, we do not fight when the objective conditions are favorable, but against them, because the objective conditions work towards our annihilation. This is not a hunger strike in forbidding objective and subjective conditions, but instead, it is a move that, by establishing that nothing can nullify resistance, is ready to open up space and perspective.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
Saturday 29 June, 9th day of hunger strike
from the special counter-revolutionary prison of Domokos

PS: Practical update: As in every hunger strike so far, I drink only water. I only find meaning in prolonged strikes, with sugar, salt and tea, when it comes to mobilization campaigns, as practiced by the Turkish and Kurdish revolutionary movements. Apart from that, in the present conditions and in the middle of the summer, delay will not strengthen the struggle. It is likely that I will intensify the struggle soon. So I am informing on time. With open cards on the table. The “fixed rendezvous’ are the main battles.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/04/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-open-letter-to-the-solidarity-movement-and-about-the-political-choice-of-the-hunger-strike/

#anarchism #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #platformism #politicalPrisoner

Comrades, I have a sufficiently coherent political understanding and a firm commitment to collectively formed scholastic positions on the relation between ends and means, to be able to weigh the importance of the hunger strike as a means of struggle, whenever it is chosen. The main line of battle of the hunger strike is the body of the striker and the frontal force of this line is constituted by the movement it triggers. The breadth and cohesion of this front depend on the political significance of the cause and on its understanding by the solidarity movement and, furthermore, on its perception of the striker’s credibility in remaining on the front line until the end of the battle and his steadfastness to the declared cause.

During my 3 years of captivity I have carried out a solidarity strike with no predetermined end date, which I stopped at 3 weeks based on the development of the struggle, and also many short symbolic strikes (from 1 to 7 days). This strike is different. Now I am the one who opens up the struggle, I define the purpose and hold the front line. I ought to be transparent about the purpose, the circumstances that brought about the need and my practical intention.

The hunger strike is a very serious means of struggle, because it has a direct physical cost and endangers the life of the person struggling. This condition can and does give birth to an ad hoc mass and aggressive movement. Moreover, the results of the hunger strike shape the conditions for subsequent struggles with the same means. Since the main line of battle is the body of the striker, its might against the class-political enemy and its influence on the social movement depend on the determination of the striker to fight to the end. Whenever the escalating strike (i.e. the one that has no declared end) is used indiscriminately and ends in a retreat, the credibility of this means diminishes for the whole movement, the class-political enemy gets bolder and the next strikers have to march further in order to achieve the collapse of the enemy’s reaction line. Comrades, I have political understanding and self-discipline. I did not make a recklessly hasty decision, I am not feigning, I am not looking to a negotiation. The circumstances that led me to this choice are politically and personally borderline.

I’ve said before, that for prisoners the hunger strike is not the ultimate mean, it is the real means of resistance, besides those of revolt and of mass workers’ strike in prison. For prisoners there is no scale of means, no room for maneuver, no room for tactical moves. Under built-in borderline conditions, we must resist with the ultimate means.

However, I must leave no doubt about the importance of the cause and the urgency of the circumstances. It may seem disproportionate to give my life for 4 square meters inside the special prison. I am fighting for a minimum space where the rule of ‘might is right’ cannot prevail. I am fighting to de-legitimize the terrorizing and provocative use of cannibalism, by the state. So that the threat of penal burden, even of life incarceration, does not hang over any political prisoner who will stand up to the physical violence of any would-be ruler. This is my most basic self-defense in a place where there is no community combative force. I must survive both as a body, as a person, as a decent human being, in order to remain a political subject. The political meaning of my demand and its objective purpose are crystal clear.

If I made a bigger demand, either speculatively, to mobilize people more, or opportunistically, to make the most of the maximum means, I would be deceiving the movement. Moreover, in such a case, if I won the main objective, it would look like a retreat. What chance of victory would we have if I requested my transfer to another prison? The facts would not weigh in favor of the struggle, since I am convicted for armed guerrilla organization, and the walls of the special prison of Domokos have so far been immovable for unrepentant captive guerrillas. Moreover, in percentage terms, I am still, at best, in the first half of my captivity. The goal of my transfer from the special prison would be astronomical. No victory is assured, even for the minimum that I am now demanding. The seemingly minimal demand does not ensure that the state will not treat this as an opportunity to murder me, or, even more so if it retreats, that it will overlook the attempt to inflict maximum damage on me, at the least cost to itself. But to understand the gravity of the necessity which determined an apparently small purpose, the difference between my living in this special prison and living in any other prison, would be infinitesimally small in proportion to the difference between living under constant physical terror and living in a condition of elementary self-defense. The gravity of the need dictated that the claim be kept to its most basic terms. And it is a need that cannot wait until we talk with the movement, organize, etc. Those who are caught unprepared by the rapid developments of the class-political struggle probably have ways of organizing that are inappropriate for these times. As the Organization Revolutionary Self-Defense wrote: immediate response to the terror of the state and the bosses with whatever forces are available.

These days in the prison “infirmary” cell, even if they are my last, they are beautiful, in contrast to the prospect of years of captivity under physical terror, constant threat of torturous prison transfers and additive sentences. These are days when the terror of the state, direct or indirect, cannot touch me.

I will honour the fight I have taken up. I will not hand over to the next resistances from prison, the line of non-retreat further back from the point where previous hunger strikers in greek prisons and internationally have rooted it.

If we cannot fight for 4 square meters, how will we fight for the whole earth? In these 4 square meters of self-defense within the tightest captivity, lies the common struggle with Palestine, Kurdistan, the land of Mapuche, the global South, outside and inside the metropolis, the common struggle for an internationalist revolutionary movement. As comrade Duran Kalkan from the PKK noted, they want to politically or physically eliminate the guerrilla and the captured rebels, to eliminate the consciousness of self-defense and its organization by the free society.

Dialectic from the PKK, we do not fight when the objective conditions are favorable, but against them, because the objective conditions work towards our annihilation. This is not a hunger strike in forbidding objective and subjective conditions, but instead, it is a move that, by establishing that nothing can nullify resistance, is ready to open up space and perspective.

Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis
Saturday 29 June, 9th day of hunger strike
from the special counter-revolutionary prison of Domokos

PS: Practical update: As in every hunger strike so far, I drink only water. I only find meaning in prolonged strikes, with sugar, salt and tea, when it comes to mobilization campaigns, as practiced by the Turkish and Kurdish revolutionary movements. Apart from that, in the present conditions and in the middle of the summer, delay will not strengthen the struggle. It is likely that I will intensify the struggle soon. So I am informing on time. With open cards on the table. The “fixed rendezvous’ are the main battles.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/07/04/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-open-letter-to-the-solidarity-movement-and-about-the-political-choice-of-the-hunger-strike/

#anarchism #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #platformism #politicalPrisoner

…

But history has been turned upside down

They loved the slain, he was clean

beautiful…”

The Anti-State Struggle marks the first organized attempt of the Greek anarchist movement to position itself in the real and consistent way with the revolutionary project. The leveling of a prosecutor identified a strategic line over time necessary for the defense of the social movement and the advance of the subversive struggle: direct conflict with the counterrevolution. That’s why for years the slogan “Theofanopoulos was the beginning, this will be the end of every judge” was heard in the streets. The battle of Gyzi, in which the anarchist guerrilla Christos Tsoutsouvis fell, expressed the determination that corresponds to revolutionary consistency. The popular world identified with the truth of the practical path of the anarchist revolutionary. Christos Tsoutsouvis became an indestructible signifier of the subversive struggle.

The battle of Gyzi coincides with the anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, the great persecution. From the time of the Anti-State Struggle until today, the guerrilla struggle in Greece continues from different paths, defined by internationalism and with significant focuses against the global domination of the Euro-American capitalist metropolis. The existential need of the guerrilla is not the identity and values of his decision but the strengthening of the struggle, the response to class need. We honor the martyrs of the revolution by upgrading the struggle. We pick up our own story as much as we manage to subversively interfere with the history of the bosses. The iron-clad rulers who are massacring the global South continue untouched behind their borders. The sacrifices of the beautiful dead await historical vindication.

…

The surprise is still being played

Life is still at stake… » *

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis

14 May 2024

Domokos Prison

*from a poem by Katerina Gogou about Christos Tsoutsouvis. Full here: https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1625227/

Athens Indymedia

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/05/16/dimitris-chatzivasiliadis-about-christos-tsoutsouvis-and-the-palestinian-nakba/

#AnarchistPrisoners #ChristosTsoutsouvis #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #greece #martyrs #nakba

– 21st of October 2019: injury during an appropriation in Cholargos, Athens. Flight, political clandestinity. November 2019: captivity of comrade Vagelis Stathopoulos (imprisoned for 3,5 years) and of my friend Dionysis Bakas (imprisoned for 1,5 years)

– April/March 2021: 1st degree trial for the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense, in my absence. Stathopoulos sentenced to 19 years, Bakas to 10 years with suspension, Chatzivasileiadis sentenced to 16 years.

-August 2021: I am held captive following a bank appropriation in Thessaloniki

-Winter 2022: the 2nd degree trial for the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense begins.

-June 2022: 1st degree trial for the bank appropriation in Thessaloniki, sentenced to 13 years and 8 months.

-January 2023: the 2nd degree trial on the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense ends. The decision is the acquittal and release of Stathopoulos, a short sentence for Bakas, which he had already served, and 14 years for Chatzivasileiadis (down from 16 years).

-March 2024: hearing of my appeal to the Supreme court against the decision of the 2nd degree court on the case of the appropriation in Cholargos and for the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense, as to the existence of a “terrorist organization” on the terms of the special counterrevolutionary law and as to the evidence of my entry into the organization. If my appeal for cancellation of the 2nd degree court decision is granted (decision is due several months from now), then the trial will take place again only for some of the charges. In the case that I get acquitted for certain charges, specifically the one for “entry into terrorist organization”, then my sentence will be reduced by 3 years.

-March 2024: 2nd degree trial for the bank appropriation in Thessaloniki. I got sentenced to 11 years and 1 month (down from 13 years and 8 months). The main sentence (8 years) remained the same because, in the words of the prosecutor, I am “unrepentant”. The small reduction in the sentence is due to a legal correction the court made, (it would have been extremely arbitrary for them not to correct it), that is the merging of the charges of “possession of weapons” and “carrying weapons”.

-February 2024: 2nd degree trial of the 1st eviction of Gare squat (Athens, Exarchia). I got sentenced to 15 months suspended for 3 years (this is enforced after my release). The other 3 comrades are sentenced to 2,5 months on suspension. I was also charged for the second eviction of Gare but I was acquitted and on the 3rd eviction 3 other comrades were charged without being detained for this.

– I am now serving time in prison due to the sentences imposed (in addition and independently one from the other) for the cases of the Organization Revolutionary Self-defense and the bank appropriation in Thessaloniki. When the trial cycle ends (after the Supreme court decision on my appeal) the 2 final sentences will be merged. In this procedure part of the smaller sentence is added onto the longer one. Either way, whatever the sum of the sentences of a prisoner who is not convicted to a “life sentence”, the max real prison time limit is 20 years (as of now that the new penal code was voted in, this limit is increased to 25 years). In the worst case scenario (rejection of my appeal) my sentence will remain at that limit, 20 years. In the best case, my sentence will be reduced to about 16 years.

– In practice, 20 years can mean real time from 6yrs and 8months (by doing work days in prison and getting parole) to real time 20yrs if parole is not granted and you get disciplinary charges while in prison. And 16 yrs can mean anything between 5yrs and 4months to 16 years.
If there is no unforeseeable events (eg. prison uprisings or provocations), I will not be deprived of workdays. Workdays is a benefit that the state is (still) providing to political prisoners. And this is not a given for all prisoners. Work and deprivation of work is a method of extortion and blackmail in prison. Of course the recent altercation in Diavata prison in Thessaloniki may end up in disciplinary charges. However, it is equally standard that parole for captives of guerrilla organizations (November 17, Nikos Maziotis from Revolutionary Struggle) is postponed indefinitely as long as they remain unrepentant. So until my release I will not know how long I will actually spend in prison, it could be anything from 2,5 years from now to 17 years from now, or never! Most probably I will get released in 2029- 2030. These estimations cannot be solid, as they do not take into account political changes that can have an effect in the meantime.

Received by email.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/04/17/dimitris-chatzivasileiadis-synopsis-of-judicial-cases-and-sentences/

#AnarchistPrisoners #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #revolutionarySelfDefense

by Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis

The anniversary of the battle of Daphne, where the anarchist rebel Lambros Foundas fell, is a day of revolutionary awakening. Comrade Foundas, as a member of the rebel Revolutionary Struggle Organization, stood at the forefront of the struggle against the state and capital.

With absolute consistency to the end. Taking on the social task of organizing armed counter-attack against the structures of terrorism, tyranny and exploitation, is the moment when the fighter crosses the threshold of established conventions that keep humanity bent and completes his existence in the service of common freedom. Rebel Lambros Foundas is living proof of the invincibility of the revolutionary struggle. The witness Lambros Foundas exposes the reconciliation with the world of power. The common responsibility is evident and will continue to be evident until the fall of the state.

March 10 is the anniversary of a battle. A battle for a political cause. The community of the oppressed recognizes the historical contribution of the guerrilla organization with which comrade Foundas joined forces. The community of the oppressed recognizes the continuation of the action of his Organization, his face, his struggle, the honour he deserves. Lambros Foundas will live in the guerrilla that aims to overthrow the political and economic regime. The sacrifice of the comrade is justified, against counter-revolutionary policies, against the scarecrow of totalitarianism, against political exploitation, against its monetisation, as long as the seed of revolutionary action and organization remains alive.

These days the memory of the testimony of the dead rebel of the Revolutionary Struggle Org. faces two controversial points in front of it: With the politics of the counter-revolution in the foreground, to oppose the maximum forces for securing the release of the two fighters, Pola Roupa and Nikos Maziotis, who keep their joint revolutionary struggle intact. With the revolutionary movement in the foreground, understanding the real contribution of armed initiative and consistency as expressed by Org. Revolutionary Struggle, to build broad social resistance with the revolutionary terms it deserves.

A tribute to the dead rebel of the Revolutionary Struggle Organization: Let’s fight the battles that are appropriate today. Let’s organize ourselves in a revolutionary way. Let’s raise the tanks. To strike at the heart of the tyrants and their mercenaries. To give strength, ground of freedom and perspective to the class-social conflict.

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis
10 March ’24

source: actforfree.noblogs.org

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/03/23/freedom-to-the-revolutionaries-pola-roupa-and-nikos-maziotis-honour-to-the-fighter-of-the-revolutionary-struggle-organization-lambros-foundas/

#anarchism #athens #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #nikos #pola #revolutionaryStruggle

by Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis

The anniversary of the battle of Daphne, where the anarchist rebel Lambros Foundas fell, is a day of revolutionary awakening. Comrade Foundas, as a member of the rebel Revolutionary Struggle Organization, stood at the forefront of the struggle against the state and capital.

With absolute consistency to the end. Taking on the social task of organizing armed counter-attack against the structures of terrorism, tyranny and exploitation, is the moment when the fighter crosses the threshold of established conventions that keep humanity bent and completes his existence in the service of common freedom. Rebel Lambros Foundas is living proof of the invincibility of the revolutionary struggle. The witness Lambros Foundas exposes the reconciliation with the world of power. The common responsibility is evident and will continue to be evident until the fall of the state.

March 10 is the anniversary of a battle. A battle for a political cause. The community of the oppressed recognizes the historical contribution of the guerrilla organization with which comrade Foundas joined forces. The community of the oppressed recognizes the continuation of the action of his Organization, his face, his struggle, the honour he deserves. Lambros Foundas will live in the guerrilla that aims to overthrow the political and economic regime. The sacrifice of the comrade is justified, against counter-revolutionary policies, against the scarecrow of totalitarianism, against political exploitation, against its monetisation, as long as the seed of revolutionary action and organization remains alive.

These days the memory of the testimony of the dead rebel of the Revolutionary Struggle Org. faces two controversial points in front of it: With the politics of the counter-revolution in the foreground, to oppose the maximum forces for securing the release of the two fighters, Pola Roupa and Nikos Maziotis, who keep their joint revolutionary struggle intact. With the revolutionary movement in the foreground, understanding the real contribution of armed initiative and consistency as expressed by Org. Revolutionary Struggle, to build broad social resistance with the revolutionary terms it deserves.

A tribute to the dead rebel of the Revolutionary Struggle Organization: Let’s fight the battles that are appropriate today. Let’s organize ourselves in a revolutionary way. Let’s raise the tanks. To strike at the heart of the tyrants and their mercenaries. To give strength, ground of freedom and perspective to the class-social conflict.

Dimitris Chatzivasiliadis
10 March ’24

source: actforfree.noblogs.org

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2024/03/23/freedom-to-the-revolutionaries-pola-roupa-and-nikos-maziotis-honour-to-the-fighter-of-the-revolutionary-struggle-organization-lambros-foundas/

#anarchism #athens #DimitrisChatzivasiliadis #europe #greece #nikos #pola #revolutionaryStruggle