Greece: “Where we prefer to exist” by Nicolas Nessounos

index

Inter Arma received and translated:

Recently, the counter-information project «Ζagovor na ednakvite» stated -and rightly so in my opinion-, the question of how different anarchist tensions, many of which are at odds with each other, can coexist in the same counter-information projects.

It could be argued here that any attempt against domination and repression may allow, under certain conditions, periodic coexistence, perhaps in action, of different currents/tensions. But it seems that the different methodology of action continues to be an unbridgeable gap that unfortunately (or fortunately) detaches specific tensions from the anarchist project (I don’t believe that these were ever a part of it) and separates them, placing them in ideological libertarian pantheon, impaired from any insurrectionary tools.

The marginalization of the hunger strike by Spiros Mandilas, the absence of nihilistic and insurrectional books and leaflets from anarchist exhibitions in Greece and abroad, the promoting of communization, the repeated criticism of violent acts of resistance, not only widen this gap. In line with ideas expressed strongly by various anti-authoritarian and libertarian movements lately, it interweaves a specific fulfillment process of the anarchist project through an effort to revise ideas, tools and goals.

Thus trying to form an anarchist (?) revolutionary subject, negating its insurrectionary (and also its individual) existence, which is able to accept the compromise and the illusion concerning alliances with leftist forces as a necessity.

The proposed reorganization and creation of a wider platform (AK) is used to address a fictional and impossible quantification of forces and is founded on the anarcho-communist tinge of the ’36 paradigm. The latter, in turn, enjoys considerable weight as a model of pragmatic power management, something which these movements seem to have as their ultimate goal.

No wonder then that they request and call for a review of the elections as a tool and the vote as a tactical weapon (See. Eutopia). It is clear here the effort of revision of abstinence and a call -to comrades or not- to participate in this despicable tool of bourgeois democracy (and not only). Apparently they perceive Anarchy as self-organization with direct democracy and cooperative economy (i.e. G.Lieros) or as a lifestyle (i.e. C.Taibo) or as either solidarity or equality. Certainly not as freedom (see. K.Galanopoulos). So, the statement that “the libertarian movement is a bulwark against nihilism and individual collapse” (G.Lieros) is both logical and true.

Anarcho-nihilism, but also insurrectionalism both start from the vital impulse for the multilevel destruction of authority now. Their ultimate goal is not power, nor do they allure with some assurance about the future. This is why Nietzsche was frightened by their will for destruction. He understood the dynamics of all these “decadents” who want to destroy the “healthy, powerful and robust society”. Though he misinterpret their ontological principle, thinking that they covet power. But their will was not for power, meaning something other than what they were, an illusion of acquisition, but only for destruction. The various anarchist tensions (social anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism) are scared in the same way by this “game” of destruction, which is acting pleasantly now, isolating anarcho-nihilism and insurrectionalism (without the latter ones seeking any cooperation or collusion) as much as they can.

But the highness of the impulse can withstand any attempt of deposition. Is that what wakes you up, changes you, pushes you on the road, arms you arms, pulls the trigger, without rules, without conditions, without tomorrow.

However, and with the occasion of the latest episodes in Patras, the details of which I do not know, I think that violent confrontation between anarchist tensions disorients comrades of both sides and entraps them in a confrontation that favors only authority. Brothers, even though they are distant, even if they have different wrinkles remain brothers.

“We prefer to exist in the night, where everything decays, and now we don’t look back, where the lights go out forever. We are alone with our own ideas and our own projects, at the mercy of their own joint asymmetry. But we need to move forward, we can not stop and when we are idling, they are our very steps that drag us.” A.Caraco

Nicolas Nessounos

15/6/2015

9 Comments

  1. πρακτικος says:

    Πολυ ευστοχοι οι προβληματισμοι που διατυπωνονται καθως κ η ανεπαρκεια δημοσιας παρουσιας του αναρχομηδενιστικου λογου σε εκδηλωσεις..Αυτα ειναι ζητηματα που η συζητηση τους πρεπει να αποτελεσει την αφετηρια ενος διαλογου στους κυκλους της μαυρης αναρχιας.Ομως η αναφορα στην απεργια του αναρχικου Σπυρου. Μανδυλα ως παραδειγμα εχει τις δικες της προβληματικες καθως τοσο η απεργια οσο κ η αντιμετωπιση των θρασιδειλων εισβολεων στο ναδιρ αντιμετωπιστηκε με θυματοποιηση(αιτημα να δωσουν οι εχθροι του την εγγυηση,κειμενο καταγγελια για ξυλοδαρμο του χωρις αντιποινα) που θυμιζει την χριστιανικη ηθικη του “αδυναμου”που εχει το “δικιο”
    Για την πατρα δεν ξερω και περιμενω καποια δημοσια τοποθετηση των συντροφων εκει..Ομως ο αναρχομηδενισμος ειναι τεκνο της δυναμης της θελησης του ατομου κι οχι της μεμψιμοιριας κ της καταγγελιολαγνειας..

  2. “This is why Nietzsche was frightened by their will for destruction. He understood the dynamics of all these “decadents” who want to destroy the “healthy, powerful and robust society”

    English, sorry as an obvious outsider, but Nietzsche differentiated between passive and active nihilism. Passive nihilism does nothing but remain eternally pessimistic, ends up resigning itself to submission and tends to separate active forces from what they can do. Active nihilism destroys the existent values by creating new ones in praxis, like anarchy coupled with communism that extends beyond sub-cultural elements. This is the will to power but not as a will for power that seeks it as an end in itself as being one of the lowest forms of its manifestations, but that in what *one wants and affirms as life* as the will to power. The will to power as a critical ontology of practice with an immanent mode of ethical evaluation, in which it differentiates itself from and negates the existent, entering into becoming through the affirmation of one’s self.

    Greek anarchists (presumably) do some pretty remarkable things, like breaking comrades out of prison (I’ve been, it’s absolute shit) or fucking up Microsoft, but you should only be willing to wage a real war on the conditions that you’re also creating something new, which is not to say that these things should not have been done nor is it a critique of violence per ser. Anarchists in whichever country aren’t a large enough force to destroy society and to rebuild from its ashes without seducing at least the some of its more pissed off citizens from removing themselves from it, so the old anarchist adage of “building a new ‘society’ in the shell of the old” (Bakunin) or that of prefigurative practices in collective manifestations of the will to power, as I described it, is still valid.

    Deleuze and Guattari (there’s a reason why Israeli colonial military strategists have read them, it’s to make themselves effective against their “enemies” by deploying an inversion of their philosophical stratagems in praxis, culminating in shit like three-dimensional warfare [rhizome manouevre], see Schmitt as an enemy of our own on the “partisan”) would have called these lines of flight on a plane of which to constitute a war-machine. I would argue that some of the older insurrectionary anarchist theory is no longer applicable to the societies we live in, and that by not prefiguring what it is we want to replace society with, it opens up the possibility for the state-form to reassert itself in the form of Leninism as it recuperates the masses at both the local and “national” scales through its penchant for opportunism (not quite Leninism, but Syriza is an example of this).

    One does not need to be a syndicalist or even an active worker to do this, nor does this diminish the power of the individual and puts it in opposition to the collective, nor do you need syndicalists if you cannot come to an agreement as to how to proceed, nor do you need to have the approval of a majority of the workers rather than just get started with who it is that’s receptive to your praxis. Anarcho-syndicalists may be brothers and sisters, but sometimes it can be difficult to maintain constructive relationships with those who your praxis greatly diverges from, so it may just be best to part ways without each other inflicting violence upon one another.

    I would agree that formal organizations with democratic structures are undesirable, as is the fetish of direct democracy. There’s also different tendencies when it comes to communization, for instance the Marxist one and the insurrectionary anarchistic one (Tiqqun, Invisible Committee), in which I would identify with the latter form of communization. You don’t have to agree with everything it is that the IC writes about, rather than appropriate and apply some of their ideas in how to go about communizing. Whether you can see it or not, they want pretty much the same thing most anarchists want, they just have a slightly different perspective that has a tactical analysis of how societies and the state have transformed over time. If you can get ahold of their materials (This Is Not A Program, Introduction to Civil War), it wouldn’t hurt to read them with an open mind if you already haven’t. This is not material made for the ivory tower and it is not reconcilable with the state, nor is class struggle its objective.

    “healthy, powerful and robust”

    This is not a bad thing but something we should become and always strive for, to be healthy and happy despite living in times of sadness, and I would not call the state or bourgeoisie healthy, powerful or robust. Not letting yourself be consumed by sadness from the burden of the higher ideals of other-worlds, the only world that exists is this one in which we exist and that we can transform. Unhealthy to me would be someone consciously propelling towards their own death outside of defending the prefiguration of anarchy; life is to be valued and the lives of anarchists even more so, being they have the critical capacity to help create new ways of life, for ourselves and for others. Only those who despise can contribute towards the creation of something new in this age of passivity (not so passive maybe in Greece and some other countries), but despising and acting only through this despising is an incomplete form of praxis.

    If you look at the history of Italy with Autonomia and the Brigate Rosse, they were never able to overcome society through isolated guerrilla tactics.

    Nietzsche is too often misunderstood and forcing yourself to read him will definitely change you, whereas I understand the anger of some anarchists, but this anger should also be channeled into creativity that is coupled with destruction, rather than the pure valorization of destruction itself and nothing other than. The none of this means that I’m humbly (even if it doesn’t seem like it) suggesting that you have to form an alliance with each and every leftist in which their ethics are not consistent with your own, nor put away the molotovs or your anger. It’s a matter of creating a revolutionary erosion of the power structures of society and having the means to sustain this, which does not itself mean that factories need to be under worker control and self-management. Better workers stop working than to keep working, not to make demands but to say “fuck work” and stop the reproduction of capitalist relations, which in some form will always come back to haunt syndicalism.

    And no matter how vindicating and empowering it can feel, you just can’t blow up a social relation in which one puppet is replaced by another, one store by another. Regardless, I will not say that it’s pointless to do this and would not diminish just how determined the some of you are, so I really hope that I’m not coming off as condescending and that this just wont be lost in translation. Lots of anarchists look to Greece, being that it’s one of the many battlefields in the global terrain that’s more hospitable to planting the seeds of a revolutionary process.

    • You can find Greek translations here:

      http://bloom0101.org/?cat=5

    • Dear ia,

      on behalf of the Greek anarchists that lot’s of people all over the world look upon, let me clarify a couple of issues here.

      I don’t care that much to show flaws in your logic. I am not your teacher. This is why you should not try to teach me back either. At first I thought I was reading wrong, but at some point you said wrote about the “[…] critical ontology of practice with an immanent mode of ethical evaluation […]”. Well I honestly don’t care about your understanding of Nietzsche, Deleuze and Guattari or for that matter any other professional philosopher. If you feeling in an intellectual mood maybe try joining some reading club or something…
      You try to raise points such as
      “Anarchists in whichever country aren’t a large enough force to destroy society and to rebuild from its ashes without seducing at least the some of its more pissed off citizens from removing themselves from it”
      which honestly has been answered times and again. It is boring to even type about it. Apparently you still see some merit for a gentleman’s discussion about it, so I will simply direct you to the these two amazing links that will change your life! (after reading them you are of-course free to have a discussion with your mentor about the content, BUT IT IS highly advisable for you to try and form your own opinion for once and stop burping scholarish jargon nonsense)
      http://325.nostate.net/?p=3015
      http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/r-o-ccf-theofilos-mavropoulos-do-not-say-that-we-are-few-just-say-that-we-are-determined.html

      “but this anger should also be channeled into creativity that is coupled with destruction, rather than the pure valorization of destruction itself and nothing other than.”
      Again please stop trolling with cliche undergraduate-to-be-scholar stupidity!
      http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/renzo-novatore-toward-the-creative-nothing

      “And no matter how vindicating and empowering it can feel, you just can’t blow up a social relation in which one puppet is replaced by another, one store by another.”
      Are you realising that you are writing a comment on a nihilist website, propagating the words and actions of anarchists of the praxis??? Have you ever read any of of the CCF/FAI/IRF communiques???
      So let’s recap. You talked about nihilism, post-structuralists (post-modernism), anarcho-syndicalism and even communism. I will now introduce you to a whole new world called existentialism! Please go read everything about it and come back to continue this awesome discussion!!!

      • I really didn’t want to get into an argument over these things or come off as condescending, I just wanted to critically engage with the writer of this text in a constructive way and perhaps offer something that can broaden their views on how it is that terrains on which to engage in a war have been restructured over time. I’m certainly not just regurgitating what it is that others have said, but have constructed my own interpretative framework from a variety of anarchistic perspectives that correspond to the postmodern era it is that we live in. So yes, to a certain extent that means taking some concepts from post-structuralists themselves and also learning about previous movements in history and what their shortcomings were, in which the some of these post-structuralists had formed relations with, i.e. Autonomia. And I definitely know what existentialism is.

        The materials that I linked are made for war.

        I have read communiques from the CCF/FAI/IRF, and to some extent what it is that they write resonates with me, but again, I see the pure valorization of destruction and nothing other than as an incomplete form of praxis that wont itself be able to overcome society. The structures of capital and the state have mechanisms through which they continuously reproduce themselves, so while attacking them can have a certain efficacy, it isn’t enough to overcome them.

        You don’t need the all of the masses, but you do need some accomplices extracted from the masses. Like turning entire neighborhoods into communes.

        “This is our chance to associate anarchy with the most untamed elements that are looking forward to expanding the rebellion amid the slowness of intermediate struggles. To make this happen, we need to step forward by maintaining our autonomous political characteristics loud and clear, and not camouflaging them to gain social sympathies. We wish to cause the polarization, and not get lost in the mediocrity of social protest.

        So, we suggest that we intervene in the intermediate social struggles. Flexible small groups of anarchists of praxis may penetrate into these large processions-funerals, and generate conflict against selected targets of Power, either by striking with the method of hit ’n’ run, or (if the circumstances are favorable) by erecting barricades and attacking the police forces. These moments of clash can be a first meeting point among the most ‘extreme’ and untamed elements that take part in demonstrations”

        This is something I can definitely agree with and get behind, but communism can be an immediate process, i.e. communization, that can be coupled with these sorts of activities within a diversity of praxes, rather than being some structural Marxist determination that relies upon the all of the working class to create it. Communization through the formation of self-legitimating communes and communities of resistance that strive towards a post-capitalist, post-state way of life in the now that breaks from the existent. Perhaps forming these communes within the context of erecting barricades and imposing autonomous zones free from capital and the state themselves, in which war and not reconciliation within the dominant society is the objective. One way or the other, these communes are going to have to have a way to sustain themselves. The negative combined with the positive as overcoming and the will to power, this is Nietzsche’s nihilistic antinihilism, who Novatore was influenced by and wouldn’t have been who he became were Nietzsche, along with anarchists like Stirner, to have never existed.

        I wanted to engage with the writer (or readers) of this being that I feel that I can identify with them more so than other types of anarchists, being that they’re immediately revolutionary; the democratic fetishists, the syndicalists and whoever else I can’t really relate to. Yes, I did mention communism, but an insurrectionary anarcho-communism as something that can be an immediate process, not that other “communism” as some far off future. Reading clubs for the purpose of intellectual masturbation and for various knowledges as an end-in-themselves aren’t my thing, and me being an anarchist isn’t just for the sake of having an identity to differentiate myself from other people.

        As said by another anarchist of previous times:

        “An individual with a passion for social upheaval and a ‘personal’ vision of the class clash wants to do something immediately. If he or she analyses the transformation of capital and the State it is in order to attack them, certainly not so as to be able to go to sleep with clearer ideas. If they have not introjected the prohibitions and distinctions of the prevailing law and morals, they draw up the rules of their own game, using every instrument possible. Contrary to the writer or the soldier for whom these are professional affairs so have a mercantile identity, the pen and the revolver are equally arms for them. The subversive remains subversive even without pen or gun, so long as he possesses the weapon that contains all the others: his own resoluteness.”

        Respectfully,

        IA.

  3. And by mechanisms through which they continuously reproduce themselves, I mean that the participation of the masses within them enable and legitimate the reproduction of these structures.

    • OK last reply. As a representative I you realise I have lots of other jobs to do than commenting on blogs.

      First of all let me be honest and say I am kind of shocked you answered back. I thought my first reply was complete and hostile enough to deter you from continuing this farce. But apparently not. The above text, on which I am not going to comment, from what I understand is written to address some very specific incidents that took place at Patra and Thessaloniki, as well as a more general problem that exist, that of the very hostile stance of some individual anarchists or identifiable political groups trying to marginalise nihilists and insurrectionists, and vice versa. I really don’t see where Deleuze and/or Marx can be of any help within this framework… I believe you didn’t understand what the text was all about. Maybe it is the translation, I don’t know. Maybe the person who wrote or translate it should reply.

      Nonetheless I still would like to comment on some of your remarks because they left me AGAIN with my jaw dropped.
      “And I definitely know what existentialism is.”
      Then, if you know, don’t seek the reasons behind anyones actions! Everyone is doing something or not because (s)he wants to. If you are looking for grand and/or just theories behind bombs, insurrection, destruction, violence etc keep on reading Marx(ists).

      “I see the pure valorization of destruction and nothing other than as an incomplete form of praxis that wont itself be able to overcome society. […] so while attacking them can have a certain efficacy, it isn’t enough to overcome them.”
      No form of praxis will ever overcome society or authority. This is called nihilism! Are ok now? If you still seek answers though I direct you here http://athens.indymedia.org

      After you read the text you are quoting what you came to understand is this?
      “This is something I can definitely agree with and get behind […] Communisation through the formation of self-legitimating communes and communities of resistance that strive towards a post-capitalist, post-state way of life in the now that breaks from the existent. […] Perhaps forming these communes within the context of erecting barricades and imposing autonomous zones free from capital and the state themselves, in which war and not reconciliation within the dominant society is the objective. One way or the other, these communes are going to have to have a way to sustain themselves.”
      I mean, come on!!! Do you even know what FAI is? Based on what principles was funded? What you say goes against the whole theory and praxis of new anarchy. Communicating ideas like these here renders you the status of troll.

      “and wouldn’t have been who he became were Nietzsche, along with anarchists like Stirner, to have never existed.”
      This is your opinion, and if you don’t see what’s fundamentally wrong with your deterministic logic that is ok with the Greek anarchists!

      “Reading clubs for the purpose of intellectual masturbation and for various knowledges as an end-in-themselves aren’t my thing, and me being an anarchist isn’t just for the sake of having an identity to differentiate myself from other people.”
      I see you have (partially) done your homework. Now go out and play…

  4. n.nessounos says:

    Η εποχή του “πιο μεγάλου μεσημεριού”
    Ν.Νεσσούνος, 27/6/2015

    Ο Νίτσε επιδέχεται σίγουρα πολλές ερμηνείες, θα ήθελα πάραυτα, να κάνω κάποιες παρατηρήσεις στο σχολιασμό του κειμένου μου, στα ελληνικά (και εάν κάποιος μπορεί ας το μεταφράσει). Στη σελίδα 53, της «Θέλησης για Δύναμη», (Πανοπτικόν, 2014) διευκρινίζεται το ποιος είναι ο μη προνομιούχος όπως και ενδεικτικά στις σελίδες 39, 55 η απέχθειά του Νίτσε για τον αναρχικό και τον αμφισβητία που τους θεωρεί παρακμιακούς και άρα κατακριτέους όπως και κάθε έναν που εξεγείρεται εναντίον του πιο δυνατού (σ.95). Και δεν αναφέρεται μονάχα πολιτικά αλλά και φυσιολογικά(σ.53).
    Ο αναρχομηδενισμός δεν δημιουργεί νέες αξίες, ούτε καν στην πράξη, διότι η θέληση για καταστροφή περιορίζεται σε αυτήν και στον παρόντα, ενεστώτα χρόνο. Είναι ένας σπασμός, μια έκρηξη που παύει αμέσως μετά την εκτόνωσή της ανοίγοντας τον δρόμο προς την Αναρχία (και τις Αξίες της) γι αυτό και αποκλίνει από τον αναρχοκομμουνισμό ή άλλες τάσεις. Η δράση αυτή για τον Νίτσε είναι λανθασμένη καθώς η δαπάνη της ισχύς στην εναντίωση (και όχι στην ανάπτυξη του εγώ) είναι μια σπατάλη που εξασθενεί τον αυθορμητισμό!(σ.60).
    Ο αναρχομηδενισμός αλλά και ο εξεγερτισμός δεν ασχολούνται με τον «πραγματικό πόλεμο στις συνθήκες», με την μελλοντική κοινωνία, με την βελτίωση των εργασιακών σχέσεων ούτε τους νοιάζει ιδιαίτερα η ποσοτική μεγέθυνση των δυνάμεών τους. Ακόμα και ως μονάδες πράττουν βιαίως χτυπώντας όπως μπορούν πιο αποτελεσματικά και δεν τους ενδιαφέρουν αντίποινα ή τυχόν μεγέθυνση της καταστολής. Η όξυνση θεωρείται δεδομένη στον υπέρτατο βαθμό και άλλωστε επιδιώκεται. Η αλληλεγγύη τους ενυπάρχει στο εργαλείο της βίαιης δράσης που οι ίδιοι μετέρχονται ως μεθοδολογία. Δεν μπορούν συνεπώς να συμμετάσχουν σε πολιτικές διαδικασίες, οργανωτικές δομές, πλατφόρμες ή ψηφοφορίες. Αναγνωρίζουν τις διαφορετικές αναρχικές μεθοδολογίες, αν και πολλές έχουν γίνει ιδεολογίες, και την μόνη αλληλεγγύη που δείχνουν είναι στο πεδίο της κοινής(;) σύγκρουσης με την κυριαρχία, την κρίσιμη αυτή ώρα του “πιο μεγάλου μεσημεριού”(Νίτσε).

    • the epoch of “the great noon”
      Ν.Νεσσούνος, 27/6/2015

      Nietzsche is surely interpretable in many ways, nonetheless I would like to make some remarks on the commentary of my text, in greek (and someone possibly translate). In page 53 of “The Will to Power” («Η θέληση για δύναμη» publisher: Πανοπτικόν, 2014) the identity of the non-privileged is being clarified as well as Nietzsche’s repulsion, in pages 39 & 55, for the anarchist and the disputer whom he despises and thinks of as decadents thus blamable like anyone revolting against the more powerful (p.95). And he is not talking just political but also physiological (p.53).
      Nihilist anarchism does not create new values, not even in praxis, because the will for destruction is confined at it (the praxis) and in the present tense. It is a spasm, an explosion that ceases immediately after its defuse, clearing the way for Anarchy (and its Values) and this is why it diverges from anarcho-communism or other currents. This action for Nietzsche is wrong since the power lost in revolting (and not the development of ego) is a profligacy which weakens spontaneity(p.60)!
      Nihilist and insurrectionary anarchism are not concerned with the “real war under the circumstances,” the future society, improving labour relations neither do they care much for their numbers to grow. Even individually they act violently, hitting in the most efficient ways possible and are indifferent for countermeasures or greater suppression. Escalation is supremely taken for granted and in any case, is pursued. Their solidarity is inhered in the tool of violent action which is employed methodologically. Hence they can not participate in political proceedings, organisational structures, platforms or voting. They acknowledge the different anarchist methodologies, while many of them have become ideologies, and the only form of solidarity for them is the common(?) conflict with authority (power), this very critical time of “the great noon” (Nietzsche).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*