I write these lines because of the public critique I received by communist newspaper “Kontra”, concerning my stance to discredit courts by being absent from the procedure. Initially I would like to clarify that I do not dispute even a little bit the comradely intentions of this critique and I recognize the contribution of this specific project as very important to the struggle, with the presence at and update of all terror-trials.
I think the root of this disagreement, is the crucial difference between anarchist analyses and marxist ideology, concerning the role of the state mechanism, its institutions and the social contracts. Marxists, attribute a secondary role to the state, as the guarantor of capitalist interests, while in my analysis, the state as well as capital consist two of the uncountable forms of authority which are equally hostile to me and co-evolve while in the chaos of social reality you cannot distinguish if the chicken laid the egg or the other way around. Respectively therefore, marxists “read” history deterministically and believing that history has a pre-carved flow towards the paradise on earth of communism (transferring the dominant religious dogma into a materialistic form), they refer to the legality not as something they want to destroy but reform and thus they often invoke the side of the legal code which as a product of the social contract, that allegedly defends their class interests.
Directly contrary to that, to me the social contract is a scrap of paper that must be torn since its function is no other than stopping the development of the clash between the regime authorities and the possible rebels. And considering this clash fertile contrary to the murderous social peace, I promote it with all means. Thus I refuse to converse with the carriers of state authority, I refuse to speak its language, which is the law. I do not desire more “fair decisions” but the intensification of the contradictions of the court.
However, lets cut to the chase. The court for me is a piece of the despicable mechanism of justice, which in every form of it, whether urban, or the dear to communists popular courts, it performs the same role to rule life and enforce the will of the many on the individual. My ideal for human relations pre-supposes the foundational destruction of institutional Justice, regulatory ethics and the mass society it needs to operate.
Lets examine the role of this specific court: it is logical that the state seeks the physical extermination of its enemies. Why then does it not do it directly and stages trials-theatrical plays? Because IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO SHOW ITS HUMANISTIC FACADE THAN THE PHYSICAL EXTERMINATION OF ITS ENEMIES, in the present period. Because it needs to always conquer the role of the arranger, because it has to confirm legitimacy and defend the social contract. In order however to stage these theatrical plays of SHOWING OFF THE BALANCE OF THE LAW, it needs to also recreate the side of each of its enemies. And it succeeds to recreate it completely falsely, since the price of participating in this procedure is finding yourself in the position of the accused-defendant with the relevant loss of anarchist characteristics. Because although the only possible relation you can have as an anarchist with the judicial authorities is that of conflict, you end up conversing with your enemies for the hight of your sentence or the reliability of the evidence. Because although as an anarchist you are hostile to the idea of being represented, you end up accepting the representation of a lawyer. Because although as an anarchist you want to destroy the laws, you end up invoking them. (Of course being there to reverse this procedure is a completely different case which I will comment on further down).
NO, I DO NOT ABSTAIN FROM THE COURT IN ORDER TO BE CLEAN FROM CONVENTIONS. BEING IN PRISON I MAKE NUMEROUS CONVENTIONS EVERY DAY.
And recognizing that conventions are a strategic choice, whether for the struggle, or individual survival, I am aware of a point of view which wants the participation in the procedure in order to use it as a public forum. I simply think that in this specific time, compared to some decades ago, this point of view does not stand. The only information form these trials reaches the counter-information means in which my resonance can be publicised immediately without any point of me participating in their theatrical plays, since with the modern communication means such as the internet, our resonance is everywhere but the ears we wanted to hear us, are stuffed by spectacle, virtual reality and advertisement. Its this barrier we must break. And the sentences? Many ask. Is it worth it? Making a distinction between the above point of view that sees the court as a public stand of expression (where the sentence would remain high) and a personal strategy that aims at the fastest disengagement from the correctional clogs, I reverse the question. Is it worth being the actor in a shadow theatre for a shorter sentence, quitting my anti-judicial political content? Is it worth becoming the shadow of myself, speaking the same language with the judicial executioners, the language of authority, the boring legalistic language? Is it worth the price, to play their staged game and accept the validation of the democratic character of the state law?
Everyone gives their own answer and obviously it is understood, since for me there were situations where I chose to give a different answer that the one I am giving now. The weighting between more time of inactivity in prison and a retreat is thin and clearly subjective.
Speaking of this answer I will stand on the commenting of the charges for a little, something I was aiming to do anyway. Because it is not in the interest of the state to admit that we are its political enemies, it seeks to distort our actions and attribute characteristics to our relationships that we hate. Thus, besides the attacks I defend, against structures of authority and property, they have included my actions, as well as almost any anarchist they arrest, in the CCF, aiming (besides the bulging of our indictments) to show that anarchists operate aggregately under the shelter of a specific organization negating the diffuse character of our actions. Also, the even more serious and insulting charge is that of instigation implying that there is a relationship of hierarchy (and even orders!) there where the refusal to surrender to the enemy is expressed spontaneously and consciously. Something I failed to publicly talk about until today.
Now if I may go onto the “counter-attack”. I consciously chose silence since I did not consider a public conflict with the comrades fertile, but now silence has no meaning since (and with no misunderstanding from my side) the arrows of critique have started. Because for a while now I have been following the updates of the comrades of Kontra and victimization creeps in these articles and concerns the implicated anarchists in these terror-trials.
The fearful and cowardly judges that execute the orders of their superiors while shitting in their pants, are presented as domineering in order to serve the image that wants us in a position of weakness, while in every action for which we are accused of, the comrades from Kontra adopt arguments of a fantasy defence that wants our participation to not be proved. Thus now, the unsolicited legal defence of Kontra, presents me as leaving “like a gentleman” (!!!) with the cop car, downgrades the fact that I gave a battle for my freedom, in order to project the image of a victim of state frame up (to the point where they actually claimed that the eye witness had a seminar on what to say, since for the ideologists if the ideology does not agree with reality, that is too bad for reality!). As I said in another public letter of mine in the past, for me it is of great political importance to defend the violent refusal of surrendering, this is why I chose it, knowing that I will suffer the consequences.
In this case therefore, as much as it might not suit the lefty rhetoric, I am not a victim. I fought for my freedom, and Drosos as well as Leodopoulos who attempted to be a hero, suffered the consequences of anarchist revolutionary violence. Unfortunately they were less than I would have wanted for two guards of authoritarian legality who blocked our freedom, something that is of the greatest value to me. Closing, I would like to stress that what I wrote here concerns the comrades and only and it is not for the faces of any judiciaries, since the only thing I would like to show them are the barrels of our guns. I will continue to abstain from these boring bureaucratic shenanigans of the court.
Giannis Mihailidis
———