|
|  |
Discussion at Eigenaardig
Kwaadaardig - 11.02.2009 01:38
Based on the text below, we would like to create a discussion on
revolution solidarity, thursday 12th of february at 20:00 at the
Eigenaardig, Rustenburgerstraat 160, Amsterdam.
"We would like to put forward the discussion on revolutionary solidarity
because we feel it is not always clear what it is understood or taken for,
what people mean with their solidarity expressions, since we see the
importance to recognize ourselves in struggles, what it is surrounded with
and what it is mistaken for. Because often we see people immediately use
this form of activity for the necessary responding to revolt, attack and
insurrection elsewhere at that moment, far away from daily imposed social
surroundings, thus we wonder if that is what solidarity should imply, and
would even question what is the purpose for it, considering it to be
completely isolated and disconnected from both imported struggle as local
reality. Sabotage standing on its own could sometimes mean much more as
simply the mean of sabotage as a goal for itself, than sabotage as merely
an answer to the symbols of others.
The concept of revolutionary solidarity grows from a concept of general, already existing struggle, as a part, or rather, extension of it, that finds connections with other struggles from time to time. The content, drive or intention, the symbols, methods or language of it do not change by the influence of others, it merely gets inspired when we recognize ourselves in those. If we would not have anything that brings us to the streets already, something that moves us or what we fight for, other peoples acts would then create what we do and without that; would we do nothing? Indeed, be it if there is no struggle where the solidarity came from.
We are not politicians nor autonomist that instantly support struggles
rooting from a certain ground. Revolutionary solidarity is always a
critical solidarity by our own means, with our own words, with our own
perspective. When an attack is made on people who are not necessarily
considered comrades from anarchist milieus, solidarity still sparks in our
hearts from the details of recognition, that go beyond the logo that hangs
around some ones neck, or the friends people might have. Based on that
recognition fire spreads, for what we read in it. At the same time, when
more expectedly comrades from the well known anarchist milieu revolt, we
do not want to follow like slaves of the bigger revolutionary purpose to
the agenda that is called for if we cannot find ourselves in those papers,
or in those streets just because of it. We always want to see things with
our own eyes, and absorb and digest the information individually with our
own hearts. That is what makes solidarity strong; because it exploded in
our faces, not because it was designed by others.
Therefore being in solidarity with others does not mean that we flatten
all of our differences; but simply the recognition of the other as a
individual in struggle. The person or group is not necessarily a good
friend, comrade or “revolutionary subject”. But often we see anarchists
are afraid of speaking about these differences amongst “ourselves”, afraid
to damage the strength of the movement, assuming in this case there is one
as a homogenous group, as if we are one big happy family. As anarchists we
give great importance to our individual perspectives, and thus we shall
not always agree; for which we have no fear. On the other hand, giving a
critique to others in struggle doesn’t necessarily mean we are
opponents/enemies or wanting the people to be in prison. Imprisoned
comrades as well as any other person locked up is what we struggle for to
end. It would be absurd to leave some remaining of those walls we try to
fight for the few we could not get along with, either personally or
politically. Without subjecting ourselves to the footsteps of others,
putting on the shoes that don’t really fit, we prefer to walk bare footed
through different forests and climb the mountains to get where we want to
be, later we might even find each other again. We fear not the conflict
with our comrades, we fear imprisonment of body and mind. Critique
sharpens our thoughts and marks our individual steps. Not for the purpose
of that, but because we can.
Therefore our way of showing solidarity is independent from what
committees begs for and stays close to how and what we see in the
continuation of our struggle; deaf to the calls of for instance non
violent, legal actions, asked for by dogmatic strategists, or from the
spotlights of famous politicians and intellectuals. If for instance a self
organized platform of prisoners creates an umbrella committee for
collective resistance against what their lives are forced into, we do
recognize that urge to breathe through the walls, independently from
guidelines set out to make the campaign captivated in the hands of the
committee. We want to take our freedom to join that struggle, without
loosing the person we were previous to the inspiration to live this
resistance with them, or might continue afterwards alone. Nobody can tell
us what tools or words we are or are not allowed to use. In fact, our
demands for the struggle could come from a different origin than theirs or
head towards different discussion, but our steps will always remain ours.
Or finally, when the party of the famous, the gang of the religiously
devout, orders us out in the streets to liberate the “innocent”, the witch
hunt victims of blind lady justice, it might be that we were already
there, or even trying to open the doors towards freedom for the “guilty”.
The weak, the idols, the victims and the heroes always have their roadies,
but we are not after revolutionary subjects, nor do we want to be them.
If revolutionary solidarity exists in our surroundings it is always the
continuation of a struggle we have been living, connected to something
started by others, that simply threw the ball of fire to where we could
catch it and we will keep on throwing it. We don’t have to wait for other
people to do something first; we are in our own struggle with the world
that surrounds us, in our own reality; here and now. When we get inspired
by others (abroad or closer by) we don’t have to enter their territory,
follow their symbols, but will try to spread that fire in the symbols of
authority and its accomplishes imposed on ourselves in everyday life.
But we see that for instance not much was happening in a lot of places, and since the recent insurrection in Greece all the sudden many people woke up; or rather responded to that outburst of revolt. It is very important to realize that this insurrection not only erupted from the killing of Alexandros Grigoropoulos last December, but exploded from a fire burning already for a couple of years by really hard, local, persistent struggle against authority and exploitation.
We have them just the same here! Are there no kids struggling with the
cops in the suburbs of Amsterdam every day? Are there no revolts in Dutch
prisons, no matter how small? Have we no bosses that claim our bodies?
Have we no banks that steal our future? Have we no state that makes us
hostages in an ever growing prison? Every day… What poverty of anarchist
struggle shows this? Are people waiting for a reason? For the call? For
the messiah?
Sometimes this is the “first” spark to hit the coal, instead of a
continuation, for a struggle to begin, as an inspiration, but it should
always be yours.
Let’s make our own struggle, let’s make social war."
|
| Lees meer over: zonder rubriek | | aanvullingen | | Nederlands? | N&N - 11.02.2009 03:36
sociale strijd? kan de tekst a.u.b. ook in het Nederlands geplaatst worden? Ik wil het heel graag kunnen lezen waar het over gaat.
| | based on which analysis | A. Nalist - 11.02.2009 12:35
Unfortunately this very long (yawn) and polemic text lacks any kind of serious analysis, on which economic, social and political circumstances or grievances the invoked 'revolutionary solidarity' should be based.
Solidarity is not an emotional asset ( compassion and love-of-thy-neighbour might be so, but it has its roots in obscure and obscurantist underbelly regions), but ultimately a political-economical one and therefore requires participants to understand their position within the existing economic and political system (with which one can of course disagree and be in open conflict).
In order to develop solidarity oneself and incite it in others, there needs to be clear and understandable layout on how the participants share the same problems, where these problems come from, and (very important), why a certain common approach or solution to these problems would be beneficial.
As far as squatters in Amsterdam are concerned, thats really easy: all squatters have a housing problem due to bad distribution and use direct communal action methods for relieve. Its easy to respond to an alarm call, because you could be the one making it. Its easy to come to a squatting action or fix a waterpipe because it could easily be your own house tommorow.
As far as the rest of society is concerned, squatters and other direct activists have considerably more trouble, on the giving and receiving end of solidarity alike. This clearly comes from the fact that the socio-economic similarities to the situation of other groups is not really understood and can therefore not be explained in a way to build a solidarity base.
The most concrete example is how squatters relate to anti-squatters. Although both groups have clearly the same problems, the same social background (white middle class kids), the same social situation (precarious employment and housing) and even reside in the same physical niche of the housing market, there is no conscience of any similarity on either side.
The most anti-squatter do attempt to really understand their situation nor do they look for collective solutions to their obvious problems. Squatters on the other hand are full of political rethorics, but fail to back it up
with social-economic understanding, mainly because they would then risk 'impurities' in their ideological view of the world (and also because such understanding could hurt their pride as 'revolutionaries'). They rather focus on 'easier' targets, socially more distant objects like conscience prisoners and disenfranchised migrants, although there is no economic similarities to this groups.
In such a context , it is not very surprising that any attempt to solidarize (or create solidarity) with more distant though economically more similar groups like the huge population of non dutch born suburban youth fails mostly. While the squatters mistify violent unrest performed by those groups, they fail to understand the resons and ways that lead to those outbursts, the suburban youth views the squatters and other anarchists as part of the political and economic establishment because of their backgrounds, with their attitude towards consumption as the most prominent example.
On the bottomline, solidarity will only work out, if its class based and therefore requires class conscience (in the economic, not the cultural sense). Class conscience needs to be build on thourough understanding and requires thourough analysis. Screaming rather meaningless slogans about social war is not enough.
| | Bron? | XX - 11.02.2009 18:25
Goed initiatief, maar waar komt die tekst vandaan? Had dat niet korter gekund voor een uitnodiging? Is zo'n uitgesproken mening wel een nuttig begin voor een discussie?
Anyway, succes donderdag, blijf politiseren!
| |
| aanvullingen | |
