O obliku borbe „štrajk glađu”

O Obliku borbe "štrajk glađu"

S tekstom Spyosa Mandylasa o završetku štrajka glađu, RadioAzione definitivno zatvara vrata novom obliku prosvjeda „štrajk glađu do smrti”, trulom plodu doba brze komunikacije. Da, zato jer će sada uslijediti brojni štrajkovi glađu do smrti zahvaljujući web informacijama.

Uvijek sam odbijao štrajk glađu kao metodu borbe, ali uvijek sam poštivao one koji su prethodnih godina osjetili potrebu da ga usvoje iz nekog „x” razloga.

U odnosu na štrajk glađu, u kojem se izlaže riziku vlastiti život, preferiram „kamikazu” koji će se dignuti u zrak u nekoj stanici.

Ne samo da nas bace u logore države, već i pomažemo toj istoj državi da nas eliminira fizički. Onda bolje pokušati ubiti jednog stražara ako se već želi izložiti riziku vlastiti život u zatvoru, umjesto to činiti kroz „ucjenjivanje/milostinju” države.

Ucjena je: što bi se moglo desiti ako se vlastito zdravlje pogorša zbog štrajka. Kao reći: „Državo,gledaj, ako ja odapnem tamo vani će izbiti kaos...”. Milostinja nosi masku zahtjeva s ucjenom.

Iz tog razloga ne mislim da „štrajk glađu”, a nadasve onaj u kojem se traži od države da bude blaža, nije dostojanstvena metoda za anarhiste.

Shvaćam da se radi o jednoj od malobrojnih metoda na raspolaganju u zatvoru, ali ako smo odlučili da „ukrademo čokoladu”, dobro znamo da će ishod toga možda biti kazna. Nema smisla poslije da se poslije žalimo...

Čak i u slučaju da nas optuže da smo ukrali čokoladu, a nismo to učinili, moramo krenuti od pretpostavke da ionako pripadamo onima koji bi tu čokoladu bili željeli ukrasti.

Kratko rečeno, mi smo anarhisti, i osim ako ne odlučimo provesti naš život u knjižnicama čitajući knjige i slažući se s različitim teorijama, zatvor će nas prije ili poslije ugostiti.

Desit će se to jer ili će nas uhvatiti na djelu ili zbog namještaljke, ali u ratu neprijatelji se eliminariju na bilo koji način, a u tome je država doslijednija od anarhista.

Svjestan sam da u trenutku dok pišem ovih par redaka, nekoliko drugova u Čileu štrajka glađu zbog njihove izolacije, zatvora itd. Što je vrlo različito od štrajka glađu kojeg su sproveli i okončali anarhistički zatvorenici u Grčkoj (uz pritisak na nove vladaoce i na „prijateljsku” vladu Syrize kako bi im ukinula par zakona). No, taj isti oblik specifične borbe vodi se zato jer se zahtjeva nešto od države, i kao što sam rekao prije, u obliku ucjene. A to nije odraz anarhističke ideje.

Trebam šutjeti naspram svega toga?

Trebaju postojati samo potvrde neuke solidarnosti, a ne i drugačiji stavovi? No, koliko sam mogao vidjeti, kritika nije stigla samo sa naše strane, nego i od mnogih drugih drugova čije su ideje završile (a i dalje ostaju) u ladici anarhističkog morala.

Moja su „neka vrsta” razmatranja, a ona od nekog drugog su razmatranja „bez vrste”, prava razmatranja...

Da moje ideje ne bi bile samo „neka vrsta” razmatranja trebao bih ih pisati u zatvorskoj ćeliji; tamo bi zaista mogle postati razmatranja „bez vrste”.

Da, jer štogod izašlo iz zatvora je čisto zlato, a ono što dolazi iz vana vrlo često je, ako se ne slaže s uniformiranošću, sranje.

Teorija kaže da su kritičke analize, pogotovo kada dolaze od „politički nekorektnog” i kada nisu dovoljno duboke, na internetu neuvjerljive.

Tko ima časopis može pisati svoja razmatranja bez da to budu „neka vrsta razmatranja”, i zar ja ne bih smio pisati moja iz jednostavnog razloga zato jer se putujući internetom nazivaju „neka vrsta razmatranja”?

Moram dokazati „diplomu” ili „dozvolu” da bih rekao to što mislim?

To jako podsjeća na metodu sastanaka, gdje oni koji nisu „brzi na jeziku” šute i nikada se ne uključuju, a kada bi se i uključili svojim jednostavnim i prostim načinom izražavanja, odmah bi ih ušutkao nakon par trenutaka jednim dugim govorm neki sposobni „govornik”.

Nemam novaca da štampam časopis, a kada sam to i radio u prošlosti mnogi se nisu pobrinuli ni da ostave neki doprinos, mada su bile (kada se oduzmu troškovi štampe) benefit za drugove u zatvoru. Međutim, distribuirao sam po tristo primjeraka, na moj trošak naravno (naravno?).

Zato sam odlučio da prenesem tu moju „neku vrstu razmatranja” na website, s „gotovo” nula troškova. I zato, pošto nemam nikakve namjere da postanem novinska agencija, moja mišljenja zapisujem ovdje. Imajući na umu da je interntet pod nadzorom, ali neka časopisi ne pomišljaju da su zaštićeni od indiskretnih očiju. Iz toga se zakljujučuje da su moja razmatranja pod nadzorom koliko i ona na papiru.

Još jedna stvar koju ne podnosim, i zaista me ljuti, je kada čujem „sada nije pravi trenutak za to”.

Na osnovu kojeg kršćanskog duha se tvrdi takva glupost?

Zato što je netko odlučio da pretvori svoj život u „ucjenu-milostinju”, i moga bi biti na izdisaju, ja ne bih smio reći ono što mislim?

Zašto bi se mogao izraziti samo onaj tko podržava, a ne i onaj tko je protiv?

Trebao bih šutjeti, čekati da umre i onda poslati buket cvijeća na sanduk i izraziti saučešće obitelji?

Ne, žao mi je, ja sam sve ono što se može smatrati lucidnim bolesnim i ciničnim umom, i radije kažem: „jadni nesvjesni druže, ti koji si na izdisaju a nisi jedan kurac shvatio da samo činiš uslugu državi...”

Nisam protiv samoubojstva, ne pripada mi ta potreba da budem jedan broj nedostojne faune na ovom usranom planetu, a nisam ni katolik da bih mislio kako ću samoubojstvom počiniti grijeh. Samoubojstvo je trenutak, možda mnogo puta je bilo samo nekoliko sekundi od misli do dijela, ali kada bih imao dvije minute da pomislim na to, radije bih sa sobom pod zemlju povukao i nekog mojeg neprijatelja.

Mnogo puta sam čuo „nije pravi trenutak”.

Jednom nije na prosvjedu, drugi put nije za napad, jednom nije za kritiku a drugi put zato jer nekog boli stomak.

Netko je prije par godina rekao: „Krećemo i vraćamo se zajedno”. Mnogima se ta rečenica nije dopala i, po meni pravedno, je kritizirana i pretvorena u „ja/mi ne čekam/o nikoga!”.

„Krećemo i vraćamo se zajedno” znači da bi trebao postojati jedan određeni trenutak za polazak i određeni trenutak za povratak, uvijek svi zajedno. Trebali bi, dakle, postojati određeni „trenuci”.

Ali tko zna kada su ti pravi trenuci? Obično ih određuju vođe... ili bolje reći, neće nikada ni postojati...

Što znači da su mnogi kritizirali „krećemo i vraćamo se zajedno”, ali istovremeno ti kažu „to je bolje ne reći i ne učiniti, zato što sada nije pravi trenutak...”

Ajmo sada igrati „Pronađi razlike”.

Po meni, onaj tko kaže „nije pravi trenutak”, neuptino, pati od autoritarizma.

I ova „neka vrsta razmatranja”, o upotrebi metode borbe „štrajk glađu, i nadasve do smrti”, završit će u ladici anarhističkog morala.

Kako zatvoreni drugovi anarhisti u štrajku glađu ne bi znali da postoje anarhisti koji misle na drugačiji način, kako bi mislili da svi anarhisti podupiru njihov izbor.

Kao da nisu dovoljni zidovi od armiranog betona, bodljikava žica i rešetke da izoliraju zatvorenika od svega što se zbiva s druge strane logora, čak i drugovi vani iskrivljuju stvarnost.

A, tko zna, možda netko, čak, priželjkuje da drug u štrajku glađu odapne kao bi mogao izaći na prosvjed i razbijati izloge.

Napomena: Nitko nije primoran da čita moja razmatranja, i ako vam smetaju promjenite „program” i sigurno ćete pronaći „društveni mir”.

RadioAzione, 8. maj 2015.

About the method of struggle “hunger strike”

With the Spyros Mandylas’ text about the end of his hunger strike, RadioAzione definitely closes the door to the new method of protest – “hunger strike until death”, rotten fruit of the age of fast communication. Yes, because there will be many hunger strikes until death thanks to the web information.

I’ve always rejected the hunger strike as a method of struggle, but I’ve always respected those who in the past years needed to adopt it for some “x” reason”. Instead of the hunger strike, in which one exposes its own life to risk, I prefer the “kamikaze” who will blow himself up in some barracks.

Like it’s not enough that we are thrown in the dungeons of the State, moreover we help exactly the same State to eliminate us physically. Therefore, it’s better to try to kill a guard if you want put your life on risk in prison instead of doing the same thing blackmailing the State and asking charity from it. The blackmail is: what could happen if our own health get worse due to the hunger strike? In a way it’s like saying: “State, attention! If I die, there will be a mess outside …”. The charity wears the mask of demand with blackmail.

For that reason I don’t think that the“hunger strike”, especially the one which asks the State to be more gentle, is a proper method of struggle for an anarchist. I understand that is one of the few methods of struggle that can be used in prison but, if we decided to “steal a candy”, we know very well that the result would be punishment. It doesn’t make sense to complain later. Even if we’re accused for the stolen candy, but we didn’t do that, we have to assume that we belong to those who would, anyway, like to steal that candy.

In short, we are anarchists and if we don’t decide to spend our life behind the doors of a library, reading books and more or less agree with various theories, the prison will accommodate us, sooner or later. This will happen because we could be caught in the act or we could be set up. In war the enemies have to be eliminated in any possible way, and in that regard the State is more coherent than anarchists.

I am aware that in this moment, when I’m writing these lines, some comrades in Chile are on hunger strike for several reasons related to their situation, such as isolation, imprisonment etc. But this one is very different from the hunger strike carried out and ended by detained anarchist in Greece (with the pressure on the new rulers and “friendly” SYRIZA government, to abolish some laws for anarchists). Like I said before, that is the same method of “struggle”, carried out for asking something from the State, in the form of blackmail which doesn’t reflect the anarchist ideas.

Should I stay in silence in front of all this? Should there exist only statements of ignorant solidarity an no different positions?

As I could see, the criticism hasn’t come only from myself, but from many other comrades too, whose ideas are put (and continue to stay) in the drawer of anarchist respectability.

Mine reflections are just some kind of “reflections”, while those coming from the others are reflections in the true sense… For my reflections not to be just some kind of reflections, I should write them in a prison cell; and there, yeah, they could become reflections in the “true sense”… Yes, because whatever comes out of prison is consider truthful, and often whatever comes from outside it’s crap if it disagrees with the uniformity.

The theory says that the critical analysis, especially when it comes from a “non politically correct” side and when isn’t deep enough, it doesn’t hold on the Internet. One who has a magazine, in paper form, can write his reflections without them to be “some kind of reflections”. So therefore I shouldn’t write my own for the simple reason that because circulating on the Web they are considered “some kind of reflections”? Must I have a “diploma” or “license” to say what I think?

This reminds me a lot of the method of assembly, where one who isn’t a good “orator” stays silent and never intervenes, and if he would intervene, with his simple and genuine way of speaking, he would be immediately shushed by a long speech from some good orator.

I don’t have money to print a magazine, and when I used to print it in the past, many didn’t care to leave a donation, despite the fact that it was (minus printing costs) benefit for the anarchist prisoners. However, hundreds of copies were distributed on my own expense, obviously (obviously?).

Because of that I decided to move my “kind of reflections” on the website, at “almost” zero cost. Therefore, since I don’t have any intention to become “news agency”, I put down my thoughts here. I keep in mind that Internet is under surveillance, but the papers shouldn’t think they are safe from indiscreet eyes. Consequently, my considerations are under surveillance as much as those on the paper.

One more thing that I don’t tolerate and that really pisses me off is when I hear, “it’s not the right moment”.

On the basis of which Christian spirit you claim this bullshit?

Only because one decided to transform his own life in a “blackmail-charity” and could be dying, I shouldn’t say everything I think? Why those who support him may express their thoughts but not the other ones who do not? Should I stay in silence, waiting him to die, and then send flowers on the coffin and a note of condolences to the family? No, sorry, I’m all that what can be considered a lucid sick and cynical mind, and I rather say: “Poor comrade, unaware, you who are dying and didn’t understand a shit that you’re doing a favour to the State…”

I’m not against the suicide, it don’t have the need to be a part of worthless fauna on this shitty planet. I’m not catholic either, to think that committing suicide is a sin. Suicide is a moment, and many times maybe it passes just a few seconds from thinking to committing it. If I had two minutes to think about it, I would rather drag with me under the ground one of my enemies.

I’ve heard so many times “it’s not the right moment”. One time it’s not for the demo, next time it’s not for the attack, then it’s not for the critic, and another time it’s not because someone has a stomach ache.

Couple of years ago someone said: “we go and we come back together”. Many didn’t like this statement and, rightly (from my point of view), it was criticized and transformed into: “I/we don’t wait anyone!”. “Go and come back together” means that there should be a specific moment for leaving and a specific moment for returning, always united. Therefore, there should exist “specific” moments. But, who knows which are those right moments? Usually, they are determined by the leaders… or it’s better to say that they will never exist… Which means that many have criticized the “go and come back together”, but in fact they are saying “it’s better not say anything and do nothing because it’s not the right moment…”. Let’s play: “Find the differences”.

From my point of view, one who says “it’s not the right moment”, he suffers, unquestionably, from authoritarianism.

Even this “kind of reflections” about using the “hunger strike” as method of struggle, and especially in its form “until death”, will end up in the drawer of anarchist respectability. Because the detained anarchist comrades on hunger strike mustn’t know that there are anarchists who think differently; they have to know that all anarchists support them. As if there are not enough concrete walls, barbed wires and bars to isolate prisoners from what’s happening outside, so even comrades from outside distort the reality.

And, who knows, maybe someone even hopes the comrade on hunger strike dies, so to make a demo and smash the shop windows.

Note: No one is forced to read my reflections, and if they bother you, change the “channel” and you will find the “social peace” for sure.

RadioAzione, May 8th 2015

Translation: RadioAzione[Croatia]