A few words concerning the responsibility claim for the execution of Habibi.
Because much has already been said and even more will be said, one more text full of praises or aphorisms would have nothing to add and offer.
This is why, because of the recent incidents, here will be written only what is deemed necessary about the before, the now and the after of a situation that does not only concern the square and the people there but also all of us. Publicly and openly, without exposing or slandering individuals and projects. And certainly not with great ease or arrogance as is customary.
What goes on in the area of Exarcheia (and not only) with dealing and mafias, has been common knowledge for years now. And indeed, something needed to start happening from the side of the anarchist/anti-authoritarian milieu about the issue, because we cannot close our eyes to such a corrupt and degrading situation. It is definitely an abjection and a lot has to change, and this can in no way happen painlessly and peacefully. Whatever disagreements on handling and individual or less individual attitudes, behavior and mindsets concerning this issue, are not at all unimportant, but neither are they at the service of cannibalistic appetites in public forums of irresponsibility.
First of all, a probably evident admission: No one was saddened by Habibi’s death. The charitable kind of sensitivities about a murder and a lost human life are simply voices from the living room and reformist dissonant voices, maybe even directed. (The who, how and why he was killed and where and if this leads anywhere, is clearly another parameter, that concerns internal discussions of a space or movement). To put it politely: every Habibi will only be missed by their bosses, namely the state and the mafias.
However, in order to not forget the obvious, we must clarify a few things. We come therefore to the responsibility claim… Beyond some general and maybe superficially formulated positions which seem to have been written in order to elicit support or sympathy from the anarchists, the text is full of authoritarian attitudes which refer to regimes and functions that are foreign to every anarchist, foreign to any meaning of the words liberation movement. Since when does such a logic consist as part of the political (with or without quotation marks) struggle?
What anarchist or communist can feel close to open threats of the use of violence in the case of non-compliance to instructions? And not threats towards the state, not towards fascists or judges, media snitches or cops, but towards drug addicts or casual “smokers”. How can someone think they are represented in values by a discourse that favors the violent removal of addicts as a way of dealing with them or that equates the mentally ill with murderers?
Is it legitimate to ignore that the state seeks the division of people into social camps and the marginalization of the “troubled ones” who distort the image of an efficient, functional and sparkling – yet so hypocritical – society? How can we not recognize the state methods used in order for “criminals”, outlaws and “psychos” to be irreversibly stigmatized and end up in prisons and psychiatric clinics fading into oblivion without any help, without the necessary in many cases, treatment? What anarchist does not recognize that in the end addicts and mentally ill patients are victims of capitalism itself?
In a nutshell, the light use of terms such as “paranoid”, “psychotic” and even more their association with “murderers” and “scum” are connections used by authority and all sorts of dominators, either by ignorance since this profile of a psychotic bloodthirsty murderer has been promoted in an extremely skillful way mainly by the media who distort the real image concerning psychotic illnesses. Or on purpose since drug addiction, medicine, substances and the pacification of users and victims is one more oppressive means of the state.
Is there some anarchist revolutionary code of values that can tolerate this unforced, unprecedented and indiscriminate generalization by unsolicited saviors and liquidators of a tough Stalinist logic (best case scenario)?
But also concerning the references to “anti-socialism” and “indiscipline”, who defines the frames in which anarchist interaction and action is (not) deemed reprehensible? Who defines the frames of anarchist discipline? Who can think that there is a central orientation or a trodden outside of which a subject will be characterized as undisciplined and will be dealt with as such?
But the problems in the responsibility claim text do not end here…
There is no logical base of thought to compare the conditions in Exarhceia with that of the IRA or with Turkey which are referenced, since these examples concern deep rooted movements, which are at war with their state. If we want to be honest then whatever comparison should probably be considered disproportionate and misplaced… Besides, this problem does not only concern the square, not even only the wider area of Exarhceia. We cannot simply speak of “relieving”a neighborhood, because that way there will just be a shift and not a solution to the problem. And looking deeper into the issue, we cannot but be annoyed by the older “purging” attempts of shop owners and alleged residents (large landowners) of the area, which might not be so blatant, are however in the frames of a logic that is convenient for the state and economy…
All – or almost all – of us, agree that there are indeed issues either occasional or more permanent, with individuals, behavior and attitudes that wrongly flourish in our movement, but also more generally in our long-suffering and favorite square, as well as the surrounding areas. But figuring that out is the easy part, whether done “academically” in favor of the analysis itself, or accompanied by some act through which individual findings arise. However even if this concerns the second case, they are of no use without essential counter-propositions or when accompanied by vague talk. When moreover there is no fundamental analysis on situations such as mental illnesses and the analysis does not exceed a semblance assessment – like, a paranoid person is a murderer and a scumbag -, an assessment that coincides with that of authority itself, as well as the majority of society which treats them, whether aggressively or passively, like parasites and occasionally like enemies.
No one is promoting the tolerance of mafias, nor the hooliganization of our actions. But between that point and the extremely hierarchical and dominant logic of the writers of this responsibility claim, there is a massive gap. What revolutionary plan of organization has ever been expressed with this authoritarian language? In the name of which revolution are diffused threats of raw oppression being unleashed? What sort of anarchy speaks like it’s settling scores?
When we don’t like something politically and humanly, we fight to change it or abolish it. But at what cost? With what content? Is the purpose served by any means or instruments that are consistent with it, no matter what the personal cost? Are we people or robots? When the political and value content is so blatantly unfamiliar to us, then either quality got lost while chasing the purpose, or it never existed.
The propositions, logic, plans and the conscience that arises from or are expressed through them, this is what burns… It is there where you can see if words and acts are consistently moving in the direction of anarchist liberation or if on the other hand they express logics completely foreign to it.
Sometimes while we think that our problem is outside us, it is actually inside or among us.
Strength to all of us. War against every mafia and authority.
(via Act For Freedom Now!)