Recently, the counter-information project "Zagovor na ednakvite" expressed - in my opinion correctly - the question of how different anarchist tendencies, many of them in conflict with each other, can coexist in the same counter-information media.
It could be argued here that any effort against domination and repression can allow, conditionally, the periodic coexistence, perhaps even action, of different trends/tendencies. But it seems that the different methodology of action continues to be an unbridgeable chasm that unfortunately (or fortunately) detaches certain tendencies from the anarchist project (which I don't believe they ever belonged to) and separates them by placing them in the ideological libertarian pantheon, stripped of any confrontational tools.
The exclusion of Spyros Mandyla's hunger strike, the absence of nihilistic and insurrectionary books and brochures in anarchist exhibitions in Greece and abroad, the promotion of communisation, the repeated criticism of violent acts of reaction, does not only widen this gap. In line with ideas expressed most strongly by various anti-authoritarian and libertarian movements, lately, they interweave a concrete process of fulfilling the anarchist project through an effort to revise ideas, tools and goals.
They try thus to form an anarchist (?) revolutionary subject, negating its insurrectionary (but also its individual) substance, capable of accepting as a necessity the compromise and the illusion of alliances with leftist forces.
The proposal to reorganise and create a broader platform (AK) is used with the aim of a fictitious but unattainable quantification of forces and is based on the anarcho-communist connotation of the '36 paradigm. The latter in turn enjoys particular weight as a model for the pragmatic management of power, which is what these movements seem to have as their ultimate goal.
No wonder then that they demand and call for a revision of elections as a tool and of voting as a tactical weapon (cf. Eutopia). It is clear here the attempt to revise abstention and the call for participation - both of fellow citizens and not - in this despicable tool of bourgeois democracy (and beyond). They obviously understand Anarchy as self-organization with direct democracy and cooperative economy (e.g. G. Lieros) or as a way of life (e.g. C. Taibo) or as solidarity or equality. However, not as freedom (see C.Galanopoulos). It is therefore both logical and true to state that: "the libertarian movement is a bulwark against nihilism and lawless collapse" (G.Lieros).
Both anarchonihilism and insurrectionism have as their starting point the vital impulse of the multi-layered destruction of power right now. They do not have power as their ultimate goal, nor do they seduce with any guarantee as to the future. That is why Nietzsche was horrified by their will to destroy. He understood the dynamics of all those "decadents" who want to restore a "healthy", strong and robust society. He misinterpreted their ontological principle, of course, thinking that they covet power. But their will was not for power, that is, for something other than what it was, an illusion of acquisition, but only for destruction. The various anarchist tendencies (social anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism) are just as frightened by this "game" of destruction, that is, by the pleasurable acting in the present, isolating as much as they can from anarcho-midenism and insurrectionism (without the latter seeking any collaborations or alliances).
But the loftiness of the impulse can withstand any attempt to restore it. It is the one that wakes you up, that changes you, that pushes you on the road, that arms you, that pulls the trigger, without rules, without conditions, without tomorrow.
However, and on the occasion of the recent incidents in Patras, the details of which I do not know, I believe that the violent confrontation between anarchist tendencies disorientates the comrades on both sides and leads them into a confrontation that only favours power. Brothers, even if they are distant, even if they have different wrinkles, are still brothers.
"We are attached to the night, where everything is disintegrating, and now we no longer look back, where the lights go out forever. We are alone with our own ideas and our own works, at the mercy of their own common asymmetry. Yet we need to move on, we cannot stop, and when we slow down it is the very walk that drags us along.". A.Caraco