Tag Archives: Nikos Maziotis

Greece: Pola Roupa and Nikos Maziotis, imprisoned members of Revolutionary Struggle on hunger strike

November 11, 2017


Almost 10 years after the outbreak of the crisis with the collapse of the financial system, bank bankruptcy, and seven years after the commencement of the era of the memorandum and the monitoring of the country by the troika (IMF, EC, ECB), the social base in this country has suffered the strongest blow since the Second World War.

Greek puppet governments have definitively delegated substantial economic and political governance to EU supranational organizations and indirectly to the capital markets and are imposing new measures of social euthanasia for large sections of the population in this country, they are now insignificant for their added value to capitalist wealth. That’s why it does not matter if they disappear. This condition of condemnation is also a prerequisite for the survival of the system itself, for the preservation of the political regime, for the perpetuation of capitalism.

The government’s propaganda to overcome the crisis and return the Greek economy to a recovery path is a common European lie to showcase the supposed success of the programs and memoranda, to allow the EU to be removed from the obligation to continue to financially support the Greek regime and to let the capital markets take the lead from the EU in the recycling of Greek debt and speculation through it. A debt that regime agents already admit that if not drastically reduced in the immediate future will force the Greek state to declare bankruptcy. Not least that the exit to the markets of the Greek state will further exacerbate the already exaggerated Greek debt, which now exceeds 180% of GDP.

The message, however, that the world’s powerful have taken from these years with the rescue policies of the system by the central banks and governments that have put the whole weight of the crisis that the rich created on the backs of the peoples: whatever they do they have their pack animals, the social base, to bear the crisis and produce profits. And the usual practice of enrichment through the swelling of global debt and its financialization continues until the next collapse. But the people have already suffered a huge blow. The social base in the country counts millions of poor, marginalized and desperate. It counts thousands of deaths from hunger, illness and suicide.

The SYRIZA-ANEL government’s minister, Kontonis, argued that it is a government success that people do not eat from the rubbish. People still do eat from the trash, but they no longer show them on television. This is why it is a universal political priority to support the “success story” of the memorandum by all parties and the media.

The theft of any surplus wealth left to the social base continues with unabated tension by the government with wage and pensions cuts, the abolition of public insurance, the taxation of the most economically weak, all while poverty is rising, on the orders of the EU the banks will throw thousands of borrowers onto the streets, and there is no chance to persuade the government to get out of the crisis.

The only success of the government is social passivity and the defeat of struggles. Because the basic precondition for imposing these criminal policies in the country that threw thousands of people to the margins, which killed thousands, was and is political normality and the absence of a strong social reaction. Because the smaller the resistance of society, the more ruthless the system becomes.

The social reactions to the memorandums somehow came to a standstill as the regime was determined to impose the memorandums at all political expense. But the reason these memoranda were imposed was the absence of an expanded and powerful revolutionary movement that could be an obstacle to the social euthanasia policies. Upon the defeat of the resistance SYRIZA stepped in to climb to power. The SYRIZA-ANEL government has also been the last sparks of reaction to the system and policies to overcome the crisis.

Today, the social base is rotten, while the economic and political lords of the country have secured their wealth in tax havens and in foreign banks. The Paradise Papers come to recall what everyone knows: That the economically powerful and their political aides are not touched by any crisis and it does not concern them that any measures are imposed. In a “legal and moral” (sic) way they will continue to enrich themselves while millions of people die of hunger and poverty.

Nowadays, the social base is rotten because this rotten system is killing to survive, because it kills social solidarity and cohesion and pushes it into crime. The war of all against all is the beginning of capitalism and the economic freedom of the rich to do whatever they want with the support of governments. It is the beginning of the absolute competition that has dominated the planet.

Their own creations – the crimes among the social bases – are nowadays the politicians’ number one issue. “Order and security” is the common slogan of the political elites to deal drastically with these phenomena which the regime itself gave birth to. One of the most popular aspects of propaganda is crime among the social bases today. It is the phenomenon that the regime itself generates and nourishes.

And, on the other hand, the great criminals, the real terrorists and the bandits that make up the economic and political power, remain immune.

Society rots and turns into cannibalism as there is no political way out of the social conditions that the regime itself shapes: Because it creates poverty and want, marginalization and despair. This drowns the youth with drugs, it dissolves social solidarity. This creates the conditions for a cannibal society. This is the crime.

Prisons are full and more and more will pass through their doors as the political and economic conditions for increasing all forms of delinquency exist and will continue to exist.

And prisons are now being targeted by the left-wing totalitarianism promoted by the government with the new punitive code, which aspires to turn prisons into crematoria for thousands of prisoners.


At the top of the government’s priorities, and other regime parties, is always the political representation of Revolutionary Struggle and our political view. And the attitude that the regime has always reserved for us was analogous to its view of the political threat represented by Revolutionary Struggle but also by us personally. And they never hid it.

Because Revolutionary Struggle was a political threat to the policy of the Memoranda, an important factor of resistance, an organization that promoted the overthrow of the system and the revolution, the change of society in order to tackle the crisis at its root.

Because Revolutionary Struggle and we personally struggle for social solidarity which can triumph with the overthrow of the criminal regime that promotes social decay and social death. And the triumph of social solidarity presupposes the creation of a society of economic equality and political freedom for all.

And because they condemn us as enemies of democracy, those whose political system disdains and mocks with its very existence real democracy, there’s is a system of oligarchs in favour of the rich and the powerful, they break their own Constitution when the power of bankers and the wealthy is at risk (anti-constitutional imposition of memoranda), we point out that real democracy is direct democracy, this political organization of society today presupposes the economic organization of society based on the principle of economic equality.

The current system of parliamentary representation, especially in our time, with a discredited parliament that, according to a Eurobarometer survey, is only trusted by 13% of the people in the country, the current political system that is now commonly understood to be a puppet of the world’s powerful, this is the enemy of real democracy.

Real democracy, political freedom and economic equality are inseparable values. And an indisputable value is social solidarity. All these values that kill the existing economic and political system. And these are the values for which Revolutionary Struggle fights and for those values we are in prison.

Even before our arrests the repressive mechanisms they formed the frame through the media with ourselves as the central faces and Revolutionary Struggle as an umbrella organization for every armed activity in the country. They had set a bounty of €1 million each for us.

The arrest of Nikos Maziotis in July 2014 was presented by the then Minister of Public Order as an important element for the unimpeded implementation of the memoranda and the salvation of the system. With Nikos Maziotis they “inaugurated” the Type C prison[1] of New Democracy in Domokos as he was the first political prisoner to be transferred there.

A special moment in our special treatment was the arrest of Pola Roupa. The way the state and government treated our six-year-old child will remain in history as the most violent repressive blow.

The imposition of a unique exemption regime for Maziotis, who has been in isolation since last July, is another move in our special treatment.

The new Penitentiary Code introduces a special photographic arrangement for Pola Roupa to be put in isolation and to establish the isolation regime of Nikos Maziotis (article 11 par.6 point e). Whilst a special provision is introduced for the detention of those who are tried and are in a special regime of isolation, they are detained in police stations, which, for us and the long trials we have, is a move aimed at failing to conduct the civil trial and effectively cancelling it.

We know that we represent a political threat to the regime even though we are in prison. We know that we are still at the top of the agenda of the government’s political goals to address a political adversary of the system. This was expressly stated by Tsipras in the parliament, mentioning twice the name of Pola Roupa to the successes of his government’s repressive policy, paying special attention to this arrest. And they all heard that it was the only name in terms of arrests mentioned in the parliament.

They explicitly state this with the extensive reports they are always doing mentioning the name of Pola Roupa and our political history with the media presenting us as the central face in every armed activity.

And it is clear that while the repressive mechanisms have already reduced Revolutionary Struggle to an “umbrella” for a series of robberies that have taken place across Greece, they continue to place at the center of domestic armed action – of every kind and form – Revolutionary Struggle and us personally.

This is a strategically important policy for the state, the government and the media that stems from the prioritization of our case, Revolutionary Struggle and our political choices. Because while we are in jail, their war against us does not stop and in every way the government shows its political will against us that has long been personal.

We have repeatedly stated and everyone knows that what we do, we do. The political actions and actions of Revolutionary Struggle, of the organization to which we are members, we always defend them politically at all costs. However, actions that are not related to and are not related to Revolutionary Struggle – which the repressive mechanisms know – we are not willing to be credited with. Everyone assumes their responsibilities in the political field.

However, we know that the choice of the state to place us at the heart of any armed activity is of strategic importance. And this policy is converging with the state’s primary target of putting us in a special treatment regime within prisons. It comes and converges with the new exception regime that prepares and restores Type C prisons, with a special priority to be given to us personally this time with the photographic arrangement of Art. 11 para.6 of the new Penal Code.


According to Article 11, paragraph 6 of the new Penitentiary Code, “those convicted of organizing escapes and other offences committed within detention facilities and under the applicable criminal and terrorist law will be detained in specific designated areas”.

It is known that in the past there have been cases of escaping detainees or attempted escapes. Never before has any government been asked to legislate specifically on organizing escapes to isolate detainees for such cases. The last escape took place in 2013 under ND (New Democracy political party).

In the recent historic juncture, the only such escape that has not been tried is the attempted escape of political prisoners that Pola Roupa attempted in February 2016, for which both Nikos Maziotis and other political prisoners are accused.

We do not know whether this provision is applied retrospectively and includes other cases of escape, but it certainly concerns this case. This is a pure device.

To the extent that there are other prisoners convicted of organizing escapes from prisons, they will obviously have the same treatment, as we know that the extension of an exceptional measure already enforced by law will include other categories of prisoners, that is a given.

Every move towards more and more totalitarian conditions in society, and in this case in prisons, is usually passed over the declared political enemies of the system that are prisoners of the state and then they are to be extended to wider social and political categories of people. With regard to escapes from prisons, up to now – and after legal and political interference in the matter – it has been enshrined as a prisoner’s right because of the recognition of human nature which tends towards freedom, with the result that the escape has constituted until recently a misdemeanour.

Obviously in a regime such as the modern one, which is steadily and without a political rival heading towards an absolute totalitarianism, the state wants to show that this tendency to freedom is a detestable tendency. That’s why their exemplary punishment by putting them in a regime of permanent isolation is now routed through the new penitentiary code by a left-wing government.

The special conditions of detention, even in absolute isolation, are laid down in the same article and for a large category of prisoners who “manifest violent behaviour towards the prison staff”. In addition to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the so-called “harsh” prisoners that is to be imposed by the council, Article 11 (6) (a) introduces the possibility of placing these detainees in a special quarantine regime for long periods of time. And because the issue may even concern the incitement of mobilization in prisons, this article is expected for “security reasons”, prisoners who are actively involved in prison life are to be placed in isolation.

Article 11 lists discrimination and segregation of detainees. In addition to the existing categorizations in paragraph 4, an extraordinary regime for the detention of a special category of detainees is taken “in case of transfer for procedural reasons if there is no such facility or department, the detainee resides in a specially designed area of a local police station”.

“If reasons connected with the security of the country or public order or order and security in the detention facilities make it necessary to take additional security measures for the guarding of a detainee for procedural reasons and to avoid communicating with detainees of other categories, guarding and staying in the detention facility may be done at the suggestion of the competent police authority or the Directorate-General for Criminal Offences of the Ministry of Justice in some other police facility”. “Grounds related to the country’s security or public order” are clearly relevant to members of armed organizations since they are invoked for reasons which exist only in 187A and in any other article of the Penal Code. Accordingly, this provision reserves the option to keep someone in isolation in GADA (Police Headquarters) and detention there by decision of the minister if it is someone who is in prison under 187A[2], IE they are a member of an armed revolutionary organization, throughout their trial.

Detention in the police stations (and while there are prisons in the trial area), the same article is also provided for security reasons for detention facilities. Consequently, for those detained in the detention category under special circumstances, their right to an effective trial is being circumvented.

Given the conditions of detention in these circumstances and given that our trials are many months long with the restoration of this provision initially introduced by ND with the Type C prison bill, the state not only violates any right to trial, but renders void its conduct. And in this case it is clear. Kontonis, the Minister of Justice, with Article 11, quite openly declares the “extraordinary” treatment that we have, a unique exception scheme with more personal targeting.

Since he has stated in many ways the central policy of the government and himself to introduce segregation and within the class of political prisoners, IE those in prison on 187A, it is clear that the exceptional treatment is aimed at creating the most stifling conditions of imprisonment, without communication with other detainees.

Article 11 and the subheadings introduced in paragraph 6 in conjunction with the specific reference made in Article 11 itself and in paragraph 4 to “security issues of the country and of public order” which concern exclusively political prisoners and the conditions for conducting their trials, which are mainly political trials, it is clear that the ministry has launched the exceptional treatment and personal targeting against those who have a political attitude and reason, who defend their choices and express them throughout the prison and courts. Our trials are targeted and their abolition is being launched, all of which, together with Article 51 on prisoners’ communications and their drastic limitation (see below), aims at the political silencing of political prisoners.

We know that even our political voice is dangerous to the regime junta. The open attack on us is at the bottom of their policies, and comes from this political fear. Because it is assumed that trials such as those we face are impossible to conduct smoothly under the conditions introduced by the new prisons, the safe conclusion is that ultimately the government’s goal is primarily political. It is the abolition of the civil trial.

Equal rights and respect for human dignity under the Constitution are explicitly circumvented in the New Penitentiary Code, both with the special provisions and the exception regime that will be imposed in specific cases as we have mentioned, and through other provisions such as Article 2 Paragraph 4 mentions “exceptional cases where measures may entail restrictions on the normal living conditions of prisoners determined on a case by case basis by a public prosecutor’s decision”.

Also, Article 15 (3) provides for the decision of the Minister of Justice to “include detainees in new categories for reasons of special treatment”. Therefore, the introduction of new discrimination among prisoners is subject to the discretion of the prosecutor and the minister.

Article 51 introduces the restriction of the prisoner’s telephone communications. Based on this article, telephone numbers communicated with by prisoners will be imported into software and the prisoners will be given a password to communicate with them and only the phones they have given themselves to the service will be allowed. It is clear that this measure is not introduced to monitor and control the prisoner’s telephone communications as this is in any case valid. What is introduced is the strict control of communications on those persons who visit the detainees, IE relatives, and will clearly require special approval from the prison service for the other prisoners’ communications. If for example the individual prosecutor does not approve any communication, no password will be given.

The universal restraint of all first-time prisoners’ telephone communications is a new type of totalitarian measure against the freedom of people in communications that is also enshrined in the Constitution.

Although it is not explicitly stated in this article, the restriction of prisoners’ communications is the one that provided for by this article.

Article 13 “on special arrangements for detained mothers and detained parents” and in paragraph 3, first incorporates Article 1532 of the Civil Code on “Parental Responsibility” for imprisoned parents. It restricts the possibility for children up to 3 years of age to live with their detained mother (the possibility of living with the detained father is introduced, but such a possibility is impossible under the existing conditions) only if judged necessary by a juvenile court. Therefore it dismisses the fact that if a prisoner, a mother can keep her child if she wishes within the prison. This will now be judged by the courts. There is also a distinction in those prisoners serving sentences of more than 10 years where the child’s care – whether it will go to a relative or an institution – will also be judged by a juvenile court. Consequently, the child will remain with the mother as a need only if there is no other suitable person and at the discretion of the judge.

And when the child reaches the third year it will go to an institution if each juvenile court deems inappropriate the family environment of the parents. While the government says it legislates release for women with young children and with sentences not exceeding 10 years, the new penal code cancels this feature as in Article 13 paragraph 3 provides that this measure be applied ”Where the provision for an individual living space solely for the detained parent and his/her child is not possible (…) It (the competent body) can order the house arrest of the mother or father (…)”. Under house arrest it is a given that no parent can perform a parent’s duty, as the child cannot remain continuously closed in at home. It is therefore ridiculous to propose and apply such a law.

But what if the sentence exceeds 10 years? In Article 13, paragraph 3 it says that if there is no suitable place to stay for children up to 3 years old with its mother in prison and while the sentence is more than 10 years the juvenile court will decide if the child is taken by a family member or an institution. And in cases where there is no family member or they are not considered appropriate by the court, rather than improving conditions of detention they prefer to put children in institutions.

Instead of institutionalizing children, they could arrange another space for the mother to stay with her younger child up to the age of 6 – an absolute necessity for the mother – instead they provide for day visits by imprisoned parents once a month, instead legislate for overnight stays for underage children with their mothers, for example. With one visit in a two-month period, a measure that would be essential to support children themselves, they legislate against children and are vindictive and sexist to women – they abuse the law and are denying the right to maternity.

It goes without saying that no possibility of release is given to detainees whose sentences exceed 10 years, and the absence of a suitable environment for children makes definite the decision to go to the institutions.

It is obvious that the regime that existed beforehand on parents and detained minors is overturned. To date, children and their detained parents have not been involved in court proceedings to judge the environment of the child, except in exceptional cases of violence against children, or the complete inability of the environment to keep them or in the absence of relatives.

There is now a measure that has so far been applied in very special cases, for the courts and child psychiatrists to control and decide on the children’s environment, while the detained parent enters into an unfavourable and racist attitude for their ability to judge the interests of their child, such interests under Article 13 (3) will now be judged by the court.

This arrangement was announced by Justice Minister Kontonis in an interview he had given on 7/1/17 on the state TV channel, when interviewed about the treatment of our child by the state and the government with the arrest of Pola Roupa on 5 /1.

It is well known that the “exceptional” treatment of our child, who was held in GADA and specifically in the anti-terrorism department for hours under extreme secrecy, was interrogated and with a prosecution order kept guarded in a closed psychiatric clinic, is historically unique. Our child was treated as a criminal offender as a potential terrorist because it was our own child. Then, at first, it was initially attempted to remove our parental care altogether and definitively, to take away any parental relationship with our child and to break it forever, giving parental care temporarily to the social service of the hospital that kept it with the option of shutting it in an institution.

The kidnapping of the child in the psychiatric hospital ended after the hunger and thirst strike, but also the political and social outcry that it stirred up, but the State claimed through the Prosecutor’s Office of Kalamata to remove custody of our child and impose restrictive conditions on him under the supervision of the social service and child psychologists. This condition of permanent hostage that they want to impose on our child, as well as the removal of custody from us, relates to the fact that we are who we are.

In the trial that will be held on 15/11 from which we are excluded by refusing to take us to Kalamata to attend the trial, the Prosecutor’s Office of Kalamata asks us to permanently remove our custody and impose conditions on our child until he reaches the age of maturity, the imposition of permanent control by the social services and the child-psychologists. For reasons of political revenge they want to remove our custody, for reasons of revenge and on our own child, they want to impose restrictive conditions, to keep him as a hostage.

Article 13 does not provide custody to imprisoned parents, but the courts will decide which is the most appropriate environment for their care. What they have sought for our own child is clearly different and is dictated by our political choices and positions.

Article 13 introduces a new totalitarianism. The ability of the state to judge universally and to question the suitability of the parent or relatives on the basis of its own criteria. It is well known that the institutions that have the honour in the new prison code are claiming child prisoners. Obviously the financial interests behind the institutions, the most famous of which are under the auspices of well-known economically powerful individuals in Greece, are very large and the expectations for the expansion of institutions-businesses in the country are significant. It is not possible for the government to deceive people that it is legislating on the basis of the “interest of the child”, everybody understands this – since it is known that the institutions are an investment for the powerful and for specific economic interests – the interests of some powerful families in the country. It is also well known, for the most part, that many institutions are genuinely hell holes for children, who are systematically abused and sometimes “killed in the wells”.

However, in the name of the interests of ‘security’ and, in particular, of the state totalitarianism being promoted, institutions are now legally recognized as a ‘popular’ destination for the children of prisoners, and always, in ‘the child’s interest’.

Other provisions of the new Penitentiary Code are also contributing to the setting of prison conditions.

The lawful detestable vaginal check-ups for women and the incarceration of the prisoner during a physical investigation with Article 21 paragraph 7.

Article 63 (1) first regulates the use of force against detainees by prison staff in any cases such as “active or passive physical resistance to a lawful order” or “lawful defence cases”. In short, every employee can legally practice violence against any prisoner even if they show a passive refusal to execute a staff order! As for the equipment of prison staff for the means of violence, it will be provided by the prison rule under Article 63 (4). It is clear that while the use of force will be provided for by the prison services themselves and at the will of the individual guards, the use of force by police forces and the special guards is legislated in the same article, and in cases of group disobedience, such as the mobilizations of prisoners when they refuse to enter their cells it will be handed out, (article 63, para. 2). Legislation on the abolition of protests and mobilizations of detainees introduced by this correctional code is one of the most totalitarian features of the history of prisons in the country. Along with the legalization of the use of force as provided, the conversion of all prisons into disciplinary cultures is rooted in the most explicit way, while the right to protest is criminalized.

On the basis of Article 63 and in conjunction with Article 11 (6) (a), detainees will be placed under special detention if they participate in mobilizations or, most importantly, if they are potent, since in any event they will be suppressed with violence.

The right of prisoners’ leave is to be abused for many categories of detainees, and sentences for acts of violence exceeding 15 years ( Article 53 (2 ) (d ) will be excluded from this right. In these cases involving hundreds of prisoners, leave will not be given and the prisoners will be in danger of being in a closed prison even until the end of their sentence.

And while Justice Minister Kontonis defends “equal treatment of prisoners in the face of the law” he legislates for discrimination based on the offence, refusing leave and release for certain categories of prisoners, such as those incarcerated for 15 year sentences and above for acts of violence, including those falling under 187A. And it is not about the specific measure for example drug dealers. We mention this example because he has publicly stated that he has intervened in a court decision to refuse to interrupt a prisoner’s sentence because he considered it unfair to decide the interruption of a sentence for a drug dealer rather than for a specific prisoner. He is extremely selective not only in his interventions but also in the way he is legislating now. And he is the first minister to legislate for discrimination on the basis of the offence, but also on the basis of specific persons.

Let us remind ourselves that he is the same minister who publicly defended the special treatment of our child, for which a number of laws were violated, he finally defended the treatment of our child, a six-year-old child, and defended his treatment as a “criminal offender” and his confinement to the psychiatric hospital.

In any case, the new penitentiary code wants to promote the end of prison protests, to introduce violence, punishment and revenge on detainees without room for protest, especially through articles that provide for special quarantine conditions.

A new regime of extermination of a special category of prisoners is introduced in the article. 11 (6) (e) and (4) of that Article. As far as political prisoners are concerned, the continued pressure to legislate on denial of leave and release without a statement of repentance reduces political prisoners to a special category for political reasons, since the extraordinary treatment concerns the motivation that is political rather than personal.

And such pressure as these measures to exclude political prisoners in prison are those which power wants to pass is in the direction of destroying all political resistance against the regime. The status of the oligarchy of the rich and their political co-soldiers who are responsible for the death, extermination and misery of millions of people in the country and for these crimes, for the terrorism they are practising, no one will pay.

On the contrary, those who struggle against their criminal, murderous regime must be exterminated.

The invocation of cases where prisoners violate the law when they left prison under the Paraskevopoulos law[3] is devoid of substance, since the type and intensity of social crime is not defined by the time of imprisonment, but by the wider social and economic conditions.

While the increasingly harsh conditions of detention will guarantee the return of detainees to delinquency, and even in more fierce forms of detention, since the tendency for revenge will coexist.

To the extent that poverty and regime violence at the expense of the social majority is increasing by dismantling social cohesion, killing social solidarity and turning the social base into a jungle, it is assumed that social crime will not only grow but will become more and more violent. The status of the “war of all against all” is imposed by the economic and political system itself. Since the elimination of crime presupposes the treatment of the causes that give birth to it and because the cause of the crime is the very system of capitalism, the state and the junta of the markets, the only way to effectively tackle crime at the basis of society is another type of social organization based on economic equality and political freedom.

Through Article 11 (4) and (6), it is clear that it is determined that we will be placed in a regime of permanent isolation from other prisoners while aiming at removing the possibility of trial. Nikos Maziotis is already in isolation status for the last 4 months for reasons we have outlined in texts published last July and September. Obviously, the imposition of a total isolation regime for Maziotis has “whetted the appetite” of the ministry to establish this treaty by law and to impose it on Pola, as she has taken responsibility the attempt to break out political prisoners from Korydallos.

The left-wing government, specializing in introducing and promoting divisions within resistance spaces and within political prisoners themselves, is certain that these measures will not apply to all those detained for involvement in armed activities. There will be clear discrimination among those who the government and the state always judge for their behaviour, especially their politics. As far as we are concerned, it is clear that we are the top priorities of the government’s war. And we will be the ones the government wants to pass these new measures upon.

But they will not just stay with us. It is certain that any exceptional measure applied to the political opponents of the regime will be broadened in their application to other categories of people.

Flagging the phrase “for the country’s security and public order”, the Syriza-ANEL government introduces new regimes of exclusion and isolation, as well as the most restrictive terms of detention for anyone recognized as a political threat.

The regime of modern parliamentary and economically powerful oligarchs does not recognize the existence of political opponents, it characterizes them as “terrorists” and condemns them with 187A to severe punishments. Once again, provisions are introduced for their slow destruction through the return of isolation and special conditions of detention. At the same time, both the media and the regime politicians howl about the treatment of the Junta and demanded that this regime be extended to a life long treatment, so as not to let the political opponents of the regime out of prison. It is obscene to draw a parallel with the Junta who imposed fascism on the whole country, who killed, tortured thousands of people, and sent tanks to the Polytechnic in 1973, and killed the insurgents in revolt in any other case.

As we have already said, Revolutionary Struggle has for years been an important priority in the repressive state policy. We know that we are also an important political target for the regime, given the choice of struggle we have made. However, the totalitarianism introduced by the new prison code and the incessant measures of control and pressure on prisoners promotes a new type of universal censure and social racism in prisons in order to make the pursuit of detainees more effective and on terms that will even go as far as their crushing if the state deems it necessary for its security.

In a pro-government newspaper we read in regard to the new prison code, titled “Prisons not sweat shops”, that the supposed pillar of the new code is the principle that “the only restriction imposed on the prisoners is on their movement.” No matter how the government’s parrots tried to beautify the new law they can not reverse the truth: It is a legal monstrosity that introduces the “modernization” of prisons to the country turning them into crematoriums for many detainees according to the specifications laid down by the new totalitarian regime imposed on the whole of society.

It is in “absolute harmony” with the modern junta of markets, supranational capital and government-puppets in Greece. It is in “absolute harmony” with the supervision and social subordination to the supranational power centres. With policies of social genocide for the social base, subordination and total control for all, to ensure the smooth reproduction of the criminal economic and political system. No social resistance, no political threat. And it is clear that while the regime imposes these conditions on society, and while politically threatening adversaries do not exist, the totalitarianism that will pass as a juggernaut through society will not leave the prisoners out of their sight.

The new penitentiary code and the threat of the detention conditions it imposes are a cause of struggle for all prisoners, and it does enough to “raise” the request to withdraw all the articles mentioned in the text, which for us are weapons of revenge and punishment against thousands of prisoners.

But we have already said they will not let the new Type C prisons and prisoners’ extermination schemes pass over us.

So we commence a HUNGER STRIKE today Saturday, November 11th with the following demands:

To withdraw the provision in Article 11 para, 6 pt. E and para. 4 in the same article regarding the detention in police stations. Do not bring back the Type C prison regime. Immediately release Nikos Maziotis from the isolation in which he is held by a decision of the ministry since last July.

Introduce adjustment to the correctional code for the easing of visitor hours based on the frequency of visits a prisoner has. For example, a prisoner who has one hour per month visit or cannot at all extend the time of the meeting.

There should be a special meeting room for parents to meet with their children (there is no such place in the Korydallos men’s prison) and when the frequency of meetings is rare, the meeting time should increase accordingly.

In our case the visits with our child, take place once a month due to distance and the time of one hour that is imposed is a mockery for the child. Also other visitors than that, we do not get at all. Everyone in prison knows this condition and the frequency of visits is written in the prison books.

The prosecutor of the prison refused to extend the time to meet with our child while they are aware of everything and insist on one hour per month, a decision directly against the child itself as it completely discredits our meeting. Potentially with 1 hour it is desired to completely cancel the meetings with our child.

In order to achieve even the bare minimum to meet the needs of our child to communicate with us due to the inability to visit us often we request:

· Visiting with our child to last at least three hours.
· Visiting between us two hours.
· Similar arrangements are provided for similar cases and should be extended to the minimum time for parents’ meetings with their children.

During the hunger strike we must be given a telephone conversation with our child and our lawyers.

We state from the outset that we will not receive serum when hospitalized, we will only receive water throughout the strike and do not think of force feeding us.

Pola Roupa – Nikos Maziotis,

Members of Revolutionary Struggle

[1] Type C prisons: maximum security prisons introduced in 2014 under the Samaras government which placed prisoners, mainly political prisoners, in special isolation units. Elements of these prisons were removed in 2015.

[2] 187A is the article of the Greek criminal code on the formation of criminal organizations, it is the main charge brought against members and suspected members of guerrilla groups.

[3] Paraskevopoulos law was brought in during the prisoners’ hunger strike in 2015 and grants early release for some prisoners in the hope of easing prison overcrowding.

Pola Roupa and Nikos Maziotis, imprisoned members of Revolutionary Struggle on hunger strike (Greece)

Bern: Soli-Transpi für “Revolutionärer Kampf”

Zum gestrigen Aufruf zur Solidarität mit dem «Revolutionären Kampf» haben wir in Bern ein Soli-Transparent gesprayt und aufgehängt.

Der Revolutionäre Kampf ist nebst der «Verschwörung der Feuerzellen» einer von zwei noch aktiven anarchistischen und bewaffneten Gruppen in Griechenland. Am fünften Januar dieses Jahres wurde Pola Roupa, ihr Sohn und die Anarchistin Konstantina Athanasopoulou in Athen verhaftet. Auf Pola war zuvor ein Kopfgeld von einer Million Euro ausgesetzt worden.

2011 waren Pola Roupa, Nikos Maziotis und Costas Gournas nach der Entlassung aus der maximalen U-Haft Dauer von 18 Monaten untergetaucht. Im Juli 2014 wurde der Ehemann von Pola Roupa, Nikos Maziotis, in Athen verhaftet. Er wurde für einen Sprengstoffanschlag auf die Baustelle der Nationalbank zu lebenslanger Haft verurteilt. Dies ist bemerkenswert, da bei dem Anschlag eine Warnung vorausgegangen war und es weder Tote noch Verletzte gab. Zur Lebenslagen Haft kamen weitere 129 Jahre für Schüsse auf PolizistInnen und diverse Banküberfälle.

Pola Roupa versuchte im letzten Jahr Nikos Maziotis auf spektakuläre Art und Weise zu befreien. Sie kaperte dazu einen Touristen-Helikopter mit dem Plan, diese zum Gefängnis von Nikos zu fliegen. Der Pilot, ein ehemaliger Polizist, lies den Hubschrauber jedoch abstürzen und Pola konnte fliehen.

Nach der Verhaftung wurde ihr Sohn in ein Krankenhaus eingesperrt und durfte keinen Besuch erhalten. Daraufhin traten die Mitglieder des Revolutionären Kampfes in einen Hunger- und Durchstreik. In dieser Zeit kam es in ganz Griechenland zu verschiedenen Solidaritätsaktionen. So versuchten beispielsweise Anarchist*innen mit einer Demo in das Krankenhaus zu gelangen, um den Sohn von Pola und Nikos ein paar Spielzeuge zu bringen. Im Gefängnis, wo die Mitglieder des Revolutionären Kampfes inhaftiert sind, verweigerten die Insassen den Einschluss.

Wir möchten uns den Solidaritätsaktionen anschliessen und senden den Gefangenen solidarische Grüsse aus Bern.

Mehr zur Geschichte des Revolutionären Kampfes, den Zielen und Strategien der Gruppe gibt es im diesem Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_fPr787H4Y 

Griechenland: Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas bei Verwandten

Heute, am Sonntag 8. Januar 2017, bekam die Grossmutter mütterlicherseits von Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas nach einer neuen Entscheidung des Staatsanwalts die vorläufige Obhut für ihn. Seine Inhaftierung in der psychiatrischen Abteilung (!) des Kinderspitals in Athen wurde so endlich beendet. Das sechs Jahre alte Kind verliess das Spital unter der Begleitung seiner nächsten Verwandten.

In der Zwischenzeit gab es Proteste durch Gefangene in den Männer- und Frauenknästen von Koridallos, im Frauenknast von Elaionas in Thebes und im Knast von Trikala.

Die Mitglieder des Revolutionären Kampf Nikos Maziotis, Pola Roupa und Kostantina Athanasopoulou haben ihren Durst- und Hungerstreik unterbrochen.

Ein Gericht wird innerhalb von sechs Monaten über die definitive Obhut für das Kind entscheiden.

Greece: Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas placed with relatives

Greece: Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas placed with relatives

Today, Sunday January 8th 2017, after a new prosecutor’s order, temporary custody of Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas was given to the grandmother on his mother’s side, so his captivity in the psychiatric unit(!) of the children’s hospital in Athens was finally terminated. The six-year-old child left the hospital escorted by his first-degree relatives.

Meanwhile, there were protests by inmates at Koridallos men’s and women’s prisons, Elaionas women’s prison in Thebes, and Trikala prison.

Revolutionary Struggle members Nikos Maziotis, Pola Roupa and Kostantina Athanasopoulou have interrupted their thirst and hunger strike.

A court will decide on the final custody of the child within six months.

Greece: Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas placed with relatives


Interview mit dem anarchistischen Gefangenen Nikos Maziotis aus Griechenland.

Das Gespräch wurde schriftlich auf englisch geführt. Nikos ist 2016 zu lebenslänglich verurteilt worden.

Redaktion des „Gefangenen Info“.

Nikos, du hast geschrieben: „Die anarchistische anti-autoritäre Bewegung hat nicht das Niveau der anderen sozialen Bewegungen und Volksmassen übertroffen, die mit den Kräften der Unterdrückung aneinandergeraten sind und wiederholt versucht haben in das griechische Parlament bei den großen Demonstrationen zwischen 2010 und 2012 zu gelangen.“ Unserer Fragen dazu: Was ist deine Kritik bezüglich der Besetzung des Parlaments? Zu legalistisch und illusionär, weil die Machtfrage nicht auf diese Art und Weise gestellt werden kann? Ist das Parlament nicht der richtige Platz, weil Entscheidungen wo anders getroffen werden?

Ich widerspreche nicht dem Versuch der Besetzung des Parlaments. Ich beteiligte mich an einigen der Demonstrationen im Oktober 2011 und Februar 2012, bei dem tausende von Menschen und GenossInnen mit den Riot-Cops gekämpft haben mit dem Bestreben in das Parlament zu gelangen.

Das Parlament ist der Platz an dem die herrschende Klasse, die Bourgeoisie, die Entscheidungen zur Ausbeutung und Unterdrückung der Bevölkerung trifft. Durch das Parlament wurden alle Maßnahmen und Programme zur „Rettung“ für die internationalen Organisationen, IWF, EZB und Europäische Kommission, eingeführt.

Meine Kritik bezieht sich darauf, dass die anarchistische antiautoritäre Bewegung keine politische Positionen gegen die Politik des „Memorandums“ und gegen die Kreditprogramme hat, die der IWF, EZB, die europäische Kommission und der griechische Staat gegen die griechische Bevölkerung verhängt hat. Die „Bewegung“ konnte der Bevölkerung keine Alternative zu dieser Politik vorschlagen. Die „Bewegung“ hatte keine Analyse und keine politische Position über die Probleme unserer Zeit: die Schulden, das Memorandum, die Euro-Zone, die europäische Union. Die „Bewegung“ hatte keine Analyse der ökonomischen Krise des Kapitalismus. Zum Beispiel gab es keine Antwort auf die Dilemmas „in der Eurozone bleiben, oder raus“ oder „in der Europäischen Union bleiben, oder raus“, Euro oder Drachme. So ist die Besetzung des Parlaments nicht genug, um eine generelle Lösung auf die Probleme, eine revolutionäre Lösung auf die Krise zu finden.

Die einzige Intervention der Anarchisten auf die Ereignisse der Periode war die Beteiligung an den Riots vor dem Parlament mit tausend anderen Menschen. Aber dies war nicht genug und die Riots und die Demonstrationen von tausenden von Menschen haben die Umsetzung der Politik, die von dem IWF, der EZB und der EU verhängt wurden, nicht stoppen können.

Generell ist die anarchistische antiautoritäre Bewegung in einer großen Schwächen und das ist der Grund warum sie nicht als eine revolutionäre Bewegung mit klaren Positionen organisiert werden kann. Das ist der Grund warum die Bewegung keinen Einfluss auf die Massen haben konnte, die gegen die Politik des Memorandums demonstriert hatte. Sie konnte nicht die revolutionäre Umgestaltung der Gesellschaft vorschlagen.

Die Nicht-Existenz einer realen revolutionären Bewegung mit antikapitalistischen und antiautoritären Charakteristischen, die eine soziale Revolution als eine Antwort auf die Krise und der Rettungspolitik des Systems vorschlägt, ist der Grund, dass die Demonstrationen und die Riots der Periode von 2010-2012 niedergeschlagen wurde. Das ist der Grund, dass seit 2012 der soziale Widerstand und die Streiks weniger und nicht massiver geworden sind. Die Menschen haben ihre Hoffnung verloren und sie glauben nicht, dass die Streiks und Demonstrationen die Politik der griechischen Regierung ändern werden. Ein anderes Resultat der Demonstrationen 2010-2012 war, dass viele Leute und GenossInnen in den Wahlen von Mai-Juni 2012 und Januar 2015 Syriza mit der Illusion gewählt haben, dass eine linke Regierung wie Syriza die Situation ändern würde und die Gläubiger bekämpfen würde. Syriza versprach, als sie in der Opposition war, dass sie die Rettungsprogramme – die Kreditvereinbarungen – abschaffen würde und eine sozialdemokratische Politik durchführen würde. Nach ein paar Monaten wurde der Widerspruch offensichtlich, weil Syriza die gleiche Politik wie die vorhergegangene Regierung fortsetzte und für das 3. Memorandum stimmte. Bei der 3. Kreditvereinbarung 2015 stimmten sogar die 62% der Leute, die an dem Referendum von 5. Juli 2015 teilnahmen, gegen die Forderungen der Gläubiger.

Der Revolutionäre Kampf sagte in der Erklärung, in der wir die Verantwortung für den Angriff gegen die Bank von Griechenland und das Büro der dauerhaften Repräsentanten des IWF in Griechenland übernahmen, dass wenn Syriza weiterhin in der Opposition wäre, dass die sozialdemokratischen Programme der Syriza nicht realistisch seien und wenn sie zur Regierung würden sie ein neoliberales Programm und Maßnahmen einführen und das Memorandum akzeptieren würden wie die anderen Regierungen zuvor. Was wir 2014 vor den Wahlen gesagt haben wurde 2015 verifiziert.

Diese schlimme Entwicklung, die Niederschlagung der Demonstrationen von 2010-2012, die Weiterführung der Politik des Memorandums – die Kreditvereinbarung von IWF, EZB, Europäischer Kommission in den letzten 6 Jahren, die Wahl des 3. Memorandums der linken Regierung unter Syriza, dies alles sind Resultate der Nicht-Existenz einer revolutionären Bewegungen.

Der Revolutionäre Kampf (RK) erklärt seit 2009, dass die Krise eine Möglichkeit für eine soziale Revolution in Griechenland ist und die anarchistische antiautoritäre Bewegung eine revolutionäre Bewegung aufbauen muss mit klaren politischen Position, eine Bewegung die notwendigerweise den bewaffneten Kampf nutzt, um das Regime zu stürzen.

In der Frage, ob das Parlament als ein Ort genutzt werden kann wo die Bevölkerung ihre Entscheidungen treffen können, ist meine Antwort Nein. Was zählt ist nicht der Platz oder das Gebäude des Parlaments, sondern das was das Parlament repräsentiert. Ich bin ein Anarchist und natürlich bin ich gegen die bürgerliche Demokratie und die parlamentarische Demokratie der Bourgeoise.Ich unterstütze die „direkte Demokratie“, wenn die Bevölkerung in den Versammlungen an denen sie überall wo sie stattfinden, am Arbeitsplatz, in den Communities, in den Nachbarschaften der Städte, den Krankenhäusern, Schulen, Universitäten, überall, teilnimmt, redet und entscheidet.

Als Anarchist unterstütze ich ein konföderalistisches System, das den Staat und die Marktwirtschaft ersetzt. Ein konföderalistisches System, das große Versammlungen (Anm. d. Übersetzers:‚assembleas‘), Arbeiterräte einschließt. Für die Kooperation oder die Koordination aller Volksversammlungen, der Räte, der Kollektive, der Kommunen, müssen die Delegierten der Gremien gewählt werden und direkt abberufen werden können, nicht nach 4 Jahren wie bei der Regierung der bürgerlichen Demokratie.

Die Tradition der revolutionären und Arbeiterbewegung hat viele Beispiele von Experimenten direkter Demokratie wie die Pariser Kommune 1871, die die erste Revolution war, bei der die Arbeiterklasse ihre Macht demonstrierte, wie die Soviets (Anm. d. Übersetzers: Räte) in Russland bevor die Bolschewiken sie in ein Werkzeug der Diktatur umwandelten, wie die Räte der Arbeiter und Soldaten in der deutschen Revolution 1918-19, wie die Arbeiterkomitees und Kollektive der Bauern in der spanischen Revolution und im spanischen Bürgerkrieg 1936-39.

Heute gibt es Experimente des Kommunalismus der Zapatisten im Südosten Mexikos in Chiapas und des demokratischen Konföderalismus in Kurdistan, die auf Volksversammlungen in den kurdischen Gemeinden und Städten basiert, z.B. in Rojava und anderen Gebieten Kurdistans. Ich glaube nicht, dass die Zerstörung des Kapitalismus und des Staates durch das Parlament der bürgerlichen Demokratie zu Stande kommt, sondern durch eine bewaffnete soziale Revolution.

Natürlich sollten wir in unserem Kampf alle Formen nutzen: Demonstrationen, Besetzungen, selbstorganisierte Strukturen, aber wenn wir eine Revolution machen wollen, dann ist es notwendig den bewaffneten Kampf zu nutzen, um das Regime zu stürzen und das revolutionäre Experiment zu schützen. In der letzten Erklärung (Anm. d. Übersetzers: des Revolutionären Kampfes) von 2014, die sich auf den Angriff auf eine Filiale der Bank von Griechenland und auf das Büro des Vertreters der IWF, bezog, erklärte der Revolutionäre Kampf, dass ein revolutionärer Prozess in Griechenland heute mit einbeziehen sollte: Die Verweigerung der Zahlung der Schulden, Der Austritt aus der Euro-Zone und der europäischen Union, die Enteignung des kapitalistischen Eigentums, der Banken, der multinationalen und griechischen kapitalistischen Firmen und die Enteignung des Staatseigentum, die Vergesellschaftung des Eigentums von Kapitalisten und des Staates, die Vergesellschaftung der Industrie, der Transports-, Bildungs-, Gesundheitsstrukturen und die Selbstverwaltung von diesen durch die Arbeiter und das Volk, die Zerstörung des Staates und die Ersetzung durch ein konföderalistisches System, das alle Versammlungen und Räte überall, an den Arbeitsplätzen, in den Dörfern, in den Stadtteilen von Städten, mit einschließt, die Zerstörung der Polizei und der Staatsarmee und die Ersetzung von diesen durch eine bewaffnete Miliz, einer Art Volksarmee.

Der Revolutionäre Kampf schlug ein spezifisches politisches Programm vor und rief die anarchistische-antiautoritäre Bewegung zu einem Dialog dazu auf, wie eine revolutionäre Bewegung mit klaren politischen Positionen entstehen kann, aber unglücklicherweise passierte dies nicht.

Was ist dein Standpunkt zur Funktion von Deutschland im Verhältnis zu Europa und Griechenland?

Ich glaube, dass die Rolle Deutschlands innerhalb der europäischen Union und was die griechische Schuldenkrise, sowie generell der Schuldenkrise in Europa angeht, sehr wichtig ist. Wir sollten nicht vergessen, dass Deutschland zusammen mit anderen Ländern, wie Frankreich, in den 50zigern zur Entstehung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft beigetragen hat. Als das am weitesten entwickelte Land in Europa unterstützt (Anm. des Ü.: Deutschland) die vollständige Umsetzung der Vereinbarungen der Europäischen Union, wie die zu Stabilität und Entwicklung von Lissabon, die die Schulden der europäischen Länder betrifft und die Reduzierung des Defizits auf 3% des Bruttoinlandsproduktes festlegt.

Was die griechische Schuldenkrise angeht, so hat Deutschland eine wichtige Rolle für die vollständige Umsetzung der harten Austeritätsmaßnahmen der Kreditvereinbarungen seit 2010. Mit anderen Ländern, wie Frankreich, Finnland, Österreich, der Slowakei und der baltischen Staaten, hat Deutschland immer eine harte Position gegen Griechenland vertreten. Seit dem Beginn wollte Deutschland keinen Schuldenschnitt für die griechischen Schulden, weil viele deutsche Banken wie die Deutsche Bank, die Postbank und Commerzbank den griechischen Schulden ausgesetzt sind. So würde ein Schuldenschnitt der griechischen Schulden einen großen Schaden für die deutsche Banken bedeuten. Als 2012 der Schuldenschnitt erfolgte wurden nicht nur die deutschen Banken ihre Anteile an den Schulden Griechenlands los und der Schaden blieb für sie gering.

Die Politik Deutschlands hat antideutsche Gefühle in einem großen Teil der griechischen Bevölkerung hervorgerufen und viele politische Kräfte, von extrem rechten Kräften bis hin zu extrem linken Kräften schüren diese Gefühle. Aber Deutschland ist nicht der einzige Verantwortliche für die Konfrontationen mit der griechischen Schuldenkrise und für die Strafposition Griechenlands in der Europäischen Union. Frankreich hat die selbe Position, weil französische Banken wie die Societe General, Credit Agricole und andere auch den griechischen Schulden ausgesetzt sind. Daher wollte Frankreich aus den selben Gründen keinen Schuldenschnitt seit 2010 und unterstützte die vollständige Umsetzung der harten Austeritätsmaßnahmen der Kreditvereinbarungen.

So ist das Problem nicht der „schlechte“ Schäuble oder die „schlechte“ Merkel, sondern die Struktur der Europäischen Union. Die Europäische Union ist eine Allianz der kapitalistischen Klassen Europa, aber manche von ihnen dominieren, wie die der deutschen, französischen, britischen und anderen. Eine revolutionäre Perspektive muss die Zerstörung der Europäischen Union beinhalten, aber dies ist nur ein Teil der revolutionären Perspektive in Europa mit antikapitalistischen Charakteristiken, was mit dem Brexit bewiesen wurde.

Auch extrem rechte politische Kräfte und Nationalisten haben eine anti-europäische Rhetorik. Der Brexit wurde unterstützt durch Nationalisten wie Nigel Paul Farage , der ein Regime des nationalen Kapitalismus und des starken Nationalstaats zurück möchte, wie bevor es die Europäische Union gab. Sie wollen die Zerstörung der Europäischen Union und sie bekämpfen die Globalisierung.

Als anarchistische, revolutionäre Linke, als Antiimperialisten müssen wir nicht nur die Zerstörung der Europäischen Union unterstützen, sondern auch die Zerstörung der Marktwirtschaft und des Nationalstaates. Wir müssen für die Konföderation der Bevölkerungen Europas und weltweit kämpfen, für eine internationale Kommune der europäischen und der weltweiten Bevölkerung. Das ist der wirkliche Kommunismus, eine Gesellschaft ohne Klassen und Staat.

Was ist deine Sicht auf die reformistische und revolutionäre Linke in Deutschland?

Ich weiß nicht viel über die Linke in Deutschland, weder über die reformistische, noch über die revolutionäre. Bezüglich der reformistischen Linken ist meine Meinung, dass in den Umständen in denen wir heute als ein Resultat der Krise leben, es keine Hoffnung gibt die Situation durch die Anwendung reformistischer Politik zu ändern. Die Reformisierung des Kapitalismus ist eine Illusion. In Griechenland kollabierte diese Illusion, wie ich bereits zuvor gesagt habe, als Syriza im Januar 2015 an die Regierung kam und für die neoliberalen Maßnahmen, das 3. Memorandum und die 3. Kreditvereinbarung stimmte. Daher ist die reformistische Linke, nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern überall nur eine Illusion. Die reformistische Politik, die sozialdemokratische Politik, die Intervention des Staates in die Ökonomie, der „Sozialstaat“ ist heutzutage nicht überall auf Grund der Globalisierung und der Krise realistisch.

Der einzig realistische Weg die Folgen der kapitalistischen Attacke, als ein Resultat der Krise, zu ändern ist die Revolution, der Sturz und die Zerstörung des Kapitalismus und des Staates. Der Grund der ökonomischen Krise ist die Existenz des Kapitalismus, nicht die neoliberale Form, wie die Reformisten sagen Die Existenz des Kapitalismus führt zu Krisen. Für mich ist es interessanter über die revolutionären Kräfte und die revolutionäre Perspektive zu sprechen. Ich muss sagen, dass in Griechenland das Verständnis der Begrifflichkeit „Links“ ein anderes ist als in Deutschland. Links repräsentiert in Griechenland nichts revolutionäres was Regimeparteien wie Syriza und die kommunistische Partei bezeugen, aber auch wenn wir über einige maxistisch-leninistische, maoistische, trotzkistische Gruppe, die Linken und die außerparlamentarische Linke sprechen. Es gibt keine revolutionäre Linke in Griechenland.

Ich gehe davon aus, dass in Deutschland die revolutionäre Linke oder die revolutionären Kräfte in der Krise sind, dass sie seit der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands Anfang der 90er, nach dem Fall der Mauer, schwach sind. Das war ein allgemeines Resultat der Niederschlagung der revolutionären Bewegung und der Niederschlagung der west-europäischen Stadtguerilla, in dieser Zeit. Diese Niederschlagung in Kombination mit dem Fall des Regimes in Osteuropa hatte die Dominanz des Neoliberalismus, die Diktatur der Märkte, die Globalisierung des Kapitalismus, die Kriege in den 90ern im Irak und Jugoslawien und nach 2001 den Krieg gegen den „Terrorismus“ als Resultat.

Unter diesen Bedingungen hat die Politik der USA und der Europäischen Union im mittleren Osten das Erstarken der radikalen Islamisten und die Angriffe in Europa, in Madrid, London und heute in Frankreich und Belgien hervorgerufen. Als Reaktion auf den radikalen Islamismus gab es eine Verstärkung des Nationalismus und Nazismus, eine Stärkung der extrem rechten Kräfte, die Staaten haben mehr Sicherheitsmaßnahmen vorgenommen und sie schließen die Grenzen für Flüchtlinge und Migranten aus Syrien, Afghanistan und Irak.

Auf der anderen Seite ist die Bevölkerung in Europa zu schwach um den Attacken des Kapitalismus nach dem Ausbruch der Krise von 2008 etwas entgegenzusetzen. Diese Situation macht die Existenz von revolutionären Kräften dringend notwendig, nicht politische Räume für den Protest, sondern revolutionäre Kräfte, die das Regime, die Strukturen der Europäischen Union und generell der kapitalistischen Zentren angreifen.

Das ist der Grund, warum ich denke, dass die Guerilla Aktion und der bewaffnete Kampf jetzt noch dringend notwendiger ist, als vor 40 Jahren, als die westeuropäische Guerillas noch existierten. Ich denke, dass heute die Existenz von revolutionären Kräften oder Bewegungen in den kapitalistischen Zentren wie Deutschland, Frankreich, Groß Britannien, den USA und in Italien noch notwendiger ist. Deutschland hat heute eine zentrale Rolle in der Politik der europäischen Union und generell im weltweiten kapitalistischen System. Es ist das meistentwickelte Land in Europa und die Basis der Europäischen Zentral Bank, die zusammen mit dem IWF und der Europäischen Kommission für die Politik eines massenhaften sozialen Diebstahls an der Bevölkerung, insbesondere in den Ländern des europäischen Südens, ist.

Wir müssen für eine revolutionäre Perspektive in Europa kämpfen wo auch immer wir sind. Wir sind sehr weit weg von diesem Ziel, aber wir müssen die Krise des Systems ausnutzen. Wir brauchen einen starken politischen Willen und wir müssen realisieren, dass der revolutionäre Kampf ein tatsächlicher Krieg ist und ein Krieg ohne Blut existiert nicht.

Was ist die Bedeutung des gegenwärtigen Internationalismus?

Unser Kampf gegen den Kapitalismus und den Staat ist international, ist global. Der Kampf kann nicht auf ein Land begrenzt sein. Die Verbindung und die Solidarität zwischen den Bewegungen und Kämpfen auf internationaler Ebene ist sehr wichtig, weil wir unter den Bedingungen der Globalisierung des Kapitalismus leben und alle Funktionen des Systems sind miteinander verflechtet.

Der Internationalismus sollte auf der Entstehung von starken revolutionären Bewegungen in jedem Land basieren. Die revolutionären Bewegungen sollten klare Positionen haben, eine Aktivitität gegen den Kapitalismus und den Staat und sie sollten auch Einfluss und Kontakt auf die Massen und die sozialen Kämpfe haben. Wenn wir eine revolutionäre Perspektive haben, dann sollten wir realisieren, dass diese Perspektive nicht durch ein Land begrenzt werden kann, weil die Revolution nicht in einem Land überleben kann. Es ist kein realistisches Szenario.

Der Internationalismus ist eine Grundlage unseres Kampfes. Wir müssen lokal oder auf nationaler Ebene agieren, aber wir sollten auf internationaler Ebene denken.

Nikos Maziotis
Prison Korydallou
T.K. 18110 Korydallos

Athen, Griechenland: Drei Mitglieder vom Revolutionären Kampf im Hunger und Durststreik.

Solidarität aus Zürich (7.1.2017)

Am frühen Morgen des 5. Januar 2017 wurden zwei Mitglieder des Revolutionären Kampfes, die flüchtige Gefährtin Pola Roupa und die Anarchistin Konstantina Athanasopoulou in einem Vorort von Athen gefangengenommen. Antiterror-Einheit der Bullen haben einen Unterschlupf überfallen, in dem sich Pola und ihr sechsjähriger Sohn aufhielten, während Konstantina in einem anderen Haus in der Nähe verhaftet wurde.

Nachdem Lambros-Viktoras Maziotis Roupas (der kleine Sohn von den Revolutionären Kampf Mitgliedern Nikos Maziotis und Pola Roupa) gewaltsam seiner Mutter weggenommen wurde, wird er, von Bullen bewacht (!), in einem Kinderkrankenhaus gefangen gehalten. Er erhält dort keine Besuche von seinen nächsten Verwandten. Sogar die gesetzlichen Vertreter*innen seiner Eltern dürfen nicht zu ihm.

Die griechischen Behörden und insbesondere die für Minderjährige zuständige Staatsanwältin Frau Nikolou, verweigert es noch, das Kind an Verwandte ersten Grades zu übergeben.

Als Antwort darauf, haben drei Mitglieder des revolutionären Kampfes (der anarchistische Gefangene Nikos Maziotis, die wieder gefangene Pola Roupa und die gerade verhaftete Konstantina Athanasopoulou, seit dem 5. Januar einen Hunger-und Durststreik begonnen. Sie fordern, dass der sechsjährige Junge sofort bei seiner Tante und Großmutter untergebracht wird. (Verwandte mütterlicherseits).

In einem offenen Brief verkündet Nikos Maziotis u.a., dass “Unser Sohn das Kind zweier Revolutionär*innen ist und er stolz auf seine Eltern sei. Wir werden uns nicht erpressen lassen. Wir verteidigen unsere Wahl mit unserem Leben.”

Am 6. Januar, während der Überführung der Frauen zum Evelpidon Gericht, rief Pola: “Die Würmer halten mein Kind im Paidon (Kinderkrankenhaus in Athen), bewacht durch bewaffnete Bullen, im Alter von sechs Jahren. Er ist ein Kriegsgefangener“ und „Lang lebe die Revolution“. Weiter hat sie erklärt „Ich bin eine Revolutionärin und ich habe mich für nichts zu entschuldigen”

Es folgt die Erklärung von Konstantina:

“Ich bin Anarchistin, Mitglieder der bewaffneten revolutionären Organisation Revolutionärer Kampf (Epanastatikos Agonas). Die einzigen Terrorist*innen sind der Staat und das Kapital. Ich verweigere das Essen und Trinken bis das Kind meiner Gefährt*innen Pola Roupa und Nikos Maziotis ihren Verwandten übergeben wird. “
Konstantina Athanasopoulou

Im Inneren haben anarchistische Gefangene und andere Insass*innen verschiedener Flügel von Koridallos Männer- und vom Frauengefängnis aus Solidarität mit den Gefangenen des Revolutionären Kampfes (die sich momentan im Hunger- und Durststreik befinden) einen gemeinsamen Protest organisiert. Der Einschluss wurde verweigert, um das Ende der Gefangenschaft von Lambros-Viktoras zu fordern.

Draußen haben GefährtInnen in verschiedenen Städten ganz Griechenlands diverse Aktionen als sofortige Unterstützung der anarchistischen Revolutionäre durchgeführt. Auch sie fordern, dass die Verwandten ersten Grades von Pola Roupa sofortige Besuchserlaubnis und Sorgerecht für das Minderjährige Kind erhalten.

Viel Kraft für Konstantina Athanasopoulou, Pola Roupa und Nikos Maziotis, stolze Mitglieder des Revolutionären Kampfes.

Der Revolutionäre Kampf wird weder die Waffen nieder legen, noch sich den Feinden der Freiheit ergeben.


Interview with Nikos Maziotis, imprisoned member of Revolutionary Struggle (Greece)

Some Questions and Answers with N. Maziotis, event at Karditsa self-managed space, June 2016 [excerpts]

Q. How can the anarchist/antiauthoritarian space change from being reactive into a real revolutionary movement? In your opinion, what political characteristics should it have, and what kind of organization and aims?

A: It is a question of political positions. Anarchy, or Libertarian or antiauthoritarian communism is a social proposal and organization. The condition to create a truly revolutionary anarchist movement is the existence of political positions and proposals in order to make clear to the people, the masses and workers, what we believe and what aims we have as anarchists. This means that we must take positions on the burning problems and issues of our time that are the result of the capitalist crisis- such as debt, memoranda, the dilemma of staying in or leaving the European Union, and to make clear what is our goal as anarchists, which is none other than the overthrow and destruction of capital and the state and the creation of a stateless, classless society.
These are issues for which the masses of people, the people affected by the crisis and the policies for rescuing the system, have searched and still search answers, yet the anarchist/anti-authoritarian space had nothing different to offer them compared to the proposals of the mainstream parties (besides slogans perhaps). Also beyond the formulation of political positions and proposals it should be clear by whom or in what ways and means our struggle will promote and implement these political positions and proposals- in other words, how we will make Anarchy a reality.

So if we want to make revolution and overthrow capital and the state and to create a revolutionary movement aimed at this stateless and classless society, then we must necessarily have armed struggle in our practice as a means of struggle. Because as I said in my presentation it is obvious and a given that no revolutionary perspective is possible without armed struggle.
Of course a revolutionary movement must have diverse methods of struggle, it must have all the different methods as so many arrows in its quiver: propaganda, counter-information, demonstrations, self-organized structures, and there must be open and public, as well as illegal actions.
But all these actions must be part of a larger package that serves the same purpose, the overthrow of the regime. For this it is indispensable to have the greatest possible agreement among comrades on unified political positions and proposals, in a kind of political program. Otherwise we simply reproduce the characteristics of the current movement, which is a patchwork of groups and individuals, which is neither a unifying nor a united force and where all have different priorities, and therefore it remains a purely reactive political space, only for protest or at best insurrection, but it can not become a threat to the regime nor have a revolutionary perspective.
Regarding the organization that a revolutionary movement must have, it depends on the political positions and proposals we have. Since it seems today that nothing can be taken for granted, if we are anarchists, we are supposed to aim for the immediate abolition of the state as a mechanism to administer societal affairs and the destruction of capital. If our positions and our goals are the destruction of capitalism, the market economy and the state, leading to the creation of a stateless and classless society- that is, a confederal organization where the societal units are the communities, communes and collectives where the decisions are taken by assemblies of the people who make up these social organizations- then the organization of the anarchist revolutionary movement is quite obviously federal.
Because our organizational set-up is our social proposal in miniature, it is Anarchy in miniature. In such a case, anarchists already within their organizations do act as a microcosm of what they profess and support. Inside the old is born the new, but not by reproducing the old hierarchical structures and values of the world and society we want to change. This is very important, because previous revolutions in fact failed in their objectives because they reproduced these hierarchical values and structures in a slightly different way.

True communism means a society without a state. The difference between Marxists and anarchists is that in the process leading to communism, Marxists believe that there should exist in the transition from capitalism to communism, the so-called “workers state” or “dictatorship of the proletariat” and that later, when the conditions have matured and the class enemy is defeated, the state will simply dissolve itself. Whereas, in contrast, anarchists believe that the state must be dissolved and destroyed immediately without any transition. Historical experience has shown that no state dissolves itself, various pretexts are given for its preservation, and that no privileged caste resigns its privileges and gives up its power in the management of human affairs.
As shown in the example of the Russian Revolution of 1917-21, instead of the assumed self-dissolution of the state, there was created the most authoritarian and totalitarian state, and this was a bad example for the labor movement and anti-imperialist struggles and revolutions in the Third World, which reproduced regimes that imposed full nationalization of the economy, along with the dictatorship of a bureaucracy that reproduced class divisions.

In the case of anarchists in the example of Spain, they proved what Saint-Just said in the French Revolution, that “those who make revolutions halfway only dig their own grave”. The Spanish anarchists- and they achieved major gains in terms of self-management in most of the Spanish territory where, thanks to their efforts, the Franco coup was suppressed- did not topple the two governments, both the local one of Catalonia and the central government in Madrid of the Popular Front, all in the name the anti-fascist struggle, with this resulting in constant concessions and repression of self-management by the Communist-controlled government.
Future revolutions must not repeat past mistakes, and must dissolve the State directly as a mechanism of class-rule. We must promote this today as anarchists and we must show our political positions as a movement.

In February comrade Roupa attempted to help your getaway from the prison of Korydallos by [hijacking a] helicopter. Could you make a comment about this?

It was an action forming part of the framework of the continuation of action that Revolutionary Struggle has engaged in since 2009 at the beginning of the crisis, targeting the mechanisms and economic power structures that play a significant role in the crisis and its political representatives (Athens Stock Exchange, Eurobank, Citibank) and continued with the last attack of the organization in 2014 on the Directorate of the Bank of Greece and the IMF permanent representative office, for which I was recently sentenced to life imprisonment.

This escape attempt was a response to repression against Revolutionary Struggle and against other armed fighters, and in this context included in the escape were members of the CCF.
Despite the failure of this attempt, it is of great political value and importance.

As Revolutionary Struggle, we have made choices that have brought us face to face with state repression, prison, and we have risked our lives in this combat. For us, prison is a terrain of struggle, not the end of the fight, and we have proved that it was not the end with the arrests in 2010. To defend with pride what we are, and to continue the armed struggle is a duty and right, and it is our especial duty towards Lambros Fountas, our comrade who was killed in action, it is a matter of course for us and negates the repression.
Such actions as comrade Pola Roupa attempted are exemplary because they give a strong political message that we are and remain consequent, despite successive repressive operations of the state against us, despite the arrests, heavy sentences, and murder of Lambros Fountas, we are unrepentant and we will not stop struggling, we will never throw in the towel, we will never give up the fight.
Also the fact that the escape would have included members of CCF demonstrates further that there is not so much importance in different positions about issues concerning the struggle, but that what matters is the common goal, the struggle against authority, the struggle for the overthrow of capital and the state.

Lately it is possible to observe a large deficit of solidarity towards all political prisoners. This was particularly illustrated by the massive political prisoners hunger strike of 2015. What do you think is the cause of this?

In my estimation, this is a result of the general political failure, or if you like, the political defeat of the anarchist/anti-authoritarian space over the last six years where, first of all, it was not up to the historic occasion, it could not intervene as a catalyst in the period after the inclusion of the country in the programs of international organizations of the Troika, and secondly, due to the fact that the terrorism of the state started to bite, with the waves of repeated arrests for armed action the 2009-2011 period, a result that brought into prison dozens of comrades who have been sentenced to many years of prison, and that there exists the perspective that they will remain fairly long years in prison.
On the issue of solidarity there were simultaneous problems of separations, with criteria as to why someone was accused and what attitude they held, that is if they were “guilty” or “innocent”, if they took responsibility for participation in an armed organization or invoked a judicial “fabrication”. There were criteria of “solidarity” based on personal or family relationships, or the criteria that, “anyone I disagree with, I am not in solidarity with”.
In recent years we have witnessed many such separations using various criteria. All these divisions have basically a political background behind them, such as the exclusion of armed action as part of the fight against state and capital.
So a piece of the anarchist space has proven to be easier to mobilize on issues of “human rights” since they are considered more popularizable, with the issue of judicial “fabrications”, “unjust persecutions”, “construction of cases”, all this rather than of course the armed struggle cases for which the vast majority of the political prisoners are in prison, and many of whom have accepted political responsibility for their participation in armed groups.
But now there is a general indifference and a general deficit in solidarity towards all political prisoners, not just for one portion, and is irrespective of divisions and regardless of any controversy, and this is due to the political defeat of the anarchist/antiauthoritarian space in recent years. This defeat is the result of serious political shortcomings and incapacities, that it has no coherent political positions and proposals to the problems of our time, the crisis and policies to oppose it. So it could not intervene in the period of big mobilizations against the 1st Memorandum in 2010-12 and was unable to develop into a serious political pole, a revolutionary movement that would be a threat to the regime.

This general political defeat affects the overall activity of the movement and has led to the present resignation and fragmentation- particularly visible in the last rallies against the 3rd Memorandum- and of course this too affects the question of solidarity with political prisoners. Naturally, the movement is also influenced by the general social defeat, after the mobilizations against the memoranda and rescue programs implemented over the past six years have all been defeated. From 2012 there has been a decline in social resistance and a lessening of mobilizations made against the governments of Samaras and of SYRIZA.

The overall political failure and defeat of the anarchist/anti-authoritarian space to develop into a revolutionary movement that has the potential for subversion and revolution is the cause of the deficit in solidarity with all the political prisoners, and not just for those that might be said to have responsibilities for various confrontations between prisoners, and which in some degree are caused between views of “innocence” and “guilt” and the issue of assumption of political responsibility.

To sum up, the problem of the anarchist space is an existential political one. It has forgotten about the war against authority, and therefore has forgotten its own prisoners of war.

Greece: Some excerpts from the presentation by Nikos Maziotis, member of Revolutionary Struggle, at Pikrodafne squat, Athens


“We have to sabotage the implementation of the Third Memorandum”

Q: What are the reasons, in your opinion, for the decline in the level of social resistance and struggles against capitalist restructuring and austerity measures and how can we get out of this impasse? What should be the strategy in the anarchist space currently?

: The cause of the lessening of social resistance is precisely that it had and continues to have a defensive character in face of the unprecedented onslaught of capital and the state after 2010. The capitalist machine has been malfunctioning since 2008, neither finding profitable investments for pumping out ever greater profits nor capital to offset its losses, so it attacks social gains and the working class. And it attacks social security, salaries and pensions, it confiscates property due to debts, reduces labor costs, and seizes public property through privatization.

To compensate for its losses, capital pushes through rescue programs, that is to say the memoranda, wiping out sections of the population that it neither wants to nor can exploit, leading to their destruction. The redistribution of large-scale social wealth by confiscation applies a large-scale policy of theft from society and societal genocide to save the powerful.

Faced with this unprecedented attack that has already left thousands dead and the majority of society immiserated and impoverished, the solution is not to struggle to restore the system and social order to pre-2008 conditions- when the system worked, the banking system was “prosperous” and giving loans, with a welfare state (which in Greece was never well-developed) and a social consensus on the neoliberal reforms of that time.

It is impossible to go back to that situation because of the dynamics of the system itself. Just as it is impossible to return to a social-democratic model of development with strong state intervention in the economy as advocated by Syriza before the elections of January 2015. This model has been disappearing for the past four decades. Rather, the solution is the overthrow and destruction of capitalism itself since its very existence creates crises, the tragic results of which we live. The solution is what we as Revolutionary Struggle have supported for years, that “the only answer to the crisis is social revolution”. The cause of the crisis is not neoliberalism as affirmed by Syriza in previous years, but capitalism itself, its very existence.

The people descended into the streets in the mobilizations of 2010 – 2012 and today on the occasion of the new memorandum, but they expected and still expect to restore the situation to pre-crisis conditions, and to maintain the gains that have been made in the past decades by the old labor and trade union movement’s compromises with capital. The protests that have been made then and now, with their defensive character, proved ineffective to halt in the slightest degree the measures taken by those governments.

But when people take to the streets in protests, it is a great opportunity for political forces to intervene catalytically by putting on the table the revolutionary perspective, the overthrow of capital and the state. And this was exactly what was missing in the period 2010 – 2012 and which is missing now. The masses taking to the streets did not hear anything other than what the regime’s trade unions and parties said to them.

The anarchist/anti-authoritarian space did not form itself into a political force that would pose the question of revolutionary perspective. It did not propose something tangibly different from the policies implemented. So it was a natural consequence that with these mass protests, however large they were, and however many riots there were in front of the Parliament, that they would eventually lose their energy and not manage to overthrow the austerity policies of the government.

I have said before in other events that the radical space found itself unprepared in front of the situation after 2010 which largely revealed its political shortcomings, its lack of analysis of our era and the political system, and its lack of perspectives, positions and proposals. To proclaim slogans like self-organization, self-management, social liberation, revolution, without being more specific is without meaning. That is why the anarchist space remains without serious popular and social support and can not intervene on the central political stage.

The answer to this impasse is to shape our own political positions and proposals, what we propose to society about the problems of our time. To have a political program, to take specific positions on the debt, memoranda, the EU and the eurozone, and what are our proposals to replace capitalism and the state. How can we shape the classless and stateless society to which we supposedly aspire, Libertarian Communism and Anarchy?

On the basis of our political objectives and positions we need to adapt accordingly our actions to achieve these goals and positions. Certainly our actions should be diverse, but to talk about revolution without preparing for armed conflict with the regime, and not to pursue armed confrontation with the regime, means that there is not really striving for revolution, and this word becomes meaningless. Social revolution is unthinkable without resorting to arms to smash the power of capital and the state.

I believe that a revolutionary movement must clearly formulate the positions and proposals of some sort of political program to allow maximum political agreement and commitment on these positions, and on the modes of action and means of struggle to implement these positions and our program. There must be as large as possible consolidation of forces, rather than a loose coordination of collectives or individuals that all have different priorities.

In the present time, we have to sabotage the implementation of the Third Memorandum and the measures taken by the government, along with the commitments they have pledged to the creditors. The range of such action is large: from the urban guerrilla, to mobilizations in the street whether violent or peaceful, counter-information and propaganda actions, or relief measures for the socially weak and vulnerable affected by the crisis, to self-organized projects, all should be pieces of one political project for subversion, not detached from each other. And an overturn cannot happen if we are not prepared for armed struggle, for armed confrontation with the central government for the capture of enemy strongholds, those places where the authorites make their decisions. If we want to make revolution we must be prepared for war literally, not figuratively, to be prepared to risk our lives. This is how I think struggles are conducted.

Also, I believe that a revolutionary movement must have a political-military character. It should have open, public action and also purely illegal action. If there was, for instance, a Federation of Anarchist Assemblies based on territorial distinctions with collectives, affinity groups and individuals participating on the basis of a clear political agreement on principles, objectives and means of struggle, this would link together and help achieve a politically revolutionary program, and parallel to this there could be an illegal armed structure, a mass armed group that would target structures of economic and political power, thus promoting the implementation of the positions and program of the Federation of Anarchist Assemblies.

This does not mean the existence of two mutually independent parts, a “legal” and an “illegal” arm of the movement, but the distinct existence of the open and public action with purely illegal and secret actions that exist within a single revolutionary movement that has diverse actions and does not have criteria for separations of legality or illegality, but is preparing for overthrow and armed confrontation with capital and the state.

There can be no revolutionary movement without having its sights set on armed struggle. There can be no serious revolutionary movement if it is not prepared for armed conflict with the regime. There can be no revolution if the movement has no armed forces and infrastructure to overwhelm the security forces and the armed forces of the regime.

Q. How to connect the solidarity with political prisoners and persecuted activists in the struggles against the memoranda, capitalist restructuring and in general the people descending on the streets at this time?

A: First of all, allow me to delineate what is solidarity. Solidarity means that we consider as comrades all who are in prison because of the means of struggle chosen and that the means chosen are integral parts of our common struggle for the revolution to overthrow capital and the state, with the one prerequisite of having a dignified attitude against the prosecuting authorities, meaning they do not cooperate with the authorities and do not repent of their actions. Solidarity means that we think and feel that with repression, persecution and imprisonment of comrades because of their action and means of struggle that they chose, this means that the state strikes at all of us. It means the continuation of the struggle for those who are prisoners because of their revolutionary action, it means the continuation of the struggle of those who gave their lives in the struggle for the revolution to overthrow Capital and the State.

On this basis, solidarity is expressed in many ways. For example, actions that allow the political prisoners to speak, or counter-information, interventions, occupations, and demonstrations designed to publicize and popularize the words of political prisoners and the reasons why they are in prison, and most importantly, to connect all this with the general revolutionary project, namely the overthrow of capital and the state in the social struggles of our time. It can of course also be the continuation of armed struggle when it concerns prisoners who are in prison because of armed action and are members of guerrilla organizations.

To connect the solidarity with political prisoners in the struggles against the memoranda and the attack which has been unleashed by capital and the state since 2010, there should exist on the one hand (in the political space to which the political prisoners belong) the prospect of subversion and social revolution, and this certainly not at the level of wishful thinking or sloganeering, but at the level of action; and on the other hand the political prisoners themselves advance the struggle with their words or actions that have a revolutionary perspective.

For example, the words and acts of Revolutionary Struggle that are expressed either as an organization that acts, or through prison, have a wide social audience, our words can be popularized and are assimilable. Because the actions and the logic of the organization are based on the struggle against the rescue programs and policies to address the crisis, it is a call to overthrow the regime for social liberation.

We are an anarchist collective who have talked about the enormous public debt since 2005, how the Greek economy was based on a dependency policy by borrowing from the markets and the transnational economic elites, and that the country would be in a dire situation if there erupted a crisis due to debt, and we diagnosed the policies implemented by the Greek governments since 2009 to address the crisis, these policies that led to the memoranda. We diagnosed the social explosions that would be caused by these policies, which resulted in the overall discrediting and delegitimation of the system for major portions of society and this appeared in the period 2010 – 2012, and as well we diagnosed the great opportunity that occurred due to this general discrediting and delegitimation of the system for a revolutionary attempt in Greece, this opportunity that currently remains untapped. We talked on just the same grounds since 2009 of the need to create a revolutionary movement with clear objectives to attempt the overthrow of capital and the state, but this has not been possible to do so far.

We made what should in our view be the political orientations and proposals that a revolutionary movement must have today, as expressed in the creation of our platform in the notice by which we undertook the responsibility for the attack on the Bank of Greece in 2014. Of course a revolutionary movement must not forget the captives who are in state hands.

As for a practical example of how to connect the solidarity with political prisoners in the struggles against the memoranda, I could mention the proposal on my part in March 2015, when the hunger strike of the political prisoners might have had a central demonstration in Athens linking those demands of political prisoners to the fight against the Memorandum, this coming at a time when the Syriza government had signed its acceptance for the extension of the then existing Memorandum and its acceptance of debt and obligations to lenders in the meeting of the Eurogroup on February 20, 2015- but this demonstration proved impossible to undertake.

Of course, the response to the hunger strike of political prisoners then revealed that solidarity with political prisoners is not a given. I have said some things about the hunger strike of political prisoners last March- in my view, there was not an appropriate response from pieces of the anarchist/anti-authoritarian space.

Generally over time it has been demonstrated that a large piece of the anarchist space consistently opposes and condemns armed revolutionary action but without being able to support that attitude publicly with political arguments, so instead it mobilizes on the issue of solidarity almost exclusively or more easily on issues like “violation of human rights” or in cases where the framework is of “machinations”, “persecution”, the “construction of cases”, the “criminalization of relations” , which are considered more fit for “popularization” and as more “digestible” in the eyes of society.

And because these political arguments can not be publicly supported by the depreciation of armed revolutionary action on their part, then it is most convenient in the case of prosecutions relating to armed rebel groups to misrepresent the substance of those cases, to claim that the meaning in these repressive attacks is not the suppression of armed revolutionary organizations but only the criminalization of the anarchist space, etc. In addition to the arsenal of this kind of “solidarity” has been also added the “solidarity does not mean identity”, but which has shown that the only ones who are asking for identification are only those who extend this kind of “solidarity”.

Over time, the unfortunate result of this split “solidarity” is seen with the political prisoners who are members of armed revolutionary organizations and have taken political responsibility for their organizations and actions and have carried the weight of political battles and confrontations with the state, through special courts and more generally.

The “solidarity” criteria that have prevailed in part of the anarchist space are either personal criteria, that some get mobilized on the basis whether they know someone or have personal, friendly or even family relationships; while at a political level the criterion for this split “solidarity” is the depreciation of armed revolutionary action and those who assume political responsibility for it and defend armed struggle. This is an attitude with which I disagree politically, and with which I am not in solidarity.

The hypocrisy of this split “solidarity” showed itself when I made the proposal for the creation of the Assembly of Solidarity for political prisoners, a proposal which was to determine solidarity solely on political criteria- i.e. to include all persons persecuted and imprisoned for using methods of struggle that are inextricable parts of the struggle of anarchists and revolutionaries in general, this including the communists, and with the only exception of those that have kept an undignified posture by making statements condemning actions or giving information to the authorities. In my opinion this should be the political criteria for solidarity regardless of the means of struggle of those that have been imprisoned, regardless of whether people know personally or not persecuted and imprisoned fighters, regardless of whether we agree or disagree in some or other matters, regardless whether some acknowledge their participation in armed rebel groups or whether their prosecution is a side effect of the judicial pursuit of guerrilla organizations.

But some, either inside prison or outside, raise concerns and make obstacles to create such a solidarity structure for all political prisoners because what they really wanted, but could not say so openly, was to exclude a significant portion of political prisoners as solidarity recipients since what they support – not publicly of course – is that this portion are not political prisoners. Let us not fool ourselves, let us not hide, but look at reality. Solidarity with all political prisoners as a whole who keep a dignified attitude is something that receives an underground war from parts of the radical space.

At this time, amid the general slump in social resistance (despite a mobilization period as now is the time for the pension bill of the Syriza government that implements the third Memorandum) and taking into account the general failure of the anarchist/anti-authoritarian space to emerge as it ought to, as the single serious political pole that puts on the table the revolutionary perspective, solidarity to political prisoners appears to be as discredited as ever. Any solidarity movement, any solidarity call is now settled in a fragmented manner in the general indifference, fragmentation and discord situation prevailing in the movement. Let’s apply what we said previously and still holds true: whoever forgets the prisoners of war, forgets the war itself. The problem is more radical and does not concern only solidarity but the struggle overall.

In conclusion, to answer your question as to how solidarity with political prisoners relates and can relate to the struggles against the memoranda, with capitalist restructuring and people descending into the streets- this is when our action must be aimed at social revolution, when our actions must bring us together in struggle with parts of society mobilized against the memoranda in order to influence them in an anti-capitalist and anti-state direction. To do this we must have clear policy positions and objectives, a revolutionary political program, we must have clear proposals to the militant segments of society to promote the influence of an anti-capitalist and anti-state direction, so that our actions can be understood to be for the benefit and interests of those affected by the attack of capital and the state, attacked by memoranda and the austerity policies for handling the crisis. Revolutionary Struggle has such action. Our action must reach a broad social audience and not be introverted or self-referential.

To have such action that puts on the table the prospect of subversion and revolution is the best shield and protection for political prisoners and imprisoned fighters.


Grüße von Nikos Maziotis an das jährliche Treffen der Roten Hilfe International

Ich grüße die Genossinnen und Genossen, die am jährlichen Treffen der Roten Hilfe International teilnehmen. An diesem Treffen nehmen zum ersten Mal Genossinnen und Genossen aus Griechenland teil. Es nehmen Mitglieder der Gruppe „Solidarität mit den politischen Gefangenen“ teil, von welchen ich sicher bin, dass sie euch über die Situation der politischen Gefangenen, die Solidarität mit ihnen und über die allgemeine Situation in Griechenland informieren werden. Von meiner Seite aus werde ich euch über die jüngsten Ereignisse, die sich abgespielt haben, informieren.

Am 21. Februar hat die gesuchte Genossin Pola Roupa, auf die ein Kopfgeld ausgesetzt ist, versucht, einen Helikopter zu entführen. Das Ziel war, mich und andere politische Gefangene, die wegen bewaffneten Kampfes inhaftiert sind, aus dem Gefängnis Korydallos (Athen) zu befreien. Leider ist der Versuch misslungen, aufgrund des Widerstands des Helikopter-Piloten, der ein ehemaliger Polizist ist und bewaffnet war. Zum Glück ist die Genossin unverletzt entkommen. Auf Grund dieses Versuchs sind die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen in dem Gefängnisflügel, in dem wir uns befinden, erhöht worden. Die Genossin, ich und die anderen politischen Gefangenen haben mit öffentlichen Schreiben die Verantwortung für den Befreiungsversuch übernommen. Wenige Tage danach, am 3. März, wurde der zweite Prozess gegen den Revolutionären Kampf beendet, in welchem ich wegen dem Angriff der Organisation auf die Nationalbank von Griechenland zu einer lebenslangen Haftstrafe verurteilt wurde. Zusätzliche 129 Jahre Haft gab es wegen Schüsse auf 5 Polizisten und der Verletzung eines Polizisten, als ich verhaftet wurde, sowie wegen zweier Banküberfällen. Es ist das erste Mal, dass in Griechenland wegen eines Bombenangriffs, vor dem gewarnt wurde und bei dem es keine Tote und Verletzte gab, eine lebenslange Haftstrafe verhängt wurde. Dies zeigt die Verschärfung des Vorgehens des Regimes in Griechenland im Umgang mit bewaffneten revolutionären Aktionen und gegenüber denjenigen, die – wie ich – konsequent und reuelos bezüglich des bewaffneten Kampfs bleiben.

Die politische, ökonomische und soziale Situation in Griechenland ist sehr kompliziert. Auf der einen Seite erschweren sich durch die Durchsetzung der “Rettungsprogramme” (des so genannten Memorandums) die Bedingungen für große Teile der Bevölkerung zunehmend, während die internationale ökonomische Krise sich weiter fortsetzt und in Europa vertieft. Und auf der anderen Seite gibt es die große Welle der Flüchtlinge von Kriegsgebieten des Mittleren Ostens, vor allem aus Syrien. All das stellt ein hochexplosives Klima her, nicht nur in Griechenland, wo während der Schließung der Grenzen auf dem Balkan und der Revision des Schengener Abkommens von einigen Ländern der EU Tausende von Flüchtlingen und Migranten im Land gefangen wurden. Sondern auch in Europa, wo die Fundamente der Europäischen Union irreparabel gebrochen wurden. Diese Bedingungen sind noch weiter belastet durch die Attacken der islamistischen Kämpfer 2015 in Paris, Frankreich und vor einigen Tagen in Brüssel. Diese explosive Kombination der globalen ökonomischen Krise zusammen mit den gepolitischen Faktoren im Mittleren Osten, die ein Resultat des “Kriegs gegen den Terror” und der Politik des Westens sind, den Kriegen in Syrien, Irak, Afghanistan, die die Flüchtlingswelle nach Europa ausgelöst haben, erschüttert die Fundamente der EU und könnte die EU, so wie wir sie kennen, beenden. Das Ergebnis dessen ist einerseits die
Einführung von zunehmend autoritären und totalitären Maßnahmen in Ländern der EU, wie in Frankreich nach den Angriffen der islamistischen Kämpfer, im Namen der Sicherheit findet der Aufstieg eines Polizeistaats statt. Auf der anderen Seite der Aufstieg der Rechten, die die Rückkehr zu schlagkräftigen Nationalstaaten verfolgen, die für die Schließung der Grenzen und die Abschiebung von Fremden und Flüchtlingen sind, die ein Regime des nationales Kapitalismus zurückbringen möchten. Das schlimmste ist, dass nach den Angriffen sich ein Konsens in Teilen der europäischen Gesellschaft breit gemacht hat, die aus Angst und Unsicherheit hinter ihren Regierungen stehen, die auf die Ankunft von Flüchtlingen reagieren. Sie erleichtern damit die Einführung von autoritären Maßnahmen, die die europäischen Regierungen durchführen möchten, um auf die Flüchtlingswellen reagieren zu können. Leider hat sich die Bevölkerung in Europa in den letzten Jahren nicht drastisch dagegen gewehrt, als ihre Regierungen die Zustimmung gaben und mit dem “Krieg gegen den Terror” kollaborierten, der 2001 von den USA losgetreten wurde, als sie zu den Kriegen in Afghanistan und im Irak zustimmten und als ihre Regierungen Truppen zur Unterstützung der Amerikaner bei der Besetzung dieser Länder schickten. Genau aus diesem Grund leiden sie jetzt in doppelter Hinsicht an den Konsequenzen der “Kriegs gegen den Terror”. In der
Hinsicht, dass es bei den Vergeltungsattacken der islamistischen Kämpfer zivile Opfer gab und dass die Regierungen zunehmend autoritäre und totalitäre Maßnahmen im Namen dieses Kriegs und der Sicherheit einführen. Der weltoffene Charakter der EU liegt bereits in Trümmern
Ich glaube, dass nur durch das Anwachsen der revolutionären Momente in den westlichen Ländern, die Momente, die sich bemühen, den Kapitalismus und den Staat zu zerstören und eine internationale europäische Gemeinschaft hervorzubringen, dass nur durch diese ein Ende dieses Kriegs, des Rassismus, der Xenophobie, der Ausbeutung und Repression und all der Flüche des Kapitalismus und der Autorität erreicht werden kann. Nur eine internationale soziale Revolution mit antikapitalistischen und anti-staatlichen Charakteristiken in Europa und darüber hinaus kann die Antwort auf die aktuelle Situation, auf die globale ökonomische Krise, die sich mehr und mehr vertieft, und auf den Krieg gegen den “Terror” sein. Leider, Genossinnen und Genossen, sind wir weit von diesem Ziel entfernt. Nichtsdestotrotz müssen wir weiter in diese Richtung kämpfen.

Nikos Maziotis
Mitglied des Revolutionären Kampf