Faced with the rearrangement of domination and its capitalist perpetuation: Neither boots, nor votes, only struggle!
It seems that, according to what the citizenry proclaims, we are witnesses of a key moment in the history of this territory; that we have cornered ourselves with our backs to a precipice to which, unless we do something, our fall will be imminent; it seems that we are witnessing an open war, fierce, between two political poles at odds at such a level that, like a cold war, endangers the subsistence and future of all beings in the territory dominated by the Chilean State.
On one side the war cry is: “Communism or Freedom”, and on the other: “Democracy or Fascism”. In the face of such a dramatic scenario, we are presented with the key tool to confront this context, capable of stopping this bloodbath once and for all: participation in the electoral processes, in which suffrage will be the liberating weapon.
We are neither blind nor deaf, we walk with full awareness of this and many other events in the territory, we not only distance ourselves, but we declare war on any institutional instance that seeks any perpetuation of the Status Quo.
We are completely unaware of the false confrontation of two supposedly different systems, the axis on which the battle is fought continues and will continue to be that of Democracy and the administration of Capital; the existence of a “struggle” of different policies only attempts to justify the supposed breadth of the democracy-capital system, the “diverse” essence of this and the supposed space for all types of thought; in no way do we want to be accepted by a system or a society that we reject, we do not want our politics to be one more among the options of this system; we want to destroy all options and the structure that sustains them. We have nothing to do with the electoral show and its staging of elections, plebiscites, votes and so on, we consider that this is nothing more than the tightening of the pin, the bourgeois rearrangement of the class for the maintenance of an imposed and existing order in disguise and according to the times.
We are certain that regardless of the electoral result of this plebiscite nothing will essentially change. Beyond the conjuncture of who is disputing the administration and management of oppression, the institutional world and therefore that of elections has never been ours. In this sense, the one who votes, who freely chooses to invest another with authority, is as responsible as the ruler who will give the orders to assassinate, militarize and imprison. Whoever votes is the one who, through the act of suffrage, decides to delegate part of his autonomy to strengthen the chain of oppression and, therefore, of the State. We will not be accomplices of any government in power, we did not do it at the end of the 80’s, when, as now, the veteran political power established fear to take away oxygen and position to the confrontational struggle of the context -as was the armed struggle- deploying a civic electoral scenario that intended to lapidate by a Yes or a No any hint of real rupture.
Here we had already established a subversive position, and since those times, essentially nothing has changed.
The truth is that it is not, nor should it be, in any way the objective of this text, to convince or even theorize on the participation of the citizenship in the electoral processes, it would not be correct to demand or measure according to our criteria that obedient mass; the point of interest arises when we read a wide range of characters who claim to be “antagonistic” actors or even call themselves subversives, revolutionaries, rebels or anarchists, making open calls to participate in the electoral process and even vote for a specific candidate.
Some of the arguments put forward to justify this action are related to the potential loss of civil rights -always guaranteed by the State-, mainly in the case of “vulnerable” minorities or dissidents. We are not unaware of the change that the dynamics of a large part of the alienated society -which is not really far from the current context- would imply in the validation of an institutionally conservative discourse, but we believe that the real struggles -of all types-, from an anarchic, subversive or revolutionary position, should never seek validation or integration by the institutionality or society itself; to surrender ourselves, with our differences and particularities, to the “anarchic”, “subversive” or “revolutionary” position to institutional “integration” means diluting our antagonistic individuality in a space that does not belong to us, and whose only purpose is to broaden the range of democratic participation, without really questioning its underlying dynamics. It is not superfluous to point out that, in spite of the sway in which civil rights move, extend or diminish in specific conjunctures, we cannot expect the administrators of oppression to be the ones to grant us these “rights” -a term already sufficiently repudiated per se-, our freedom will be achieved by our own means and in full autonomy. Neither institutionalization, nor even the socialization of divergent ideas or policies will bring about real change, nor the socialization of divergent ideas or policies entail a real change in individual or collective practices. The dynamics that restrict our freedoms are combated through conflict, but above all through individual development and constant criticism, not through suffrage or citizen participation.
It is necessary to refer to an issue that seemed to be absolutely settled within the spaces and individualities that claim to opt for confrontation against Power. We do not have the right to say who are or are not subversives, we are not the ones in charge of doing it, it is the symbiosis between word and action the only one in charge of giving account of this reality; if on the one hand the total rupture with the existing world is proposed, constant calls are made to end capitalism or with any hint of authority, it is at least pathetic that it is proposed to endorse all these aspects through the use of the vote as a political “tool”, an action that is an open endorsement, and reinforcement, of the democratic institutionality of capital; even when it seemed to be tottering a little more than two years ago.
We believed that the understanding of this gigantic abyss between praxis and the word was a basic principle in every individuality that in its daily life positions itself as a “revolutionary” entity; it seems that it is true that every day words lose more and more their meaning, and that the bet for radical aesthetics was the primary motivation of many “critical” individuals.
If we are not capable of assuming the conflict in all its forms, we will only be part of that mass that we despise and of those who, even if they want to define themselves as conscious or organized, will always be part of a herd that clamors for leaders and figures that hold power, in order to continue in submission, with the comfort and inconsistency of those who only preach to destroy this reality of misery.
Repression, jail and death, we have lived it in our own flesh during the Dictatorship, with the governments of the Concertación and with Chile Vamos, and we are certain that this will not be different with a government of Apruebo Dignidad, much less with a president of the Frente Social Cristiano. Whoever governs, our objectives do not change: the destruction of Capitalism, the State, the repressive apparatuses; the end of the need to govern and be governed. We are not interested in a “less bad” government or a green or more “humane” capitalism.
Our bet? Well, the same as always, and with the unwavering determination that accompanies us: to extend and deepen the permanent and unstoppable conflict, knowing that we are neither saviors nor representatives of anything or anyone, except ourselves. We make our choice for confrontation in the first person because we understand that by striking we are liberating ourselves and if others also assume this path, excellent, but if not, this will not be a reason to discourage us, much less to give in to our convictions, falling and validating the institutional path. We are not enlightened, much less those who will decide what is to come, but we will be understood for what we are, for our praxis, for what we always do in accordance with our ideas, for the cause that springs forth and for the anarchic, subversive and insurrectionist complicity that spreads rebellion; our walk in war thus becomes the palpable possibility of being free.
Subversive, anarchist and Mapuche prisoners: out of the prisons!
Sharpen the conflict; intensify the offensive!
Fighting youth: permanent insurrection!
Death to the state, long live anarchy!
Our conviction is ours!
As long as misery exists, there will be rebellion!
Mónica Caballero Sepúlveda
-San Miguel Women’s Prison
Pablo Bahamondes Ortiz
-C.D.P Santiago Uno
Francisco Solar Domínguez
Marcelo Villarroel Sepúlveda
Juan Aliste Vega
Joaquin Garcia Chancks
-C.P Rancagua “La Gonzalina” -C.P Rancagua “La Gonzalina”.
Territory dominated by the Chilean state.