Posted on Leave a comment

In the context of the elections. Anarchic and subversive words [Chilean prisons]

Chile. Statement by Mónica Caballero Sepúlveda, Pablo Bahamondes Ortiz, Francisco Solar Domínguez, Marcelo Villarroel Sepúlveda, Juan Aliste Vega and Joaquín García Chancks on the elections in Chile.

Originally published by Contra Info. Translated by Anarchist News.

Anarchic and subversive words from Chilean prisons. In the face of the reshuffling of Dominion and its capitalist perpetuation: Neither boots nor votes, only struggle!!

It would seem that, according to what the citizenship preaches, we’re witnessing a key moment in the history of this territory; we’ve cornered ourselves with our backs to a precipice and, unless we do something, our fall will be imminent; it seems we’re witnessing an open war, a bloodbath, between two political poles who are enemies to such a degree, as in the cold war, that it endangers the subsistence and the future of all the beings in the territory dominated by the Chilean State.

On one side the war cry goes: «Communism or Freedom!», and on the other: «Democracy or Fascism!». In the face of such a dramatic scenario we’re presented the key tool to confront this context, capable of stopping this bloodbath once and for all: participation in the elections, suffrage as a liberating weapon.

We’re not blind nor deaf, we walk with full conscience of this and many other things that happen in this territory, but we don’t just distance ourselves from it, instead we declare war to every institutional instance that seeks any perpetuation of the Statu Quo.

We fully deny any validity to this false face-off between two supposedly different systems, the axis in which the battle takes place is and will keep on being that of Democracy and the management of Capital; the existence of a «fight» between different policies only tries to justify the supposed amplitude of the democracy-capital system, its «diverse» essence and the supposed room for all types of opinions; in no way do we want to be accepted by a system or a society that we reject, we don’t want to be just one more policy among the options within this system; we want to destroy all options and the structure that supports them. We have nothing to do with the electoral show and its mise-en-scène of elections, plebiscites, votes and such, we consider that this is nothing more than an adjustment of the tuning peg, the reshuffling by the bourgeoisie to keep up appearances and keep up with the tempo of the existent imposed order.

We have the certainty that regardless of the result of the electoral results in this plebiscite, essentially nothing will change. Even going beyond these junctures who’s vying for the administration and the management of oppression, the institutional world, and therefore elections, has never been ours. In this way, whoever votes, whoever freely opts for investing in the authority of another, is as responsible as the ruler that will give the orders to kill, militarize and imprison. Whoever votes is deciding via suffrage to delegate part of their autonomy to strengthen the chain of oppression and, therefore, the State. We will not be accomplices of any administration of the day, we didn’t do that at the end of the 80s when, just like now, the veteran political power established a reign of fear to give the confrontational opposition of that context -like the armed struggle groups- no room to breath, deploying a civic electoral scenery that intended to put the final nail on the coffin of any semblance of a real rupture with simple Yes or No.

By this point we had already fixed our subversive position, and ever since, essentially nothing has changed.

The truth is that it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be, in any way the objective of this text, to convince or even theorize about the participation of citizens in electoral processes, it would not be correct to be demanding or to measure that obedient mass according to our criteria; the point of interest is when we read about a great assortment of characters that call themselves «antagonistic actors» or even call themselves subversives, revolutionaries, rebels or anarchists, make calls to participate in the elections and even to vote for a candidate in specific.

Some of the arguments they employ in justifying this course of action are in relation to the loss of civil rights -always guaranteed by the State-, mainly in the ambit of «vulnerable» minorities o dissidents.

We’re not unaware of the change it would represent, the deep-rooted validation of an institutionally conservative discourse, the dynamic a large part of alienated society -which is not really so distant from the current context-, but we think of real struggles -of all kinds-, from an anarchic, subversive or revolutionary position, should never look for validation or integration by institutions or society; to surrender, with our differences and particularities, to institutional «integration» entails diluting our antagonistic individuality in a space that does not belong to us, whose only purpose is to broaden the scope of democratic participation, without really questioning its underlying dynamics. It doesn’t hurt to point out that, that despite of their fluctuation, whether they extend or diminish civil rights in specific junctures, it’s not befitting of us to wait for the administrators of oppression to grant us said «rights» -a sufficiently repudiated term by now-, we will reach our freedom by our own means in complete autonomy. Neither institutionalization, nor even socialization of diverging ideas or policies constitute a real change in individual or collective practices. The dynamics that restrict our freedoms are to be combated in conflict, but above all with an integral development of the individual and a constant critique, no through suffrage nor citizen participation.

It surprisingly becomes necessary to refer to a topic that seemed to be absolutely settled within the spaces and individuals that claim to chose confrontation against Power. We don’t have the right to say who is or isn’t subversive, it’s not our job to do so, it’s only the symbiosis between word and action that can give testimony to this reality; if on the one side a total break with the existent is proposed, constant calls are made to end capitalism or any iota of authority, it’s pathetic to say the least that they propose to validate these aspects by using the vote as a political «tool», an action which is an open pat on the back, and reinforcement, of the democratic institutionality of capital; even though it seemed to wobbling a little more than two years ago.
We thought that the understanding of this giant abyss between praxis and words was a basic principle of individuals that position themselves as «revolutionaries»; it would seem to be true that increasingly each day words lose their meaning, and that betting on radical aesthetics is the primary motivation of many «critical» individuals.

If we’re not capable of taking up conflict in all its forms, we’ll just be part of that mass we detest and part of those that, despite claiming to be “woke” or organized, will always be part of a herd that acclaims leaders and figures who wield power, so that they can stay in submission, with the comfort and insconsistency of those who only preach about the destruction of this miserable reality.

Repression, jail and death, we’ve lived it in the flesh during Dictatorship, with the governments of the Concertación and with Chile Vamos, and we have the certainty that this will not be differetn Apruebo Dignidad’s government, much less with a president from Frente Social Cristiano. Regardless of whoever governs, our objectives don’t change: the destruction of Capitalism, the State, the reppressive apparatuses; the end of the need to govern and be governed. We’re not interested in a «lesser evil» or a «more humane» green capitalism.

Our bet? The same as always, with the unbreakable stubbornness that characterizes us: extending and deepening permanent and unstoppable conflict, knowing well that we’re neither saviors nor representatives of anyone or anything, save for ourselves. Our opting for confrontation is in first person, because we understand that by giving blows we begin to liberate ourselves and if others also choose to take this path, excellent, but if not, that won’t be a reason to become discouraged, much less giving up our convictions, falling and validating the institutional path. We’re not enlightened, much less the ones will decide what is to come, but we’ll be understood for what we are, by our praxis, by always acting in accordance with our ideas, for the insurgent cause and for anarchic, subversive and insurrectional complicity that spreads rebellion; our warpath thus becomes into the palpable possibility of being free.

Subversives, anarchists and mapuche: out of jail, now!!

Escalate the conflict; intensify the offensive!

Fighting youth: permanent insurrection!

Death to the state, long live anarchy!!

Conviction is ours!!

As long as there is misery, there will be rebellion!!

Mónica Caballero Sepúlveda
-Women’s Prison of San Miguel

Pablo Bahamondes Ortiz
-C.D.P Santiago Uno

Francisco Solar Domínguez
Marcelo Villarroel Sepúlveda
Juan Aliste Vega
Joaquín García Chancks
-C.P Rancagua «La Gonzalina»

December 2021

Territory dominated by the Chilean State.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.