(voices of resistance from occupied london)

By Fani T, fani_t[at]hotmail.com

Resistance of human individuals against societal norms that repress them is as old as humans themselves. Essentially, this very resistance comprised a moving force behind human survival and evolution. It is remarkable that humans began resisting before human societies were even formed, by solely fighting against animals... And later on, once part of a social group, they would fight against external groups and even form sub-groups to fight their own, whenever the latter operated against the individual's will or when it broke predetermined facts and pre-agreed conventions.

This is the only way in which the individual could (and did) achieve fulfilling his or her desires - desires that would of course differ from time to time. Historically, resistance (or for that matter, reaction) was not absent from any society: It merely changed its form depending on what society was applying such repression, the reasons pushing for resistance and the methods used by the latter. Such resistance is not always nor necessarily a collective issue; it could derive from individuals, a fact that by no means downgrades its importance. From the farmer waving his rake when threatened to the citizen appealing to a public bureau in order to denounce their boss who will exhaust them mentally and physically without offering the agreed compensation, it is always the same issue we are talking about: resistance and dissent of individuals, instinctively rising against whatever it is that hurts them.

Therefore, and since each of us will enact such resistance at least once during our lifetime, we could safely talk about an integral part of human nature, capable of avoiding being trapped in whatever social norms. A solid political analysis would understand that it is invalid and nonsensical to judge the way and means each of us chooses to resist with: dissent is a given and each concerned individual should centre their acts around it. Alas, whenever a social sub-group acts in resistance or reaction it is crucial to contemplate whether the achievement of the given target is indeed achieved by their chosen form of resistance.

The ways in which resistance is received, on the other hand, largely relies upon the political interests of the prevalent political powers. Thanks to the democratic façade, society's members are given the "right" to take the streets and chant their slogan - though even this very right has been challenged lately. Alas, it is such political powers that shape the prevalent opinion of what an "acceptable" protest should be like: Permission should be sought by the public authorities; a bureaucratic process has to be followed for such permission to be granted; police should accompany the protest, which should in turn comprise of members of a specific group that do not hold beliefs considered to be 'dangerous': their demonstration should be peaceful... But what does 'peaceful' really mean?

When the resisting individuals decide to fight against whatever elements repress them, in cooperation with the social subgroup agreeing with them, there is no path left to follow other than that of delinquent behaviour.

Resistance is by definition delinquent, since it transcends the limits pre-set for the individual, who decide to set their own path in accordance to their demands. To discuss whether such reaction should be considered "good" or "bad" based on "peaceful" and "violent" protest, that is of no relevance here since such fake dilemmas are set by the ruling class. The form of resistance chosen each time should only be accountable to the ruled class applying it and not to the bosses who cause it.

After all, passive resistance or pacifism does not exclude violence from its content. Quite simply, when these are applied on the streets anti-violence does not make its appearance. Regardless, true violence is applied by those with the means to do so at each given period of history. The simplest such mean, thoroughly tested over hundreds of years and on hundreds of occasions (reaching its apogee during Hitler's era) is the invention of the "enemy within", intended to terrorise us about who knows what. In the Greek reality the enemy within took the form of the terrorist (no longer haunting us following the capturing of terrorist organisations), the football hooligan (no longer able to burn our property as CCTV is now introduced in football grounds) and the hooded up demonstrator who could continue to threaten the respectable citizens unless the police start raiding houses of suspects, as recently announced.

The culture of "non-violent" or "non-confrontational" attitude is a culture largely imposed by mass media in order to serve specific causes of social conduct and submission. But how could you possibly convince the indignant student, the worker or citizen that if they stay calm and refrain from "provoking" the authorities everything would turn out to be all right?

In other words, dissent will by definition be delinquent. To take the recent example of students repeatedly taking the streets rising against the unacceptable proposed educational reforms in Greece. Thousands of students spontaneously and unwarily took the streets to defend the given: their right to move freely and defend their rights already won, including the most democratic right of all: academic asylum as well as public and free education for all. The State, knowing no other way to settle issues creating social resistance, chose to follow its familiar path: violent repression, blood-letting demonstrations, mindless use of chemical gasses, tens of arrests, fabricated polls "reflecting" public opinion as being against the students.... Distinguishing the students' movement from a "tiny minority of anti-authoritarians defiling the student movement" (as if students cannot be anti-authoritarians), libel and criminalisation of movements... In other words, it did its job right, since this is the mission of the State: To clobber each and every deviant opinion and behaviour.

The movement that sprang out of the students lit up all of the folds of social demands as well as the multitude of means that can be used for their achievement. Students did not consent to the call-ot for a "calm reaction" but they went straight to the point, organising via direct democratic procedures, challenging the role of the ruling class and its media and immediately switched to counter-information with demos, occupations, press releases, clashes with the police, poster pasting, neighbourhood events and whatever else the human mind deems feasible in order to give voice to the other side. Since, therefore, this is their resistance against a law repressing them and denying them certain rights, how could their dissent comprise a "lawful" act within the unlawful margins set by the authorities, themselves very unlawful?

In either way dissent cannot, by definition, be legal. At the end of the day laws are set by bosses across the globe in order to facilitate their own disgraceful interests. In this mission of theirs they have the faithful support of some obedient servants: mass media, forces of control and repression, judges and public servants. Our duty is to get rid of every form of repression, every law curtailing free thought and to reject all forces violently repressing voices of resistance.

The State breeds violence, while social struggles breed freedom.