An Interview with AK – Antiauthoritarian Movment on Syriza, the Referendum and what is to be done. Who are you and what is your relationship to the extraparliamentary movement and to Syriza? AK is a network of antiauthoritarian assemblies founded in 2003 which are based on antihierarchy, direct democratic decision making and the abolition of power. We are struggling against parliamentary totalitarianism and we never had any relations with parliamentary parties whatsoever. We have created social and political alliances with numerous collectives , citizens, popular assemblies and political organisations that struggle for an emancipated autonomous self organised society against State and Capital. Syriza was „the party of the movement“. What kind of relationship does Syriza have to the movement now? Syriza was the party of the defeat of the movement and the inability of it to pose viable alternatives during the cycle of crisis struggles. The nearer SYRIZA got to the chance of seizing parliamentary superiority the more it distanced itself from movement practices. The adoption of a lot of ex-PASOK populist politicians into the party made clear that SYRIZA is a product of the defeat of the squares to pose a direct democratic alternative rather than a dialectical blooming of a socialist movement. The members of SYRIZA behaved as true inheritorsof the Stalinism that characterizes all the left parties in Greece , defending every absurdity of their leadership, instead of criticizing and promoting a more movementist agenda. This became even clearer after the recent developments , where we have a part of Syriza members that flee the party because they cannot cope with the consequences of their choices, and others supporting the government with TINA arguments. The truth is that whoever stands for SYRIZA now has declared war against the movement. Did you have any hopes or expectations when Syriza came into power? Did it change after the referendum? As an organisation we struggle against the politics of assignation and parliamentarism so we had no false hopes on what Syriza would do when in power. There was a part of Syriza discourse that aligned with the movements ambitions and in these fields we believed that we could blackmail the government to proceed to some reforms that they themselves had declared (abolition of high security prisons, abolition of refugee detention camps, abolition of Sunday labor in the commercial sector), but we only achieved some minor changes. In fact, the recent measures are also cancelling some of the reforms done in the last semester and replacing them in a neoliberal direction. How is greek society dealing with the hopes it hat put in the possibility of change? We had warned the Greek society that „under a big hope lies a deep dissapointment“ and this turned real. The Greek society was largely convinced under the populist patriotic discourse of Syriza that just by voting for them their wages and jobs would be protected and everything will be fine. Today the biggest part of the Greek society lies on desperation and anger, and a significant part is preparing to take matters into their own hands, organising struggles against the measures to come and promoting self-organised structures that have the ambition to fulfill future social needs. The greek referendum concerning the austerity policy of the EU has been answered by the great majority with a „no“. Which sections of society were mobilized for either yes or no? As things got really polarised , one could argue that „Yes“ supporters were the large and small greek capitalists ,middle classes and a part of the lower classes that were panicked with the idea of a GRexit. The „NO“ supporters were definitely the lower classes, supporters of Syriza, people of the movement and the far right. How did Syriza try to mobilize their voters? What were the common arguments that were used? Syriza tried to make a negotiating weapon out of the referendum. They strongly emphasized that they didn’t want a GRexit and that a strong NO would send a message to the EU that austerity politics will no longer apply. They also emphasized the „european values „ of solidarity and democracy that need to be respected. How did the antiauthoritarian movement react to the referendum and its result? The referendum was a difficult issue. The major part of the antiauthoritarian movement did vote for „NO“ , because in this way the lower classes could show that they oppose the extreme neoliberal reforms and also there could be the start of a movement reboot. Another part of the movement opposed the referendum as a parliamentary procedure and a false dilemma. All parts of the movement now are analysing and discussing the problems and opportunities that lie ahead since SYRIZA declared war on the people , continuing what the previous governments did. How did greek society react to the fact the the government is now implementing austerity and in this way negating the result of the referendum? Desperation is the general feeling. This is an ambivalent process that could either turn to apathy and surrender to the TINA dogma, or the building of a consciousness that there is no hope in parliamentarism and party politics, so we should take matters in our own hands. How is the Situation with Golden Dawn - are they profiting from the recent developements within the gouvernment and syriza? Or has the crackdown on its leadership made it impossible for them to react? It is a common fear that Golden Dawn will capitalize the collapse of the social image of the government. It is not an absurd fear , having in mind that the patriot populist discourse of Syriza the last years has legitimized such rhetoric that Golden Dawn can serve with discipline and with no contraddictions. It is true though that Golden Dawn as a party –and as a movement one could say- is still dizzy and disorientated by the judicial hits it has suffered and internal fractionist tensions. No one could predict the political results of the judicial outcome of the nazi trial – a trial that is expected to last more than 1.5 year-, but until now the party hasn t been able to convince anyone else other than the 5 % of their electorate basis. I personally think that far right populism could be and will be expressed by other parts of the political spectrum, from ex members of New Democracy party. The main gain from the loss of the political Capital of Syriza will be in the hands of the “extremists of the center”, the coalition of Potami, Pasok and New Democracy, that promote themselves as a “responsible political force against any extremism, left or right”. Parts of the european left hoped that developments in greece would open the possibility of a break with the neoliberal „block“. Is this still realistic? After all, similar hopes were placed in south america 10 years ago. We think that the recent developments speak for themselves. It was never our dream or goal to resemble Latin American populist projects, so you should ask those who were supporting these policies and theories. The European Union was a child of conservative Right parents and cannot change fundamentally. We believe that the emerging European totalitarianism cannot be fought in its own institutions but on the streets and through the structures of a transnational antiauthoritarian emancipatory movement that struggles for social and individual autonomy. In Germany the Grexit was mainly a right wing (nationalist) idea but is increasingly put forward by Parts of the radical left. They are critzising Syriza for not adequately establishing a Plan B as a means of negotiating but also as a real (emancipatory) option, therefore leaving the architecture of capitalist europe intact. Could you Shortly describe the discourse around the Grexit in Greece and outline your position as a Group focussing on selforganisation against the state? Grexit was always adopted by a broad part of the Left, inside Syriza , KKE, ANTARSYA and also some anarchist-communist collectives, as a first step of emancipation from the EU neoliberal hegemony. Of course, all of these positions speak about national currency and abolition of debt. A lot of people of the movement also believe that the bankruptcy of a GRexit would be a fruitful period of social intervention for the movement. The truth is that this position overestimates the potential of a state to promote social change. Although it is clear today that there cannot be any serious social transformation under the EU institutional totalitarianism, we should keep in mind that the choice of monetary system and the establishment of relation with other states is a choice made by the bosses for the bosses and society is never asked (or , even when asked through referendum, it s opinion doesn’t count!). Argentina, the UK and a lot of other countries have a national coin but they are far from being a libertarian project! So instead of arguing on what a state could do to promote freedom –which is absolutely nothing less than commiting suicide to its institutions, something that will never happen- we should argue on our real potential , which is the generalization, strengthening and defence of self organized institutions in our societies that through a process of struggles and constant self critique and improvement, will be able to enforce their interests against the national and transnational state apparatus. Just to give an example of this perception, imagine if we had not one VIOME , but 1000 self organized enterprises that would coordinate production through social center networking and a self organized coin system that would replace the national one in a smaller or bigger part of the transactions; in such a context ,both Grexit or no Grexit, financial collapse or organized bankruptcy would be outcomes that would not affect us much. This is a project far from being realised today, but the foundations have been built and there is a slow but steady route towards this kind of constituted movement reality. Does the extra parliamentary opposition still have the ability to mobilize now that reformism has seemed to fail again? Will there be more selforganisation and a focus on movement politics again? Or will this lead to political depression? The question describes the main political bet of the coming period. Our aim is to transform desperation to anger, loss of hope to creativity and assignation to engagement. The movement is awake again and the world of self organisation and management is ready to take their historic responsibilities. Where do you go from here? There is an important initiative that we will put all of our effort the following days to answer this new capitalist attack. It is called „No means No, you cannot/ we can“ , inspired by the main slogan of VIOME. The aim is 1. To produce massive and militant resistance against the austerity measures and promote social self defence to state attacks (evictions, Sunday labour etc). 2. To promote self organised , self managed projects , social care inititatives and to bring all these into communication and coordination. 3. To coordinate , unify and intensify both projects of resistance and self organisation and grassroot social reproduction. 4. To promote transnational cooperation and solidarity against patriotic poulism that arises in the greek society. The Beyond Europe Camp against the destructive gold mining in Chalkidiki is a very important opportunity for the international movement to discuss, analyse and organise the first steps of the strategy of self organisation against State and Capital.