Against bootlickers and their world
From nantes.indymedia.org via machine translation. [April 11th, 2018]
As I get ready to join my friends and my friends at the ZAD, and as many across France, I'm changing the situation behind my screen and in the newspapers, I'm uncomfortably struck by the speech I read, that I hear. They are always the same "spokesmen" more or less self-appointed, always holding the same words: the State, despite the sincere willingness to negotiate the "movement" supposedly united, would flout its promises, for example (as by chance) by expelling the Hundred Names, an "agricultural" collective - and the home of some of the heads of the Committee for the Maintenance of Occupations (CMDO). These words, now more than ever, we must make a political criticism.
The game of the state for a few months is (as usual) to divide the occupants into two camps, opposable between them, the "good" who would give pledges ("cleaning the roads") and deposit individual agricultural projects " »; and the "bad" who are, apparently, only "wankers" ("Michel" at radio-France-info, April 9). Instead of denouncing these gross maneuvers, and demonstrating what was formerly known as "solidarity" (a twentieth-century dictionary will be consulted if necessary), a good number of those designated as "good" were quick to to submit to all the injunctions of the prefect and others. And, of course, the more one obeyed these injunctions, more new injunctions were formulated. The now-known example of "cleaning" the D281 is still in everyone's memory: it was first required to destroy a few buildings, then quickly all buildings, then there was a permanent police presence "to accompany the pavement repair work ", etc. At each stage a number of individuals, many of whom were members of the political organization who confiscated most of the power (control over the tools of communication, monopoly of relations with others, "Components", creation of a bogus "assembly of uses" where everything is ready in advance, etc.): the CMDO. In fact, it was a question of proving to the state that they were able to maintain order themselves.
Then there was the first "betrayal" of the state: the "opponents" who nevertheless thought they had planned everything for their integration (with a complete institutional organization chart), were not even invited to the negotiations on the future management of the lands ! What humiliation for those who wanted, at any price, to integrate into bureaucratic management and become the relays of the State!
But, instead of belatedly becoming aware of their abject role and the obviousness that this role could only turn against them, our brave aspiring managers have nonetheless redoubled their licks, and have filed urgent agricultural projects to not to see their houses evicted, without pretending to worry about the other occupants (the "wankers"). Therefore, all the submissions to the bureaucratic order that otherwise claimed to fight are good: another leader, Delabouglisse, the spokesperson of Copain44, said Tuesday, April 10 at a press conference that "the sheep came from to be "chipped" by the inhabitants of the Hundred Names. Seeming to ignore (but not ignoring) all those who still struggle against the pillage of sheep, and in general against agricultural standards (and who are very attentive to what is happening in Notre-Dame-des-Landes), he testifies to the desperate desire to integrate at all costs into the bureaucratic apparatus, giving all imaginable pledges of complete submission. And he even goes so far as to apologize for not being able "in two months to propose a perfect project".
The indescribable Julien Durand (Acipa) finely suggested a solution in Presse-Océan of 9 April, that is to say during the attacks of gendarmes: "We strongly encourage the inhabitants of the Zad to submit individual projects to obtain a relative raise of concern [sic] on the scale of the expulsion operation [sic]. Everything is said: whatever happens, now that there is no more airport, we must liquidate the movement of occupation, tear gas or not1.
In summary, "Since the beginning of the discussion with the prefecture, we were totally amazed. So, they are strong, because they had us, we believed in dialogue, in appeasement and today they respond to us with violence, "whispers" Willem "in Ouest-France on April 10th. Naivety or cretinism? I can not decide.
On the other hand, if the Hundred Names (between ten other houses, remember even if they were houses of "wankers") could be attacked, evacuated and destroyed from the first day of the operation of the gendarmes, it is well above all because the road D281 (which leads to it) was abandoned, under the pressure, among others, of certain inhabitants of the Hundred Names themselves! A five-year-old child discovering chess would not have made such a tactical mistake. We are indignant at the ("illegal") violence of the gendarmes even though we themselves have rolled out a red carpet, crushing the recalcitrant on the way.
And yet, in front of the smoking ruins of his house, one of the inhabitants, instead of learning from his weakness, still whined, accusing the State of not having "the respect of the value-work [sic]" (" Michel "at radio-France-info, April 9). It seems necessary, unfortunately, to recall that most of the occupants always tried and tried to fight against work and exploitation. Some people today praise the work in the press, it's the height of crap.
In the context of the repression of struggles, it is rather commonplace for the State to try to integrate certain particularly pushy or ambitious fractions, to frame the rest and undermine the struggle; and it is very rare that he does not find candidates (trade unionists, student "leaders", etc.). In the ZAD, it will have been the CMDO, in addition to the Acipa / Coord and Copain (such behavior is obviously much more expected for these latter structures openly reformist and co-managers).
Yet, despite the most delirious (and obviously dangerous) marks of submission, the state did not want them! Perhaps because, having in any case otherwise well-run relays (eg Acipa), the state wanted to mark a symbolic frontier that could not be crossed: that of ownership. Or, more exactly, that the State does not give up the property of a good (of a land) by negotiation; and by the balance of power, very rarely. It would be for him to recognize that the sacrosanct principle of property, indispensable pillar of capitalism, is in the final analysis only a vulgar piece of paper. But must we be moved by the fate of those whose odious hopes are thus reduced to nothing? The CMDO is solely responsible for what happens to him, and it is useless to shed tears over his pitiful ruin.
On the other hand, it is necessary to continue to support those who, far from the cameras, the press conferences and the negotiating tables of the prefecture, are not fighting against the airport, but against "his world" that some have conveniently forgotten.
In any case, from whimpering to licking boots, we have gone from a situation where the State, driven to failure by the struggle, had to give up a considerable infrastructure project, to a situation where the opponents themselves In the name of a "sacred union", whose mechanisms are known, they have done some of the work of their own expulsion.
It is vital to continue to oppose, in the ZAD and everywhere else, the brutal repression of the State; but to do this it is essential to draw the political lessons from what has happened in the ZAD in recent years and even more in recent months, under pain of reproducing, again and again, the same mistakes, and tolerate, still and always, the same takeovers and the same stabbing in the back.
Fortunately, some are still there who are resisting seriously and with remarkable determination. May they step back the state - and its henchmen, now or in the future.
A distant comrade, April 11, 2018.