Avalanche - The Anarchist correspondence zine Avalanche - The Anarchist correspondence zine 6 | Page 23

taken up by a good part of the so-called scenes, and
therefore do not only concern the convicted persons.

contents and methods are quite classical ways to isolate
these last ones as to better crush them.

These campaigns generally pretend to establish or prolong a strength position elaborated in the struggle, we
therefore understand even less how they can be concluded with such kinds of steps, at least incoherent with
the priorly affirmed goals.

If one wants to speak of a strength position in the case
of the repression of a struggle, this goes thus far beyond
the firstly concerned persons, just as the cessation or
continuation of the fight on the moment when the state
decides to blow the whistle of the end of the game has
incidences beyond the individuals that are participating
directly in it.

A first element of explanation could be in the notion itself of what is called a “strength position” and its objectives. If only a result on the very short term counts
and if it is only important to make sure that people don’t
end up in prison, one can indeed imagine that all means
are good to reach this goal and without asking too much
questions – and by the way, also without any guarantee that it will “work” – go from street demonstrations
against state repression to attempt to try to negotiate
with the state the consequences of this repression. But
when one considers the strength position in a more
larger perspective, then it is for sure the continuity of
a conflictual attitude towards power, as well as certain
struggle proposals and methods, which are individually
and socially at stake.
For example, calling to block a parliamentary session,
not by petitions or juridical appeals, but by a direct
intervention, implies a minimum of questioning of the
normal game of parliamentary democracy. Through a
nice effect of contagion, such an action could also have a
social impact which goes beyond the initial situation. To
defend and to put into practice the fact of acting directly against what is oppressing us, means amongst other
things to revive the refusal – fruit of anti-authoritarian
ideas and historical experience – of institutions and delegation, it means to encourage the will to take your life
in your own hands, to decide for yourself what you are
fighting, why and how.
On the other side, the state understands very well the
danger that might represent such a potential for the totality of its social organization. It therefore goes to look
for all possible means to finish off the punctual conflict
and at the same time, all possibilities it might open up.
In its arsenal, there is, to start with, the police and juridical repression which can rain down on people in many
ways: by firing in the crowd – with sticks, flash balls,
live ammunition if necessary – and by knocking on the
doors of some individuals, also a posteriori. All this
is meant to sow fear and to make examples in front of
everyone’s eyes. But one too often forgets that one of the
other, nice democratic, weapons of the state is the political recuperation. One of the well known strategies to
make the protest fall back in line consists in separating
the “good opposition”, susceptible to integrate the game
of the state, from the “bad ones”, determined to continue the conflict. To push the social antagonism to the
field of negotiations, satisfying some demands, inciting
to dissociation or even snitching against more offensive

It is thus up to those who engage in the fight to be ready
to answer to these obstacles in a way that, far from denying, it is the continuation of it. Spurning on this continuity