christieStuart Christie: Thoughts of a Veteran Anarchist

Perhaps the biggest challenge anarchists face is combating the masses of disinformation out there about anarchism, to educate the 99% and explain ourselves, and what anarchism means rather than what government and other propaganda tells us that it means. That’s part of the reason we set up Forest of Dean Anarchists. So here is the first in what we hope to be a series of asking prominent anarchists what it’s all about!

Stuart Christie, since 1962 has been an active anarchist, through writing, publishing and action. The Glaswegian author of Granny Made Me An Anarchist, General Franco Made Me A Terrorist and Edward Heath Made Me Angry (his entertaining and inspiring three-part autobiography), and The Christie File: Enemy Of The State, first achieved notoriety in 1964 when at the age of 18 he hitch-hiked to Madrid to assassinate Franco, and was caught and imprisoned.

He was freed three years later thanks to an international campaign led by Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell. In the 1970s, he helped to reform the Anarchist Black Cross association (to support political prisoners), edited the Black Flag magazine and was acquitted of being part of the Angry Brigade. He remains active in the south of England, where he runs a book publishers http://www.christiebooks.com and is looking for donations to get an anarchist/libertarian film archive up and running again (see appeal on his site).

anarchistreview4One of FOD Anarchists sent him some questions, and when he got a spare few minutes from working on his latest book, he gave us/me his answers:

Do you feel that earlier anarchist methods, such as ‘propaganda by the deed’ can be effective today?

The tactic of propaganda by the deed is an essential and unchanging element in the struggle for justice and fairness. What may differ from time to time, generation to generation, is the methodology of that direct action. When called on, each new generation and/or individual finds its own way to resist tyranny or advance the struggle. Methods that, for one reason or another, were morally or technically feasible or 20 or even 10 years ago are often no longer possible today. To paraphrase Karl Popper: because our knowledge and understanding of the world is constantly changing and evolving, especially so in our digital age, we cannot, therefore, know today what we can only know tomorrow

I have seen little evidence that the protagonists of recent movements such as the Indignados of southern Europe, the Arab Spring, and Occupy describe themselves as socialists or anarchists, yet it seems to me that their calls for direct democracy, their holding of general assemblies and call for the end of capitalism are similar, or the same, as anarcho-syndicalism. Do you agree, and if so, why do you think the words ‘anarchism’ or ‘socialism’ are rarely, if ever, mentioned, and do you think they should be?

My understanding of these movements is that anarchists and libertarians were — and are — very active in these movements, indeed central to them, especially in the case of the indignados in Spain. What they didn’t do, however, quite sensibly and correctly as anarchists, is lay ideological claim to these popular movements or attempt to use them as fertile organisational ‘recruiting grounds’, as inevitably occurs with the Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist and the Islamist/Jihadist groupings. terroristAnarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and libertarian socialists are certainly active today in Egypt, Libya and other Maghreb countries, and I’ve no doubt there are also anarchists active in the Arabian Peninsula as well. If the terms ‘anarchism’ and ‘socialism’ are rarely heard that’s possibly down to the editorial policies of the mainstream broadcast and print media who have a different agenda and prefer to focus on the Jihadist/Muslim Brotherhood threat..

It seems that anarchism is regarded by many as a dirty word, partly due to successful anti-anarchist propaganda, partly due to the interpretation given to it by some anarchists themselves (such as ‘the black bloc’). Would you agree with me, and how might we ‘sell’ anarchism to the masses?

The words ‘Anarchism’ and ‘anarchists’ have always been demonised by the mainstream media; the time to worry is when the capitalist press and state spin doctors stop using them as ‘bogeymen terms. As for ‘selling anarchism to the masses’ the only way to do that is through education (spreading the Idea), inspiration — and example.

Would you consider yourself a socialist as well as an anarchist?

Yes

How hopeful, or hopeless, do you feel the anarchist struggle could be in the face of this current government?

grannyIt has never been a question of being hopeful or hopeless in the face of this or any future government/society; the struggle —with the human condition, not just the state — is forever with relentless struggle. All you can — or should — hope for along the way are a few little victories and, maybe, the occasional big one. ‘History’, Seamus Heaney says ‘Don’t hope on this side of the grave. But then, once in a lifetime, the longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme. So hope for a great sea-change on the far side of revenge. Believe that a further shore is reachable from here. Believe in miracles and cures and healing wells.’

If there were a general election tomorrow, would you vote, and if so, who would you vote for (if they were standing)?

No, I wouldn’t vote for a party or for an individual no matter how honourable, but I would certainly consider a protest vote against a party — or for something achievable. For example, in the Spanish elections of 1936 the anarcho-syndicalist CNT tacitly withdrew its overt opposition to participation in the parliamentary process (ie, voting) in order to force the release of 30,000 political prisoners imprisoned by the Republic over the previous three years

Do you think we could achieve a wholesale anarchist society? Could it happen transitionally or would a rapid revolution be necessary?

I’ve really no idea; what appeared to work rapidly and violently in particular places and times (e.g., Russia, 1917, and Spain, 1936) clearly, for a whole variety of reasons, didn’t endure.Similar events may happen again, who knows, all we can do is work, hope and carry on. Even so, as, when,and if an ‘anarchist’ society comes into being we’ll still have to face the perennial problems of co-existence human beings have faced since time immemorial. One saving grace we should have — as anarchists — is that we’d hope to be more realistic and conscious of our human failings, shortcomings and limitations, particularly with regard to the corrupting influence of the exercise of power. However, I am an optimist and I share the view of American psychologist William James: ‘The ceaseless whisper of the more permanent ideals, the steady tug of truth and justice, give them but time, MUST warp the world in their direction.’

Do you think that a. the NHS, b. Social security, c. police, d. military, could continue to function, or would be necessary, in an anarchist society?

An anarchist society is and always will be an aspiration, an ideal — a ‘star’ to follow — one that provides us with an ethical code, a moral barometer and a libertarian political template for our everyday lives. If and when a social revolutionary situation recurs again (in this country or anywhere) the role of the anarchist will be to do what they can to ensure that the social institutions required to ensure that any human society (including health and welfare,and security/defence services), function justly, fairly and as conflict-free as is humanly possible, are — and remain — fundamentally democratic, libertarian and answerable to the community. It’s not about achieving Nirvana or a Utopia, only religious zealots and ideological fundamentalists believe in the ‘rapture’ that creates the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, or the ‘last fight’ mentioned in ‘The

Internationale’. Anarchists appreciate only too well how ‘imperfect’ human beings are and, doubtless always will be, which is why they reject institutionalised power structures as the bedrock for the creation of oligarchies (well-meaning or otherwise) and the corrupting of the body politic.

What examples can you think of as anarchy in action today?

Can’t think of any offhand, specifically, but I’m sure your readers can come up with lots of examples of voluntary self-help and direct organisations and bodies that would fit into the category of ‘anarchy in action’.

Can laissez-faire capitalists/ the US Libertarian Party be considered as anarchists?

Not in the slightest. These people are minimal statists, the minimal part being the defence and advancement of self-interest and property rights — and not even ‘enlightened’ self-interest.

Have your ideas changed much over the decades, and if so, how?

Yes, my thoughts and views on lots of things have changed over the years, which is inevitable as you acquire more knowledge through different experiences, and meeta wide variety of people with different views on life to your own — and of course reading, TV, cinema, the internet, etc.. But my anarchist view of the world remains fundamentally unchanged, ie – see the following:

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society – a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

Do you think we in Britain are still threatened by fascism?

Fascism of one sort or another — as with any other reactionary populist ideology and fundamentalist belief system — is always a potential threat to society, especially when people’s fears and emotions can be manipulated and used in the furtherance of some elitist political or religious agenda. Who’d have thought twenty years ago that militant jihadist Islam or fundamentalist Protestantism/Catholicism would still be a serious and ongoing problem in the 21st century!

Should we try and build a movement and organise? If so, how might we do it and what form could it take?

Movements that are thrown up as a response to a particular threat or situation, yes, but you can’t just ‘set up’ a body with revolutionary aspirations in the hope of it developing it into a revolutionary movement’ without it — inevitably—degenerating into a self-perpetuating, self-serving vanguardist monster, e.g., the Communist Party, SWP, WRP, etc. A very useful text to read in that respect is Robert Michels’ ‘Political Parties’, especially the chapters outlining what he called ‘the Iron Law of Oligarchy’. The only way to build, organise, educate and proselytise anarchist libertarian ideas and solutions is through bodies with shared economic/class interests such as the trade unions, trades councils or other community-based groups.

reblogged from Infoshop News with thanks

read more from HERE http://www.christiebooks.com/ChristieBooksWP/

Anarquía en la Memoria Histórica

La batalla de Stuart Christie, un escocés que vino a matar a Franco y pasó 3 años en la cárcel. Ahora quiere que España le reconozca como víctima y airear el caso de dos compañeros ejecutados. Pero sus papeles se perdieron, la Administración no contesta…
El de Stuart Christie es un caso que parece sellado por silencio administrativo. O más bien por el silencio tras una larga correspondencia que combina lo burocrático y lo delirante. El caso de este escocés que participó en una conspiración para matar a Franco ilumina vericuetos anárquicos por los que camina la ley de Memoria Histórica.
Nacido en Glasgow, educado por su madre y su abuela, Christie ha escrito -su libro, ‘Franco me hizo terrorista’, lleva en inglés el título ‘Mi abuela me hizo anarquista’- que aprendió los valores del socialismo libertario en un domicilio familiar en el que los vecinos se ayudaban y donde el rigor democrático protestante de su abuela, Agnes, no incluía prejuicios. Se casó con un católico.

Sin título-Color real-01
Ávido lector, Christie creció como un rebelde político en la ciudad posiblemente más izquierdista de Reino Unido. Se manifestó contra las armas nucleares, participó en debates y se decantó por el anarquismo, por la idea de una comunidad de iguales que no aspiran al poder, porque siempre corrompe.
España era, en la frontera de la década de los cincuenta y sesenta del siglo pasado, el gran drama de la izquierda tras el fin de la guerra mundial, el país europeo en el que se mantenían en el Gobierno quienes apoyaron el fascismo de los años treinta. Christie marchó a Londres y a través de grupos libertarios británicos conoció a anarquistas españoles exiliados en la capital.
Su disposición a participar en la resistencia antifranquista lo convirtió en enviado ideal para una misión planeada por Defensa Interior, un grupo dedicado a la acción directa formado por la Confederación Nacional del Trabajo y la Federación Ibérica de Juventudes Libertarias. Aunque sus bombas no perseguían causar víctimas, querían matar a Franco.
Un año antes de que Christie viajase de Londres a París para ponerse en contacto con la red que fraguaba la conspiración, el régimen español había ejecutado mediante garrote vil a dos inocentes. Joaquín Delgado, de 29 años, hijo de exiliados españoles en Francia, y Francisco Granado, emigrante económico, pagaron con su vida por dos atentados contra la Dirección General de Seguridad y el sindicato vertical.
Las bombas explotaron antes de lo previsto y causaron veinte heridos leves. Antonio Martín y Sergio Hernández se han inculpado ante los tribunales españoles en su intento, hasta ahora inútil, para que se revise el caso y se anulen las sentencias contra Delgado y Granado. Los procesos judiciales solo han servido hasta ahora para que la viuda de Granado reciba la indemnización -6.000 euros- estipulada en la ley de Memoria Histórica. Se la negaban porque su marido no pasó al menos tres años en la cárcel, como dice la norma, sino que fue ejecutado a los 17 días de su condena.
En agosto de 1964, Stuart Christie entró en España con 18 años recién cumplidos y varios paquetes de explosivos que le habían encomendado para su entrega a una persona con la que tendría cita en Madrid. Iba vestido para el invierno de Glasgow más que para el mes más caluroso del verano español y viajó en autoestop en un camión de cuyo conductor ya sospechó como posible policía.

franco_me_hizo_terrorista_portada_completa
La misión fue una chapuza. Christie fue detenido nada más llegar a la capital española. La red anarquista estaba infiltrada por la Policía. Fue juzgado, junto a su contacto en Madrid, por un consejo militar sumarísimo y condenado a veinte años de cárcel. Salió a los tres. El Gobierno dijo que le aplicaba la medida de gracia por las peticiones de su madre. Había también una campaña internacional.
Kafka en la oficina
Christie vive ahora en una apacible villa costera del sur de Inglaterra, Hastings. Tras una larga biografía como activista del anarquismo, concluía su autobiografía en 2004, expresando «un profundo sentido de alivio y satisfacción por el hecho de que no tengo la sangre o la vida de nadie en mi conciencia, ni siquiera la de Franco». Es editor y mantiene sus amistades españolas de aquellos tiempos.
Octavio Alberola, que fue el coordinador de Defensa Interior, y Antonio Martín, que colocó las bombas de 1963, forman parte del grupo que busca la revisión del proceso contra Delgado y Granado. Y Christie mantiene desde hace dos años correspondencia con las instituciones españolas para que le reconozcan como víctima del franquismo y sobre todo para airear el caso de los dos compañeros ejecutados.
La correspondencia comenzó el 22 de junio de 2009. El anarquista escocés envió a la directora de la Oficina para las Víctimas de la Guerra Civil y de la Dictadura (OVGCD), Margarita Temprano, la solicitud de Declaración de Reparación y Reconocimiento Personal que la ley de Memoria Histórica de 2007 ofrece a condenados por tribunales que, como el Consejo Militar que sentenció a Christie, la ley considera ilegítimos.
El solicitante envió la documentación que avalaba su reclamación y un mes después la OVGCD le notificó que estaba investigando su caso. Un mes más tarde, la misma oficina de víctimas le escribió para decirle que su expediente ya estaba completo y que, antes del 10 de enero de 2010, cuando concluía el plazo fijado en la ley, se le notificaría la resolución. Stuart Christie no recibió nada. Pero, el 1 de julio de 2010, le llegó una carta del Ministerio de Interior donde se incluía otra del de Defensa, en la que éste comunica a otro departamento de la administración lo siguiente: «En relación con el escrito de referencia, examinados los instrumentos de descripción de los fondos documentales y listados onomásticos de las publicaciones oficiales relacionados con el objeto del escrito, informo a Vd. que no han aparecido datos del personal del asunto».
Cartas a 3 ministros
Defensa no podía encontrar ningún papel de un tribunal militar cuya sentencia dio la vuelta al mundo. Christie escribió al ministro de Justicia, Francisco Caamaño, y a la directora de la OVGCD para recordarles que no le habían enviado la resolución y notificarles de la recepción de la extraña misiva de Interior-Defensa. Ninguno de los dos dignatarios respondió a la carta.
Escribió al vicepresidente Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba en octubre de 2010. No recibió respuesta. En diciembre, el Servicio de Comunicación Ciudadana del Ministerio de Justicia le notificó que estaba «trabajando en buscar todos los antecedentes documentales» para resolver el expediente. En enero de 2011, escribió al ministro de Presidencia, Ramón Jáuregui, y, en febrero, el director adjunto de su Gabinete, Carlos García de Andoin, le confirmó que se estaba «recabando información».
El 22 de febrero, una carta de la Dirección de Instituciones Penitenciarias llegó a Hastings informando a Christie de que se habían encontrado los documentos de su caso, los mismos que él había enviado en 2009 para avalar su solicitud. Hasta hoy. Ha escrito de nuevo al ministro Jáuregui y al presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, pidiendo una explicación. Las gestiones de este periódico ante la Administración para interesarse por el caso no han recibido ninguna respuesta.
http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/v/20110620/sociedad/destacados/anarquia-memoria-historica-20110620.html