(Chile) Interview with Francisco Solar
In this fourth interview, we engaged in a dialogue with our anarchist comrade Francisco Solar, acting as a bridge to disseminate his words and delve deeper into various topics and contexts of interest. His perspective and participation in grassroots projects are vitally important, as they break with the inaction that prisons seek to impose. Throughout this conversation, we addressed not only aspects related to his personal experience in prison, but also broader political reflections on ongoing struggles and the challenges faced by anarchist communities.
1. How are you doing now? Could you tell us a little about your experience in La Gonzalina prison? What differences do you see between the prison systems in Europe and Chile?
It’s been almost a year since I left the maximum-security wing where I spent nearly five years, moving to a high-security wing with a normal daily routine, which basically means eight hours in the yard and the possibility of conjugal visits.
Given this, my situation is clearly more favorable, as I’m no longer subject to the restrictions of a maximum-security wing. However, the fact that I share daily life with the anarchist and subversive comrades already in this wing makes prison life much more bearable. Escaping, even momentarily, from the nefarious authoritarian dynamics that exist among the prisoners and trying to cultivate relationships contrary to them is a challenge and a constant struggle that involves perpetual questioning. It’s clear we’re not an island within this wing; we grapple with contradictions and, obviously, sometimes we reproduce behaviors we claim to reject. Nevertheless, our dynamics—those of the anarchist and subversive prisoners—are different from those of the rest of the inmates. Our relationships aren’t based on the stark authoritarianism of the other prisoners, and that’s obvious.
My daily routine is marked by sports in the yard, conversations and walks with my fellow inmates, and reading. It’s important, as I’ve mentioned in other writings, to have a daily routine, which allows me, at least in my case, to maintain a certain mental clarity and avoid falling into the trap of prison exhaustion.
The differences between the Chilean and Spanish prison systems lie primarily in control. The Spanish prison system has managed, through constant and prolonged adjustments to its control strategies, to discipline life inside the prison. Through the FIES (Special Regime for Inmates) and dispersal policies, the Spanish Prison Service has pacified the prisons of the Spanish State, even managing to make prisoners their own jailers, as can be seen in the increasingly numerous “respect modules” (prison modules).
While the Chilean prison system is moving towards a “Spanish” (or European) model of control, it is still far from achieving it. Control mechanisms are considerably more precarious and ineffective, leading, among other things, to the establishment of certain “rules” imposed by the prisoners themselves within prison life. These rules are based on extreme authoritarianism that produces and reproduces relationships akin to outright slavery among the inmates. If solidarity was once present in these dynamics, such relationships have now been practically relegated to the sidelines, giving way to ostentation and the aforementioned authoritarianism that makes prison life a hostile environment.
2. What importance did and do counter-information projects have? Do you think they continue to be a means for dialogue and anarchist propaganda? Have they lost ground to social media?
The importance of counter-information media in strengthening anarchist environments is undeniable. It is no coincidence that at a time when anarchist spaces were multiplying, anti-authoritarian initiatives were proliferating, and attacks were relentless, counter-information outlets such as Publicación Refractario, Contrainfo, Liberación Total, and Material Anarquista, among others, along with various anarchist print newspapers, formed an important part of the anarchist network that complemented the active work of those years.
Along with the information they provided, which allowed us to stay informed about what was happening in our communities, these media outlets constituted and continue to constitute spaces for promoting and developing debates that gave life to our movement. These extensive debates fostered reflections and positions impossible to develop on the fleeting platforms of Instagram.
In this sense, in my opinion, social networks and their instantaneity have diminished the quality of the arguments and, with it, the strength of our positions. It is evident that the counter-information media have lost space to the social networks that are presented today as the place from which to carry out the struggle. Little or nothing remains of the elaborate and meticulous reflections, giving way to the empty slogan and cult of aesthetics that characterize social networks.
The decrease in the means of counter-information is another example of the loss of power and the stagnation of our movement. The importance and preponderance of social networks reflects our growing lack of reflection and the lack of generation of ideas.
3. In the text “A Necessary Complicit Dialogue,” you allude to the concept of “large-scale anarchic actions,” while in “The Risks of Multiformity,” you ask and argue: “Are large-scale actions the same as ‘simple’ actions? Is planting an explosive device in a police station the same as tagging a wall or painting a canvas? Clearly not. They are not the same in their planning, their dedication, or what is at stake. They are not the same in terms of the impact or repercussions they generate.” From reading these statements, we notice that you use the concept of “large-scale” to define destructive direct actions, while you use “simple” to define propaganda actions. However, both definitions are categorized as “actions.” Is it then necessary to redefine the concept of “action,” or is the adjective that follows it sufficient?
I think the important thing about language, whether written or spoken, is that what is intended to be communicated is understood. Based on your question, I perceive that I made myself perfectly clear in what I tried to express in those texts, so the function of language in this case fulfilled its purpose. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how you name what you want to express, as long as the meaning is ultimately understood.
Now, every action involves energy that alters reality in one way or another, so making a canvas and hanging it is clearly an action, as is creating a mural or plastering the city streets with posters. Clearly, planting an explosive device, shooting at the police, or any other complex attack also constitutes an action for the same reason stated above. However, as I state in the writings, they present differences that prevent them from being evaluated in the same way. It is important, therefore, to make a distinction in language when addressing them, since it is evident that we are not talking about the same type of actions.
Complex actions, large-scale actions, violent revolutionary attacks—these are terms I use to refer to the same type of action. These are events that, due to their characteristics, involve greater risks, a different level of decision-making, among other aspects, which differentiate them from other types of actions. Ultimately, since the latter are also actions, I think it’s most appropriate to describe the former with an adjective to make their difference and particularities clear.
4. “Seditious Accomplices / Faction for Revenge” claims responsibility for sending two parcel bombs to the 54th Police Station in Huechuraba and the office of former Interior Minister Rodrigo Hinzpeter, an attack for which you later assumed responsibility. The statement reads: “We took all necessary security measures to ensure that the devices exploded only in the hands of the intended targets of our action. Our enemies are clear; we are not interested in, nor do we seek to, harm or injure any other person (…).” Can this be interpreted as a distinction between selective and indiscriminate violence? If so, how would you explain the differences between selective and indiscriminate violence?
As I stated in my closing remarks at the trial, anarchist acts of violence have never been indiscriminate. Historically, they have always targeted individuals, groups of people, or symbols that hold or represent power. It is the fascists who have carried out indiscriminate attacks, as exemplified by the massacre at the Bologna train station in Italy in 1981.
And, also, a few years ago, a misanthropic trend emerged that attempted, without much success, to carry out indiscriminate attacks. Its stance, closer to a religious position due to its distinctly sacred undertones, was riddled with contradictions, causing it to disappear as quickly as it appeared. It doesn’t warrant further analysis.
Focusing on the question; indiscriminate attacks are those whose targets are anyone, so the places to attack are generally open spaces, the more crowded the better. Bus stops packed with people, open-air markets, among others, are ideal locations due to the large crowds they attract. Selective attacks, on the other hand, are those directed, as I mentioned, at representatives, holders, or symbols of power. They are attacks carried out against our enemies. They are complex actions that, in most cases, are self-explanatory.
Now, I understand that we are all responsible to a greater or lesser degree for the maintenance and reproduction of oppression; however, that is no reason to identify every human being as a target. Our actions must necessarily aim high, ever higher, to, among other things, send a signal to those in power that their decisions will eventually bring a decisive response.
5. There is a general decline in terms of action, from arson attacks at universities and high schools, nighttime incursions such as street blockades, barricades anywhere in the city, and arson and/or explosive actions. Could you analyze this? Is it due to the constant police crackdowns and the development of security in the city? Or is it a consequence of something you raise in the text “Considerations on Freedom,” when you criticize the phrase: “‘I have the freedom to do what I deem appropriate, even, when the time comes, to break commitments made'”? Because, “such is the argument (or phrase) wielded under that nefarious conception of individual freedom, which is nothing more than a childish justification for irresponsibility. This not only makes any joint initiative unfeasible, since it breeds distrust, but it also throws overboard the coherence that is the result of the historical work of comrades who came before us and which is valued as part of our theoretical and practical arsenal that distinguishes us from other revolutionary tendencies.”
As you rightly point out, the decline in large-scale actions in this territory is noticeable and undeniable. And I believe it’s not only in this area, but is present in practically all aspects of our practices. I think we are experiencing a change of cycle that implies the end of one process and necessarily the beginning of another. The approaches and practices of insurrectionary anarchism, nihilistic anarchism, or revolutionary anarchism have lost strength, no longer generating the interest they did a few years ago. In this sense, I think it’s important to acknowledge this shift in the cycle, to recognize this decline, so that, based on this observation, we can take action and overcome this period of inaction.
Certainly, the decrease in counter-information outlets, along with the limited availability and permanence of physical spaces where we can meet to share ideas and carry out activities, are part of this general decline affecting our movement.
Now, regarding the decrease in large-scale actions, I think that the repressive measures and, above all, the severity of the sentences have achieved their objective: to intimidate and demobilize a large part of the combative anarchist sector, which, with few exceptions, has not been able to respond to these blows. Furthermore, the Southern Prosecutor’s Office, under Prosecutor Orellana and a small team of police officers, has effectively dismantled practically every action group that had been carrying out constant attacks. Therefore, repression has indeed contributed to this decline.
The lack of genuine commitment inherent in this strange understanding of individual freedom represents, in my view, a cross-cutting element that not only influences the current inaction but also constitutes one of the foundations of our general decline. Failing to do what one says or neglecting freely made commitments demonstrates the increasingly prevalent lack of rigor and seriousness in our circles. I believe this is both a cause and a consequence of the current situation. This situation, along with what has already been mentioned, stems from broader causes—extending beyond the anarchist world—that affect and impact us all.
There is a kind of general disillusionment with revolutionary sentiment triggered by the outcome of the October uprising. An event of such magnitude, with a clearly anti-authoritarian purpose, which many of us longed to experience, whose outcome was marked by institutionalization and then by the advance of post-fascism, has led to a feeling of defeat in much of the subversive and even rebellious world. And that has obviously also affected our environments.
Had all that anger expressed since October 2019 had the opportunity to lead to the proliferation of autonomous combat groups (as was the case in Italy in the 1970s), it quickly shifted to a climate focused on demobilization, which has only intensified over the years.
I reiterate: it is essential to acknowledge this decline, to express it and analyze it, in order to collectively explore ways to overcome this impasse and revitalize anarchy.
6. The comrades of Nueva Subversión, in their pamphlet “We are an ancient wind, that persists in its breath,” reflect on action groups and environments, stating that “we face the challenge of how to develop illegal practices while simultaneously keeping pace with the environment so as not to isolate ourselves or lose sight of the insights that arise from the growing tensions. The challenge of maintaining a sense of interaction exponentially strengthens the health of our resistance, making the amplification of the subversive atmosphere a danger to the enemies of freedom.” What can you tell us about the public and illegal connection, attending activities and/or projects while simultaneously carrying out actions? Is it viable to maintain coexistence between both initiatives?
First of all, I want to express my full appreciation for the “Nueva Subversión” project and all the cells and groups that comprise it. In these difficult times we are experiencing (described in the previous questions), launching an offensive project and venturing into action is admirable given the complexity of the matter. When everything calls for passivity, when intimidation has permeated much of our society and risk-taking seems a thing of the past, this interesting initiative bursts forth, defying all feelings of defeatism. Despite its increasingly sporadic appearances, it demonstrates that this insurrectionary stance, which speaks through actions, still persists.
However, I believe it is essential to maintain this link between illegal action and participation in public spaces. Isolating oneself within the action group leads to bureaucratic practices that hinder the necessary breadth of perspective. While it is possible to stay informed about debates and the generation of ideas through online counter-information, I believe that having a real presence in public spaces allows us to fine-tune the nuances of collective reflection. It allows us to maintain that face-to-face connection with our comrades that enriches our perspectives and positions.
Nevertheless, considering the advances in technology related to security and control, I think it is essential to rethink this stance.
As I argued in the text “The Tightrope,” it is necessary to understand clandestine combat experiences in order to learn from them. Control is becoming increasingly suffocating, and the network of surveillance cameras in the city is becoming harder to evade every day, so we must necessarily consider clandestinity as an option. A true clandestinity that allows for greater freedom of movement when it comes to action.
This rethinking of positions represents an advantage of informality insofar as its inherent dynamism allows us to analyze concrete reality and adapt our practices, which are always geared toward combat. In this sense, this suffocating reality requires a rethinking and the consideration of clandestinity as a possibility if the goal is to strike continuously.
7. In the text “Faced with a veiled life sentence, action is always worthwhile,” you comment that the stagnation of anarchist actions may be due to “a post-revolt effect that, it seems, has led to demobilization in various environments and among individuals.” We believe that the effects of the revolt are still present within anarchist circles, from the lack of criticism and/or self-criticism regarding figures who participated in the elections and who remain part of anarchist projects, to the hybrid created between anarchists who understand electoral submission as a defense of social and human rights and the outdated rhetoric that a right-wing government will exert more force in the police state, when the left has been responsible for strongly reinforcing that position of control. Do you think that anarchist individuals have lost their anti-state essence by advocating for issues such as social and human rights? How do you think reflection can rediscover the positions we have championed?
There has undoubtedly been a lack of self-criticism in our circles regarding our role in the uprising and what could have been done. The enthusiasm surrounding the new constitution, which led many people in our circles to vote “yes” and then, to top it off, to elect and, in some cases, campaign for Boric, definitively demonstrates that we don’t all understand the same thing by freedom, nor are we all rowing in the same direction.
With our comrades from the magazine Kalinov Most, we have written several articles pointing out how surprising it is to have to address the issue of electoral participation, a topic that seemed to have been settled years ago. Anarchism has historically positioned itself as detached from and against elections, and it is important to maintain and even strengthen this stance. Therefore, revisiting this topic seems tedious and boring to us. The fact that individuals and some groups participated in the electoral circus demonstrates that in crucial and decisive moments, there are “comrades” who abandon the basic principles of anarchism. It also demonstrates that our movement isn’t as solid as we think, given that some sectors freely embrace democratic options that have nothing to do with ours.
Throughout this interview, I’ve referred to the “movement” as the broad anarchist world with its various tendencies that share certain basic principles translated into concrete practices. However, I also understand that within these tendencies, there are those that advocate for the creation of affinity groups to advance anarchism. Personally, I subscribe to the latter, as I believe that affinity groups are the most appropriate way for anarchists to connect, given the freedom and dynamism they offer. Based on this, I cultivate affinity with comrades with whom I share ideas and practices, and with whom I obviously don’t have insurmountable differences.
Therefore, I could never participate in an affinity group with people who choose to run in elections, much less those who have decided to campaign for any candidate. However, this is an individual decision, and it is up to each affinity group to establish their own criteria and associate with whomever they please.
8. In a statement published in July 2021, along with Mónica Caballero, you affirm that “assuming that anarchists should only associate with other anarchists reflects an absurd purism and sectarianism that is undoubtedly an expression of authoritarianism. Establishing coordination and joint initiatives for struggle only among those who define themselves as ‘anarchists’ is to severely restrict and limit our relationships and, consequently, our possibilities for growth. It is to stupidly confine ourselves to dogmas that restrict us and prevent us from freely associating. Thus, we see how, in the name of freedom, some propose the exact opposite, establishing sects based on labels. With this, we do not mean that we establish relationships indiscriminately or that we have no filters whatsoever.” Reading these words brings to mind a slogan that has been circulating for years, related to “unity in action.” We believe that publicly advocating for these elements represents a real danger to our values and theoretical aspirations in times of delusion and passivity. Is it truly a reason for coexistence to act alongside cadres, grassroots activists, and even sectors that might justify indiscriminate attacks in the name of illegality?
We return to the issue of informal criteria freely established by each affinity group. I maintain that it is unfeasible and a product of illusion to attempt to establish political relationships and ties only with anarchist comrades. The experience during the October uprising demonstrated this, as did daily life and the various struggles that have taken place within the prison. Nevertheless, these ties must be based on horizontal criteria; that is, we must ensure that no party (whether groups or individuals) is placed above another. From the moment any group or individual attempts to control, direct, and take the reins of a coordinating body, action must be taken. Either remove the person attempting to control or simply step aside and seek other paths based on relationships that suit us.
Just as the above represents an insurmountable line, so too does supporting indiscriminate and inhumane positions, as well as participating in the electoral circus, for the reasons stated in the previous question. I want to make it clear that what I’ve stated is on an individual level; that is, these are sufficient reasons why I would not establish any kind of political link or relationship, whether within an affinity group or in a broader coordination. I cannot and it is not my place to comment on the relationships that other affinity groups establish or may establish.
Now, anarchist affinity groups must obviously be composed of anarchist individuals, insofar as they share a common language, which allows for greater fluidity. I consider the establishment of broader relationships—not necessarily with fellow anarchists—to be (and this has been my experience) for the case of political coordination and for initiatives that arise and develop in special contexts, such as prisons. Sharing certain subversive codes within the prison with inmates of other political leanings has allowed for the development of interesting struggle initiatives, demonstrating in practice the possibility and even the opportunity that broadening our perspective on political relations represents.
On the other hand, while there were broad horizontal coordination experiences during the uprising, the creation of a strong, action-oriented coordination would have, in some ways, deepened the conflict by intensifying the attacks, which would have broadened our perspectives.
9. Recently, several anarchist comrades from different regions have died in action, accidents, suicides, illnesses, etc. Kyriakos, Belén, Tortuga, Risue, Snizana, and Lupi are some of them. Meanwhile, a discourse full of purism and dogmatism, akin to militarized leftist groups, has spread, drawing lines between comrades who have died in combat and those who haven’t. Do you consider the suicide or natural death of a comrade a perpetual plunge into oblivion? What should be the meaning, value, and practice of memory in the face of the deaths of our comrades in struggle?
Starting with the end of the question, I have no doubt that the meaning and practice of memory must necessarily be action, far removed from and contrary to any victim mentality. Memory that translates into action is the most appropriate way to remember our fallen comrades. Understanding memory in this way strengthens the anarchist world oriented toward struggle. It undoubtedly strengthens our offensive practices by attempting to reproduce and multiply the constant attack.
However, I believe that in this particular aspect, a concept that is often repeated in our circles but rarely put into practice comes into play. I am referring to the development of an iconoclastic position, understood as the rejection of the sacralization of figures, whether human or not. The exaltation of dead comrades, even those from other political leanings, is a custom that permeates the entire subversive culture of this territory, including, of course, the anarchist world. There is talk and writing about iconoclasm and the need to avoid turning our dead into heroes or martyrs, but at the same time, they are elevated as unquestionable figures, continuing, in one way or another, the leftist tradition on this issue. Because I think it is undeniable that the exaltation of dead comrades in our spaces, in both form and substance, corresponds to a legacy of the militaristic left. It’s an element we’ve adopted, reproducing it, perhaps with a few nuances. I think we must question this continuity.
It’s fundamental to reflect and draw collective conclusions regarding the necessary iconoclastic stance and the reclaiming of our dead in order to develop our own position, one that is free from any kind of sacralization. Along with this, there seems to be an urgent need to focus our work on reclaiming our dead, and I think it’s from this need that, in recent years, since there haven’t been any comrades who have fallen in combat, we’ve begun to reclaim comrades who have left us for reasons and in circumstances unrelated to war.
I’m not saying that these comrades should be forgotten. It’s essential to foster an active memory that keeps them present through action. However, their memory must focus on the core, on the actions that the comrade carried out and for which they left us in the physical realm. Ultimately, content must prevail over image; otherwise, we will only be creating heroes and martyrs.
10. Closing remarks, by way of a call to action, invitation, greeting to comrades, groups, projects, etc.
I thank the comrades of Informativo Anarquista for the opportunity to address important issues within our spaces, which provide the essential dynamism that allows us to remain active and continue growing. Thank you for the opportunity to continue participating in discussions and debates, even though I am incarcerated. With this initiative, you demonstrate that the Powers That Be fail when they try to confine us solely to the figure of the “prisoner,” since we remain anarchist comrades who can contribute our vision and opinions on issues that extend beyond the prison and what happens within its walls.
Greetings to the anarchist and subversive comrades resisting in various Chilean prisons. To the anarchist prisoners of Italy and Greece, always active. To every space, publishing house, magazine, and counter-information outlet that persists and stubbornly champions anarchy even in difficult times. A special embrace to our comrades in the “New Subversion” project: their struggles are the joy of the anarchist prisoner.
(Chile) Entrevista a Francisco Solar
https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/?p=29533
#AnarchistPrisoners #chile #FranciscoSolar #southAmerica
abolitionmedia
Stoking the Fire
