Have you ever tried to play chess in such a way that you were only allowed to see 4 squares of the board at a time while your opponent always had an oversight of the entire board?

Because that is the kind of situation we are facing here: a master chess player called capitalism is playing simultaneously with a fair amount of adversaries that are limited to seeing only a few squares of the board at once.

The only way we have to win is sharing between us the partial knowledge we have of the board so we can complete the 8×8 picture and develop a sound strategy in which everyone can contribute his thoughts and the best move is elaborated through consensus. A less effective alternative would be to share the board knowledge but maintain individuality in the plot of each ones moves. If each of us insist in exploring only his few squares and act individually based only on that knowledge, that capitalist player does not even need to be skilled to win.

There is no way ordinary, everyday any-wing people can organize effectively without any intellectual input because they lack the time and depth of analisis necessary to even grasp the fact that they only see a few squares on the board. When an intellectual says he is not one and that none are needed, I know I have met a would-be dictator.

Now, to continue with the main theme:
“These efforts of mine reveal much of what I believe we need to do. Certainly trust among ourselves is a rock-bottom requirement. But it takes effort, and total honesty with each other.”

This is the main recurrent theme in human evolution. You should know as an anarchist that this is the most problematic point in any logical, social or political strategy that aims to counter capitalist and/or neo-liberal adversaries. Why? Because it imposes severe restrictions to our liberty of thinking or movement that they have not because their logic is inherently based on mercyless competition and distrust. That is why they are or appear to be so robust as an ideology that they think it is the only one that has any future.

If we want to stand any chance at all, we need to eliminate the need for trust from our relationships and our strategies. We can not compete in size building circles of trust to match the magnitude they can implement in their circles of distrust. We can not all unite, first because we can not all trust each other, and second because we will not be able to find a common-to-all subject we can talk about and agree to do something useful.

No, we need to stay apart in small circles where relations of trust are easier to build, and with which atomisation it is easier to find a considerable amount of cells that can join together temporarily to share talks about certain subjects they have in common without the risk of being kept apart by things they are antagonistic about.

Trust can not be global and for no matter what subject, and it requires a total compatibility that is seldom achievable. I trust my brother not to stab my back, but I would not leave him alone with an ounce of chocolate for a minute if I insist on having half of it. I know he likes chocolate more than he respects my wants.

Depending on circumstances, necessity sometimes makes for strange bed mates. People who can not be trusted in a global way, can be trusted to behave in an expected way under known circumstances, and provided there is no objective cause for outright antagonism that can not be forgotten for a while (mind your ethical integrity), refusing to collaborate punctually does not serve but the enemy.

There is one way to enhance trust, even among strangers, and that is to consistently adhere to principles of logic and ethic that comply with the necessity to stand unchallenged in the face of truth. Even I have to admit that I have no alternative but to believe my fiercest enemy when what he says can not be challenged. If, in the absence of outright antagonism or incompatibility, you can share thoughts about facts that stand unchallenged in the face of truth and work with these to improve a common or each individual strategy around those matters, then it would be stupid not to do so.

But of course, if you are competing with those you wish you would be able to trust and only agree to join on some effort if your perceived gains would be bigger than his, you can bet your ass they will not collaborate if they are not stupid and think the same thing the other way around.

Generosity is still a very limiting factor in the viability of many social movements because most of the people do not move if it is not to obtain an benefit for themselves, be it a direct one or psychologically far sought after. That might be for example the known case of Cindy Sheehan. Why is she acting now? Does she oppose the US invasion of Irak, or is she simply ranting on the loss of her beloved son? I once wrote them (Cindy Sheehan’s Gold Star Families for Peace and also Iraki Veterans Against the War) the following mail a fortnight before the march they jointly organised between the 14th and the 19th of march:

—– start of citation —-
To: on 7/3/2006

Participation: Veteran & Survivors March 14 to 19 march 2006

Dear Friends,

I sent the following message to Iraq Veterans Against War, but had no answer yet. I do not trust the military that much, so I’m just forwarding it to you in the hope that Civilian Society has a better understanding of my offer.

+ message to ivaw.

To: on 7/3/2006

Participation: Veteran & Survivors March 14 to 19 march 2006

Dear Cindy,

I sent the following message to Iraq Veterans Against War, but had no answer yet. I do not trust the military that much, so I’m just forwarding it to you in the hope that Civilian Society has a better understanding of my offer.

+ message to ivaw.

To: on 5/3/2006

Participation: Veteran & Survivors March 14 to 19 march 2006

Dear friends,

Let me start by saying I am an self-proclaimed Anarchist. Under correct circumstances, I would not give a damn about no matter what soldier under no matter what flag, nor could I care less what politician sent you to what war. We would be unforgiving and sworn enemies by definition.

But these are no correct circumstances. The abominable Bush Administration and its masters in the neo-con military-complex and neo-liberal economic and financial condominiums are waging a ruthless war on everything my soul stands for: freedom, ethics, honour, democracy, fair play … you name it. I might forget some ideal, but I am convinced of the fact they wont.

Thus I feel in this war we are fighting the same enemy, to defend the same ideals I have always unconditionally believed in, and though I can not be there with you in person because I live in southern Spain and lack the means to travel to the USA to be present, I feel I would be betraying myself if I did not do everithing within my reach to make you and everyone know that you can count me among all of you in this march.

Considering USA Homeland Security Forces will most probably be scrutinizing the participants of this march and all of you risk monitoring and harassment, I would consider It an honour if you made the necessary arrangements to include me among the identified.

I was thinking of something like having someone among you adopt me and carry some kind of clearly visible sign stating my name, nationality and national ID and/or international Passport number to make clear to all participants and all the watchdogs that I am there among you wholeheartedly, ready to fight this war among you and willing to share any hardships that may be yours.

In fact, I am sure that if you spread the word timely, I would not be the only one to join you in such a way.

One World, One Soul, One Reality

Kindly Yours.

Antonio García García
Spanish national ID: withheld in this copy
Spanish international Passport: withheld in this copy
—– end of citation —-

I never received any message from neither of the three adresses I sent it to, and I keep asking myself what may have been the reason for that silence. Certainly somebody could have reacted before the march, or did they simply not want to put what they’d liked to tell me in an email because it would have been bad PR if made public? Probably, despite their declared intentions, my offer did not fit into their intended scenario for some reason I do not get.

I would not have bothered anymore if it were not such an interesting case to stress the effects of trust or the lack thereof in the intentions of both or multiple parties.

This kind of situations also strikes me with the Zapatistas, as they are shifting their requisites for adherence from ethical and intellectually based ones to bulk loads of lack of material and intellectual wealth, as if they already had a social blueprint ready (historical marxism) and only needed braindead bodies to fill the ranks with cannon fodder.

To end where you left it, our intellectualizing and experience is indeed worth nothing if the puppeteers of the movement need brainless followers and want them to remain that way. Or maybe they just want to cather for a mayority and simply see they will not reach it if they do not exclude the more erudite minority. But excluding someone is also excluding those that do not accept exclusions, it can be a dangerous lane to walk, and an obstacle along the way of achieving any operational structure for unity.

Have a nice thought.
Antonio.