La parabola del "movimento no global"
A 24 anni di distanza dal funesto G8 di Genova e da quelle torride giornate di luglio, alla luce della mia esperienza, temo che la maggioranza della gente sia del tutto sorda e indifferente alle giuste ragioni sociali e politiche rivendicate in quei giorni dal cd. "movimento no global", resosi portavoce di tutti coloro che erano e sono "invisibili" nella società dei consumi di massa. Quel movimento fu, nel corso della storia occidentale, l'unico tra i vari movimenti di una certa rilevanza politica a non rivendicare nulla per sé e a spendersi a favore delle istanze e dei diritti altrui, dei soggetti sociali più emarginati e meno abbienti, impegnandosi per cause umanitarie e solidali. Un movimento di ampie dimensioni di massa, eterogeneo e multiforme, che riuniva in sé una moltitudine di forze sociali, politiche e sindacali, provenienti da varie realtà nazionali ed internazionali. Il comune denominatore politico e culturale era una visione condivisa di una società differente, più umana e radicalmente alternativa all'esistente. Un comune sentire ed un approccio critico (sia pure vago e generico in molti casi) alla realtà alienante della "globalizzazione" di matrice neoliberista. Le critiche mosse dai "no global" a quel modello economico-materiale e consumistico, vincente a livello planetario, il rifiuto dell'egemonia culturale esercitata dal "pensiero unico neoliberista" e da un'ideologia consumista, erano nettamente valide e sacrosante. Tuttavia, i limiti di quel movimento, al di là dei meriti e delle ragioni incontrovertibili, evidenti oggi più che nel passato, consistevano in una precarietà e fragilità politica e progettuale, in una sterile e scarsa unità di intenti sul versante più squisitamente strategico ed organizzativo, che ne hanno pregiudicato ogni spinta propulsiva per una trasformazione radicale del sistema economico e politico neo-imperialista, che rischia di trascinare l'umanità sull'orlo di una vera apocalisse atomica. Dopo le feroci brutalità poliziesche durante il G8 di Genova ed il "trauma" dell'11 settembre 2001, il movimento perse la sua "verginità" e si indebolì rapidamente fino alla sua totale e definitiva uscita di scena, avvenuta più o meno dopo il 2006/07, se non erro. Guarda caso, in concomitanza con la confluenza dei consensi a favore del "centro-sinistra ulivista" presieduto da Romano Prodi con l'appoggio del PRC di Fausto Bertinotti. Vale a dire con l'accordo di "desistenza". Amen...
Lucio Garofalo
Tensions et défis actuels autour des constructions populaires autonomes
Tensions et défis actuels autour des
constructions populaires autonomes
Diego Naim Saiegh
Institut de Théorie et d'Histoire Anarchiste – ITHA
Introduction
Dans le travail suivant, nous approfondirons certaines implications qui se manifestent aujourd’hui dans la réalisation de processus de construction populaire autonomes – en soulignant ceux qui, en raison de leurs perspectives politiques et méthodologiques, peuvent être inclus dans une matrice libertaire – dans un contexte historique traversé par les marques du chômage structurel, la croissance de la pauvreté et, d’une manière générale, par la précarité de la vie en tant que forme sociale. Nous tenterons de proposer, à travers notre parcours, certains fils d’analyse sur certains problèmes à affronter selon le contexte susmentionné, notamment dans le cadre de nos sociétés périphériques latino-américaines et quelques hypothèses sur les défis à relever pour les surmonter dans une optique émancipatrice.
Maintenant, avant d’aborder les questions soulevées, il nous semble important, ne serait-ce que dans ses grandes lignes, de souligner quelques idées générales sur le lien entre l’anarchisme et les processus d’organisation populaire, ainsi que quelques lignes sur ce que nous entendons par rapport à la construction d’une matrice libertaire.
Une perspective politico-méthodologique de la construction populaire
Si l’anarchisme en tant que courant de praxis révolutionnaire a eu tout au long de son histoire – outre ses différentes tendances – une « raison d’être », celle-ci était principalement donnée par le fait de fournir une base matérielle à la trame de ses postulats avec pour perspective émancipatrice l’organisation et la lutte nécessaires à cet effet de ceux qui sont soumis aux injustices du système de domination capitaliste d’État. Michel Bakounine a dit à ce sujet:
Il est vrai qu’il existe [dans le peuple] une grande force élémentaire, force sans doute supérieure à celle du gouvernement et à celle des classes dirigeantes prises dans leur ensemble, mais sans organisation, la force élémentaire n’est pas une force réelle. C’est cet avantage indéniable de la force organisée sur la force élémentaire du peuple, sur lequel repose le pouvoir de l’État. Le problème n’est donc pas de savoir si [le peuple] peut se révolter, mais s’il est capable de construire une organisation qui lui fournira les moyens d’atteindre une fin victorieuse. Non pas à une victoire fortuite, mais à un triomphe prolongé et définitif [1].
Dans le même esprit, l’Italien Malatesta a déclaré que les classes opprimées et exploitées:
ne pourront jamais s’émanciper tant qu’elles n’auront pas trouvé dans l’union, la force morale, la force économique et la force physique nécessaires pour vaincre la force organisée des oppresseurs [2].
De ces considérations découle donc l’importance stratégique que revêt le développement et la promotion d’organisations populaires capables de conduire et de soutenir ledit processus pour un processus de transformation sociale, constituant ainsi une force sociale articulée capable d’affronter et éventuellement de transcender le pouvoir. Or, cette impulsion vers le rôle principal de l’organisation du social d’en bas doit compter, à partir d’une logique libertaire, avec certains critères et lignes directrices qui se distinguent des autres logiques et qui donnent lieu à sa propre empreinte.
Pour l’instant, nous partons de la conception que les groupes des classes populaires doivent avoir comme première tâche d’action, la lutte pour la conquête des intérêts matériels qui rassemblent leur classe dans le cadre de ses besoins les plus immédiats. Pour cela, l’arc de confluence doit être le plus large possible. Autrement dit, il ne doit pas être traversé a priori par des limitations politiques-idéologiques, religieuses ou autres [3]. Mais cette tâche première d’action ne doit pas être étanche, mais dynamique. Elle doit être combinée de manière dialectique avec une tâche de lutte émancipatrice visant à dépasser les structures du système dominant, cherchant ainsi à construire des «embryons» de pratiques et d’organismes sociaux qui préfigurent une société libre d’exploitation et d’oppression.
L’organisation de la classe est donc dans cette perspective, comme outil d’action et de lutte, mais aussi comme école de participation démocratique et comme bastion de construction de la capacité d’autodétermination populaire, devenant, à son tour, un bastion dans le développement d’une société autogestionnaire; le pouvoir d’en bas, du peuple organisé lui-même. Cette tâche complémentaire élargit le champ de la simple revendication sociale et lui donne une orientation politique claire. La politique en termes de politique de classe autonome et donc de réappropriation également de la sphère politique comme espace d’auto-activité, d’autogestion et d’auto-institution sociale, mais aussi comme école de participation démocratique et comme bastion de construction de la capacité d’autodétermination populaire, devenant, à son tour, un bastion dans le développement d’un pouvoir autogéré d’en bas, à partir du peuple organisé lui-même.
En ces termes, cette perspective, même si elle n’établit pas de lien organique immédiat avec une approche idéologique fermée – prenant en compte, comme indiqué plus haut, l’ampleur nécessaire des confluences pour mener à bien la tâche première de la lutte protestataire – propose, une matrice que, soutenue par certaines prérogatives et lignes de construction politico-méthodologiques, nous pouvons identifier comme libertaire. Des paramètres tels que la lutte et l’action directe sans intermédiaires, la démocratie de base, l’organisation fédérative, l’indépendance de classe, la pratique préfigurative, l’antiparlementarisme, entre autres, nous montrent clairement un profil de construction au sein du peuple que l’anarchisme, en tant que courant, a historiquement porté en avant lorsque s’impliquer dans la lutte des classes, tant depuis les origines du mouvement ouvrier organisé que dans le cadre des luttes que les mouvements sociaux contemporains développent depuis plusieurs décennies jusqu’à nos jours et qui ont influencé – et continuent même d’influencer – différentes organisations populaires qui n’en ressortent pas forcément dynamisées par des militants dudit courant. Dans cette perspective d’organisation et de construction populaires que nous appelons génériquement autonomes, nous allons maintenant tenter d’analyser le panorama actuel sur lequel ces formations doivent développer leurs luttes, ainsi que les problèmes et défis auxquels elles sont confrontées lorsqu’elles y sont confrontées.
Un panorama actuel
À l’heure où nous entrons dans la troisième décennie du XXIe siècle, il ne semble pas nouveau que nous nous trouvions plongés dans une crise profonde qui, de différentes voix, est présentée comme civilisationnelle et aux multiples dimensions. Crise qui s’impose comme systémique, multifocale et mondiale, comme caractéristiques du capitalisme, en plus de certaines manifestations spécifiques aux pays ou aux régions. Un premier point pour aborder sa portée consiste sûrement à visualiser que, depuis quelques décennies et de manière de plus en plus accentuée, le processus d’expansionnisme illimité du capitalisme érode nécessairement ses propres conditions d’existence antérieures.
Alors que la substance du capital est la génération et la régénération de valeur à travers le travail abstrait – vivant mais aliéné – accumulé dans le champ de production avec ses conditions de possibilité dans le champ reproductif et l’environnement naturel. Sa volonté d’augmenter constamment la productivité – de pair avec la compétitivité – l’amène à accorder une importance croissante à la science et à la technologie dans la production. La corrélation et la tendance croissante de celles-ci sont de rendre constamment anachronique ce même processus, basé sur le travail – seul générateur de valeur. Ce faisant, le capitalisme scie la branche sur laquelle il repose: la valorisation de la valeur à travers le travail vivant et l’environnement qui la rend possible.
Bien que – et bien que cela puisse paraître contradictoire avec ce qui précède – aient proliféré ces dernières années une série de « nouveaux emplois », ceux-ci, en raison de leurs caractéristiques – informels, précaires, externalisés, « uberisés », sans droits – non seulement n’ont aucun impact sur la tendance à la dévaluation et à la réduction structurelle du travail formel qui existe encore, mais ils continuent également à être une « fuite en avant » que, avec d’autres dispositifs, le capitalisme mondial développe pour surmonter ses propres limites intrinsèques, mais qui, même s’ils sont efficaces pour réactiver le marché, les profits de certains secteurs ne vont pas générer à court terme, même de loin, un nouveau cycle de prospérité, car les technologies – qui ne produisent pas de valeur – et qui remplacent le travail humain, ne peuvent être éliminées de la production, c’est-à-dire « ils ne reviennent pas ». Ainsi, Il ne s’agit pas d’un « retournement cyclique » classique qui aurait pu se produire à un autre stade, mais plutôt d’une tendance qui s’annonce déjà comme une crise sans retour. En outre, dans ce contexte:
les grandes entreprises tentent de promouvoir un nouveau cycle expansionniste pour protéger leurs bénéfices à court terme. Pour y parvenir, comme cela s’est produit lors des crises précédentes, ils ont renouvelé leur engagement à élargir la frontière commerciale à travers la dynamique d’accumulation par dépossession. De même, dans le cadre de la financiarisation mondiale, ils favorisent la création de nouvelles bulles spéculatives pour retrouver, au moins dans l’immédiat, des niveaux élevés de rentabilité [4].
Ceci, insistons-nous, « fait avancer » mais laisse le problème sous-jacent non résolu, à savoir que même si la quantité de biens et de services peut croître, ensemble et à moyen terme, ils représentent une quantité de plus en plus petite de valeur. De même, l’argent – produit de la spéculation financière – qui circule dans le monde est « fictif » puisqu’il ne représente pas en réalité un travail investi de manière «productive» [5]. Le capitalisme est de plus en plus confronté à ses barrières économiques internes ainsi qu’à ses limitations externes naturelles – écologiques – qui, bien qu’elles présentent un horizon temporel diversifié – et dans ce domaine les luttes sociales jouent un rôle – ne peuvent être stoppées, en même temps de sa propre logique. En bref:
le capitalisme mondial a fait avancer ses contradictions, dans le temps et dans l’espace, mais il se rapproche de plus en plus de ses propres limites. L’instabilité permanente des marchés en raison de l’augmentation de la financiarisation, de l’extension de l’exploitation du travail et des inégalités sociales qui excluent de larges couches de la population de la société de consommation, de la remise en question de la division sexuelle du travail et de la nécessité de repenser la répartition des tâches productives et reproductives, l’épuisement des sources d’énergie et des ressources matérielles nécessaires au métabolisme agro-industriel-urbain-financier, les impacts du modèle économique sur les écosystèmes et le dérèglement climatique, sont autant d’entre eux,[6].
Ce panorama complète une série de définitions à prendre en compte. D’une part, et pour tout ce qui précède, il n’est pas possible de revenir à un modèle d’accumulation basé sur l’emploi massif – typique de l’ère fordiste déjà surmontée – donc un retour au «plein emploi» ou au «plein emploi» n’est pas possible, formalité massive et à défaut, ni aux recettes keynésiennes ni au rôle central de l’Etat. L’État, complice de la logique du capital, ne peut, à ce stade, « dans le meilleur des cas », que cibler certaines politiques, qui en plus de devenir des dispositifs de discipline sociale, aboutissent à entretenir et accroître des formes de précarité [ 7].
Mais les choses ne s’arrêtent pas là si l’on suppose que l’économie a pour but le bien-être des sujets, ayant comme moyen le travail et la production de biens et de services pour la satisfaction des besoins vitaux. Dans la logique du capital, et surtout avec une accentuation accrue ces derniers temps, ces termes sont pervertis et la fin d’une vie durable se transforme en un moyen pour une fin différente d’accumulation capitaliste. Cela met sur la table la configuration d’une matrice qui se manifeste avec une visibilité croissante dans le néolibéralisme et qui cristallise la précarité non seulement référencée au travail, mais comme une véritable forme sociale à caractère totalisant et en constante augmentation. Cela constitue également un conflit radical et insoluble entre la durabilité de la vie humaine et écologique et le capitalisme, que certains analystes synthétisent comme un conflit « capital-vie »:
lorsque la vie est un moyen pour atteindre une fin différente, elle est toujours menacée; la tension peut parfois s’atténuer […] mais tôt ou tard viendra un moment de désengagement où l’accumulation se fera non pas en maintenant la vie, mais au prix de sa négation ou de sa destruction [ 8].
L’ensemble de ce processus général connaît un développement étroitement lié en Amérique latine, en tant que région périphérique, bien qu’il comporte des éléments particuliers. Il s’agissait, en principe et pendant plusieurs décennies, de tout un contexte de reconfiguration sociale qui signifiait l’accentuation des inégalités préexistantes et l’émergence de nouveaux écarts politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels, constituant ainsi un scénario caractérisé, d’une part, par la fragmentation et la perte de pouvoir des secteurs populaires, et d’autre part, par la concentration politique et économique dans les élites du pouvoir internationalisé, qui était loin d’être linéaire:
De nombreux changements dans l’ordre économique ont commencé dans les années 1970 [dans la grande majorité des cas, avec des dictatures génocidaires]. Les transformations de la structure sociale ont commencé à devenir visibles dans les années 1980, au cours de la «décennie perdue», qui a culminé avec de forts épisodes d’hyperinflation et ouvert la porte à la mise en œuvre des réformes néolibérales des années 1990 [9].
En même temps:
il faut tenir compte du fait que si le premier moment de la mondialisation néolibérale, dans les années 1990, a été marqué par les privatisations et l’ajustement fiscal, le deuxième moment va de pair avec la généralisation d’un modèle extractif-exportateur visant à consolider et à creuser les écarts sociaux entre les pays du nord et du sud, basés sur le pillage de ressources naturelles de plus en plus rares, la pollution irréversible, l’extension de la monoculture et la perte de biodiversité qui en résulte [10] .
Cela dit, nous ne pouvons manquer de souligner une fois de plus que ceux-ci sont encore des manifestations d’un système mondial et qui a, comme nous l’avons déjà noté, la précarité et l’exclusion comme marque structurelle, posant à la région comme un espace concret où des corps, des vies et des territoires sont sacrifiés à ce stade au nom de la reproduction du capital transnationalisé, en plus de tel ou tel gouvernement se déclarant « progressiste » ou « populaire ».
Face à ce panorama, depuis la fin des années 80 et fondamentalement depuis les années 90, nous assistons à une confluence progressive de différents processus de lutte qui ont pris forme à travers différents moyens et qui ont connu certaines étapes qui ont marqué leur développement. Il est important de noter, à leur tour, que la chute du mur de Berlin en 1989 et l’effondrement de l’URSS en 1991 n’ont pas seulement entraîné l’effondrement des régimes du « socialisme réel », la crise des partis communistes, les socialistes, les syndicats traditionnels et les mouvements de guérilla, notamment en Amérique latine, mais aussi la faillite de tout un paradigme révolutionnaire qui avait imprégné la majeure partie de la gauche tout au long du XXe siècle. C’est que le développement imparable des forces productives amènerait le socialisme et cela, associé à la dynamique de lutte impulsée en particulier par le prolétariat, le seul sujet social doté d’une capacité de transformation – fondamentalement urbain, industriel et destinataire d’une « mission historique à remplir » – la société sans classe. Tout cela approfondit, comme nous l’avons dit, la désorientation et la crise des anciennes formes organisationnelles et méthodologiques, mais permet, de manière dialectique, en ligne avec la logique renouvelée de la domination capitaliste, l’émergence progressive de nouveaux axes de confrontation, ainsi que de nouveaux discours critiques, sujets sociaux et nouvelles formes de construction populaire, déjà en phase avec ce que nous connaissons aujourd’hui comme mouvements sociaux qui en réalité, et pour être exact, dans certains cas, plutôt que « nouveaux », nous devrions parler de formats et de schémas de conflits antagonistes « retravaillés », étant donné que bon nombre de ces initiatives avaient déjà eu un début de conception lors des événements connus sous le nom de Le « Mai français » de 1968, où, entre autres questions, ont pu se faire jour tout un ensemble de points de vue et de perspectives qui, sous le titre exhaustif de « nouvelle gauche », impliquaient même une revalorisation de tout un ensemble de prérogatives – dont nous avons développé beaucoup de points dans la première partie de cet ouvrage – de nature socialiste libertaire qui, pendant une courte période, était entrée dans un cône d’ombre.
En soulignant, maintenant, l’ampleur qu’a eu ces derniers temps sur notre continent le cadre des luttes développées par les mouvements sociaux mentionnés ci-dessus, apparus dans les années 1990, il est essentiel de souligner qu’ils ont eu – et continuent d’avoir – une grande importance. Un rôle plus important et plus global que la simple action de résistance:
Les mouvements sociaux se sont révélés être plus qu’une simple réponse défensive aux changements dans la corrélation des forces sociales et aux fortes transformations de leurs conditions de vie et de reproduction. En réalité, avec toutes leurs complexités et nuances nationales, les mouvements sociaux latino-américains ont développé une dimension plus proactive, qui ouvre la possibilité de réfléchir à de nouvelles alternatives émancipatrices basées sur la défense et la promotion de la vie et de la diversité [12].
Tensions et défis…
En termes généraux, le scénario à partir duquel les organisations et constructions populaires d’aujourd’hui, et en particulier celles conçues à partir d’une matrice libertaire ou génériquement autonome, doivent développer leurs luttes. Il est maintenant nécessaire d’établir quelques défis pour surmonter certains problèmes et tensions que présente le même scénario, afin de pouvoir prescrire quelques clés d’orientation émancipatrice pour les temps actuels.
Nous avons dit plus haut que face au processus de développement critique du capitalisme à ce stade, qui, entre autres problèmes, laisse de plus en plus hors de son orbite la formalité massive du travail, les États – et en particulier dans une grande partie de l’Amérique latine – s’efforcent de « remédier » à cette situation [13] avec toute une batterie de ressources, de programmes et de politiques ciblées, en essayant ainsi de contenir, mais aussi de discipliner, les secteurs populaires touchés par ces conséquences et d’autres conséquences structurelles du développement actuel du capital [14].
En ce qui concerne ce problème, il y a eu – il y a toujours – de nombreux débats dans le domaine des organisations populaires sur la manière d’affronter cette situation, de considérer ou non le conflit sur ces ressources comme un axe de lutte valable et si cela peut s’inscrire dans une perspective autonome de construction étant donné la relation inexorable que celle-ci confère avec l’État et la tendance à l’institutionnalisation qu’elle implique pour le champ d’exercice des organisations et de leurs luttes. Il va sans dire qu’à cet égard, les différentes réalités de chaque espace national ont leur base, mais, si, comme nous l’avons soutenu, ces mesures font encore partie d’un tout, cadre structurel-mondial, certaines réflexions deviennent pertinentes.
Si l’on part du principe que, dans ce contexte, l’éventail des axes de lutte protestataire n’est pas épuisé par les ressources étatiques concentrées, il est également vrai que, de par leurs caractéristiques, ils acquièrent une empreinte extrêmement importante dans les conditions actuelles pour faire face aux luttes pour une amélioration minime des conditions de vie dans le cadre d’un système qui laisse de plus en plus de secteurs de la population hors des circuits formels de travail [15] et donc, aussi, hors des circuits de consommation et de réassurance de leurs conditions de subsistance de base.
Maintenant, le nœud problématique par rapport à la tendance à l’institutionnalisation – qu’il serait plus correct de qualifier de formation de l’État [16] – que cela implique, bien qu’il présente effectivement une menace pour l’autonomie des constructions populaires régies par cette logique, sa configuration ne doit pas nécessairement être prescrite comme absolue. Compte tenu du scénario toujours dynamique des luttes sociales et des relations de pouvoir, le dilemme conditionnant a priori doit être considéré comme faisant partie d’un contexte de relations conflictuelles et de tension permanente où le défi se présente, non seulement dans le conflit sur les demandes d’appropriation organisée des ressources en question, mais aussi dans la lutte politique contre la logique étatique de modelage et d’aliénation.
Une autre question qu’il nous semble important de souligner dans ce cours de tensions et de défis concerne l’ordre du stratégique. Si, comme nous l’avons déjà dit, les organisations populaires autonomes et, en leur sein, fondamentalement celles traversées par une matrice libertaire, se positionnent grosso modo avec un objectif politique général de changement social en termes de résultat populaire orienté vers l’auto-activité, l’autogestion et l’autogestion, pour être cohérent avec ces postulats, il devient essentiel, en tant qu’élément stratégique, que l’on conjugue le renforcement et la consolidation organisationnelle de ces expressions populaires, mais aussi le développement continu de leur propre capacité de force – matérielle et contre-hégémonique – dans l’opposition et la confrontation au pouvoir des classes dominantes. Autrement dit, la construction d’un pouvoir populaire – que l’on pourrait considérer comme autogéré – devient vital. Il faut instituer également des espaces, des territoires, des mécanismes et des relations qui préfigurent et soutiennent le projet d’une société autogérée.
Compte tenu de cette prémisse stratégique et de tout ce que nous avons exposé en termes du processus historique que nous traversons, nous pensons qu’elle doit, à son tour, être complétée par une autre perspective qui se présente aujourd’hui comme essentielle: la multisectoralité. En fait, si depuis quelque temps on ne peut pas parler d’une classe homogène ou d’un secteur populaire spécifique qui représente l’autosuffisance ou une centralité manifeste en termes d’antagonisme et de dépassement du développement des conditions actuelles du capitalisme, car les contradictions sont multiples – économique, social, politique, culturel, environnemental – et social, le sujet de la confrontation se présente alors comme multiple. Une stratégie appropriée impliquerait donc, en ce sens, la possibilité d’articuler ces contradictions et ce sujet multiple dans une projection commune. Cela implique clairement de considérer un horizon de lutte qui tente de dépasser le cadre des revendications spécifiques mais fragmentaires de tel ou tel secteur en particulier, en dessinant une perspective engagée dans leur intégration dans des espaces à caractère multisectoriel.
¿Et sur quel axe pourrait a priori rassembler la diversité des revendications qui traversent l’univers des expressions des luttes populaires? Si, comme nous l’avons dit, dans ce contexte la logique du capital – en crise – non seulement pervertit, mais menace également la subsistance – humaine et écologique – en configurant une matrice de précarité sociale généralisée, cela pourrait être un bon point à considérer comme lien commun compte tenu de la transversalité qu’il implique aux différents secteurs soumis à cette dynamique d’expropriation et de prédation.
Face à la crise civilisationnelle, la contre-proposition ne peut pas être de récupérer la « production » […] mais d’ouvrir deux débats : qu’est-ce qu’une vie qui vaut la peine d’être vécue et comment collectiviser la responsabilité de garantir ses conditions de possibilité […] [17].
Or, face à une telle orientation générale et à partir de la congruence à avoir entre elle et les moyens pour sa réalisation, il nous importe de prescrire que ces moyens à leur tour, dans ce contexte de crise systémique, doivent jouer un rôle de tension dialectique entre les possibilités d’avancées conflictuelles vers un projet de rupture et le blocage du continuum, l’auto-érosion du capitalisme à ce stade. Ce serait un peu ce que proposait Walter Benjamin à propos du « frein d’urgence » pour éviter de se précipiter dans le vide, en promouvant une série de contre-mouvements qui fonctionnent comme des « barrages » à l’opposé de certaines perspectives « accélérationnistes » qui reproduisent et continuent à stimuler la logique du capital à mesure qu’elle continue d’émerger. Et cela pourrait être développé avec des mesures et des revendications qui, entre autres, cherchent à détourner les ressources de la logique du marché et à s’engager dans son expansion et son universalisation, à réduire la journée de travail et à répartir le travail formel qui existe encore, à socialiser et à exposer la production de richesse comme attribut historico-social, miser sur la définanciarisation de l’économie, à la protection de l’environnement… Bref, ils tendent à prioriser et à stimuler la pérennité d’une vie digne en dehors des paramètres de précarité tout en servant de cadre à la recomposition des forces du bas social, laissant place à la reconstitution d’un imaginaire social antagoniste et préparant un horizon de transformation révolutionnaire.
Cette série de mesures, ainsi que d’autres possibles, pensons-nous, n’annulent pas la dynamique historique de la lutte des classes, mais au contraire l’étendent et la complexifient en fonction des exigences du processus historique en cours, et non en étant justifiées a priori. Comme certains diraient, en tant que « simples réformes », elles ne parviennent pas, dans leur ensemble et sur la base de certaines de leurs dimensions, à être considérées comme perturbatrices de la logique capitaliste contemporaine. Pour cette raison, aucune ne peut être prise isolément et comme une fin en soi, mais plutôt comme des mesures ou des instruments qui, interdépendants, sont configurés comme objets de dispute dans un processus dynamique de lutte plus grande, visant à renverser l’état de choses.
Les références:
[1] BAKOUNINE, Mijail. La liberté. Œuvres choisies de Bakounine. Buenos Aires: Éditorial Agebe, 2005.
[2] VERNON, Richard. Malatesta. Pensée et action révolutionnaires. Buenos Aires: Éditorial Utopia Libertaria, 2007.
[3] Dans le cadre de cette grande première expérience de confluence ouvrière telle que l’Association Internationale des Travailleurs, Mijaíl Bakunin a établi; « L’Internationale accepte dans son giron, faisant abstraction absolue de toutes les différences de croyances politiques et religieuses, tous les travailleurs honnêtes, à la seule condition qu’ils acceptent dans toutes ses conséquences la solidarité de la lutte ouvrière contre le capital bourgeois, exploiteur du travail. …». Dans: NETTLAU, Max. La vie de Michel Bakounine. Michael Bakounine, une biographie. Londres: imprimé en privé, 1896-1900.
[4] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. La reconstruction non durable du statu quo: reprise ou confrontation. Dans: Viento Sur Nº176, 6 AOÛT 2021 https://vientosur.info/la-insostenible-reconstruccion-del-business-as-usual-recuperacion-vs-confrontacion/
[5] JAPPE, Anselme. Vers une histoire de la critique de la valeur. Noms, Revista de Filosofía, 2018. https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/NOMBRES/article/view/21237
[6] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. Op Cit.
[7] À tel point que par exemple en Argentine et à travers un rapport récent, il a été confirmé que dans 7 provinces le secteur précaire et informel dépasse en nombre le secteur des travailleurs formels privés, et à la lumière de cela, en plus du euphémisme qui voit habituellement cela comme une « augmentation des emplois », la réponse de l’État, à travers les déclarations d’un responsable du ministère du Développement social, est « c’est pourquoi il est important de formaliser et de développer l’économie populaire » .. Ce que cela montre en réalité, c’est que ce qui a augmenté à pas de géant, c’est le chômage et le travail de subsistance informel et précaire et que l’État est le seul qui promeut ce panorama (en collaboration avec certaines organisations liées à cette idée). cristallisation de cette situation à travers l’allocation éventuelle de ressources (simplement palliatives) pour consolider une modalité précaire de « travail » sous l’orbite de l’État lui-même. Dans: VALES, Laura. Dans 7 provinces, il y a déjà plus de travailleurs dans l’économie populaire que dans le secteur privé. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/365051-en-7-provincias-ya-hay-mas-trabajadores-de-la-economia-popul
[8] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. La durabilité de la vie au centre… Et qu’est-ce que cela signifie? Dans: L’écologie du travail : le travail qui soutient la vie, coord. de Laura Mora Cabello de Alba, Juan Escribano Gutiérrez. Espagne: Bomarzo, 2015.
[9] SVAMPA, Maristella. Changement d’époque. Mouvements sociaux et pouvoir politique -1ère éd. – Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentine, 2008.
[10] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[11] L’une des caractéristiques fondamentales des mouvements sociaux qui se sont constitués au cours des dernières décennies sur la base de la reconfiguration du scénario de luttes dans notre région, se retrouve dans la reformulation du territoire, non plus seulement comme un simple espace de reproduction sociale, mais comme nouveau scénario de lutte et de construction nourri par le pouvoir, la dynamique et la dimension stratégique.
[12] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[13] Non sans recourir – avant et même après – à la répression et à la criminalisation des expressions de protestation contre les conditions générées par les lignes directrices du modèle d’accumulation que les États eux-mêmes soutenaient.
[14] Pour le dire en termes foucaldiens, l’État néolibéral développe le contrôle biopolitique de la population pauvre. Orienté vers une stratégie de maîtrise des conflits sociaux et de la misère, son objectif est d’intégrer les exclus en tant qu’exclus. Dans: SVAMPA, Maristella. Cinq thèses sur la nouvelle matrice populaire. IIGG, Faculté des Sciences Sociales, UBA: novembre 2003. Il convient de noter que si les États sont les plus grands promoteurs de ces politiques, ils ne sont pas les seuls. Des ONG et des organisations multilatérales de différents types ont également développé et continuent de développer ce type de mesures, en les articulant souvent avec les politiques des États.
[15] Sans aucune perspective apparente que cette situation puisse, compte tenu de ses caractéristiques structurelles, être inversée dans un délai considérable au-delà de certaines déclamations démagogiques des politiciens et hommes d’affaires actuels.
[16] Nous comprenons ici la formation de l’État comme l’une des formes possibles d’institutionnalisation les plus spécifiquement associées au processus d’aliénation étatique conduisant à « façonner » des constructions autonomes à l’image et à la ressemblance de la logique étatique et subordonnées à ses propres mécanismes.
[17] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. Crise multidimensionnelle et durabilité de la vie . Enquêtes féministes, ISSN 2171-6080, No. 2, 2011, p. 29-53. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_INFE.2011.v2.38603
constructions populaires autonomes
Diego Naim Saiegh
Institut de Théorie et d'Histoire Anarchiste – ITHA
Introduction
Dans le travail suivant, nous approfondirons certaines implications qui se manifestent aujourd’hui dans la réalisation de processus de construction populaire autonomes – en soulignant ceux qui, en raison de leurs perspectives politiques et méthodologiques, peuvent être inclus dans une matrice libertaire – dans un contexte historique traversé par les marques du chômage structurel, la croissance de la pauvreté et, d’une manière générale, par la précarité de la vie en tant que forme sociale. Nous tenterons de proposer, à travers notre parcours, certains fils d’analyse sur certains problèmes à affronter selon le contexte susmentionné, notamment dans le cadre de nos sociétés périphériques latino-américaines et quelques hypothèses sur les défis à relever pour les surmonter dans une optique émancipatrice.
Maintenant, avant d’aborder les questions soulevées, il nous semble important, ne serait-ce que dans ses grandes lignes, de souligner quelques idées générales sur le lien entre l’anarchisme et les processus d’organisation populaire, ainsi que quelques lignes sur ce que nous entendons par rapport à la construction d’une matrice libertaire.
Une perspective politico-méthodologique de la construction populaire
Si l’anarchisme en tant que courant de praxis révolutionnaire a eu tout au long de son histoire – outre ses différentes tendances – une « raison d’être », celle-ci était principalement donnée par le fait de fournir une base matérielle à la trame de ses postulats avec pour perspective émancipatrice l’organisation et la lutte nécessaires à cet effet de ceux qui sont soumis aux injustices du système de domination capitaliste d’État. Michel Bakounine a dit à ce sujet:
Il est vrai qu’il existe [dans le peuple] une grande force élémentaire, force sans doute supérieure à celle du gouvernement et à celle des classes dirigeantes prises dans leur ensemble, mais sans organisation, la force élémentaire n’est pas une force réelle. C’est cet avantage indéniable de la force organisée sur la force élémentaire du peuple, sur lequel repose le pouvoir de l’État. Le problème n’est donc pas de savoir si [le peuple] peut se révolter, mais s’il est capable de construire une organisation qui lui fournira les moyens d’atteindre une fin victorieuse. Non pas à une victoire fortuite, mais à un triomphe prolongé et définitif [1].
Dans le même esprit, l’Italien Malatesta a déclaré que les classes opprimées et exploitées:
ne pourront jamais s’émanciper tant qu’elles n’auront pas trouvé dans l’union, la force morale, la force économique et la force physique nécessaires pour vaincre la force organisée des oppresseurs [2].
De ces considérations découle donc l’importance stratégique que revêt le développement et la promotion d’organisations populaires capables de conduire et de soutenir ledit processus pour un processus de transformation sociale, constituant ainsi une force sociale articulée capable d’affronter et éventuellement de transcender le pouvoir. Or, cette impulsion vers le rôle principal de l’organisation du social d’en bas doit compter, à partir d’une logique libertaire, avec certains critères et lignes directrices qui se distinguent des autres logiques et qui donnent lieu à sa propre empreinte.
Pour l’instant, nous partons de la conception que les groupes des classes populaires doivent avoir comme première tâche d’action, la lutte pour la conquête des intérêts matériels qui rassemblent leur classe dans le cadre de ses besoins les plus immédiats. Pour cela, l’arc de confluence doit être le plus large possible. Autrement dit, il ne doit pas être traversé a priori par des limitations politiques-idéologiques, religieuses ou autres [3]. Mais cette tâche première d’action ne doit pas être étanche, mais dynamique. Elle doit être combinée de manière dialectique avec une tâche de lutte émancipatrice visant à dépasser les structures du système dominant, cherchant ainsi à construire des «embryons» de pratiques et d’organismes sociaux qui préfigurent une société libre d’exploitation et d’oppression.
L’organisation de la classe est donc dans cette perspective, comme outil d’action et de lutte, mais aussi comme école de participation démocratique et comme bastion de construction de la capacité d’autodétermination populaire, devenant, à son tour, un bastion dans le développement d’une société autogestionnaire; le pouvoir d’en bas, du peuple organisé lui-même. Cette tâche complémentaire élargit le champ de la simple revendication sociale et lui donne une orientation politique claire. La politique en termes de politique de classe autonome et donc de réappropriation également de la sphère politique comme espace d’auto-activité, d’autogestion et d’auto-institution sociale, mais aussi comme école de participation démocratique et comme bastion de construction de la capacité d’autodétermination populaire, devenant, à son tour, un bastion dans le développement d’un pouvoir autogéré d’en bas, à partir du peuple organisé lui-même.
En ces termes, cette perspective, même si elle n’établit pas de lien organique immédiat avec une approche idéologique fermée – prenant en compte, comme indiqué plus haut, l’ampleur nécessaire des confluences pour mener à bien la tâche première de la lutte protestataire – propose, une matrice que, soutenue par certaines prérogatives et lignes de construction politico-méthodologiques, nous pouvons identifier comme libertaire. Des paramètres tels que la lutte et l’action directe sans intermédiaires, la démocratie de base, l’organisation fédérative, l’indépendance de classe, la pratique préfigurative, l’antiparlementarisme, entre autres, nous montrent clairement un profil de construction au sein du peuple que l’anarchisme, en tant que courant, a historiquement porté en avant lorsque s’impliquer dans la lutte des classes, tant depuis les origines du mouvement ouvrier organisé que dans le cadre des luttes que les mouvements sociaux contemporains développent depuis plusieurs décennies jusqu’à nos jours et qui ont influencé – et continuent même d’influencer – différentes organisations populaires qui n’en ressortent pas forcément dynamisées par des militants dudit courant. Dans cette perspective d’organisation et de construction populaires que nous appelons génériquement autonomes, nous allons maintenant tenter d’analyser le panorama actuel sur lequel ces formations doivent développer leurs luttes, ainsi que les problèmes et défis auxquels elles sont confrontées lorsqu’elles y sont confrontées.
Un panorama actuel
À l’heure où nous entrons dans la troisième décennie du XXIe siècle, il ne semble pas nouveau que nous nous trouvions plongés dans une crise profonde qui, de différentes voix, est présentée comme civilisationnelle et aux multiples dimensions. Crise qui s’impose comme systémique, multifocale et mondiale, comme caractéristiques du capitalisme, en plus de certaines manifestations spécifiques aux pays ou aux régions. Un premier point pour aborder sa portée consiste sûrement à visualiser que, depuis quelques décennies et de manière de plus en plus accentuée, le processus d’expansionnisme illimité du capitalisme érode nécessairement ses propres conditions d’existence antérieures.
Alors que la substance du capital est la génération et la régénération de valeur à travers le travail abstrait – vivant mais aliéné – accumulé dans le champ de production avec ses conditions de possibilité dans le champ reproductif et l’environnement naturel. Sa volonté d’augmenter constamment la productivité – de pair avec la compétitivité – l’amène à accorder une importance croissante à la science et à la technologie dans la production. La corrélation et la tendance croissante de celles-ci sont de rendre constamment anachronique ce même processus, basé sur le travail – seul générateur de valeur. Ce faisant, le capitalisme scie la branche sur laquelle il repose: la valorisation de la valeur à travers le travail vivant et l’environnement qui la rend possible.
Bien que – et bien que cela puisse paraître contradictoire avec ce qui précède – aient proliféré ces dernières années une série de « nouveaux emplois », ceux-ci, en raison de leurs caractéristiques – informels, précaires, externalisés, « uberisés », sans droits – non seulement n’ont aucun impact sur la tendance à la dévaluation et à la réduction structurelle du travail formel qui existe encore, mais ils continuent également à être une « fuite en avant » que, avec d’autres dispositifs, le capitalisme mondial développe pour surmonter ses propres limites intrinsèques, mais qui, même s’ils sont efficaces pour réactiver le marché, les profits de certains secteurs ne vont pas générer à court terme, même de loin, un nouveau cycle de prospérité, car les technologies – qui ne produisent pas de valeur – et qui remplacent le travail humain, ne peuvent être éliminées de la production, c’est-à-dire « ils ne reviennent pas ». Ainsi, Il ne s’agit pas d’un « retournement cyclique » classique qui aurait pu se produire à un autre stade, mais plutôt d’une tendance qui s’annonce déjà comme une crise sans retour. En outre, dans ce contexte:
les grandes entreprises tentent de promouvoir un nouveau cycle expansionniste pour protéger leurs bénéfices à court terme. Pour y parvenir, comme cela s’est produit lors des crises précédentes, ils ont renouvelé leur engagement à élargir la frontière commerciale à travers la dynamique d’accumulation par dépossession. De même, dans le cadre de la financiarisation mondiale, ils favorisent la création de nouvelles bulles spéculatives pour retrouver, au moins dans l’immédiat, des niveaux élevés de rentabilité [4].
Ceci, insistons-nous, « fait avancer » mais laisse le problème sous-jacent non résolu, à savoir que même si la quantité de biens et de services peut croître, ensemble et à moyen terme, ils représentent une quantité de plus en plus petite de valeur. De même, l’argent – produit de la spéculation financière – qui circule dans le monde est « fictif » puisqu’il ne représente pas en réalité un travail investi de manière «productive» [5]. Le capitalisme est de plus en plus confronté à ses barrières économiques internes ainsi qu’à ses limitations externes naturelles – écologiques – qui, bien qu’elles présentent un horizon temporel diversifié – et dans ce domaine les luttes sociales jouent un rôle – ne peuvent être stoppées, en même temps de sa propre logique. En bref:
le capitalisme mondial a fait avancer ses contradictions, dans le temps et dans l’espace, mais il se rapproche de plus en plus de ses propres limites. L’instabilité permanente des marchés en raison de l’augmentation de la financiarisation, de l’extension de l’exploitation du travail et des inégalités sociales qui excluent de larges couches de la population de la société de consommation, de la remise en question de la division sexuelle du travail et de la nécessité de repenser la répartition des tâches productives et reproductives, l’épuisement des sources d’énergie et des ressources matérielles nécessaires au métabolisme agro-industriel-urbain-financier, les impacts du modèle économique sur les écosystèmes et le dérèglement climatique, sont autant d’entre eux,[6].
Ce panorama complète une série de définitions à prendre en compte. D’une part, et pour tout ce qui précède, il n’est pas possible de revenir à un modèle d’accumulation basé sur l’emploi massif – typique de l’ère fordiste déjà surmontée – donc un retour au «plein emploi» ou au «plein emploi» n’est pas possible, formalité massive et à défaut, ni aux recettes keynésiennes ni au rôle central de l’Etat. L’État, complice de la logique du capital, ne peut, à ce stade, « dans le meilleur des cas », que cibler certaines politiques, qui en plus de devenir des dispositifs de discipline sociale, aboutissent à entretenir et accroître des formes de précarité [ 7].
Mais les choses ne s’arrêtent pas là si l’on suppose que l’économie a pour but le bien-être des sujets, ayant comme moyen le travail et la production de biens et de services pour la satisfaction des besoins vitaux. Dans la logique du capital, et surtout avec une accentuation accrue ces derniers temps, ces termes sont pervertis et la fin d’une vie durable se transforme en un moyen pour une fin différente d’accumulation capitaliste. Cela met sur la table la configuration d’une matrice qui se manifeste avec une visibilité croissante dans le néolibéralisme et qui cristallise la précarité non seulement référencée au travail, mais comme une véritable forme sociale à caractère totalisant et en constante augmentation. Cela constitue également un conflit radical et insoluble entre la durabilité de la vie humaine et écologique et le capitalisme, que certains analystes synthétisent comme un conflit « capital-vie »:
lorsque la vie est un moyen pour atteindre une fin différente, elle est toujours menacée; la tension peut parfois s’atténuer […] mais tôt ou tard viendra un moment de désengagement où l’accumulation se fera non pas en maintenant la vie, mais au prix de sa négation ou de sa destruction [ 8].
L’ensemble de ce processus général connaît un développement étroitement lié en Amérique latine, en tant que région périphérique, bien qu’il comporte des éléments particuliers. Il s’agissait, en principe et pendant plusieurs décennies, de tout un contexte de reconfiguration sociale qui signifiait l’accentuation des inégalités préexistantes et l’émergence de nouveaux écarts politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels, constituant ainsi un scénario caractérisé, d’une part, par la fragmentation et la perte de pouvoir des secteurs populaires, et d’autre part, par la concentration politique et économique dans les élites du pouvoir internationalisé, qui était loin d’être linéaire:
De nombreux changements dans l’ordre économique ont commencé dans les années 1970 [dans la grande majorité des cas, avec des dictatures génocidaires]. Les transformations de la structure sociale ont commencé à devenir visibles dans les années 1980, au cours de la «décennie perdue», qui a culminé avec de forts épisodes d’hyperinflation et ouvert la porte à la mise en œuvre des réformes néolibérales des années 1990 [9].
En même temps:
il faut tenir compte du fait que si le premier moment de la mondialisation néolibérale, dans les années 1990, a été marqué par les privatisations et l’ajustement fiscal, le deuxième moment va de pair avec la généralisation d’un modèle extractif-exportateur visant à consolider et à creuser les écarts sociaux entre les pays du nord et du sud, basés sur le pillage de ressources naturelles de plus en plus rares, la pollution irréversible, l’extension de la monoculture et la perte de biodiversité qui en résulte [10] .
Cela dit, nous ne pouvons manquer de souligner une fois de plus que ceux-ci sont encore des manifestations d’un système mondial et qui a, comme nous l’avons déjà noté, la précarité et l’exclusion comme marque structurelle, posant à la région comme un espace concret où des corps, des vies et des territoires sont sacrifiés à ce stade au nom de la reproduction du capital transnationalisé, en plus de tel ou tel gouvernement se déclarant « progressiste » ou « populaire ».
Face à ce panorama, depuis la fin des années 80 et fondamentalement depuis les années 90, nous assistons à une confluence progressive de différents processus de lutte qui ont pris forme à travers différents moyens et qui ont connu certaines étapes qui ont marqué leur développement. Il est important de noter, à leur tour, que la chute du mur de Berlin en 1989 et l’effondrement de l’URSS en 1991 n’ont pas seulement entraîné l’effondrement des régimes du « socialisme réel », la crise des partis communistes, les socialistes, les syndicats traditionnels et les mouvements de guérilla, notamment en Amérique latine, mais aussi la faillite de tout un paradigme révolutionnaire qui avait imprégné la majeure partie de la gauche tout au long du XXe siècle. C’est que le développement imparable des forces productives amènerait le socialisme et cela, associé à la dynamique de lutte impulsée en particulier par le prolétariat, le seul sujet social doté d’une capacité de transformation – fondamentalement urbain, industriel et destinataire d’une « mission historique à remplir » – la société sans classe. Tout cela approfondit, comme nous l’avons dit, la désorientation et la crise des anciennes formes organisationnelles et méthodologiques, mais permet, de manière dialectique, en ligne avec la logique renouvelée de la domination capitaliste, l’émergence progressive de nouveaux axes de confrontation, ainsi que de nouveaux discours critiques, sujets sociaux et nouvelles formes de construction populaire, déjà en phase avec ce que nous connaissons aujourd’hui comme mouvements sociaux qui en réalité, et pour être exact, dans certains cas, plutôt que « nouveaux », nous devrions parler de formats et de schémas de conflits antagonistes « retravaillés », étant donné que bon nombre de ces initiatives avaient déjà eu un début de conception lors des événements connus sous le nom de Le « Mai français » de 1968, où, entre autres questions, ont pu se faire jour tout un ensemble de points de vue et de perspectives qui, sous le titre exhaustif de « nouvelle gauche », impliquaient même une revalorisation de tout un ensemble de prérogatives – dont nous avons développé beaucoup de points dans la première partie de cet ouvrage – de nature socialiste libertaire qui, pendant une courte période, était entrée dans un cône d’ombre.
En soulignant, maintenant, l’ampleur qu’a eu ces derniers temps sur notre continent le cadre des luttes développées par les mouvements sociaux mentionnés ci-dessus, apparus dans les années 1990, il est essentiel de souligner qu’ils ont eu – et continuent d’avoir – une grande importance. Un rôle plus important et plus global que la simple action de résistance:
Les mouvements sociaux se sont révélés être plus qu’une simple réponse défensive aux changements dans la corrélation des forces sociales et aux fortes transformations de leurs conditions de vie et de reproduction. En réalité, avec toutes leurs complexités et nuances nationales, les mouvements sociaux latino-américains ont développé une dimension plus proactive, qui ouvre la possibilité de réfléchir à de nouvelles alternatives émancipatrices basées sur la défense et la promotion de la vie et de la diversité [12].
Tensions et défis…
En termes généraux, le scénario à partir duquel les organisations et constructions populaires d’aujourd’hui, et en particulier celles conçues à partir d’une matrice libertaire ou génériquement autonome, doivent développer leurs luttes. Il est maintenant nécessaire d’établir quelques défis pour surmonter certains problèmes et tensions que présente le même scénario, afin de pouvoir prescrire quelques clés d’orientation émancipatrice pour les temps actuels.
Nous avons dit plus haut que face au processus de développement critique du capitalisme à ce stade, qui, entre autres problèmes, laisse de plus en plus hors de son orbite la formalité massive du travail, les États – et en particulier dans une grande partie de l’Amérique latine – s’efforcent de « remédier » à cette situation [13] avec toute une batterie de ressources, de programmes et de politiques ciblées, en essayant ainsi de contenir, mais aussi de discipliner, les secteurs populaires touchés par ces conséquences et d’autres conséquences structurelles du développement actuel du capital [14].
En ce qui concerne ce problème, il y a eu – il y a toujours – de nombreux débats dans le domaine des organisations populaires sur la manière d’affronter cette situation, de considérer ou non le conflit sur ces ressources comme un axe de lutte valable et si cela peut s’inscrire dans une perspective autonome de construction étant donné la relation inexorable que celle-ci confère avec l’État et la tendance à l’institutionnalisation qu’elle implique pour le champ d’exercice des organisations et de leurs luttes. Il va sans dire qu’à cet égard, les différentes réalités de chaque espace national ont leur base, mais, si, comme nous l’avons soutenu, ces mesures font encore partie d’un tout, cadre structurel-mondial, certaines réflexions deviennent pertinentes.
Si l’on part du principe que, dans ce contexte, l’éventail des axes de lutte protestataire n’est pas épuisé par les ressources étatiques concentrées, il est également vrai que, de par leurs caractéristiques, ils acquièrent une empreinte extrêmement importante dans les conditions actuelles pour faire face aux luttes pour une amélioration minime des conditions de vie dans le cadre d’un système qui laisse de plus en plus de secteurs de la population hors des circuits formels de travail [15] et donc, aussi, hors des circuits de consommation et de réassurance de leurs conditions de subsistance de base.
Maintenant, le nœud problématique par rapport à la tendance à l’institutionnalisation – qu’il serait plus correct de qualifier de formation de l’État [16] – que cela implique, bien qu’il présente effectivement une menace pour l’autonomie des constructions populaires régies par cette logique, sa configuration ne doit pas nécessairement être prescrite comme absolue. Compte tenu du scénario toujours dynamique des luttes sociales et des relations de pouvoir, le dilemme conditionnant a priori doit être considéré comme faisant partie d’un contexte de relations conflictuelles et de tension permanente où le défi se présente, non seulement dans le conflit sur les demandes d’appropriation organisée des ressources en question, mais aussi dans la lutte politique contre la logique étatique de modelage et d’aliénation.
Une autre question qu’il nous semble important de souligner dans ce cours de tensions et de défis concerne l’ordre du stratégique. Si, comme nous l’avons déjà dit, les organisations populaires autonomes et, en leur sein, fondamentalement celles traversées par une matrice libertaire, se positionnent grosso modo avec un objectif politique général de changement social en termes de résultat populaire orienté vers l’auto-activité, l’autogestion et l’autogestion, pour être cohérent avec ces postulats, il devient essentiel, en tant qu’élément stratégique, que l’on conjugue le renforcement et la consolidation organisationnelle de ces expressions populaires, mais aussi le développement continu de leur propre capacité de force – matérielle et contre-hégémonique – dans l’opposition et la confrontation au pouvoir des classes dominantes. Autrement dit, la construction d’un pouvoir populaire – que l’on pourrait considérer comme autogéré – devient vital. Il faut instituer également des espaces, des territoires, des mécanismes et des relations qui préfigurent et soutiennent le projet d’une société autogérée.
Compte tenu de cette prémisse stratégique et de tout ce que nous avons exposé en termes du processus historique que nous traversons, nous pensons qu’elle doit, à son tour, être complétée par une autre perspective qui se présente aujourd’hui comme essentielle: la multisectoralité. En fait, si depuis quelque temps on ne peut pas parler d’une classe homogène ou d’un secteur populaire spécifique qui représente l’autosuffisance ou une centralité manifeste en termes d’antagonisme et de dépassement du développement des conditions actuelles du capitalisme, car les contradictions sont multiples – économique, social, politique, culturel, environnemental – et social, le sujet de la confrontation se présente alors comme multiple. Une stratégie appropriée impliquerait donc, en ce sens, la possibilité d’articuler ces contradictions et ce sujet multiple dans une projection commune. Cela implique clairement de considérer un horizon de lutte qui tente de dépasser le cadre des revendications spécifiques mais fragmentaires de tel ou tel secteur en particulier, en dessinant une perspective engagée dans leur intégration dans des espaces à caractère multisectoriel.
¿Et sur quel axe pourrait a priori rassembler la diversité des revendications qui traversent l’univers des expressions des luttes populaires? Si, comme nous l’avons dit, dans ce contexte la logique du capital – en crise – non seulement pervertit, mais menace également la subsistance – humaine et écologique – en configurant une matrice de précarité sociale généralisée, cela pourrait être un bon point à considérer comme lien commun compte tenu de la transversalité qu’il implique aux différents secteurs soumis à cette dynamique d’expropriation et de prédation.
Face à la crise civilisationnelle, la contre-proposition ne peut pas être de récupérer la « production » […] mais d’ouvrir deux débats : qu’est-ce qu’une vie qui vaut la peine d’être vécue et comment collectiviser la responsabilité de garantir ses conditions de possibilité […] [17].
Or, face à une telle orientation générale et à partir de la congruence à avoir entre elle et les moyens pour sa réalisation, il nous importe de prescrire que ces moyens à leur tour, dans ce contexte de crise systémique, doivent jouer un rôle de tension dialectique entre les possibilités d’avancées conflictuelles vers un projet de rupture et le blocage du continuum, l’auto-érosion du capitalisme à ce stade. Ce serait un peu ce que proposait Walter Benjamin à propos du « frein d’urgence » pour éviter de se précipiter dans le vide, en promouvant une série de contre-mouvements qui fonctionnent comme des « barrages » à l’opposé de certaines perspectives « accélérationnistes » qui reproduisent et continuent à stimuler la logique du capital à mesure qu’elle continue d’émerger. Et cela pourrait être développé avec des mesures et des revendications qui, entre autres, cherchent à détourner les ressources de la logique du marché et à s’engager dans son expansion et son universalisation, à réduire la journée de travail et à répartir le travail formel qui existe encore, à socialiser et à exposer la production de richesse comme attribut historico-social, miser sur la définanciarisation de l’économie, à la protection de l’environnement… Bref, ils tendent à prioriser et à stimuler la pérennité d’une vie digne en dehors des paramètres de précarité tout en servant de cadre à la recomposition des forces du bas social, laissant place à la reconstitution d’un imaginaire social antagoniste et préparant un horizon de transformation révolutionnaire.
Cette série de mesures, ainsi que d’autres possibles, pensons-nous, n’annulent pas la dynamique historique de la lutte des classes, mais au contraire l’étendent et la complexifient en fonction des exigences du processus historique en cours, et non en étant justifiées a priori. Comme certains diraient, en tant que « simples réformes », elles ne parviennent pas, dans leur ensemble et sur la base de certaines de leurs dimensions, à être considérées comme perturbatrices de la logique capitaliste contemporaine. Pour cette raison, aucune ne peut être prise isolément et comme une fin en soi, mais plutôt comme des mesures ou des instruments qui, interdépendants, sont configurés comme objets de dispute dans un processus dynamique de lutte plus grande, visant à renverser l’état de choses.
Les références:
[1] BAKOUNINE, Mijail. La liberté. Œuvres choisies de Bakounine. Buenos Aires: Éditorial Agebe, 2005.
[2] VERNON, Richard. Malatesta. Pensée et action révolutionnaires. Buenos Aires: Éditorial Utopia Libertaria, 2007.
[3] Dans le cadre de cette grande première expérience de confluence ouvrière telle que l’Association Internationale des Travailleurs, Mijaíl Bakunin a établi; « L’Internationale accepte dans son giron, faisant abstraction absolue de toutes les différences de croyances politiques et religieuses, tous les travailleurs honnêtes, à la seule condition qu’ils acceptent dans toutes ses conséquences la solidarité de la lutte ouvrière contre le capital bourgeois, exploiteur du travail. …». Dans: NETTLAU, Max. La vie de Michel Bakounine. Michael Bakounine, une biographie. Londres: imprimé en privé, 1896-1900.
[4] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. La reconstruction non durable du statu quo: reprise ou confrontation. Dans: Viento Sur Nº176, 6 AOÛT 2021 https://vientosur.info/la-insostenible-reconstruccion-del-business-as-usual-recuperacion-vs-confrontacion/
[5] JAPPE, Anselme. Vers une histoire de la critique de la valeur. Noms, Revista de Filosofía, 2018. https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/NOMBRES/article/view/21237
[6] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. Op Cit.
[7] À tel point que par exemple en Argentine et à travers un rapport récent, il a été confirmé que dans 7 provinces le secteur précaire et informel dépasse en nombre le secteur des travailleurs formels privés, et à la lumière de cela, en plus du euphémisme qui voit habituellement cela comme une « augmentation des emplois », la réponse de l’État, à travers les déclarations d’un responsable du ministère du Développement social, est « c’est pourquoi il est important de formaliser et de développer l’économie populaire » .. Ce que cela montre en réalité, c’est que ce qui a augmenté à pas de géant, c’est le chômage et le travail de subsistance informel et précaire et que l’État est le seul qui promeut ce panorama (en collaboration avec certaines organisations liées à cette idée). cristallisation de cette situation à travers l’allocation éventuelle de ressources (simplement palliatives) pour consolider une modalité précaire de « travail » sous l’orbite de l’État lui-même. Dans: VALES, Laura. Dans 7 provinces, il y a déjà plus de travailleurs dans l’économie populaire que dans le secteur privé. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/365051-en-7-provincias-ya-hay-mas-trabajadores-de-la-economia-popul
[8] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. La durabilité de la vie au centre… Et qu’est-ce que cela signifie? Dans: L’écologie du travail : le travail qui soutient la vie, coord. de Laura Mora Cabello de Alba, Juan Escribano Gutiérrez. Espagne: Bomarzo, 2015.
[9] SVAMPA, Maristella. Changement d’époque. Mouvements sociaux et pouvoir politique -1ère éd. – Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentine, 2008.
[10] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[11] L’une des caractéristiques fondamentales des mouvements sociaux qui se sont constitués au cours des dernières décennies sur la base de la reconfiguration du scénario de luttes dans notre région, se retrouve dans la reformulation du territoire, non plus seulement comme un simple espace de reproduction sociale, mais comme nouveau scénario de lutte et de construction nourri par le pouvoir, la dynamique et la dimension stratégique.
[12] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[13] Non sans recourir – avant et même après – à la répression et à la criminalisation des expressions de protestation contre les conditions générées par les lignes directrices du modèle d’accumulation que les États eux-mêmes soutenaient.
[14] Pour le dire en termes foucaldiens, l’État néolibéral développe le contrôle biopolitique de la population pauvre. Orienté vers une stratégie de maîtrise des conflits sociaux et de la misère, son objectif est d’intégrer les exclus en tant qu’exclus. Dans: SVAMPA, Maristella. Cinq thèses sur la nouvelle matrice populaire. IIGG, Faculté des Sciences Sociales, UBA: novembre 2003. Il convient de noter que si les États sont les plus grands promoteurs de ces politiques, ils ne sont pas les seuls. Des ONG et des organisations multilatérales de différents types ont également développé et continuent de développer ce type de mesures, en les articulant souvent avec les politiques des États.
[15] Sans aucune perspective apparente que cette situation puisse, compte tenu de ses caractéristiques structurelles, être inversée dans un délai considérable au-delà de certaines déclamations démagogiques des politiciens et hommes d’affaires actuels.
[16] Nous comprenons ici la formation de l’État comme l’une des formes possibles d’institutionnalisation les plus spécifiquement associées au processus d’aliénation étatique conduisant à « façonner » des constructions autonomes à l’image et à la ressemblance de la logique étatique et subordonnées à ses propres mécanismes.
[17] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. Crise multidimensionnelle et durabilité de la vie . Enquêtes féministes, ISSN 2171-6080, No. 2, 2011, p. 29-53. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_INFE.2011.v2.38603
Anarkismo.net: 20 Years of Networking
Miguel G. Gómez (@BlackSpartak)
Alternative unionism and the first contact
The first "black thread" in our entire history. In the 1990s, several anarcho-communist organizations existed: Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL, Switzerland), OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire (France),[1] Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchistici (FdCA, Italy),[2] Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU),[3] among others. They had been operating since the previous decade and maintained contact with each other.
Of this series of organizations, it is worth highlighting French anarcho-communism, which emerged in the 1950s. At that time, it featured the Libertarian Communist Federation and prominent theorists such as Georges Fontenis and later Daniel Guérin, as well as organizations such as the Moviment Communiste Libertaire, the Organisation Revolutionaire Anarchiste and the Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL). Organizations and journals of this movement had emerged over time, reaching the 1990s with great prestige in the European anarchist movement. Similarly, we can highlight Swiss and Italian anarcho-communism, which ran parallel, but without the same strength as their French counterpart.
In Latin America, the Uruguayan FAU was the most prominent organization due to its revolutionary trajectory and its resistance to the dictatorship. We again find an organization born in the 1950s, which achieved great importance in the 1960s and 1970s. After a few years of being swept away by repression, it managed to reorganize itself in the mid-1980s. Not only that, but due to its political work, it influenced other Latin American groups, as we will see later.
Returning to the main story, in the early 1990s, European organizations also had militants in the so-called "alternative unionism," some holding organizational positions. Therefore, some militants had the opportunity to meet each other personally through alternative union meetings. One of those militants in Spain was José María Olaizola. Throughout the 1990s, he served as Secretary of International Relations for the CGT-E and, between 1993 and 2001, as its Secretary General. At that time, the CGT's goal was to build an international. In his own words: [4]
In specific organizations, it is necessary to differentiate between the political and social or union components (often referred to as "fronts"). In the case of trade unionism, specific militants acted through social or union fronts and, because they were strong militants, they often obtained organizational positions in the unions in which they participated.
The first meeting of alternative unionism was organized in Barcelona by the CGT-E in November 1991. From that moment on, contacts developed with the French SUD-Solidaires union,[5] Unicobas Italy,[6] the Swedish SAC,[7] and other grassroots unions, all of them quite small.
In 1995, an international libertarian meeting was held in Ruesta, a town in Aragon ceded to the CGT-E. French, Italian, Swiss, Polish, and other anarchist militants attended. Ruesta was important for establishing personal ties internationally.
Ruesta saw significant participation from members of Alternative Libertaire and OSL (Switzerland), perhaps because they viewed it as the French organization's summer camp. In smaller numbers also attended a few members from the FdCA, the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon; its name in Arabic means Libertarian Alternative), and the Polish Anarchist Federation.[10] Regarding trade unionism, the majority of participants were from the CGT and SUD, although there were also people from Solidaridad Obrera (Spain) and SAC (Sweden).
From then on, these organisations and their delegates met at other international events such as the European marches against unemployment, counter-summits and alter-globalisation protests, such as those in Nice (2000), Barcelona (2001) or Genoa (2001), as well as at other meetings promoted by alternative trade unionism – that is, CGT-E, SUD-Solidaires, Unicobas, SAC, Solidaridad Obrera… – where they formed libertarian blocks. Olaizola continues:
The Uruguayans add that these contacts were not at all casual. Many of the trips abroad were organic: they were decided by the organization. “If personal trips were appropriate, connections were sought more organically rather than spontaneously.”[11] Some of these trips could last months, turning into long stays for political exchange.
On May 1, 2000, the French CNT (also known as “Vignoles”) organized the “Un Autre Futur” days. The events were supported by Alternative Libertaire and the Federation Anarchiste and served to unite French anarchism. Some 6,000 people attended the demonstration behind the CNT banner, a near-historical milestone.
But those events also served as a meeting point for libertarian syndicalist organizations: CNT-F, SAC, Unicobas, Industrial Workers of the World, FAU (Germany), RKAS (Ukraine), Democratic Confederation of Labor (Morocco) and SKT (Siberia)[12] and other countries.[13] And again, they were also a place of socialization for French, Italian, and Irish anarcho-communist militants.
In all these cases, when we talk about making contact at the political level, it's not just a matter of coincidentally meeting at an event or exchanging messages online. In many cases, it was about traveling to a place, living together, and establishing personal connections, absorbing what was happening there and debating—especially debating—and learning to transfer it back to one's place of origin... and then debating again. Personal connections were central to this entire process.
Platformism on the Internet
The second "black thread" is related to the greater connectivity provided by technology. At the dawn of the internet, several anarchist-leaning websites emerged: A-infos, Infoshop, Spunk, and a few others, which emerged in the 1990s. One of those websites was that of the Irish platformist organization Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM) [14]. In just a few years, hundreds of classic texts on the history of anarchism and the anarcho-communist or platformist movement and theory were uploaded to the internet. This movement gained a significant following around the world. Later, they redesigned the website and put it online under the domain struggle.ws, leaving the WSM website for texts related to the organization itself. This dissemination and training work would soon bear fruit with the creation of a South African organization, the Workers Solidarity Front (WSF), inspired by its Irish sister organization.
Shortly before 2000, both organizations (or members of both) created the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list. In their presentation, they clearly identified the type of members they were addressing:[15]
The mailing list's opening document bears a strong resemblance to the one that would later be published by anarkismo.net. It is typical for political organizations to issue a "points of unity" document or a "mission statement" that explains the organization's basic policies.
We can also see that they considered their references to be the 1926 Platform of the Delo Truda group; the Friends of Durruti of the Spanish Revolution; and the Manifesto written by Georges Fontenis in 1953. These three texts emphasize the need for a powerful, specific anarchist organization that will articulate the anarchist militancy that intervenes in mass organizations. Ultimately, these social organizations are the ones that will bring the Social Revolution. These are the same texts that FdCA claimed on its 30th anniversary, celebrated in 2016. [16]
The South African ZACF (also known as Zabalaza) [17] (created shortly after the dissolution of the WSF) was also inspired by the same texts, which it considered its fundamental references. Years later, it would add to the list the text "Social Anarchism and Organization," published by the Brazilian organization FARJ after its first congress in 2008. [18]
The mailing list, as we can see, brought together activists from all over the world, although predominantly from the English-speaking world. The list was used to convene an in-person meeting of platformist organizations held in Genoa in 2001, during the alterglobalization counter-summit, at the initiative of the Italian organization. [19]
We should add that in April 2001, the summit of heads of state of the countries of the American continent was held in Quebec, Canada. For the occasion, an "International Declaration of Libertarian Communists" was published, which attacked capitalist globalization and concluded its statement by calling for the construction of a libertarian socialist society. Among the signatories were several platformist organizations (NEFAC, WSM, ORA-S Czech Republic, OCL-France, OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire of France and its Lebanese counterpart) along with anarcho-syndicalist organizations from the IWA and specific synthesis organizations. This was an exception, as these currents would rarely come together again. [20]
International Libertarian Solidarity
As we have seen previously, some activists had in mind the creation of an alternative syndicalist international and a libertarian international. The definitive and stable connection between Europe and Latin America occurred around 1994, although contacts had existed before then. The Spanish-Swiss Arístides Pedraza was one of those links and put Juan Carlos Mechoso in touch with the Barcelona militants.[21] From then on, a very good relationship was established. The Spanish, French, and Swiss activists paid for their Latin American comrades' travels, organized talks, press conferences, and meetings. In this way, within the CGT-E, they met "Juan Carlos and Juan Pilo from the FAU, the Brazilians Eduardo, "el Bocha," "el Gaucho," and Verónica from the Argentine OSL. At that time, we helped cover the costs of three ‘ateneos’ in Uruguay, Cerro, Colón, and Acacias." (Olaizola) [22]
The formalization of this network of contacts and organizations would give rise to International Libertarian Solidarity (SIL). This may be our third thread. It was driven by diverse organizations with libertarian communist and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, while other groups had a less politically defined social anarchism. [23] Its first meeting was held in Madrid on April 1, 2001, at the initiative of the CGT-E.[24] The founding text was written by Juan Carlos Mechoso (Montevideo), Pepe García Rey, alias "Ramón Germinal" (Granada), and Paco Marcellán (Madrid): [25]
Regarding the list of organizations, we have the OSL (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon), FAU (Uruguay), the Gaucha Anarchist Federation (FAG, Brazil),[27] the ORA-Solidarita of the Czech Republic,[28] all of them anarcho-communist tendencies, and also the French anti-fascist network No Pasarán, the Magonista[29] organization, CIPO-RFM (Mexico)[30], and the anarcho-syndicalist organizations CGT-E, SAC (Sweden), Unicobas (Italy) and CNT-F (Vignoles, France). The latter participated just in the first meeting, but withdrew from the SIL network. Meanwhile, FdCA (Italy), ZACF (South Africa)[31], AUCA (Argentina)[32], NEFAC (North America)[33], and the newly created Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo (Spain) soon joined the network. This attempt at a specific organization in Spain didn't achieve much success.
A couple more international meetings were held in the following years. Their context was that of the resistance movement against capitalist globalization, which in Europe was characterized by counter-summits against meetings of the big Capital (such as those of the World Bank, the G8, or the European Union), which were accompanied by mass protests.
Thanks to their existence, several projects were funded, such as the "Aragón" printing press and an athenaeum in Uruguay, a community center, a cooperative, and a printing press in Brazil, a local office in Cuba, and support for the newspaper of the Argentine NGO. The most important thing is that the SIL brought together various European and Latin American activists, funded trips, published books, published newspapers, funded public events for the organizations, and much more.
As we can imagine, these contacts led to many joint workshops, conferences, debates, and interviews between several of these particular activists that continued well into the 2010s.[34]
However, this initiative of internationalist solidarity didn't last long either. The SIL was created during the period of decline in the alterglobalization movement. Furthermore, the CGT (Spain) changed its secretariat, and these contacts were no longer developed.
ELAOPA, the Porto Alegre Anarchist Conference, and the first CALA
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we find the fourth thread of international construction. Meetings between the FAU, the Brazilian FAG, and Argentine groups had been common in the 1990s. This work had borne fruit, as by the beginning of the new century, other groups of this movement already existed in other countries. Now it was time to articulate them.
On the national level, on the one hand, Brazilian groups and organizations created the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), established in 2002. It was a space for ideological, theoretical, and strategic debate, taking the scale of the event to a new level in Brazil. On the other hand, similar processes had taken place in Chile (1999), with the Anarcho-Communist Unification Congress (CUAC). Not exactly from the CUAC, but certainly influenced by that process, the Chilean Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) was created in 2002.[35]
Within the framework of the World Social Forum (WSF), held in Porto Alegre in 2003, the so-called Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) emerged.[36] The meeting proposed a space separate from the WSF, which was comprised of NGOs, political parties, and even business initiatives. The radical sector of popular movements called for class autonomy and the creation of an alliance of social movements outside of institutions. ELAOPA had the following principles:
1. The Construction of Popular Power.
2. An Anti-patriarchal and Anti-colonial Perspective.
3. Popular Protagonism and Direct Action.
4. Class Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and Internationalism.
In subsequent events, ELAOPA disassociated itself from the WSF and moved to another city, holding meetings approximately every two years. In 2025, the 15th meeting was held in Santiago, Chile, with more than 400 people representing numerous grassroots organizations.[37]
ELAOPA is a meeting of social and popular organizations, and rarely do any of them claim to be libertarian; at most, they claim to be "autonomous," "classist," "popular," or claim to have "libertarian influences." However, the militancy of so-called "anarquismo especifista" was present in many of those organizations. We are talking about the unionist, social and neighborhood militancy of the aforementioned FAU, FAG, and others, who were active in these popular movements and took advantage of the ELAOPA meetings to meet as well.
With ELAOPA, an opportunity arose for face-to-face encounters among libertarian militancy. Therefore, a separate event was created, typically held the day after the Popular Meeting ended: the Jornadas Anarquistas (Anarchist Days). They were (and are) a space not only for propaganda or libertarian culture, but also for strategic debate focused on intervention in social struggles and the promotion of the movement.[38]
The efforts were very successful. By the 2007-2008 period, several new libertarian communist organizations had been created, some with the aim of being national in scope:
Along with this array of groups, naturally, larger-scale initiatives for coordination also emerged. The largest attempt of the era was the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA), created in 2004 by the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil), AUCA (Argentina), Lucha Libertaria, and UNIPA (Brazil).[40] However, this UNIPA broke with the current to create its own political space, "Bakuninism," prioritizing alliances with the Libertarian Communist Alliance (ALC) of Mexico and the Anarchist Revolutionary Organization (ORA) of Argentina. Later, the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FOR) of Brazil was added to CALA. This first CALA lasted only a few years.
CALA adhered to especifist anarchism. They defended a strategy of democratic and disruptive popular power, but they never attempted to define the characteristics of a post-revolutionary society. They understood especifism as anarchist political organization. Therefore, they differed from platformism only in their particular Latin American anarchist tradition and the time in which both proposals emerged. Consequently, their vocation is identical, despite some distinctive developments.
The Creation of the anarkismo.net Website
As we have seen before, the SIL had already managed to connect some 11 anarcho-communist organizations, with another 3 that did not define themselves as such, but, with a little political work, could have adopt it without much difficulty. The disappearance of the SIL network left an organizational void that anarkismo.net would fill.
In the words of José Antonio Gutiérrez:[41]
Militants such as Nestor McNab (Irishman living in Rome), Paul Bowman, Andrew Flood, and Ian McKay (Ireland), Jonathan Payn (South Africa), Dimitris Troaditis (first in Athens and later in Melbourne), Adam Weaver (Miami), Nicolas Phoebus (Quebec), Wayne Price (New York) and the Chilean José Antonio Gutierrez, among others, were key figures in the political, technical, and editorial development of the new portal. They had met through the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list and other in-person meetings. They had read each other's articles and disseminated or translated them in their respective territories and languages.
Among the founding organizations of anarkismo.net were the aforementioned FAU, FAG, FdCA, and Alternative Libertaire (France). Not all of them joined at the same time, but some had been in contact from the beginning but took some time to decide (for example, FAU and OSL). Together with the organizations to which the aforementioned comrades belonged, the foundations were laid for a project that made possible the international articulation of the entire anarcho-communist or platformist movement.[42]
By then, in the first half of the 2000s, several new organizations already existed with some relevance to the libertarian communist movement. To name a few: NEFAC (Northwestern United States and Eastern Canada), CUAC and OCL (Chile), OSL and FACA (Argentina), in addition to the already well-known ZACF (South Africa), Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), and WSM (Ireland).
As we can see, the anarchist groups were predominantly male, and therefore, practically all the international delegates were men. Women attended the meetings most often when the delegations from their organizations were composed of several people.
It is equally important to mention that the roles played by the organizations' militancy in the international meetings were made possible thanks to the work of numerous comrades who, in one way or another, influenced the development and dynamism of their organizations. This occurred in multiple ways: creating theoretical, strategic, or debate contributions; meeting in different settings; disseminating experiences; or contributing to strengthening ties. Each person contributed their own grain of sand.
The movement framed within anarcho-communism understood that anarchism, if it wanted to have any relevance, should be well organized and, of course, take seriously its participation in collective struggles, seeking to empower them, and politically and strategically coordinating all the libertarian people within it.
Each organization had its own website and journals from which they projected their strategy. The most widely distributed were the monthly magazines Alternative Libertaire and Courant Alternatif [44] in France, and Alternativa Libertaria in Italy, which dated back to the 1970s and already had a readership.
On the internet, in addition to anarkismo.net, the most prolific anarcho-communist sites were the British website libcom.org, which published dozens of biographies related to Makhnovism, usually written by Nick Heath [45]; Nestor McNab's website nestormakhno.info; makhno.ru, in Russian; the Anarchist and the Platformist Tradition website[46]; and A-Infos itself, whose editorial team included the Israeli anarchist Ilan Shalif, a staunch anarcho-communist. [47] These websites contributed to spreading the movement, as struggle.ws and zabalaza.net had done before them.
A Coordination, Not an International
Anarkismo.net did not aspire to be an international, but rather a tool for sharing information about local struggles, theory, and strategies. It operated through a Collective of Delegates and an Editorial Collective, with the former taking on a political role and the latter a technical one.
Some preferred a more defined structure—moving towards an International—like Alternative Libertaire, while others preferred to maintain it as an open space. Despite this difference, some solidarity campaigns were carried out, such as the one in support of the Oaxaca uprising (2005-06).
Over the years, this movement grew stronger in Latin America, especially in Chile (OCL, FEL), Argentina (Joaquín Penina Libertarian Column [48], Red Libertaria, and Brazil (FARJ), where numerous groups, websites, and blogs emerged. And its way of interpreting anarcho-communism, called "specificism," became consolidated. Several Brazilian authors, such as Bruno Lima, Rafael Viana, and Felipe Correa, who founded the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA) along with South Africans Lucien van der Walt, Michael Schmidt and Jonathan Payn, contributed to this. Other activists, such as the aforementioned Dimitris Troaditis and the Argentine Emilio Crisi, among others, also contributed to this. The ITHA has almost served as a think tank for academic texts within the movement.
Correa defined especifismo as:[50]
In Latin America, this movement launched initiatives and trends within labor unions, as well as within the student and neighborhood movements, such as the FEL (libertarian student fronts, present in several countries, although initially emerged in Chile), Resistência Popular in Brazil, and the Federation of Base Organizations (FOB) in Argentina, among others.
To avoid referring to specificism or platformism, which are difficult for the general public to understand, the movement preferred to use the concept of organized anarchism. Elsewhere, the term "social and organized anarchism" was used to further narrow its target audience.
Anarcho-communist groups also emerged elsewhere in the world, most notably in Russia (Autonomous Action [51] – and also in its sphere of influence: Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Israel), Ukraine (RKAS-Makhno), Turkey (AKI, KaraKizil, Liberter), Australia (MAGC)[52], Greece (Western Greece Anarchist Federation), and with influence in other territories. In the former cases, anarcho-communism was mixed with insurrectionalism, while in the latter, their paths were distinct.
In November 2008, the first G20 summit was held in Washington. For this occasion, the "Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting" was issued. It was the beginning of the crisis. The real estate and financial bubbles had burst a few months earlier, and there was talk of collapse. States had to bail out banks to avoid further damage. Eleven organizations signed the declaration. Several organizations already mentioned on other occasions signed the agreement. The new ones were Common Cause (Ontario, Canada), Union Communiste Libertaire (Quebec, Canada), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Liberty & Solidarity (L&S, Great Britain) [53] and two synthesis organizations: the Asociación Obrera Canaria and the Anarchist Federation of Berlin. [54]
Sometime later, in February 2010, six organizations from the current met in Paris: the FdCA (Italy), L&S (Great Britain)[53], WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Motmakt ("Counterpower", Norway), and Alternative libertaire (France). Their objective was to assess the state of the libertarian communist movement in Europe and promote continental coordination. They created working groups to maintain relations and advance coordination.[55]
The Maturity of the Network
Around the period 2010-2013, the various groups and organizations that claimed to be anarcho-communists and that were already in mutual contact, as we have seen, consolidated the network. It was then that the Anarkismo Editorial Collective was stabilized, which, as we have already seen, was composed of a delegate from each of the organizations. Here is a table showing the organizations that comprised Anarkismo in 2010 and 2015:
2010
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Buffalo Class Action (USA)
Chasqui Anarquista (Ecuador)
Colectivo Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Common Action (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Convergencia Juvenil Clasista "Hijos del Pueblo" (Ecuador)
Estrategia Libertaria (Chile)
Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Foro del Anarquismo Organizado (Brazil)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Four Star Anarchist Organization (USA)
"Hombre y Sociedad" (Chile)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Liberty & Solidarity (UK)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Miami Autonomy & Solidarity (USA)
Motmakt (Norway)
North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA)
Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Voz Negra (Chile)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia)
Solidarity & Defense (USA)
Union Communiste Libertaire (Canada)
Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
2015
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (Italy)
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Coordination des Groupes Anarchistes (France)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazil)
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
Grupo Anarquista Bifurcación (Colombia)
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre (Colombia)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Libertäre Aktion Winterthur (Switzerland)
Libertarian Communist Group / Grwp Gomiwnyddol Libertaraidd (Wales/Cymru)
Libertære Socialister (Denmark)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Motmakt (Norway)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Organização Anarquista Socialismo Libertário (Brazil)
Organización Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Prairie Struggle Organization (Canada)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
In this list, we can already see the disappearance of NEFAC from North America, which was reduced to a few groups in New England (Buffalo and New York) and Canada (e.g., Common Cause and UCL). Eventually, in 2014, the US groups created a federation, Black Rose. [56] We can also see the founding, in 2012, of the Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazilian Anarchist Coordination), based on pre-existing groups (such as FAG, FARJ, OASL, CAZP, and others) [57] that were organized around the FAO forum and already belonged to the Anarkismo network.
The remaining organizations continued the libertarian communist or anarcho-communist tradition dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, such as Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), OSL (Switzerland, joined Anarkismo in 2010), the FAU (Uruguay) and WSM (Ireland).
The French CGA was a split from the Francophone Anarchist Federation following its call to support Jacques Chirac in the presidential elections to prevent Le Pen from winning. Over time, the CGA shifted towards anarcho-communism and eventually merged with Alternative Libertaire in 2019, creating the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL), which is currently the largest organization of its kind in the world.
Each organization has its own history, and it would take too long to describe them all here. What is obvious is that this movement was articulated on a global scale and was able to take advantage of the rise of radicalism that swept the planet in 2011, in the same way that the SIL developed during the alterglobalization movement.
2011 saw the Arab Spring, the Indignados movement, and the square occupations. It was also the moment when a new generation entered activism. The Rojava Revolution emerged with force. Anarcho-communist organizations emerged in Egypt (the Libertarian Socialist Movement, MSL), Israel (Unity), and Tunisia, which had only existed for a short time, as well as new attempts in Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan.
That year, a statement of solidarity was issued with 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. It was signed by 11 libertarian communist organizations. [58] That same year, the declaration of solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, whose people had just overthrown the Mubarak regime, was signed. [59] This time, 23 organizations signed. New initiatives included organizations from Egypt (MSL), Colombia (Vía Libre and CELIP), Chile (Libertarian Communist Federation and the magazine "Política y Sociedad"), and the United States (Autonomy and Solidarity of Miami). A number of anarcho-syndicalist groups, such as the CGT-E, Solidaridad Obrera, WSA (United States), and the ICEA (Spain), also signed the agreement. [60]
Once again, the Anarkismo network declined to formalize itself as a more solid structure—as an international federation—to avoid falling into rivalries and competition with the other libertarian internationals, the IWA and IFA at the time. However, it is undeniable that it was functioning in a fairly coordinated manner.
In 2012, eight European organizations met again in London. [61] In addition to talking about improving coordination, they launched a campaign against sovereign debt. That same year, Jornadas Anarquistas were held in Sao Paulo, convened by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and the Forum of Organized Anarchism of Brazil (FAO) [62] to develop especifist anarchism on the continent. On that occasion, they approved strategic documents around the concepts of popular power and federalism.
It was from then on that the anarchist movement would more decisively adopt this theoretical conception, more typical of the development of the class struggle in Latin America, and it would soon also reach Europe through Embat (Catalonia) and Libertäre Aktion (Bern).
In August 2012, the largest in-person meeting of the movement took place: in Saint Imier (Switzerland). Taking advantage of the International Anarchist Meeting, a tent called "Anarkismo" was set up as a meeting point for the movement's international militants and sympathizers. Approximately half of the 30 organizations that were in contact with anarkismo.net at the time sent delegates to the International Meeting, and a conference of delegates was held. The enormous growth of this movement in Latin America was evident, and a significant development was seen since the beginning of the website.
As a positive measure: Swiss and French synthesist and platformist organizations, which did not always enjoy good relations, collaborated in the preparation of the Meeting. But not everyone was under the same illusions. The organizational problems were numerous, and what the Meeting lacked most was precisely programmatic clarity:
In 2014, a joint May Day communiqué was signed by several organizations: [66] ZACF (South Africa), WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Collectife Communiste Libertaire (Bienne, Switzerland), FdCA (Italy), WSA (United States), Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia), and Prairie Struggle (United States). Months later, 14 organizations from the movement signed another communiqué in support of the Kurdish resistance. [67] This was the last joint communiqué of this era.
On November 18 and 19, 2017, several European organizations met in Genoa to exchange analyses and establish a European action plan. The Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (the new name of the veteran Italian organization), Alternative Libertaire (France), CGA (France), the Libertarian Socialist Federation (Wales, Great Britain), OSL (Switzerland), and WSM (Ireland) met.[68] Embat (Catalonia) sent his greetings to the meeting, and from then on, he became much more closely involved with this movement.
By 2020, the Union Communiste Libertaire of France was doing an extensive mapping of the movement:[69]
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?reseau-international-8794
Over the years, a tradition developed of sending greetings to each organization of the current that held a congress. This helped to forge an international movement and made all activists aware that they belonged to a movement much larger than their own organization or local context. [70]
Time Ebb
It wasn't all good news for the movement. In addition to the thorny Chilean issue, which we will soon discuss, between 2018 and 2021, WSM [71] and Zabalaza dissolved, as did other local and regional groups in North America, due to a failure to achieve generational change. Furthermore, other organizations also entered into crisis, without dissolving, such as Motmakt (Norway),[72] with whom contact was lost. Several European organizations disappeared (in Denmark, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Turkey) or their movements were unable to achieve stability (Great Britain or Russia). In the Americas, organizations in Bolivia and Peru were lost, and there were splits in Argentina, Chile, and the United States.
Another split during this period was that suffered by the Anarchist Federation (Great Britain). This organization, created in 1986 as an anarcho-communist, had long been a synthetist federation. In 2018, there was an internal conflict in AF, and a sector emerged from it that would form the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG),[73] already with a marked libertarian communist tendency. The ACG succeeded British platformist organizations that never managed to take root, such as L&S or the LSF. Even so, several anarcho-communist groups remained that have not yet considered joining the ACG.
The causes of these crises are diverse. For example, various social and political situations arose in several states that made it impossible to cultivate international relations. These relations were also interrupted in the event of internal crises and ruptures within the organizations. Another problem for maintaining stable international relations was the rapid change of delegates, with several organizations having delegates who did not speak English, while other comrades who had managed these relations moved on to other functions within their organizations. FdCA fared worse, as in just four months of 2018, they lost Donato Romito and Monia Andreani to pass away. In other cases, a more internal approach was prioritized, improving integration at the social and territorial levels, but relegating the international arena to a secondary level. Finally, the case of Michael Schmidt and his expulsion from anarkismo.net and ITHA was not without damage. [74]
The Chilean Case
At this point, we should talk about the movement in Chile. Its origins date back to 1999, with the celebration of the CUAC, initiating a process that would later give rise to the OCL in 2002. The following year, a Libertarian Student Front (FEL) was launched, and in 2006, following the so-called "Penguin Revolt" (high school students), the FEL grew exponentially. It managed to attract numerous activists, and when that generation of students went to university, they came to lead the student movement, usually controlled by communists and autonomists. Activists such as Felipe Ramírez, Fabián Araneda, and Melissa Sepúlveda held important elected positions in the Chilean Student Federation (FECH, which is unitary and semi-institutional), which at the time was one of the most powerful popular movements in Chile. Among their most notable initiatives was their highly colorful and recognizable graphic style, which was copied and adapted by many collectives elsewhere. They filled Chile with murals through their Ernesto Miranda muralist units. [75]
Some time later, this entire political space merged into the Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left). This new organization adopted strategic lines different from the libertarian communist magma that had driven the movement up to that point, shifting toward a much less defined libertarian socialism, more in line with libertarian Marxism. At the same time, they achieved a scale never seen before for a libertarian organization in recent decades, rivaling other political parties and organizations much more established in the Chilean scene.
Chilean libertarian communist sectors began supporting leftist electoral options in 2013. At first, they did so tactically, without intervening in the campaigns, but calling for a vote for a democratic rupture to overthrow the reactionary democratic regime that ruled the country. Later, in the 2018 electoral process, the Izquierda Libertaria the Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which was running in the parliamentary elections. Due to its participation, libertarian activist Gael Yeomans was elected as a deputy.[77] Since then, the Izquierda Libertaria has had more regional and national deputies, as well as senators. These efforts culminated in a progressive government in the country led by Gabriel Boric, a former autonomist student leader from the same era as the FEL. However, this has not produced the expected radicalization of society to build revolutionary alternatives in a socialist sense through popular power and constituent power. Chile continues to be a capitalist state—of a progressive nature, admittedly—without the slightest hint of socializing policies.
As can be seen, the Izquierda Libertaria [78] had abandoned traditional libertarian communist postulates and was pointed out by rivals and opponents of the anarchist communist current within anarchism as a logical derivation of all especifist anarchism. For this reason, and for other reasons as well, it suffered some splits,[79] such as Solidaridad FCL,[80] some of which in turn followed the parliamentary path, resulting in further splits.
At the Latin American level, the especifist movement distanced itself from all these Chilean groups until the Santiago Anarchist Federation (FAS)[81] emerged in 2019, once again aligned with the rest of the international movement. This FAS, therefore, emerges as a break with the imprint taken by Chilean libertarian communism, returning to Latin American especifism.
From Network to Coordination
Between 2015 and 2019, the movement experienced a setback caused by issues we have already seen, causing divisions in some organizations within the movement, hindering understanding, fostering disorientation, or directly leading to the dissolution of some organizations and the destruction of entire movements, as we have seen.
Not everything was disappointing, of course. While a national British organization (the ACG) had emerged in 2018, in 2019 Die Plattform was founded in Germany, the largest European state that until then had lacked organizations of the movement.
At the 2019 Jornadas Anarquistas, Latin American organizations spoke of the need to relaunch the movement.[82] At this time, they championed especifism, or, in other words, politically organized anarchism, and sought to consolidate it in all regions. Their communiqué defined the role of the anarchist political organization, which should be responsible for developing the theory and analytical tools to understand reality and better operate within it. They emphasized the internal political work of each organization to avoid confusion and dead ends.
As a result of this initiative, the foundations for new international work began to be laid. In December 2019, the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) was re-established, formed by the CAB (Brazil),[84] the FAR (Argentina),[85] and the FAU (Uruguay). These organizations served as a focal point for the entire movement and took over from the European organizations, which had been leading the way until then.
With CALA, the entire international libertarian communist movement was extraordinarily energized, starting with the notable efforts of Nathaniel Clavijo (Uruguay), who enlisted the help of Dimitris Troaditis (now based in Melbourne, Australia), Jonathan Payn (now in Istanbul), Johnny Rumpf (Bern, Switzerland), and Gio (France) to reorganize the movement. As always, the veterans pull the younger ones until they understand how it works.
In 2020, the year of the global pandemic, the foundations were laid for a more articulated international coordination than before. From then on, meetings became much more stable, as they could be held online. Meetings were held every month or two, and a fairly natural coordination took shape.
The reason for so many meetings was the movement's need to publish international statements. The first was to support the Chilean uprising and demand the freedom of those arrested during the December 2019 protests.[86] Later, it was signed jointly on May Day, then on June 28th, Stonewall Day, then to support the American people after the police murder of George Floyd, also on July 19th, against the repression in Turkey, on March 8th, to commemorate the anniversary of Krondstadt, the Paris Commune, on the pandemic, against the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and many others. On each occasion, between 12 and 25 organizations from around the world signed.
Another project was to support anarchist comrades in Sudan,[87] who needed financial assistance to leave the country. These days, some of those people are returning. Other coordinating initiatives have been the summer camps and schools, organized by each organization independently, such as those organized by Embat and UCL since 2018 and 2020, respectively. In the case of the former, in 2024 it helped organize the first especifist meeting in Spain, together with the organizations Liza (Madrid) and Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries (Catalonia), which was attended by people from other places and other organizations. Similarly, the French camps are attended by British, German, Swiss, Spanish, or Italian activists, depending on the occasion. Die Plattform has also organized such camps, while an Anarchist Political School was held in Australia, which has helped articulate the tendency until an anarchist federation has been formed there. Finally, this summer the first camp of the British ACG will be held.
To an outside audience, the development of organized anarchism might seem quite informal. However, it has been an organic process. There was a prior praxis dating back to the 1990s. Initially, there was a personal level, comprised of activists who sometimes met without a mandate from their organizations. Then came the level of formal meetings of the organizations, represented by delegates. The third level would be joint working groups between activists from different countries that carry out specific projects. It is necessary to know how to read the process and understand the rhythms, which are sometimes fast and other times slow. The fact is that, starting in 2020, the dynamic accelerated.
In short, the Coordination towards 2022 was composed of the following organizations:
• Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italy
• Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – Great Britain
• Federación Anarquista – Greece
• Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/New Zealand
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brazil
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (FAR) – Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Switzerland
• Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) – Australia
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba (OAC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz (OASC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán (OAT) – Argentina
• Roja y Negra – Organización Politica Anarquista (Buenos Aires) – Argentina
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Switzerland
• Tekoşina Anarşist (TA) – Rojava
• Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France, Belgium y Switzerland
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
Some organizations from Turkey, such as DAF[88] and Karala, which have since dissolved, also participated. In these cases, these organizations did not define themselves as libertarian communists or anarcho-communists, but simply anarchists, but there was always mutual understanding. Similarly, relations have always been maintained with Tekoşîna Anarşîst,[89] an organization composed of international anarchist militants in Rojava.
In some of the early meetings, contacts were also made with organizations from Iran and the Philippines, although it was clear that they did not share the basic foundations of the movement, and their paths diverged. Nevertheless, starting in 2020, a growth in the number of groups and militants worldwide was noted. In some countries, this growth has led to the establishment of national organizations with several local groups, such as in Australia, Germany, and Argentina.
Most organizations during this period focused on approving and working on their own programs, moving beyond the model of those anarchist groups that had only a vague understanding of reality and whose militancy was united only by principles, the distant goal of libertarian communism and little else.
The International Coordination of Organized Anarchism
The result of the above has been the formal construction of the Coordination at the end of 2024. This Coordination does not have the form of an International, but rather a network. It has continental sections in Europe and the Americas, and perhaps something similar will be done in the Asia-Pacific in the medium term, but it is primarily articulated at a global level.
One of its projects is the website anarkismo.net, which now acts as a speaker for the entire movement internationally.
Since the time of the communiqués, a South Korean organization and the Black Rose Federation of the United States have joined. Several more have appeared throughout, creating an increasingly complex and difficult-to-follow map.
What is worth highlighting is CALA's insistence on the theoretical and strategic unity of all the Coordination's organizations. This has allowed almost all organizations to self-evaluate and conduct their ideological, theoretical, and strategic debates, leading to current situation analyses, programs, and political lines. At that time, several non-Latin American organizations also began to call themselves "especifist," and new ones emerged elsewhere with that definition, ignoring more traditional constructs in their regions.
Regarding the currently coordinated organizations, they are:
America
• Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra – United States
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre - Colombia
• Federación Anarquista Santiago - Chile
• Roja y Negra, Organización Política Anarquista - Buenos Aires, Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (CALA)
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CALA):
• Federação Anarquista Gaúcha - Rio Grande do Sul
• Federação Anarquista Cabana - Belem do Pará
• Organização Resistência Libertária - Ceará
• Federação Anarquista Quilombo de Resistência - Bahia
• Federação Anarquista dos Palmares - Alagoas
• Coletivo Anarquista Luta de Classe - Paraná
• Coletivo Anarquista Bandeira Negra - Santa Catarina
• Organização Anarquista Maria Iêda - Pernambuco
• También hay una construcción anarquista en la Argentina formada por:
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (CALA)
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz
• Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Buenos Aires
Europe
• Anarchist Communist Group – Great Britain
• Die Plattform - Germany
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Midada, Libertär, Sozialistisch, Organisiert - Switzerland
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire - Switzerland
• Union Communiste Libertaire - France, Belgium y Switzerland
Middle East
• Tekoşîna Anarşîst - Rojava
Pacific Asia
• Anarchist Worker Solidarity Movement – New Zealand
• Anarchist Solidarity / Anarchist Yondae / 아나키스트 연대 – South Korea
• Anarchist Communist Federation - Australia:
• ACF-Brisbaine - Anarchist Communists Meanjin
• ACF-Melbourne - Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
• ACF-Geelong - Geelong Anarchist Communists
Currently, there are other libertarian communist groups and organizations in the United States, Canada, Brazil (the new OSL is noteworthy due to its size), Italy, Spain, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Indonesia, and New Zealand. These groups do not belong to the International Coordination, but maintain contact with one or more of the current's organizations, which now number several dozens altogether. Of course, they are also an active part of the entire movement, as the Coordination is by no means the entire movement, nor does it claim to be. In any case, these hundreds (or thousands already) of international militants are building a solid libertarian alternative that has already positioned itself within the broader anarchist movement.
Overview
We will conclude by reviewing the current's periods:
• The anarcho-communist current of anarchism dates back to its very beginnings with the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. Its tradition can be traced over the decades. After World War II, this current was reduced to very few countries. Of these, France, Italy, and Uruguay had the most prominent movements, surviving into the 1980s despite all kinds of difficulties.
• In the 1980s, several solid organizations were created that would last for many years: OSL (founded in 1982 in Switzerland), WSM (founded in 1984, Ireland), FdCA (1986, Italy), Union des Travailleurs Communistes Libertaires (1986, France), FAG (1985, Brazil), FAU (reorganized in 1986, Uruguay), and Anarchist Federation (1986, Great Britain, which was initially anarcho-communist). These organizations maintained contact with each other, but the synthesist and anarcho-syndicalist currents predominated by far within the anarchist movement.
• In the 1990s, new organizations began to emerge. Alternative Libertaire (1991, France; derived from previous organizations), FAG (1995), and OSL (1997) in Brazil; OSL (1996), ORA (Rosario), and AUCA (La Plata) in Argentina; CUAC in Chile (1999), among others; various groups in the United States and Canada; ORA (1996, Czech Republic); WSF (1995, South Africa)… Forming an organic relationship, on the one hand, in Latin America through the FAU and FAG, and on the other, in Europe through Alternative Libertaire, OSL, and FdCA, whose union fronts are approaching the CGT-E, and the latter invites them to its meetings. In parallel, the Anarchist Platform mailing list emerged, bringing Anglo-Saxon platformism into contact.
• In the years 1999-2003, the articulation of the movement accelerated through the resistance movement against capitalist globalization. Groups and organizations emerged in many places (too many to list here), creating spaces for interaction, such as ELAOPA, the Jornadas Anarquistas, and CALA in Latin America, and SIL in Europe, although the latter also provided solidarity with initiatives in the South. The entire anarcho-communist movement expanded.
• 2004-2009 period. These were years of ebb and flow in social struggles. Yet, the movement already maintained political relations. This resulted in the creation of anarkismo.net (2005), the signing of solidarity declarations and the first international meetings. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008 erupted.
• In the years 2010-2014, there was again a strong expansion and coordination. Initiatives multiplied: the anarchism network consolidated, new declarations were signed, the Saint Imier meeting was held (2012), and new groups and organizations emerged, and the anarchist movement reached new countries where it had no presence in Asia and Africa.
• 2015-2019 Period. Once again, a period of ebb and flow. Some veteran organizations disbanded, others entered into crisis and stagnation, and others suffered from splits or changed their ideological line. However, the previous inertia continued to produce new organizations.
• Finally, the period from 2020 to the present has given rise to greater international coordination and a climate conducive to the creation of new organizations, aided by the crisis experienced by other currents of anarchism. At this point, the libertarian communist movement is no longer unknown. It is not large, of course, but it appears much more solid than other currents of anarchism.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
CAB (2012). Principles and Practices of Especifismo.
Programmatic Declaration of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination. CAB Link.
FAU (2003). Huerta Grande: Organizational Document.
Founding Text of Uruguayan Especifismo. Available at: FAU Digital.
FAU (2003). Anarchism in the Anti-Globalization Movement.
SIL (2001). Madrid Declaration.
Founding Document of the Network. Available at: FDCA Archives.
WSM (2000). The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.
English translation of the 1926 Platform. Libcom.org.
ZACF (2010). Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Strategic Analysis of the South African Federation. Zabalaza.net.
WSM (2001). Report from the Genoa Counter-Summit. Account of the Genoa protests. Libcom.org.
Online Resources
Libertarian Communist Manifesto (Fontenis):
Full text in Spanish
SIL Archives:
FDCA Historical Documents
The Organizational Platform for a General Union of Anarchists
Nestor Makhno Archive
Publications
Corrêa, F. (2012). Social Anarchism and Organization. AK Press.
Corrêa, F. (2015). Social Anarchism and Organization: The Specific Proposal. Eleuterio Press.
Corrêa, F. (2022). Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy [Interview by M. Walmsley]. Anarkismo.net.
Fontenis, G. (1954/2013). Libertarian Communist Manifesto. Critical edition with foreword by Frank Mintz. Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation.
García, V. (2017). The Libertarian Left in Chile: From resistance to institutional politics. LOM Editions.
Gutiérrez, J.A. (2015). Anarchism in Latin America: The libertarian utopia south of the Rio Grande. Eleutherius.
Lima Rocha, B. (2013). Anarchism and class struggle: A view from Latin America. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana Magazine, 18(60), 13-28.
Lima Rocha, B. (2017). Political militancy and revolutionary strategy: The case of the Gaúcha Anarchist Federation. In Anarchism & Education (pp. 77-94). Editor Fi.
Méndez, N. & Vallota, A. (2018). Anarchism in Latin America: Networks, practices and militancy. CEHIPOL.
Olaizola Albéniz, J. M. (2013). The need to organize anarchists (II). Anarquia.cat. https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
Payn, J. (2018). Building Counter-Power: The ZACF and the South African Left. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements.
Rugai, R. (2020). Specificism: The construction of popular power in Latin America. Faísca Editor.
Troaditis, D. (2020). From Delo Truda to Anarkismo.net: A Century of Anarchist Organizing. Anarchist Studies.
Van der Walt, L. & Schmidt, M. (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. AK Press.
--------
NOTES
1 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/
2 https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
3 https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/
4 Mail communication with José María Olaizola, 05/20/2025
5 This French trade union organization dates back to 1981 as a grouping of 10 autonomous federations and independent national unions. It was significantly influenced by Trotskyist and, in some cases, libertarian currents. In the 1990s, it had around 50,000-60,000 members.
6 Known as CIB Unicobas, it is an organization of Italian grassroots trade unionism, part of the "Cobas" (grassroots committees) phenomenon. Unicobas was founded in 1991 and quickly came into contact with alternative trade unionism. It had 5,000 members.
7. An anarcho-syndicalist organization founded in Sweden in 1910 under the name Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation. In the 1950s it was excluded from the IWA, entering into conflict with the exiled Spanish CNT. A rivalry existed ever since. When the Spanish CNT split in the 1980s, giving rise to the CGT, this new organization resumed contact with the Swedish union.
8. The Confédération Romande du Travail (CRT) was founded in the early 1970s by Christian syndicalism. Several years later, due to the influence of militant trade unionists, it changed direction and became part of the sector of unions and tendencies of that time that sought to develop an alternative unionism. It dissolved in 1996. Its legacy of militant unionism would later be taken up by the SUD of the canton of Vaud.
9. Ibid.
10 In English, see “International Libertarian Meeting.” https://web.archive.org/web/20080223130405/http://flag.blackened.net/rev…
In French, see Alternative Libertaire, no. 36, October 1995, pp. 14-15:
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
11 Conversation with Nathaniel Clavijo, 05/23/2025.
12 [Sibersakaya Konfederatsia Truda] The Siberian Confederation of Labor (SKT) was founded in March 1995 by Siberian anarcho-syndicalists, who until then had been grouped in a "Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists" that operated from 1989 to 2000. It grew to around 5,000 members, according to its own source.
13 Lucien Van der Walt, "Report on Le Autre Futur" (Report on the Other Future), Paris summit, August 26, 2015
https://lucienvanderwalt.com/2015/08/26/lucien-van-der-walt-2000-report-...
14 https://www.wsm.ie/
15 Announcing Anarchist Platform Email List
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/announcing-anarchist-platform-email-list…
16 Thirty Years of Life… 11/01/2016
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/blog/2016/11/01/1986-2016-30-...
17 https://zabalaza.net/
18 The text can be read in its original language here:
https://www.cabn.libertar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FARJ_-_ANARQUIS…
19 Interview with the FdCA by NEFAC, 2003
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
20 Against Capitalist Globalization! Alternative Libertaire #96, May 2001, p. 11
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
21 A written reference can be found on the back page of the newspaper of the XVII CGT Congress in A Coruña, October 20, 2013. Juan Pilo indicates that Mechoso's trip to Europe accelerated contacts. Among others, they contacted Olaizola, then Secretary General of the CGT.
https://cgt.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diario3.qxd_.pdf
22 Olaizola, 05/20/2025
23 See some RL statements on the Radio Klara website:
https://www.radioklara.org/radioklara/?tag=red-libertaria-apoyo-mutuo
24 Naissance d'un réseau international libertaire. Extrait de mai number from Alternative Libertaire (France):
https://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00171.html
25 Consultation with José María Olaizola. 05/18/2025
26 Declaration of the International Libertarian Meeting. March 31, 2001
https://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_madrid.htm
27 https://www.instagram.com/fag.cab/
28 Interview with ORA by NEFAC, 2003:
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
29 "Magonism" is considered a type of libertarian communism native to Mexico. It takes into account the influence of indigenous peoples and draws on their traditional customs and forms of community organization. These ideas became popular in the 1990s. The concept of "Magonism" comes from Ricardo Flores Magón, one of the driving forces of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, who was an anarchist.
The Ricardo Flores Magón Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca (CIPO-RFM) was active between approximately 1997 and 2006. It coordinated various local indigenous organizations in the state of Oaxaca. It moved internationally within libertarian circles. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_Ind%C3%ADgena_Popular_de_Oaxaca_%2…
31 The acronym stands for Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation.
32 https://www.nodo50.org/auca/menu%20que%20es%20auca.html
33 NEFAC stands for North Eastern Anarchist Federation. It united groups from New England and Quebec. Their texts can be found here:
https://libcom.org/tags/nefac
34 For example, the 2008 conference organized by the CGT in Madrid, "A Libertarian Critique of the Current Situation"
https://info.nodo50.org/Jornadas-Una-critica-libertaria-de.html
35 For more information, read José Antonio Gutiérrez, "Reflections on Twenty Years of Anarcho-Communism in Chile," February 24, 2020.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31737
36 To see photos of the first meeting:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/fotos.htm
To see some initial ELAOPA documents:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/forum.htm
37 Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) in Santiago, Chile. Rojo y Negro No. 397, February 2025.
https://rojoynegro.info/articulo/encuentro-latinoamericano-de-organizaci…
38 Final Declaration of the 2003 Anarchist Conference:
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/declaracion-final-de-las-jornada…
39 List published by Daniel Barret, The Seditious Awakenings of Anarchy. Buenos Aires: Libros de Anarres, 2011. pp. 153-154
40 https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/el-anar…
41 Anarkismo.net. Interview with one of the founders
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jose-anto…
42 When an anarcho-communist network was formed, anarcho-syndicalist organizations, such as the CGT, the SAC, or the CNT-Vignoles, and grassroots trade unionists, such as Unicobas or the SUD, joined together in new networks, such as FESAL, the International Trade Union Network of Solidarity and Struggle, or the Coordinadora Rojinegra.
43 Excerpt from the interview Autonomous Action of Russia conducted with the ZACF in 2010. The interview can be read at:
https://zabalaza.net/2010/12/07/autonomous-action-russia-interviews-the-...
44 http://oclibertaire.free.fr/
45 Nick Heath is currently a member of the Anarchist Communist Group. He publishes under the pseudonym BattleScarred.
46 https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/
47 Ilan was interviewed extensively in 2025:
https://alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/57055
48 https://columnalibertaria.blogspot.com/
49 http://www.farj.org/
50 Felipe Corrêa. Interview with Mya Walmsey. Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy. An interview with Felipe Corrêa. March 2022.
51 https://avtonom.org/en
52 https://melbacg.au/
53 https://libcom.org/tags/liberty-solidarity
54 Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting, 11/17/2008. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/10681
55 Europe: Libertarian Communists Resist Liaisons. 02/03/2010 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Europe-Les-communistes-libert…
The agreements can be read here: https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rencontre-europeenne-de-group…
56 https://www.blackrosefed.org/about/
57 The CAB would not dissolve the international secretariats of each regional or local organization of the Coordinator until 2016, with each participating independently in international coordination until then.
58 Declaration of international solidarity with the 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. 02/28/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/18895?search_text=declaraci%F3n+intern…
59 International Libertarian Declaration in solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, 11/25/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/21228
60 http://www.iceautogestion.org/index.php/es/
61 WSM takes part in Conference of European Anarchist Organizations in London. March 31, 2011 https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/wsm-conference-european-anarkismo-london…
62 The FAO forum was a precursor to the CAB. It was the space where Brazilian organizations met for debate.
63 Anarchist Conference January 2011. Sao Paulo. April 27, 2011
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/jornadas-anarquistas-enero-janei…
64 Delegation returns from International Anarchist Gathering at St. Imier. August 21, 2012
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
65 José María Olaizola Albéniz. The Need for Anarchists to Organize (II). Hernani, January 27, 2013
https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
66 May Day. Building a New Workers' Movement. https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
67 International Libertarian Declaration of Solidarity with the Kurdish Resistance, 10/22/2014
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/27505
68 We Anarchist/Liberal Communists in the Classroom, in the Europe of Capital, 12/11/2017
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30713
69 The map has not been updated, so it serves to show the state of the libertarian communist movement that year.
70 Consider, for example, these messages received by UCL in 2015:
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Messages-internationaux
71 WSM Closing Statement
https://libcom.org/article/workers-solidarity-movement-closing-statement
72 https://www.motmakt.no/
73 https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/
74 2017 Statement on Michael Schmidt Case / Declaração sobre o caso Michael Schmidt
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/2017-statement-on-michael…
75 Interview with UMLEM, 04/03/2008:
https://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/7092
76 Felipe Ramírez, A Bet Revolutionary movement of the Libertarian Left. 03/11/2013
https://periodico-solidaridad.blogspot.com/2013/11/declaracion-nacional-...
77 See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_Libertaria
78 https://www.instagram.com/izqlibertaria/?hl=es
79 Regarding the breakup of the Libertarian Left, some activists issued this statement:
https://www.tercerainformacion.es/articulo/internacional/30/03/2017/chil…
80 https://solidaridadfcl.org
81 https://fasanarquista7.wordpress.com/
82 Anarchist Conference 2019, 03/20/2019.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31339
83 https://www.instagram.com/cabanarquista/
84 https://www.instagram.com/far_rosario/
85 CALA Launch Statement. December 15, 2019
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/comunicado-de-lanzamiento-de-la-...
86 Joint Internationalist Declaration for the Freedom of the Political Prisoners of the Social Uprising in the Chilean Region, December 12, 2019
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32109
87 Update on the Campaign for the Sudanese Anarchists. April 18, 2024
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32877?search_text=Sudan
88 https://www.facebook.com/DAFederasyon/
89 https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org/
Alternative unionism and the first contact
The first "black thread" in our entire history. In the 1990s, several anarcho-communist organizations existed: Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL, Switzerland), OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire (France),[1] Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchistici (FdCA, Italy),[2] Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU),[3] among others. They had been operating since the previous decade and maintained contact with each other.
Of this series of organizations, it is worth highlighting French anarcho-communism, which emerged in the 1950s. At that time, it featured the Libertarian Communist Federation and prominent theorists such as Georges Fontenis and later Daniel Guérin, as well as organizations such as the Moviment Communiste Libertaire, the Organisation Revolutionaire Anarchiste and the Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL). Organizations and journals of this movement had emerged over time, reaching the 1990s with great prestige in the European anarchist movement. Similarly, we can highlight Swiss and Italian anarcho-communism, which ran parallel, but without the same strength as their French counterpart.
In Latin America, the Uruguayan FAU was the most prominent organization due to its revolutionary trajectory and its resistance to the dictatorship. We again find an organization born in the 1950s, which achieved great importance in the 1960s and 1970s. After a few years of being swept away by repression, it managed to reorganize itself in the mid-1980s. Not only that, but due to its political work, it influenced other Latin American groups, as we will see later.
Returning to the main story, in the early 1990s, European organizations also had militants in the so-called "alternative unionism," some holding organizational positions. Therefore, some militants had the opportunity to meet each other personally through alternative union meetings. One of those militants in Spain was José María Olaizola. Throughout the 1990s, he served as Secretary of International Relations for the CGT-E and, between 1993 and 2001, as its Secretary General. At that time, the CGT's goal was to build an international. In his own words: [4]
“This intervention had the purpose of creating both an anarcho-syndicalist and alternative international and a libertarian, anarchist international, and for the two to form an international libertarian movement. In this endeavor, the CGT initiated and participated in many initiatives. There was a lot of travel, a lot of personal contact.”
In specific organizations, it is necessary to differentiate between the political and social or union components (often referred to as "fronts"). In the case of trade unionism, specific militants acted through social or union fronts and, because they were strong militants, they often obtained organizational positions in the unions in which they participated.
The first meeting of alternative unionism was organized in Barcelona by the CGT-E in November 1991. From that moment on, contacts developed with the French SUD-Solidaires union,[5] Unicobas Italy,[6] the Swedish SAC,[7] and other grassroots unions, all of them quite small.
“We organized the first meeting of alternative unionism in Barcelona on November 29, 30, and December 1, 1991, with French SUD unions, in which AL militants participated, such as Patrice Spadoni, a well-known platformist militant with whom we had an ongoing relationship, and then Laurent Esquerre of AL as well. I knew French anarchists due to my exile in Paris. Also present were the CGT of Correcteurs, a very powerful French union run by anarchists of different branches, in which Jacky Toublet was a very prominent militant member of the FA; the CRT of Switzerland [8], where Arístides Pedraza of the Swiss OSL was present; Italian and Basque unions, one English and one Russian, both very small; and the Swedish SAC, which was always reluctant to let anyone want to create a new international; and among the Italians was Unicobas (Stefano D'Errico, its general secretary). Incidentally, both Emili Cortavitarte and Chema Berro played an important role in this meeting. acting as coordinators of the meeting, representing the CGT.”[9]
In 1995, an international libertarian meeting was held in Ruesta, a town in Aragon ceded to the CGT-E. French, Italian, Swiss, Polish, and other anarchist militants attended. Ruesta was important for establishing personal ties internationally.
Ruesta saw significant participation from members of Alternative Libertaire and OSL (Switzerland), perhaps because they viewed it as the French organization's summer camp. In smaller numbers also attended a few members from the FdCA, the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon; its name in Arabic means Libertarian Alternative), and the Polish Anarchist Federation.[10] Regarding trade unionism, the majority of participants were from the CGT and SUD, although there were also people from Solidaridad Obrera (Spain) and SAC (Sweden).
From then on, these organisations and their delegates met at other international events such as the European marches against unemployment, counter-summits and alter-globalisation protests, such as those in Nice (2000), Barcelona (2001) or Genoa (2001), as well as at other meetings promoted by alternative trade unionism – that is, CGT-E, SUD-Solidaires, Unicobas, SAC, Solidaridad Obrera… – where they formed libertarian blocks. Olaizola continues:
“From here, a group emerged in practice, not just on paper, and we worked together because we had a common strategic vision, moving away from sectarianism. Jacky, Aristides, Stefano, then Gerard Mêlinand (French CNT from OCL...) joined, and later Juan Carlos Mechoso (FAU): all of them great friends and mentors for me. […]”
“We had an excellent relationship with the Italian platformist FdCA: Saberio Craparo, Donato Romito, Adriana Dadá, and Gianni Cimbalo, all great friends. I was involved in all this turmoil, and we met periodically.”
The Uruguayans add that these contacts were not at all casual. Many of the trips abroad were organic: they were decided by the organization. “If personal trips were appropriate, connections were sought more organically rather than spontaneously.”[11] Some of these trips could last months, turning into long stays for political exchange.
On May 1, 2000, the French CNT (also known as “Vignoles”) organized the “Un Autre Futur” days. The events were supported by Alternative Libertaire and the Federation Anarchiste and served to unite French anarchism. Some 6,000 people attended the demonstration behind the CNT banner, a near-historical milestone.
But those events also served as a meeting point for libertarian syndicalist organizations: CNT-F, SAC, Unicobas, Industrial Workers of the World, FAU (Germany), RKAS (Ukraine), Democratic Confederation of Labor (Morocco) and SKT (Siberia)[12] and other countries.[13] And again, they were also a place of socialization for French, Italian, and Irish anarcho-communist militants.
In all these cases, when we talk about making contact at the political level, it's not just a matter of coincidentally meeting at an event or exchanging messages online. In many cases, it was about traveling to a place, living together, and establishing personal connections, absorbing what was happening there and debating—especially debating—and learning to transfer it back to one's place of origin... and then debating again. Personal connections were central to this entire process.
Platformism on the Internet
The second "black thread" is related to the greater connectivity provided by technology. At the dawn of the internet, several anarchist-leaning websites emerged: A-infos, Infoshop, Spunk, and a few others, which emerged in the 1990s. One of those websites was that of the Irish platformist organization Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM) [14]. In just a few years, hundreds of classic texts on the history of anarchism and the anarcho-communist or platformist movement and theory were uploaded to the internet. This movement gained a significant following around the world. Later, they redesigned the website and put it online under the domain struggle.ws, leaving the WSM website for texts related to the organization itself. This dissemination and training work would soon bear fruit with the creation of a South African organization, the Workers Solidarity Front (WSF), inspired by its Irish sister organization.
Shortly before 2000, both organizations (or members of both) created the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list. In their presentation, they clearly identified the type of members they were addressing:[15]
We identify as anarchists and with the "Platformist" tradition within anarchism, which includes groups and publications such as "The Organizational Platform of Libertarian Communists," the "Friends of Durruti," and the "Manifesto of Libertarian Communism." We broadly identify with the organizational practices defended by this tradition, though not necessarily with everything they did or said. In other words, it is a starting point for our politics, not an end point.
The mailing list's opening document bears a strong resemblance to the one that would later be published by anarkismo.net. It is typical for political organizations to issue a "points of unity" document or a "mission statement" that explains the organization's basic policies.
We can also see that they considered their references to be the 1926 Platform of the Delo Truda group; the Friends of Durruti of the Spanish Revolution; and the Manifesto written by Georges Fontenis in 1953. These three texts emphasize the need for a powerful, specific anarchist organization that will articulate the anarchist militancy that intervenes in mass organizations. Ultimately, these social organizations are the ones that will bring the Social Revolution. These are the same texts that FdCA claimed on its 30th anniversary, celebrated in 2016. [16]
The South African ZACF (also known as Zabalaza) [17] (created shortly after the dissolution of the WSF) was also inspired by the same texts, which it considered its fundamental references. Years later, it would add to the list the text "Social Anarchism and Organization," published by the Brazilian organization FARJ after its first congress in 2008. [18]
The mailing list, as we can see, brought together activists from all over the world, although predominantly from the English-speaking world. The list was used to convene an in-person meeting of platformist organizations held in Genoa in 2001, during the alterglobalization counter-summit, at the initiative of the Italian organization. [19]
We should add that in April 2001, the summit of heads of state of the countries of the American continent was held in Quebec, Canada. For the occasion, an "International Declaration of Libertarian Communists" was published, which attacked capitalist globalization and concluded its statement by calling for the construction of a libertarian socialist society. Among the signatories were several platformist organizations (NEFAC, WSM, ORA-S Czech Republic, OCL-France, OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire of France and its Lebanese counterpart) along with anarcho-syndicalist organizations from the IWA and specific synthesis organizations. This was an exception, as these currents would rarely come together again. [20]
International Libertarian Solidarity
As we have seen previously, some activists had in mind the creation of an alternative syndicalist international and a libertarian international. The definitive and stable connection between Europe and Latin America occurred around 1994, although contacts had existed before then. The Spanish-Swiss Arístides Pedraza was one of those links and put Juan Carlos Mechoso in touch with the Barcelona militants.[21] From then on, a very good relationship was established. The Spanish, French, and Swiss activists paid for their Latin American comrades' travels, organized talks, press conferences, and meetings. In this way, within the CGT-E, they met "Juan Carlos and Juan Pilo from the FAU, the Brazilians Eduardo, "el Bocha," "el Gaucho," and Verónica from the Argentine OSL. At that time, we helped cover the costs of three ‘ateneos’ in Uruguay, Cerro, Colón, and Acacias." (Olaizola) [22]
The formalization of this network of contacts and organizations would give rise to International Libertarian Solidarity (SIL). This may be our third thread. It was driven by diverse organizations with libertarian communist and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, while other groups had a less politically defined social anarchism. [23] Its first meeting was held in Madrid on April 1, 2001, at the initiative of the CGT-E.[24] The founding text was written by Juan Carlos Mechoso (Montevideo), Pepe García Rey, alias "Ramón Germinal" (Granada), and Paco Marcellán (Madrid): [25]
Today, as a first step, we support the establishment of a global libertarian network in which all affinity groups that so wish can find their space, open to libertarian organizations, associations, athenaeums, unions, and other libertarian collectives. This network will serve to spread mutual support and solidarity in the struggles, it will function as a source of information and debate for the libertarian world, it will organize international meetings, it will create training schools, it will use videoconferences, the Internet and all kinds of available tools to articulate strategies that allow the introduction and guidance of the libertarian idea in the various social struggles. [26]
Regarding the list of organizations, we have the OSL (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon), FAU (Uruguay), the Gaucha Anarchist Federation (FAG, Brazil),[27] the ORA-Solidarita of the Czech Republic,[28] all of them anarcho-communist tendencies, and also the French anti-fascist network No Pasarán, the Magonista[29] organization, CIPO-RFM (Mexico)[30], and the anarcho-syndicalist organizations CGT-E, SAC (Sweden), Unicobas (Italy) and CNT-F (Vignoles, France). The latter participated just in the first meeting, but withdrew from the SIL network. Meanwhile, FdCA (Italy), ZACF (South Africa)[31], AUCA (Argentina)[32], NEFAC (North America)[33], and the newly created Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo (Spain) soon joined the network. This attempt at a specific organization in Spain didn't achieve much success.
A couple more international meetings were held in the following years. Their context was that of the resistance movement against capitalist globalization, which in Europe was characterized by counter-summits against meetings of the big Capital (such as those of the World Bank, the G8, or the European Union), which were accompanied by mass protests.
Thanks to their existence, several projects were funded, such as the "Aragón" printing press and an athenaeum in Uruguay, a community center, a cooperative, and a printing press in Brazil, a local office in Cuba, and support for the newspaper of the Argentine NGO. The most important thing is that the SIL brought together various European and Latin American activists, funded trips, published books, published newspapers, funded public events for the organizations, and much more.
As we can imagine, these contacts led to many joint workshops, conferences, debates, and interviews between several of these particular activists that continued well into the 2010s.[34]
However, this initiative of internationalist solidarity didn't last long either. The SIL was created during the period of decline in the alterglobalization movement. Furthermore, the CGT (Spain) changed its secretariat, and these contacts were no longer developed.
ELAOPA, the Porto Alegre Anarchist Conference, and the first CALA
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we find the fourth thread of international construction. Meetings between the FAU, the Brazilian FAG, and Argentine groups had been common in the 1990s. This work had borne fruit, as by the beginning of the new century, other groups of this movement already existed in other countries. Now it was time to articulate them.
On the national level, on the one hand, Brazilian groups and organizations created the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), established in 2002. It was a space for ideological, theoretical, and strategic debate, taking the scale of the event to a new level in Brazil. On the other hand, similar processes had taken place in Chile (1999), with the Anarcho-Communist Unification Congress (CUAC). Not exactly from the CUAC, but certainly influenced by that process, the Chilean Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) was created in 2002.[35]
Within the framework of the World Social Forum (WSF), held in Porto Alegre in 2003, the so-called Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) emerged.[36] The meeting proposed a space separate from the WSF, which was comprised of NGOs, political parties, and even business initiatives. The radical sector of popular movements called for class autonomy and the creation of an alliance of social movements outside of institutions. ELAOPA had the following principles:
1. The Construction of Popular Power.
2. An Anti-patriarchal and Anti-colonial Perspective.
3. Popular Protagonism and Direct Action.
4. Class Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and Internationalism.
In subsequent events, ELAOPA disassociated itself from the WSF and moved to another city, holding meetings approximately every two years. In 2025, the 15th meeting was held in Santiago, Chile, with more than 400 people representing numerous grassroots organizations.[37]
ELAOPA is a meeting of social and popular organizations, and rarely do any of them claim to be libertarian; at most, they claim to be "autonomous," "classist," "popular," or claim to have "libertarian influences." However, the militancy of so-called "anarquismo especifista" was present in many of those organizations. We are talking about the unionist, social and neighborhood militancy of the aforementioned FAU, FAG, and others, who were active in these popular movements and took advantage of the ELAOPA meetings to meet as well.
With ELAOPA, an opportunity arose for face-to-face encounters among libertarian militancy. Therefore, a separate event was created, typically held the day after the Popular Meeting ended: the Jornadas Anarquistas (Anarchist Days). They were (and are) a space not only for propaganda or libertarian culture, but also for strategic debate focused on intervention in social struggles and the promotion of the movement.[38]
The efforts were very successful. By the 2007-2008 period, several new libertarian communist organizations had been created, some with the aim of being national in scope:
The situation of "platformist" specificism is considerably more varied and complex. We already saw at the appropriate time that the Organización Comunista Libertaria, Rojo y Negro, Comunismo Libertario, the Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista, and the Colectivo Comunista Libertario in Argentina should be considered as such; the Organización Poder Popular Libertario in Bolivia; to the groups that revolve around the Forum of Organized Anarchism and the Uniâo Popular Anarquista [Unipa] in Brazil; to the Organización Comunista Libertaria, the Agitación Libertaria Collective, and the Movimiento Libertario Joaquín Murieta in Chile; to the Alianza Comunista Libertaria in Mexico; to Qhispikay Llaqta in Peru; and finally, to the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, the Cimarrón Libertarian Organization, the Libertarian Federation, and Bandera Negra in Uruguay.[39]
Along with this array of groups, naturally, larger-scale initiatives for coordination also emerged. The largest attempt of the era was the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA), created in 2004 by the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil), AUCA (Argentina), Lucha Libertaria, and UNIPA (Brazil).[40] However, this UNIPA broke with the current to create its own political space, "Bakuninism," prioritizing alliances with the Libertarian Communist Alliance (ALC) of Mexico and the Anarchist Revolutionary Organization (ORA) of Argentina. Later, the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FOR) of Brazil was added to CALA. This first CALA lasted only a few years.
CALA adhered to especifist anarchism. They defended a strategy of democratic and disruptive popular power, but they never attempted to define the characteristics of a post-revolutionary society. They understood especifism as anarchist political organization. Therefore, they differed from platformism only in their particular Latin American anarchist tradition and the time in which both proposals emerged. Consequently, their vocation is identical, despite some distinctive developments.
The Creation of the anarkismo.net Website
As we have seen before, the SIL had already managed to connect some 11 anarcho-communist organizations, with another 3 that did not define themselves as such, but, with a little political work, could have adopt it without much difficulty. The disappearance of the SIL network left an organizational void that anarkismo.net would fill.
In the words of José Antonio Gutiérrez:[41]
The idea for Anarkismo.net was initially born as the idea of creating an international magazine. Around 1999, we began talking with a comrade from Alternative Libertaire and myself, who was then in charge of international relations at CUAC [Chile], to discuss the need to get to know each other better as libertarian organizations that were on the platformist wing. There was then an email list where we exchanged discussions and experiences, but we felt we needed more in-depth articles to better understand our politics from our contexts and practices. Our idea was to create an annual international almanac of anarcho-communism, with information on the countries where we were present and their organizations, a highly reflective and critical annual review.
So we began to discuss this idea, and in February 2002, we met Nestor McNabb of the FdCA [Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici] in Dublin, along with Andrew Flood of the WSM. The three of us met at a pub in downtown Dublin, on South William Street. The pub is called Grogan's. There we discussed the idea of an annual almanac, and the idea grew. We took it to our organizations, and with the growth of the internet, we decided that, for reasons of budget, ease of distribution, etc., it was much better to have an international site on anarcho-communism.
Thus, the idea of Anarkismo was born, an anarcho-communist and multilingual site, hence the name, which is "anarchism" in Esperanto. The site, after much work, was launched on May 1, 2005, a very symbolic date. The idea began as a website, but the goal from the outset was to facilitate exchanges between organizations and better understand each other, with the aim of bringing us closer together politically and generating a trend. We didn't want to propose an international organization in name only; rather, we wanted international work and the exchange of experiences to develop gradually and organically, giving way to greater cohesion as a trend, as a movement, with a view to creating an international federation with solid foundations. That was the intention from the beginning.
Militants such as Nestor McNab (Irishman living in Rome), Paul Bowman, Andrew Flood, and Ian McKay (Ireland), Jonathan Payn (South Africa), Dimitris Troaditis (first in Athens and later in Melbourne), Adam Weaver (Miami), Nicolas Phoebus (Quebec), Wayne Price (New York) and the Chilean José Antonio Gutierrez, among others, were key figures in the political, technical, and editorial development of the new portal. They had met through the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list and other in-person meetings. They had read each other's articles and disseminated or translated them in their respective territories and languages.
Among the founding organizations of anarkismo.net were the aforementioned FAU, FAG, FdCA, and Alternative Libertaire (France). Not all of them joined at the same time, but some had been in contact from the beginning but took some time to decide (for example, FAU and OSL). Together with the organizations to which the aforementioned comrades belonged, the foundations were laid for a project that made possible the international articulation of the entire anarcho-communist or platformist movement.[42]
By then, in the first half of the 2000s, several new organizations already existed with some relevance to the libertarian communist movement. To name a few: NEFAC (Northwestern United States and Eastern Canada), CUAC and OCL (Chile), OSL and FACA (Argentina), in addition to the already well-known ZACF (South Africa), Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), and WSM (Ireland).
As we can see, the anarchist groups were predominantly male, and therefore, practically all the international delegates were men. Women attended the meetings most often when the delegations from their organizations were composed of several people.
It is equally important to mention that the roles played by the organizations' militancy in the international meetings were made possible thanks to the work of numerous comrades who, in one way or another, influenced the development and dynamism of their organizations. This occurred in multiple ways: creating theoretical, strategic, or debate contributions; meeting in different settings; disseminating experiences; or contributing to strengthening ties. Each person contributed their own grain of sand.
The movement framed within anarcho-communism understood that anarchism, if it wanted to have any relevance, should be well organized and, of course, take seriously its participation in collective struggles, seeking to empower them, and politically and strategically coordinating all the libertarian people within it.
We define ourselves as Communist Anarchists because we belong to the anarchist tradition that recognizes the need for a dual organization: a "specific" anarchist organization that works within and alongside the mass organizations of the working class.[43]
Each organization had its own website and journals from which they projected their strategy. The most widely distributed were the monthly magazines Alternative Libertaire and Courant Alternatif [44] in France, and Alternativa Libertaria in Italy, which dated back to the 1970s and already had a readership.
On the internet, in addition to anarkismo.net, the most prolific anarcho-communist sites were the British website libcom.org, which published dozens of biographies related to Makhnovism, usually written by Nick Heath [45]; Nestor McNab's website nestormakhno.info; makhno.ru, in Russian; the Anarchist and the Platformist Tradition website[46]; and A-Infos itself, whose editorial team included the Israeli anarchist Ilan Shalif, a staunch anarcho-communist. [47] These websites contributed to spreading the movement, as struggle.ws and zabalaza.net had done before them.
A Coordination, Not an International
Anarkismo.net did not aspire to be an international, but rather a tool for sharing information about local struggles, theory, and strategies. It operated through a Collective of Delegates and an Editorial Collective, with the former taking on a political role and the latter a technical one.
Some preferred a more defined structure—moving towards an International—like Alternative Libertaire, while others preferred to maintain it as an open space. Despite this difference, some solidarity campaigns were carried out, such as the one in support of the Oaxaca uprising (2005-06).
Over the years, this movement grew stronger in Latin America, especially in Chile (OCL, FEL), Argentina (Joaquín Penina Libertarian Column [48], Red Libertaria, and Brazil (FARJ), where numerous groups, websites, and blogs emerged. And its way of interpreting anarcho-communism, called "specificism," became consolidated. Several Brazilian authors, such as Bruno Lima, Rafael Viana, and Felipe Correa, who founded the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA) along with South Africans Lucien van der Walt, Michael Schmidt and Jonathan Payn, contributed to this. Other activists, such as the aforementioned Dimitris Troaditis and the Argentine Emilio Crisi, among others, also contributed to this. The ITHA has almost served as a think tank for academic texts within the movement.
Correa defined especifismo as:[50]
It is a movement that upholds a set of positions regarding the major strategic debates of anarchism. First, in relation to the organizational debate, Especifistas maintain the need for an organizational dualism, based on which anarchists articulate themselves within a political organization, as anarchists, and within social organizations (unions and social movements), as workers. Second, regarding the debate on the role of reforms, Especifistas believe that, depending on how they are sought and achieved, they can contribute to a revolutionary process. Third, regarding the debate on violence, Especifistas believe that it must always be carried out in the context of and concomitant with the construction of mass movements. On the social level, of mass movements, Especifismo promotes a program that has numerous affinities with revolutionary syndicalism.
In Latin America, this movement launched initiatives and trends within labor unions, as well as within the student and neighborhood movements, such as the FEL (libertarian student fronts, present in several countries, although initially emerged in Chile), Resistência Popular in Brazil, and the Federation of Base Organizations (FOB) in Argentina, among others.
To avoid referring to specificism or platformism, which are difficult for the general public to understand, the movement preferred to use the concept of organized anarchism. Elsewhere, the term "social and organized anarchism" was used to further narrow its target audience.
Anarcho-communist groups also emerged elsewhere in the world, most notably in Russia (Autonomous Action [51] – and also in its sphere of influence: Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Israel), Ukraine (RKAS-Makhno), Turkey (AKI, KaraKizil, Liberter), Australia (MAGC)[52], Greece (Western Greece Anarchist Federation), and with influence in other territories. In the former cases, anarcho-communism was mixed with insurrectionalism, while in the latter, their paths were distinct.
In November 2008, the first G20 summit was held in Washington. For this occasion, the "Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting" was issued. It was the beginning of the crisis. The real estate and financial bubbles had burst a few months earlier, and there was talk of collapse. States had to bail out banks to avoid further damage. Eleven organizations signed the declaration. Several organizations already mentioned on other occasions signed the agreement. The new ones were Common Cause (Ontario, Canada), Union Communiste Libertaire (Quebec, Canada), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Liberty & Solidarity (L&S, Great Britain) [53] and two synthesis organizations: the Asociación Obrera Canaria and the Anarchist Federation of Berlin. [54]
Sometime later, in February 2010, six organizations from the current met in Paris: the FdCA (Italy), L&S (Great Britain)[53], WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Motmakt ("Counterpower", Norway), and Alternative libertaire (France). Their objective was to assess the state of the libertarian communist movement in Europe and promote continental coordination. They created working groups to maintain relations and advance coordination.[55]
The Maturity of the Network
Around the period 2010-2013, the various groups and organizations that claimed to be anarcho-communists and that were already in mutual contact, as we have seen, consolidated the network. It was then that the Anarkismo Editorial Collective was stabilized, which, as we have already seen, was composed of a delegate from each of the organizations. Here is a table showing the organizations that comprised Anarkismo in 2010 and 2015:
2010
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Buffalo Class Action (USA)
Chasqui Anarquista (Ecuador)
Colectivo Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Common Action (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Convergencia Juvenil Clasista "Hijos del Pueblo" (Ecuador)
Estrategia Libertaria (Chile)
Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Foro del Anarquismo Organizado (Brazil)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Four Star Anarchist Organization (USA)
"Hombre y Sociedad" (Chile)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Liberty & Solidarity (UK)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Miami Autonomy & Solidarity (USA)
Motmakt (Norway)
North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA)
Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Voz Negra (Chile)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia)
Solidarity & Defense (USA)
Union Communiste Libertaire (Canada)
Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
2015
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (Italy)
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Coordination des Groupes Anarchistes (France)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazil)
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
Grupo Anarquista Bifurcación (Colombia)
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre (Colombia)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Libertäre Aktion Winterthur (Switzerland)
Libertarian Communist Group / Grwp Gomiwnyddol Libertaraidd (Wales/Cymru)
Libertære Socialister (Denmark)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Motmakt (Norway)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Organização Anarquista Socialismo Libertário (Brazil)
Organización Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Prairie Struggle Organization (Canada)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
In this list, we can already see the disappearance of NEFAC from North America, which was reduced to a few groups in New England (Buffalo and New York) and Canada (e.g., Common Cause and UCL). Eventually, in 2014, the US groups created a federation, Black Rose. [56] We can also see the founding, in 2012, of the Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazilian Anarchist Coordination), based on pre-existing groups (such as FAG, FARJ, OASL, CAZP, and others) [57] that were organized around the FAO forum and already belonged to the Anarkismo network.
The remaining organizations continued the libertarian communist or anarcho-communist tradition dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, such as Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), OSL (Switzerland, joined Anarkismo in 2010), the FAU (Uruguay) and WSM (Ireland).
The French CGA was a split from the Francophone Anarchist Federation following its call to support Jacques Chirac in the presidential elections to prevent Le Pen from winning. Over time, the CGA shifted towards anarcho-communism and eventually merged with Alternative Libertaire in 2019, creating the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL), which is currently the largest organization of its kind in the world.
Each organization has its own history, and it would take too long to describe them all here. What is obvious is that this movement was articulated on a global scale and was able to take advantage of the rise of radicalism that swept the planet in 2011, in the same way that the SIL developed during the alterglobalization movement.
2011 saw the Arab Spring, the Indignados movement, and the square occupations. It was also the moment when a new generation entered activism. The Rojava Revolution emerged with force. Anarcho-communist organizations emerged in Egypt (the Libertarian Socialist Movement, MSL), Israel (Unity), and Tunisia, which had only existed for a short time, as well as new attempts in Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan.
That year, a statement of solidarity was issued with 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. It was signed by 11 libertarian communist organizations. [58] That same year, the declaration of solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, whose people had just overthrown the Mubarak regime, was signed. [59] This time, 23 organizations signed. New initiatives included organizations from Egypt (MSL), Colombia (Vía Libre and CELIP), Chile (Libertarian Communist Federation and the magazine "Política y Sociedad"), and the United States (Autonomy and Solidarity of Miami). A number of anarcho-syndicalist groups, such as the CGT-E, Solidaridad Obrera, WSA (United States), and the ICEA (Spain), also signed the agreement. [60]
Once again, the Anarkismo network declined to formalize itself as a more solid structure—as an international federation—to avoid falling into rivalries and competition with the other libertarian internationals, the IWA and IFA at the time. However, it is undeniable that it was functioning in a fairly coordinated manner.
In 2012, eight European organizations met again in London. [61] In addition to talking about improving coordination, they launched a campaign against sovereign debt. That same year, Jornadas Anarquistas were held in Sao Paulo, convened by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and the Forum of Organized Anarchism of Brazil (FAO) [62] to develop especifist anarchism on the continent. On that occasion, they approved strategic documents around the concepts of popular power and federalism.
To speak of "popular" means to imbue the project of power with an eminently classist character, although we must emphasize that we speak of power from a libertarian perspective. A project of the oppressed that arises from popular movements and that accumulates the social force necessary for a long-term confrontation, with firm, strong, and well-defined steps, which we believe are necessary from an ideological point of view.[63]
It was from then on that the anarchist movement would more decisively adopt this theoretical conception, more typical of the development of the class struggle in Latin America, and it would soon also reach Europe through Embat (Catalonia) and Libertäre Aktion (Bern).
In August 2012, the largest in-person meeting of the movement took place: in Saint Imier (Switzerland). Taking advantage of the International Anarchist Meeting, a tent called "Anarkismo" was set up as a meeting point for the movement's international militants and sympathizers. Approximately half of the 30 organizations that were in contact with anarkismo.net at the time sent delegates to the International Meeting, and a conference of delegates was held. The enormous growth of this movement in Latin America was evident, and a significant development was seen since the beginning of the website.
From the perspective of the WSM delegation, the various Anarkismo meetings held during the week were a valuable opportunity to meet comrades we might never have crossed paths with and to revitalize our involvement in the Anarkismo network. The network itself continues to expand since its very modest beginnings in 2005, both in terms of the number of organizations involved, the geographical dispersion of these organizations, and, most importantly, increased cooperation between them. When each organization presented its work during the morning of the global meeting, it was striking to see the common political and organizational approach we share, despite operating in very different contexts. It also became clear that South American organizations in particular have experienced significant growth in number and influence in recent years.[64]
As a positive measure: Swiss and French synthesist and platformist organizations, which did not always enjoy good relations, collaborated in the preparation of the Meeting. But not everyone was under the same illusions. The organizational problems were numerous, and what the Meeting lacked most was precisely programmatic clarity:
It would have been a very different matter if, for three or two years in advance, a debate had been prepared and carried out around a common analysis of the situation, a real coordination and federation of organizations and struggles had been promoted, and progress had been made toward establishing a common program... we would be able to reflect and we would have real elements to evaluate, that the fruit of this work in St. Imier or elsewhere would have culminated, and the logic of this culmination would not be a meeting but the creation of an anarchist international.[65]
In 2014, a joint May Day communiqué was signed by several organizations: [66] ZACF (South Africa), WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Collectife Communiste Libertaire (Bienne, Switzerland), FdCA (Italy), WSA (United States), Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia), and Prairie Struggle (United States). Months later, 14 organizations from the movement signed another communiqué in support of the Kurdish resistance. [67] This was the last joint communiqué of this era.
On November 18 and 19, 2017, several European organizations met in Genoa to exchange analyses and establish a European action plan. The Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (the new name of the veteran Italian organization), Alternative Libertaire (France), CGA (France), the Libertarian Socialist Federation (Wales, Great Britain), OSL (Switzerland), and WSM (Ireland) met.[68] Embat (Catalonia) sent his greetings to the meeting, and from then on, he became much more closely involved with this movement.
By 2020, the Union Communiste Libertaire of France was doing an extensive mapping of the movement:[69]
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?reseau-international-8794
Over the years, a tradition developed of sending greetings to each organization of the current that held a congress. This helped to forge an international movement and made all activists aware that they belonged to a movement much larger than their own organization or local context. [70]
Time Ebb
It wasn't all good news for the movement. In addition to the thorny Chilean issue, which we will soon discuss, between 2018 and 2021, WSM [71] and Zabalaza dissolved, as did other local and regional groups in North America, due to a failure to achieve generational change. Furthermore, other organizations also entered into crisis, without dissolving, such as Motmakt (Norway),[72] with whom contact was lost. Several European organizations disappeared (in Denmark, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Turkey) or their movements were unable to achieve stability (Great Britain or Russia). In the Americas, organizations in Bolivia and Peru were lost, and there were splits in Argentina, Chile, and the United States.
Another split during this period was that suffered by the Anarchist Federation (Great Britain). This organization, created in 1986 as an anarcho-communist, had long been a synthetist federation. In 2018, there was an internal conflict in AF, and a sector emerged from it that would form the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG),[73] already with a marked libertarian communist tendency. The ACG succeeded British platformist organizations that never managed to take root, such as L&S or the LSF. Even so, several anarcho-communist groups remained that have not yet considered joining the ACG.
The causes of these crises are diverse. For example, various social and political situations arose in several states that made it impossible to cultivate international relations. These relations were also interrupted in the event of internal crises and ruptures within the organizations. Another problem for maintaining stable international relations was the rapid change of delegates, with several organizations having delegates who did not speak English, while other comrades who had managed these relations moved on to other functions within their organizations. FdCA fared worse, as in just four months of 2018, they lost Donato Romito and Monia Andreani to pass away. In other cases, a more internal approach was prioritized, improving integration at the social and territorial levels, but relegating the international arena to a secondary level. Finally, the case of Michael Schmidt and his expulsion from anarkismo.net and ITHA was not without damage. [74]
The Chilean Case
At this point, we should talk about the movement in Chile. Its origins date back to 1999, with the celebration of the CUAC, initiating a process that would later give rise to the OCL in 2002. The following year, a Libertarian Student Front (FEL) was launched, and in 2006, following the so-called "Penguin Revolt" (high school students), the FEL grew exponentially. It managed to attract numerous activists, and when that generation of students went to university, they came to lead the student movement, usually controlled by communists and autonomists. Activists such as Felipe Ramírez, Fabián Araneda, and Melissa Sepúlveda held important elected positions in the Chilean Student Federation (FECH, which is unitary and semi-institutional), which at the time was one of the most powerful popular movements in Chile. Among their most notable initiatives was their highly colorful and recognizable graphic style, which was copied and adapted by many collectives elsewhere. They filled Chile with murals through their Ernesto Miranda muralist units. [75]
Some time later, this entire political space merged into the Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left). This new organization adopted strategic lines different from the libertarian communist magma that had driven the movement up to that point, shifting toward a much less defined libertarian socialism, more in line with libertarian Marxism. At the same time, they achieved a scale never seen before for a libertarian organization in recent decades, rivaling other political parties and organizations much more established in the Chilean scene.
In this context, a sector of libertarians—which I would venture to say is the majority—has made a series of reflections that have shaped the political approach known as "Democratic Rupture" in various articles and public documents, as well as in internal discussion processes. Despite this, there is still some confusion regarding the implications of this wager, which we will try to clarify to some extent with this article.[76]
Chilean libertarian communist sectors began supporting leftist electoral options in 2013. At first, they did so tactically, without intervening in the campaigns, but calling for a vote for a democratic rupture to overthrow the reactionary democratic regime that ruled the country. Later, in the 2018 electoral process, the Izquierda Libertaria the Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which was running in the parliamentary elections. Due to its participation, libertarian activist Gael Yeomans was elected as a deputy.[77] Since then, the Izquierda Libertaria has had more regional and national deputies, as well as senators. These efforts culminated in a progressive government in the country led by Gabriel Boric, a former autonomist student leader from the same era as the FEL. However, this has not produced the expected radicalization of society to build revolutionary alternatives in a socialist sense through popular power and constituent power. Chile continues to be a capitalist state—of a progressive nature, admittedly—without the slightest hint of socializing policies.
As can be seen, the Izquierda Libertaria [78] had abandoned traditional libertarian communist postulates and was pointed out by rivals and opponents of the anarchist communist current within anarchism as a logical derivation of all especifist anarchism. For this reason, and for other reasons as well, it suffered some splits,[79] such as Solidaridad FCL,[80] some of which in turn followed the parliamentary path, resulting in further splits.
At the Latin American level, the especifist movement distanced itself from all these Chilean groups until the Santiago Anarchist Federation (FAS)[81] emerged in 2019, once again aligned with the rest of the international movement. This FAS, therefore, emerges as a break with the imprint taken by Chilean libertarian communism, returning to Latin American especifism.
From Network to Coordination
Between 2015 and 2019, the movement experienced a setback caused by issues we have already seen, causing divisions in some organizations within the movement, hindering understanding, fostering disorientation, or directly leading to the dissolution of some organizations and the destruction of entire movements, as we have seen.
Not everything was disappointing, of course. While a national British organization (the ACG) had emerged in 2018, in 2019 Die Plattform was founded in Germany, the largest European state that until then had lacked organizations of the movement.
At the 2019 Jornadas Anarquistas, Latin American organizations spoke of the need to relaunch the movement.[82] At this time, they championed especifism, or, in other words, politically organized anarchism, and sought to consolidate it in all regions. Their communiqué defined the role of the anarchist political organization, which should be responsible for developing the theory and analytical tools to understand reality and better operate within it. They emphasized the internal political work of each organization to avoid confusion and dead ends.
Our lives depend on [our social] insertions, but the Political Organization, that small engine that drives the popular movement, is necessary alongside it. The Anarchist Political Organization, in the especifist conception, is not avant-garde, but rather one of militant self-denial, with the aim of incentivizing and guiding a process of revolutionary rupture with broad participation of the organized people. We deeply respect the specific nature of that level. We have called this process Popular Power, a process of building the organizations of popular power that will replace the bourgeois power structures. Thus, social insertion and political organization go hand in hand and are articulated horizontally in a very different way than that proposed and developed by all the vanguardist movements of the left to date, which have done nothing more than limit the development of popular organizations and instrumentalize them as "apparatuses" useful to their parties. For this reason, Especifist Anarchism speaks of a Strong People [Pueblo Fuerte] and not a "strong party," as all currents of Marxism have proposed. We advocate a Strong People, a people who construct their destiny and their own opportunities and degrees of freedom according to their experience of struggle, development, and progress in the process of rupture.
As a result of this initiative, the foundations for new international work began to be laid. In December 2019, the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) was re-established, formed by the CAB (Brazil),[84] the FAR (Argentina),[85] and the FAU (Uruguay). These organizations served as a focal point for the entire movement and took over from the European organizations, which had been leading the way until then.
“…We are convinced that Anarchism must be operational, agile, and in tune with new social realities in order to confront the harshness that this ruthless system imposes on those at the bottom. But to do so, we reiterate, Anarchism must be politically organized. It is Political Organization that allows militants to process the necessary discussions and debates, make pertinent analyses of the conjuncture, define action and development plans, fine-tune tactics, and also design a final strategy and adapt that strategy to each period of action, to each conjuncture…”[85]
With CALA, the entire international libertarian communist movement was extraordinarily energized, starting with the notable efforts of Nathaniel Clavijo (Uruguay), who enlisted the help of Dimitris Troaditis (now based in Melbourne, Australia), Jonathan Payn (now in Istanbul), Johnny Rumpf (Bern, Switzerland), and Gio (France) to reorganize the movement. As always, the veterans pull the younger ones until they understand how it works.
In 2020, the year of the global pandemic, the foundations were laid for a more articulated international coordination than before. From then on, meetings became much more stable, as they could be held online. Meetings were held every month or two, and a fairly natural coordination took shape.
The reason for so many meetings was the movement's need to publish international statements. The first was to support the Chilean uprising and demand the freedom of those arrested during the December 2019 protests.[86] Later, it was signed jointly on May Day, then on June 28th, Stonewall Day, then to support the American people after the police murder of George Floyd, also on July 19th, against the repression in Turkey, on March 8th, to commemorate the anniversary of Krondstadt, the Paris Commune, on the pandemic, against the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and many others. On each occasion, between 12 and 25 organizations from around the world signed.
Another project was to support anarchist comrades in Sudan,[87] who needed financial assistance to leave the country. These days, some of those people are returning. Other coordinating initiatives have been the summer camps and schools, organized by each organization independently, such as those organized by Embat and UCL since 2018 and 2020, respectively. In the case of the former, in 2024 it helped organize the first especifist meeting in Spain, together with the organizations Liza (Madrid) and Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries (Catalonia), which was attended by people from other places and other organizations. Similarly, the French camps are attended by British, German, Swiss, Spanish, or Italian activists, depending on the occasion. Die Plattform has also organized such camps, while an Anarchist Political School was held in Australia, which has helped articulate the tendency until an anarchist federation has been formed there. Finally, this summer the first camp of the British ACG will be held.
To an outside audience, the development of organized anarchism might seem quite informal. However, it has been an organic process. There was a prior praxis dating back to the 1990s. Initially, there was a personal level, comprised of activists who sometimes met without a mandate from their organizations. Then came the level of formal meetings of the organizations, represented by delegates. The third level would be joint working groups between activists from different countries that carry out specific projects. It is necessary to know how to read the process and understand the rhythms, which are sometimes fast and other times slow. The fact is that, starting in 2020, the dynamic accelerated.
In short, the Coordination towards 2022 was composed of the following organizations:
• Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italy
• Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – Great Britain
• Federación Anarquista – Greece
• Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/New Zealand
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brazil
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (FAR) – Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Switzerland
• Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) – Australia
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba (OAC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz (OASC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán (OAT) – Argentina
• Roja y Negra – Organización Politica Anarquista (Buenos Aires) – Argentina
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Switzerland
• Tekoşina Anarşist (TA) – Rojava
• Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France, Belgium y Switzerland
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
Some organizations from Turkey, such as DAF[88] and Karala, which have since dissolved, also participated. In these cases, these organizations did not define themselves as libertarian communists or anarcho-communists, but simply anarchists, but there was always mutual understanding. Similarly, relations have always been maintained with Tekoşîna Anarşîst,[89] an organization composed of international anarchist militants in Rojava.
In some of the early meetings, contacts were also made with organizations from Iran and the Philippines, although it was clear that they did not share the basic foundations of the movement, and their paths diverged. Nevertheless, starting in 2020, a growth in the number of groups and militants worldwide was noted. In some countries, this growth has led to the establishment of national organizations with several local groups, such as in Australia, Germany, and Argentina.
Most organizations during this period focused on approving and working on their own programs, moving beyond the model of those anarchist groups that had only a vague understanding of reality and whose militancy was united only by principles, the distant goal of libertarian communism and little else.
The International Coordination of Organized Anarchism
The result of the above has been the formal construction of the Coordination at the end of 2024. This Coordination does not have the form of an International, but rather a network. It has continental sections in Europe and the Americas, and perhaps something similar will be done in the Asia-Pacific in the medium term, but it is primarily articulated at a global level.
One of its projects is the website anarkismo.net, which now acts as a speaker for the entire movement internationally.
Since the time of the communiqués, a South Korean organization and the Black Rose Federation of the United States have joined. Several more have appeared throughout, creating an increasingly complex and difficult-to-follow map.
What is worth highlighting is CALA's insistence on the theoretical and strategic unity of all the Coordination's organizations. This has allowed almost all organizations to self-evaluate and conduct their ideological, theoretical, and strategic debates, leading to current situation analyses, programs, and political lines. At that time, several non-Latin American organizations also began to call themselves "especifist," and new ones emerged elsewhere with that definition, ignoring more traditional constructs in their regions.
Regarding the currently coordinated organizations, they are:
America
• Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra – United States
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre - Colombia
• Federación Anarquista Santiago - Chile
• Roja y Negra, Organización Política Anarquista - Buenos Aires, Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (CALA)
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CALA):
• Federação Anarquista Gaúcha - Rio Grande do Sul
• Federação Anarquista Cabana - Belem do Pará
• Organização Resistência Libertária - Ceará
• Federação Anarquista Quilombo de Resistência - Bahia
• Federação Anarquista dos Palmares - Alagoas
• Coletivo Anarquista Luta de Classe - Paraná
• Coletivo Anarquista Bandeira Negra - Santa Catarina
• Organização Anarquista Maria Iêda - Pernambuco
• También hay una construcción anarquista en la Argentina formada por:
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (CALA)
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz
• Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Buenos Aires
Europe
• Anarchist Communist Group – Great Britain
• Die Plattform - Germany
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Midada, Libertär, Sozialistisch, Organisiert - Switzerland
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire - Switzerland
• Union Communiste Libertaire - France, Belgium y Switzerland
Middle East
• Tekoşîna Anarşîst - Rojava
Pacific Asia
• Anarchist Worker Solidarity Movement – New Zealand
• Anarchist Solidarity / Anarchist Yondae / 아나키스트 연대 – South Korea
• Anarchist Communist Federation - Australia:
• ACF-Brisbaine - Anarchist Communists Meanjin
• ACF-Melbourne - Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
• ACF-Geelong - Geelong Anarchist Communists
Currently, there are other libertarian communist groups and organizations in the United States, Canada, Brazil (the new OSL is noteworthy due to its size), Italy, Spain, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Indonesia, and New Zealand. These groups do not belong to the International Coordination, but maintain contact with one or more of the current's organizations, which now number several dozens altogether. Of course, they are also an active part of the entire movement, as the Coordination is by no means the entire movement, nor does it claim to be. In any case, these hundreds (or thousands already) of international militants are building a solid libertarian alternative that has already positioned itself within the broader anarchist movement.
Overview
We will conclude by reviewing the current's periods:
• The anarcho-communist current of anarchism dates back to its very beginnings with the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. Its tradition can be traced over the decades. After World War II, this current was reduced to very few countries. Of these, France, Italy, and Uruguay had the most prominent movements, surviving into the 1980s despite all kinds of difficulties.
• In the 1980s, several solid organizations were created that would last for many years: OSL (founded in 1982 in Switzerland), WSM (founded in 1984, Ireland), FdCA (1986, Italy), Union des Travailleurs Communistes Libertaires (1986, France), FAG (1985, Brazil), FAU (reorganized in 1986, Uruguay), and Anarchist Federation (1986, Great Britain, which was initially anarcho-communist). These organizations maintained contact with each other, but the synthesist and anarcho-syndicalist currents predominated by far within the anarchist movement.
• In the 1990s, new organizations began to emerge. Alternative Libertaire (1991, France; derived from previous organizations), FAG (1995), and OSL (1997) in Brazil; OSL (1996), ORA (Rosario), and AUCA (La Plata) in Argentina; CUAC in Chile (1999), among others; various groups in the United States and Canada; ORA (1996, Czech Republic); WSF (1995, South Africa)… Forming an organic relationship, on the one hand, in Latin America through the FAU and FAG, and on the other, in Europe through Alternative Libertaire, OSL, and FdCA, whose union fronts are approaching the CGT-E, and the latter invites them to its meetings. In parallel, the Anarchist Platform mailing list emerged, bringing Anglo-Saxon platformism into contact.
• In the years 1999-2003, the articulation of the movement accelerated through the resistance movement against capitalist globalization. Groups and organizations emerged in many places (too many to list here), creating spaces for interaction, such as ELAOPA, the Jornadas Anarquistas, and CALA in Latin America, and SIL in Europe, although the latter also provided solidarity with initiatives in the South. The entire anarcho-communist movement expanded.
• 2004-2009 period. These were years of ebb and flow in social struggles. Yet, the movement already maintained political relations. This resulted in the creation of anarkismo.net (2005), the signing of solidarity declarations and the first international meetings. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008 erupted.
• In the years 2010-2014, there was again a strong expansion and coordination. Initiatives multiplied: the anarchism network consolidated, new declarations were signed, the Saint Imier meeting was held (2012), and new groups and organizations emerged, and the anarchist movement reached new countries where it had no presence in Asia and Africa.
• 2015-2019 Period. Once again, a period of ebb and flow. Some veteran organizations disbanded, others entered into crisis and stagnation, and others suffered from splits or changed their ideological line. However, the previous inertia continued to produce new organizations.
• Finally, the period from 2020 to the present has given rise to greater international coordination and a climate conducive to the creation of new organizations, aided by the crisis experienced by other currents of anarchism. At this point, the libertarian communist movement is no longer unknown. It is not large, of course, but it appears much more solid than other currents of anarchism.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
CAB (2012). Principles and Practices of Especifismo.
Programmatic Declaration of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination. CAB Link.
FAU (2003). Huerta Grande: Organizational Document.
Founding Text of Uruguayan Especifismo. Available at: FAU Digital.
FAU (2003). Anarchism in the Anti-Globalization Movement.
SIL (2001). Madrid Declaration.
Founding Document of the Network. Available at: FDCA Archives.
WSM (2000). The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.
English translation of the 1926 Platform. Libcom.org.
ZACF (2010). Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Strategic Analysis of the South African Federation. Zabalaza.net.
WSM (2001). Report from the Genoa Counter-Summit. Account of the Genoa protests. Libcom.org.
Online Resources
Libertarian Communist Manifesto (Fontenis):
Full text in Spanish
SIL Archives:
FDCA Historical Documents
The Organizational Platform for a General Union of Anarchists
Nestor Makhno Archive
Publications
Corrêa, F. (2012). Social Anarchism and Organization. AK Press.
Corrêa, F. (2015). Social Anarchism and Organization: The Specific Proposal. Eleuterio Press.
Corrêa, F. (2022). Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy [Interview by M. Walmsley]. Anarkismo.net.
Fontenis, G. (1954/2013). Libertarian Communist Manifesto. Critical edition with foreword by Frank Mintz. Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation.
García, V. (2017). The Libertarian Left in Chile: From resistance to institutional politics. LOM Editions.
Gutiérrez, J.A. (2015). Anarchism in Latin America: The libertarian utopia south of the Rio Grande. Eleutherius.
Lima Rocha, B. (2013). Anarchism and class struggle: A view from Latin America. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana Magazine, 18(60), 13-28.
Lima Rocha, B. (2017). Political militancy and revolutionary strategy: The case of the Gaúcha Anarchist Federation. In Anarchism & Education (pp. 77-94). Editor Fi.
Méndez, N. & Vallota, A. (2018). Anarchism in Latin America: Networks, practices and militancy. CEHIPOL.
Olaizola Albéniz, J. M. (2013). The need to organize anarchists (II). Anarquia.cat. https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
Payn, J. (2018). Building Counter-Power: The ZACF and the South African Left. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements.
Rugai, R. (2020). Specificism: The construction of popular power in Latin America. Faísca Editor.
Troaditis, D. (2020). From Delo Truda to Anarkismo.net: A Century of Anarchist Organizing. Anarchist Studies.
Van der Walt, L. & Schmidt, M. (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. AK Press.
--------
NOTES
1 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/
2 https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
3 https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/
4 Mail communication with José María Olaizola, 05/20/2025
5 This French trade union organization dates back to 1981 as a grouping of 10 autonomous federations and independent national unions. It was significantly influenced by Trotskyist and, in some cases, libertarian currents. In the 1990s, it had around 50,000-60,000 members.
6 Known as CIB Unicobas, it is an organization of Italian grassroots trade unionism, part of the "Cobas" (grassroots committees) phenomenon. Unicobas was founded in 1991 and quickly came into contact with alternative trade unionism. It had 5,000 members.
7. An anarcho-syndicalist organization founded in Sweden in 1910 under the name Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation. In the 1950s it was excluded from the IWA, entering into conflict with the exiled Spanish CNT. A rivalry existed ever since. When the Spanish CNT split in the 1980s, giving rise to the CGT, this new organization resumed contact with the Swedish union.
8. The Confédération Romande du Travail (CRT) was founded in the early 1970s by Christian syndicalism. Several years later, due to the influence of militant trade unionists, it changed direction and became part of the sector of unions and tendencies of that time that sought to develop an alternative unionism. It dissolved in 1996. Its legacy of militant unionism would later be taken up by the SUD of the canton of Vaud.
9. Ibid.
10 In English, see “International Libertarian Meeting.” https://web.archive.org/web/20080223130405/http://flag.blackened.net/rev…
In French, see Alternative Libertaire, no. 36, October 1995, pp. 14-15:
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
11 Conversation with Nathaniel Clavijo, 05/23/2025.
12 [Sibersakaya Konfederatsia Truda] The Siberian Confederation of Labor (SKT) was founded in March 1995 by Siberian anarcho-syndicalists, who until then had been grouped in a "Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists" that operated from 1989 to 2000. It grew to around 5,000 members, according to its own source.
13 Lucien Van der Walt, "Report on Le Autre Futur" (Report on the Other Future), Paris summit, August 26, 2015
https://lucienvanderwalt.com/2015/08/26/lucien-van-der-walt-2000-report-...
14 https://www.wsm.ie/
15 Announcing Anarchist Platform Email List
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/announcing-anarchist-platform-email-list…
16 Thirty Years of Life… 11/01/2016
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/blog/2016/11/01/1986-2016-30-...
17 https://zabalaza.net/
18 The text can be read in its original language here:
https://www.cabn.libertar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FARJ_-_ANARQUIS…
19 Interview with the FdCA by NEFAC, 2003
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
20 Against Capitalist Globalization! Alternative Libertaire #96, May 2001, p. 11
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
21 A written reference can be found on the back page of the newspaper of the XVII CGT Congress in A Coruña, October 20, 2013. Juan Pilo indicates that Mechoso's trip to Europe accelerated contacts. Among others, they contacted Olaizola, then Secretary General of the CGT.
https://cgt.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diario3.qxd_.pdf
22 Olaizola, 05/20/2025
23 See some RL statements on the Radio Klara website:
https://www.radioklara.org/radioklara/?tag=red-libertaria-apoyo-mutuo
24 Naissance d'un réseau international libertaire. Extrait de mai number from Alternative Libertaire (France):
https://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00171.html
25 Consultation with José María Olaizola. 05/18/2025
26 Declaration of the International Libertarian Meeting. March 31, 2001
https://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_madrid.htm
27 https://www.instagram.com/fag.cab/
28 Interview with ORA by NEFAC, 2003:
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
29 "Magonism" is considered a type of libertarian communism native to Mexico. It takes into account the influence of indigenous peoples and draws on their traditional customs and forms of community organization. These ideas became popular in the 1990s. The concept of "Magonism" comes from Ricardo Flores Magón, one of the driving forces of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, who was an anarchist.
The Ricardo Flores Magón Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca (CIPO-RFM) was active between approximately 1997 and 2006. It coordinated various local indigenous organizations in the state of Oaxaca. It moved internationally within libertarian circles. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_Ind%C3%ADgena_Popular_de_Oaxaca_%2…
31 The acronym stands for Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation.
32 https://www.nodo50.org/auca/menu%20que%20es%20auca.html
33 NEFAC stands for North Eastern Anarchist Federation. It united groups from New England and Quebec. Their texts can be found here:
https://libcom.org/tags/nefac
34 For example, the 2008 conference organized by the CGT in Madrid, "A Libertarian Critique of the Current Situation"
https://info.nodo50.org/Jornadas-Una-critica-libertaria-de.html
35 For more information, read José Antonio Gutiérrez, "Reflections on Twenty Years of Anarcho-Communism in Chile," February 24, 2020.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31737
36 To see photos of the first meeting:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/fotos.htm
To see some initial ELAOPA documents:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/forum.htm
37 Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) in Santiago, Chile. Rojo y Negro No. 397, February 2025.
https://rojoynegro.info/articulo/encuentro-latinoamericano-de-organizaci…
38 Final Declaration of the 2003 Anarchist Conference:
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/declaracion-final-de-las-jornada…
39 List published by Daniel Barret, The Seditious Awakenings of Anarchy. Buenos Aires: Libros de Anarres, 2011. pp. 153-154
40 https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/el-anar…
41 Anarkismo.net. Interview with one of the founders
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jose-anto…
42 When an anarcho-communist network was formed, anarcho-syndicalist organizations, such as the CGT, the SAC, or the CNT-Vignoles, and grassroots trade unionists, such as Unicobas or the SUD, joined together in new networks, such as FESAL, the International Trade Union Network of Solidarity and Struggle, or the Coordinadora Rojinegra.
43 Excerpt from the interview Autonomous Action of Russia conducted with the ZACF in 2010. The interview can be read at:
https://zabalaza.net/2010/12/07/autonomous-action-russia-interviews-the-...
44 http://oclibertaire.free.fr/
45 Nick Heath is currently a member of the Anarchist Communist Group. He publishes under the pseudonym BattleScarred.
46 https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/
47 Ilan was interviewed extensively in 2025:
https://alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/57055
48 https://columnalibertaria.blogspot.com/
49 http://www.farj.org/
50 Felipe Corrêa. Interview with Mya Walmsey. Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy. An interview with Felipe Corrêa. March 2022.
51 https://avtonom.org/en
52 https://melbacg.au/
53 https://libcom.org/tags/liberty-solidarity
54 Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting, 11/17/2008. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/10681
55 Europe: Libertarian Communists Resist Liaisons. 02/03/2010 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Europe-Les-communistes-libert…
The agreements can be read here: https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rencontre-europeenne-de-group…
56 https://www.blackrosefed.org/about/
57 The CAB would not dissolve the international secretariats of each regional or local organization of the Coordinator until 2016, with each participating independently in international coordination until then.
58 Declaration of international solidarity with the 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. 02/28/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/18895?search_text=declaraci%F3n+intern…
59 International Libertarian Declaration in solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, 11/25/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/21228
60 http://www.iceautogestion.org/index.php/es/
61 WSM takes part in Conference of European Anarchist Organizations in London. March 31, 2011 https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/wsm-conference-european-anarkismo-london…
62 The FAO forum was a precursor to the CAB. It was the space where Brazilian organizations met for debate.
63 Anarchist Conference January 2011. Sao Paulo. April 27, 2011
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/jornadas-anarquistas-enero-janei…
64 Delegation returns from International Anarchist Gathering at St. Imier. August 21, 2012
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
65 José María Olaizola Albéniz. The Need for Anarchists to Organize (II). Hernani, January 27, 2013
https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
66 May Day. Building a New Workers' Movement. https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
67 International Libertarian Declaration of Solidarity with the Kurdish Resistance, 10/22/2014
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/27505
68 We Anarchist/Liberal Communists in the Classroom, in the Europe of Capital, 12/11/2017
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30713
69 The map has not been updated, so it serves to show the state of the libertarian communist movement that year.
70 Consider, for example, these messages received by UCL in 2015:
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Messages-internationaux
71 WSM Closing Statement
https://libcom.org/article/workers-solidarity-movement-closing-statement
72 https://www.motmakt.no/
73 https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/
74 2017 Statement on Michael Schmidt Case / Declaração sobre o caso Michael Schmidt
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/2017-statement-on-michael…
75 Interview with UMLEM, 04/03/2008:
https://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/7092
76 Felipe Ramírez, A Bet Revolutionary movement of the Libertarian Left. 03/11/2013
https://periodico-solidaridad.blogspot.com/2013/11/declaracion-nacional-...
77 See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_Libertaria
78 https://www.instagram.com/izqlibertaria/?hl=es
79 Regarding the breakup of the Libertarian Left, some activists issued this statement:
https://www.tercerainformacion.es/articulo/internacional/30/03/2017/chil…
80 https://solidaridadfcl.org
81 https://fasanarquista7.wordpress.com/
82 Anarchist Conference 2019, 03/20/2019.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31339
83 https://www.instagram.com/cabanarquista/
84 https://www.instagram.com/far_rosario/
85 CALA Launch Statement. December 15, 2019
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/comunicado-de-lanzamiento-de-la-...
86 Joint Internationalist Declaration for the Freedom of the Political Prisoners of the Social Uprising in the Chilean Region, December 12, 2019
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32109
87 Update on the Campaign for the Sudanese Anarchists. April 18, 2024
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32877?search_text=Sudan
88 https://www.facebook.com/DAFederasyon/
89 https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org/
A different reading of several concepts
A different reading of several concepts
By Zaher Baher
April 2025
1. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
This concept was introduced by Lenin, who wrote this book in 1916 during World War I (WW1) while he was in Switzerland, a year before the October Revolution. In writing this book, Lenin greatly benefited from Marx's economic analysis.
The research that Lenin conducted and presented in this book is based on several key points and events in the stages of imperialism, which have been given different titles by economists and historians. According to their definitions, a strong nation or rather, a powerful state expands its influence over weaker countries or regions through political, economic, or military control. This often involves colonization, exploitation, the plundering of resources, and the domination of local populations.
Imperialism has existed in various forms throughout history, but the term is most commonly associated with the period from the 15th to the 20th century. Earlier examples include empires such as the Roman, Persian, and Chinese empires, which expanded by conquering territories.
For Lenin, the term was broadened to explain the economic and political causes of imperialism and its role in triggering global conflicts such as WWI. He argued that imperialism was a natural evolution of capitalism, driven by monopoly and finance capital, which sought new markets through colonial expansion. Lenin defined imperialism as the ‘Highest stage of capitalism,’ in which large corporations and banks dominate economies and seek new markets and resources abroad.
He identifies five main characteristics of imperialism:
1. Capitalism leads to the concentration of production and the rise of monopoly capital, which dominates all industries.
2. The merger of banking and industrial capital results in the emergence of financial oligarchies.
3. The export of capital (investment in foreign markets) becomes more significant than the export of goods.
4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies that divide the world among themselves.
5. The territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers is completed, leading to conflict.
Drawing on Marx's writings on economics, Lenin understood that capitalism was evolving toward monopoly, with small businesses being exploited by large corporations. The issue of currency and monetary institutions was an inevitable response to the phenomenon of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is characterized by the conflict between companies and wealth, which leads to exploitation and ultimately to great wars. Lenin saw WWI as a direct consequence of imperialism’s competition for colonies, raw materials, and markets.
Was Lenin's concept right?
Before answering the question, I must emphasize that Marxists, like religious individuals, are ideologists. They continue to believe that definitions of modern capitalism, formulated in a specific historical context, remain valid even after all these years. Their biggest challenge much like that of religious individuals is their tendency to detach interpretation, discourse, and concepts from their original source, time, place, and reality.
If we examine the reality of modern capitalism, the progress and changes that it has undergone, it becomes clear that this concept is flawed and has become obsolete. Rejecting it is not difficult, as the justifications used to support it can now be objectively assessed as either true or false.
Lenin believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse and that socialism would emerge, leaving no further stage or development for capitalism beyond imperialism. However, we see that instead of collapsing, capitalism has largely sustained itself through various reforms, such as the implementation of different service policies, globalization, and the advancement of new technologies and innovations.
Another argument made by Lenin was that capitalism is inherently monopolistic. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, global trade, the digital economy, and the occurrence of various short- and long-term wars, capitalism has not only managed to modernize itself but has also expanded beyond mere monopolization. Large corporations engage in intense competition to create new markets and revitalize existing ones, ensuring their continued relevance and profitability.
Another key principle in Lenin's concept was that foreign investment and expansion often occurred through force and occupation. However, today, we see that many of these transactions are voluntary, and states do not always act under pressure from one another. Instead, numerous trade and industrial agreements exist between countries. Additionally, states employ economic strategies such as adjusting interest rates, managing inflation, and imposing tariffs. These measures influence both the value of their currency and the dynamics of production and trade.
Another important point to consider, despite the existence of exploitation and cheap labour, is that most investments and large-scale projects today are carried out through contracts between major corporations and the states that require these projects, or between states themselves. In the modern era, no country can complete all its projects solely with its own companies or government resources; instead, they rely on large corporations or other states to execute these projects.
For example, many African countries are undertaking major projects such as roads, large bridges, dams, and various other infrastructure developments through partnerships with China and Chinese companies. Additionally, many states finance these projects through loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, despite the fact that the contractual conditions can be extremely challenging and stringent. While some projects or loans may be necessary and unavoidable, they are largely undertaken voluntarily rather than being imposed through occupation, exploitation, or the forced extraction of resources.
In conclusion, some of Lenin’s assertions remain valid, particularly regarding the persistence of great power hegemony, war, and oppression, which continue to this day. However, while economic hegemony still exists, it has evolved into a more complex and resilient system than Lenin initially predicted.
In my opinion, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism has moved beyond that stage and has now reached the stage of globalization. Globalization and imperialism are two distinct phases with different definitions and paths of development. While imperialism was indeed a stage in capitalism’s evolution, it was not its peak. Imperialism existed in a time when globalization had not yet emerged, and with the rise of globalization, imperialism as it once existed has ceased to be relevant.
2 The Third World Theory
In my opinion, this theory is closely connected to the earlier discussion on imperialism, despite the years that separate them. According to Lenin, imperialism is not only the primary enemy of the working class but also the arch-enemy of colonized nations, as it involves occupying and plundering their natural and human resources while preventing them from achieving independence and progress. Although Lenin did not specifically use the concept of the ‘Third World’ his theory inherently applies to regions and countries that were once occupied and exploited by imperialist powers. It is essentially the basis of the theory of the third world theory.
In this context, Lenin believed that the struggle for national liberation should be initiated, with the workers of the country serving as the main force in this struggle alongside the national liberation movement. Lenin wrote several important texts on this issue, including ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914–), where he argued that oppressed nations have the right to secede and form independent states. He emphasized that Marxists must support this right while simultaneously advocating for the unity of the proletariat. Lenin stressed the importance of addressing the issue of oppressed nations, particularly those in Asia, in their quest for independence from imperialist powers.
Lenin elaborates on the connection between the socialist revolution and the struggle for national liberation in his 1916 text, ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1916). He emphasizes that the right to self-determination is a democratic right that fosters unity among workers across different nations. Written in February of that year, these writings extensively discuss national liberation movements, anti-imperialism, and the role of oppressed nations in the global revolutionary struggle. Lenin's works highlight the liberation struggles of nations in Asia, Africa, and other colonized regions.
When Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism is the Highest Stage of Capitalism in1917, he once again emphasized the role of revolutionary movements in Asia. His views on national liberation and national destiny aligned closely with many anti-colonial movements across Asia.
Later, in 1920, Lenin revisited this topic in his Theses on ‘National and Colonial Questions’, presented at the Second Congress of the Communist International. There, he reaffirmed his belief that communists should support anti-colonial and national liberation movements.
Obviously, Lenin relied on the positions of Marx and Engels, who wrote on the issue of Ireland and Poland in their time and supported the independence of both countries, which they believed would benefit the labor movement in both countries.
The above writings were part of a series in which Lenin addressed the national liberation movement. However, despite these contributions, the idea of the ‘Third World Theory’ did not immediately develop into a fully universal theory. Instead, Lenin’s work laid a strong foundation for the theory, which evolved through various stages and efforts before eventually developing into the ‘Third World Theory.’
Third World Theory later emerged as a political and economic concept during the pre and post-Cold War era, initially taking shape in the 1950s and 1960s. The theory focused on countries that were neither aligned with the Western Bloc (led by the U.S. and its NATO allies) nor the Eastern Bloc (led by the former Soviet Union and its allies). Instead, these nations mostly former colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East sought to establish their own independent political and economic paths.
The concept or term Third World Theory was first introduced by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. He drew a comparison between the Third World and the Third Estate in pre-revolutionary 19th-century France. The term originally referred to the common people, who were marginalized and exploited, highlighting their need for revolution.
The political and ideological development of ‘Third World Theory’ then entered a new stage, closely linked to the leaders and thinkers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and anti-imperialist struggles. To this end, Asian and African leaders gathered in 1955 at a conference in Indonesia to promote cooperation and oppose colonialism. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was officially founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The ‘Third World’ thus became a symbol of resistance, anti-imperialism, and the aspiration for a new world order.
The formation of the Chinese Communist Party and the movement led by Mao Zedong, culminating in their victory in 1949, played a crucial role in linking Mao’s theories on nationalism and anti-imperialism with Lenin’s theses. This connection significantly influenced other national movements and contributed to the further development of ‘Third World Theory’. As the theory evolved, it entered a new stage and, by the 1970s, became a manifesto for various movements that sought to challenge imperialism and assert national sovereignty.
The essence of the Third World Theory
Since the 1970s, the theory of the Third World has gained significant meaning in both form and content. Many communist parties, as well as other groups under different names but still adhering to communist ideologies, have expressed the world in this way and shaped their tactics and goals accordingly. Their vision of the world introduced a new purpose and redefined its structure.
The First World consisted of the Great Powers (the USA and the USSR), which the theory identified as two imperialist forces. The Second World included developed industrialized countries, such as European countries and several others, positioned between the powerful nations and the industrially backward countries. The Third World comprised nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were considered underdeveloped.
According to this theory, the main conflict for these parties, including the left and the communists, is the conflict between their country and the two countries that are considered imperialists (US and Russia). In this regard, they believed that the Third World was the primary force for revolutionary change.
The expansion and damage of the theory reached the point where it became the ultimate criterion for defining the revolutionary movement. Whoever fought against imperialism was a revolutionary. Even worse than this, the theory was ignoring the oppression role of the internal national bourgeoisie because it was considered a patriotic power. So therefore the fight against the bourgeoisie and the domestic capitalists, who were considered national capitalists or patriotic capitalists rejected overruled by these parties and organisation. The theory has seen considered domestic capitalists as a step toward the socialist revolution because supporting those means developing the country's economy in terms of industry, which means increasing the number of workers by industrializing it and taking the country towards capitalism. According to this theory it brings us closer to the socialist revolution.
The two worst aspects of this theory were that, in some countries, pro-Russian parties supported their governments due to their alignment with Russia, believing that this would lead the country towards socialism through capitalism and supporting the Russia under the so called policy of the non-capitalistic development towards socialism. In countries such as Iraq, it was different, the Communist Party convinced their members and the public that socialism could be achieved through a democratic state or a people's democracy state by developing a non-capitalist path.
Another disadvantage drawback of this theory is that even among leftists, social democrats, and parties such as the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, their stance on international conflicts has been shaped by this framework. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, they supported Iran. This position was particularly evident in the British Socialist Workers Party at the time.
In contemporary conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, these leftists support Ukraine because they see Russia as the main imperialist force. Similarly, in conflicts involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel, leftists take the side of these organizations against Israel, viewing it as a major U.S. military base. According to the 'Third World Theory,' they also support countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American nations governed by leftist parties that oppose the United States. Thus, the theory of the three worlds has become a criterion for these leftists to determine which powers align with or oppose the United States in global conflicts.
Applying this theory to any of the fields mentioned above serves the capitalist system by dividing workers, turning themselves against each other, and weakening their collective struggle. Furthermore, the misuse of the concept of imperialism is a critical mistake that could severely harm the workers' movement and the masses.
Today, the entire world operates under capitalism, though it is divided into developed and undeveloped industrialized countries. The conflicts between these states are essentially wars of oppression and attacks on the workers' movement, both directly and indirectly. The names of these states, the parties that govern them, and their claims are irrelevant. This serves as a justification for categorizing capitalism into two parts: imperialism, the “negative” aspect of capitalism, and the other, which is seen as the "good" part of capitalism.
Everyone’s struggle must focus on striking at the capitalists, local and national governments, and the system’s main pillar: the state. This is the only radical and comprehensive way to bring down the system itself. It is not about supporting the state in its wars but rather rebelling against it by any way possible, both individually and collectively. The core of the struggle is to address the conflict between the capitalist state and the workers, and the masses, with the goal of eliminating wage labour system and dismantling the greatest pillar of capitalism: the state.
Unfortunately, the ‘Third World Theory’ still exists today and continues to play a significant role in dividing and misleading us. It leads us to trust the national regime, the nation-state, and the idea of a legitimate war against "imperialism," which is seen by them as the great fortress of capitalism.
In my opinion, the concept of imperialism, as used by some anarchists, is incorrect. It divides capitalism and capitalist states into "good" and "bad," which in turn divides the working class, the masses, and their movements. This is a clear distortion of the idea that capitalism is a global system, and its opposing movement must also be global. This approach represents a return to the Third World theory, and it’s use serves to defend the war between capitalist states by justifying one side and demonizing the other. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, this approach is rooted in the Third World Theory, which has caused significant harm to our movement in the past.
3 The Nation-state
The common definition of a nation-state is a country where most of the population shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, or historical background. It has a defined territory with recognized borders and a government that holds sovereignty (control) over both the land and its people. A central authority enforces laws and is said to maintain order and security. Additionally, a nation-state is recognized as an independent entity by other states and international organizations, often maintaining diplomatic relations through envoys and diplomats.
In addition to the above, the nation-state is believed to have full control over its internal and external affairs, maintaining independence in this regard. It is also commonly described as a national achievement and a political entity defined by a shared cultural, linguistic, or national identity.
The nation-state is often described as having citizens who are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language, race, or ancestry. The idea is that the political boundaries of the state align with the cultural boundaries of the nation. It is believed that this sense of shared identity fosters a feeling of ownership over the country and its governance, allowing the nation-state to maintain stability, national unity, and social cohesion.
But is that true?
Today, when we examine any nation-state in the world, we must question whether this concept promoted by authorities, national parties, nationalists, social democrats, and even some leftists is right? Does a state truly exist under the name of a nation-state? How much longer will this idea continue to dominate our thinking simply because it is favoured by academics, economists, and intellectuals who serve the system?
In my opinion, there is substantial evidence to prove that the term is incorrect. However, I will focus on three key points that clearly demonstrate the flaws in this concept.
First, no state or country is truly independent, especially in terms of economic self-sufficiency, which is essential for political independence. Even major powers like the United States, Japan, Germany, and Britain rely on others to a varying degree, both economically and, at times, politically.
In this case, there is no need to rely on statistics, as it is evident that international trade, participation in trade institutions, economic agreements, and industrial treaties all demonstrate this dependence. Anyone who shops in a market or searches online will find that many versions of the same product come from different countries. Therefore, neither states nor countries are truly independent, nor can they remain so. This is a defining feature of capitalist progress and globalization. If any modern state or country attempts to withdraw from this system, it will gradually weaken and may even collapse.
Second, the nation-state, whose core institution is the government, primarily serves a particular class typically a small minority of elites and the upper class. In most of these states and countries, the general population and citizens do not necessarily belong to the dominant national identity as defined by the state. Furthermore, the nation-state prioritizes the interests of large corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy—regardless of race or gender rather than those of the majority, including mainly workers and the exploited. Therefore, it is misleading to label a state as a "nation-state" simply because its official language aligns with that of the dominant nation. Moreover, due to globalization, the indigenous cultures of many nations have weakened or even partially disappeared.
Third, the idea that nation-states are defined by a common language and culture is inaccurate. Nearly all states, aside from their dominant national group, include ethnic minorities, some of whom have lived there for generations. These minorities have their own distinct cultures, traditions, and religions, which are not shared with the dominant nation or other minority groups. While they may coexist and respect one another, their cultural identities remain separate.
That being said, there is no denying that English is the official language in Britain, French in France and German in Germany, just as other countries have their own official languages used by everyone. However, these official languages are not necessarily learned or adopted voluntarily by non-English or non-French or non-German communities. In fact, the living conditions in these countries often compel people to learn the official language English in the UK, French in France and German in Germany. Education, writing, public speaking, work, theatre, and market transactions are all conducted in the official language, rather than in the native languages of minority communities.
This is despite the fact that in many nation-states, such as Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, China, Rwanda, Congo, and many others, the ruling class of the dominant nation often implements discriminatory policies. These include the repression of minority groups through violence, arrests, expulsions, and the banning of their languages, cultures, and religions.
It is clear that the nation-state does not embody the basic principles outlined above, and the concepts associated with it do not truly apply. The term "nation-state" turns out to be a misleading or meaningless label, rather than a reflection of reality. Capitalism has intentionally used this concept to its advantage, benefiting from it in numerous ways while also using it as an excuse for both leftist and nationalist movements to fight whether peacefully or with arms. In the context of armed movements, the system itself has been the primary winner and beneficiary. Therefore, through the use of this term, capitalism has benefited in every possible way.
4 White man
The concept of the white man regarding race, culture, and social relationships has, like many other concepts and phenomena, evolved to some extent over time and throughout the different stages of human history.
Ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, did not classify people by 'race' in the modern sense. Instead, they differentiated individuals based on culture, language, and geography. While they did recognize physical differences, such as skin colour, these distinctions did not imply a social (categories) or systemic hierarchy as they would in later periods.
It is generally understood that the term 'white man' refers to an individual classified as belonging to the white racial group, typically associated with people of European descent. From a historical perspective, this concept is not solely biological, as its meaning is also shaped by historical developments and the individual's position within a social context.
Like the concept of race itself, the idea of the 'white man' has been modernized and adapted over time to reflect social status. For instance, during the colonization of nations and the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, the concept of race began to take shape and was developed to justify the enslavement of Africans and the displacement of indigenous peoples. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants were not considered fully 'white' in the United States. The colony of Virginia (in what is now the United States) is often cited as one of the earliest places, in the late 1600s, where 'whiteness' was legally defined and used to create a social divide between poor Europeans and enslaved Africans.
Undoubtedly, the law has long served as an effective tool for ruling class and classes to enforce their interests. Throughout history, repression, slavery, and even discrimination against women have been legalized in many countries to benefit those in power. In the past, laws and policies in places like in the United States and European colonies granted legal privileges to 'white' people, often at the expense of excluding others. These laws and policies promoted racial hierarchies as a means of maintaining power and justifying inequality.
In short, the term 'white man,' when associated with racial issues, was primarily coined during the periods of colonialism and slavery. It served to establish a system of privilege and power for Europeans and their descendants. Race, as it is used in society, is a social construct rather than a concept grounded in biology.
Considering the above, can we still use the idea of whiteness or white skin, or the concept of the white person, in today's context?
Although in societies where the term has been used it is associated with social, political, and economic privileges, I find the use of the term 'white man' problematic for at least two reasons:
First, there are millions of 'white' women and men in predominantly 'white' societies whose living conditions and social status are no better than those of Black people and others of different skin colours. Like many others in these societies, they face oppression and marginalization, regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship. Their political and economic interests are suppressed by the same economic and political system that oppresses both white and non-white individuals. Their struggle unites them against the exploiters, the state, and the state’s laws.
Second, some Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, (BAME) individuals have held high social and political positions, such as Rishi Sunak (The Prime Minister of the UK from 25/10/22 to 05/07/2024), Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024), and Kemi Badenoch, the current leader of the Conservative Party in the UK and Nadhim Zahawi the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there are dozens of non-white Members of Parliament in Westminster, Scotland, and Wales, who hold political power and play a role in shaping the policies of their parties and countries.
Of course, this is true not only for Britain but also for the entire region of Europe, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, the issue of race should not be viewed as a biological phenomenon, but rather as a matter of superiority, domination, and political and economic status. We could even argue that they have no distinct race, nation, or country; their passports represent their wealth, which grants them that social status. This concept is completely rejected, especially when it carries historical weight or is used in the context of power dynamics or stereotypes.
That being said, it cannot be denied that racism remains a significant issue in these countries, driven by political, legal, and economic factors that the state both directly and indirectly fosters to divide its citizens for its own interests.
5 All wars are wars for power
The term “class war” was not commonly used before the 19th century, but the concept of conflict between social classes had existed for centuries. For example, in medieval Europe, peasant uprisings such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525 were essentially struggles between social classes, even though the specific term “class war” was not explicitly used at the time.
In France, during the Revolution (1789–1799), veterans, intellectuals, and revolutionaries of the time used terminology that closely resembled the concept of “class war.”
The term “class war” was largely popularized by the French anarchist and socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid-nineteenth century. He was among the first to explicitly refer to “class war,” rather than merely “class struggle.” In his writings, Proudhon described the economic and social conflict between workers and capitalists as a form of war.
However, the concept of “class war” as an explicit notion of violent or revolutionary class struggle was later developed further by Marxists and other socialists, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea was more thoroughly explored and debated, and over time, class warfare came to be increasingly associated with authoritarianism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels primarily used the term "class struggle", Klassenkampf in German—rather than "class war," although they did refer to class warfare when discussing revolutionary confrontation. This language first appeared in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), where they famously wrote that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." They argued that this struggle would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Engels, in particular, referred more explicitly to "class war" in some of his letters and speeches when discussing revolution.
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, frequently invoked the idea of class war to describe violent revolutionary action against the state and capitalists. During and after the Paris Commune of 1871, the use of the term “class war” became firmly established among revolutionaries, especially following the brutal suppression of the uprising by French authorities.
Marx and Engels, along with later Marxist thinkers, viewed class struggle as a real and driving force behind material conditions. They agreed that the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat had fundamentally opposing interests, which formed the foundation of their social conflict. All of them connected the proletarian goal to the seizure of state power as a means to eliminate class differences and ultimately abolish classes altogether.
In many cases, the theory of class struggle was used as a tool to mobilize the masses and popularize revolutionary movements. However, the result was often the creation of a new ruling power rather than the actual dissolution of class divisions. Revolutionary leaders, in their pursuit of popular support, frequently invoked the idea of class war to inspire and rally workers and peasants.
In my opinion, many of the wars throughout history that have been labelled as class wars were not truly about class struggle, but rather about power and the seizure of power. These conflicts were often framed in terms of economic inequality and oppression, which served as means to rally support and legitimize the cause. While it is true that many individuals participated in these wars suffering, becoming disabled, or even sacrificing their lives and families—the core of these conflicts was ultimately about the struggle for power. Uprisings, revolutions, and struggles often resulted in the rise of new elites, rather than the creation of a truly classless society. Once in power, these leaders tended to prioritize maintaining their own authority over attaining genuine classless society and social equality.
Disguised wars have often been labelled as class wars, such as the French Revolution (1789–1799), in which the Jacobins overthrew the aristocracy, only to establish a new elite, followed by Napoleon's eventual rise to power.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, is another example of a power struggle that was initially framed as a class struggle but, in reality, was a struggle for power. Over time, the scope of this power struggle became so concentrated that authority shifted from the broader revolutionary movement to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party's revolution, led by Mao Zedong, which culminated in victory in 1949, was also fundamentally a struggle for power.
Other examples include the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires, the wars between some Arab countries and Israel in 1967 and 1973, the wars in Southeast Asia, the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that all these conflicts whether class-based, religious, or ethnic are essentially struggles for power, including self-defence wars to prevent foreign powers from replacing domestic authority.
None of these wars can be considered class wars; rather, they are struggles to regain or seize power. Whether one side attacked and the other defended is irrelevant to the core issue these are wars driven by the desire for control and authority.
As I mentioned earlier, both Proudhon and Bakunin spoke of class war, class struggle, or class violence, but they never framed these as authoritarian wars or wars fought to seize power. Similarly, although anarchists acknowledge the existence of class struggle, it is not for the purpose of gaining political power. For them, political struggle is not a means or a bridge to achieve political power or the supremacy of one class over another. Instead, it is a means to destroy the supremacy of all classes and eradicate all forms of political power. Therefore, it can be said that, both theoretically and practically, anarchists were the only ones who did not use class struggle or class war as a tool to gain power.
I will conclude with a question: If all these wars were truly class wars and not struggles for power, why have none of them eliminated the distinctions between class and power? Why, instead, have they deepened the class divide and strengthened power as a form of state authority?
Zaherbaher.com
By Zaher Baher
April 2025
1. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
This concept was introduced by Lenin, who wrote this book in 1916 during World War I (WW1) while he was in Switzerland, a year before the October Revolution. In writing this book, Lenin greatly benefited from Marx's economic analysis.
The research that Lenin conducted and presented in this book is based on several key points and events in the stages of imperialism, which have been given different titles by economists and historians. According to their definitions, a strong nation or rather, a powerful state expands its influence over weaker countries or regions through political, economic, or military control. This often involves colonization, exploitation, the plundering of resources, and the domination of local populations.
Imperialism has existed in various forms throughout history, but the term is most commonly associated with the period from the 15th to the 20th century. Earlier examples include empires such as the Roman, Persian, and Chinese empires, which expanded by conquering territories.
For Lenin, the term was broadened to explain the economic and political causes of imperialism and its role in triggering global conflicts such as WWI. He argued that imperialism was a natural evolution of capitalism, driven by monopoly and finance capital, which sought new markets through colonial expansion. Lenin defined imperialism as the ‘Highest stage of capitalism,’ in which large corporations and banks dominate economies and seek new markets and resources abroad.
He identifies five main characteristics of imperialism:
1. Capitalism leads to the concentration of production and the rise of monopoly capital, which dominates all industries.
2. The merger of banking and industrial capital results in the emergence of financial oligarchies.
3. The export of capital (investment in foreign markets) becomes more significant than the export of goods.
4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies that divide the world among themselves.
5. The territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers is completed, leading to conflict.
Drawing on Marx's writings on economics, Lenin understood that capitalism was evolving toward monopoly, with small businesses being exploited by large corporations. The issue of currency and monetary institutions was an inevitable response to the phenomenon of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is characterized by the conflict between companies and wealth, which leads to exploitation and ultimately to great wars. Lenin saw WWI as a direct consequence of imperialism’s competition for colonies, raw materials, and markets.
Was Lenin's concept right?
Before answering the question, I must emphasize that Marxists, like religious individuals, are ideologists. They continue to believe that definitions of modern capitalism, formulated in a specific historical context, remain valid even after all these years. Their biggest challenge much like that of religious individuals is their tendency to detach interpretation, discourse, and concepts from their original source, time, place, and reality.
If we examine the reality of modern capitalism, the progress and changes that it has undergone, it becomes clear that this concept is flawed and has become obsolete. Rejecting it is not difficult, as the justifications used to support it can now be objectively assessed as either true or false.
Lenin believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse and that socialism would emerge, leaving no further stage or development for capitalism beyond imperialism. However, we see that instead of collapsing, capitalism has largely sustained itself through various reforms, such as the implementation of different service policies, globalization, and the advancement of new technologies and innovations.
Another argument made by Lenin was that capitalism is inherently monopolistic. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, global trade, the digital economy, and the occurrence of various short- and long-term wars, capitalism has not only managed to modernize itself but has also expanded beyond mere monopolization. Large corporations engage in intense competition to create new markets and revitalize existing ones, ensuring their continued relevance and profitability.
Another key principle in Lenin's concept was that foreign investment and expansion often occurred through force and occupation. However, today, we see that many of these transactions are voluntary, and states do not always act under pressure from one another. Instead, numerous trade and industrial agreements exist between countries. Additionally, states employ economic strategies such as adjusting interest rates, managing inflation, and imposing tariffs. These measures influence both the value of their currency and the dynamics of production and trade.
Another important point to consider, despite the existence of exploitation and cheap labour, is that most investments and large-scale projects today are carried out through contracts between major corporations and the states that require these projects, or between states themselves. In the modern era, no country can complete all its projects solely with its own companies or government resources; instead, they rely on large corporations or other states to execute these projects.
For example, many African countries are undertaking major projects such as roads, large bridges, dams, and various other infrastructure developments through partnerships with China and Chinese companies. Additionally, many states finance these projects through loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, despite the fact that the contractual conditions can be extremely challenging and stringent. While some projects or loans may be necessary and unavoidable, they are largely undertaken voluntarily rather than being imposed through occupation, exploitation, or the forced extraction of resources.
In conclusion, some of Lenin’s assertions remain valid, particularly regarding the persistence of great power hegemony, war, and oppression, which continue to this day. However, while economic hegemony still exists, it has evolved into a more complex and resilient system than Lenin initially predicted.
In my opinion, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism has moved beyond that stage and has now reached the stage of globalization. Globalization and imperialism are two distinct phases with different definitions and paths of development. While imperialism was indeed a stage in capitalism’s evolution, it was not its peak. Imperialism existed in a time when globalization had not yet emerged, and with the rise of globalization, imperialism as it once existed has ceased to be relevant.
2 The Third World Theory
In my opinion, this theory is closely connected to the earlier discussion on imperialism, despite the years that separate them. According to Lenin, imperialism is not only the primary enemy of the working class but also the arch-enemy of colonized nations, as it involves occupying and plundering their natural and human resources while preventing them from achieving independence and progress. Although Lenin did not specifically use the concept of the ‘Third World’ his theory inherently applies to regions and countries that were once occupied and exploited by imperialist powers. It is essentially the basis of the theory of the third world theory.
In this context, Lenin believed that the struggle for national liberation should be initiated, with the workers of the country serving as the main force in this struggle alongside the national liberation movement. Lenin wrote several important texts on this issue, including ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914–), where he argued that oppressed nations have the right to secede and form independent states. He emphasized that Marxists must support this right while simultaneously advocating for the unity of the proletariat. Lenin stressed the importance of addressing the issue of oppressed nations, particularly those in Asia, in their quest for independence from imperialist powers.
Lenin elaborates on the connection between the socialist revolution and the struggle for national liberation in his 1916 text, ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1916). He emphasizes that the right to self-determination is a democratic right that fosters unity among workers across different nations. Written in February of that year, these writings extensively discuss national liberation movements, anti-imperialism, and the role of oppressed nations in the global revolutionary struggle. Lenin's works highlight the liberation struggles of nations in Asia, Africa, and other colonized regions.
When Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism is the Highest Stage of Capitalism in1917, he once again emphasized the role of revolutionary movements in Asia. His views on national liberation and national destiny aligned closely with many anti-colonial movements across Asia.
Later, in 1920, Lenin revisited this topic in his Theses on ‘National and Colonial Questions’, presented at the Second Congress of the Communist International. There, he reaffirmed his belief that communists should support anti-colonial and national liberation movements.
Obviously, Lenin relied on the positions of Marx and Engels, who wrote on the issue of Ireland and Poland in their time and supported the independence of both countries, which they believed would benefit the labor movement in both countries.
The above writings were part of a series in which Lenin addressed the national liberation movement. However, despite these contributions, the idea of the ‘Third World Theory’ did not immediately develop into a fully universal theory. Instead, Lenin’s work laid a strong foundation for the theory, which evolved through various stages and efforts before eventually developing into the ‘Third World Theory.’
Third World Theory later emerged as a political and economic concept during the pre and post-Cold War era, initially taking shape in the 1950s and 1960s. The theory focused on countries that were neither aligned with the Western Bloc (led by the U.S. and its NATO allies) nor the Eastern Bloc (led by the former Soviet Union and its allies). Instead, these nations mostly former colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East sought to establish their own independent political and economic paths.
The concept or term Third World Theory was first introduced by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. He drew a comparison between the Third World and the Third Estate in pre-revolutionary 19th-century France. The term originally referred to the common people, who were marginalized and exploited, highlighting their need for revolution.
The political and ideological development of ‘Third World Theory’ then entered a new stage, closely linked to the leaders and thinkers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and anti-imperialist struggles. To this end, Asian and African leaders gathered in 1955 at a conference in Indonesia to promote cooperation and oppose colonialism. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was officially founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The ‘Third World’ thus became a symbol of resistance, anti-imperialism, and the aspiration for a new world order.
The formation of the Chinese Communist Party and the movement led by Mao Zedong, culminating in their victory in 1949, played a crucial role in linking Mao’s theories on nationalism and anti-imperialism with Lenin’s theses. This connection significantly influenced other national movements and contributed to the further development of ‘Third World Theory’. As the theory evolved, it entered a new stage and, by the 1970s, became a manifesto for various movements that sought to challenge imperialism and assert national sovereignty.
The essence of the Third World Theory
Since the 1970s, the theory of the Third World has gained significant meaning in both form and content. Many communist parties, as well as other groups under different names but still adhering to communist ideologies, have expressed the world in this way and shaped their tactics and goals accordingly. Their vision of the world introduced a new purpose and redefined its structure.
The First World consisted of the Great Powers (the USA and the USSR), which the theory identified as two imperialist forces. The Second World included developed industrialized countries, such as European countries and several others, positioned between the powerful nations and the industrially backward countries. The Third World comprised nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were considered underdeveloped.
According to this theory, the main conflict for these parties, including the left and the communists, is the conflict between their country and the two countries that are considered imperialists (US and Russia). In this regard, they believed that the Third World was the primary force for revolutionary change.
The expansion and damage of the theory reached the point where it became the ultimate criterion for defining the revolutionary movement. Whoever fought against imperialism was a revolutionary. Even worse than this, the theory was ignoring the oppression role of the internal national bourgeoisie because it was considered a patriotic power. So therefore the fight against the bourgeoisie and the domestic capitalists, who were considered national capitalists or patriotic capitalists rejected overruled by these parties and organisation. The theory has seen considered domestic capitalists as a step toward the socialist revolution because supporting those means developing the country's economy in terms of industry, which means increasing the number of workers by industrializing it and taking the country towards capitalism. According to this theory it brings us closer to the socialist revolution.
The two worst aspects of this theory were that, in some countries, pro-Russian parties supported their governments due to their alignment with Russia, believing that this would lead the country towards socialism through capitalism and supporting the Russia under the so called policy of the non-capitalistic development towards socialism. In countries such as Iraq, it was different, the Communist Party convinced their members and the public that socialism could be achieved through a democratic state or a people's democracy state by developing a non-capitalist path.
Another disadvantage drawback of this theory is that even among leftists, social democrats, and parties such as the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, their stance on international conflicts has been shaped by this framework. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, they supported Iran. This position was particularly evident in the British Socialist Workers Party at the time.
In contemporary conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, these leftists support Ukraine because they see Russia as the main imperialist force. Similarly, in conflicts involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel, leftists take the side of these organizations against Israel, viewing it as a major U.S. military base. According to the 'Third World Theory,' they also support countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American nations governed by leftist parties that oppose the United States. Thus, the theory of the three worlds has become a criterion for these leftists to determine which powers align with or oppose the United States in global conflicts.
Applying this theory to any of the fields mentioned above serves the capitalist system by dividing workers, turning themselves against each other, and weakening their collective struggle. Furthermore, the misuse of the concept of imperialism is a critical mistake that could severely harm the workers' movement and the masses.
Today, the entire world operates under capitalism, though it is divided into developed and undeveloped industrialized countries. The conflicts between these states are essentially wars of oppression and attacks on the workers' movement, both directly and indirectly. The names of these states, the parties that govern them, and their claims are irrelevant. This serves as a justification for categorizing capitalism into two parts: imperialism, the “negative” aspect of capitalism, and the other, which is seen as the "good" part of capitalism.
Everyone’s struggle must focus on striking at the capitalists, local and national governments, and the system’s main pillar: the state. This is the only radical and comprehensive way to bring down the system itself. It is not about supporting the state in its wars but rather rebelling against it by any way possible, both individually and collectively. The core of the struggle is to address the conflict between the capitalist state and the workers, and the masses, with the goal of eliminating wage labour system and dismantling the greatest pillar of capitalism: the state.
Unfortunately, the ‘Third World Theory’ still exists today and continues to play a significant role in dividing and misleading us. It leads us to trust the national regime, the nation-state, and the idea of a legitimate war against "imperialism," which is seen by them as the great fortress of capitalism.
In my opinion, the concept of imperialism, as used by some anarchists, is incorrect. It divides capitalism and capitalist states into "good" and "bad," which in turn divides the working class, the masses, and their movements. This is a clear distortion of the idea that capitalism is a global system, and its opposing movement must also be global. This approach represents a return to the Third World theory, and it’s use serves to defend the war between capitalist states by justifying one side and demonizing the other. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, this approach is rooted in the Third World Theory, which has caused significant harm to our movement in the past.
3 The Nation-state
The common definition of a nation-state is a country where most of the population shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, or historical background. It has a defined territory with recognized borders and a government that holds sovereignty (control) over both the land and its people. A central authority enforces laws and is said to maintain order and security. Additionally, a nation-state is recognized as an independent entity by other states and international organizations, often maintaining diplomatic relations through envoys and diplomats.
In addition to the above, the nation-state is believed to have full control over its internal and external affairs, maintaining independence in this regard. It is also commonly described as a national achievement and a political entity defined by a shared cultural, linguistic, or national identity.
The nation-state is often described as having citizens who are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language, race, or ancestry. The idea is that the political boundaries of the state align with the cultural boundaries of the nation. It is believed that this sense of shared identity fosters a feeling of ownership over the country and its governance, allowing the nation-state to maintain stability, national unity, and social cohesion.
But is that true?
Today, when we examine any nation-state in the world, we must question whether this concept promoted by authorities, national parties, nationalists, social democrats, and even some leftists is right? Does a state truly exist under the name of a nation-state? How much longer will this idea continue to dominate our thinking simply because it is favoured by academics, economists, and intellectuals who serve the system?
In my opinion, there is substantial evidence to prove that the term is incorrect. However, I will focus on three key points that clearly demonstrate the flaws in this concept.
First, no state or country is truly independent, especially in terms of economic self-sufficiency, which is essential for political independence. Even major powers like the United States, Japan, Germany, and Britain rely on others to a varying degree, both economically and, at times, politically.
In this case, there is no need to rely on statistics, as it is evident that international trade, participation in trade institutions, economic agreements, and industrial treaties all demonstrate this dependence. Anyone who shops in a market or searches online will find that many versions of the same product come from different countries. Therefore, neither states nor countries are truly independent, nor can they remain so. This is a defining feature of capitalist progress and globalization. If any modern state or country attempts to withdraw from this system, it will gradually weaken and may even collapse.
Second, the nation-state, whose core institution is the government, primarily serves a particular class typically a small minority of elites and the upper class. In most of these states and countries, the general population and citizens do not necessarily belong to the dominant national identity as defined by the state. Furthermore, the nation-state prioritizes the interests of large corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy—regardless of race or gender rather than those of the majority, including mainly workers and the exploited. Therefore, it is misleading to label a state as a "nation-state" simply because its official language aligns with that of the dominant nation. Moreover, due to globalization, the indigenous cultures of many nations have weakened or even partially disappeared.
Third, the idea that nation-states are defined by a common language and culture is inaccurate. Nearly all states, aside from their dominant national group, include ethnic minorities, some of whom have lived there for generations. These minorities have their own distinct cultures, traditions, and religions, which are not shared with the dominant nation or other minority groups. While they may coexist and respect one another, their cultural identities remain separate.
That being said, there is no denying that English is the official language in Britain, French in France and German in Germany, just as other countries have their own official languages used by everyone. However, these official languages are not necessarily learned or adopted voluntarily by non-English or non-French or non-German communities. In fact, the living conditions in these countries often compel people to learn the official language English in the UK, French in France and German in Germany. Education, writing, public speaking, work, theatre, and market transactions are all conducted in the official language, rather than in the native languages of minority communities.
This is despite the fact that in many nation-states, such as Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, China, Rwanda, Congo, and many others, the ruling class of the dominant nation often implements discriminatory policies. These include the repression of minority groups through violence, arrests, expulsions, and the banning of their languages, cultures, and religions.
It is clear that the nation-state does not embody the basic principles outlined above, and the concepts associated with it do not truly apply. The term "nation-state" turns out to be a misleading or meaningless label, rather than a reflection of reality. Capitalism has intentionally used this concept to its advantage, benefiting from it in numerous ways while also using it as an excuse for both leftist and nationalist movements to fight whether peacefully or with arms. In the context of armed movements, the system itself has been the primary winner and beneficiary. Therefore, through the use of this term, capitalism has benefited in every possible way.
4 White man
The concept of the white man regarding race, culture, and social relationships has, like many other concepts and phenomena, evolved to some extent over time and throughout the different stages of human history.
Ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, did not classify people by 'race' in the modern sense. Instead, they differentiated individuals based on culture, language, and geography. While they did recognize physical differences, such as skin colour, these distinctions did not imply a social (categories) or systemic hierarchy as they would in later periods.
It is generally understood that the term 'white man' refers to an individual classified as belonging to the white racial group, typically associated with people of European descent. From a historical perspective, this concept is not solely biological, as its meaning is also shaped by historical developments and the individual's position within a social context.
Like the concept of race itself, the idea of the 'white man' has been modernized and adapted over time to reflect social status. For instance, during the colonization of nations and the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, the concept of race began to take shape and was developed to justify the enslavement of Africans and the displacement of indigenous peoples. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants were not considered fully 'white' in the United States. The colony of Virginia (in what is now the United States) is often cited as one of the earliest places, in the late 1600s, where 'whiteness' was legally defined and used to create a social divide between poor Europeans and enslaved Africans.
Undoubtedly, the law has long served as an effective tool for ruling class and classes to enforce their interests. Throughout history, repression, slavery, and even discrimination against women have been legalized in many countries to benefit those in power. In the past, laws and policies in places like in the United States and European colonies granted legal privileges to 'white' people, often at the expense of excluding others. These laws and policies promoted racial hierarchies as a means of maintaining power and justifying inequality.
In short, the term 'white man,' when associated with racial issues, was primarily coined during the periods of colonialism and slavery. It served to establish a system of privilege and power for Europeans and their descendants. Race, as it is used in society, is a social construct rather than a concept grounded in biology.
Considering the above, can we still use the idea of whiteness or white skin, or the concept of the white person, in today's context?
Although in societies where the term has been used it is associated with social, political, and economic privileges, I find the use of the term 'white man' problematic for at least two reasons:
First, there are millions of 'white' women and men in predominantly 'white' societies whose living conditions and social status are no better than those of Black people and others of different skin colours. Like many others in these societies, they face oppression and marginalization, regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship. Their political and economic interests are suppressed by the same economic and political system that oppresses both white and non-white individuals. Their struggle unites them against the exploiters, the state, and the state’s laws.
Second, some Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, (BAME) individuals have held high social and political positions, such as Rishi Sunak (The Prime Minister of the UK from 25/10/22 to 05/07/2024), Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024), and Kemi Badenoch, the current leader of the Conservative Party in the UK and Nadhim Zahawi the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there are dozens of non-white Members of Parliament in Westminster, Scotland, and Wales, who hold political power and play a role in shaping the policies of their parties and countries.
Of course, this is true not only for Britain but also for the entire region of Europe, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, the issue of race should not be viewed as a biological phenomenon, but rather as a matter of superiority, domination, and political and economic status. We could even argue that they have no distinct race, nation, or country; their passports represent their wealth, which grants them that social status. This concept is completely rejected, especially when it carries historical weight or is used in the context of power dynamics or stereotypes.
That being said, it cannot be denied that racism remains a significant issue in these countries, driven by political, legal, and economic factors that the state both directly and indirectly fosters to divide its citizens for its own interests.
5 All wars are wars for power
The term “class war” was not commonly used before the 19th century, but the concept of conflict between social classes had existed for centuries. For example, in medieval Europe, peasant uprisings such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525 were essentially struggles between social classes, even though the specific term “class war” was not explicitly used at the time.
In France, during the Revolution (1789–1799), veterans, intellectuals, and revolutionaries of the time used terminology that closely resembled the concept of “class war.”
The term “class war” was largely popularized by the French anarchist and socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid-nineteenth century. He was among the first to explicitly refer to “class war,” rather than merely “class struggle.” In his writings, Proudhon described the economic and social conflict between workers and capitalists as a form of war.
However, the concept of “class war” as an explicit notion of violent or revolutionary class struggle was later developed further by Marxists and other socialists, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea was more thoroughly explored and debated, and over time, class warfare came to be increasingly associated with authoritarianism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels primarily used the term "class struggle", Klassenkampf in German—rather than "class war," although they did refer to class warfare when discussing revolutionary confrontation. This language first appeared in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), where they famously wrote that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." They argued that this struggle would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Engels, in particular, referred more explicitly to "class war" in some of his letters and speeches when discussing revolution.
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, frequently invoked the idea of class war to describe violent revolutionary action against the state and capitalists. During and after the Paris Commune of 1871, the use of the term “class war” became firmly established among revolutionaries, especially following the brutal suppression of the uprising by French authorities.
Marx and Engels, along with later Marxist thinkers, viewed class struggle as a real and driving force behind material conditions. They agreed that the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat had fundamentally opposing interests, which formed the foundation of their social conflict. All of them connected the proletarian goal to the seizure of state power as a means to eliminate class differences and ultimately abolish classes altogether.
In many cases, the theory of class struggle was used as a tool to mobilize the masses and popularize revolutionary movements. However, the result was often the creation of a new ruling power rather than the actual dissolution of class divisions. Revolutionary leaders, in their pursuit of popular support, frequently invoked the idea of class war to inspire and rally workers and peasants.
In my opinion, many of the wars throughout history that have been labelled as class wars were not truly about class struggle, but rather about power and the seizure of power. These conflicts were often framed in terms of economic inequality and oppression, which served as means to rally support and legitimize the cause. While it is true that many individuals participated in these wars suffering, becoming disabled, or even sacrificing their lives and families—the core of these conflicts was ultimately about the struggle for power. Uprisings, revolutions, and struggles often resulted in the rise of new elites, rather than the creation of a truly classless society. Once in power, these leaders tended to prioritize maintaining their own authority over attaining genuine classless society and social equality.
Disguised wars have often been labelled as class wars, such as the French Revolution (1789–1799), in which the Jacobins overthrew the aristocracy, only to establish a new elite, followed by Napoleon's eventual rise to power.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, is another example of a power struggle that was initially framed as a class struggle but, in reality, was a struggle for power. Over time, the scope of this power struggle became so concentrated that authority shifted from the broader revolutionary movement to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party's revolution, led by Mao Zedong, which culminated in victory in 1949, was also fundamentally a struggle for power.
Other examples include the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires, the wars between some Arab countries and Israel in 1967 and 1973, the wars in Southeast Asia, the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that all these conflicts whether class-based, religious, or ethnic are essentially struggles for power, including self-defence wars to prevent foreign powers from replacing domestic authority.
None of these wars can be considered class wars; rather, they are struggles to regain or seize power. Whether one side attacked and the other defended is irrelevant to the core issue these are wars driven by the desire for control and authority.
As I mentioned earlier, both Proudhon and Bakunin spoke of class war, class struggle, or class violence, but they never framed these as authoritarian wars or wars fought to seize power. Similarly, although anarchists acknowledge the existence of class struggle, it is not for the purpose of gaining political power. For them, political struggle is not a means or a bridge to achieve political power or the supremacy of one class over another. Instead, it is a means to destroy the supremacy of all classes and eradicate all forms of political power. Therefore, it can be said that, both theoretically and practically, anarchists were the only ones who did not use class struggle or class war as a tool to gain power.
I will conclude with a question: If all these wars were truly class wars and not struggles for power, why have none of them eliminated the distinctions between class and power? Why, instead, have they deepened the class divide and strengthened power as a form of state authority?
Zaherbaher.com
lenin.jpg
imperialism.jpg
“Should Anarchists Vote?” is the Wrong Question
by Wayne Price
As I write this, we are moving ever closer to U.S. Election Day November 2024. (Although if this is read after that election, the issues discussed should still be relevant.) The small number of people who regard themselves as anarchists are discussing whether to vote. From Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin in the late 19th century onward, revolutionary anarchists have rejected participation in elections.
In the words of Kropotkin, “The anarchists refuse to be a party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, and invite the workingmen not to to constitute, political parties in the parliaments….They have endeavored to promote their ideas directly among the labor organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital….” (2002; p. 287)
This is based on the central insight that the state is not neutral. By its nature, it serves the rich and powerful in their exploitation and oppression of the people. This state machinery cannot be used to peacefully and “democratically” create a free socialist democracy. Anarchists believe that capitalism and its state must be overturned, abolished, and replaced with cooperative, self-managed, alternate institutions. They should not be strengthened by joining in sham rituals of limited democracy.
Yet here we have a presidential election in which one candidate (the Republican Donald Trump) is arguably much more evil than the other (the Democrat Kamala Harris). Should anarchists vote for the lesser evil for once?
Many Marxists are also in a pickle. From Karl Marx on, their strategy has been to create a workers’ party in opposition to all capitalist parties, from liberal to conservative. Many Marxists, at least those influenced by Trotskyism, have opposed ever voting for capitalist parties. Yet here they are facing two capitalist parties, one which is in the bourgeois center and the other is quasi-fascist. Should they vote for the moderate capitalist candidate? (Also, libertarian-autonomist Marxists generally reject voting and are in a similar bind as the anarchists.)
However, when discussing this (and previous) elections with friends, co-workers, and family, I do not try to persuade them not to vote for the lesser evil Democrats. I don’t much care. One or a few individual votes does not make much difference. The votes of a small number of radicals do not have much of an impact. This is especially true for most U.S. citizens, due to the archaic and undemocratic Electoral College system. Only a minority live in the six or so “battleground states.” For everyone else, their votes are irrelevant; the fix is in. (For example, I live in New York State, whose electoral college votes will certainly go to the Democrats.)
Instead, I try to get others to agree that the lesser evil is indeed evil. Since it is hard for people to admit to themselves that they are supporting an evil, there is a tendency for liberals, after a while, to persuade themselves that the lesser evil, while not perfect, is really pretty good.
Liberals claim that there are various positive programs for which the Biden-Harris administration can take credit. True or not, these must be put alongside the mass murder being carried out in Gaza by the Israeli government, paid for and armed by the U.S. state. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been indiscriminently killed. This is only one activity of the enormous US military-industrial complex, endorsed by both parties, including hundreds of overseas military bases and enough nuclear bombs to exterminate humanity. Not to mention the immigration policies of the Democratic administration. It worked out a “bipartisan” immigration bill which accepted the most repressive aspects of the Republican program. The bill only failed when Trump denounced it, being unwilling to let the Democrats get credit. The extent of economic inequality and regional stagnation has increased—major factors in pushing white workers toward Trumpism. And the Biden-Harris government has presided over a vast expansion of US gas and oil production, further attacking the biosphere. The Democrats talk a good game about ending global warming, but their policies are inadequate and will eventually lead to the destruction of industrial civilization. The lesser evil is still plenty evil.
The Real Question is Mass Strategy
The important question is not what a small number of isolated radicals should do on election day. It is what revolutionary anarchists should advocate for the large organizations, communities, and movements: the unions, the African-American community, Latinx people, immigrants, Arab-Americans, organized women, LGBTQ people, environmentalists, anti-war activists, etc., etc. Overwhelmingly such forces follow a strategy of organizing for the Democratic Party, providing it with money and personnel. They are the “base” of the Democrats, without whom the party would collapse. (In the U.S. system, neither party has an actual membership.)
What anarchists and other radicals should advocate is that these groupings cease spending money and people on the Democrats and adopt an alternate, non-electoral, strategy of direct action.
Overall the liberal strategy (also carried out by democratic socialists and Communists) has not worked out very well. Since the end of World War II, conservative presidents and Congresses have been followed by more-or-less liberal/moderate presidents, to great rejoicing by progressives and reformists. But these have never resulted in stable progressive change. Time after time, these liberal/moderate administrations have been followed by ever-more reactionary governments.
Kennedy-Johnson was followed by Nixon. Carter was followed by Reagan and then the first Bush. Clinton was followed by the second Bush. Obama was followed by Trump, so far the worst of all. The election of Biden did not stop the growth of Trumpism and its complete takeover of the Republican Party. Even if Trump is defeated in November 2024, the far-right semi-fascist movement will continue to grow. It will threaten to come to power in the not-so-distant future. Over time, the greater evil cannot be defeated by a lesser evil. Only a radical alternative can do that.
The main policy of the “democratic socialists” (social democrats, reformist state socialists) has been to work in the Democratic Party. They hope to take it over, or at least to take over a section. This is the program of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and most of the Democratic Socialists of America. Instead, it is they who have been taken over, grumbling about the Biden-Harris genocide in Gaza but powerless to make real change in the government. They are stuck supporting a government of mass murder—as the lesser evil.
Some radicals criticize the Democratic Party, for good reasons. They wish to replace this party of capitalism, imperialism, racism, and ecological catastrophe with a new party. This might be called a labor party, or a progressive party, or a Green Party, or a people’s party. It might start from scratch or be broken off from the Democrats.
The implication is that the problem is the Democratic Party in itself, rather than the electoral system of the capitalist state. But building a new party in the U.S. would be extremely difficult—by no accident. The vast amount of money needed, the Electoral College, the gerrymandering of districts, the number of signatures to get on the ballot, the dirty tricks of the two established parties, the differing election cycles for different positions—all these and more make a successful new party virtually impossible. The last time it happened was the creation of the Republican Party over the slavery issue, as the country was on the verge of a civil war.
In any case, the various advocates of some kind of new party have rarely examined the history of socialist electoralism. There is a long history of independent socialist parties running in elections in Europe and elsewhere. As anarchists predicted, the elected socialist representatives invariably adapted to the political milieu of the government. They made deals and became chummy with their bourgeois counterparts, becoming bourgeois politicians themselves.
Whenever these parties came close to real power, the capitalists have squelched them. Businesses have gone on “capital strikes,” refusing to invest in the country and shutting down industry. They have spent large sums on conservative parties. They have subsidized fascist gangs. They have promoted military coups. Social democrats have been forced to capitulate or be overthrown. From the early social democrats to the rise of European fascism to the history of socialists in France, Chile, Greece (Syriza), Venezuela, and so on, electoral strategies have never worked to move toward a new society. Yet each time there is an upswing of the left, reformist socialists treat an electoral approach as a brand-new brilliant idea.
If Not Elections, Then What?
The liberals and democratic socialists asked: If not elections, then what? How will the people assert power against the ruling elites? Or are you waiting for the Great Day, the Final Revolution, which will solve all our problems? What do we do in the meantime?
Anarchists too are for improvements in the lives of ordinary people. Anarchists are not for waiting for the revolution, which is not around the corner. The fight for reforms may cause people to have better lives in the here and now. Even if such fights were to fail, at times, working people may learn lessons about who their real enemies are and how to fight them. But revolutionary anarchists do not advocate attempts to use elections and party politics to gain improvements. What then?
Errico Malatesta argued that “what little good…is done by elected bodies…is really the effect of popular pressure, to which the rulers concede what little they think is necessary to calm the people….[Electionists] compare what is done in the electoral struggle with what would happen if nothing were done; while instead they should compare the results obtained from…the ballot box with those obtained when other methods are followed, and with what might be achieved if all effort used to send representatives to power…were [instead] employed in the fight to directly achieve what is desired.” (Malatesta 2019; p. 179)
To repeat the previous quotation from Kropotkin, anarchists “have endeavored to promote their ideas directly among the labor organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital.”
Consider major movements in U.S. history: In the thirties and afterward, workers won union recognition in major industries. They did this through huge strikes, occupations of factories, and fighting with scabs, vigilantes, police, and the national guard. The New Deal instituted social security and other welfare benefits due to this mass pressure from below.
In the fifties and sixties, African-Americans won the end of legal Jim Crow and racist terror. They engaged in boycotts, mass “civil disobedience” (law breaking), demonstrations, and urban rebellions (“riots”). The right to vote, desegregation, anti-discrimination laws, and anti-poverty programs were achieved through these struggles from below.
The movement against the U.S. war in Vietnam included huge demonstrations, draft resistance, civil disobedience, university occupations and strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the military. (And, of course, the military fight of the Vietnamese people.)
In this period, there was an upsurge in labor, including organizing unions and strikes in health care and for public employees, as well as wildcat strikes in key industries (such as the post office).
The LGBTQ movement exploded with the Christopher Street rebellion. It included the later ACT-UP civil disobedience to fight against public inaction on AIDS. The women’s liberation movement developed in the context of these popular struggles and radicalization.
Periods of radicalization have died down. The unions became integrated into the system, heavily reliant on the Democratic Party. Legal segregation was ended—although African-Americans were still on the bottom of U.S. society. The U.S. state withdrew from Vietnam—although imperialism and war continue. The Black movement became co-opted by the Democrats and so were the remnants of the anti-war movement. The Democratic party served as the “graveyard of movements.”
However, the lessons remain, that real victories can be won through popular mass movements and direct action, outside of the electoral trap. The growth of union militancy in recent years and the pro-Palestinian movement on and off university campuses, give hope for the future. One general strike in a big city could change national politics. There is no road to anti-state socialism except through the mass action of the people.
Is It Fascism Yet?
Every election cycle, liberals are prone to shout that “fascism is coming!” unless the Republicans are defeated. Are they right this time? There is widespread fear, spread by liberals, and even not-so-liberal Democrats, that the election of Trump would be the replacement of U.S. democracy by a fascist-like dictatorship. On the other hand, among the far-left, there are those who argue that there really is no significant difference between the two capitalist parties. However there are other alternatives between overt fascism and there being no important differences.
In my opinion, there is little likelihood that a Trump victory would quickly install a regime on the model of classical European fascism. That would require declaring Trump president-for-life, cancelling all further elections, outlawing all other parties including the Democrats, suspending the Constitution, and arming a uniformed vigilante movement similar to Hitler’s Storm Troopers or Mussolini’s Black Shirts.
Business people do not want this; after all they are making a lot of money under the current arrangement. (Most of business—now called “the donor class”—backs the Democrats in recent elections.) There is widespread unrest but not enough to make the bosses feel threatened in their wealth. The rest of the establishment, in and out of government, does not want overt fascism—including the “intelligence community” (national police forces) and the top military brass. It is impossible to make a successful coup without the support of the people with money and the people with guns. And at least half of the population does not want this.
More likely is a creeping authoritarianism, keeping the forms of political democracy while emptying them of content. It will tend toward Victor Orban’s Hungary rather than Hitler’s Third Reich.
“What we are likely to see is a lingering fascism of less murderous intensity, which, when in power, does not necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally. [As recently happened in Poland—WP] But since its successor government…will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to return to power as well.” (Patnaik & Patnaik 2019; p. 29)
Some say that there is no cause for worry, since the U.S. has gone through periods of right-wing repression and came out okay. For example, in the ‘fifties, after World War II, the U.S. was swept by anti-communist hysteria. This was led by Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, the House Un-American Committee, and many more. The Democrats, from President Truman to the liberals, participated in it, instituting loyalty programs and political purges of government employees (including J. Robert Oppenheimer). People lost jobs in the civil service, schools, universities, unions, the entertainment industry, and elsewhere. Meanwhile the Southern states had legal racial segregation, violently enforced by the police and by the Ku Klux Klan. But eventually this repressive politics was cracked by the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement.
However, the fifties and sixties were the period of the “post-war boom,” a big upswing of prosperity, at least for many white people in the U.S. The improvement in living standards made it unnecessary for the rulers to give up the advantages of political democracy (advantages for them), despite the upheavals of “the sixties.”
Today the system confronts deeper crises. On a world scale capitalism is brittle and conflicted. There are wars raging in various places. The U.S. economy, while relatively stronger than the rest of the world for the moment, is in decline. Inequality is worse than ever, there is stagnation in large parts of the system, and it maintains profits by pumping out vast amounts of oil and gas—thus dooming industrial society. The unhappiness and discontent of large sections of the lower middle class and white working class has reached dangerous proportions. People are looking for solutions. Without a significant radical movement, these layers of the population look to the far-right. They are open to blaming Latinx and Muslim immigrants for their problems. They become willing to listen to demagogues such as Trump, who promise to lead them to a mythical land of white supremacy, Christian dominance, and patriotic greatness.
How a few radicals, of various persuasions, vote or do not vote in November is not the important issue. The question is whether it is possible to develop an independent movement of movements, of the working class and all those oppressed and threatened by this disastrous system, to oppose the capitalists, their establishment, their state, and all their systems of oppression. It is whether a revolutionary anti-authoritarian wing of these movements can be organized to fight for a free society.
As I write this, we are moving ever closer to U.S. Election Day November 2024. (Although if this is read after that election, the issues discussed should still be relevant.) The small number of people who regard themselves as anarchists are discussing whether to vote. From Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin in the late 19th century onward, revolutionary anarchists have rejected participation in elections.
In the words of Kropotkin, “The anarchists refuse to be a party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, and invite the workingmen not to to constitute, political parties in the parliaments….They have endeavored to promote their ideas directly among the labor organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital….” (2002; p. 287)
This is based on the central insight that the state is not neutral. By its nature, it serves the rich and powerful in their exploitation and oppression of the people. This state machinery cannot be used to peacefully and “democratically” create a free socialist democracy. Anarchists believe that capitalism and its state must be overturned, abolished, and replaced with cooperative, self-managed, alternate institutions. They should not be strengthened by joining in sham rituals of limited democracy.
Yet here we have a presidential election in which one candidate (the Republican Donald Trump) is arguably much more evil than the other (the Democrat Kamala Harris). Should anarchists vote for the lesser evil for once?
Many Marxists are also in a pickle. From Karl Marx on, their strategy has been to create a workers’ party in opposition to all capitalist parties, from liberal to conservative. Many Marxists, at least those influenced by Trotskyism, have opposed ever voting for capitalist parties. Yet here they are facing two capitalist parties, one which is in the bourgeois center and the other is quasi-fascist. Should they vote for the moderate capitalist candidate? (Also, libertarian-autonomist Marxists generally reject voting and are in a similar bind as the anarchists.)
However, when discussing this (and previous) elections with friends, co-workers, and family, I do not try to persuade them not to vote for the lesser evil Democrats. I don’t much care. One or a few individual votes does not make much difference. The votes of a small number of radicals do not have much of an impact. This is especially true for most U.S. citizens, due to the archaic and undemocratic Electoral College system. Only a minority live in the six or so “battleground states.” For everyone else, their votes are irrelevant; the fix is in. (For example, I live in New York State, whose electoral college votes will certainly go to the Democrats.)
Instead, I try to get others to agree that the lesser evil is indeed evil. Since it is hard for people to admit to themselves that they are supporting an evil, there is a tendency for liberals, after a while, to persuade themselves that the lesser evil, while not perfect, is really pretty good.
Liberals claim that there are various positive programs for which the Biden-Harris administration can take credit. True or not, these must be put alongside the mass murder being carried out in Gaza by the Israeli government, paid for and armed by the U.S. state. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been indiscriminently killed. This is only one activity of the enormous US military-industrial complex, endorsed by both parties, including hundreds of overseas military bases and enough nuclear bombs to exterminate humanity. Not to mention the immigration policies of the Democratic administration. It worked out a “bipartisan” immigration bill which accepted the most repressive aspects of the Republican program. The bill only failed when Trump denounced it, being unwilling to let the Democrats get credit. The extent of economic inequality and regional stagnation has increased—major factors in pushing white workers toward Trumpism. And the Biden-Harris government has presided over a vast expansion of US gas and oil production, further attacking the biosphere. The Democrats talk a good game about ending global warming, but their policies are inadequate and will eventually lead to the destruction of industrial civilization. The lesser evil is still plenty evil.
The Real Question is Mass Strategy
The important question is not what a small number of isolated radicals should do on election day. It is what revolutionary anarchists should advocate for the large organizations, communities, and movements: the unions, the African-American community, Latinx people, immigrants, Arab-Americans, organized women, LGBTQ people, environmentalists, anti-war activists, etc., etc. Overwhelmingly such forces follow a strategy of organizing for the Democratic Party, providing it with money and personnel. They are the “base” of the Democrats, without whom the party would collapse. (In the U.S. system, neither party has an actual membership.)
What anarchists and other radicals should advocate is that these groupings cease spending money and people on the Democrats and adopt an alternate, non-electoral, strategy of direct action.
Overall the liberal strategy (also carried out by democratic socialists and Communists) has not worked out very well. Since the end of World War II, conservative presidents and Congresses have been followed by more-or-less liberal/moderate presidents, to great rejoicing by progressives and reformists. But these have never resulted in stable progressive change. Time after time, these liberal/moderate administrations have been followed by ever-more reactionary governments.
Kennedy-Johnson was followed by Nixon. Carter was followed by Reagan and then the first Bush. Clinton was followed by the second Bush. Obama was followed by Trump, so far the worst of all. The election of Biden did not stop the growth of Trumpism and its complete takeover of the Republican Party. Even if Trump is defeated in November 2024, the far-right semi-fascist movement will continue to grow. It will threaten to come to power in the not-so-distant future. Over time, the greater evil cannot be defeated by a lesser evil. Only a radical alternative can do that.
The main policy of the “democratic socialists” (social democrats, reformist state socialists) has been to work in the Democratic Party. They hope to take it over, or at least to take over a section. This is the program of Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and most of the Democratic Socialists of America. Instead, it is they who have been taken over, grumbling about the Biden-Harris genocide in Gaza but powerless to make real change in the government. They are stuck supporting a government of mass murder—as the lesser evil.
Some radicals criticize the Democratic Party, for good reasons. They wish to replace this party of capitalism, imperialism, racism, and ecological catastrophe with a new party. This might be called a labor party, or a progressive party, or a Green Party, or a people’s party. It might start from scratch or be broken off from the Democrats.
The implication is that the problem is the Democratic Party in itself, rather than the electoral system of the capitalist state. But building a new party in the U.S. would be extremely difficult—by no accident. The vast amount of money needed, the Electoral College, the gerrymandering of districts, the number of signatures to get on the ballot, the dirty tricks of the two established parties, the differing election cycles for different positions—all these and more make a successful new party virtually impossible. The last time it happened was the creation of the Republican Party over the slavery issue, as the country was on the verge of a civil war.
In any case, the various advocates of some kind of new party have rarely examined the history of socialist electoralism. There is a long history of independent socialist parties running in elections in Europe and elsewhere. As anarchists predicted, the elected socialist representatives invariably adapted to the political milieu of the government. They made deals and became chummy with their bourgeois counterparts, becoming bourgeois politicians themselves.
Whenever these parties came close to real power, the capitalists have squelched them. Businesses have gone on “capital strikes,” refusing to invest in the country and shutting down industry. They have spent large sums on conservative parties. They have subsidized fascist gangs. They have promoted military coups. Social democrats have been forced to capitulate or be overthrown. From the early social democrats to the rise of European fascism to the history of socialists in France, Chile, Greece (Syriza), Venezuela, and so on, electoral strategies have never worked to move toward a new society. Yet each time there is an upswing of the left, reformist socialists treat an electoral approach as a brand-new brilliant idea.
If Not Elections, Then What?
The liberals and democratic socialists asked: If not elections, then what? How will the people assert power against the ruling elites? Or are you waiting for the Great Day, the Final Revolution, which will solve all our problems? What do we do in the meantime?
Anarchists too are for improvements in the lives of ordinary people. Anarchists are not for waiting for the revolution, which is not around the corner. The fight for reforms may cause people to have better lives in the here and now. Even if such fights were to fail, at times, working people may learn lessons about who their real enemies are and how to fight them. But revolutionary anarchists do not advocate attempts to use elections and party politics to gain improvements. What then?
Errico Malatesta argued that “what little good…is done by elected bodies…is really the effect of popular pressure, to which the rulers concede what little they think is necessary to calm the people….[Electionists] compare what is done in the electoral struggle with what would happen if nothing were done; while instead they should compare the results obtained from…the ballot box with those obtained when other methods are followed, and with what might be achieved if all effort used to send representatives to power…were [instead] employed in the fight to directly achieve what is desired.” (Malatesta 2019; p. 179)
To repeat the previous quotation from Kropotkin, anarchists “have endeavored to promote their ideas directly among the labor organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital.”
Consider major movements in U.S. history: In the thirties and afterward, workers won union recognition in major industries. They did this through huge strikes, occupations of factories, and fighting with scabs, vigilantes, police, and the national guard. The New Deal instituted social security and other welfare benefits due to this mass pressure from below.
In the fifties and sixties, African-Americans won the end of legal Jim Crow and racist terror. They engaged in boycotts, mass “civil disobedience” (law breaking), demonstrations, and urban rebellions (“riots”). The right to vote, desegregation, anti-discrimination laws, and anti-poverty programs were achieved through these struggles from below.
The movement against the U.S. war in Vietnam included huge demonstrations, draft resistance, civil disobedience, university occupations and strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the military. (And, of course, the military fight of the Vietnamese people.)
In this period, there was an upsurge in labor, including organizing unions and strikes in health care and for public employees, as well as wildcat strikes in key industries (such as the post office).
The LGBTQ movement exploded with the Christopher Street rebellion. It included the later ACT-UP civil disobedience to fight against public inaction on AIDS. The women’s liberation movement developed in the context of these popular struggles and radicalization.
Periods of radicalization have died down. The unions became integrated into the system, heavily reliant on the Democratic Party. Legal segregation was ended—although African-Americans were still on the bottom of U.S. society. The U.S. state withdrew from Vietnam—although imperialism and war continue. The Black movement became co-opted by the Democrats and so were the remnants of the anti-war movement. The Democratic party served as the “graveyard of movements.”
However, the lessons remain, that real victories can be won through popular mass movements and direct action, outside of the electoral trap. The growth of union militancy in recent years and the pro-Palestinian movement on and off university campuses, give hope for the future. One general strike in a big city could change national politics. There is no road to anti-state socialism except through the mass action of the people.
Is It Fascism Yet?
Every election cycle, liberals are prone to shout that “fascism is coming!” unless the Republicans are defeated. Are they right this time? There is widespread fear, spread by liberals, and even not-so-liberal Democrats, that the election of Trump would be the replacement of U.S. democracy by a fascist-like dictatorship. On the other hand, among the far-left, there are those who argue that there really is no significant difference between the two capitalist parties. However there are other alternatives between overt fascism and there being no important differences.
In my opinion, there is little likelihood that a Trump victory would quickly install a regime on the model of classical European fascism. That would require declaring Trump president-for-life, cancelling all further elections, outlawing all other parties including the Democrats, suspending the Constitution, and arming a uniformed vigilante movement similar to Hitler’s Storm Troopers or Mussolini’s Black Shirts.
Business people do not want this; after all they are making a lot of money under the current arrangement. (Most of business—now called “the donor class”—backs the Democrats in recent elections.) There is widespread unrest but not enough to make the bosses feel threatened in their wealth. The rest of the establishment, in and out of government, does not want overt fascism—including the “intelligence community” (national police forces) and the top military brass. It is impossible to make a successful coup without the support of the people with money and the people with guns. And at least half of the population does not want this.
More likely is a creeping authoritarianism, keeping the forms of political democracy while emptying them of content. It will tend toward Victor Orban’s Hungary rather than Hitler’s Third Reich.
“What we are likely to see is a lingering fascism of less murderous intensity, which, when in power, does not necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally. [As recently happened in Poland—WP] But since its successor government…will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to return to power as well.” (Patnaik & Patnaik 2019; p. 29)
Some say that there is no cause for worry, since the U.S. has gone through periods of right-wing repression and came out okay. For example, in the ‘fifties, after World War II, the U.S. was swept by anti-communist hysteria. This was led by Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, the House Un-American Committee, and many more. The Democrats, from President Truman to the liberals, participated in it, instituting loyalty programs and political purges of government employees (including J. Robert Oppenheimer). People lost jobs in the civil service, schools, universities, unions, the entertainment industry, and elsewhere. Meanwhile the Southern states had legal racial segregation, violently enforced by the police and by the Ku Klux Klan. But eventually this repressive politics was cracked by the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement.
However, the fifties and sixties were the period of the “post-war boom,” a big upswing of prosperity, at least for many white people in the U.S. The improvement in living standards made it unnecessary for the rulers to give up the advantages of political democracy (advantages for them), despite the upheavals of “the sixties.”
Today the system confronts deeper crises. On a world scale capitalism is brittle and conflicted. There are wars raging in various places. The U.S. economy, while relatively stronger than the rest of the world for the moment, is in decline. Inequality is worse than ever, there is stagnation in large parts of the system, and it maintains profits by pumping out vast amounts of oil and gas—thus dooming industrial society. The unhappiness and discontent of large sections of the lower middle class and white working class has reached dangerous proportions. People are looking for solutions. Without a significant radical movement, these layers of the population look to the far-right. They are open to blaming Latinx and Muslim immigrants for their problems. They become willing to listen to demagogues such as Trump, who promise to lead them to a mythical land of white supremacy, Christian dominance, and patriotic greatness.
How a few radicals, of various persuasions, vote or do not vote in November is not the important issue. The question is whether it is possible to develop an independent movement of movements, of the working class and all those oppressed and threatened by this disastrous system, to oppose the capitalists, their establishment, their state, and all their systems of oppression. It is whether a revolutionary anti-authoritarian wing of these movements can be organized to fight for a free society.
images.jpeg
unknown.jpeg
Comunicado Público a 50 años del Golpe Cívico-Militar
En estos días se conmemoran 50 años del golpe de Estado que dio rienda suelta al terrorismo estatal y patronal, significando años de persecución, tortura, violación y desaparición. Sin embargo, queremos iniciar este documento con un balance de la experiencia desarrollada en los años previos al inicio de la dictadura cívico-militar. Aquel periodo suele asociarse al gobierno de Salvador Allende y a su “vía chilena al socialismo”, no pretendemos extendernos en las claras distancias políticas e ideológicas que nos separan del gobierno de la Unidad Popular (UP), toda vez que lo consideramos un proyecto de modernización capitalista que impulsó la conciliación de clase y el fortalecimiento de los mecanismos estatales de dominación, terminando en el dramático escenario de la dictadura que supuso la pulverización del tejido comunitario, la destrucción de la organización social, el asesinato y tormentos de miles de militantes populares y una profundización en la precarización de nuestras vidas latente hasta el presente.
Por lo tanto, quisiéramos enfatizar en el proceso que se tejía por debajo de las direcciones partidarias, aquel fenómeno que no seguía las pautas de la institucionalidad burguesa y supuso una verdadera amenaza para el orden del Estado y el Capital; hablamos de lxs pobladorxs en las tomas de terrenos y en las Juntas de Abastecimiento Popular, nos referimos a lxs obrerxs en los Cordones Industriales, pensamos en lxs campesinxs en las tomas de fundos y en la alegría popular corriendo el cerco de lo posible, nos referirnos al Poder Popular. Esta capacidad desarrollada por diversos sectores de la clase oprimida, supuso un ejercicio de audacia tremendamente valioso, ya que, en el desarrollo de esta fuerza popular se gestaba una potencialidad capaz de sobrepasar al Estado y plantear un escenario abierto y favorable en la lucha de clases, de allí que el gobierno de Allende no escatimó recursos en iniciar un proceso de institucionalización, cooptación e incluso represión sobre estas expresiones, tratando de desactivar aquella potencia de ruptura revolucionaria.
Sin embargo, no son solo causas “externas” las que debilitaron esta rica experiencia, sino también errores y límites internos que no pudieron ser superados allí donde se apura la historia. El primer traspié fue el burocratismo que operaba sobre las bases populares a partir del comportamiento parasitario de las instituciones estatales y los partidos políticos de la UP, cuestión que se reflejó en la obediencia de las bases a los lineamientos gubernamentales, temiendo, incluso, pasar por encima de Allende aun cuando las fuerzas reaccionarias se preparaban para iniciar el exterminio. Si bien el desarrollo del Poder Popular no es impulsado por el gobierno de la UP, rápidamente, la burocracia institucional inicia un proceso para su cooptación y debilitamiento, por eso, la lección es que ninguna fuerza social puede someterse a un marco gubernamental: el Poder Popular es antiestatal o no será, por tanto, es ineludible rebasar aquellas propuestas políticas que pretenden subyugar el protagonismo de las bases a lineamientos institucionales, tal como hoy ocurre con muchísimos empeños sociales que están completamente sometidos al gobierno de Boric, iniciando procesos de desmovilización y silencio cómplice ante el avance de su agenda represiva, precarizadora y extractivista. La organización popular no debe jamás confiar en un gobierno cualquiera sea su color o signo político, ya que, en la sobrevivencia y fortalecimiento de los pilares de la dominación está nuestra derrota.
El segundo traspié fue la débil coordinación de las diversas experiencias del Poder Popular, dado fundamentalmente por el sectarismo y la política de trinchera de los partidos de izquierda. Estamos convencidxs de que los procesos revolucionarios no le pertenecen a ninguna ideología, partido o movimiento político, más bien, son de lxs oprimidxs que buscan dejar de serlo, por ello, es necesaria la coordinación de los diversos esfuerzos que pretenden trazar el camino de la emancipación, desde perspectivas antiestatales, anticapitalistas y despatriarcalizadoras. Dicha coordinación debe realizarse desde las organizaciones sociales a partir de sus experiencias de lucha, dejando de lado los discursos identitarios y paternalistas. Lo anterior, nos permitirá dotar de perspectiva las luchas del presente y desarrollar, en conjunto con las expresiones organizativas de la clase oprimida, una fuerza capaz de romper el actual tránsito histórico, desechando los atajos institucionales y los personalismos mesiánicos que se nos presentan como barreras en nuestro camino hacia la libertad.
Ya lo dijimos antes, más allá del proyecto de la UP y de la cara institucional de los procesos políticos vividos en los cuales se inscribe el espectacular bombardeo a la Moneda, pensamos que lo que finalmente movilizó el complot golpista cívico-militar fueron las capacidades que mostraron las capas populares y oprimidas de tomar el destino de sus vidas con sus propias manos. Estas capacidades fueron gestadas y desarrolladas en décadas de lucha, constituidas a partir de los aprendizajes colectivos de nuestra clase, desde, al menos, los albores del siglo XX en los centros urbanos y mucho antes por las comunidades en resistencia a las diversas dimensiones de la colonización. Esta capacidad hizo posible la generación de fuerza social organizada que puso a temblar a la clase dominante y a los intereses imperialistas, quienes desataron toda su crueldad contra este protagonismo popular que comenzaba a escribir una nueva historia.
El terror fue desatado sistemáticamente desde el Estado y cayó la noche sobre la alegría de los pueblos. La contra revolución capitalista se abrió paso brutalmente con una imparable avanzada de muerte, tortura, violencia sexual y desaparición forzada, a la vez que llevaba a cabo la misión estratégica de desarticular todas las expresiones comunitarias en donde la vida fuera resuelta de manera solidaria, colectiva y en autogestión. La dictadura cívico-militar se desplegó tácticamente en múltiples dimensiones para sembrar el miedo en la sociedad, con el fin de desmantelar la fuerza social organizada que había hecho posible la experiencia socialista en la región chilena. Estos procesos de desmantelamiento político, social y emocional de gran parte de la clase organizada han provocado una herida colectiva, profunda y traumática, herida que la impunidad y los pactos de silencio institucionales mantienen abierta hasta el día de hoy y que ha traído múltiples consecuencias en la experiencia vital colectiva de todxs quienes hemos crecido en estos territorios los últimos 50 años y más.
La reestructuración capitalista que instauró el golpe y posterior dictadura cívico-militar se tradujo en una serie de rearticulaciones económicas y políticas, las cuales se transformaron en los pilares del sistema económico que heredamos de la dictadura y que los gobiernos de los 30 años han consolidado. Todas ellas han tenido efectos directos en nuestras experiencias vitales compartidas: la reconfiguración de las ciudades a través de la expulsión de lxs pobladorxs de los centros hacia las periferias y el desarrollo de la ciudad neoliberal, el freno de la reforma agraria y la continuidad del antiguo latifundio a través de un modelo agroexportador y el fomento del negocio forestal, el abandono de la educación y la salud pública, la creación de las AFP, la privatización del agua y, en general, la instauración de un modelo neoliberal y extractivista anclado a los deseos de consumo del norte global y los intereses de la clase dominante.
Como planteábamos anteriormente, todos estos mecanismos de terror y precarización de la vida humana y no humana, sumados al acceso al mundo de las cosas, el consumo y el crédito, han permeado capas más profundas de las comunidades y las personas, atomizando e individualizando las experiencias comunes y reduciendo la socialización humana a espacios de consumo y mercado. Nos han educado en la competencia y la violencia para sobrevivir, bajo la premisa del desarrollo y superación personal en base al esfuerzo. Nos han aislado a lxs unxs de lxs otrxs para mantenernos en sensación de soledad y tristeza persiguiendo un modelo de éxito individual que poco conoce del goce de las alegrías y las penas compartidas.
Enfrentadxs a esta devastación ecológica y social de los 50 años de implementación de un programa de muerte y desarticulación de las comunidades, no nos basta con contemplar la derrota de un proyecto institucional ni con reconocer el profundo daño que cargamos como una maldición que pareciera irremediable, porque en medio del despojo, han resistido y germinado diversas experiencias de organización y solidaridad popular como la lucha por la vivienda, las ollas comunes, la colectivización de los cuidados de la niñez, los múltiples espacios comunitarios culturales y deportivos, las luchas anti patriarcales, la defensa y cuidado de los ecosistemas, la lucha mapuche, la resistencia de las comunidades migrantes, entre muchas otras que apuestan por vidas dignas. Estos espacios de acumulación de fuerza, experimentación de formas orgánicas y métodos de lucha son aprendizaje y sabiduría práctica para disputar el presente y construir el futuro.
Hoy, a 50 años de aquel dramático martes 11 de septiembre, desde el anarquismo no solo tenemos mucho que reflexionar, también debemos comenzar a romper con la inacción y el inmovilismo. Frente a los sectores pusilánimes que nos gobiernan, incapaces de defender a sus propios muertxs ante el avance de los discursos y acciones negacionistas de la derecha reaccionara, es fundamental asumir un rol protagónico en la batalla ideológica que hoy se libra, con lenguajes, narrativas, metodologías y herramientas que nos permitan salir del “gueto”. Si nuestras ideas no se enraízan en nuestra clase, otras lo hacen y, con esto, no pretendemos que todxs lxs oprimidxs se reivindiquen como anarquistas, más bien, buscamos que valores como la solidaridad, el apoyo mutuo, la acción directa y el antiautoritarismo se constituyan en la base de las relaciones sociales de nuestras comunidades, por ello, es fundamental hacer retroceder las ideas y prácticas promovidas por la burguesía, ya sea en su modalidad fascista, liberal o progresista.
Por otro lado, concebimos al anarquismo social y organizado como una caja de herramientas y, como tal, se demanda su uso, por ello es que apostamos por superar las posturas identitarias y sectarias, abrazando la organización social y la construcción comunitaria de poder popular. De esta manera pretendemos desarrollar la fuerza necesaria para destruir la sociedad de clases y la mercantilización de la vida, desplegando una capacidad organizativa que ponga en el centro el protagonismo popular y se oponga a cualquier proyecto personalista, reformista y de conciliación de clases. El anarquismo debe y puede retornar a las luchas sociales y a la organización territorial, no somos ajenxs a las realidades del campo popular porque también somos pobladorxs y trabajadorxs que luchan por vidas libres y dignas, por eso, seamos hoy parte del fortalecimiento organizativo y de la necesaria coordinación de aquellas luchas libradas por diversos sectores de nuestra clase.
Finalmente, reconocemos que es necesario romper con la falsa oposición entre Estado y Mercado, apostando por construir una alternativa popular con foco en la reproducción de la vida que, desde la gestión comunitaria, prefigure aquella nueva y buena vida que buscamos, a partir de la autonomía y de un programa antiestatal, anticapitalista y con una perspectiva despatriarcalizadora. Resistir no significa soportar los oscuros tiempos aferrándonos a nuestras convicciones, más bien es transformar nuestra realidad, organizarnos comunitariamente, sin retroceder ante las contradicciones y amarguras de la situación actual. Confiamos en que la memoria, la lucha y la organización popular nos acercan a la emancipación y a la construcción de comunidades más sanas, más alegres, más dignas.
A pesar de los golpes y las heridas: ¡organizadxs y en comunidad luchamos por la vida!
Asamblea Anarquista de Valparaíso - Federación Anarquista de Santiago
Por lo tanto, quisiéramos enfatizar en el proceso que se tejía por debajo de las direcciones partidarias, aquel fenómeno que no seguía las pautas de la institucionalidad burguesa y supuso una verdadera amenaza para el orden del Estado y el Capital; hablamos de lxs pobladorxs en las tomas de terrenos y en las Juntas de Abastecimiento Popular, nos referimos a lxs obrerxs en los Cordones Industriales, pensamos en lxs campesinxs en las tomas de fundos y en la alegría popular corriendo el cerco de lo posible, nos referirnos al Poder Popular. Esta capacidad desarrollada por diversos sectores de la clase oprimida, supuso un ejercicio de audacia tremendamente valioso, ya que, en el desarrollo de esta fuerza popular se gestaba una potencialidad capaz de sobrepasar al Estado y plantear un escenario abierto y favorable en la lucha de clases, de allí que el gobierno de Allende no escatimó recursos en iniciar un proceso de institucionalización, cooptación e incluso represión sobre estas expresiones, tratando de desactivar aquella potencia de ruptura revolucionaria.
Sin embargo, no son solo causas “externas” las que debilitaron esta rica experiencia, sino también errores y límites internos que no pudieron ser superados allí donde se apura la historia. El primer traspié fue el burocratismo que operaba sobre las bases populares a partir del comportamiento parasitario de las instituciones estatales y los partidos políticos de la UP, cuestión que se reflejó en la obediencia de las bases a los lineamientos gubernamentales, temiendo, incluso, pasar por encima de Allende aun cuando las fuerzas reaccionarias se preparaban para iniciar el exterminio. Si bien el desarrollo del Poder Popular no es impulsado por el gobierno de la UP, rápidamente, la burocracia institucional inicia un proceso para su cooptación y debilitamiento, por eso, la lección es que ninguna fuerza social puede someterse a un marco gubernamental: el Poder Popular es antiestatal o no será, por tanto, es ineludible rebasar aquellas propuestas políticas que pretenden subyugar el protagonismo de las bases a lineamientos institucionales, tal como hoy ocurre con muchísimos empeños sociales que están completamente sometidos al gobierno de Boric, iniciando procesos de desmovilización y silencio cómplice ante el avance de su agenda represiva, precarizadora y extractivista. La organización popular no debe jamás confiar en un gobierno cualquiera sea su color o signo político, ya que, en la sobrevivencia y fortalecimiento de los pilares de la dominación está nuestra derrota.
El segundo traspié fue la débil coordinación de las diversas experiencias del Poder Popular, dado fundamentalmente por el sectarismo y la política de trinchera de los partidos de izquierda. Estamos convencidxs de que los procesos revolucionarios no le pertenecen a ninguna ideología, partido o movimiento político, más bien, son de lxs oprimidxs que buscan dejar de serlo, por ello, es necesaria la coordinación de los diversos esfuerzos que pretenden trazar el camino de la emancipación, desde perspectivas antiestatales, anticapitalistas y despatriarcalizadoras. Dicha coordinación debe realizarse desde las organizaciones sociales a partir de sus experiencias de lucha, dejando de lado los discursos identitarios y paternalistas. Lo anterior, nos permitirá dotar de perspectiva las luchas del presente y desarrollar, en conjunto con las expresiones organizativas de la clase oprimida, una fuerza capaz de romper el actual tránsito histórico, desechando los atajos institucionales y los personalismos mesiánicos que se nos presentan como barreras en nuestro camino hacia la libertad.
Ya lo dijimos antes, más allá del proyecto de la UP y de la cara institucional de los procesos políticos vividos en los cuales se inscribe el espectacular bombardeo a la Moneda, pensamos que lo que finalmente movilizó el complot golpista cívico-militar fueron las capacidades que mostraron las capas populares y oprimidas de tomar el destino de sus vidas con sus propias manos. Estas capacidades fueron gestadas y desarrolladas en décadas de lucha, constituidas a partir de los aprendizajes colectivos de nuestra clase, desde, al menos, los albores del siglo XX en los centros urbanos y mucho antes por las comunidades en resistencia a las diversas dimensiones de la colonización. Esta capacidad hizo posible la generación de fuerza social organizada que puso a temblar a la clase dominante y a los intereses imperialistas, quienes desataron toda su crueldad contra este protagonismo popular que comenzaba a escribir una nueva historia.
El terror fue desatado sistemáticamente desde el Estado y cayó la noche sobre la alegría de los pueblos. La contra revolución capitalista se abrió paso brutalmente con una imparable avanzada de muerte, tortura, violencia sexual y desaparición forzada, a la vez que llevaba a cabo la misión estratégica de desarticular todas las expresiones comunitarias en donde la vida fuera resuelta de manera solidaria, colectiva y en autogestión. La dictadura cívico-militar se desplegó tácticamente en múltiples dimensiones para sembrar el miedo en la sociedad, con el fin de desmantelar la fuerza social organizada que había hecho posible la experiencia socialista en la región chilena. Estos procesos de desmantelamiento político, social y emocional de gran parte de la clase organizada han provocado una herida colectiva, profunda y traumática, herida que la impunidad y los pactos de silencio institucionales mantienen abierta hasta el día de hoy y que ha traído múltiples consecuencias en la experiencia vital colectiva de todxs quienes hemos crecido en estos territorios los últimos 50 años y más.
La reestructuración capitalista que instauró el golpe y posterior dictadura cívico-militar se tradujo en una serie de rearticulaciones económicas y políticas, las cuales se transformaron en los pilares del sistema económico que heredamos de la dictadura y que los gobiernos de los 30 años han consolidado. Todas ellas han tenido efectos directos en nuestras experiencias vitales compartidas: la reconfiguración de las ciudades a través de la expulsión de lxs pobladorxs de los centros hacia las periferias y el desarrollo de la ciudad neoliberal, el freno de la reforma agraria y la continuidad del antiguo latifundio a través de un modelo agroexportador y el fomento del negocio forestal, el abandono de la educación y la salud pública, la creación de las AFP, la privatización del agua y, en general, la instauración de un modelo neoliberal y extractivista anclado a los deseos de consumo del norte global y los intereses de la clase dominante.
Como planteábamos anteriormente, todos estos mecanismos de terror y precarización de la vida humana y no humana, sumados al acceso al mundo de las cosas, el consumo y el crédito, han permeado capas más profundas de las comunidades y las personas, atomizando e individualizando las experiencias comunes y reduciendo la socialización humana a espacios de consumo y mercado. Nos han educado en la competencia y la violencia para sobrevivir, bajo la premisa del desarrollo y superación personal en base al esfuerzo. Nos han aislado a lxs unxs de lxs otrxs para mantenernos en sensación de soledad y tristeza persiguiendo un modelo de éxito individual que poco conoce del goce de las alegrías y las penas compartidas.
Enfrentadxs a esta devastación ecológica y social de los 50 años de implementación de un programa de muerte y desarticulación de las comunidades, no nos basta con contemplar la derrota de un proyecto institucional ni con reconocer el profundo daño que cargamos como una maldición que pareciera irremediable, porque en medio del despojo, han resistido y germinado diversas experiencias de organización y solidaridad popular como la lucha por la vivienda, las ollas comunes, la colectivización de los cuidados de la niñez, los múltiples espacios comunitarios culturales y deportivos, las luchas anti patriarcales, la defensa y cuidado de los ecosistemas, la lucha mapuche, la resistencia de las comunidades migrantes, entre muchas otras que apuestan por vidas dignas. Estos espacios de acumulación de fuerza, experimentación de formas orgánicas y métodos de lucha son aprendizaje y sabiduría práctica para disputar el presente y construir el futuro.
Hoy, a 50 años de aquel dramático martes 11 de septiembre, desde el anarquismo no solo tenemos mucho que reflexionar, también debemos comenzar a romper con la inacción y el inmovilismo. Frente a los sectores pusilánimes que nos gobiernan, incapaces de defender a sus propios muertxs ante el avance de los discursos y acciones negacionistas de la derecha reaccionara, es fundamental asumir un rol protagónico en la batalla ideológica que hoy se libra, con lenguajes, narrativas, metodologías y herramientas que nos permitan salir del “gueto”. Si nuestras ideas no se enraízan en nuestra clase, otras lo hacen y, con esto, no pretendemos que todxs lxs oprimidxs se reivindiquen como anarquistas, más bien, buscamos que valores como la solidaridad, el apoyo mutuo, la acción directa y el antiautoritarismo se constituyan en la base de las relaciones sociales de nuestras comunidades, por ello, es fundamental hacer retroceder las ideas y prácticas promovidas por la burguesía, ya sea en su modalidad fascista, liberal o progresista.
Por otro lado, concebimos al anarquismo social y organizado como una caja de herramientas y, como tal, se demanda su uso, por ello es que apostamos por superar las posturas identitarias y sectarias, abrazando la organización social y la construcción comunitaria de poder popular. De esta manera pretendemos desarrollar la fuerza necesaria para destruir la sociedad de clases y la mercantilización de la vida, desplegando una capacidad organizativa que ponga en el centro el protagonismo popular y se oponga a cualquier proyecto personalista, reformista y de conciliación de clases. El anarquismo debe y puede retornar a las luchas sociales y a la organización territorial, no somos ajenxs a las realidades del campo popular porque también somos pobladorxs y trabajadorxs que luchan por vidas libres y dignas, por eso, seamos hoy parte del fortalecimiento organizativo y de la necesaria coordinación de aquellas luchas libradas por diversos sectores de nuestra clase.
Finalmente, reconocemos que es necesario romper con la falsa oposición entre Estado y Mercado, apostando por construir una alternativa popular con foco en la reproducción de la vida que, desde la gestión comunitaria, prefigure aquella nueva y buena vida que buscamos, a partir de la autonomía y de un programa antiestatal, anticapitalista y con una perspectiva despatriarcalizadora. Resistir no significa soportar los oscuros tiempos aferrándonos a nuestras convicciones, más bien es transformar nuestra realidad, organizarnos comunitariamente, sin retroceder ante las contradicciones y amarguras de la situación actual. Confiamos en que la memoria, la lucha y la organización popular nos acercan a la emancipación y a la construcción de comunidades más sanas, más alegres, más dignas.
A pesar de los golpes y las heridas: ¡organizadxs y en comunidad luchamos por la vida!
Asamblea Anarquista de Valparaíso - Federación Anarquista de Santiago
377428561_843860310647981_2410053042863431509_n_1.jpg
A Talk on the Ukrainian-Russian War
When the Russian state invaded Ukraine, I was immediately on the side of the Ukrainian people. Mainly this was because, like most people, I hate oppression, exploitation, and bullying. I am on the side of the oppressed, the exploited, the beaten, the marginalized, and the dominated. Especially whenever they fight back. While my political opinions have evolved over the years, this attitude has continued to be at the heart of my worldview.
Also, I have long supported the freedom of an oppressed people to national self-determination. I learned this concept during the fight against the U.S.-Vietnamese war (dating myself). My comrades and I had no illusions in the North Vietnamese state nor the leaders of the south Vietnamese war (the “Viet Cong” or NLF). They were Stalinists and would establish a Communist-type state-capitalist dictatorship (as they did). They received military aid from the imperialist Soviet Union. But there was no question that the peasants and workers of Vietnam were supporting the war and its leadership. We gave no political support to the Stalinist leaders and rulers, we were their opponents. Yet we definitely were in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their fight for independence and unity and whatever freedoms they might gain. We wanted the U.S. military forces to lose.
I thought these lessons of the Vietnamese-U.S. war applied to this war. They implied solidarity with the Ukrainian people (however much we opposed the Ukrainian state and its capitalist “oligarchs”) and full opposition to the Russian invaders. It implied that the oppressed people have the right to get arms from wherever they can, even from other imperialists who were competing with their immediate aggressor (then the Soviet Union, now the U.S. and NATO).
However, when I wrote this, I received much disagreement, often expressed with great personal hostility, expressed in name-calling, childish insults, and red-baiting. I was betraying anarchism! Some of my critics could not separate political disagreement from personal conflicts.
The first wave of arguments I faced held that “no anarchist” would support the war. This was because anarchists did not support wars, or anarchists did not support wars between capitalist states. This is to say that my critics rejected (or ignored) the importance of imperialism. They did not distinguish between wars between imperialist states and wars between an oppressed, colonized, nation and an imperialist state.
It was repeatedly pointed out to me that Peter Kropotkin had supported France and the Allies in World War I but that almost all anarchists at the time and later felt that he was badly mistaken. His comrade Errico Malatesta had written to condemn Kropotkin for taking sides in the Great War. But my critics did not know that Malatesta had also supported wars of national liberation by oppressed peoples (for example, in Libya against the Italian army, or in Cuba against the Spanish empire). (Price Nov. 2022)
I demonstrated that “classical anarchists” had supported popular struggles for national self-determination: including, but not limited to, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Makhno, and others. All (with the exception of Kropotkin) distinguished between wars among imperialists (of which they opposed all sides) and wars between imperialists and oppressed, non-imperialist, countries (of which they supported the oppressed peoples). (Price July 2022; 2023)
I also pointed out that many—perhaps most—of the Ukrainian anarchists supported—and participated in—the Ukrainian side of the war. Similarly, Russian and Belarusian anarchists were on the side of the Ukrainian people, and so were many other anarchists.
In a report on the 2023 International Anarchist Conference at St. Imier, Switzerland, a commentator wrote,
“Most events held on the war accepted the right of self-defence for Ukrainians as the minimum anarchist political basis….The event by anarchists from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who are actively resisting the invasion, was one of the most interesting of the meeting.” (Transnational Institute 2023)
All this does not prove that it is right to support the Ukrainian people, but it does disprove the claim that no anarchist would take such a stand.
In general, my opponents could not distinguish between “nationalism” and “national self-determination” or “liberation.” “National liberation” meant the freeing of a people from the oppression of the state of another nation. “National self-determination” meant that a people were able to decide for itself whether to be independent and what kind of political and economic system to have (which could be a capitalist state or libertarian socialism). But “nationalism” is one possible program meant to supposedly solve national oppression—by creating a new state and national capitalist economy (perhaps state capitalist). Anarchists should be for “national self-determination” and “national liberation” but are thoroughly opposed to “nationalism.” Instead we advocate international anarchist socialism to achieve freedom for all peoples everywhere.
Others argued that Ukraine did not deserve national defense because it was not really a nation! They claimed that Ukraine was a recent invention, that its people were indistinguishable from Russians, and so on. (While not supporting the Russian invasion, many anarchists repeat Putin’s propaganda and lies.) In my opinion, all these claims were irrelevant. Historically there had been a Ukraine for centuries, oppressed by the Czars and then by the Stalinists. During the 70 years of the Soviet Union, there had been a recognized Ukrainian Republic in the USSR. But this too was not really relevant.
What was important was that the Ukrainians regarded themselves as a nation. In 1991 the Ukrainian people voted overwhelming for national independence from Russia—by more than 92 per cent. This included about 80 per cent in the eastern, mainly Russian-speaking, Donbas and about 54 per cent in Crimea. (Mirra 2023; p. 126) It was their opinion which counts, not that of foreign anarchists nor of Putin and his army.
To which some replied, that therefore the people of the eastern Ukraine, the Donbas, were a nation or nations because they had voted for their own republics merged into Russia. I would agree, except that the drive for their “national separation” was so clearly a Russian put-up job (with Russian soldiers everywhere). Indeed the whole movement for Donbas secession was organized since 2014 by Russian and pro-Russian agents.
Another argument was that anarchists must not support a capitalist state. In fact, no Ukrainian anarchists gave any political support to the Zelensky government. They did not vote for it nor urge others to vote for it. They did not join the ruling party nor any other. They did not participate in the government in any way. They have opposed the neoliberal austerity and anti-union policies of the Zelensky government. There is no “Popular Front.”
Suppose there was a strike in the U.S. Anarchists would be on the side of the workers. Outside anarchists would do labor-support activities to help the strike. Anarchist workers at the workplace would join the strike and be active in its organizing. Yet the union would undoubtedly be run by a bureaucratic and possibly corrupt leadership. Should anarchists still participate? Or should they stand aside or perhaps cross the picket lines, because the union was undemocratic and centralized? Obviously, revolutionary anarchists would join the strike and be the most militant strikers, while fighting for a more democratic, federalist, and militant union. The same is true of anarchists in a just national war of self-determination, being part of the war while working for an eventual anarchist-socialist revolution.
Anarchists are participating in the war. Some distribute food and medicines. Others help refugees. But some formed Territorial Defense groups affiliated with the army. And some joined the army, fighting at the front.
It would have been optimal if Ukrainian anarchists had been able to organize militias or guerrilla groups independently of the state. Unfortunately they are far too weak to do that. They must either support the existing army in one way or another, or be passive. After all, while Ukrainian anarchists have much to criticize the army for, anarchists are not opposed to its fighting the Russian invaders!
Suppose anarchists were to say to the Ukrainian people, “We are against the Russian invasion, but we are also against the national army—we are even for sabotaging it—because it is the army of a state and capitalism.” Most workers would (correctly) regard this as treasonous de facto support of the invaders. On the other hand, anarchist participation in the war, in whatever capacity, can only increase positive views of anarchists among the population.
Much of the opposition to supporting Ukraine is due to its getting arms and aid from the U.S. and the rest of NATO. It is often called a “proxy war.” There is an assumption by many that only U.S. imperialism is evil. But while U.S. imperialism is terrible, it is not the only imperialism. There is Russian imperialism, as the Ukrainians know.
It is not unusual for one imperialist power to intervene when a colony rebels against its imperialist master. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often aided, with guns or money, national struggles against Western imperialists—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile the U.S. was “on the side” of eastern European states against the Soviet Union. Even during World War II, Nazi Germany gave “support” to Arab rebels in Britain and France’s colonies, and even to Ireland, while Imperial Japan claimed to be “freeing” Asian colonies from Britain, France, and Holland. So it was not surprising that Soviet Russia gave aid to Vietnam against the U.S.—or that the U.S. and allies should give aid to Ukraine. The U.S. state is acting for its reasons, its imperial interests in weakening its imperial competitor, not out of the “idealism” of its cynical politicians.
But make no mistake. For the Ukrainians, this is no “proxy war.” It is their villages, towns, and cities which are bombed and destroyed, not those of the U.S., Germany, or Britain. It is their population which is being massacred on the ground and from the air. It is their soldiers who are fighting and being killed in massive numbers. They are fighting and dying for their country, their people, and no one else.
I would not offer tactical advice to Ukrainian anarchists. But strategically I would say that their goals are two-fold: to defeat the Russian invasion and to spread anarchist ideas among the people, especially the workers. As revolutionary anarchists, we continue to be in solidarity with the oppressed, especially when they fight for their freedom.
References
Mirra, Carl (2023). “The War in Ukraine.” New Politics. Summer 2023. Pp. 125—137.
Price, Wayne (July 2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666
Price, Wayne (Nov. 2022). “Kropotkin and War—Today.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32683?search_text=Wayne+Price
Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774?search_text=Wayne+Price
Transnational Institute of Social Ecology (2023). “Report From the International Anarchist Meeting in St. Imier, Switzerland”
https://anarchistnews.org/content/report-international-anarchist-meeting-st-imier-switzerland
* submitted to Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine
Also, I have long supported the freedom of an oppressed people to national self-determination. I learned this concept during the fight against the U.S.-Vietnamese war (dating myself). My comrades and I had no illusions in the North Vietnamese state nor the leaders of the south Vietnamese war (the “Viet Cong” or NLF). They were Stalinists and would establish a Communist-type state-capitalist dictatorship (as they did). They received military aid from the imperialist Soviet Union. But there was no question that the peasants and workers of Vietnam were supporting the war and its leadership. We gave no political support to the Stalinist leaders and rulers, we were their opponents. Yet we definitely were in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their fight for independence and unity and whatever freedoms they might gain. We wanted the U.S. military forces to lose.
I thought these lessons of the Vietnamese-U.S. war applied to this war. They implied solidarity with the Ukrainian people (however much we opposed the Ukrainian state and its capitalist “oligarchs”) and full opposition to the Russian invaders. It implied that the oppressed people have the right to get arms from wherever they can, even from other imperialists who were competing with their immediate aggressor (then the Soviet Union, now the U.S. and NATO).
However, when I wrote this, I received much disagreement, often expressed with great personal hostility, expressed in name-calling, childish insults, and red-baiting. I was betraying anarchism! Some of my critics could not separate political disagreement from personal conflicts.
The first wave of arguments I faced held that “no anarchist” would support the war. This was because anarchists did not support wars, or anarchists did not support wars between capitalist states. This is to say that my critics rejected (or ignored) the importance of imperialism. They did not distinguish between wars between imperialist states and wars between an oppressed, colonized, nation and an imperialist state.
It was repeatedly pointed out to me that Peter Kropotkin had supported France and the Allies in World War I but that almost all anarchists at the time and later felt that he was badly mistaken. His comrade Errico Malatesta had written to condemn Kropotkin for taking sides in the Great War. But my critics did not know that Malatesta had also supported wars of national liberation by oppressed peoples (for example, in Libya against the Italian army, or in Cuba against the Spanish empire). (Price Nov. 2022)
I demonstrated that “classical anarchists” had supported popular struggles for national self-determination: including, but not limited to, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Makhno, and others. All (with the exception of Kropotkin) distinguished between wars among imperialists (of which they opposed all sides) and wars between imperialists and oppressed, non-imperialist, countries (of which they supported the oppressed peoples). (Price July 2022; 2023)
I also pointed out that many—perhaps most—of the Ukrainian anarchists supported—and participated in—the Ukrainian side of the war. Similarly, Russian and Belarusian anarchists were on the side of the Ukrainian people, and so were many other anarchists.
In a report on the 2023 International Anarchist Conference at St. Imier, Switzerland, a commentator wrote,
“Most events held on the war accepted the right of self-defence for Ukrainians as the minimum anarchist political basis….The event by anarchists from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who are actively resisting the invasion, was one of the most interesting of the meeting.” (Transnational Institute 2023)
All this does not prove that it is right to support the Ukrainian people, but it does disprove the claim that no anarchist would take such a stand.
In general, my opponents could not distinguish between “nationalism” and “national self-determination” or “liberation.” “National liberation” meant the freeing of a people from the oppression of the state of another nation. “National self-determination” meant that a people were able to decide for itself whether to be independent and what kind of political and economic system to have (which could be a capitalist state or libertarian socialism). But “nationalism” is one possible program meant to supposedly solve national oppression—by creating a new state and national capitalist economy (perhaps state capitalist). Anarchists should be for “national self-determination” and “national liberation” but are thoroughly opposed to “nationalism.” Instead we advocate international anarchist socialism to achieve freedom for all peoples everywhere.
Others argued that Ukraine did not deserve national defense because it was not really a nation! They claimed that Ukraine was a recent invention, that its people were indistinguishable from Russians, and so on. (While not supporting the Russian invasion, many anarchists repeat Putin’s propaganda and lies.) In my opinion, all these claims were irrelevant. Historically there had been a Ukraine for centuries, oppressed by the Czars and then by the Stalinists. During the 70 years of the Soviet Union, there had been a recognized Ukrainian Republic in the USSR. But this too was not really relevant.
What was important was that the Ukrainians regarded themselves as a nation. In 1991 the Ukrainian people voted overwhelming for national independence from Russia—by more than 92 per cent. This included about 80 per cent in the eastern, mainly Russian-speaking, Donbas and about 54 per cent in Crimea. (Mirra 2023; p. 126) It was their opinion which counts, not that of foreign anarchists nor of Putin and his army.
To which some replied, that therefore the people of the eastern Ukraine, the Donbas, were a nation or nations because they had voted for their own republics merged into Russia. I would agree, except that the drive for their “national separation” was so clearly a Russian put-up job (with Russian soldiers everywhere). Indeed the whole movement for Donbas secession was organized since 2014 by Russian and pro-Russian agents.
Another argument was that anarchists must not support a capitalist state. In fact, no Ukrainian anarchists gave any political support to the Zelensky government. They did not vote for it nor urge others to vote for it. They did not join the ruling party nor any other. They did not participate in the government in any way. They have opposed the neoliberal austerity and anti-union policies of the Zelensky government. There is no “Popular Front.”
Suppose there was a strike in the U.S. Anarchists would be on the side of the workers. Outside anarchists would do labor-support activities to help the strike. Anarchist workers at the workplace would join the strike and be active in its organizing. Yet the union would undoubtedly be run by a bureaucratic and possibly corrupt leadership. Should anarchists still participate? Or should they stand aside or perhaps cross the picket lines, because the union was undemocratic and centralized? Obviously, revolutionary anarchists would join the strike and be the most militant strikers, while fighting for a more democratic, federalist, and militant union. The same is true of anarchists in a just national war of self-determination, being part of the war while working for an eventual anarchist-socialist revolution.
Anarchists are participating in the war. Some distribute food and medicines. Others help refugees. But some formed Territorial Defense groups affiliated with the army. And some joined the army, fighting at the front.
It would have been optimal if Ukrainian anarchists had been able to organize militias or guerrilla groups independently of the state. Unfortunately they are far too weak to do that. They must either support the existing army in one way or another, or be passive. After all, while Ukrainian anarchists have much to criticize the army for, anarchists are not opposed to its fighting the Russian invaders!
Suppose anarchists were to say to the Ukrainian people, “We are against the Russian invasion, but we are also against the national army—we are even for sabotaging it—because it is the army of a state and capitalism.” Most workers would (correctly) regard this as treasonous de facto support of the invaders. On the other hand, anarchist participation in the war, in whatever capacity, can only increase positive views of anarchists among the population.
Much of the opposition to supporting Ukraine is due to its getting arms and aid from the U.S. and the rest of NATO. It is often called a “proxy war.” There is an assumption by many that only U.S. imperialism is evil. But while U.S. imperialism is terrible, it is not the only imperialism. There is Russian imperialism, as the Ukrainians know.
It is not unusual for one imperialist power to intervene when a colony rebels against its imperialist master. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often aided, with guns or money, national struggles against Western imperialists—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile the U.S. was “on the side” of eastern European states against the Soviet Union. Even during World War II, Nazi Germany gave “support” to Arab rebels in Britain and France’s colonies, and even to Ireland, while Imperial Japan claimed to be “freeing” Asian colonies from Britain, France, and Holland. So it was not surprising that Soviet Russia gave aid to Vietnam against the U.S.—or that the U.S. and allies should give aid to Ukraine. The U.S. state is acting for its reasons, its imperial interests in weakening its imperial competitor, not out of the “idealism” of its cynical politicians.
But make no mistake. For the Ukrainians, this is no “proxy war.” It is their villages, towns, and cities which are bombed and destroyed, not those of the U.S., Germany, or Britain. It is their population which is being massacred on the ground and from the air. It is their soldiers who are fighting and being killed in massive numbers. They are fighting and dying for their country, their people, and no one else.
I would not offer tactical advice to Ukrainian anarchists. But strategically I would say that their goals are two-fold: to defeat the Russian invasion and to spread anarchist ideas among the people, especially the workers. As revolutionary anarchists, we continue to be in solidarity with the oppressed, especially when they fight for their freedom.
References
Mirra, Carl (2023). “The War in Ukraine.” New Politics. Summer 2023. Pp. 125—137.
Price, Wayne (July 2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666
Price, Wayne (Nov. 2022). “Kropotkin and War—Today.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32683?search_text=Wayne+Price
Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774?search_text=Wayne+Price
Transnational Institute of Social Ecology (2023). “Report From the International Anarchist Meeting in St. Imier, Switzerland”
https://anarchistnews.org/content/report-international-anarchist-meeting-st-imier-switzerland
* submitted to Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine
images.jpg
In Support of “Turning the Tide”
Just like Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN) in their recently released political program “Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power”, in our own regional organization – the I-5AF – we have often compared general strategy to a compass. Strategy serves as our north star. It helps us get to where we’re going, but it isn’t the actual destination, just a tool to help us triangulate our position and approximate our heading. A long-term political project on the international level is not at all in opposition to establishing anarchism as an influential force in the US and, concerning our own project, more specifically along the I-5 corridor. Because of this, we are in full agreement with BRRN that our longest-term strategies must be oriented by our ends and that our shortest-term, most immediately relevant strategy must always be framed by time and place. As organized anarchism continues to grow internationally, it becomes even more necessary for political organizations to have methods for adapting general strategies to current conditions locally. It is this flexibility and dynamism to respond to specific demands which allows an org to stay focused on its final objectives and long-term strategy. Because periods of upheaval and deadly crises will continue, our movements need to be supported by dependable organizations, the kind of orgs capable of maintaining a revolutionary perspective during both ebbs and flows.
Today, most leftist organizations are limited by capacity, both of membership and of stamina. The countless repetitions of protests, followed by burnout and fatigue, have erased not only the know-how but also our desire to "move together". And activists are only propagating individualism when they don’t concern themselves with chronicling and promoting the collective history of struggle. Like BRRN, we too see flaws in this endless cycle of activism motivated by nothing more than moral outrage, and we completely agree that the coordination of militants involved in social struggle is essential for the development of effective political strategy. Beyond mobilizing, for popular movements to effectively confront the ruling class, there is a need to organize the active minority. This means a steady flow of militants from various orgs towards a unified perspective, in the form of a grouping of tendency or a social-political organization. This is with the medium-term goal of unifying different sectors of society into a broader movement by politically and strategically connecting real sites of struggle. We see this as the role of theory, and it is why we think that theory must be developed in context, while doing politics, not idealistically, and definitely not just online.
In our own especifismo current of anarchism, of which BRRN is currently the largest org in the US, the political organization assists in bringing movements together, forging solidarity through struggle amongst a broad spectrum of organized, emancipatory social forces. For this reason, we support non-ideological mass movements. Autonomous movements that employ direct action instead of representation and direct democracy of the rank-and-file, not cults of personality or demagoguery. Movements that are militant, self-managed, and federalist. Movements that are engaged in struggle and reach beyond both localism and nationalism.
We want to see anarchism plant its seeds and grow its politics in rural, suburban, and urban locales across the entire continent. But the limited strategies necessary in these contexts will have to be based on immediate, specific conditions. And as things stand, while the two-party system continues, unthreatened by the ebbing tides of “progressive” candidates, the socialist movement in the US has stalled. The democratic socialism of the Bernie Sanders movement and the DSA never sufficiently grappled with the fact that it is impossible for elected representatives to change the State's policies enough to avert catastrophes that are already occurring globally. We need a revolution! Nevertheless, we must admit that libertarian socialism is itself entirely overshadowed by the pervasiveness of dem soc rhetoric in the US left. Today, anarchists are rarely organized politically. This is why anarchism doesn't usually have an explicit presence in leftist spaces, unions, or community organizations. In most of the country, there is no political organization raising the strategic question: how do we popularize social movements that produce grassroots organizations and militant culture that endures beyond mobilizations and protests?
As BRRN says, our movements lack the “muscle memory” required to work together and develop political lines through open debate. And though this is an ever-increasing problem given the multiple systemic crises whose effects are already overlapping in our daily lives, like BRRN, we see new possibilities arising for the development of Popular Power. But it will only be possible by combining the organized forces of the exploited, dominated, and oppressed classes together. A counter power protagonized by the social movements themselves depends on broad social influence, not on opportunistic leadership from a party, a church, a corporation, or the State.
¡PROTAGONISMO POPULAR!
¡POPULAR POWER!
Today, most leftist organizations are limited by capacity, both of membership and of stamina. The countless repetitions of protests, followed by burnout and fatigue, have erased not only the know-how but also our desire to "move together". And activists are only propagating individualism when they don’t concern themselves with chronicling and promoting the collective history of struggle. Like BRRN, we too see flaws in this endless cycle of activism motivated by nothing more than moral outrage, and we completely agree that the coordination of militants involved in social struggle is essential for the development of effective political strategy. Beyond mobilizing, for popular movements to effectively confront the ruling class, there is a need to organize the active minority. This means a steady flow of militants from various orgs towards a unified perspective, in the form of a grouping of tendency or a social-political organization. This is with the medium-term goal of unifying different sectors of society into a broader movement by politically and strategically connecting real sites of struggle. We see this as the role of theory, and it is why we think that theory must be developed in context, while doing politics, not idealistically, and definitely not just online.
In our own especifismo current of anarchism, of which BRRN is currently the largest org in the US, the political organization assists in bringing movements together, forging solidarity through struggle amongst a broad spectrum of organized, emancipatory social forces. For this reason, we support non-ideological mass movements. Autonomous movements that employ direct action instead of representation and direct democracy of the rank-and-file, not cults of personality or demagoguery. Movements that are militant, self-managed, and federalist. Movements that are engaged in struggle and reach beyond both localism and nationalism.
We want to see anarchism plant its seeds and grow its politics in rural, suburban, and urban locales across the entire continent. But the limited strategies necessary in these contexts will have to be based on immediate, specific conditions. And as things stand, while the two-party system continues, unthreatened by the ebbing tides of “progressive” candidates, the socialist movement in the US has stalled. The democratic socialism of the Bernie Sanders movement and the DSA never sufficiently grappled with the fact that it is impossible for elected representatives to change the State's policies enough to avert catastrophes that are already occurring globally. We need a revolution! Nevertheless, we must admit that libertarian socialism is itself entirely overshadowed by the pervasiveness of dem soc rhetoric in the US left. Today, anarchists are rarely organized politically. This is why anarchism doesn't usually have an explicit presence in leftist spaces, unions, or community organizations. In most of the country, there is no political organization raising the strategic question: how do we popularize social movements that produce grassroots organizations and militant culture that endures beyond mobilizations and protests?
As BRRN says, our movements lack the “muscle memory” required to work together and develop political lines through open debate. And though this is an ever-increasing problem given the multiple systemic crises whose effects are already overlapping in our daily lives, like BRRN, we see new possibilities arising for the development of Popular Power. But it will only be possible by combining the organized forces of the exploited, dominated, and oppressed classes together. A counter power protagonized by the social movements themselves depends on broad social influence, not on opportunistic leadership from a party, a church, a corporation, or the State.
¡PROTAGONISMO POPULAR!
¡POPULAR POWER!
i5af_baby_logo.jpg
Tensiones y desafíos actuales en torno a las construcciones populares autónomas
Tensiones y desafíos actuales en torno a las construcciones populares autónomas
Diego Naim Saiegh
Instituto de Teoría e Historia Anarquista - ITHA
Introducción
En el siguiente trabajo nos adentraremos a indagar sobre ciertas implicancias que hoy por hoy se exhiben a la hora de llevar adelante procesos de construcción popular autónomos – haciendo hincapié en aquellos que por sus perspectivas políticas y metodológicas, pueden inscribirse dentro de una matriz libertaria- en un contexto histórico atravesado por las marcas de la desocupación estructural, el crecimiento de la pobreza y en términos generales, por la precarización de la vida como forma social. Trataremos de plantear, a través de nuestro recorrido, ciertos hilos de análisis sobre algunos problemas a enfrentar de acuerdo al mencionado contexto, particularmente en el marco de nuestras sociedades periféricas latinoamericanas y algunas hipótesis sobre los desafíos a encarar de cara a su superación en clave emancipatoria.
Ahora bien, antes de avanzar en las cuestiones esgrimidas, nos parece importante, aunque más no sea a modo de trazo grueso, dejar señaladas un par de ideas generales sobre el vínculo existente entre anarquismo y procesos de organización popular, así como algunas líneas sobre a qué nos referirnos con respecto a construcción de matriz libertaria.
Una perspectiva político-metodológica de construcción popular
Si el anarquismo como corriente de praxis revolucionaria ha tenido a lo largo de su historia – amén de sus distintas tendencias - una “razón de ser”, ésta estuvo dada de manera prevaleciente, por el hecho de dotar de base material al entramado de sus postulados políticos, enraizando, su perspectiva emancipatoria de desenlace popular, con la necesaria organización y lucha para tal fin de aquellos que se encuentran sometidos a las injusticias del sistema de dominación estatal-capitalista. Mijail Bakunin decía al respecto:
Es cierto que hay [en el pueblo] una gran fuerza elemental, una fuerza sin lugar a dudas superior a la del gobierno y al de las clases dirigentes tomadas en su conjunto, pero sin organización, la fuerza elemental, no es fuerza real. Es esta innegable ventaja de la fuerza organizada respecto de la fuerza elemental del pueblo, en la que se basa el poder del Estado. Por lo tanto, el problema no estriba en saber si [el pueblo] puede sublevarse, sino si es capaz de construir una organización que le proporcione los medios de llegar a un fin victorioso. No a una victoria fortuita, sino a un triunfo prolongado, definitivo [1].
En la misma sintonía, el italiano Errico Malatesta, planteaba que las clases oprimidas y explotadas:
no podrán emanciparse nunca mientras no encuentren en la unión la fuerza moral, la fuerza económica y la fuerza física que es necesaria para derrotar a la fuerza organizada de los opresores [2].
Desde estas consideraciones entonces, se traduce la importancia estratégica que tiene para un proceso de transformación social, el desarrollo y el fomento de organizaciones populares que puedan motorizar y sustentar dicho proceso, constituyendo así, una fuerza social articulada capaz de enfrentar y eventualmente trascender el poder organizado de las clases dominantes. Ahora, ese impulso hacia el protagonismo de la organización del abajo social, tiene que contar, desde una lógica libertaria, con ciertos criterios y lineamientos que son distintivos de otras lógicas y que dan lugar a una impronta propia.
Por lo pronto, se parte de la concepción de que los agrupamientos de las clases populares deben tener como primer cometido de acción, la lucha por la conquista de aquellos intereses materiales que aglutinen a la clase en el marco de sus necesidades más inmediatas. Para esto, el arco de confluencia debe ser el más amplio posible; es decir, no debe estar atravesado a priori por limitantes del tipo político-ideológico, religioso o de otra índole [3]. Pero este cometido de acción primario no debe ser estanco, sino dinámico. Debe combinarse de manera dialéctica con un cometido de lucha emancipatoria que pretenda superar a las estructuras del sistema dominante, procurando en ese camino, construir “embriones” de prácticas sociales y organismos que prefiguren la sociedad libre de explotación y opresión. La organización de la clase se plantea, entonces, desde esta mirada, como una herramienta de acción y lucha reivindicativa, pero también como una escuela de participación democrática y como un bastión de construcción de la capacidad de autodeterminación popular, constituyéndose a su vez, en un baluarte en el desarrollo de un poder autogestivo desde abajo, desde el propio pueblo organizado. Este cometido complementario ensancha el campo de lo meramente social-reivindicativo y le imprime una clara orientación política. Política en términos de política autónoma de clase y por lo tanto de reapropiación, asimismo, del ámbito de lo político como espacio de autoactividad, autogestión y autoinstitución social.
En estos términos, esta perspectiva si bien no depara una inmediata vinculación orgánica con un planteo ideológico cerrado – habida cuenta de cómo se decía más arriba, la necesaria amplitud de confluencia a los fines de llevar adelante el cometido primario de lucha reivindicativa - sí plantea, una matriz, que sustentada sobre ciertas prerrogativas y líneas político-metodológicas de construcción, podemos identificar como libertaria o “libertirizante”. Parámetros como la lucha y la acción directa sin intermediarios, la democracia de base, la organización federativa, la independencia de clase, la práctica prefigurativa, el antiparlamentarismo, entre otros, nos marcan claramente un perfil de construcción en el seno del pueblo que el anarquismo como corriente, ha llevado adelante históricamente al momento de involucrarse en la lucha de clases, tanto sea desde los orígenes del movimiento obrero organizado como en el marco de las luchas que los movimientos sociales contemporáneos desarrollan desde hace varias décadas hasta nuestros días y que ha influenciado – e inclusive sigue influenciando- a distintas organizaciones populares que no necesariamente surgen dinamizados por militantes de dicha corriente. Desde esta óptica de organización y construcción popular que genéricamente denominamos autónoma, es que procuraremos a continuación, analizar el panorama actual sobre el que estas formaciones deben desarrollar sus luchas, así como qué problemáticas y desafíos se les presentan a la hora de confrontar con el mismo.
Un panorama actual
A esta altura, entrados a la tercera década del siglo XXI, pareciera no ser una novedad de que nos encontramos inmersos en una profunda crisis que desde distintas voces se plantea como civilizatoria y con múltiples dimensiones. Crisis que se establece como sistémica, multifocal y global, en tanto características propias del capitalismo, amén de ciertas manifestaciones propias a nivel países o regiones. Un primer punto para abordar su alcance, seguramente pase por visualizar que, desde hace algunas décadas y de manera cada vez más acentuada, el proceso de expansionismo sin límite del capitalismo necesariamente está erosionando sus propias condiciones previas de existencia.
En tanto la sustancia del capital es, la generación y regeneración de valor a través del trabajo abstracto -vivo pero alienado- acumulado en el ámbito de la producción junto con sus condiciones de posibilidad en el ámbito reproductivo y el medio natural; su impulso para conseguir constantes incrementos en la productividad – de la mano de la competitividad - lo lleva a conceder a la ciencia y a la tecnología una importancia creciente en la producción. Esto tiene como correlato y tendencia en aumento, convertir ese mismo proceso, basado en el trabajo -único generador de valor- en constantemente anacrónico. Con esto el capitalismo serrucha la rama sobre la cual se posa: la valorización del valor a través del trabajo vivo y el entorno que lo posibilita.
Si bien - y aunque parezca contradictorio con lo anterior- en los últimos años han proliferado un abanico de “nuevos trabajos”, éstos, por sus características – informales, precarizados, tercerizados, “uberizados”, sin derechos - no solamente no repercuten en la tendencial desvalorización y disminución estructural del trabajo formal todavía existente, sino que además no dejan de ser una “huida hacia adelante” que, junto con otros dispositivos, el capitalismo global desarrolla para sortear sus propias limitaciones intrínsecas, pero que aun siendo efectivas para reactivar las ganancias de algún sector en el corto plazo, no van a generar, ni por lejos, un nuevo ciclo de prosperidad, porque las tecnologías – que no producen valor - y que reemplazan el trabajo humano, no pueden ser eliminadas de la producción, es decir “no vuelven para atrás”. Por ende, no se trata de un clásico “vaivén cíclico” de los que pudo haber en otra etapa, sino de una tendencia que ya se configura como una crisis sin retorno. Asimismo:
En este contexto, las grandes empresas están tratando de impulsar un nuevo ciclo expansivo para blindar sus beneficios a corto plazo. Para ello, como sucedió en crisis anteriores, han renovado su apuesta por la ampliación de la frontera mercantil a través de las dinámicas de acumulación por desposesión. Igualmente, en el marco de la financiarización global, están favoreciendo la creación de nuevas burbujas especulativas para recuperar, al menos en el futuro más inmediato, unos altos niveles de rentabilidad [4].
Esto, insistimos, “patea hacia adelante” pero deja sin resolver el problema de fondo, esto es, de que si bien, aunque la cantidad de bienes y servicios pueda llegar a crecer, en conjunto y en el mediano plazo representan una cantidad cada vez menor de valor; asimismo el dinero - producto de la especulación financiera - que circula en el mundo es “ficticio” ya que no representa en realidad trabajo invertido de una manera “productiva” [5]. El capitalismo se pone cada vez más de frente a sus barreras económicas interiores como a sus limitaciones externas naturales –ecológicas-, que si bien, presentan un horizonte temporal diverso -y en esto las luchas sociales juegan un rol- no pueden ser detenidos, al menos en los marcos de su propia lógica. En síntesis:
El capitalismo global ha ido desplazando sus contradicciones hacia adelante, en el tiempo y en el espacio, pero cada vez se aproxima más a sus propios límites. La inestabilidad permanente de los mercados como consecuencia del aumento de la financiarización, la extensión de la explotación laboral y las desigualdades sociales que excluyen de la sociedad de consumo a amplias capas de la población, el cuestionamiento de la división sexual del trabajo y la necesidad de un replanteamiento del reparto de tareas productivas y reproductivas, el agotamiento de las fuentes de energía y los recursos materiales que requiere el metabolismo agroindustrial-urbano-financiero, los impactos del modelo económico en los ecosistemas y el desorden climático, son todos ellos, síntomas de que el funcionamiento del capitalismo se encuentra aquejado de graves problemas de fondo […] Estancamiento, deuda y desigualdad se superponen así al telón de fondo que hace materialmente imposible prolongar de manera indefinida la lógica de crecimiento y acumulación [6].
Este panorama va redondeando una serie de definiciones a tener en cuenta. Por un lado, y por todo lo antedicho, no es posible el retorno a un modelo de acumulación basado en el empleo masivo - propio de la era fordista ya superada -, por ende, no es posible el retorno al “pleno empleo” ni a la formalidad masiva y en su defecto, tampoco a las recetas keynesianas ni al rol central del Estado. El Estado, en tanto connivente de las lógicas del capital, en “el mejor de los casos” en esta etapa sólo puede disponer de ciertas políticas focalizadas, que además de constituirse en dispositivos de disciplinamiento social, redundan en sostener y aumentar modalidades de precarización [7].
Pero la cosa no se queda sólo aquí. Si se supone que la economía tiene como finalidad el bienestar de los sujetos, teniendo como medio el trabajo y la producción de bienes y servicios para la satisfacción de las necesidades vitales; en la lógica del capital, y sobre todo con mayor énfasis en los últimos tiempos, estos términos se pervierten y el fin de una vida sustentable se transforma en un medio para un fin distinto; la acumulación capitalista. Esto pone sobre la mesa la configuración de una matriz que se demuestra cada vez con mayor visibilidad en el neoliberalismo y que cristaliza a la precariedad ya no sólo referenciada al ámbito laboral, sino como una verdadera forma social de carácter totalizador en continuo aumento. Esto constituye, asimismo un conflicto radical e irresoluble entre la sostenibilidad de la vida humana y ecológica y el capitalismo, que algunos analistas sintetizan como conflicto “capital-vida”:
cuando la vida es un medio para un fin distinto, la vida está siempre en amenaza; la tensión puede suavizarse a veces […] pero antes o después llegará un momento de desencaje cuando la acumulación se produzca no a través de sostener la vida, sino a costa de negarla o destruirla [8].
Todo este proceso general tiene en Latinoamérica, en tanto región periférica, un desarrollo interrelacionado, aunque con elementos particulares. Implicó en principio y desde hace varias décadas, todo un contexto de reconfiguración social que significó la acentuación de las desigualdades preexistentes y la emergencia de nuevas brechas políticas, económicas, sociales y culturales, constituyendo así, un escenario caracterizado por un lado, por la fragmentación y la pérdida de poder de los sectores populares, y por otro lado, por la concentración política y económica en las elites de poder internacionalizado, que lejos estuvo de ser lineal:
Muchos de los cambios en el orden económico arrancaron durante la década de 1970 [en la gran mayoría de los casos, con dictaduras genocidas mediante]; las transformaciones operadas en la estructura social comenzaron a tornarse visibles en los años ochenta, durante la llamada “década perdida”, que culminó con fuertes episodios hiperinflacionarios y abrió la puerta a la implementación de las reformas neoliberales de los años noventa [9].
A su vez:
es necesario tener en cuenta que si el primer momento de la globalización neoliberal, en los años noventa, estuvo marcado por las privatizaciones y el ajuste fiscal, el segundo momento viene de la mano de la generalización de un modelo extractivo-exportador que apunta a consolidar y ampliar aún más las brechas sociales entre los países del norte y del sur, en base al saqueo de los recursos naturales cada vez más escasos, la contaminación irreversible, la extensión del monocultivo y la consiguiente pérdida de la biodiversidad [10].
Dicho todo lo anterior, no podemos dejar de volver a señalar de que las mencionadas, no dejan de ser manifestaciones propias de un sistema global y que tiene, como ya hemos marcado, a la precariedad y a la exclusión como marca estructural, planteando a la región como un espacio concreto en donde cuerpos, vidas y territorios son sacrificables en aras de la reproducción del capital trasnacionalizado en esta etapa, amén incluso, de que tal o cual gobierno se declare “progresista” o “popular”.
Frente a este panorama, desde finales de los años ´80 y fundamentalmente desde la década del ´90 se viene asistiendo a una progresiva confluencia de distintos procesos de lucha que se han venido plasmando a través de distintas vías y que han tenido ciertos hitos que han marcado su desarrollo. Es importante rescatar a su vez, que la caída del muro de Berlín en 1989 y el derrumbe de la URSS en 1991 no solo trajeron consigo el colapso de los regímenes del “socialismo real”, la crisis de los partidos comunistas, de los socialistas, de los sindicatos tradicionales y de los movimientos guerrilleros especialmente en Latinoamérica, sino también la quiebra de todo un paradigma revolucionario que había impregnado a la mayor parte de las izquierdas a lo largo del siglo XX; esto es, que el desarrollo imparable de las fuerzas productivas traería consigo el socialismo y que junto con la dinámica de lucha impulsada particularmente por el proletariado, único sujeto social con capacidad transformadora – fundamentalmente urbano, industrial y destinatario de una “misión histórica que cumplir - se alumbraría la sociedad sin clases. Todo esto ahonda, como dijimos, la desorientación y la crisis de las viejas formas organizativas y metodológicas, pero permite, de manera dialéctica, en consonancia con las renovadas lógicas de dominación capitalista, el paulatino afloramiento de nuevos ejes de confrontación, así como de nuevos discursos críticos, sujetos sociales y de nuevas formas de construcción popular, ya en sintonía con lo que hoy conocemos como movimientos sociales que, conviviendo – y muchas veces coordinando - con las organizaciones tradicionales, han logrado erigirse como protagonistas de las resistencias de este último periodo [11].
En realidad, y para ser correctos, en algunos casos, más que “nuevos”, deberíamos decir “reelaborados” formatos y pautas de disputa antagonista, dado que muchas de estas iniciativas ya habían tenido un incipiente esbozo durante los sucesos que se conocieron como “Mayo francés” de 1968, en donde, entre otras cuestiones, supieron salir a la palestra todo un conjunto de miradas y perspectivas que, con el título abarcativo de “nueva izquierda”, inclusive implicó volver a poner en valor todo un conjunto de prerrogativas –muchas de las cuales desarrollamos en la primera parte de este trabajo- de cuño socialista libertario que durante un corto plazo, habían entrado en un cono de sombras.
Puntualizando, ahora bien, sobre los alcances que en el último tiempo ha tenido en nuestro continente el marco de las luchas desarrolladas por los mencionados movimientos sociales surgidos en los años noventa, es sustancial destacar que han tenido – y continúan teniendo - un cometido mucho más abarcativo que la sola acción de resistencia:
los movimientos sociales han revelado ser algo más que una respuesta meramente defensiva frente a los cambios en la correlación de fuerzas sociales y las fuertes transformaciones de sus condiciones de vida y reproducción. En realidad, con todas sus complejidades y matices nacionales, los movimientos sociales latinoamericanos han desarrollado una dimensión más proactiva, que abre la posibilidad de pensar nuevas alternativas emancipatorias a partir de la defensa y promoción de la vida y la diversidad [12].
Tensiones y desafíos…
Planteado a grandes rasgos el escenario desde el cual hoy por hoy las organizaciones y construcciones populares y sobre todo aquellas que se conciben desde una matriz libertaria o genéricamente autónoma, deben desarrollar sus luchas; se hace necesario ahora establecer algunos desafíos de cara a poder superar algunas problemáticas y tensiones que el mismo escenario presenta, a los fines de poder prescribir algunas claves de orientación emancipatoria para los tiempos que corren.
Decíamos más arriba que frente al proceso de desarrollo crítico del capitalismo en esta etapa, que, entre otras cuestiones, deja cada vez más fuera de su órbita a la formalidad masiva del trabajo, los Estados - y sobre todo en gran parte de Latinoamérica - han salido a “emparchar” esta situación [13] con toda una batería de recursos, programas y políticas focalizadas, intentando con esto, contener, pero también disciplinar, a los sectores populares afectados por estas y otras consecuencias estructurales del actual desenvolvimiento del capital [14].
Con respecto a esta problemática ha habido – sigue habiendo - mucho debate en el campo de las organizaciones populares sobre cómo afrontar esta situación a propósito de si tomar como eje de lucha válido o no la disputa de esos recursos y si eso puede ser coherente con una perspectiva autónoma de construcción dada la inexorable relación que con el Estado esto confiere y la tendencia a la institucionalización que la misma supone para el campo de ejercicio de las organizaciones y sus luchas. Demás está decir que, al respecto, las distintas realidades de cada espacio nacional tienen su asidero, pero, si como venimos argumentando, estas medidas no dejan de formar parte de todo un entramado estructural-global, se hacen pertinentes algunas reflexiones.
Si partimos de la base de que en este contexto la gama de ejes de lucha reivindicativa no se agota en los recursos focalizados estatales, es verdad también que los mismos, por sus características, adquieren una impronta sumamente importante en las actuales condiciones para afrontar la pelea por un mínimo mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida en el marco de un sistema que deja cada vez más sectores de la población por fuera de los circuitos de trabajo formal [15] y por ende, también, por fuera de los circuitos de consumo y de reaseguro de sus condiciones básicas de subsistencia.
Ahora, el nudo problemático con respecto a la tendencial institucionalización - que sería más correcto caracterizar como moldeamiento estatal [16]- que esto implica, si bien efectivamente presenta una amenaza a la autonomía de las construcciones populares regidas por esta lógica, su configuración no necesariamente debe prescribirse como absoluta. Dado el escenario siempre dinámico de las luchas sociales y de las relaciones de fuerza, el a priori dilema condicionante debe visualizarse como parte de un contexto de relación conflictiva y de tensión permanente en donde el desafío se presenta, no sólo en la disputa reivindicativa por la apropiación de manera organizada de los recursos en cuestión, sino, además en la disputa política contra la lógica estatal de moldeamiento y alienación. En este sentido, prácticas como la resignificación, es decir, el darle “otra significación” a aquello que fue concebido como un paliativo disciplinador y “moldeador” hacia dispositivos de construcción contrarios a esas lógicas - tendientes a fortalecer estructura y protagonismo popular desde abajo – sumado a la perspectiva por la ruptura del carácter focalizado de estos programas estatales hacia su universalización como derechos, asumen en esta etapa, un valor enormemente significativo.
Otra cuestión que nos parece importante señalar en este derrotero de tensiones y desafíos, tiene que ver con el orden de lo estratégico. Si como ya dijimos, las organizaciones populares autónomas y dentro de ellas, fundamentalmente las atravesadas por una matriz libertaria, se posicionan a grosso modo con un objetivo político general de cambio social en términos de desenlace popular orientado hacia la autoactividad, la autogestión y la autoinstitución social; para ser coherentes con estos postulados, se hace fundamental como elemento estratégico, no solo el fortalecimiento y consolidación organizativa de estas expresiones de base, sino además, el desarrollo continuo de su propia capacidad de fuerza - material y contrahegemónica - opuesta y en confrontación al poder de las clases dominantes. Dicho de otra manera; se hace vital la construcción de un poder popular - que podría plantearse como autogestivo – que instituya, asimismo, espacios, territorios, mecanismos y relaciones que prefiguren y sustenten el proyecto de una sociedad autogestionaria.
Tomando en cuenta esta premisa estratégica y por todo lo que hemos expuesto en términos del proceso histórico que atravesamos, creemos que la misma a su vez, debe complementarse con una perspectiva más que hoy se presenta como imprescindible: la multisectorialidad. En efecto, si de un tiempo a esta parte, no podemos hablar de una clase homogénea ni de un sector popular en concreto que represente una autosuficiencia ni una centralidad manifiesta en cuanto al antagonismo y superación frente al desarrollo de las condiciones actuales del capitalismo por cuanto las contradicciones son múltiples – económicas, sociales, políticas, culturales, ambientales –, múltiple se presenta entonces el sujeto social de confrontación. Por lo tanto, una estrategia acorde involucraría en este sentido, la posibilidad de articular esas contradicciones y ese sujeto múltiple en una proyección común. Esto claramente implica plantearse un horizonte de lucha que intente ir más allá del marco de reivindicaciones específicas pero fragmentarias de tal o cual sector en particular, perfilando una perspectiva que apueste por la integración de las mismas en espacios de carácter multisectorial.
¿Y sobre qué eje se podría a priori, aglutinar la diversidad de demandas que cruzan al universo de las expresiones de lucha popular? Si como hemos dicho, en este contexto la lógica del capital – en crisis – no sólo pervierte, sino que además amenaza el sostenimiento de la vida – humana y ecológica - configurando una matriz de precariedad social generalizada; ésta última, podría ser un buen punto a considerar como nexo de articulación común dada la transversalidad que la misma supone a los distintos sectores que se encuentran sometidos a esta dinámica expropiatoria y depredadora:
Ante la crisis civilizatoria, la contrapropuesta no puede ser recuperar la “producción” […] sino abrir dos debates: qué es una vida que merezca ser vivida y cómo colectivizar la responsabilidad de garantizar sus condiciones de posibilidad […] [17].
Ahora bien, planteada tal orientación general y partiendo de la congruencia a tener entre la misma y los medios hacia su logro, nos es importante prescribir que estos medios a su vez, en este contexto de crisis sistémica, deben cumplir un rol de tensión dialéctica entre las posibilidades de avance conflictivo hacia un proyecto de ruptura y el bloqueo del continumm autoerosivo del capitalismo en esta etapa. Sería algo así como lo que planteaba Walter Benjamin con respecto a poner el “freno de emergencia” para no precipitarse al vacío, propiciando una serie de contra-movimientos que funcionen como “diques” en contraposición a ciertas perspectivas “aceleracionistas” que reproduzcan y sigan estimulando las lógicas del capital tal y cual se siguen perfilando. Y esto podría llegar a desarrollarse con medidas y planteos reivindicativos que, entre otras cuestiones, busquen detraer recursos de las lógicas del mercado y apuesten por su expansión y universalización, reduzcan la jornada y repartan el trabajo formal todavía existente, socialicen y expongan la producción de riqueza como atributo histórico-social, apuesten a la desfinaciarización de la economía, al resguardo ambiental y al decrecimiento progresivo; en definitiva, que tiendan a priorizar y estimular la sostenibilidad de una vida digna por fuera de los parámetros de la precariedad a la par de que sirvan de marco para la recomposición de fuerzas desde el abajo social, dejen margen para la reconstitución de un imaginario social antagonista y preparen un horizonte de transformación revolucionaria.
Esta serie de medidas, junto con otras posibles, creemos, no anulan la dinámica histórica de la lucha de clases, sino que la amplían y la complejizan en función de los requerimientos del proceso histórico en marcha, y que no por sustanciarse a priori, como dirían algunos, como “meras reformas”, dejan, en conjunto y en base a algunas de sus dimensiones, de plantearse como disruptivas con las lógicas capitalistas contemporáneas. Por esto, ninguna puede tomarse de manera aislada y como un fin en sí mismo, sino como medidas o instrumentos que, interrelacionados, se configuran como objetos de disputa de un proceso dinámico de lucha mayor, tendiente a subvertir el estado de cosas.
Referencias:
[1] BAKUNIN, Mijaíl. La Libertad. Obras escogidas de Bakunin. Buenos Aires: Editorial Agebe, 2005.
[2] VERNON, Richard. Malatesta. Pensamiento y acción revolucionarios. Buenos Aires: Editorial Utopía Libertaria, 2007.
[3] En el marco de esa gran primera experiencia de confluencia obrera como lo fue la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores, Mijaíl Bakunin, establecía; “La Internacional acepta en su seno, haciendo absoluta abstracción de todas las diferencias de creencias políticas y religiosas, a todos los trabajadores honrados, con la única condición de que acepten en todas sus consecuencias la solidaridad de la lucha de los trabajadores contra el capital burgués, explotador del trabajo…”. En: NETTLAU, Max. The Life of Michael Bakunin. Michael Bakunin, eine Biographie. Londres: Privately Printed, 1896-1900.
[4] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. La insostenible reconstrucción del business as usual: Recuperación vs confrontación. En: Viento Sur Nº176, 6 AGOSTO 2021 https://vientosur.info/la-insostenible-reconstruccion-del-business-as-usual-recuperacion-vs-confrontacion/
[5] JAPPE, Anselm. Hacia una historia de la crítica del valor. Nombres, Revista de Filosofía, 2018. https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/NOMBRES/article/view/21237
[6] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. Op Cit.
[7] Tal es así, que por ejemplo en Argentina y a través de un reciente informe, se pudo constatar que en 7 provincias el sector de precarizados e informales supera en número al sector de trabajadores formales privados, y frente a esto, amén del eufemismo que suele ver esto como un “aumento de puestos de trabajo”, la respuesta por parte del Estado, a través de las declaraciones de un funcionario del Ministerio de Desarrollo Social es “por eso es importante formalizar y desarrollar la economía popular”. Lo que demuestra esto en realidad, es que lo que viene creciendo a pasos agigantados es la desocupación y el trabajo informal y precarizado de subsistencia y que el Estado lo único que promueve frente a este panorama (en conjunto con algunas organizaciones afines a esta idea) es sólo la cristalización de esta situación a través de la eventual asignación de recursos (meramente paliativos) para afianzar una modalidad precarizada de “trabajo” bajo la órbita del mismo Estado. En: VALES, Laura. En 7 provincias ya hay más trabajadores de la economía popular que privados. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/365051-en-7-provincias-ya-hay-mas-trabajadores-de-la-economia-popul
[8] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. La sostenibilidad de la vida en el centro… ¿Y eso que significa? En: La ecología del trabajo: el trabajo que sostiene la vida, coord. por Laura Mora Cabello de Alba, Juan Escribano Gutiérrez. España: Bomarzo, 2015.
[9] SVAMPA, Maristella. Cambio de época. Movimientos sociales y poder político -1ª ed. - Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentina, 2008.
[10] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[11] Uno de los rasgos fundamentales de los movimientos sociales que en las últimas décadas se han establecido en función la reconfiguración del escenario de las luchas en nuestra región, se encuentra dado en reformulación del territorio, ya no sólo como mero ámbito de reproducción social, sino como un nuevo escenario de lucha y construcción nutrido de potencia, dinámica y dimensión estratégica.
[12] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[13] No sin recurrir –antes e inclusive después- a la represión y a la criminalización de aquellas expresiones de protesta frente a las condiciones generadas por las líneas directrices del modelo de acumulación que los mismos Estados sustentaban.
[14] Para decirlo en términos foucaultianos, el Estado neoliberal desarrolla el control biopolítico de la población pobre. Orientado a una estrategia de contención del conflicto social y de la miseria, su objetivo es integrar excluido en tanto excluido. En: SVAMPA, Maristella. Cinco tesis sobre la nueva matriz popular. IIGG, Facultad de ciencias sociales, UBA: nov.2003. Cabe destacar que, si bien los Estados son los mayores propulsores de estas políticas, no son los únicos. ONGs y organismos multilaterales de distinto tipo también desarrollaron y desarrollan este tipo de medidas y muchas veces articulando con las políticas estatales.
[15] Sin perspectiva aparente de que esta situación pueda, dada su característica estructural, ser revertida en algún tiempo considerable más allá de ciertas declamaciones demagógicas de políticos y empresarios de turno.
[16] Entendemos aquí al moldeamiento estatal como una de las formas posible de institucionalización más concretamente asociada al proceso de alienación estatalizante conducente a “moldear” a las construcciones autónomas a imagen y semejanza de la lógica estatal y subordinada a sus propios mecanismos.
[17] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. Crisis multidimensional y sostenibilidad de la vida. Investigaciones feministas, ISSN 2171-6080, Nº. 2, 2011, págs. 29-53. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_INFE.2011.v2.38603
Diego Naim Saiegh
Instituto de Teoría e Historia Anarquista - ITHA
Introducción
En el siguiente trabajo nos adentraremos a indagar sobre ciertas implicancias que hoy por hoy se exhiben a la hora de llevar adelante procesos de construcción popular autónomos – haciendo hincapié en aquellos que por sus perspectivas políticas y metodológicas, pueden inscribirse dentro de una matriz libertaria- en un contexto histórico atravesado por las marcas de la desocupación estructural, el crecimiento de la pobreza y en términos generales, por la precarización de la vida como forma social. Trataremos de plantear, a través de nuestro recorrido, ciertos hilos de análisis sobre algunos problemas a enfrentar de acuerdo al mencionado contexto, particularmente en el marco de nuestras sociedades periféricas latinoamericanas y algunas hipótesis sobre los desafíos a encarar de cara a su superación en clave emancipatoria.
Ahora bien, antes de avanzar en las cuestiones esgrimidas, nos parece importante, aunque más no sea a modo de trazo grueso, dejar señaladas un par de ideas generales sobre el vínculo existente entre anarquismo y procesos de organización popular, así como algunas líneas sobre a qué nos referirnos con respecto a construcción de matriz libertaria.
Una perspectiva político-metodológica de construcción popular
Si el anarquismo como corriente de praxis revolucionaria ha tenido a lo largo de su historia – amén de sus distintas tendencias - una “razón de ser”, ésta estuvo dada de manera prevaleciente, por el hecho de dotar de base material al entramado de sus postulados políticos, enraizando, su perspectiva emancipatoria de desenlace popular, con la necesaria organización y lucha para tal fin de aquellos que se encuentran sometidos a las injusticias del sistema de dominación estatal-capitalista. Mijail Bakunin decía al respecto:
Es cierto que hay [en el pueblo] una gran fuerza elemental, una fuerza sin lugar a dudas superior a la del gobierno y al de las clases dirigentes tomadas en su conjunto, pero sin organización, la fuerza elemental, no es fuerza real. Es esta innegable ventaja de la fuerza organizada respecto de la fuerza elemental del pueblo, en la que se basa el poder del Estado. Por lo tanto, el problema no estriba en saber si [el pueblo] puede sublevarse, sino si es capaz de construir una organización que le proporcione los medios de llegar a un fin victorioso. No a una victoria fortuita, sino a un triunfo prolongado, definitivo [1].
En la misma sintonía, el italiano Errico Malatesta, planteaba que las clases oprimidas y explotadas:
no podrán emanciparse nunca mientras no encuentren en la unión la fuerza moral, la fuerza económica y la fuerza física que es necesaria para derrotar a la fuerza organizada de los opresores [2].
Desde estas consideraciones entonces, se traduce la importancia estratégica que tiene para un proceso de transformación social, el desarrollo y el fomento de organizaciones populares que puedan motorizar y sustentar dicho proceso, constituyendo así, una fuerza social articulada capaz de enfrentar y eventualmente trascender el poder organizado de las clases dominantes. Ahora, ese impulso hacia el protagonismo de la organización del abajo social, tiene que contar, desde una lógica libertaria, con ciertos criterios y lineamientos que son distintivos de otras lógicas y que dan lugar a una impronta propia.
Por lo pronto, se parte de la concepción de que los agrupamientos de las clases populares deben tener como primer cometido de acción, la lucha por la conquista de aquellos intereses materiales que aglutinen a la clase en el marco de sus necesidades más inmediatas. Para esto, el arco de confluencia debe ser el más amplio posible; es decir, no debe estar atravesado a priori por limitantes del tipo político-ideológico, religioso o de otra índole [3]. Pero este cometido de acción primario no debe ser estanco, sino dinámico. Debe combinarse de manera dialéctica con un cometido de lucha emancipatoria que pretenda superar a las estructuras del sistema dominante, procurando en ese camino, construir “embriones” de prácticas sociales y organismos que prefiguren la sociedad libre de explotación y opresión. La organización de la clase se plantea, entonces, desde esta mirada, como una herramienta de acción y lucha reivindicativa, pero también como una escuela de participación democrática y como un bastión de construcción de la capacidad de autodeterminación popular, constituyéndose a su vez, en un baluarte en el desarrollo de un poder autogestivo desde abajo, desde el propio pueblo organizado. Este cometido complementario ensancha el campo de lo meramente social-reivindicativo y le imprime una clara orientación política. Política en términos de política autónoma de clase y por lo tanto de reapropiación, asimismo, del ámbito de lo político como espacio de autoactividad, autogestión y autoinstitución social.
En estos términos, esta perspectiva si bien no depara una inmediata vinculación orgánica con un planteo ideológico cerrado – habida cuenta de cómo se decía más arriba, la necesaria amplitud de confluencia a los fines de llevar adelante el cometido primario de lucha reivindicativa - sí plantea, una matriz, que sustentada sobre ciertas prerrogativas y líneas político-metodológicas de construcción, podemos identificar como libertaria o “libertirizante”. Parámetros como la lucha y la acción directa sin intermediarios, la democracia de base, la organización federativa, la independencia de clase, la práctica prefigurativa, el antiparlamentarismo, entre otros, nos marcan claramente un perfil de construcción en el seno del pueblo que el anarquismo como corriente, ha llevado adelante históricamente al momento de involucrarse en la lucha de clases, tanto sea desde los orígenes del movimiento obrero organizado como en el marco de las luchas que los movimientos sociales contemporáneos desarrollan desde hace varias décadas hasta nuestros días y que ha influenciado – e inclusive sigue influenciando- a distintas organizaciones populares que no necesariamente surgen dinamizados por militantes de dicha corriente. Desde esta óptica de organización y construcción popular que genéricamente denominamos autónoma, es que procuraremos a continuación, analizar el panorama actual sobre el que estas formaciones deben desarrollar sus luchas, así como qué problemáticas y desafíos se les presentan a la hora de confrontar con el mismo.
Un panorama actual
A esta altura, entrados a la tercera década del siglo XXI, pareciera no ser una novedad de que nos encontramos inmersos en una profunda crisis que desde distintas voces se plantea como civilizatoria y con múltiples dimensiones. Crisis que se establece como sistémica, multifocal y global, en tanto características propias del capitalismo, amén de ciertas manifestaciones propias a nivel países o regiones. Un primer punto para abordar su alcance, seguramente pase por visualizar que, desde hace algunas décadas y de manera cada vez más acentuada, el proceso de expansionismo sin límite del capitalismo necesariamente está erosionando sus propias condiciones previas de existencia.
En tanto la sustancia del capital es, la generación y regeneración de valor a través del trabajo abstracto -vivo pero alienado- acumulado en el ámbito de la producción junto con sus condiciones de posibilidad en el ámbito reproductivo y el medio natural; su impulso para conseguir constantes incrementos en la productividad – de la mano de la competitividad - lo lleva a conceder a la ciencia y a la tecnología una importancia creciente en la producción. Esto tiene como correlato y tendencia en aumento, convertir ese mismo proceso, basado en el trabajo -único generador de valor- en constantemente anacrónico. Con esto el capitalismo serrucha la rama sobre la cual se posa: la valorización del valor a través del trabajo vivo y el entorno que lo posibilita.
Si bien - y aunque parezca contradictorio con lo anterior- en los últimos años han proliferado un abanico de “nuevos trabajos”, éstos, por sus características – informales, precarizados, tercerizados, “uberizados”, sin derechos - no solamente no repercuten en la tendencial desvalorización y disminución estructural del trabajo formal todavía existente, sino que además no dejan de ser una “huida hacia adelante” que, junto con otros dispositivos, el capitalismo global desarrolla para sortear sus propias limitaciones intrínsecas, pero que aun siendo efectivas para reactivar las ganancias de algún sector en el corto plazo, no van a generar, ni por lejos, un nuevo ciclo de prosperidad, porque las tecnologías – que no producen valor - y que reemplazan el trabajo humano, no pueden ser eliminadas de la producción, es decir “no vuelven para atrás”. Por ende, no se trata de un clásico “vaivén cíclico” de los que pudo haber en otra etapa, sino de una tendencia que ya se configura como una crisis sin retorno. Asimismo:
En este contexto, las grandes empresas están tratando de impulsar un nuevo ciclo expansivo para blindar sus beneficios a corto plazo. Para ello, como sucedió en crisis anteriores, han renovado su apuesta por la ampliación de la frontera mercantil a través de las dinámicas de acumulación por desposesión. Igualmente, en el marco de la financiarización global, están favoreciendo la creación de nuevas burbujas especulativas para recuperar, al menos en el futuro más inmediato, unos altos niveles de rentabilidad [4].
Esto, insistimos, “patea hacia adelante” pero deja sin resolver el problema de fondo, esto es, de que si bien, aunque la cantidad de bienes y servicios pueda llegar a crecer, en conjunto y en el mediano plazo representan una cantidad cada vez menor de valor; asimismo el dinero - producto de la especulación financiera - que circula en el mundo es “ficticio” ya que no representa en realidad trabajo invertido de una manera “productiva” [5]. El capitalismo se pone cada vez más de frente a sus barreras económicas interiores como a sus limitaciones externas naturales –ecológicas-, que si bien, presentan un horizonte temporal diverso -y en esto las luchas sociales juegan un rol- no pueden ser detenidos, al menos en los marcos de su propia lógica. En síntesis:
El capitalismo global ha ido desplazando sus contradicciones hacia adelante, en el tiempo y en el espacio, pero cada vez se aproxima más a sus propios límites. La inestabilidad permanente de los mercados como consecuencia del aumento de la financiarización, la extensión de la explotación laboral y las desigualdades sociales que excluyen de la sociedad de consumo a amplias capas de la población, el cuestionamiento de la división sexual del trabajo y la necesidad de un replanteamiento del reparto de tareas productivas y reproductivas, el agotamiento de las fuentes de energía y los recursos materiales que requiere el metabolismo agroindustrial-urbano-financiero, los impactos del modelo económico en los ecosistemas y el desorden climático, son todos ellos, síntomas de que el funcionamiento del capitalismo se encuentra aquejado de graves problemas de fondo […] Estancamiento, deuda y desigualdad se superponen así al telón de fondo que hace materialmente imposible prolongar de manera indefinida la lógica de crecimiento y acumulación [6].
Este panorama va redondeando una serie de definiciones a tener en cuenta. Por un lado, y por todo lo antedicho, no es posible el retorno a un modelo de acumulación basado en el empleo masivo - propio de la era fordista ya superada -, por ende, no es posible el retorno al “pleno empleo” ni a la formalidad masiva y en su defecto, tampoco a las recetas keynesianas ni al rol central del Estado. El Estado, en tanto connivente de las lógicas del capital, en “el mejor de los casos” en esta etapa sólo puede disponer de ciertas políticas focalizadas, que además de constituirse en dispositivos de disciplinamiento social, redundan en sostener y aumentar modalidades de precarización [7].
Pero la cosa no se queda sólo aquí. Si se supone que la economía tiene como finalidad el bienestar de los sujetos, teniendo como medio el trabajo y la producción de bienes y servicios para la satisfacción de las necesidades vitales; en la lógica del capital, y sobre todo con mayor énfasis en los últimos tiempos, estos términos se pervierten y el fin de una vida sustentable se transforma en un medio para un fin distinto; la acumulación capitalista. Esto pone sobre la mesa la configuración de una matriz que se demuestra cada vez con mayor visibilidad en el neoliberalismo y que cristaliza a la precariedad ya no sólo referenciada al ámbito laboral, sino como una verdadera forma social de carácter totalizador en continuo aumento. Esto constituye, asimismo un conflicto radical e irresoluble entre la sostenibilidad de la vida humana y ecológica y el capitalismo, que algunos analistas sintetizan como conflicto “capital-vida”:
cuando la vida es un medio para un fin distinto, la vida está siempre en amenaza; la tensión puede suavizarse a veces […] pero antes o después llegará un momento de desencaje cuando la acumulación se produzca no a través de sostener la vida, sino a costa de negarla o destruirla [8].
Todo este proceso general tiene en Latinoamérica, en tanto región periférica, un desarrollo interrelacionado, aunque con elementos particulares. Implicó en principio y desde hace varias décadas, todo un contexto de reconfiguración social que significó la acentuación de las desigualdades preexistentes y la emergencia de nuevas brechas políticas, económicas, sociales y culturales, constituyendo así, un escenario caracterizado por un lado, por la fragmentación y la pérdida de poder de los sectores populares, y por otro lado, por la concentración política y económica en las elites de poder internacionalizado, que lejos estuvo de ser lineal:
Muchos de los cambios en el orden económico arrancaron durante la década de 1970 [en la gran mayoría de los casos, con dictaduras genocidas mediante]; las transformaciones operadas en la estructura social comenzaron a tornarse visibles en los años ochenta, durante la llamada “década perdida”, que culminó con fuertes episodios hiperinflacionarios y abrió la puerta a la implementación de las reformas neoliberales de los años noventa [9].
A su vez:
es necesario tener en cuenta que si el primer momento de la globalización neoliberal, en los años noventa, estuvo marcado por las privatizaciones y el ajuste fiscal, el segundo momento viene de la mano de la generalización de un modelo extractivo-exportador que apunta a consolidar y ampliar aún más las brechas sociales entre los países del norte y del sur, en base al saqueo de los recursos naturales cada vez más escasos, la contaminación irreversible, la extensión del monocultivo y la consiguiente pérdida de la biodiversidad [10].
Dicho todo lo anterior, no podemos dejar de volver a señalar de que las mencionadas, no dejan de ser manifestaciones propias de un sistema global y que tiene, como ya hemos marcado, a la precariedad y a la exclusión como marca estructural, planteando a la región como un espacio concreto en donde cuerpos, vidas y territorios son sacrificables en aras de la reproducción del capital trasnacionalizado en esta etapa, amén incluso, de que tal o cual gobierno se declare “progresista” o “popular”.
Frente a este panorama, desde finales de los años ´80 y fundamentalmente desde la década del ´90 se viene asistiendo a una progresiva confluencia de distintos procesos de lucha que se han venido plasmando a través de distintas vías y que han tenido ciertos hitos que han marcado su desarrollo. Es importante rescatar a su vez, que la caída del muro de Berlín en 1989 y el derrumbe de la URSS en 1991 no solo trajeron consigo el colapso de los regímenes del “socialismo real”, la crisis de los partidos comunistas, de los socialistas, de los sindicatos tradicionales y de los movimientos guerrilleros especialmente en Latinoamérica, sino también la quiebra de todo un paradigma revolucionario que había impregnado a la mayor parte de las izquierdas a lo largo del siglo XX; esto es, que el desarrollo imparable de las fuerzas productivas traería consigo el socialismo y que junto con la dinámica de lucha impulsada particularmente por el proletariado, único sujeto social con capacidad transformadora – fundamentalmente urbano, industrial y destinatario de una “misión histórica que cumplir - se alumbraría la sociedad sin clases. Todo esto ahonda, como dijimos, la desorientación y la crisis de las viejas formas organizativas y metodológicas, pero permite, de manera dialéctica, en consonancia con las renovadas lógicas de dominación capitalista, el paulatino afloramiento de nuevos ejes de confrontación, así como de nuevos discursos críticos, sujetos sociales y de nuevas formas de construcción popular, ya en sintonía con lo que hoy conocemos como movimientos sociales que, conviviendo – y muchas veces coordinando - con las organizaciones tradicionales, han logrado erigirse como protagonistas de las resistencias de este último periodo [11].
En realidad, y para ser correctos, en algunos casos, más que “nuevos”, deberíamos decir “reelaborados” formatos y pautas de disputa antagonista, dado que muchas de estas iniciativas ya habían tenido un incipiente esbozo durante los sucesos que se conocieron como “Mayo francés” de 1968, en donde, entre otras cuestiones, supieron salir a la palestra todo un conjunto de miradas y perspectivas que, con el título abarcativo de “nueva izquierda”, inclusive implicó volver a poner en valor todo un conjunto de prerrogativas –muchas de las cuales desarrollamos en la primera parte de este trabajo- de cuño socialista libertario que durante un corto plazo, habían entrado en un cono de sombras.
Puntualizando, ahora bien, sobre los alcances que en el último tiempo ha tenido en nuestro continente el marco de las luchas desarrolladas por los mencionados movimientos sociales surgidos en los años noventa, es sustancial destacar que han tenido – y continúan teniendo - un cometido mucho más abarcativo que la sola acción de resistencia:
los movimientos sociales han revelado ser algo más que una respuesta meramente defensiva frente a los cambios en la correlación de fuerzas sociales y las fuertes transformaciones de sus condiciones de vida y reproducción. En realidad, con todas sus complejidades y matices nacionales, los movimientos sociales latinoamericanos han desarrollado una dimensión más proactiva, que abre la posibilidad de pensar nuevas alternativas emancipatorias a partir de la defensa y promoción de la vida y la diversidad [12].
Tensiones y desafíos…
Planteado a grandes rasgos el escenario desde el cual hoy por hoy las organizaciones y construcciones populares y sobre todo aquellas que se conciben desde una matriz libertaria o genéricamente autónoma, deben desarrollar sus luchas; se hace necesario ahora establecer algunos desafíos de cara a poder superar algunas problemáticas y tensiones que el mismo escenario presenta, a los fines de poder prescribir algunas claves de orientación emancipatoria para los tiempos que corren.
Decíamos más arriba que frente al proceso de desarrollo crítico del capitalismo en esta etapa, que, entre otras cuestiones, deja cada vez más fuera de su órbita a la formalidad masiva del trabajo, los Estados - y sobre todo en gran parte de Latinoamérica - han salido a “emparchar” esta situación [13] con toda una batería de recursos, programas y políticas focalizadas, intentando con esto, contener, pero también disciplinar, a los sectores populares afectados por estas y otras consecuencias estructurales del actual desenvolvimiento del capital [14].
Con respecto a esta problemática ha habido – sigue habiendo - mucho debate en el campo de las organizaciones populares sobre cómo afrontar esta situación a propósito de si tomar como eje de lucha válido o no la disputa de esos recursos y si eso puede ser coherente con una perspectiva autónoma de construcción dada la inexorable relación que con el Estado esto confiere y la tendencia a la institucionalización que la misma supone para el campo de ejercicio de las organizaciones y sus luchas. Demás está decir que, al respecto, las distintas realidades de cada espacio nacional tienen su asidero, pero, si como venimos argumentando, estas medidas no dejan de formar parte de todo un entramado estructural-global, se hacen pertinentes algunas reflexiones.
Si partimos de la base de que en este contexto la gama de ejes de lucha reivindicativa no se agota en los recursos focalizados estatales, es verdad también que los mismos, por sus características, adquieren una impronta sumamente importante en las actuales condiciones para afrontar la pelea por un mínimo mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida en el marco de un sistema que deja cada vez más sectores de la población por fuera de los circuitos de trabajo formal [15] y por ende, también, por fuera de los circuitos de consumo y de reaseguro de sus condiciones básicas de subsistencia.
Ahora, el nudo problemático con respecto a la tendencial institucionalización - que sería más correcto caracterizar como moldeamiento estatal [16]- que esto implica, si bien efectivamente presenta una amenaza a la autonomía de las construcciones populares regidas por esta lógica, su configuración no necesariamente debe prescribirse como absoluta. Dado el escenario siempre dinámico de las luchas sociales y de las relaciones de fuerza, el a priori dilema condicionante debe visualizarse como parte de un contexto de relación conflictiva y de tensión permanente en donde el desafío se presenta, no sólo en la disputa reivindicativa por la apropiación de manera organizada de los recursos en cuestión, sino, además en la disputa política contra la lógica estatal de moldeamiento y alienación. En este sentido, prácticas como la resignificación, es decir, el darle “otra significación” a aquello que fue concebido como un paliativo disciplinador y “moldeador” hacia dispositivos de construcción contrarios a esas lógicas - tendientes a fortalecer estructura y protagonismo popular desde abajo – sumado a la perspectiva por la ruptura del carácter focalizado de estos programas estatales hacia su universalización como derechos, asumen en esta etapa, un valor enormemente significativo.
Otra cuestión que nos parece importante señalar en este derrotero de tensiones y desafíos, tiene que ver con el orden de lo estratégico. Si como ya dijimos, las organizaciones populares autónomas y dentro de ellas, fundamentalmente las atravesadas por una matriz libertaria, se posicionan a grosso modo con un objetivo político general de cambio social en términos de desenlace popular orientado hacia la autoactividad, la autogestión y la autoinstitución social; para ser coherentes con estos postulados, se hace fundamental como elemento estratégico, no solo el fortalecimiento y consolidación organizativa de estas expresiones de base, sino además, el desarrollo continuo de su propia capacidad de fuerza - material y contrahegemónica - opuesta y en confrontación al poder de las clases dominantes. Dicho de otra manera; se hace vital la construcción de un poder popular - que podría plantearse como autogestivo – que instituya, asimismo, espacios, territorios, mecanismos y relaciones que prefiguren y sustenten el proyecto de una sociedad autogestionaria.
Tomando en cuenta esta premisa estratégica y por todo lo que hemos expuesto en términos del proceso histórico que atravesamos, creemos que la misma a su vez, debe complementarse con una perspectiva más que hoy se presenta como imprescindible: la multisectorialidad. En efecto, si de un tiempo a esta parte, no podemos hablar de una clase homogénea ni de un sector popular en concreto que represente una autosuficiencia ni una centralidad manifiesta en cuanto al antagonismo y superación frente al desarrollo de las condiciones actuales del capitalismo por cuanto las contradicciones son múltiples – económicas, sociales, políticas, culturales, ambientales –, múltiple se presenta entonces el sujeto social de confrontación. Por lo tanto, una estrategia acorde involucraría en este sentido, la posibilidad de articular esas contradicciones y ese sujeto múltiple en una proyección común. Esto claramente implica plantearse un horizonte de lucha que intente ir más allá del marco de reivindicaciones específicas pero fragmentarias de tal o cual sector en particular, perfilando una perspectiva que apueste por la integración de las mismas en espacios de carácter multisectorial.
¿Y sobre qué eje se podría a priori, aglutinar la diversidad de demandas que cruzan al universo de las expresiones de lucha popular? Si como hemos dicho, en este contexto la lógica del capital – en crisis – no sólo pervierte, sino que además amenaza el sostenimiento de la vida – humana y ecológica - configurando una matriz de precariedad social generalizada; ésta última, podría ser un buen punto a considerar como nexo de articulación común dada la transversalidad que la misma supone a los distintos sectores que se encuentran sometidos a esta dinámica expropiatoria y depredadora:
Ante la crisis civilizatoria, la contrapropuesta no puede ser recuperar la “producción” […] sino abrir dos debates: qué es una vida que merezca ser vivida y cómo colectivizar la responsabilidad de garantizar sus condiciones de posibilidad […] [17].
Ahora bien, planteada tal orientación general y partiendo de la congruencia a tener entre la misma y los medios hacia su logro, nos es importante prescribir que estos medios a su vez, en este contexto de crisis sistémica, deben cumplir un rol de tensión dialéctica entre las posibilidades de avance conflictivo hacia un proyecto de ruptura y el bloqueo del continumm autoerosivo del capitalismo en esta etapa. Sería algo así como lo que planteaba Walter Benjamin con respecto a poner el “freno de emergencia” para no precipitarse al vacío, propiciando una serie de contra-movimientos que funcionen como “diques” en contraposición a ciertas perspectivas “aceleracionistas” que reproduzcan y sigan estimulando las lógicas del capital tal y cual se siguen perfilando. Y esto podría llegar a desarrollarse con medidas y planteos reivindicativos que, entre otras cuestiones, busquen detraer recursos de las lógicas del mercado y apuesten por su expansión y universalización, reduzcan la jornada y repartan el trabajo formal todavía existente, socialicen y expongan la producción de riqueza como atributo histórico-social, apuesten a la desfinaciarización de la economía, al resguardo ambiental y al decrecimiento progresivo; en definitiva, que tiendan a priorizar y estimular la sostenibilidad de una vida digna por fuera de los parámetros de la precariedad a la par de que sirvan de marco para la recomposición de fuerzas desde el abajo social, dejen margen para la reconstitución de un imaginario social antagonista y preparen un horizonte de transformación revolucionaria.
Esta serie de medidas, junto con otras posibles, creemos, no anulan la dinámica histórica de la lucha de clases, sino que la amplían y la complejizan en función de los requerimientos del proceso histórico en marcha, y que no por sustanciarse a priori, como dirían algunos, como “meras reformas”, dejan, en conjunto y en base a algunas de sus dimensiones, de plantearse como disruptivas con las lógicas capitalistas contemporáneas. Por esto, ninguna puede tomarse de manera aislada y como un fin en sí mismo, sino como medidas o instrumentos que, interrelacionados, se configuran como objetos de disputa de un proceso dinámico de lucha mayor, tendiente a subvertir el estado de cosas.
Referencias:
[1] BAKUNIN, Mijaíl. La Libertad. Obras escogidas de Bakunin. Buenos Aires: Editorial Agebe, 2005.
[2] VERNON, Richard. Malatesta. Pensamiento y acción revolucionarios. Buenos Aires: Editorial Utopía Libertaria, 2007.
[3] En el marco de esa gran primera experiencia de confluencia obrera como lo fue la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores, Mijaíl Bakunin, establecía; “La Internacional acepta en su seno, haciendo absoluta abstracción de todas las diferencias de creencias políticas y religiosas, a todos los trabajadores honrados, con la única condición de que acepten en todas sus consecuencias la solidaridad de la lucha de los trabajadores contra el capital burgués, explotador del trabajo…”. En: NETTLAU, Max. The Life of Michael Bakunin. Michael Bakunin, eine Biographie. Londres: Privately Printed, 1896-1900.
[4] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. La insostenible reconstrucción del business as usual: Recuperación vs confrontación. En: Viento Sur Nº176, 6 AGOSTO 2021 https://vientosur.info/la-insostenible-reconstruccion-del-business-as-usual-recuperacion-vs-confrontacion/
[5] JAPPE, Anselm. Hacia una historia de la crítica del valor. Nombres, Revista de Filosofía, 2018. https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/NOMBRES/article/view/21237
[6] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. Op Cit.
[7] Tal es así, que por ejemplo en Argentina y a través de un reciente informe, se pudo constatar que en 7 provincias el sector de precarizados e informales supera en número al sector de trabajadores formales privados, y frente a esto, amén del eufemismo que suele ver esto como un “aumento de puestos de trabajo”, la respuesta por parte del Estado, a través de las declaraciones de un funcionario del Ministerio de Desarrollo Social es “por eso es importante formalizar y desarrollar la economía popular”. Lo que demuestra esto en realidad, es que lo que viene creciendo a pasos agigantados es la desocupación y el trabajo informal y precarizado de subsistencia y que el Estado lo único que promueve frente a este panorama (en conjunto con algunas organizaciones afines a esta idea) es sólo la cristalización de esta situación a través de la eventual asignación de recursos (meramente paliativos) para afianzar una modalidad precarizada de “trabajo” bajo la órbita del mismo Estado. En: VALES, Laura. En 7 provincias ya hay más trabajadores de la economía popular que privados. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/365051-en-7-provincias-ya-hay-mas-trabajadores-de-la-economia-popul
[8] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. La sostenibilidad de la vida en el centro… ¿Y eso que significa? En: La ecología del trabajo: el trabajo que sostiene la vida, coord. por Laura Mora Cabello de Alba, Juan Escribano Gutiérrez. España: Bomarzo, 2015.
[9] SVAMPA, Maristella. Cambio de época. Movimientos sociales y poder político -1ª ed. - Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentina, 2008.
[10] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[11] Uno de los rasgos fundamentales de los movimientos sociales que en las últimas décadas se han establecido en función la reconfiguración del escenario de las luchas en nuestra región, se encuentra dado en reformulación del territorio, ya no sólo como mero ámbito de reproducción social, sino como un nuevo escenario de lucha y construcción nutrido de potencia, dinámica y dimensión estratégica.
[12] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[13] No sin recurrir –antes e inclusive después- a la represión y a la criminalización de aquellas expresiones de protesta frente a las condiciones generadas por las líneas directrices del modelo de acumulación que los mismos Estados sustentaban.
[14] Para decirlo en términos foucaultianos, el Estado neoliberal desarrolla el control biopolítico de la población pobre. Orientado a una estrategia de contención del conflicto social y de la miseria, su objetivo es integrar excluido en tanto excluido. En: SVAMPA, Maristella. Cinco tesis sobre la nueva matriz popular. IIGG, Facultad de ciencias sociales, UBA: nov.2003. Cabe destacar que, si bien los Estados son los mayores propulsores de estas políticas, no son los únicos. ONGs y organismos multilaterales de distinto tipo también desarrollaron y desarrollan este tipo de medidas y muchas veces articulando con las políticas estatales.
[15] Sin perspectiva aparente de que esta situación pueda, dada su característica estructural, ser revertida en algún tiempo considerable más allá de ciertas declamaciones demagógicas de políticos y empresarios de turno.
[16] Entendemos aquí al moldeamiento estatal como una de las formas posible de institucionalización más concretamente asociada al proceso de alienación estatalizante conducente a “moldear” a las construcciones autónomas a imagen y semejanza de la lógica estatal y subordinada a sus propios mecanismos.
[17] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. Crisis multidimensional y sostenibilidad de la vida. Investigaciones feministas, ISSN 2171-6080, Nº. 2, 2011, págs. 29-53. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_INFE.2011.v2.38603
Carta de Opinión Julio 2023 - FAS
Era otoño la última vez que entregábamos un posicionamiento público, allí advertíamos el duro invierno que se avecinaba, acentuado por la precarización de la vida que nos afecta como clase oprimida, hoy, en medio del periodo invernal, aquellas palabras han tomado un duro peso.
Recordemos el colapso hospitalario sufrido a comienzos de junio que afectó, especialmente, a bebés y niñxs contagiadxs con virus sincicial, situación que provocó la muerte de, al menos, 6 de ellxs, esta información es tremendamente cuestionable, ya que, una vez que las cámaras de televisión quitaron del foco la situación pediátrica, se dejaron de contar e informar los fallecimientos. Uno de los casos tuvo lugar en el puerto de San Antonio, donde una lactante falleció debido a la falta de camas críticas necesarias para la gravedad de su cuadro, sin embargo, tal disponibilidad de camas si existía y fue la nefasta gestión del Ministerio de Salud la que impidió el acceso a la misma, siendo cómplices del fallecimiento de la bebé y, como si lo anterior no fuese suficiente, el ministerio lanzaban afirmaciones macabras como que “era difícil (que la lactante) hubiese sobrevivido”, denotando una total falta de empatía con su familia y explicitando que la vida de lxs pobres a este gobierno no le interesa en lo más mínimo. Dentro de este marco, el gobierno que afirma tener un “compromiso por los cuidados” se ha negado a extender el posnatal de emergencia, protegiendo los intereses productivos y empresariales.
Pocas semanas después, tuvimos, en la zona centro-sur del territorio, vientos y lluvias que significaron inundaciones, deslizamientos de tierras, crecidas de ríos, muerte y destrucción de vidas humanas y no humanas. El drama vivido es consecuencia de la crisis ecológica que transita nuestro planeta, el cual, ha alcanzado temperaturas jamás registradas, produciendo escenarios que ponen en vilo la sostenibilidad de la vida. Como hemos señalado, la verdadera catástrofe es el capitalismo y el patriarcado, elementos estructurantes del sistema de dominación que mientras sigan en pie, sepultan nuestras posibilidades de construir una vida libre. Mientras tanto, en el territorio que habitamos, el patrón de acumulación vía extractivismo goza de buena salud y el gobierno progresista se ha encargado de que aquello continúe así. La revolución es el último freno de emergencia que tenemos para detener el avance de esta máquina enferma.
Por otro lado, la corrupción en el gobierno se ha hecho visible y estos adalides de las buenas prácticas, aquellos que serían “la tumba del neoliberalismo”, han utilizado el sistema subsidiario para enriquecerse de la manera más tramposa posible. El “caso Democracia Viva” es un claro ejemplo de cómo la oposición Estado y Mercado es artificial, es por ello que como organización política apostamos por superar ambos espacios de mercantilización y control de nuestras vidas y territorios. Ahora bien, no solo los partidos de gobierno están detrás de recursos públicos, también muchas organizaciones sociales que se han puesto en fila para recibir cargos administrativos, recursos y favores políticos a cambio de su total domesticación y la cancelación de la movilización. Esta orientación estatista y clientelar a lo que ha contribuido es a sostener las políticas represivas de la socialdemocracia, así como a extender la desorientación en el campo popular, dinamitando la autonomía de las organizaciones sociales y colocándolas en función de un gobierno que le abre las puertas al pinochetismo y a otras fuerzas reaccionarias.
La consolidación de la restauración conservadora avanza rampante, hace pocas semanas hemos sufrido, como clase oprimida, el lamentable fallecimiento de Jorge Salvo, quien durante la revuelta social sufrió la mutilación de uno de sus ojos, producto de la represión de la nefasta institución de los pacos. Jorge fue completamente abandonado por este gobierno que llegó a la Moneda prometiendo justicia, verdad, reparación y garantías de no repetición de las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas desde el 18 de octubre en adelante, sin embargo, Boric ha avanzado en un sentido completamente distinto: fortaleciendo la impunidad policial y promoviendo el olvido, cuestiones auspiciadas por la “Ley Naín-Retamal” y por la eliminación de la otrora “Plaza de la Dignidad”. Pero no solo en el gobierno se manifiestan estas pulsiones cavernarias, también en el Congreso, el cual, se encuentra legislando la “Ley Anti Toma” que no solo criminaliza a lxs habitantes de campamentos o a lxs peñis que ejercen control territorial en el Wallmapu, también faculta a los propietarios de tales terrenos a ejercer una “legítima defensa privilegiada”, posibilitando la formación de grupos paramilitares que atentan directamente contra estas legítimas luchas. El poder judicial no se queda atrás y pretende encarcelar por más de 150 años a Francisco del Solar y a más de 25 a Mónica Caballero, cuestión que da cuenta de una clara venganza judicial en castigo a sus posiciones y prácticas anarquistas. Finalmente, el nuevo Consejo Constitucional, dominado por la extrema derecha, pretende excarcelar a los agentes de Estado que han sido declarados culpables por los crímenes de lesa humanidad ocurridos durante la dictadura de Pinochet y también buscan restringir constitucionalmente el aborto en tres causales. Como vemos, el Estado en toda forma se posiciona en torno a la barbarie represiva. De la misma manera, las expresiones de xenofobia, racismo y nacionalismo abundan en nuestra clase, claro ejemplo de aquello es el asesinato de un migrante colombiano en situación de calle por parte de miembros de la Armada o el caso de esclavitud que afectó a ocho migrantes haitianos por parte del empresario Jaime Cabrera. Ambos hechos no concitaron mayor interés, no se desarrollaron manifestaciones espontáneas, ni “velatones”, dando cuenta del grado de descomposición que abunda en los sectores populares, es allí donde la disputa ideológica es apremiante.
Pero allí, en la cornisa, es donde aflora el conflicto y sus posibilidades. Es urgente la recomposición y rearticulación de la militancia política en luchas sociales, el trabajo político sin estar inserto en las luchas de nuestra clase carece de proyección y limita su posibilidad de antagonismo. La superación de la sociedad de clases, la abolición del Estado y la propiedad, la destrucción del capitalismo y del patriarcado comienza en el fortalecimiento de la organización popular, surge de la acción directa y anida en las comunidades organizadas. En este marco, nuestra organización política anarquista cumple cuatro años desde su fundación, nuestro compromiso con la lucha por la emancipación de la clase oprimida sigue intacto, nuestra tarea de enraizar el anarquismo en los sectores populares aún está pendiente, nuestra convicción en la organización y la acción directa es inclaudicable. A sacudirse la derrota, la desesperanza y la depresión post revuelta, hay un futuro que disputar.
Recordemos el colapso hospitalario sufrido a comienzos de junio que afectó, especialmente, a bebés y niñxs contagiadxs con virus sincicial, situación que provocó la muerte de, al menos, 6 de ellxs, esta información es tremendamente cuestionable, ya que, una vez que las cámaras de televisión quitaron del foco la situación pediátrica, se dejaron de contar e informar los fallecimientos. Uno de los casos tuvo lugar en el puerto de San Antonio, donde una lactante falleció debido a la falta de camas críticas necesarias para la gravedad de su cuadro, sin embargo, tal disponibilidad de camas si existía y fue la nefasta gestión del Ministerio de Salud la que impidió el acceso a la misma, siendo cómplices del fallecimiento de la bebé y, como si lo anterior no fuese suficiente, el ministerio lanzaban afirmaciones macabras como que “era difícil (que la lactante) hubiese sobrevivido”, denotando una total falta de empatía con su familia y explicitando que la vida de lxs pobres a este gobierno no le interesa en lo más mínimo. Dentro de este marco, el gobierno que afirma tener un “compromiso por los cuidados” se ha negado a extender el posnatal de emergencia, protegiendo los intereses productivos y empresariales.
Pocas semanas después, tuvimos, en la zona centro-sur del territorio, vientos y lluvias que significaron inundaciones, deslizamientos de tierras, crecidas de ríos, muerte y destrucción de vidas humanas y no humanas. El drama vivido es consecuencia de la crisis ecológica que transita nuestro planeta, el cual, ha alcanzado temperaturas jamás registradas, produciendo escenarios que ponen en vilo la sostenibilidad de la vida. Como hemos señalado, la verdadera catástrofe es el capitalismo y el patriarcado, elementos estructurantes del sistema de dominación que mientras sigan en pie, sepultan nuestras posibilidades de construir una vida libre. Mientras tanto, en el territorio que habitamos, el patrón de acumulación vía extractivismo goza de buena salud y el gobierno progresista se ha encargado de que aquello continúe así. La revolución es el último freno de emergencia que tenemos para detener el avance de esta máquina enferma.
Por otro lado, la corrupción en el gobierno se ha hecho visible y estos adalides de las buenas prácticas, aquellos que serían “la tumba del neoliberalismo”, han utilizado el sistema subsidiario para enriquecerse de la manera más tramposa posible. El “caso Democracia Viva” es un claro ejemplo de cómo la oposición Estado y Mercado es artificial, es por ello que como organización política apostamos por superar ambos espacios de mercantilización y control de nuestras vidas y territorios. Ahora bien, no solo los partidos de gobierno están detrás de recursos públicos, también muchas organizaciones sociales que se han puesto en fila para recibir cargos administrativos, recursos y favores políticos a cambio de su total domesticación y la cancelación de la movilización. Esta orientación estatista y clientelar a lo que ha contribuido es a sostener las políticas represivas de la socialdemocracia, así como a extender la desorientación en el campo popular, dinamitando la autonomía de las organizaciones sociales y colocándolas en función de un gobierno que le abre las puertas al pinochetismo y a otras fuerzas reaccionarias.
La consolidación de la restauración conservadora avanza rampante, hace pocas semanas hemos sufrido, como clase oprimida, el lamentable fallecimiento de Jorge Salvo, quien durante la revuelta social sufrió la mutilación de uno de sus ojos, producto de la represión de la nefasta institución de los pacos. Jorge fue completamente abandonado por este gobierno que llegó a la Moneda prometiendo justicia, verdad, reparación y garantías de no repetición de las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas desde el 18 de octubre en adelante, sin embargo, Boric ha avanzado en un sentido completamente distinto: fortaleciendo la impunidad policial y promoviendo el olvido, cuestiones auspiciadas por la “Ley Naín-Retamal” y por la eliminación de la otrora “Plaza de la Dignidad”. Pero no solo en el gobierno se manifiestan estas pulsiones cavernarias, también en el Congreso, el cual, se encuentra legislando la “Ley Anti Toma” que no solo criminaliza a lxs habitantes de campamentos o a lxs peñis que ejercen control territorial en el Wallmapu, también faculta a los propietarios de tales terrenos a ejercer una “legítima defensa privilegiada”, posibilitando la formación de grupos paramilitares que atentan directamente contra estas legítimas luchas. El poder judicial no se queda atrás y pretende encarcelar por más de 150 años a Francisco del Solar y a más de 25 a Mónica Caballero, cuestión que da cuenta de una clara venganza judicial en castigo a sus posiciones y prácticas anarquistas. Finalmente, el nuevo Consejo Constitucional, dominado por la extrema derecha, pretende excarcelar a los agentes de Estado que han sido declarados culpables por los crímenes de lesa humanidad ocurridos durante la dictadura de Pinochet y también buscan restringir constitucionalmente el aborto en tres causales. Como vemos, el Estado en toda forma se posiciona en torno a la barbarie represiva. De la misma manera, las expresiones de xenofobia, racismo y nacionalismo abundan en nuestra clase, claro ejemplo de aquello es el asesinato de un migrante colombiano en situación de calle por parte de miembros de la Armada o el caso de esclavitud que afectó a ocho migrantes haitianos por parte del empresario Jaime Cabrera. Ambos hechos no concitaron mayor interés, no se desarrollaron manifestaciones espontáneas, ni “velatones”, dando cuenta del grado de descomposición que abunda en los sectores populares, es allí donde la disputa ideológica es apremiante.
Pero allí, en la cornisa, es donde aflora el conflicto y sus posibilidades. Es urgente la recomposición y rearticulación de la militancia política en luchas sociales, el trabajo político sin estar inserto en las luchas de nuestra clase carece de proyección y limita su posibilidad de antagonismo. La superación de la sociedad de clases, la abolición del Estado y la propiedad, la destrucción del capitalismo y del patriarcado comienza en el fortalecimiento de la organización popular, surge de la acción directa y anida en las comunidades organizadas. En este marco, nuestra organización política anarquista cumple cuatro años desde su fundación, nuestro compromiso con la lucha por la emancipación de la clase oprimida sigue intacto, nuestra tarea de enraizar el anarquismo en los sectores populares aún está pendiente, nuestra convicción en la organización y la acción directa es inclaudicable. A sacudirse la derrota, la desesperanza y la depresión post revuelta, hay un futuro que disputar.
361909747_668974455270194_7612568894314076845_n.jpg
-
No hay más artículos
