From Regeneración, we're publishing the interview conducted by the magazine Ekintza Zuzena with a comrade for its 2025 issue (https://www.nodo50.org/ekintza/2025/numero-51-de-la-revista-ekintza-zuzena/), as it reviews the fundamental threads of our movement.

A preliminary question: How would you define and situate the historically known platformist anarchism? And what about specificist anarchism?

I'll start with some historical notes. First, the Platform emerged in France in the 1920s among anarchist militants who came from Russia. Finally at peace, after a long revolutionary war they couldn't win, they were able to take stock of their journey as a movement during the Russian Revolution. The Dyelo Truda group (one of those exile groups composed of prominent figures such as Nestor Makhno, Pyotr Arshinov, Ida Mett, Gregori Maksimov, and others) concluded that the cause of the defeat by the Bolsheviks was the lack of organization, program, and discipline of the Russian anarchist movement. They had acted differently in each place. There were never any overall strategic plans or forums to discuss them. The Bolsheviks were able to defeat them city by city, region by region, without putting up a fight on any level other than in Ukraine.

Dyelo Truda proposed a new organizational model: the General Union of Anarchists. This model sought to unify the most active elements of anarchism into a single organization under the program outlined in The Platform. I will clarify that it was not a complete program, but a partial one, as they recognized. The full program would have to be debated within this General Union once it was underway.

This new platformism was highly critical of the "anarchist synthesis," an organizational model that blended anarchists from all currents of anarchism into a single organization. According to the platformists, the lack of homogeneity of approaches "would inevitably lead to disintegration when confronted with reality." In other words, it would render the organization ineffective in the face of the major challenges facing any movement. They were extremely critical of anarchist individualism and nihilism ("chaotic anarchism," they called it). They were also unconvinced by anarcho-syndicalism, since in Russia it had been oriented almost exclusively toward industrial workers, neglecting the peasantry, which was the majority social component in Russia.

So, which anarchist militants were they addressing?

We base our hope on other militants: on those who remain faithful to anarchism, having experienced and suffered the tragedy of the anarchist movement, and painfully seek a solution.[1]

Therefore, they proposed an organization with tactical and strategic unity and discipline. Militants should not join an organization to do whatever they wished, but to fulfill its program. Dyelo Truda intended the Platform to be the revolutionary backbone and meeting point of Russian anarchism, given that at the time they were speaking to exiles, although it would soon be extended to all territories.

These approaches were the reason why the Platform fell out of favor with many militants in other countries at the time, and its development was thus slowed. However, its ideas were the driving force behind the Bulgarian Anarchist Communist Federation, which was strongly present in the resistance to the 1934 coup d'état, in the partisan resistance of World War II, and in the postwar period against Soviet domination, until it was finally liquidated in 1948. These ideas also took root in France, among a sector of anarchism that maintained them from its beginnings until the postwar period. And later, they were promoted again by the Libertarian Communist Federation, with Georges Fontenis as its leading exponent. This FCL greatly influenced European anarchism in the 1950s and 1960s, with the French movement being one of the key movements for anarcho-communism today.

Especifismo, for its part, arose directly from the Uruguayan FAU in 1956. Paradoxically, they didn't discover The Plafaform until many years later. Their starting point was Errico Malatesta, whose emphasis on specific organization and refutation of individualism caught their attention. Another of their role models was Mikhail Bakunin, who was enormously important to our movement, promoting specific organizations such as the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. And their other reference point was Uruguay's earlier specific organizations, organic constructions from the 1920s and 1930s. Thanks to those older militants, who had been in the fray for years, it became clear that the task of political organization wasn't philosophizing and holding meetings, but rather how to approach the tasks of the different work fronts: union, student, neighborhood, and internal.

Their first task was to create the Organic Charter, in which they situated their organization in the Latin American context of the 1950s and outlined short-, medium-, and long-term plans. The younger militants sought to avoid automatically transferring other plans and formulas that had been used in other historical situations. Their anarchism would have to be rooted in the country and its concrete reality.

This especificism (from “specific” organization) was put into practice alone for years by the FAU until it was also taken up by Argentine groups in the 70s. It must be said that they never contemplated anarchist synthesis because nobody really took this avenue of organization into consideration.[2] The FAU went through different stages and even strategic objectives that brought it closer to the Latin American popular national movement of the 70s, which was in its stage of greatest visibility and size, with numerous social fronts and even its own armed organization, the OPR-33.

In the 1990s, especifismo moved away from these perspectives and began to spread to other countries such as Brazil and Chile. From there, in the 2000s, it began to converge with the anarcho-communist movement typical of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world, and today it is part of the same international movement.

In Latin America, these organizations do not publicly call themselves Especifistas, but rather "organized anarchism," which is also the name given to the International Coordinator of the organizations of our movement.

Although we like these models of anarchism, which we understand as the most capable of influencing reality through anarchism, we must clarify that we are neither a Russian, French, nor Latin American organization, so we will have to create a local anarchism, with the makeup of that local anarchism, to operate in the 21st century.

What is your assessment of the current state of the Iberian libertarian movement, and what challenges and needs do you see in your field?

A movement is a set of actions, ideas and efforts organized by a group of people who share common goals to influence society. Starting from this perspective, you will agree that there is no single homogeneous libertarian movement, given that there are no common objectives across this amalgam of individuals, collectives, initiatives, scenes, spaces, organizations, or unions that claim to be anarchists.

Based on this premise, we could first identify a libertarian movement that seeks to achieve libertarian communism. This would be composed of anarcho-syndicalism and some anarchist collectives and organizations, as well as their related social or cultural projects that help them reach a wider audience.

There are also other paradigms similar to libertarian communism but with different characteristics. I'm talking about communalism, democratic confederalism, the anti-capitalist side of cooperativism, a part of autonomy (whether Marxist or indigenist) and similar proposals, or the radical environmental and anti-development movement. These people tend to be fellow travelers of anarchism and, to some extent, even come from its ranks or have passed through its collectives or organizations, but, for whatever reason, they have disassociated themselves from the libertarian movement as we understand it. Therefore, these initiatives cannot be considered part of our movement; rather, they build and participate in others.

Therefore, speaking of the libertarian movement itself, we have a considerable union space—without achieving the strength of yesteryear, of course—made up of the CGT and CNT and all their offshoots (Solidaridad Obrera, CNT-AIT, SAS Madrid, STS-C, and other smaller union groups). This movement has a considerable presence throughout Spain. It's true that it's a divided and often inter-struggle union space, which diminishes its potential and contributes to its discredit. It's also true that for some unions, libertarian communism is such a far-reaching aspiration that it's not even considered in their current strategy.

If anarcho-syndicalism is the spearhead, there are also organizations or organic initiatives behind it that were founded to contribute to the goal I mentioned earlier. These would be the anarchist synthesis organizations and collectives (this includes what was once called "neighborhood anarchism"), the anarcho-communist ones (currently called "specific," which seems to be the most popular word right now), and the insurrectionist ones. Their strength is limited to their own members, and their influence extends to the broader spaces in which they operate. We're talking about some very specific neighborhoods where they operate. Their presence influences the anti-capitalist scene in the places where they operate, and they are generally based in the urban areas and cities of their metropolitan areas (Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Seville, Valencia, Zaragoza, Granada, A Coruña, etc.). And their real impact comes from their militant capacity and commitment. That's why they have influence.

Next, we have what we can understand as informal anarchism, autonomism, or, as Murray Bookchin would say, "lifestyle anarchism". We could almost consider it a subcultural scene rather than a political movement, but I don't deny the interest of many of the people who participate in it in transforming society at its roots. It inherited part of that subcultural component from the Iberian Peninsula punk scene, which so influenced the anarchism of the 1990s and 2000s.

This informal anarchism or autonomism organizes events that can occasionally become massive, such as protests, protest camps or anarchist book fairs, but they generally remain spaces for socializing and networking rather than for social intervention. As a criticism, they run the risk of falling into inbreeding by residing solely on the margins of the social mainstream. In this sector, we can find both people whose goal is libertarian communism and also those who are not interested and seek to live as freely as possible in today's society.

However, through informal organizations, various networks and coordinators of squatted social centers, libertarian athenaeums, media outlets and counter-information organizations have been launched, and they have participated in other social movements such as anti-militarism, environmentalism and the fight against the globalization of capital.

In Spain, during the 1990s and 2000s, a dualism prevailed: anarcho-syndicalism, understood as a political organization, and informal anarchism, generally anti-organization. This was almost hegemonic, and there was little room for organizational attempts that lasted rather short (the second Autonomous Struggle, Libertarian Alternative, Galician Anarchist Federation, local and regional libertarian assemblies, networks of libertarian athenaeums, and CSOs, etc.). During those years, a peninsular-wide libertarian space was never established, beyond the FIJL linked to insurrectionalism or the FAI, which by 2000 already seemed focused exclusively on libertarian culture.

However, the movement later gained momentum. The youth movement built organizations: the FIJA and the first FEL, as well as some local libertarian youth organizations. Anarcho-independence movements were strengthened with Negres Tempestes in Catalonia, which generated their own momentum. This was a time of heightened anti-development struggles, attracting hundreds of people. Anarchist book fairs proliferated. Anarchist websites such as Alasbarricadas and Klinamen, and other more diverse ones such as Indymedia, LaHaine and Kaosenlared, received thousands of visits; there were still various publications in the form of fanzines, magazines, and newspapers.

From 2010-12, anarchism began to unite, developing in neighborhood or municipal and regional assemblies. This coincided with the period following the 15M movement. In some cases, such as in Catalonia, federations were formed between these groups. But all this lasted only a short time, lasting two, three, or five years, with the exception of some groups that achieved generational change, as was the case with Heura Negra in Vallcarca (Barcelona). Those local libertarian assemblies were the political school for most activists of our time, because there were truly that many groups.

The lack of consolidation of these collectives paralleled the crisis of insurrectionalism as a result of the repressive measures it suffered between 2011 and 2016. But it wasn't just a repressive issue, it was also a political one. Whatever happened, all of this paralyzed their political project of the Coordinated Anarchist Groups. This crisis demobilized part of their militancy or caused it to drift toward other, more practical projects, and also prevented it from renewing itself generationally.

The most political anarchism, so to speak, was also articulated during that time. For example, Embat in Catalonia, Apoyo Mutuo in Madrid, Aragon, and Seville, Aunar in Aragon, and the Libertarian Student Federation (FEL). We're not going to lie to anyone: we're talking about a very small scene that didn't even manage to become a proper movement, despite our intentions.

Regarding Embat, our analysis of the period after the 15M was that many essentially libertarian ideas and practices had been seen, but they were barely articulated by the libertarian movement. Proposals were taken to town squares individually and embraced by a politically diverse audience. We were aware—we saw them—that in those same squares there were Marxist or social democratic political organizations that had the goal of increasing their own membership. So we understood that it was necessary to have our very own organization to channel that spontaneous libertarian spirit toward a revolutionary perspective. That's why Embat was born.

During this period, we were able to garner some sympathy, but we failed to attract those libertarian people who were embedded in the social and popular movements. Most of them preferred to continue without a specific organization. This proved fatal with the emergence of Podemos in 2014. Many people who should have been previously organized as anarchists ended up joining the circles and candidacies of Podemos, Ganemos, Sí Se Puede, Más Madrid, or the CUP in Catalonia. Without a strategic line of their own, they adopted social democratic lines until they burned out and went home or until they completely converted to those positions.

Meanwhile, people from libertarian assemblies, insurrectionalist movements or informal anarchism gradually entered anarcho-syndicalism. This time not to turn it into a political organization as in the 1990s, but rather because of labor issues or to help develop some social and cultural area within the unions. They also entered the housing struggle, this time without the intention of "radicalizing the struggle," but rather as just another actor. Something similar must have occurred in the 1980s with people emerging from libertarian athenaeums.

During those years, 2015-2020, we should highlight the influence of the Federation of Anarchists of Gran Canaria in the libertarian field. Their approach combined elements of social and insurrectionary anarchism under an identitarian anarchist discourse that championed "neighborhood anarchism." They were also the driving force behind the first Tenants' Union in the entire state and, at the time, advocated for a rent strike. They managed to bring anarchism to the most disadvantaged neighborhoods of Gran Canaria, reaching a range of people who hadn't been reached in decades. The FAGC attempted to replicate their neighborhood anarchism elsewhere in the state, giving dozens of talks and writing numerous texts. However, this didn't succeed and no one on the Peninsula copied his model, which was a shame, since we have always loved anarchism with such strong social roots.

After the 2020 pandemic, we experienced the rise of the GKS/Socialist Movement and its great impact among the youth of the revolutionary left. Anarchism was literally out of the picture at that time, as we have seen. The ambiguous discourse—half Leninist, half autonomous-libertarian—that this socialist movement had in its early days attracted groups of young militants to those areas. Even people who had previously been active in social or insurrectionalist anarchism, which put a good part of our movement on guard.

Consequently, the need to offer an anarchist organizational alternative became clear. Thus, Alternativa Libertaria and Liza were born in Madrid in 2023 (the former later joined the latter), now Hedra in Alicante, Impulso in Granada, the Seminario de Estudios Libertarios Galegos (Galician Libertarian Studies Seminar), and, within synthetic anarchism, the Horizontal network at the state level (although it hasn't made much headway so far) and some new groups. Libertarian Action of Zaragoza even joined the FAI, a group well established in its neighborhood. Currently, some anarchist assemblies are being re-established in various cities, such as Seville, with that plural or synthetic character that we previously saw in other similar ones. All of this occurs in a context of true growth of anarcho-syndicalism, which has also opened new study centers and cultural organizations.

In short, it has been necessary to offer strong organizations in response to the need of working-class youth to organize. Right now, our entire political space is under construction. Even so, many territories remain with virtually no libertarian entity beyond anarcho-syndicalism, a few propaganda orgs, okupied social centres or music bands.

We are concerned that no assessment has been made of the 2010-2020 decade and that collectives are emerging that uncritically copy the same models that entered into crisis in those years. Because there are not many spaces for interrelation between currents, no kind of collective teaching is being transmitted, a starting point that comrades starting out now can take as a reference. This could be the role of Ekintza Zuzena.

In the summer of 2024, the First Meeting of Especifist Anarchism was held in Catalonia. What need did this initiative respond to, and what is your assessment of it?

The Meeting was a response to previous contacts between the various organizations and groups that exist in Spain and claim to be part of the especifist movement. We intended to draw the attention of this unorganized, but still pro-organizational, libertarian community in the state. That is, those people who now feel the need to have someone supporting them to work politically as anarchists without fearing the other currents of the socialist left.

At that time, about 80 people gathered at the Calafou factory (Vallbona d'Anoia), exceeding our expectations. Many people came who did not belong to the organizing organizations (Batzac, Embat, FEL, Liza and Regeneración Libertaria), and we had some very fruitful discussions with like-minded people from Granada, Galicia, and elsewhere.

During the meeting, a greeting was recorded for Black Rose, our sister organization in the United States, on the occasion of its Convention (something like the annual congress they hold there).

A strong point was the quality of the debate, with very solid arguments. It was also clear that everyone was pulling in the same direction: the need for political organization and social integration—which is to be expected at a meeting of this tendency, but which is not a common occurrence in current anarchism, and that's why it pleasantly surprised us.

And a weak point was the lack of communicative capacity our movement still has, usually allergic to audiovisual media and with no desire to be the center of attention or make a spectacle of its own everyday life. Admittedly, this demonstrates a modicum of common sense, but I think it's also positive to make a little noise, to be known and seen.

What groups or initiatives are currently promoting this movement, and what are their goals?

The initiatives currently promoting this movement in Spain are as follows, in order of creation:

- Federación Estudiantil Libertaria (FEL). Emerging in 2008 from several student assemblies in Madrid, Catalonia and Aragon, it was rebuilt in 2014 after a, let's say, generational hiatus, and has lasted until this year. Its tendency was oriented toward "social and organized anarchism" until recently, when it began to define itself as specific. As student groups come and go quite quickly, it hasn't managed to consolidate in recent years and now only existed in Catalonia. At the end of last year, it joined Batzac, forming its student front.

- Regeneración Libertaria. A web portal created in 2012 as a space for current analysis, theoretical articles, social studies, and libertarian culture within social and organized anarchism. Last year, given that its current members adhere to the Especifista movement, they decided to put the medium at the service of a common project. So today it is the official portal of the Especifist movement or organized anarchism in the Spanish state. It serves as a link between the organizations that promote it and as a point of debate and exchange of ideas.

- Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya. Founded in 2013 as Procés Embat[3] (like the previous ones, under the paradigm of "social and organized anarchism") and since 2015 under its current name. It is an organization that has gone through different stages: one of consolidation, acting as a network of activists (2013-15); another of social integration as an organization (2015-19); another very active during the Independence Procés (2017-18), the 2020 hiatus, which was used to create our Political Line[4], and the current era. We are currently active in the areas of housing, education, feminism, eco-social issues, and labor.

- Batzac, Libertarian Youth . Founded in 2017, it organizes young people who, in most cases, have not previously participated in activism. Until now, it had not declared itself a specialist organization, but rather a social anarchist organization. This is due to its interest in achieving specific social integration, as it does in housing, in the student sphere, and in the workplace. It has recently embraced the FEL (Libertarian Student Federation) in Catalonia.

-Liza, Plataforma Organizativa de Madrid. Founded in 2023, it brought together a group of people in need of organization who shared a strategic and tactical vision halfway between platformism and especifism. Its emergence was combined with good online communication and great activity, which enlivened the Iberian scene, resulting in the current semblance of coordination. Its integration is primarily in housing and neighborhoods. It's also worth highlighting their interest in debating with the rest of the anarchist movement, confronting autonomist and anti-organizational tendencies. Liza absorbed an organizational project called Alternativa Libertaria, which emerged from FEL Madrid.

- Impulso – Granada defines itself as a space for reflection on organized anarchism. Created at the end of 2024, for now, it's precisely that which defines them: a space for debate and training around the ideas of organized anarchism in Granada. Their intention is to move forward gradually, without skipping steps, until culminating in a political organization.

- Hedra, Organización Especifista de Alicante. This is a recent arrival, having been created in January 2025. It is the first to be created under the label of especifismo, as its theoretical foundations draw directly from the primary texts of this movement. Its integration is in housing and in the neighborhood through a group of associations.

I will also mention the publishing house Teima. Currently working on publishing a book by Felipe Correa, called Black Flag. The publisher will publish texts from our movement in Spanish. However, there are some publishers that publish books in our vein, such as Descontrol in Barcelona or Ardora y Bastiana in Galicia.

In addition to these organizations, which are public, there are other initiatives in other parts of the country that have not yet come to light, and which I won't mention so as not to jinx them. Some of them come from anarchist synthesis collectives or assemblies that are drifting toward our style of anarchism. By the way, none of them come from Euskal Herria, so let's see if anyone is interested!

Regarding the stated objectives, the priority is to create a broader anarchist movement with a greater impact on society, bringing anarchism back to the forefront of social struggle.

It's worth mentioning that we are also coordinating with other European organizations of our same current and with those from the rest of the world. The current international coordination brings together more than twenty organizations, and several more are in the process of joining. The best-known are the Union Communiste Libertaire (French-speaking European countries), Die Plattform (Germany), Anarchist Communist Group (UK), Black Rose Federation (USA), Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, Federación Anarquista de Rosario (Argentina), Coordinadora Anarquista de Brasil (Anarchist Coordinator of Brazil) and Tekoshina Anarsist (Rojava). We are also in contact with other new initiatives currently being created. In some ways, it seems to be a parallel process to that in Spain, which indicates that the anarchist movement is seeking to be better organized.

The concept of popular power has had its greatest diffusion in Latin America, where it has generated significant debate. What is your interpretation or definition of the issue of popular power? How would you differentiate it from left-wing populism?

It was in the 1960-70s that the FAU opted to borrow this concept from the Chilean MIR, the Tupamaros, and other movements of the time that combined various forms of Marxism (primarily Leninism and Guevarism), Liberation Theology, national liberation, and Latin Americanism (those who maintain that Latin America is one country). It should be added that anarchism also influenced this amalgamation, something that is often overlooked. In the 1960s, people's power replaced Leninist concept of "dual power."

The Latin American anarchists of the time understood this as logical, since this dual power (those soviets that coexist with the bourgeois state in an advanced phase of the class struggle, once the revolutionary stage has been reached) in turn drew on the ideas of Bakunin.

In the FAU of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a lively debate about the historical subjects who should carry out the revolution. Given the configuration of Uruguayan society at the time, it was necessary to create a subject that would unite all the oppressed sectors of society. The idea of ​​"the people" was used, but the people were understood as those "below". They had nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. It was somewhat like when the historical CNT-FAI spoke of "the working people" in their newspapers and manifestos. They didn't refer solely to the proletariat, since at that time, to ordinary people, it sounded like talk of factories and little else.

In this relationship between ideology and the production of historical subjects—a relationship that, if it didn't exist, would mean neither ideology nor subject—moments of ideological validity are formed. Historical subjects/agents expand and lead to the hegemony of social bodies, based on the validity of ideologies.[5]

As the class struggle unfolded in Latin America, alliances between the organized labor movement, the student movement, the first feminist associations, the peasantry, and grassroots collectives centered on identity, such as Afros, mestizo, and indigenous peoples, came into play. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the social war received support from the self-employed and small business owners expelled from industrial production. The class struggle often moved to neighborhoods or communities far from the city, and elements of counterpower were generated from below in the midst of the struggle. This was popular power: the people in motion, diffuse, anonymous, contradictory, creative, festive, and combative. Land seizures, industrial cordons, armed groups, occupation of universities—this was popular power in the eyes of ordinary people. In no way should it be confused with interclassism, with its conscious "from below" nature.

In the 2000s, the critique began. The especifist or organized anarchist organizations used popular power in their political language. But Marxist organizations did too. In Cuba and Venezuela, all ministries carried the tagline "popular power." So the term was also linked to the socialist state. Comrades critical of the concept of popular power also pointed out that anarchism was being abandoned within the especifist ranks toward Marxism or national populism. Some anarchists even went further, denying the adherence to anarchism of our entire movement, viewing it as a crypto-Marxism as a whole. This is the origin of the conflict.

With Embat, it was even comical to see that, during the first few years, certain people would always come to all our talks and say that popular power couldn't be anarchist in any way. Ironically, we held the opinion that, in reality, everyone understood us perfectly, except for the "most anarchist" ones. No one seemed to have the slightest problem with the Black Power movement of the American Black Panthers, a concept roughly equivalent to popular power.

However, the passing of the years has largely mitigated those debates. If some organizations or individuals drifted toward other ideological positions, the vast majority did not, contributing to the libertarian movement as a whole, and not just to our current in particular. Today, in Spain, this concept has been largely accepted, even by people who come from other currents, such as anarcho-syndicalism or by libertarians who are active in neighborhoods or housing projects without ever having been on our wavelength.

Regarding left-wing populism, we must say that it engages in interclassism, mixing working-class demands with more bourgeois middle-class ones. This would be the main difference. Specificism defends a "strong people" [Pueblo Fuerte] built as a front for the classes oppressed by capitalism and the state. Although we speak of both currents of popular power, there are substantial differences. Let's see what the specificist view is:

We proclaim the most complete socialization of all spheres of social activity. The socialization of the means of production exercised by the organs of real representation of society and not by the State; the socialization of education, the administration of justice, defense organizations, the sources of knowledge and information, and most especially the socialization of political power. In this last aspect, we advocate the abolition of the State and governmental forms of power as the only guarantee of eliminating all forms of domination. […]

We are fully convinced that this is effectively possible through direct democracy, exercised by grassroots popular organizations organized in a self-managed manner and linked within a federalist framework, where these same popular organizations are expressed in new institutional forms. Today we know more firmly than ever that the model of society we propose is not only possible but is practically, and in accordance with the historical and revolutionary experience of different peoples of the world, the only valid path to truly building socialism.[6]

It would be bold to say this isn't anarchism.

To what extent can the desire not to remain locked in the [activist/anarchist] ghetto and to participate (with a non-dogmatic discourse) in current social struggles or processes lead to political contradictions with anarchist or basic principles of the society for which you fight? Do you remember any occasions when you experienced this dilemma?

Social processes are complex by nature. There are many forces at play and many vested interests. The challenge is to build transformative collective interests in a democratic, transparent, and fraternal environment.

For Embat, the crucible was 2017. We had to position ourselves in a tremendously complex scenario. The Spanish state was in crisis and Catalan society demanded a response. This was the referendum. In just a few months, we experienced a large-scale process of collective empowerment. In just a few weeks, I'd say. The movement was already underway, but the events encouraged many more people to join the process. Counter-power structures were created, the committees for the defense of the Republic. They operated as assemblies, calling for actions and demonstrations. But they also had the opportunity to be spaces for territorial counter-power. Another initiative worth considering was the Constituent Procés, which proposed a constituent assembly for an independent Catalonia that would accommodate the most advanced social aspects. Social and union movements also joined the process in their own way. They joined and were responsible for the famous general strike of October 3rd, one of the most widely followed in Catalan history. The slogan of blocking transportation—trains, roads, and in 2019, the airport—naturally emerged. Something that had only been theorized about in anti-capitalist debate years before and was dismissed due to a lack of strength was put into practice.

Although we were perfectly aware that the leadership of this entire process was in the hands of the "traditional" Catalan political class, we also saw what was happening below. Our response was that we had to be there. We always felt that much more could have been done if all the social and union movements had acted unitedly and as a bloc. But this would have required a much greater organized anarchism, which is what we are trying to build.

Another complex and conflictive moment in which we had to take a stand was during the pandemic. Embat's position denounced the police state and the state's militarization of public spaces, while workers in "essential services" were forced to go to work without sufficient protective measures. We also highlighted the devastating effects of the privatization of healthcare and the management of nursing homes and clinics by private entities. At the same time, we welcomed the self-organized mutual support groups that emerged in many places, as well as the grassroots initiatives in which we participated, such as the Social Shock Plan or the attempted rent strike that was proposed during those months. I would add that we took advantage of the lockdown internally to develop our political line, which required much debate. And during that time, the International Coordination, in which we participated, was also strengthened.

The contradictions were clear within our libertarian movement: some focused on denouncing the police state and the infantilization of people, while others preferred to focus on denouncing privatization and self-organization. We didn't see a unified approach, and each of us fought a bit of our own battle. Perhaps what united us most was those proposed shock plans and similar ones.

NOTES

[1] This excerpt can be found in the Introduction to The Platform https://www.nestormakhno.info/spanish/platform/introduccion.htm

[2] For more information, see The Strategy of Especifismo. Interview by Felipe Correa with Juan Carlos Mechoso: http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/La-Estrategia-del-Especifismo.pdf

[3] Embat in Catalan refers to the crash of a wave against a rock. It sounded powerful and poetic to us, and it seemed a better name than the typical acronyms of other libertarian organizations of our time.

[4] This was when Especifismo was adopted as one of the guiding principles. The Political Line can be consulted at: https://embat.info/programa-i-linia-politica/

[5] Popular Power from a Libertarian Perspective. https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/poder-popular-desde-lo-libertario-fau/

[6]Ibid.

Este mayo de 2025 anarkismo.net celebra dos décadas como nodo global del anarquismo organizado. En un comienzo fue propuesto como una revista internacional de la corriente comunista libertaria o anarco-comunista. Desde esta propuesta, la iniciativa evolucionó hacia un portal web multilingüe inaugurado el 1 de mayo de 2005. La historia de anarkismo.net refleja la trayectoria de toda la corriente en su conjunto.

Hoy en día, con más de 15.000 artículos en 10 idiomas, anarkismo.net sigue siendo un archivo vivo y un espacio para quienes construyen poder popular desde abajo. Como escribiera Nestor McNab en 2005: «No somos una internacional, sino una herramienta para que las luchas respiren y se encuentren».

[English]

---

El sindicalismo alternativo y la toma de contacto

El primer “hilo negro” de toda nuestra historia. En los años 90 existían varias organizaciones de tipo anarco-comunista: Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL, Suiza), OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire (Francia),[1] Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchistici (FdCA, Italia),[2] Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU),[3] entre otras más. Funcionaban desde la década anterior y mantenían contacto entre sí.

De esta serie de organizaciones, cabrá destacar el anarco-comunismo francés, que procedía de los años 50, teniendo en esa época la Federación Comunista Libertaria y destacados militantes teóricos como Georges Fontenis, o posteriormente Daniel Guérin y orgánicas como el Moviment Communiste Libertaire, la Organisation Revolutionaire Anarchiste o la Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL). Las organizaciones y las revistas de esta corriente se habían sucedido en el tiempo, llegando a los años 90 con gran prestigio en el movimiento anarquista europeo. De la misma forma podemos destacar el anarco-comunismo suizo e italiano, que corrió en paralelo, pero sin tener la misma fortaleza que su movimiento homólogo galo.

Por su parte, en América Latina fue la FAU uruguaya la organización más destacada debido a su trayectoria revolucionaria y a su resistencia frente la dictadura. Volvemos a encontrarnos una organización nacida en los años 50, que logró gran importancia en los años 60 y 70. Tras unos años de ser barrida por la represión, había logrado reorganizarse a mediados de los años 80. Y no solo eso, debido a su trabajo político influyó en otros grupos latinoamericanos, como veremos más adelante.

Volviendo al relato principal, a comienzos de los años 90 las organizaciones europeas tenían militantes también en el llamado “sindicalismo alternativo”, algunos con cargos orgánicos. Por lo tanto, algunos militantes tuvieron la oportunidad de conocerse personalmente a través de los encuentros del sindicalismo alternativo. Uno de aquellos militantes en el estado español era José María Olaizola. Durante toda la década de los 90 fue Secretario de Relaciones Internacionales de la CGT-E y, entre 1993 y 2001, su Secretario General. La CGT, por entonces, tenía como objetivo construir una internacional. En sus propias palabras: [4]

“Dicha intervención tenía el propósito de crear tanto una internacional anarcosindicalista y alternativa y una internacional libertaria, anarquista, y que ambas formasen un movimiento libertario internacional. En este quehacer la CGT inició e intervino en muchas iniciativas. Hubo muchos viajes, mucho contacto personal. ”

En las organizaciones específicas hay que diferenciar la parte política de la parte social o sindical (a menudo denominada “frente”). En caso del sindicalismo, la militancia específica actuaba mediante los frentes sociales o sindicales, y por el hecho de ser buenos militantes, solían acceder a cargos orgánicos en los sindicatos en los que participaban.

El primer encuentro del sindicalismo alternativo fue organizado en Barcelona por la CGT-E en noviembre de 1991. A partir de esos momentos se desarrollaron los contactos con el sindicato SUD-Solidaires francés,[5] Unicobas Italia,[6] la SAC sueca [7] y con otros sindicatos de base más, todos ellos bastante pequeños.

“El primer encuentro del sindicalismo alternativo lo organizamos en Barcelona el 29, 30 de noviembre y 1 de Diciembre de 1991 con sindicatos franceses SUD, en los [que] participaban militantes de AL, como Patrice Spadoni, conocido militante plataformista con quien tuvimos un relación continuada, después Laurent Esquerre de AL también. Conocía a anarquistas franceses por mi exilio parisino. Estuvo también la CGT de Correcteurs, muy potente sindicato francés gestionado por anarquistas de diferentes ramas, en el que Jacky Toublet era un militante muy destacado miembro de [la] FA, la CRT de Suiza [8] donde estaba Arístides Pedraza de la OSL suiza, sindicatos italianos, vascos, uno inglés y otro ruso ambos muy pequeños y, la SAC sueca que siempre era reticente a que alguien quisiera crear una nueva internacional y entre los Italianos estaba Unicobas (Stefano D'Errico su secretario general). Por cierto en este encuentro tuvo un importante papel Emili Cortavitarte quien junto a Chema Berro hicieron de coordinadores del encuentro en representación de la CGT.”

[9]

En 1995 se celebró un encuentro libertario internacional en Ruesta, un pueblo aragonés cedido a la CGT-E. A este encuentro acudieron militantes anarquistas franceses, italianos, suizos, polacos y de otras procedencias. Ruesta tuvo su importancia para establecer unos vínculos personales a nivel internacional.

En Ruesta hubo bastante participación de la militancia de Alternative Libertaire y de OSL (Suiza), acaso porque se lo tomaron como el campamento de verano de la organización francesa. En menor número, llegaron representantes de la FdCA, de Workers Solidarity Movement (Irlanda), de Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Líbano; su nombre en árabe significa Alternativa Libertaria) y de la Federación Anarquista Polaca. [10] Respecto al sindicalismo, la mayoría de los participantes eran de la CGT y la SUD, aunque también hubo gente de Solidaridad Obrera (estado español) y de la SAC (Suecia).

A partir de entonces, esas organizaciones y sus delegados se fueron encontrando en otros eventos internacionales como las marchas contra el paro europeas, las contracumbres y las protestas altermundialistas, como las de Niza (2000), Barcelona (2001) o Génova (2001), así como en otros encuentros impulsados por el sindicalismo alternativo – es decir, CGT-E, SUD-Solidaires, Unicobas, SAC, Solidaridad Obrera… – en los que formaban bloques libertarios. Sigue Olaizola:

“De aquí surgió un grupo en los hechos, no en los papeles, que trabajamos porque teníamos una visión estratégica común alejándonos del sectarismo Jacky, Aristides, Stefano, se incorporó Gerard Mêlinand (CNT fancesa proviniente de OCL...), y posteriormente Juan Carlos Mechoso, FAU; todos para mi grandes amigos y maestros. […]”
“Teníamos una excelente relación con la FdCA italiana plataformista: Saberio Craparo, Donato Romito, Adriana Dadá y Gianni Cimbalo, todos grandes amigos. En toda esta ebullición andaba y nos reuníamos con cierta periodicidad. ”

Los uruguayos apostillan que estos contactos no fueron casuales en absoluto. Muchos de los viajes al extranjero fueron orgánicos: estaban decididos por la organización. “Si los viajes personales cuadraban, se buscaban vínculos más en lo orgánico y no por la libre”. [11] Algunos de estos viajes podrían durar meses, convirtiéndose en largas estancias de intercambio político.

El 1 de mayo del 2000, la CNT francesa (también llamada “Vignoles”) organizó las jornadas “Un autre futur”. Las jornadas contaron con el apoyo de Alternative Libertaire y de la Federation Anarchiste, y sirvieron para unir el anarquismo francés. A la manifestación fueron unas 6000 personas detrás de la pancarta de la CNT, un hito casi histórico.

Pero también esas jornadas sirvieron de punto de encuentro de las organizaciones libertarias sindicalistas: CNT-F, SAC, Unicobas, Industrial Workers of the World, FAU (Alemania), RKAS (Ucrania), Confederación Democrática del Trabajo (Marruecos) y SKT (Siberia)[12] y otros países.[13] Y de nuevo fueron también lugar de socialización de militantes anarco-comunistas franceses, italianos, irlandeses…

En todos estos casos cuando se habla de toma de contacto a nivel político, no se trata solamente de coincidir por casualidad en algún evento o de intercambiar algún mensaje por internet. En bastantes casos se trataba de viajar a un lugar, convivir y establecer vínculos personales, impregnarse de lo que se hacía en ese lugar y debatir, sobre todo debatir, y aprender para trasladarlo al lugar de origen... y luego volver a debatir. Los vínculos personales eran centrales en todo este proceso.

El plataformismo en internet

El segundo “hilo negro” está relacionado con la gran conectividad que proporcionó la tecnología. En los albores de internet surgieron varios portales web de tendencia anarquista: A-infos, Infoshop, Spunk y algunos otros, que surgieron en los años 90. Uno de aquellos sitios web fue el de la organización plataformista irlandesa Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM).[14] En pocos años se subieron a internet centenares de textos clásicos de la historia del anarquismo y de la corriente anarco-comunista o plataformista. Con ello esta corriente ganaría bastantes simpatizantes por todo el mundo. Posteriormente, rehicieron la web y la pusieron online bajo el dominio struggle.ws, dejando la web de WSM para textos relacionados con la propia organización. Este trabajo de difusión y formación fructificaría pronto mediante la creación de una organización sudafricana, el Workers Solidarity Front (WSF), inspirada en su hermana irlandesa.

Poco antes del año 2000 entre ambas organizaciones (o militantes de las mismas) crearon la lista de correo “Anarchist Platform”. En su presentación identificaban claramente a qué tipo de militantes se dirigían [15]:

Nos identificamos como anarquistas y con la tradición «Plataformista» dentro del anarquismo, que incluye grupos y publicaciones como «La Plataforma Organizativa de los Comunistas Libertarios», los «Amigos de Durruti» y el «Manifiesto del Comunismo Libertario». Nos identificamos en líneas generales con la práctica organizativa defendida por esta tradición, aunque no necesariamente con todo lo que hicieron o dijeron. Es decir, es un punto de partida para nuestra política, no un punto final.

El documento de apertura de la lista de correo guarda una gran similitud con el que posteriormente tendrá anarkismo.net. Es típico de las organizaciones políticas emitir un documento de “puntos de unidad” o un “mission statement” que explique las políticas básicas de la organización.

Podemos observar también, que consideraban que sus referentes eran La Plataforma de 1926, del grupo Dielo Truda; Los Amigos de Durruti de la Revolución española; y el Manifiesto escrito por Georges Fontenis en 1953. Estos tres textos enfatizan la necesidad de contar con una potente organización específica anarquista que tendrá la función de articular la militancia anarquista que interviene en las organizaciones de masas. A la postre, esas organizaciones sociales son las que harán la Revolución Social. Estos son los mismos textos que reivindicó FdCA en su 30 aniversario, celebrado en 2016.[16]

La sudafricana ZACF (también conocida como Zabalaza) [17] (creada poco después de disolverse el WSF) se inspiraba también en los mismos textos, que consideraba como sus referentes fundamentales. Años después, añadiría a la lista el texto «Anarquismo Social y Organización» que publicó la organización brasileña FARJ tras su primer congreso de 2008.[18]

La lista de correo, como vemos, puso en contacto a militantes de todas partes, aunque predominantemente del mundo anglosajón. La lista fue utilizada para convocar a un encuentro presencial entre organizaciones plataformistas celebrado en Génova en el 2001, durante la contracumbre alterglobalización, a iniciativa de la organización italiana.[19]

Añadiremos que en abril de 2001, se celebró en Quebec (Canadá) la cumbre de jefes de estado de los países del continente americano. Para la ocasión se publicó una “Declaración Internacional de los Comunistas Libertarios” que cargaba contra la globalización capitalista y terminaba su comunicado llamando a construir la sociedad socialista libertaria. Entre las organizaciones firmantes había bastantes organizaciones plataformistas (NEFAC, WSM, ORA-S Chequia, OCL-Francia, OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire de Francia y su homónima del Líbano) junto a organizaciones anarcosindicalistas de la AIT y específicas de síntesis. Fue una excepción, ya que raramente se volverían a juntar estas corrientes.[20]

Solidaridad Internacional Libertaria

Según lo que hemos visto anteriormente, algunos militantes tenían en mente crear una internacional sindicalista alternativa y una internacional libertaria. La conexión definitiva y estable entre Europa y América Latina se dio hacia 1994, aunque había contactos anteriormente. El hispano-suizo Arístides Pedraza era uno de aquellos nexos y puso en contacto a Juan Carlos Mechoso con los militantes de Barcelona. [21] A partir de entonces se entabló una relación muy buena. Entre los militantes españoles, franceses y suizos les costearon a sus compañeros latinoamericanos los viajes, les organizaron charlas, ruedas de prensa y reuniones. De esta manera en la CGT-E conocieron a “Juan Carlos y Juan Pilo de la FAU, los brasileños Eduardo, "el Bocha", "el Gaucho", Verónica de la OSL argentina, en aquellos momentos ayudamos a costear los gastos de tres ateneos en Uruguay, Cerro, Colón y Acacias.” (Olaizola) [22]

La formalización de esta red de contactos y organizaciones daría lugar a la Solidaridad Internacional Libertaria (SIL). Este puede ser nuestro tercer hilo negro. Estaba impulsada por organizaciones diversas de tendencia comunista libertaria, así como anarcosindicalista, mientras que otros grupos tenían un anarquismo social menos definido políticamente. [23] Su primera reunión se celebró en Madrid el 1 de abril de 2001 a iniciativa de la CGT-E. [24] El texto fundacional fue obra de Juan Carlos Mechoso (Montevideo), Pepe García Rey, alias “Ramón Germinal” (Granada) y Paco Marcellán (Madrid): [25]

Hoy apoyamos, como primer paso, la constitución de una red libertaria mundial en la que todos los grupos de afinidad que así lo deseen encuentren su espacio, abierta a organizaciones libertarias, asociaciones, ateneos, sindicatos y otros colectivos libertarios. Esta red servirá para difundir el apoyo mutuo y la solidaridad en las luchas, funcionará como fuente de información y debate para el mundo libertario, organizará encuentros internacionales, creará escuelas de formación, empleará videoconferencias, Internet y todo tipo de herramientas disponibles para articular estrategias que permitan introducir y guiar la idea libertaria en las diversas luchas sociales.

[26]

Respecto a la lista de organizaciones, tenemos a la OSL (Suiza), Alternative Libertaire (Francia), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Líbano), FAU (Uruguay), Federación Anarquista Gaucha (FAG, Brasil), [27] la ORA-Solidarita de la República Checa, [28] todos estos de tendencia anarco-comunista, la red antifascista francesa No Pasarán, la organización magonista [29] CIPO-RFM (México) [30], y las organizaciones anarcosindicalistas CGT-E, SAC (Suecia), Unicobas (Italia) y CNT-F (Vignoles, Francia). Esta última participó en la primera reunión, pero se retiró de la red SIL. Mientras tanto, al poco tiempo se incorporaron FdCA (Italia), ZACF (Sudáfrica) [31], AUCA (Argentina) [32], NEFAC (Norteamérica) [33] y la recién creada la Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo (estado español), que fue un intento de organización específica que no tuvo mucho recorrido.

Posteriormente, se celebraron un par de reuniones internacionales más en los años siguientes. Su contexto es el del movimiento de resistencia a la globalización capitalista, que en Europa se caracterizó por las contracumbres contra los encuentros del gran capital (como los del Banco Mundial, el G8 o los de la Unión Europea) que se acompañaron de multitudinarias protestas.

Gracias a su existencia se financiaron algunos proyectos, como la imprenta “Aragón” y un ateneo en Uruguay, un centro comunitario, una cooperativa y una imprenta en Brasil, un local en Cuba, o el apoyo para el periódico de la OSL argentina. Lo más importante es que en la SIL se conocieron diversos militantes europeos y latinoamericanos, se pagaron viajes, se editaron libros, se publicaron periódicos, y se pagaron actos públicos de las organizaciones y bastantes cosas más.

Como podemos imaginarnos, estos contactos son la razón de muchas jornadas, conferencias, debates, entrevistas conjuntos entre varios de estos militantes que fueron realizando hasta bien entrada la década de 2010. [34]

Sin embargo, esta iniciativa de solidaridad internacionalista tampoco duró demasiado tiempo. La SIL se había creado en un período de reflujo del movimiento alterglobalización. Además, la CGT cambió de secretariado y no siguieron desarrollando estos contactos.

El ELAOPA, las Jornadas Anarquistas de Porto Alegre y la primera CALA

Al otro lado del Océano Atlántico encontramos el cuarto hilo de construcción internacional. Los encuentros entre la FAU, la FAG brasileña y los grupos argentinos habían sido habituales en los años 90. Este trabajo había dado sus frutos, puesto que a comienzos del nuevo siglo ya existían otros grupos de la corriente en otros países. Ahora habría que articularlos.

A escala nacional, por un lado, los grupos y organizaciones brasileñas crearon el Foro del Anarquismo Organizado (FAO), creado en 2002. Era un espacio de debate ideológico, teórico y estratégico para dar un salto de escala en Brasil. Por el otro, se había dado procesos similares en Chile (1999), con el Congreso de Unificación anarco-comunista (CUAC). No exactamente a partir del CUAC, pero sin suda influida por ese proceso, en 2002 se creó la Organización Comunista Libertaria chilena. [35]

Dentro del marco del Foro Social Mundial (FSM), celebrado en Porto Alegre en 2003, surgió el llamado Encuentro Latinoamericano de Organizaciones Populares Autónomas (ELAOPA). [36] El encuentro planteaba un espacio diferenciado del FSM, tomado por las ONG, los partidos políticos y hasta por iniciativas empresariales. Desde el sector radical de los movimientos populares se reivindicaba la autonomía de clase y la creación de una alianza de los movimientos sociales fuera de las instituciones. El ELAOPA tenía los siguientes principios:

1. La Construcción de Poder Popular.
2. Una Perspectiva antipatriarcal y anticolonial.
3. El protagonismo popular y la Acción Directa.
4. La Solidaridad de Clase, el Apoyo Mutuo y el Internacionalismo.

En siguientes eventos, el ELAOPA se desvinculó del FSM y fue cambiando de ciudad, celebrándose cada dos años, aproximadamente. En el año 2025 se ha celebrado el XV encuentro en Santiago de Chile con más de 400 personas que representaban numerosas organizaciones de base. [37]

El ELAOPA es un encuentro entre organizaciones sociales y populares y raramente alguna de ellas se reivindica como libertaria, si acaso se reivindican como “autónomas”, “clasistas”, “populares” o dicen que tienen “influencias libertarias”. Sin embargo, la militancia del llamado “anarquismo especifista” tenía presencia en bastantes de aquellas organizaciones. Estamos hablando de la militancia social y barrial de las mencionadas FAU, FAG y otras, que actuaba en estos movimientos populares, y aprovecharon los encuentros de ELAOPA para reunirse también.

Con el ELAOPA surgía una oportunidad para el encuentro cara a cara entre la militancia libertaria. Por lo tanto, se creó un evento propio que normalmente se celebraba al día siguiente de terminar el Encuentro popular: las Jornadas Anarquistas. Eran (y son) un espacio no solo de propaganda o de cultura libertaria, sino también de debate estratégico con la mente puesta en la intervención en las luchas sociales y la promoción de la corriente. [38]

Los esfuerzos tuvieron mucho éxito. Para el período 2007-2008, se había producido la creación de varias organizaciones comunistas libertarias nuevas, algunas con pretensión de ser de ámbito nacional:

La situación del especificismo “plataformista” es considerablemente más variada y compleja. Ya vimos en su oportuno momento que como tales debía considerarse a la Organización Socialista Libertaria, Rojo y Negro, Comunismo Libertario, la Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista y el Colectivo Comunista Libertario en Argentina; a la Organización del Poder Popular Libertario en Bolivia; a los nucleamientos que giran alrededor del Forum del Anarquismo Organizado y a la Uniâo Popular Anarquista [Unipa] en Brasil; a la Organización Comunista Libertaria, el Colectivo de Agitación Libertaria y el Movimiento Libertario Joaquín Murieta en Chile; a la Alianza Comunista Libertaria en México; a Qhispikay Llaqta en Perú y, por último, a la Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, la Organización Libertaria Cimarrón, la Federación Libertaria y Bandera Negra en Uruguay.

[39]

Con toda esta serie de grupos, como es lógico, también surgieron iniciativas de articulación a mayor escala. El mayor intento de la época fue la Coordinación Anarquista Latinoamericana (CALA), creada en 2004 por la FAU (Uruguay), la FAG (Brasil), AUCA de Argentina, Lucha Libertaria y UNIPA de Brasil. [40] Pero esta UNIPA rompió con la corriente para crear su propio espacio político, el “bakuninismo”, priorizando las alianzas con la Alianza Comunista Libertaria de México y la Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista de la Argentina. Más adelante, se añadió el Foro del Anarquismo Organizado de Brasil. Esta primera CALA duró unos pocos años.

La CALA se adhirió al anarquismo especifista. Defendían una estrategia de poder popular democrática y rupturista, pero nunca entraron a definir las características de la sociedad post-revolucionaria. Entendían el especifismo como la organización política anarquista. Por tanto, no se diferenciaban del plataformismo más que en la tradición particular anarquista latinoamericana y en el tiempo en el que ambas propuestas tuvieron lugar. Por consiguiente, la vocación es idéntica, a pesar de algunos desarrollos propios.

La creación del portal web anarkismo.net

Como hemos visto antes, la SIL ya había logrado poner en contacto unas 11 organizaciones de tipo anarco-comunista, habiendo otras 3 que no se definían así, pero que, con un poco de trabajo político, podrían haberlo sido sin mayor problema. La desaparición de la red SIL dejó un vacío organizativo que llenaría anarkismo.net.

En palabras de José Antonio Gutiérrez [41]:

La idea de Anarkismo.net nació en primera instancia como la idea de hacer una revista internacional. Aproximadamente en 1999 comenzamos a conversar con un compañero de Alternative Libertaire y yo, que entonces era encargado de relaciones internacionales del CUAC, a discutir la necesidad de conocernos mejor como organizaciones libertarias que estábamos en el ala del plataformismo. Había entonces una lista de emails en la cual intercambiábamos discusiones y experiencias, pero sentíamos que necesitábamos artículos más en profundidad para entender mejor nuestra política desde nuestros contextos y prácticas. Nuestra idea era hacer un almanaque anual internacional del anarco-comunismo, con información de los países en los que teníamos presencia y de sus organizaciones, un balance anual que fuera muy reflexivo y crítico.

Así comenzamos a conversar esta idea, y en Febrero de 2002, coincidimos en Dublín con Nestor McNabb de la FdCA [Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici] y estaba Andrew Flood del WSM. Nos reunimos los tres en un pub del centro de Dublín, en South William Street, el pub se llama Grogan's. Ahí conversamos la idea del almanaque anual y la idea fue creciendo, la llevamos a nuestras organizaciones y con el crecimiento de internet, decidimos que por un asunto de presupuesto y de facilidad de distribución, etc. era mucho mejor tener un sitio internacional del anarco-comunismo.

Así nació la idea de Anarkismo, un sitio de carácter anarco-comunista y plurilinguistico, por eso el nombre, que es “anarquismo” en esperanto. El sitio, después de mucho trabajo, fue lanzado el primero de mayo de 2005, una fecha muy simbólica. La idea comenzó como un sitio web, pero la idea de facilitar el intercambio entre las organizaciones y conocernos mejor, era desde el primer momento con el fin de acercarnos políticamente e ir generando tendencia. No queríamos plantear una internacional de nombre, sino que queríamos que el trabajo internacional y el intercambio de experiencias fuera, gradual y orgánicamente, dando paso a una mayor cohesión como tendencia, como corriente, de cara a crear una federación internacional con bases sólidas. Esa fue la intención desde el principio.

Militantes como Nestor McNab (irlandés que vivía en Roma), Paul Bowman, Andrew Flood o Ian McKay (Irlanda), Jonathan Payn (Sudáfrica), Dimitris Troaditis (primero Atenas y, después, Melbourne), Adam Weaver (Miami), Nicolas Phoebus (Quebec), Wayne Price (Nueva York) y el chileno José Antonio Gutierrez, entre otras, fueron las personas clave en el desarrollo político, técnico y editorial del nuevo portal. Se habían conocido a través de la lista de correos “Anarchist Platform” y de otros encuentros presenciales. Habían leído los artículos que habían escrito los demás y los habían difundido o traducido en sus respectivos territorios e idiomas.

Entre las organizaciones fundadoras de anarkismo.net no podían faltar las mencionadas FAU, FAG, FdCA y Alternative Libertaire (Francia). No todas entraron a la vez, sino que algunas estaban en contacto desde los inicios, pero se tomaron un tiempo en decidirse (por ejemplo, FAU y OSL). Junto a las organizaciones a las que pertenecían los compañeros antes nombrados, se sentaron las bases de un proyecto que hizo posible la articulación internacional de toda la corriente anarco-comunista o plataformista. [42]

Por entonces, en la primera mitad de los 2000, ya existían unas cuantas nuevas organizaciones con cierta relevancia para la corriente comunista libertaria. Por nombrar algunas: NEFAC (noroeste de Estados Unidos y Canadá oriental), el CUAC y OCL (Chile), OSL y FACA (Argentina), además de las ya conocidas, ZACF (Sudáfrica), Alternative Libertaire (Francia), FdCA (Italia) y WSM (Irlanda).

Como vemos, en los grupos anarquistas predominaba la presencia masculina y, por ello, prácticamente todos los delegados internacionales eran hombres. Las mujeres iban a los encuentros la mayor parte de las veces cuando las delegaciones de sus organizaciones se componían de varias personas.

Es igualmente necesario mencionar que los roles que jugó la militancia de las organizaciones en los encuentros internaciones fue posible gracias al trabajo de numerosas y numerosos compañeros que marcaron de una forma u otra el desarrollo y la dinamización de sus organizaciones. Esto se produjo de múltiples formas: creando aportes teóricos, estratégicos o elementos de debate; reuniéndose en distintos ámbitos; difundiendo experiencias; o contribuyendo al fortalecimiento de los lazos. Cada cual aportó su granito de arena.

La corriente encuadrada en el anarco-comunismo entendía que el anarquismo, si quería tener algún tipo de relevancia, debería estar bien organizado y, por supuesto, tomarse en serio su participación en las luchas colectivas, buscando potenciarlas y articulando política y estratégicamente a toda la gente libertaria que existía en su seno.

Nos definimos como Anarquistas Comunistas porque pertenecemos a la tradición anarquista que reconoce la necesidad de una organización dual: una organización anarquista «específica» que trabaja dentro y junto a las organizaciones de masas de la clase trabajadora.

[43]

Cada organización tenía su web y sus periódicos desde los que proyectaban su estrategia. Los más difundidos eran la revista mensual Alternative Libertaire y Courant Alternatif [44] en Francia y Alternativa Libertaria en Italia, que provenían de los años 70 y ya tenían su público.

En internet, además de anarkismo.net, los sitios más prolíficos del anarco-comunismo fueron la web británica libcom.org, en donde se publicaron docenas de biografías relacionadas con el makhnovismo habitualmente escritas por Nick Heath [45]; la web de Nestor McNab nestormakhno.info; makhno.ru, en lengua rusa; el sitio Anarchist and the Platformist Tradition [46] o la propia A-Infos, en cuyo grupo editorial estaba el anarquista israelí, Ilan Shalif, anarco-comunista convencido. [47] Estos sitios web contribuyeron a extender la corriente, como antes habían hecho struggle.ws o zabalaza.net.

Una coordinación, no una internacional

Anarkismo.net no aspiraba a ser una internacional, sino una herramienta para compartir informaciones sobre las luchas locales, teoría y estrategias. Funcionaba mediante un Colectivo de Delegados y otro Editorial, tomando un rol político el primero y un rol técnico el segundo.

Había quien prefería una estructura más definida – caminando hacia una Internacional – como Alternative Libertaire, mientras otros preferían mantenerla como espacio abierto. A pesar de esta diferencia, se realizaron algunas campañas de solidaridad, como la del apoyo a la insurrección de Oaxaca (2005-06).

En estos años se fue fortaleciendo esta corriente en América Latina, especialmente en Chile (OCL, FEL), Argentina (Columna Libertaria Joaquín Penina, [48] Red Libertaria) y Brasil (FARJ) [49], donde surgieron numerosos grupos, webs y blogs. Y se fue consolidando su forma de interpretar el anarco-comunismo, llamada “especifismo”. A esto contribuyeron varios autores brasileños como Bruno Lima, Rafael Viana o Felipe Correa que construyeron el Instituto de Teoría e Historia Anarquista (ITHA) con los sudafricanos Lucien van der Walt, Michael Schmidt o Jonathan Payn, así como otros militantes, como el mencionado Dimitris Troaditis o el argentino Emilio Crisi, entre otros. El ITHA ha sido casi como una especie de think tank de textos académicos de la corriente.

Correa definió el especifismo como: [50]

Es una corriente que sostiene un conjunto de posiciones frente a los grandes debates estratégicos del anarquismo. Primero, en relación al debate organizacional, los especifistas sostienen la necesidad de un dualismo organizacional, a partir del cual los anarquistas se articulan en una organización política, como anarquistas, y en las organizaciones sociales (sindicatos y movimientos sociales), como trabajadores. En segundo lugar, frente al debate sobre el papel de las reformas, los especifistas consideran que, según la forma en que se busquen y conquisten, pueden contribuir a un proceso revolucionario. En tercer lugar, en relación con el debate sobre la violencia, los especifistas consideran que siempre debe realizarse en el contexto y concomitantemente con la construcción de movimientos de masas. En el plano social, de los movimientos de masas, el Especifismo promueve un programa que tiene numerosas afinidades con el sindicalismo revolucionario.

En América Latina esta corriente lanzó iniciativas y tendencias dentro de los sindicatos obreros, así como del movimiento estudiantil y barrial, como por ejemplo, los FEL o frentes estudiantiles libertarios (presente en varios países, aunque en su inicio surgió en Chile), Resistência Popular en Brasil o la Federación de Organizaciones de Base en Argentina, entre otras.

Para no hablar de especifismo o plataformismo, que resulta difícil de comprender para el gran público, en la corriente se prefirió utilizar el concepto de anarquismo organizado. En otros lugares se utilizó el concepto anarquismo social y organizado, para acotar aún más a quiénes se dirigían.

En otros lugares del mundo también aparecieron grupos anarco-comunistas, destacando los de Rusia (Acción Autónoma [51] – y también en su órbita de influencia: Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria e Israel), Ucrania (RKAS-Makhno), Turquía (AKI, KaraKizil, Liberter), Australia (MAGC) [52], Grecia (Federación Anarquista de Grecia Occidental) y con influencia en otros territorios. En los primeros casos, el anarco-comunismo estaría mezclado con el insurreccionalismo y, en los últimos, sus caminos estarían deslindados.

En noviembre de 2008 se celebraría en Washington la primera cumbre del G20. Para esta ocasión se emitió la “Declaración anarco-comunista sobre la crisis económica global y la Reunión del G20”. Eran los comienzos de la crisis. Había estallado la burbuja inmobiliaria y financiera unos pocos meses antes y se hablaba de colapso. Los estados tuvieron que realizar un rescate económico a la banca para evitar males mayores. 11 organizaciones firmaron la declaración. Firmaron varias organizaciones ya mencionadas en otras ocasiones. Las nuevas eran Common Cause (Ontario, Canadá), Union Communiste Libertaire (Quebec, Canadá), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Perú), Liberty & Solidarity (L&S, Gran Bretaña) [53] y dos organizaciones de síntesis: la Asociación Obrera de Canarias y la Federación Anarquista de Berlín. [54]

Tiempo después, en febrero de 2010, se reunieron en París 6 organizaciones de la corriente: la FdCA (Italia), L&S (Gran Bretaña), WSM (Irlanda), la OSL (Suiza), Motmakt («Contrapoder», Noruega) y Alternative libertaire (Francia). Su objetivo era evaluar el estado del movimiento comunista libertario en Europa y favorecer una coordinación continental. Crearon grupos de trabajo, para mantener las relaciones y avanzar en la coordinación. [55]

La maduración de la red

Hacia el período 2010-13, los distintos grupos y organizaciones que se reivindicaban del anarco-comunismo y que ya estaban en relación mutua, como hemos visto, consolidaron la red. Fue entonces cuando se estabilizó el Colectivo Editorial de Anarkismo, que ya hemos visto que estaba compuesto de un delegado de cada una de las organizaciones. Ponemos una tabla con las organizaciones que componían anarkismo en 2010 y en 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)

En este listado ya podemos ver la desaparición de NEFAC de Norteamérica, que se redujo a unos grupos en Nueva Inglaterra (Buffalo y Nueva York) y Canadá (por ejemplo, Common Cause y UCL). Con el tiempo, en 2014, los grupos de Estados Unidos crearon una federación, Black Rose/Rosa Negra. [56] También podemos apreciar la fundación, en 2012, de la Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira a partir de los grupos preexistentes (como FAG, FARJ, OASL, CAZP y otros) [57]que se articulaban en torno al foro FAO y que ya pertenecían a la red Anarkismo.

El resto de organizaciones son las que continuaban con la tradición comunista libertaria o anarco-comunista cuya tradición viene de los años 70 y 80, tales como Alternative Libertaire (Francia), FdCA (Italia), OSL (Suiza, se unió a Anarkismo en 2010), la FAU (Uruguay) o WSM (Irlanda).

La CGA francesa era una escisión de la Federación Anarquista Francófona tras su llamamiento a apoyar a Jacques Chirac en las elecciones presidenciales para evitar que triunfase Le Pen. Con el tiempo la CGA derivó hacia el anarco-comunismo y acabaría fusionada en 2019 con Alternative Libertaire, creando la Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL), que actualmente es la mayor organización de este tipo en todo el mundo.

Cada organización tiene su historia y sería demasiado largo desarrollarlas todas aquí. Lo que resulta obvio es que esta corriente se articulaba a escala global y pudo aprovechar el auge del radicalismo que sobrevolaba el planeta en 2011, de la misma manera que la SIL se desarrolló durante el movimiento alterglobalización.

En 2011 tuvo lugar la Primavera Árabe, el movimiento de los indignados y las ocupaciones de las plazas. También fue el momento de entrada en el activismo de una nueva generación. Surgió con fuerza la Revolución de Rojava. Aparecieron organizaciones anarco-comunistas en Egipto (Movimiento Socialista Libertario, MSL), Israel (Unidad) y Tunicia, de breve existencia, así como nuevas intentonas en Irán, Líbano o Jordania.

En aquel año se hizo un comunicado de solidaridad con 46 activistas detenidos en Zimbabwe. Lo firmaron 11 organizaciones comunistas libertarias. [58] Ese mismo año se firmó la declaración de solidaridad con la lucha popular de Egipto, cuyo pueblo acababa de derrocar el régimen de Mubarak. [59] Esta vez eran 23 organizaciones las que firmaron. Como novedades, las organizaciones de Egipto (MSL), Colombia (grupo Vía Libre y CELIP), Chile (Federación Comunista Libertaria y Revista “Política y Sociedad”) y Estados Unidos (Autonomía y Solidaridad de Miami). También firmaron una serie de grupos anarcosindicalistas como la CGT-E, Solidaridad Obrera, WSA (Estados Unidos) y el ICEA (estado español). [60]

De nuevo, la red Anarkismo no quiso formalizarse como una estructura más sólida – como una federación internacional – para evitar caer en rivalidades y en competencia con las demás internacionales libertarias, por entonces, la AIT y la IFA, pero es innegable que estaba funcionado de forma bastante coordinada.

En 2012 se volvieron a reunir 8 organizaciones europeas en Londres. [61] Además de hablar de coordinarse mejor, sacaron una campaña contra la deuda soberana. Por su parte, ese mismo año, en Sao Paolo se celebraron las Jornadas Anarquistas convocadas por la Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) y el Foro del Anarquismo Organizado de Brasil (FAO) [62] para desarrollar el anarquismo especifista en el continente. En aquella ocasión aprobaron documentos estratégicos en torno a los conceptos de poder popular y de federalismo.

Hablar de “popular” significa dotar el proyecto de poder un carácter eminentemente clasista, aunque debamos destacar que hablamos de poder desde una perspectiva libertaria. Un proyecto de los/as oprimidos/as que se da a partir de los movimientos populares y que hace una acumulación de fuerza social necesaria para un enfrentamiento de largo aliento, con pasos firmes, fuertes, bien marcados, que creemos necesario desde el punto de vista ideológico. [63]

Fue a partir de entonces que el movimiento anarquista adoptaría de forma más decidida esta concepción teórica, más típica del desarrollo de la lucha de clases en América Latina, y pronto también llegaría a Europa a través de Embat (Catalunya) y Libertäre Aktion (Berna).

En agosto de 2012 tuvo lugar el mayor encuentro presencial de la corriente: Saint Imier (Suiza). Aprovechando el Encuentro Internacional Anarquista, se colocó una carpa llamada “Anarkismo” que sería el punto de encuentro para los militantes internacionales de la corriente y sus simpatizantes. Aproximadamente la mitad de las 30 organizaciones que estaban en contacto con anarkismo.net en esos momentos, enviaron delegados al Encuentro y se celebró una conferencia de delegados. Se constataba el enorme crecimiento de esta corriente en América Latina y se veía un gran desarrollo desde los comienzos del portal web.

Desde la perspectiva de la delegación del WSM, las diversas reuniones de Anarkismo celebradas durante la semana fueron una valiosa oportunidad de conocer a compañeros con quienes quizás nunca nos hubiéramos cruzado y de revitalizar nuestra participación en la red Anarkismo. La propia red continúa expandiéndose desde sus inicios muy modestos en 2005, tanto en términos del número de organizaciones involucradas, [de] dispersión geográfica de estas organizaciones y, lo más importante, [desde] una mayor cooperación entre ellas. Cuando cada organización presentó su trabajo durante la mañana de la reunión global, fue llamativo el enfoque político y organizativo común que compartimos, a pesar de operar en contextos muy diferentes. También quedó claro que, en particular, las organizaciones sudamericanas han experimentado un crecimiento significativo en número e influencia en los últimos años.

[64]

Como medida positiva: en la preparación del Encuentro colaboraron las organizaciones sintetistas y plataformistas suizas y francesas que no siempre tenían buenas relaciones. Pero no todo el mundo se hacía ilusiones. Los problemas organizativos fueron muchos y de lo que más careció el Encuentro fue precisamente de claridad programática:

Otra cuestión muy diferente hubiese sido si, previamente durante tres o dos años, se hubiese preparado y llevado a cabo un debate alrededor de un análisis de coyuntura común, se hubiese impulsado una coordinación y federación real de organizaciones y de luchas, se hubiese avanzado en tener un programa común... podríamos pensar, y tendríamos elementos reales para valorar, que fruto de dicho trabajo en St. Imier o cualquier otro lugar se culminase, y la lógica de dicha culminación no sería un encuentro sino la creación una internacional anarquista.

[65]

En 2014 se firmó un comunicado conjunto del Primero de Mayo entre varias organizaciones: [66] ZACF (Sudáfrica), WSM (Irlanda), OSL (Suiza), Collectife Communiste Libertaire (Bienne, Suiza), FdCA (Italia), WSA (Estados Unidos), Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia) y Prairie Struggle (Estados Unidos). Y meses más tarde, 14 organizaciones de la corriente firmaron otro comunicado de apoyo a la resistencia kurda. [67] Este fue el último comunicado conjunto de esta época.

Los días 18 y 19 de noviembre de 2017 se reunieron en Génova varias organizaciones europeas para intercambiar análisis y para establecer un plan de acción europeo. Se reunieron Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (el nuevo nombre de la veterana organización italiana), Alternative Libertaire (Francia), CGA (Francia), Libertarian Socialist Federation (Gales, Gran Bretaña), OSL (Suiza) y WSM (Irlanda). [68] Embat (Catalunya) envió su saludo al encuentro, y a partir de entonces entró mucho más en contacto con esta corriente.

Para 2020 la Union Communiste Libertaire de Francia hacía un extenso mapeo del movimiento [69]:

En todos aquellos años se fue forjando la tradición de enviarle saludos a cada organización de la corriente que celebrase un congreso. Esto ayudaba a forjar un movimiento internacional y a que toda la militancia tuviese en mente que pertenecía a un movimiento mucho mayor que su propia organización o de sus contextos locales. [70]

Tiempo de reflujo

No todo fueron buenas noticias para la corriente, además de la espinosa cuestión chilena, que pronto veremos, entre 2018 y 2021 se disolvieron WSM [71] y Zabalaza, así como otros grupos locales y regionales en Norteamérica al no lograr relevo generacional. Además, otras organizaciones también entraron en crisis, sin llegar a disolverse, como Motmakt (Noruega), [72] con quien se perdió el contacto. Varias organizaciones europeas desaparecieron (en Dinamarca, Portugal, Chequia o Turquía) o sus movimientos no fueron capaces de lograr estabilidad (Gran Bretaña o Rusia). En América se perdieron las organizaciones de Bolivia y Perú, hubo rupturas en Argentina, Chile y en los Estados Unidos.

Otra ruptura de esta época fue la que sufrió la Anarchist Federation (Gran Bretaña). Esta organización, creada en 1986 como anarco-comunista, ya hacía tiempo que era de síntesis. En 2018 tuvo un conflicto interno y salió de ella un sector que formaría el Anarchist Communist Group (ACG), [73] ya de marcada tendencia comunista libertaria. El ACG vino a suceder a las organizaciones plataformistas británicas que nunca lograron arraigar, como L&S o la LSF. Aun así, quedaron y quedan diversos grupos anarco-comunistas que no se plantean unirse al ACG todavía.

Las causas de estas crisis son diversas. Por ejemplo, se dieron varias situaciones sociales y políticas en varios estados que hacían imposible cultivar las relaciones internacionales. Estas relaciones se veían interrumpidas también en caso de crisis internas y rupturas dentro de las organizaciones. Otro problema para realizar unas relaciones internacionales con solvencia fue el rápido cambio de delegados, teniendo varias organizaciones delegados que no hablaban inglés, mientras que otros compañeros que habían gestionado estas relaciones pasaron a realizar otras funciones dentro de sus organizaciones. Peor lo pasó FdCA, puesto que en solamente cuatro meses de 2018 perdieron a Donato Romito y Monia Andreani, fallecidos. En otros casos se priorizó una construcción más interna, mejorando la inserción a nivel social y territorial, pero relegando a un segundo plano el ámbito internacional. Por último, no poco daño haría el caso de Michael Schmidt y su expulsión de anarkismo.net e ITHA. [74]

El caso chileno

En este punto habría que hablar del movimiento en Chile. Su origen se remonta a 1999, con la celebración del CUAC, iniciando un proceso que daría origen posteriormente a la OCL en 2002. Al año siguiente, se impulsaría un Frente Estudiantil Libertario (FEL) y, en 2006, a partir de la llamada “revuelta de los pingüinos” (estudiantes de secundaria) el FEL crecería exponencialmente. Logró atraerse numerosa militancia y cuando esa generación estudiantil pasó a la universidad llegarían a liderar el movimiento estudiantil, habitualmente controlado por comunistas y autonomistas. Militantes como Felipe Ramírez, Fabián Araneda o Melissa Sepúlveda ocuparon importantes cargos electos en la Federación Estudiantil Chilena (de carácter unitaria y semiinstitucional), que en esos momentos era uno de los movimientos populares más potentes de Chile. De entre sus iniciativas más destacables, su línea gráfica, muy colorista y reconocible, que copiaron y adaptaron muchos colectivos de otros lugares. Llenaron Chile de murales a través de sus unidades muralistas Ernesto Miranda. [75]

Tiempo después todo ese espacio político se fusionó en Izquierda Libertaria. Esta nueva organización adoptó otras líneas estratégicas diferentes al magma comunista libertario que había impulsado el movimiento hasta ese momento, virando hacia un socialismo libertario mucho menos definido, más acorde con el marxismo libertario. A su vez, lograron un tamaño nunca visto para una organización libertaria en estas últimas décadas, rivalizando con otros partidos u organizaciones políticas mucho más asentadas en el panorama chileno.

En ese escenario un sector de los libertarios -que me atrevería a decir que es mayoritario- ha realizado una serie de reflexiones que han ido dando forma a la apuesta política denominada “Ruptura Democrática” en diversos artículos y documentos públicos así como en procesos de discusión internos. A pesar de esto aún existen algunas confusiones respecto a las implicancias de esta apuesta, que buscaremos en cierta medida aclarar con este artículo. [76]

Los sectores comunistas libertarios chilenos comenzaron a apoyar las opciones electorales de izquierda desde 2013. Al principio lo hicieron de forma táctica, sin intervenir en las campañas, pero llamando a votar por una ruptura democrática para derribar el régimen democrático de tipo reaccionario que mandaba en el país. Más tarde, en el proceso electoral de 2018, Izquierda Libertaria se unió al Frente Amplio, que se presentaba a las elecciones parlamentarias. Debido a su participación, la militante libertaria, Gael Yeomans salió elegida como diputada. [77] A partir de entonces IL ha tenido más diputados regionales y nacionales y también senadores. Esos esfuerzos culminaron con un gobierno progresista en el país dirigido por un exlíder estudiantil de tendencia autonomista de la misma época que el FEL, Gabriel Boric. Sin embargo, no ha producido la esperada radicalización de la sociedad para construir alternativas revolucionarias en clave socialista a través del poder popular y del poder constituyente. Chile continúa siendo un estado capitalista – de corte progresista eso sí – sin el menor atisbo de políticas socializadoras.

Como se ve, Izquierda Libertaria [78] había abandonado los postulados comunistas libertarios tradicionales, y fue señalada por los rivales y oponentes a la corriente de dentro del anarquismo como una derivación lógica de todo el anarquismo especifista. Por ello, y por otras causas también, sufrió algunas escisiones,[79] como Solidaridad FCL [80], que a su vez algunas de éstas siguieron el camino parlamentarista, teniendo nuevas escisiones.

A nivel latinoamericano el movimiento especifista tomó distancia de todos estos grupos chilenos hasta que surgió la Federación Anarquista Santiago (FAS) [81] en 2019, de nuevo alineada con el resto del movimiento internacional. Esta FAS, por lo tanto, surge como una ruptura con la impronta que tomó el comunismo libertario chileno, retornando al especifismo latinoamericano.

De la red a la Coordinación

Entre 2015 y 2019 el movimiento vivió un retroceso causado por cuestiones que ya hemos visto anteriormente, provocando divisiones en algunas organizaciones de la corriente, que dificultaban el entendimiento, que fomentaban la desorientación o directamente que desembocaron en la disolución de algunas organizaciones y la destrucción de movimientos enteros, tal como hemos visto.

No todo fueron decepciones, desde luego. Si en 2018 había surgido una organización británica de carácter nacional (la ACG), en 2019 se fundó Die Plattform en Alemania, el estado europeo más grande que hasta el momento había carecido de organizaciones de la corriente.

En las Jornadas Anarquistas de 2019 las organizaciones latinoamericanas hablaban de la necesidad de un relanzamiento de la corriente. [82] En este momento reivindicaban el especifismo o, lo que es lo mismo, el anarquismo políticamente organizado, y pretendían que se afianzara en todas las regiones. Su comunicado definía el rol de la organización política anarquista, que se debería encargar de elaborar la teoría y las herramientas de análisis para conocer la realidad y poder actuar mejor en ella. Hacían hincapié en el trabajo político interno de cada organización para evitar confusionismos y callejones sin salida.

En la inserción se nos va la vida, pero es necesaria junto a ella la Organización Política, ese pequeño motor que empuja al movimiento popular. La Organización Política Anarquista en la concepción especifista no es vanguardista, sino de abnegación militante, con la finalidad de incentivar y orientar un proceso de ruptura revolucionaria con amplia participación del pueblo organizado. Respetando profundamente lo específico de ese nivel. Ese proceso lo hemos llamado Poder Popular, proceso de construcción de los organismos de poder del pueblo con los que se sustituirán las estructuras de poder burgués. Entonces, inserción social y organización política van de la mano y se articulan horizontalmente de un modo muy diferente al que han propuesto y desarrollado todos los vanguardismos de la izquierda hasta el momento, que no han hecho más que limitar el desarrollo de las organizaciones populares e instrumentalizarlas como "aparatos" útiles a sus partidos. Por ello el Anarquismo Especifista habla de Pueblo Fuerte y no de "partido fuerte" como lo han planteado todas las corrientes del marxismo. Propugnamos un Pueblo Fuerte, un pueblo constructor de su destino y de sus instancias y grados de libertad según su experiencia de luchas y desarrollo y avances en el proceso de ruptura.

Fruto de esta iniciativa se comenzaron a poner las bases para un nuevo trabajo internacional. En diciembre de 2019 fue refundada la Coordinación Anarquista de Latinoamérica (CALA), formada entre la CAB (Brasil), [83] la FAR (Argentina) [84] y la FAU (Uruguay). Estas organizaciones fueron un polo articulador de toda la corriente y tomaron el relevo de las europeas, que habían llevado la voz cantante hasta entonces.

“…Estamos convencidos que el Anarquismo debe ser operativo, ágil, estar a tono con las nuevas realidades sociales para enfrentar la crudeza que este despiadado sistema impone a los de abajo. Pero para ello, reiteramos, el Anarquismo debe organizarse políticamente. Es la Organización Política la que permite procesar a los militantes las necesarias discusiones y debates, hacer los pertinentes análisis de coyuntura, definir los planes de acción y desarrollo, afinar la táctica con precisión, pero también diseñar una estrategia finalista y la adecuación de dicha estrategia a cada período de acción, a cada coyuntura…”

[85]

Con la CALA se dinamizó extraordinariamente toda la corriente comunista libertaria internacional, a partir de los notables esfuerzos de Nathaniel Clavijo (Uruguay), que contó con la ayuda de Dimitris Troaditis (ahora desde Melbourne, Australia), Jonathan Payn (ahora desde Estambul), Johnny Rumpf (Berna, Suiza) y Gio (Francia) para rearticular la corriente. Como siempre, los veteranos tiran de los más jóvenes hasta que éstos comprenden el funcionamiento.

En 2020, el año de la Pandemia Global, se pusieron las bases de una coordinación internacional mejor articulada que antes. A partir de entonces las reuniones fueron mucho más estables, al poderse hacer de forma telemática. Las reuniones se celebraban cada mes o dos meses y se fue fraguando una coordinación bastante natural.

La razón de tantas reuniones fue la necesidad de la corriente de publicar comunicados. El primero fue para dar apoyo a la revuelta chilena y exigir la libertad de las personas detenidas en las jornadas de diciembre de 2019. [86] Más tarde se firmaría conjuntamente con ocasión del Primero de Mayo, luego del 28 de Junio día de Stonewall, luego para dar apoyo al pueblo norteamericano tras el asesinato policial de George Floyd, también para el 19 de Julio, contra la represión en Turquía, para el 8 de marzo, para conmemorar el aniversario de Krondstadt, la Comuna de París, sobre la Pandemia, contra la guerra de Ucrania, el genocidio de Gaza y un largo etcétera. En cada ocasión firmaban entre 12 y 25 organizaciones de todo el mundo. Otro de los proyectos fue apoyar a los compañeros anarquistas del Sudán, [87] que necesitaban ayuda económica para abandonar el país. En estos tiempos algunas de aquellas personas están regresando.

Otras iniciativas articuladoras han sido las escuelas y campamentos de verano, que realiza cada organización por su cuenta, como los que organiza Embat o UCL desde 2018 y 2020, respectivamente. En el caso de la primera, en el 2024 contribuyó a organizar el primer encuentro especifista del estado español, junto con las organizaciones Liza (Madrid) y Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries (Catalunya), a la que fueron personas de otros lugares, y de otras organizaciones. De la misma forma, a los campamentos franceses asisten militantes británicos, alemanes, suizos, españoles o italianos, según la ocasión. Die Plattform también ha organizado campamentos de este tipo, mientras que en Australia se celebraba una Escuela Política Anarquista, que ha ayudado a articular la tendencia hasta construirse una federación anarquista allí. Por último, en este verano se celebrará el primer campamento de la ACG británica.

Para el público externo la gestación del anarquismo organizado podría parecer bastante informal. Sin embargo, ha sido un proceso orgánico. Existía una praxis previa que viene desde los años 90. Al principio existe un nivel personal, compuesto por militantes que a veces se reúnen sin mandato de sus organizaciones. Después se da el nivel de reuniones formales de las organizaciones, que son representadas por delegados. El tercer nivel sería el de los grupos de trabajo conjuntos entre militantes de distintos países que sacan adelante proyectos concretos. Es necesario saber leer el proceso y entender los ritmos, que a veces son rápidos y otras lentos. El caso es que a partir de 2020 la dinámica se aceleró.

En definitiva, la Coordinación hacia 2022 estaba compuesta por las siguientes organizaciones:

Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italia
Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – Gran Bretaña
Federación Anarquista – Grecia
Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/Nueva Zelanda
Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brasil
Federación Anarquista de Rosario (FAR) – Argentina
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Suiza
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) – Suiza
Tekosina Anarsist (TA) – Rojava
Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – Francia, Bélgica y Suiza
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia

También participaron unas organizaciones de Turquía como DAF [88] o Karala, que ya están disueltas. En estos casos, estas organizaciones no se definían como comunistas libertarias o anarco-comunistas, sino anarquistas a secas, pero siempre existió entendimiento mutuo. De la misma forma que se ha mantenido siempre relación con Tekosîna Anarsîst, [89] organización compuesta por militantes anarquistas internacionales en Rojava.

En algunas de las primeras reuniones también se tuvo contactos con organizaciones de Irán y de Filipinas, aunque se vio que no compartían las bases fundamentales de la corriente y se desligaron los caminos. De todas formas, a partir de 2020 se constató un crecimiento del número de grupos y militantes por todo el mundo. En algunos países este crecimiento ha dado pie al establecimiento de organizaciones nacionales con varios grupos locales, como en Australia, Alemania o Argentina.

La mayoría de organizaciones en esta época se centraron en aprobar y trabajar sobre sus propios programas, superando el modelo de aquellos grupos anarquistas que solamente tenían una lectura vaga de la realidad y a su militancia solamente la unía los principios, el lejano objetivo del comunismo libertario y poco más.

La Coordinación Internacional del Anarquismo Organizado

El resultado de lo anterior ha sido la construcción formal de la Coordinación a finales de 2024. Esta Coordinación no tiene forma de Internacional propiamente dicha, sino de red. Tiene secciones continentales en Europa, en las Américas, y tal vez a medio plazo se haga algo similar en Asia-Pacífico, pero principalmente se articula a nivel global.

Uno de sus proyectos es la propia web anarkismo.net, que ahora actúa como vocero o portavoz de toda la corriente a nivel internacional.

Desde la época de los comunicados, se ha incorporado una organización surcoreana y la federación Black Rose de Estados Unidos. Hay varias más que aparecen por doquier, creándose un mapa cada vez más complejo y difícil de seguir.

Lo que habría que resaltar es la insistencia de la CALA en una unidad teórica y estratégica de todas las organizaciones de la Coordinación, lo cual ha servido para que casi todas las organizaciones se autoevalúen y lleven a cabo sus debates ideológicos, teóricos y estratégicos dando pie a análisis de coyuntura, programas y líneas políticas. En ese momento varias organizaciones no latinoamericanas pasaron a autodenominarse también especifistas y aparecieron algunas nuevas en otros lugares con esa definición, obviando construcciones más tradicionales en sus regiones.

Respecto a las organizaciones coordinadas en la actualidad, son:

América
Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra – Estados Unidos
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

Europa
Anarchist Communist Group – Gran Bretaña
Die Plattform - Alemania
Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
Midada, Libertär, Sozialistisch, Organisiert - Suiza
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire - Suiza
Union Communiste Libertaire - Francia, Bélgica y Suiza

Oriente Medio
Tekosna Anarsist - Rojava

Asia Pacífico
Anarchist Worker Solidarity Movement – Nueva Zelanda
Anarchist Solidarity / Anarchist Yondae / 아나키스트 연대 – Corea del Sur
Anarchist Communist Federation - Australia:
ACF-Brisbaine - Anarchist Communists Meanjin
ACF-Melbourne - Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
ACF-Geelong - Geelong Anarchist Communists

En estos momentos hay otros grupos y organizaciones comunistas libertarias en Estados Unidos, Canadá, Brasil (a destacar la nueva OSL por su tamaño), Italia, España, Gran Bretaña, Francia, Países Bajos, Alemania, Suecia, Finlandia, Grecia, Chipre, Turquía, Indonesia y Nueva Zelanda, que no pertenecen a la Coordinación Internacional, pero que guardan contacto con una o con varias organizaciones de la corriente, que suman ya varias decenas entre todas. Por supuesto, también forman parte activa de todo el movimiento, ya que la Coordinación no es ni mucho menos todo el movimiento ni lo pretende ser. En todo caso estos cientos (o miles ya) de militantes internacionales construyen una alternativa libertaria sólida que ya se ha situado en el movimiento anarquista general.

Balance

Terminaremos repasando los períodos de la corriente:

La corriente anarco-comunista del anarquismo viene desde sus mismos inicios con la Alianza Internacional por la Democracia Socialista. Se puede seguir su tradición a lo largo de las décadas. Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial esta corriente quedó reducida a muy pocos países. De ellos, Francia, Italia y Uruguay tuvieron los movimientos más destacados y llegaron hasta los años 80 a pesar de todo tipo de dificultades.

En los 80 se crearon varias organizaciones sólidas que durarían bastantes años: OSL (fundada en 1982 en Suiza), WSM (fundada en 1984, Irlanda), FdCA (1986, Italia), Union des Travailleurs Communistes Libertaires (1986, Francia), FAG (1985, Brasil), FAU (reorganizada en 1986, Uruguay), Anarchist Federation (1986, Gran Bretaña, que al comienzo era anarco-comunista). Estas organizaciones mantenían contactos entre sí, pero en el movimiento anarquista predominaban – y con mucho – las corrientes sintetista y anarcosindicalista.

En los años 90 van surgiendo nuevas organizaciones. Alternative Libertaire (1991, Francia; derivada de anteriores organizaciones), FAG (1995) y OSL (1997) en Brasil; OSL (1996), ORA (Rosario) y AUCA (La Plata) en Argentina; CUAC en Chile (1999), entre otras; varios grupos en Estados Unidos y Canadá; ORA (1996, República Checa); WSF (1995, Sudáfrica)… Van tomando relación orgánica, por un lado, en Latinoamérica a través de la FAU y la FAG, por el otro, en Europa a través de Alternative Libertaire, OSL y FdCA, cuyos frentes sindicales se acercan a la CGT-E, y ésta las invita a sus encuentros. En paralelo surge la lista de correo Anarchist Platform, que va poniendo en contacto el plataformismo anglosajón.

En los años 1999-2003 se acelera la articulación de la corriente a través del movimiento de resistencia a la globalización capitalista. Surgen grupos y organizaciones en muchos lugares (demasiados como para enumerarlos aquí), se generan espacios de interrelación como ELAOPA, las Jornadas Anarquistas y la CALA en Latinoamérica y la SIL en Europa, aunque ésta también apoya solidariamente las iniciativas del Sur. Toda la corriente anarco-comunista se expande.

Período 2004-2009. Son años de reflujo de las luchas sociales. Y, sin embargo, la corriente ya mantenía relaciones políticas. Fruto de ello es la creación de anarkismo.net (2005), la firma de declaraciones de solidaridad y los primeros encuentros internacionales. Estalla la crisis económica y financiera global de 2008.

En los años 2010-2014 se produce de nuevo una fuerte expansión y articulación. Se multiplican las iniciativas: se consolida la red anarkismo, se firman nuevas declaraciones, se celebra el encuentro de Saint Imier (2012) y surgen nuevos grupos y organizaciones y el movimiento anarquista llega a nuevos países en los que no tenía presencia en Asia y África.

Período 2015-2019. Otra vez un período de reflujo. Hay algunas organizaciones veteranas que se disuelven, otras entran en crisis y estancamiento, otras se dividen o cambian de línea ideológica. Sin embargo, la inercia anterior sigue produciendo nuevas organizaciones.

Por último, el período que va desde 2020 hasta nuestros días, ha dado pie a una mayor coordinación internacional y a un clima que favorece la creación de nuevas organizaciones, ayudado por la crisis que vivieron otras corrientes del anarquismo. En este momento la corriente comunista libertaria ya no es desconocida. No es grande, desde luego, pero demuestra una apariencia mucho más sólida que otras corrientes del anarquismo.

Bibliografía

Fuentes primarias:

CAB (2012). Princípios e Práticas do Especifismo.

Declaración programática de la Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira. Enlace CAB.

FAU (2003). Huerta Grande: Documento de Organización.

Texto fundacional del especifismo uruguayo. Disponible en: FAU Digital.

FAU (2003). El anarquismo en el movimiento antiglobalización.

SIL (2001). Declaración de Madrid.

Documento fundacional de la red. Disponible en: FDCA Archives.

WSM (2000). The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.

Traducción al inglés de la Plataforma de 1926. Libcom.org.

ZACF (2010). Towards a Fresh Revolution.

Análisis estratégico de la federación sudafricana. Zabalaza.net.

WSM (2001). Report from the Genoa Counter-Summit. Relato de las protestas de Génova. Libcom.org.

Recursos en línea

Manifiesto Comunista Libertario (Fontenis):

Texto completo en español

Archivos de la SIL:

FDCA Historical Documents

La plataforma organizativa para una Unión General de Anarquistas

Archivo Nestor Makhno

Publicaciones

Corrêa, F. (2012). Social Anarchism and Organisation. AK Press.

Correa, F. (2015). Anarquismo social y organización: La propuesta específica. Editorial Eleuterio.

Correa, F. (2022). Elementos de la Teoría y la Estrategia Anarquista [Entrevista por M. Walmsley]. Anarkismo.net.

Fontenis, G. (1954/2013). Manifiesto Comunista Libertario. Edición crítica con prólogo de Frank Mintz. Fundación Anselmo Lorenzo.

García, V. (2017). La Izquierda Libertaria en Chile: De la resistencia a la política institucional. LOM Ediciones.

Gutiérrez, J.A. (2015). El anarquismo en América Latina: La utopía libertaria al sur del río Bravo. Eleuterio.

Lima Rocha, B. (2013). Anarquismo y lucha de clases: Una visión desde América Latina. Revista Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 18(60), 13-28.

Lima Rocha, B. (2017). Militância política e estratégia revolucionária: O caso da Federação Anarquista Gaúcha. En Anarquismo & Educação (pp. 77-94). Editora Fi.

Méndez, N. & Vallota, A. (2018). El anarquismo en América Latina: Redes, prácticas y militancias. CEHIPOL.

Olaizola Albéniz, J. M. (2013). La necesidad de organizarse los anarquistas (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). Especifismo: A construção do poder popular na América Latina. Editora Faísca.

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.

NOTAS

1 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/

2 https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/

3 https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/

4 Comunicación con José María Olaizola, 20/05/2025

5 Esta organización sindical francesa se remonta a 1981 como agrupación de 10 federaciones autónomas y sindicatos nacionales de carácter independiente. Tuvo bastante influencia de las corrientes trotskistas y, en algunos casos puntuales, también libertarias. En los años 90 tenía unos 50-60.000 afiliados.

6 Conocida como CIB Unicobas, es una organización del sindicalismo de base italiano de fenómeno “Cobas” (comités de base). Unicobas se fundó en 1991 y entró rápidamente en contacto con el sindicalismo alternativo. Contaba con 5000 adherentes.

7 Organización anarcosindicalista fundada en Suecia en 1910 bajo el nombre de Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation, En los años 50 fue excluida de la AIT, entrando en conflicto con la CNT española del exilio. Desde entonces existió una rivalidad. Cuando se dividió la CNT española en los años 80, dando lugar a la CGT, esta nueva organización retomó el contacto con el sindicato sueco.

8 La Confédération Romande du Travail (CRT) fue fundada a comienzos de los años 70 por el sindicalismo cristiano. Después algunos años, debido a la influencia de sindicalistas de lucha, cambió de orientación y pasó a formar parte del sector de sindicatos y tendencias de aquella época que intentaron desarrollar un sindicalismo alternativo. Se disolvió en 1996. Su legado de sindicalismo combativo sería recogido más adelante por la SUD del cantón de Vaud.

9 Ídem.

10 En ingrlés, ver “International Libertarian Meeting”. https://web.archive.org/web/20080223130405/http://flag.blackened.net/rev...

En francés, ver Alternative Libertaire, n. 36, octubre de 1995, p.14-15:

https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib...

11 Conversación con Nathaniel Clavijo, 23/05/2025.

12 [Sibersakaya Konfederatsia Truda] Confederación del Trabajo de Siberia (SKT) fue creada en marzo de 1995 por los anarcosindicalistas siberianos, agrupados hasta entonces en una «Confederación de los anarcosindicalistas» que actuó desde 1989 hasta los 2000. Llegó a tener unos 5000 afiliados, según sus cifras.

13 Lucien Van der Walt, “Report on Le Autre Futur” summit Paris. 26/08/2015

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 Trenta anni di vita… 01/11/2016

https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/blog/2016/11/01/1986-2016-30-...

17 https://zabalaza.net/

18 El texto se puede leer en idioma original aquí:

https://www.cabn.libertar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FARJ_-_ANARQUIS...

19 Entrevista a la FdCA por parte de NEFAC, 2003

https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...

20 Contre la globalisation capitaliste!. Alternative Libertaire #96, mai 2001, p. 11

https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib...

21 Se podría encontrar una referencia escrita en la última página del periódico del XVII Congreso de la CGT en A Coruña. 20/10/2013. Juan Pilo indica que el viaje de Mechoso a Europa aceleró los contactos. Entre otros, contactaron con Olaizola, por entonces Secretario General de la CGT.

https://cgt.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diario3.qxd_.pdf

22 Olaizola, 20/05/2025

23 Ver algunos comunicados de la RL en la web de Radio Klara:

https://www.radioklara.org/radioklara/?tag=red-libertaria-apoyo-mutuo

24 Naissance d'un réseau international libertaire. Extrait du numéro de mai d'Alternative Libertaire (France):

https://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00171.html

25 Consulta con José María Olaizola. 18/05/2025

26 Declaration of the International Libertarian Meeting. 31/03/2001

https://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_madrid.htm

27 https://www.instagram.com/fag.cab/

28 Entrevista a la ORA por parte de NEFAC, 2003:

https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...

29 El “magonismo” se considera un tipo de comunismo libertario natural de México. Tiene en cuenta la influencia de los pueblos indígenas y bebe de sus usos y costumbres tradicionales y de sus formas organizativas comunitarias. Estas ideas se popularizaron en los años 90. El concepto “magonismo” viene de Ricardo Flores Magón, uno de los impulsores de la Revolución Mexicana de 1910, que era anarco-comunista.

30 El Consejo Indígena Popular de Oaxaca “Ricardo Flores Magón” estuvo activo entre 1997 y 2006 aproximadamente. Era una coordinación de distintas organizaciones locales indígenas del estado de Oaxaca. A nivel internacional se movió en ambientes libertarios.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_Ind%C3%ADgena_Popular_de_Oaxaca_%2...

31 Las siglas vienen de Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation.

32 https://www.nodo50.org/auca/menu%20que%20es%20auca.html

33 NEFAC viene de North Eastern Anarchist Federation. Unía grupos de Nueva Inglaterra y Quebec. Sus textos se pueden leer aquí:

https://libcom.org/tags/nefac

34 Como ejemplo, las jornadas de 2008 que organizó la CGT en Madrid, "Una crítica libertaria de la actual coyuntura"

https://info.nodo50.org/Jornadas-Una-critica-libertaria-de.html

35 Para más información, leer a José Antonio Gutiérrez, “Reflexiones sobre veinte años anarco-comunismo en Chile”, 24/02/2020.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31737

36 Para ver las fotos del primer encuentro:

https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/fotos.htm

Para ver algunos documentos iniciales del ELAOPA:

https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/forum.htm

37 Encuentro Latinoamericano de Organizaciones Populares Autónomas (ELAOPA) en Santiago de Chile. Rojo y Negro nº 397, febrero 2025.

https://rojoynegro.info/articulo/encuentro-latinoamericano-de-organizaci...

38 Declaración final de las Jornadas Anarquistas 2003:

https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/declaracion-final-de-las-jornada...

39 Listado publicado por Daniel Barret, Los sediciosos despertares de la anarquía. Buenos Aires: Libros de Anarres, 2011. pp. 153-154

40 https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/el-anar...

41 Anarkismo.net. Entrevista a uno de los fundadores

https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jose-anto...

42 Cuando se articuló una red anarco-comunista, las organizaciones anarcosindicalistas, como la CGT, la SAC o la CNT-Vignoles, y sindicalistas de base, como Unicobas o la SUD, se reunieron por su parte en nuevas redes, como la FESAL, la Red Sindical Internacional de Solidaridad y de Luchas o la Coordinadora Rojinegra.

43 Fragmento de la entrevista que le hizo Acción Autónoma de Rusia a la ZACF en 2010. La entrevista se puede leer en:

https://zabalaza.net/2010/12/07/autonomous-action-russia-interviews-the-...

44 http://oclibertaire.free.fr/

45 Nick Heath, actualmente es militante del Anarchist Communist Group. Publica bajo el pseudónimo de BattleScarred.

46 https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/

47 A Ilan le hicieron una extensa entrevista en 2025:

https://alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/57055

48 https://columnalibertaria.blogspot.com/

49 http://www.farj.org/

50 Felipe Corrêa.Entrevista con Mya Walmsey. Elementos de la Teoría y la Estrategia Anarquista. Una entrevista con Felipe Corrêa. marzo 2022.

51 https://avtonom.org/en

52 https://melbacg.au/

53 https://libcom.org/tags/liberty-solidarity

54 Declaración anarco-comunista sobre la crisis económica global y la Reunión del G20, 17/11/2008. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/10681

55 Europe: les communistes libertaires reserrent les liens. 02/03/2010 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Europe-Les-communistes-libert...

Los acuerdos se pueden leer aquí: https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rencontre-europeenne-de-group...

56 https://www.blackrosefed.org/about/

57 La CAB no disolvería las secretarías internacionales de cada organización regional o local de la Coordinadora hasta 2016, participando de forma independiente cada una en las coordinaciones internacionales hasta entonces.

58 Declaración de solidaridad internacional con los 46 activistas detenidos en Zimbabwe. 28/02/2011.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/18895?search_text=declaraci%F3n+intern...

59 Declaración Internacional Libertaria en solidaridad con la lucha popular en Egipto, 25/11/2011

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/21228

60 http://www.iceautogestion.org/index.php/es/

61 WSM takes part in Conference of European Anarkismo organizations in London. 31/03/2011 https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/wsm-conference-european-anarkismo-london...

62 El foro FAO fue precursor de la CAB. Era el espacio en el que se reunían las organizaciones brasileñas para debatir.

63 Jornadas Anarquistas Enero 2011. Sao Paolo. 27/04/2011

https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/jornadas-anarquistas-enero-janei...

64 Delegation returns from International Anarchist Gathering at St Imier. 21/08/2012

https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme...

65 José María Olaizola Albéniz. La necesidad de organizarse los anarquistas (II). Hernani, 27 de Enero de 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 Declaración internacional Libertaria de Solidaridad con la Resistencia Kurda, 22/10/2014

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/27505

68 Noi comunisti anarchici/libertari nella lotta di classe, nell'Europa del capitale, 11/12/2017

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30713

69 El mapa no se ha actualizado, así que sirve para contatar el estado del movimiento comunista libertario en ese año.

70 Tomemos como ejemplo estos mensajes que recibió UCL en 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 Entrevista a la UMLEM, 04/03/2008:

https://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/7092

76 Felipe Ramírez, Una apuesta revolucionaria de la Izquierda Libertaria. 03/11/2013

https://periodico-solidaridad.blogspot.com/2013/11/declaracion-nacional-...

77 Ver https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_Libertaria

78 https://www.instagram.com/izqlibertaria/?hl=es

79 Sobre el quiebre de Izquierda Libertaria, algunos militantes hicieron este comunicado:

https://www.tercerainformacion.es/articulo/internacional/30/03/2017/chil...

80 https://solidaridadfcl.org

81 https://fasanarquista7.wordpress.com/

82 Jornadas Anarquistas 2019, 20/03/2019.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31339

83 https://www.instagram.com/cabanarquista/

84 https://www.instagram.com/far_rosario/

85 Comunicado de lanzamiento de la CALA. 15/12/2019

https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/comunicado-de-lanzamiento-de-la-...

86 Declaración conjunta internacionalista por la libertad de las y los presos politicos de la revuelta social de la región chilena, 12/12/2019

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32109

87 Update on the Campaing for the Sudanese Anarchists. 18/04/2024

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32877?search_text=Sudan

88 https://www.facebook.com/DAFederasyon/

89 https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org/

Foglio telematico di lotta Alternativa Libertaria sui Referendum dell’8-9 Giugno su lavoro e cittadinanza

Clicca qui sotto per scaricarlo:

https://alternativalibertaria.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/foglio-alternativa-libertaria-giugno-2025-scheda.pdf

Esce il numero 35 de Il Cantiere!

In questo numero:

Dal 25 Aprile al Primo Maggio- Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA – pag. 3

“La Guerra” – Le Formiche – Boris Vian- pag. 5

Le contraddizioni del sistema economico capitalistico sono un puzzle irrisolvibile – Cristiano Valente – pag. 7

Se otto ore vi sembran poche – Tommaso Santino – pag.11

Lo Statuto dei Lavoratori – Carmine Valente – pag.14

Lo scontro tra potenze capitaliste e l’accaparramento delle risorse minerarie del Congo – Virgilio Caletti e Lino Roveredo – pag.16

La caccia agli stranieri: la situazione in Francia – Plateforme Communiste Libertaire – pag.19

Un profilo storico dell’anarcosindacalismo in Germania a cura di David Bernardini – L’anarcosindacalismo in Germania – Gerhard Wartemberg – pag. 22

Il totalitarismo nella storia del novecento: la lettura di Gunther Anders – Roberto Manfredini – pag. 25

Barcellona, Maggio 1937: La borghesia e gli stalinisti uccidono la rivoluzione – Fontenis – Berneri- pag. 27

Poesia – L’Angolo delle Brigate – a cura di Rosa Colella – pag. 31

Puoi scaricare il pdf nella sezione “La nostra stampa” del sito!

The Italian Errico Malatesta (1853—1932) was a comrade and friend of Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Calling himself an anarchist-socialist, he was respected and loved by large numbers of anarchists and workers, in Italy and other countries. He was closely watched by the police forces of several nations. He had escaped imprisonment in Italy and lived in various countries in Europe, the Middle East, the U.S.A., and Latin America. Four times he spent time in Britain. This volume has collected works from his longest stay there, from 1900 to 1913, from when he was 48 to 61.

Britain, secure in its wealth and imperial power, was the most open European country in providing asylum to political refugees—so long as they obeyed local laws. As a result, the UK had communities of anarchists and other socialists from all over Europe. There was also an overlapping colony of Italians. Malatesta lived in London, supporting himself by running a small electrician’s shop. Only at one point, in 1912, did the police and courts make a serious effort to expel him. This set off massive demonstrations of British and immigrant workers and outcries from liberal newspapers and politicians. The attempt at expulsion was dropped.

However, Malatesta was frustrated by being penned up in Britain. He made several efforts to produce an anarchist-socialist paper which would circulate in Italy, but with limited success. He participated in anarchist activities in Britain, but his English, while apparently serviceable, was not fluent (when not speaking Italian, he preferred French). This volume includes his translated articles, pamphlets, and written speeches, as well as interviews of him by both bourgeois and radical newspapers. There are also reports by police spies (at least one of whom passed as a close comrade). They faithfully recorded his speeches and private comments and passed them on to their superiors.

In the course of Malatesta’s lengthy sojourn in London, he discussed a number of topics which were important to anarchists then and are still important. He was not an major theorist of political economy or history, but he was brilliant about strategic and tactical issues of the anarchist movement. This makes the study of Malatesta’s collected work valuable even today.

Terrorism

Around the time the book begins, in 1900, an Italian anarchist who had been living in the U.S., went back to Europe and assassinated Humbert, the Italian king. Apparently Malatesta had met the assassin, Bresci, briefly while in Patterson NJ. Otherwise he knew nothing about the affair. However the press continually tried to interview him about it, seeking to tie anarchism to assassination.

Malatesta always opposed indiscriminate mass terrorism (such as throwing bombs into restaurants). Nor did he call for assassination of prominent individuals, whether kings, presidents, or big businesspeople. In general, it did not advance the cause. His approach had become one of building revolutionary anarchist organizations, to participate in mass struggles. However, he was understanding of the motives of individual anarchists driven to assassination—and not sympathetic at all to the rulers and exploiters whom they killed. The Italian king, he noted, had previously ordered soldiers to massacre peasants and workers.

When US President William McKinley was shot dead by Czolgosz, who claimed to be anarchist, Malatesta called the president, “the head of [the] North American oligarchy, the instrument and defender of the great capitalists, the traitor of the Cubans and Filipinos, the man who authorized the massacre of the Hazelton strikers, the tortures of the Idaho miners and the thousand disgraces being committed in the ‘model republic.’” (Malatesta 2023; p. 75) He felt no sorrow for the death of this man, only compassion for the assassin, who “with good or bad strategy,” sacrificed himself for “the cause of freedom and equality.” (p. 75)

However, he did not advocate this as a political strategy. It was more important to win workers to reliance upon themselves rather than kings, bosses, and official leaders. “…Overthrowing monarchy…cannot be accomplished by murder. The Sovereigns who die would only be succeeded by other Sovereigns. We must kill kings in the hearts of the people; we must assassinate toleration of kings in the public conscience; we must shoot loyalty and stab allegiance to tyranny of whatever form wherever it exists.” (p. 59)

In another incident in London, a small group of Russian anarchist exiles was interrupted in the process of robbing a jewelry store. There was a shoot-out with the police (led by Home Secretary Winston Churchill) which ended in the death of some officers and all the robbers. As it happened, one of the thieves had met Malatesta at an anarchist club, and ended up buying a gas tank from him, claiming a benevolent use for it. In fact it was used to break open the jewelry safe.

Malatesta patiently explained to the police and the newspapers that he had no foreknowledge of the robbery. However he wrote that it was unfair to link the robbers’ actions with their anarchist politics. Was a murder in the U.S. blamed on the murderer being a Democrat or Republican? Were thieves’ thievery usually ascribed to their opinions on Free Trade versus Tariffs? Or perhaps their belief in vegetarianism? No, they were essentially regarded as thieves, regardless of their beliefs on politics, economics, or religion. The same should be true for these jewelry thieves, whatever their views on anarchism.

Syndicalism/Trade Unionism

By the last decades of the 19th century, many anarchists had given up on only actions and propaganda by individuals and small groups. These tactics had mainly resulted in isolation and futility. Instead many turned toward mass organizing and the trade unions. Anarchists joined, and worked to organize, labor unions in several countries. (Often these efforts were called “syndicalism,” which is the French for “unionism.”)

There remained anarchists who opposed unions: individualists and anti-organizational communists. But most turned in the pro-union direction. This gave a big boost to the anarchist movement at the time.

Errico Malatesta had long been an advocate of unions. He had contacts with militant unionists throughout Britain and other countries. In London in this period, he directly participated in unionizing waiters and catering staff. He gave support to the struggles of tailors to form a union, which led to a large strike.

“Syndicalism, or more precisely the labor movement…has always found me a resolute, but not blind, advocate.…I see it as a particularly propitious terrain for our revolutionary propaganda and…a point of contact between the masses and ourselves.” (p. 240)

But once it was decided that anarchists should participate in the labor movement, the next question was how should they participate? What should be the relation between anarchist activists and the trade unions? On this question, differences among anarchists were made explicit at the 1907 anarchist conference held in Amsterdam.

At the conference, Malatesta took issue with the views of Pierre Monatte, who spoke for the French syndicalist movement. Malatesta argued, “The conclusion Monatte reached is that syndicalism is a necessary and sufficient means of social revolution. In other words, Monatte declares that syndicalism is sufficient unto itself. And this, in my opinion, is a radically false doctrine.” (p. 240)

The unions had great advantages, as they brought together working people in enterprises, industries, cities, and regions. They included only workers, and not capitalists or management. They had the potential of stopping businesses and whole economies, in the pursuit of working class demands. They were schools of cooperation and joint struggle.

Yet, the unions’ very strengths also pointed to certain weaknesses. They are institutions within capitalist society. They exist (at least in the short term) to win a better deal for the workers under capitalism. Therefore they must compromise with the bosses and the state. Further, they need as many members as possible, to counter the power of the bosses. They cannot just recruit revolutionary anarchists and socialists. They must take in workers of every political, economic, and religious persuasion. (A union which only accepted anarchists would not be much of a threat to the bourgeoisie.)

These and other factors brought constant pressure on unions to be more conservative, corrupt, and bureaucratic. All anarchists recognized these tendencies among officials of political parties, even among liberals or socialists. But the same tendencies existed for union officials.

Malatesta drew certain conclusions. Anarchist-socialists should not dissolve themselves into the unions, becoming good union militants (as he understood Monatte to be saying). Instead, they should build revolutionary anarchist groups to operate inside and outside union structures. Nor should they take union offices which gave them power over people. But they could take positions which were clearly carrying out tasks agreed to by the membership—but with no wages higher than the other workers. They should be the best union militants, always advocating more democratic, less bureaucratic, and more militant policies, while still raising their revolutionary libertarian politics.

“In the union, we must remain anarchists, in the full strength and full breadth of the term. The labor movement for me is only a means—evidently the best among all means that are available to us.” (p. 241)

A central concept of the syndicalists was the goal of a general strike. Malatesta had certain criticisms. Not that he opposed the idea of getting all the workers of a city or country to go on strike at the same time. This could show the enormous power of the working class, if it would use it—much more powerful than electing politicians. But there is no magic in a general strike. The capitalist class has supplies stored away with which they could outlast the workers—starve them out. The state has its police and armed forces to break up the strike organization, arrest the organizers, and forcibly drive the workers back to their jobs.

In brief, Malatesta did not believe in the possibility of a successful nonviolent general strike (this is not considering a one-day “general strike” set by the union bureaucrats for show). He felt that a serious general strike would require occupation of factories and workplaces, arming of the workers, and plans for their military self-defense. It would have to be the beginning of a revolution. (Hence the book’s title.)

However much he criticized aspects of syndicalism, Malatesta was completely opposed to “…the anti-organizationalist anarchists, those who are against participation in the labor struggle, establishment of a party, etc. [By ‘party,’ he means here an organization of anarchists—WP] ….The secret of our success lies in knowing how to reconcile revolutionary action and spirit with everyday practical action; in knowing how to participate in small struggles without losing sight of the great and definitive struggle.” (p. 78)

War and National Self-Determination

This collection of writings by and about Malatesta ends in 1913. Therefore it does not cover his response to World War I which began the next year—nor his break with Kropotkin for supporting the imperialist Allies in the war.

However, in the period covered here, he could see the increase in wars, both between imperialist powers and between imperial states and oppressed peoples. “…Weaker nations are robbed of their independence. The kaiser of Germany urges his troops to give the Chinese no quarter; the British government treats the Boers…as rebels, and burns their farms, hunts down housewives…and re-enacts Spain’s ghastly feats in Cuba; the Sultan [of Turkey] has the Armenians slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands; and the American government massacres the Filipinos, having first cravenly betrayed them.” (p. 33)

He opposed all sides in wars among imperialist governments—as he was to do during World War I. The only solution to such wars was the social revolution.

But Malatesta supported oppressed nations which rebelled against imperial domination. (Some ignorant people believe that it is un-anarchist to support such wars. Yet Malatesta did, as did Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, and many other anarchists—even though they rarely used the term “national self-determination”.) Malatesta wrote, “…True socialism consists of hoping for and provoking, when possible, the subjected people to drive away the invaders, whoever they are.” (p. 58)

This does not mean that anarchist-socialists have to agree with the politics of the rebelling people. Speaking of the Boers, who were fighting the British empire, he wrote without illusions, “The regime they will probably establish will certainly not have our sympathies; their social, political, religious ideas are the antipodes of our own.” (p. 59) Nevertheless, it would be better if they win and British imperialists are defeated. For the people of the imperialist country, “It is not the victory but the defeat of England that will be of use to the English people, that will prepare them for socialism.” (p. 58) (The British won.)

The Italian and Turkish states went to war over north Africa around 1912. Malatesta condemned both sides, but supported the struggle of the Arab population. “I hope that the Arabs rise up and throw both the Turks and the Italians into the sea.” (p. 321)

He understood that “love of birthplace” (p. 328) was typically felt by people, including their roots in the community, their childhood language, their love of local nature, and perhaps their pride in the contributions their people have made to world culture. But this natural sentiment is then misused by the rulers to develop a patriotism which masks class division and exploitation.

The rulers “…turned gentle love of homeland into that feeling of antipathy…toward other peoples which usually goes by the name of patriotism, and which the domestic oppressors in various countries exploit to their advantage. ….We are internationalists…We extend our homeland to the whole world, feel ourselves to be brothers to all human beings, and seek well-being, freedom, and autonomy for every individual and group…..We abhor war…and we champion the fight against the ruling classes.” (p. 329)

As can be seen, to Malatesta, internationalism did not conflict with support for “autonomy for every…group.” This included groups of people who held a common identity as a nation. Anarchists are internationalist, but
unlike the centralism of Lenin, anarchists do not want a homogenous world state. They advocate regionalism, pluralism, and decentralized federations. This particular passage went on to support the Arabs against Italian imperialism. “…It is the Arabs’ revolt against the Italian tyrant that is noble and holy.” (p. 329)

Yet Malatesta may be faulted for his lack of concern about racism. In supporting the Boers, and even when listing their extreme (antipodal) differences with anarchists, he does not mention their exploitation of the indigenous Africans. Nor does he make other references to racial oppression (such as in U.S. segregation). This must be put beside his fervent anti- colonialism and support for the rebellion of oppressed peoples.

Similarly, he does not mention the oppression of women or its intersection with class and national exploitation. It is not at all that he was misogynist (like Proudhon). I am sure he treated Emma Goldman as an equal at the 1907 international anarchist conference. But, like most male radicals of his time, he had a “blind spot” in thinking about this major aspect of overall oppression.

Imperialism, war, national oppression, and national revolt are issues which are still with us. Look at Palestine or Ukraine or the Kurds, among other peoples. These issues will be with us as long as capitalism survives, as Malatesta knew.

Other Topics

Besides terrorism, syndicalism, and national wars, Malatesta covered quite a lot of topics in the course of these thirteen years, as we would expect.

He condemned a French anti-clerical town council which outlawed the wearing by priests of their cassocks within the municipal borders. Malatesta was an opponent of religion and certainly of the Catholic Church. But he did not believe that people would be won from it by means of police coercion. That would only provoke resistance. At most, it would replace the religious priests with secularist ones, “which would all the same preach subjugation to masters….” (p. 68)

Today, the French government forbids Muslim girls and women from wearing headscarfs in schools and other public buildings—in the name of “secular” government. The left and feminists are divided on how to respond. “Oh, when will those who call themselves friends of freedom, decide to desire truly freedom for all!” (p.68)

Unlike Kropotkin, Elisee Reclus or (more recently) Murray Bookchin, there was not much of an ecological dimension to Malatesta. However he was concerned with the way landlords and capitalists had kept Italian agriculture backward. He believed that under anarchy, the peasants would be able to make the barren lands bloom.

By 1913, his experience with state socialists was mainly with the reformist Marxist “democratic socialists” (social democrats). This was four years before the Russian Revolution, which ended in the dictatorship of Lenin’s Bolsheviks and the rise of authoritarian state capitalism.

Yet he was prescient enough to write: “…Depending on the direction in which competing and opposite efforts of men and parties succeed in driving the movement, the coming social revolution could open to humanity the main road to full emancipation, or simply serve to elevate a new layer of the privileged above the masses, leaving unscathed the principle of authority and privilege.” (p. 102) The validity of this anarchist insight (which goes back to Proudhon and Bakunin) has been repeatedly demonstrated.

All the subjects Errico Malatesta discussed in this period had one guiding social philosophy. Quoting the famous lines written by, but not created by, Marx: “…The emancipation of the workers must be conquered by the workers themselves.…Throughout history the oppressed have never achieved anything beyond what they were able to take, push away pimps and philanthropists and politicos, take their own fate in their own hands, and decide to act directly.” (p. 220) This was the principle of Malatesta’s revolutionary anarchist-socialism and remains true today.

References
Malatesta, Errico (2023).  The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900—13.  The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta.  Vol. V.  (Ed.: Davide Turcato; Trans.: Andrea Asali).  Chico CA:  AK Press.

 

This is a discussion, from the viewpoint of revolutionary anarchism, of Leon Trotsky’s Transitional Program, perhaps the central text of Trotskyism. (Trotsky 1977)

There are huge differences between anarchism and Trotskyism, centered on the state. Yet there is also a significant overlap. Both are on the far-left, opposed to Stalinism, in all its hideous varieties, as well as to social-democracy (“democratic socialism”). Both propose the overturn of the existing state and capitalism, by the working class and all oppressed, to be replaced by alternate institutions. There are many varieties of Trotskyism as of anarchism, some more in agreement than others.

Given this overlap, there have been quite a few Trotskyists who have become anarchists, of one sort or another—and anarchists who have become Trotskyists. Personally, I have done both. In high school I became an anarchist-pacifist, and then in college turned to an unorthodox version of Trotskyism. Eventually I became a revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialist. However, I still remain influenced by aspects of unorthodox-dissident Trotskyism (also by libertarian—“ultra left”—Marxism, and other influences.)

This is not a discussion of Trotsky’s earlier years in politics, when he opposed V.I. Lenin’s authoritarian approach (similar to Rosa Luxemburg’s views). Nor of Trotsky’s collaboration with Lenin in leading the Russian Revolution. Following which they created a one-party police state, the foundation for Stalinism. The Transitional Program is from the last period of Trotsky’s life, when he fought against the totalitarian bureaucracy. This was until he was murdered by a Stalinist agent—about a year after the document was written. (For a critical overview of Trotskyism, from a libertarian socialist perspective, see Hobson & Tabor 1988.)

Anarchism and Trotskyism have certain things in common as well as major distinctions. It may be useful to explore these similarities and differences, from the perspective of analyzing Trotsky’s Transitional Program. In my opinion, it is an important historical document of socialism, but remains deeply flawed.

The Program’s Expectations

This document was adopted in 1938, as the founding program of the new “Fourth International” of Trotsky’s followers. Its official title was “The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International.” It became known as the Transitional Program. Mostly written by Trotsky, he held extensive discussions about it beforehand. (Trotsky 1977)

Of course, a work written this long ago, before the upheavals of World War II, must be out of date in various ways. There is a section on the “fascist countries,” although the explicitly fascist regimes are now gone. Another section is on the USSR, a country which no longer exists. One is on “colonial” countries, but the colonial empires of Britain, France, and so on have been mostly destroyed. Yet fascism, Stalinism, and imperialism are still with us.

We can judge the Transitional Program by comparing what it predicted to what actually happened. Trotsky’s program is based on a belief that the world was going through “the death agony of capitalism.” Aside from the Marxist analysis of capitalist decline, empirically there had been the First World War, the Great Depression, a series of revolutions (mostly defeated), the rise of Stalinism, and the rise of fascism. It was widely expected that a Second World War would break out soon—as it did within a year. The state of world capitalism looked pretty dismal.

Trotsky had expected the war to be followed by a return to Depression conditions. So did most bourgeois economists as well as most Marxist theorists. Under such conditions, he believed, there would be continuing revolutionary upheavals throughout the world. The Soviet Union would either be overthrown in a workers’ revolution or would collapse back into capitalism. These developments would give the Trotskyists, although few at first, a chance to out-organize the Stalinists, social democrats, and colonial nationalists, and lead successful socialist revolutions.

In fact, there were upheavals and revolutions following the world war—from the huge wave of union strikes in the United States, to the election of the Labour Party in the U.K., to the big growth of Communist Parties in Italy and France, to the Communist-led revolutions in eastern Europe (Yugoslavia, Albania, and Greece—the last failed) to the independence won by India and the great Chinese revolution, among other Asian revolutions. These were followed by decades of revolutionary struggles throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Despite the Trotskyists’ best intentions, almost all the upheavals and attempted revolutions were led by liberals, social democrats, and“Third World” nationalists—but worst of all was the disastrous misleadership of the Communists. In places where they had a working class base, such as France and Italy, they followed reformist programs. In other countries they channeled popular revolutions into one-party, authoritarian, state-capitalisms (as in Yugoslavia and China, and later Cuba).

This could happen because the “developed” countries did not collapse into a further Depression. Instead they blossomed in a period of prosperity, often referred to as “Capitalism’s Golden Age.” The world war had reorganized international imperialism, with the U.S. now at its center. There had been an expanded arms economy, a concentration of international capital, and a major looting of the environment.

This period of high prosperity (at least for white people in the imperialist countries) lasted until about 1970. The Soviet Union had difficulties after this too, but lasted until about 1990. Then it finally fell back into a traditional capitalist economy.

In discussions before the international conference, Trotsky considered the possibility of a temporary period of prosperity. “The first question is if a conjunctural improvement is probable in the near future….We can theoretically suppose that [a] new upturn…can give a greater, a more solid upturn….It is absolutely not contradictory to our general analysis of a sick, declining capitalism….This theoretical possibility is to a certain degree supported by the military investment….A new upturn will signify that the definite crisis, the definite conflicts, are postponed for some years.” (Trotsky 1977; Pp. 186-7, 189) At one point he even speculated that the U.S. might have “a period of prosperity before its own decline …[for] ten to thirty years.” (p. 164)

In other words, there might be a period of apparent prosperity within the general epoch “of a sick, declining capitalism.” This possibility does not seem to have been taken very seriously by the Trotskyists. In any case, the prosperous period was not brief or brittle, as the Trotskyists expected, but lasted for decades.

In my opinion, Trotsky (and other Marxists and anarchists) were correct to conclude that we are living in the general epoch of capitalist decline. Developments since the 1970s have supported this belief. But he downplayed the probability of the results of the world war creating an extensive period of prosperity within the overall epoch of decline.

In particular, he overlooked the possible effects of the technological and ecological effects of the war and its aftermath. Of course, he could not foresee the nuclear bomb and nuclear power. Also, he did not realize that the massive use of “cheap” petroleum would provide a boost to the capitalist economy. And then its aftereffects would create the ecological disasters of global warming, international pollution, species extinction, and pandemics. These are all signs “of a sick, declining capitalism.”

Few radicals of Trotsky’s generation focused on ecology. This is even though Marx and Engels had considered the negative effects of capitalism on the natural world (as has been examined by John Bellamy Foster and other ecological Marxists). Among anarchists, Kropotkin and Reclus had explored ecological issues. More recently, so has Murray Bookchin, even before the eco-Marxists.

In the current period, conditions of crisis and pre-revolutionary situations may be recurring—economically, politically, and ecologically. These conclusions imply that at least some of Trotsky’s proposals for a revolutionary program may still be useful for anarchists to consider, even as other aspects are rejected.

The Most Oppressed

Perhaps the most libertarian part of the Transitional Program is its insistence on revolutionaries reaching out to the most oppressed and super-exploited layers of the working class. Trotsky is not against better-off unionists, not to mention intellectuals, but he most wants to win the worse-off workers.

During militant struggles, he writes, factory committees may stir workers whom the unions do not reach. “…Such working class layers as the trade union is usually incapable of moving to action. It is precisely from these more oppressed layers that the most self-sacrificing battalions of the revolution will come.” (p. 119) “The Fourth International should seek bases of support among the most exploited layers of the working class, consequently among the women workers.” (p. 151) “The unemployed…the agricultural workers, the ruined and semi-ruined farmers, the oppressed of the cities, women workers, housewives, proletarianized layers of the intelligentsia—all of these will seek unity and leadership.” (P. 136) “Open the road to the youth!” (p. 151) (Elsewhere, in his discussions with U.S. Trotskyists, he criticized them for not reaching Black workers.) Bakunin, who always looked to the most oppressed, could agree!

Councils and Committees

When the working class was in a militant and rebellious temper, Trotsky advocated that revolutionaries advocate the formation of councils and committees—not instead of existing unions but in addition to them. In particular, he called for “factory committees” which would be “elected by all the factory employees.” (p. 118) These would begin to oversee the activities of the bosses and their managers. They would organize regular meetings with each other, regionally, industrially, and nationally—laying the basis for a democratic planned economy. He also writes of “committees elected by small farmers” as well as “committees on prices.” (pp. 126-7)

This focus on democratic committees of workers and others does not (to Trotsky) necessarily contradict a belief in governmental economic action. He is all for “a broad and bold organization of public works.” But this should be done under “direct workers’ management.” (p. 121) Further, “Where military industry is ‘nationalized,’ as in France, the slogan of workers’ control preserves its full strength. The proletariat has as little confidence in the government of the bourgeoisie as in an individual capitalist.” (p. 131) This last sentence is certainly one with which an anarchist would agree!

The Transitional Program considered how a new workers’ revolution in the Soviet Union would change the economy. It would have a “planned economy” but in a democratic form—managed by committees. “[To] factory committees should be returned the right to control production. A democratically organized consumers’ cooperative should control the quality and price of products.” (p. 146)

Anarchists might agree that society should be organized through radically democratic committees. But anarchists would disagree with the notion that all committees should be representative. The Transitional Program does not mention face-to-face direct democracy. Perhaps, in Trotsky’s concept, the workers will gather together in order to elect the factory committee, and then go back to their work stations, waiting for orders from the committee? Anarchists are not against choosing delegates to go to meetings with other committees or to do special jobs. But an association of committees must be based in directly-democratic participatory assemblies, if people are really to control their lives.

A society of democratic committees should culminate in an association of overall councils or “soviets” (Russian word for “council”). “The slogan of soviets, therefore, crowns the program of transitional demands.” (p. 136) Under capitalism, these soviets would be a center of power which would be an alternative to the state—a “dual power.” In the course of a revolution, the soviets would replace the bourgeois state as the center of society. To Trotsky, this would make it the basis of a “workers’ state”—“the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Instead, anarchists work towards the federation of councils and committees, of the workers and all oppressed, federated with all voluntary associations. They would form overall councils (although we probably would not use the term “soviet”!). This federation would be the alternate to capitalism and the state.

The Transitional Program states that the soviets must be pluralistic. “All political currents of the proletariat can struggle for leadership of the soviets on the basis of the widest democracy.” (p. 136) Democracy would include “the struggle of various tendencies and parties within the soviets.” (p. 185) Presumably this would include anarchists as a “political current”or “tendency.”

Trotsky proposed the competition of various parties and tendencies within the soviets, implying that one would eventually win the “struggle for leadership.” He does not mention the possibility of mergers, alliances, and united fronts—as if one tendency could have all the best militants and all the right answers. Yet the October Russian Revolution was carried out by a coalition of Lenin’s Communists, Left Social Revolutionaries (peasant-populists), and anarchists. The first Soviet government was an alliance of the Communists and the Left SRs, supported by the anarchists. It was the Leninists whose policies created the one-party state, and made it a matter of principle.

In the Transitional Program, Trotsky never explains why Lenin and himself established the Soviet Union as a one-party state. In all his writings, he never explained why they made a principle out of it. Within the USSR, the Trotskyists opposed Stalin, bravely going to their deaths, but still advocating a one-party state. It was only in the mid-thirties that Trotsky came out for multi-party soviets.

A federation of soviets and of committees in workplaces and neighborhoods would be able to take care of overall problems, including economic coordination, collective decision-making, settling of disputes, setting up a popular militia to replace the police and army (managed through committees), and so on. But anarchists insist that it would not be a state. A “state” is a bureaucratic, centralized, institution, over the rest of society. Inevitably it would serve a ruling minority. The Trotskyists regard a soviet-council system as the basis of a new (“workers’”) state, once it is led by (their) truly revolutionary party.

This might seem like an argument over phrases. But once accepting that your goal is a “state,” then you are not limited to a radically-democratic council system. Trotsky continued to call the Soviet Union under Stalin a “workers’ state”—if a “degenerated workers’ state.” He fully recognized that the Russian working class (not to speak of the peasant majority) had absolutely no power under Stalin’s bureaucratic dictatorship. Nevertheless, Russia kept “nationalization, collectivization, and monopoly of foreign trade.” (p. 143) That, to Trotsky, is what made Russia still a “workers’ state”—however much “degenerated.” Trotsky advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracy, but meanwhile it had to be defended from capitalism.

To Trotsky then, the key criteria for a state of the working class was not that the “state” was the self-organization of the workers, but that property was nationalized, etc.

Following this logic, the “orthodox” Trotskyist majority regarded the new Communist states after World War II as “deformed workers’ states.” The countries of eastern Europe, China, etc., all had nationalized property and monopolies of foreign trade. So they too were “workers’ states” —just “deformed.” And Cuba and maybe Vietnam were “healthy workers’ states.”

A minority dissented. They regarded the Soviet Union (like its imitations) as a class-divided society, ruled by a collectivized bureaucratic class, which exploited the workers and peasants. Some called it “state capitalism,” others a “new class” system. Anarchists agree overall with this view—but believe the system’s roots lay in Lenin and Trotsky’s policies.

The key question is not so much the analysis of the Soviet Union, a country which no longer exists (replaced by Putin’s Russia). It is: What is meant by socialism (or a “workers’ state” or a society moving toward socialism)? Is socialism defined by nationalization of industry, or by the freedom and self-management of the working people—the anarchist view?

National Self-Determination

Most of the world was (and is) the victims of imperialism. Therefore the Transitional Program expected “colonial or semicolonial countries to use the war in order to cast off the yoke of slavery. Their war will be not imperialist but liberating. It will be the duty of the international proletariat to aid the oppressed nations in their war against the oppressors.” (p. 131)

Historically many anarchists similarly supported wars of oppressed peoples “against the oppressors”: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and many others. (See Price 2022; 2023) But today quite a number do not. They do not accept that imperialism divides the world between imperialist and exploited nations. They reject all wars between states without distinguishing between oppressor and oppressed countries.

This issue has divided anarchists over the Ukrainian-Russian war. Yet to many of us, the situation seems clear: the Ukrainian people are waging a defensive war of national self-determination, while the Russian state is engaged in imperialist aggression. Anarchist-socialists must be on the side of the oppressed, especially when they fight back.

It is possible that another imperialist government—in competition with the one oppressing the rebellious country—might give aid to that country (as the USA is aiding Ukraine). The Transitional Program says that revolutionaries should not give support to that “helpful” imperialist state. “The workers of imperialist countries, however, cannot help an anti-imperialist country through their own government….The proletariat of the imperialist country continues to remain in class opposition to its own government and supports the non-imperialist ‘ally’ through its own methods….” (p. 132)

At the same time, “…the proletariat does not in the slightest degree solidarize…with the bourgeois government of the colonial country….It maintains full political independence….Giving aid in a just and progressive war, the revolutionary proletariat wins the sympathy of the workers in the colonies…and increases its ability to help overthrow the bourgeois government in the colonial country.” (p. 132) This is not nationalism but internationalism. “Our basic slogan remains: Workers of the World Unite!” (p. 133)

In contemporary terms, revolutionaries should be in solidarity with the Ukrainian workers and oppressed people in their military struggle—“giving aid in a just and progressive war.” (Interestingly, several current Trotskyist groupings do not support Ukraine against Russian imperialism, despite their formal belief in “national self-determination.” This says something about the present state of Trotskyism.) Yet revolutionary socialists do not give political support to Biden’s US government nor to the Zelensky Ukrainian government. Our goals are the eventual revolutionary overturn of these states, as well as that of Putin’s Russia. The same approach goes for other anti-imperialist national struggles around the world, most of which are directed against the U.S. and its allies.

[This was written before the latest irruption of the Israeli-Palestinian War. Following the above approach, revolutionary anarchist-socialists should be on the side of the Palestinian people struggling for national self-determination against the Israeli state, while opposing the reactionary politics of Hamas as well as its reactionary and criminal tactics. Again, many Trotskyist groups of today do not follow this approach.]

An anarchist perspective on national self-determination would be in agreement with that of the Transitional Program—with one important difference. Like Trotsky, the anarchists’ ultimate goal of supporting a nation’s struggles is to “overthrow the bourgeois government,” in both the imperialist and oppressed countries. For Trotsky, this is to be followed by establishing “workers’ states.” But anarchists want to replace all bourgeois governments with non-state associations of councils, committees, assemblies, and self-managed organizations.

The Transitional Method

Trotsky objects to the traditional Marxist approach to program, as developed by the social democratic parties (especially in pre-World War I Germany). That approach had two parts: a “maximal” and a “minimal” program. The maximal program was the ultimate goal of socialism. It was raised in speeches at yearly May Day parades. Like the Christian’s hope of heaven, it had little to do with day-to-day living. The minimal program was one of union recognition, better wages and conditions, public services, and democratic rights. These demands were limited to what could be achieved under capitalism.

Trotsky was concerned with the wide gap between the objective crises of capitalism in decay and the consciousness of most workers and oppressed people. He proposed a “bridge” between the crises and workers’ thinking. These demands would offer a “transition” from the old minimal, partial, and democratic demands to socialist revolution.

“This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.” (p. 114)

For example, to deal with the effects of inflation on wages, he proposed “a sliding scale of wages.” All wages, salaries, and public benefits should be attached to the level of prices. Wages would automatically rise when prices rose (judged by committees of working class consumers).

Unemployment should be dealt with through a “sliding scale of hours.” The more unemployment, the shorter hours should be overall, without losses in pay—as in “Thirty Hours Work for Forty Hours Pay.” These are essentially socialist principles: the total amount of wealth produced should be divided among those working and dependents; the total amount of work that needed to be done should be divided among those able to work. The title of one section in the Transitional Program pretty much summarizes the method: “The picket line/defense guards/workers’ militia/the arming of the proletariat”.

Unlike the minimal program of liberal union bureaucrats or of social democratic politicians, transitional demands are not limited to what the capitalists can afford—or say they can afford. The transitional demands start with what people need. If the capitalists are able to pay this (in wages or public services), then they must be forced to do so. If they cannot pay what people need, then they should no longer be allowed to run society for their private benefit. Let the working people take over and run the economy to satisfy everyone’s needs. “‘Realizability’ or ‘unrealizability’ is in the given instance a question of the relationship of forces, which can be decided only by the struggle.” (p. 116)

The revolutionary implications of this method were clearer in a period of severe economic crisis, when basic needs could not be met for most working people. This was the case in the depths of the Great Depression. But in a period such as the 1950s post-war boom, there was an even greater gap between immediate, limited, demands and the need for revolution. A large proportion of white workers and newly middle class people were living better than ever before (in the U.S., and then in other imperialist countries). The underlying threats (of nuclear extermination or ecological destruction) could be downplayed. The transitional method had less usefulness.

Now the post-war prosperity is over. With periodic ups and downs, world capitalism has overall been stagnating and declining. Wars are continuing and ownership of nuclear bombs is spreading. Despite efforts by climate reformists to find ways of limiting the damage, global warming is crashing through the veneer of capitalist stability. Something like the Transitional Program—or at least the method of transitional demands—is needed more than ever.

Along with Trotsky’s demands, there needs to be a program of ecological transitional demands: democratic ecological-economic planning; worker’s control/management of industry to transition to non-polluting, green, useful production; expropriation of the oil-gas-coal corporations; socialization of the energy industry under workers’ and community control; public subsidizing of ecologically-balanced consumer coops and producer coops; support for organic farms in the country and in towns and cities; etc., etc.

Revolutionary Organizations

The “Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International” was written as a program for a specific organization, intended to be an international revolutionary party. It was hoped that this body, beginning small, would replace the Second (Socialist) International and the Third (Communist) International (or “Comintern”). And thereby save the world.

It begins: “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.” (pp. 111)

The fundamental crisis of decaying capitalism periodically inspires the mass of the working class to rebel. This shows the possibility of successful revolutions. But, during the preceding non-revolutionary periods, the leaderships of the main workers’ parties and unions have “developed powerful tendencies toward compromise with the bourgeois-democratic regime.” (p. 117-8) The anarcho-syndicalist unions were included in this. As a result, the unions and parties (which the workers had previously come to trust) hold back the revolution. They lead the people to defeat.

“In all countries…the multimillioned masses again and again enter the road of revolution. But each time they are blocked by their own conservative bureaucratic machines.” (p. 112)

This generalization was most observable during the revolutionary years after World War I, up to the rebellions following World War II. During the post-war prosperity, there was less likelihood of the “multimillioned masses” becoming revolutionary. Therefore, even the best revolutionary party (or federation) would have had difficulty overcoming bureaucratic “tendencies toward compromise.”

Yet there were revolutions and almost-revolutions. As mentioned, there were upheavals in poorer Southern countries, including the Vietnam war of national liberation, the Cuban revolution, and the South African struggle against apartheid. In eastern Europe there were attempted revolutions, such as the 1953 East Berlin workers’ revolt and the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Western Europe had the almost-revolution of France’s May-June 1968, among others. In all these cases, a revolutionary leadership might have made a difference (perhaps preventing the victory of Stalinism in Vietnam and Cuba).

Among anarchists, many have also advocated revolutionary organization. This includes Bakunin’s Brotherhood, the St. Imier anarchist continuation of the First International, the syndicalists’ “militant minority,” the views of Errico Malatesta, the Platform of Makhno, Arshinov, and others, the Spanish FAI, and Latin American especifismo.

These conceptions agree only somewhat with Trotsky’s perspective of a political organization, composed of revolutionaries who are in general agreement. An anarchist grouping does seek to coordinate activity, to develop theories and practice, and to influence bigger organizations and movements (such as unions, community associations, anti-war movements, etc.). They try to win the workers and others from the influence of their political opponents, including reformists and Stalinists.

Trotsky sought to build a centralized (“democratic centralist”) Leninist party internationally. While supposedly democratic, the International and the national parties would be managed from the top down. Anarchists have proposed organizations which are internally democratic and organized in a federal fashion. And, unlike political parties, no matter how radical, their aim would not be to take power, to rule over the councils and committees. They want to inspire, organize, and urge the oppressed and exploited to free themselves.

Anarchism and Trotskyism

In the Transitional Program, Trotsky mentions anarchism (or anarcho-syndicalism) only a few times. In France, he points out that the union federation once organized by anarcho-syndicalists had turned into a business union (and had supported World War I). During the 1936-9 Spanish Civil War, the leaders of the anarchist federation—and the union federation they led—had betrayed the revolution by joining the capitalist government. From the viewpoint of revolutionary anarchism, his criticisms in these situations are legitimate.

Trotsky lumps the anarchists overall with the social democrats and Stalinists as “parties of petty-bourgeois democracy…incapable of creating a government of workers and farmers, that is, a government independent of the bourgeoisie.” (p. 134)

If the term “government” is used as a synonym for “state,” then anarchists have had no interest in creating any kind of “government.” However, the word could be used to mean democratic coordination of popular councils and workers’ organizations. This is what the Friends of Durruti Group advocated during the Spanish Civil War. In that sense, the question is whether anarchists can lead in organizing society “independent[ly] of the bourgeoisie.”

Trotsky ignores the revolutionary anarchists who denounced the French and Spanish union officials for betraying the program and principles of libertarian socialism. It is such anarchists, eco-socialists, syndicalists, internationalists, anti-state communists, and true revolutionaries on whom an up-to-date revolutionary program depends.

The Transitional Program has virtues and insights, which have been pointed out here. The “method of transitional demands” remains valuable—even more valuable now than in the recent past. The vision of a federation of councils, committees, and assemblies is important, if we leave out Trotsky’s conception of a centralized “workers’ state.” To anarchists, the Transitional Program remains as an important document in the history of socialism, but one which still has serious flaws.

References

Hobson, Christopher Z., & Tabor, Ronald D. (1988). Trotskyism and the Dilemma of Socialism. NY: Greenwood Press.
Price, Wayne (2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666 search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774
Trotsky, Leon (1977). The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution. (Eds.: George Breitman & Fred Stanton.) NY: Pathfinder Press.
Includes: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. Pp. 109—152.
Discussions with Trotsky. Pp. 73—108.
Preconference Discussions. Pp. 153—199.

*written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review (UK virtual journal)

Michael Lowy and Oliver Besancenot, two Marxists from the Trotskyist tradition, have made an effort to discuss possible convergences and interactions between Marxism and anarchism. (The little book has been well translated from the French by David Campbell, an anarchist who did most of the work while in jail in New York City.)

At first it might seem absurd to seek overlaps between these two schools of socialism. Anarchism stands for freedom and self-management, but in spite of some achievements its movement has failed to successfully create anarchism in any country. Meanwhile whatever Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels originally intended, Marxism became the ideology of repressive, mass-murdering, state-capitalisms (that is, Stalinism). Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, authoritarian Marxist governments persist in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and especially in the great nation of China. Marxism and anarchism would seem to have little in common. Yet we live in the looming catastrophes of industrial capitalism. People are drawn to its radical alternatives. In this context, it is the failures of each which has drawn some anarchists and Marxists to dialogue, to learn the strengths of the alternate trend. (Although, for all their failures, anarchists never murdered tens of millions of workers, peasants, and others.)

Along with anarchism’s vision of freedom, there is a rising interest in Marxism, particularly in its analysis of how capitalism works and what might be done to end it. Some radicals focus on the humanistic, working class, and ecological aspects of Marx’s Marxism, rather than its statist, centralist, and determinist aspects. This looks to libertarian-democratic and “ultra-left” trends in Marxism, such as William Morris, the council communists, Luxemburgists, autonomists, the Johnson-Forrest Tendency, Socialisme ou Barbarie, and unorthodox and dissident Trotskyists. Unlike Stalinism, these trends in Marxism might be partners in a dialogue with revolutionary anarchists. (See Price 2017.)

Che

The authors claim to be libertarian Marxists, in opposition to both Stalinism and to social democracy (reformist “democratic socialism”). They want to see what they can learn from anarchism—and what revolutionary anarchism can learn from their view of Marxism. I am all for a Marxist-anarchist dialogue and have written some material seeking to advance it (e.g., Price 2022).

A lot depends on what one means by “Marxism” (as well as “anarchism”). The authors are admirers of Che Guevara. They have written books about him and his “revolutionary legacy” (Lowy 2007; Besancenot & Lowy 2009). In the text, they claim that the struggle of the Mexican Zapatistas show “traces of the revolutionary ethic that lead directly back to Che.” (p. 76) They do not note that the founders of the Zapatistas had abandoned the elitist guerrilla strategy of Che. They further declare that “Marx’s writings…form the political basis of the revolutionary humanism of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara.” (p. 124)

Actually Che Guevara was an admirer of Joseph Stalin. Che played a major role in turning the Cuban revolution into a one-party, one-man, dictatorship, with a state-capitalist economy, allied with Soviet Russian imperialism. Within the upper circles of the Castroite regime, Che was a strong proponent of increasing centralization and of repression of the workers. He sincerely sought to spread the revolution (as he understood the revolution), but his efforts were failures both in Africa and in Bolivia. While he wrote some high-falutin’ philosophical language about socialism, his actual conception was of a totalitarian society. (See Price 2016.)

It may seem unfair to point to the authors’ admiration of Guevara, which is only briefly referred to twice in the text. Yet it is difficult to integrate anarchism with advocacy of a Stalinist-type dictatorship, however well-meaning you might be. (Of course, many of the Trotskyist groupings have been admirers of Fidel Castro and Che; but these don’t advocate “solidarity” with anarchism.) Besancenot and Lowy may misinterpret Che as a “revolutionary humanist,” but how can they ignore his support of the Cuban dictatorship? And then seek a dialogue with anarchism?

Positive Aspects of the Book

And yet, despite this confusing contradiction, some of this book is worthwhile. Besancenot and Lowy are concerned to show “another side of history…that of the alliances and active solidarity between anarchists and Marxists.” (p. 1)

They have brief sections on events in revolutionary history when anarchists and Marxists worked together. This includes the First International, in which anarchists cooperated with Marx for years—until Marx organized the expulsion of Michael Bakunin and forced a split with the anarchists. They cover the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs of 1886. These were anarchists who came out of a Marxist background and who still used the Marxist analysis of capitalism.

They briefly cover the development of anarcho-syndicalism, which shared a revolutionary working class orientation with Marxism. They discuss the Spanish Revolution of the thirties. That revolution was betrayed by most of the Marxist and anarchist leaders, both of which joined the capitalist government together with liberal parties. Their partner, the Communist Party, tried to set up a totalitarian state. A minority of revolutionary anarchists and Marxists did try to advance the revolution, but were overwhelmed. There are brief sections (they can hardly be called “chapters”) on the May-June ’68 almost-revolution in France, on the international demonstrations against “globalization,” and on the Occupy movement.

The little book also has nine brief biographical sections on significant revolutionaries. This includes the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg. She had little use for anarchism, but her vision of revolutionary socialist democracy-from-below was compatible with anarchism. Similarly, they discuss Buenaventura Durruti. As an anarchist, he played an important role in the Spanish Revolution. He had little use for Marxism but has been respected by Marxists. The same may be said of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman. In Russia, she originally supported the Revolution and was willing to work with the Leninists—until their authoritarianism drove her into opposition.

Their little biographies include “A Few Libertarian Marxist Thinkers.” Of the three they cite, the most interesting may be Daniel Guerin. His books on anarchism are widely read. In France during World War II, he cooperated with the Trotskyist underground. Working with syndicalists, anarchists, and Trotskyists, he was a prominent opponent of French imperialism in Algeria and an early Gay liberationist. Admiring J.P. Proudhon and Bakunin, but also Luxemburg, he sought a “synthesis” of revolutionary anarchism and libertarian Marxism. (See Guerin 2017)

The Russian Revolution

The part covering the 1917 Russian Revolution is titled, “Points of Conflict,” including a section, “The Split Between Red and Black.” This is where the book’s difficulties show most clearly.

“Initially, there was a convergence between many anarchists—not only Russian but also from around the world—and the Marxist revolutionaries. Soon after, the convergence had become a dramatic clash between the two.…” (p. 80)

The “October” (Soviet) Revolution was organized by the Communists in alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (peasant-populists) and with anarchists. The initial government was a coalition of the Communists and Left SRs, generally supported by anarchists in the soviets. (“Soviet” means “council.” It originally referred to the popularly elected councils which were rooted in factory committees, village assemblies, and military units.)

But by 1920, the Leninists had banned all alternate parties, including those which had fought on their side in the Russian Civil War. These included the Left SRs and the Left Mensheviks. Anarchists were arrested, jailed, and shot. Not long after, even opposition caucuses in the one legal party were outlawed.

Essentially, the writers favor the rule of the soviets, supported by the revolutionary parties including the Communists—but criticize what happened instead: the rule of the Communist Party, with supposed support by the soviets. This went together with economic changes, “prioritizing centralized nationalization over the local collectivization of the means of production….” (p. 87) They mildly comment, “This choice, like so many others, is questionable.” (same) This is quite the understatement.

Despite this (soft) criticism of the Leninists, Besancenot and Lowy insist that the problem does not lie with Marx. “It is pointless, however, to seek a manufacturing defect in Marxism…on the question of whether to abolish the state immediately or not.” (p. 87) Similarly, they oppose “…drawing a connection between the Lenin years and the Stalin years.” (p. 89) Granted that Marx would have been horrified by what Stalin made out of Marxism—and that V.I. Lenin was no Stalin. Lenin did not aim for a totalitarian state, nor want one. This was unlike Mao Tse-tung, say, who already had Stalinist Russia as a model and goal—as did Che and Fidel.

Yet it is a bit much to deny that Marx’s strategy of working through the state was not a cause of Lenin’s building a party-state, one which laid the basis for Stalinist state-capitalism. And, like Marx, Lenin believed that he and his party knew the truth better than anyone else. This justified the one-party party-state. Believing that his party—and only his party—knew the full truth—and since only his party spoke for the proletariat—Lenin felt justified in suppressing all other points of view, including the anarchists.

In 1921, the sailors at the Kronstadt naval base rebelled. The Kronstadt fortress overlooked the capitol at Petrograd. Influenced by anarchists, the rebels demanded an end to the political monopoly of the Communists, recognition of other left political tendencies, and free elections to the soviets, as well as economic reforms. Emma Goldman urged negotiation with the rebels. Instead, the Communists crushed them militarily, and then shot the captured sailors in batches. To anarchists this was a counterrevolutionary crime. It was comparable to the 1956 crushing of the Hungarian revolution.

The two authors regard this opinion as “one-sided.” “In our view, the conflict between Kronstadt and the Bolshevik government was…a tragic and fraternal confrontation between two revolutionary currents. The responsibility for this tragedy is shared, but falls primarily on those who held power.” (p. 95) “The crushing of the sailors of Kronstadt was not a ‘tragic necessity,’ but an error and a wrong.” (p. 97)

In other words, the anarchist-influenced rebel sailors are partially to blame (they dared to demand socialist democracy) even if the “primary” fault lies with the Communist regime (which chose to massacre the sailors). This choice was a bad mistake, not a counterrevolutionary crime (no one is perfect). Still, both sides were “revolutionary currents.”

It has been argued that the Russian Communists dared not permit several political tendencies to compete in free elections. Given the poverty and destruction which followed World War I and the Civil War, the workers and peasants were unhappy with the Communists. They would likely have voted them out, supposedly with disastrous consequences. The authors quote the Trotskyist (and ex-anarchist) Victor Serge: “If the Bolshevik dictatorship fell, it was only a short step to chaos, and through chaos to a peasant uprising, the massacre of the Communists…and, in the end…another dictatorship, this time anti-proletarian.” (p. 97) They agree with this view. “A Bolshevik defeat would have opened the path to counterrevolution.” (same)

Whether this is true or not, the Bolshevik victory opened the path to (internal) counterrevolution. The one-party Communist dictatorship (assuming it ever was a “proletarian dictatorship”) led to the “anti-proletarian” dictatorship of Stalin and the Stalinist bureaucracy. Along with the super-exploitation of the workers and peasants, it engaged in “the massacre of the Communists” in the purge trials of the ‘thirties—not to mention the massacre of millions of workers and peasants. Somewhat contradicting themselves, Lowy and Besancenot agree. For “the apparatchiks in the Kremlin…the crushing of the marines at Kronstadt was a service…to their ascension to power, a power that from then on could not be contested.” (p. 100) A somewhat similar view is given of the Ukrainian independent revolutionary army organized by the anarchist Nestor Makhno—allied with, and then betrayed by, the Communists.

Policy Issues

The final part of the book is titled “Policy Issues.” It covers more theoretical, strategic, and programmatic topics. Its first section is on the “Individual and [the] Collective.” The authors declare, “the anarchist movement has held the flag of individual emancipation much higher than the Marxist family.” (p. 122)

They then go on to criticize the anarchists for being too much individualistic. They cite Max Stirner, the early-19th century German philosopher of extreme egoist-individualism. Actually Stirner had no influence in the development of anarchist theory or movement, so citing him is irrelevant. Even so, the authors admit, “he foresaw the threat that the specter of the state could potentially hang over the project of individual rights in Germany.” (p. 123) They note that Guerin referred positively to Stirner. As a gay man, Guerin liked Stirner’s opposition to moralism and puritanism, without accepting his extreme individualism.

Similarly, the writers claim that “the old tenets of anarchism [are] poorly suited to such a level of overarching political organization” as was needed in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. (p. 103) Actually the anarchist-led Makhnovist movement did a good job of organizing in the Ukraine, in the brief time allowed it. This was despite the need to fight off the Austrian, Polish, Ukrainian nationalist, White counterrevolutionary, and Russian Communist armies.

In any case, Michael Bakunin, among the first revolutionary anarchist-socialists, had a view of liberated individuality as social, productive, and interactive. (So did Marx, especially expressed in his earliest writings.) They summarize, “If it is essential to ‘re-individualize’ the communist project, it is just as necessary to ‘collectivize’ anarchist ideas.” (p. 125) They believe “a revolutionary humanist path remains open,” which they think (bizarrely) is exemplified by “Che Guevara”! (same)

Besancenot and Lowy have a section titled “Making Revolution without Taking Power?” In effect they argue that it is wrong for a revolution to establish a new state (to take state power) but necessary to establish the self-organization of the workers and oppressed (to empower the people). Their examples are the 1871 Paris Commune and the early soviets. They call the Commune “a new form of power that was no longer a state, in the conventional sense, but was nonetheless a government, democratically elected….” (p. 131) Without quibbling over terms (Kropotkin sometimes made the same distinction between “state” and “government”), anarchists can mostly agree, I think.

In a section on “Autonomy and Federalism,” the writers say that their vision of “Communism…intends to entrust as many powers as possible to the base and foster local initiatives.” (p. 132) This is the anarchist conception of decentralized federalism. “From the idea of federalism developed by the anarchists, we can retain the focus on power to the base and voluntary solidarity between collectives.” (p. 135)

There is a section on “Democratic Economic Planning and Self-Management.” Their proposal ”does not correspond in the least to what is often described as ‘central economic planning,’ for the economic and social decisions are not made by any kind of ‘center,’ but determined democratically by the populations concerned.” (p. 139) Like Michael Albert’s “participatory economy” or “Parecon,” their “democratic socialist economic planning…[includes] opposition to the capitalist market and to bureaucratic economic planning, confidence in workers’ self-organization, and anti-authoritarianism.” (p. 140) However, they have some valid criticisms of the Parecon program. They also give credit to Anton Pannekoek of the “council communists”/ libertarian Marxists “for opting for the socialization of the means of production under the control of the producers themselves, rather than for their nationalization from above.” (p. 150)

The theme of decentralist federalism is continued in “Direct and Representative Democracy.” In this section, the authors recognize that anarchists and Marxists have had important differences on these topics. But they claim that “some significant convergences can still be found. For example, both are favorable to forms of direct democracy in social struggles: general assemblies, self-organized strikes and pickets, etc.” (p. 142)

This may be true. But it covers-over an important difference. Anarchists can accept election of delegates to higher federal councils, but they insist that the base assemblies must have face-to-face direct democracy. Marx and Engels, even in their most radically democratic writings (for example, on the Paris Commune) advocated an extremely democratic form of representative democracy. They had no conception of basing this in face-to-face direct democracy. This is the anarchist tradition.

There is also a very brief discussion of whether revolutionary socialists should run and/or vote in bourgeois elections. They accept the view of both traditions that socialism cannot be achieved through elections. However, they still believe that it may be useful to run and vote, for various reasons. “Our point of view in this debate is closer to the Marxist tradition” than to the anarchist tradition of anti-electoralism. (p. 143) They do not mention that council communists and other “ultra-left” libertarian Marxists have been opposed to participation in elections. Anarchists would argue that history has demonstrated the failures of an electoralist/parliamentary strategy.

In “Union and Party,” Besancenot and Lowy summarize the lessons of the Russian Revolution and other revolutions and near-revolutions. They argue that the struggle needs radical parties and organizations (including anarchist federations) as well as mass organizations, such as labor unions and also popular councils. Parties are formed on agreements about particular programs. They are necessary to fight for a revolutionary program against reformists, liberals, conservatives, and fascists (for these will certainly have their parties). There is a historical tendency among anarchists of revolutionary federations. This includes Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” Makhno and others’ advocacy of the “Platform,” the Spanish FAI, and the current especifismo of Latin Americans.

The mass organizations provide “the framework of regular and sovereign general assemblies, open to all workers who want to mobilize…[in] the natural organ of the struggle….They can also…elect delegates, also dismissible, to participate in a coordination where the delegates from different assemblies meet to unify their activities….The power to make decisions belongs to the base…. This democratic option for organization prefigures today the way society could function tomorrow.” (p. 151)

A number of important topics are not covered in this book. These include feminism and the dominance of straight males. Also issues of white supremacy and racism, colonialism, imperialism, and national self-determination. Economic developments of world capitalism are not discussed. The writers themselves mention that they have not covered education of children, nor the vital issue of opposing fascism.

But there is consideration of the very important topic of environmentalism. This is in the section, “Ecosocialism and Anarchist Ecology.” The authors base much of their ecosocialism on the anarchist writings of Murray Bookchin, although they note that Bookchin also used concepts from Marx. Bookchin analyzed capitalist commodification, competition, and, above all, its drive to accumulate, as destroying the ecology. Bookchin wrote about the need for a new, noncapitalist, society, decentralized and directly democratic, with a liberatory transformation of technology. “…We can only admire Murray Bookchin’s coherence and clear-sightedness.” (p. 154)

They make some criticisms of Bookchin. They deny his view that there is a “post-scarcity” world. While agreeing with Bookchin on the need for economic, technological, and political decentralization, they insist on federalist coordination and planning on regional, continental, and world levels. Considering their proletarian perspective, it is odd that they do not express disagreement with Bookchin’s rejection of the major role of the working class in a revolution. Also, surprisingly, there is no reference to research about ecological themes in Marx’s works by ecological Marxist theorists. This includes John Bellamy Foster and others. (See Foster 2009.)

Revolutionary Conclusion

Besancenot and Lowy conclude with “Toward a Libertarian Marxism.” They state that “Our point of departure…is Marxism.” (p. 158) That is where they come from. They do not believe that there can be a final definition of “libertarian Marxism.” They do believe that “Marxists have much to learn from…the anarchists.” (p. 158)

Their aim, they declare, is not to create a better Marxism, with tips from anarchism. (Similarly, my goal is not to replace anarchism with a nicer version of Marxism.) Instead, “The future emancipatory battles of our century will also see this convergence, in both action and thought, of the two great revolutionary currents of the past, of the present, and of the future—Marxism and anarchism, the red flag and the black flag.” (p. 159)

The basis of this convergence is that both revolutionary class-struggle anarchism and libertarian (autonomist) Marxism share a goal. This is an international revolution by the working class and its allies among all oppressed—to overthrow the state, capitalism, and all oppressions, and to replace them with the self-organization of the workers and oppressed.

The issue is not an immediate merger of anarchism and Marxism. This is especially true when there is so much variation within each school. As I pointed out in the beginning, Lowy and Besancenot and many others see an authoritarian such as Che Guevara as within their “libertarian” version of Marxism. They may find the Communist suppression of the Kronstadt rebels as justifiable, or perhaps a tragic if understandable error. Such views must limit their dialogue with anarchism. As a revolutionary anarchist, I still find matters of interest in this book. But its limitations are also real.

References

Besancenot, Oliver, & Lowy, Michael (2009). Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Foster, John Bellamy (2009). The Ecological Revolution; Making Peace with the Planet. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Guerin, Daniel (2017). For a Libertarian Communism. (Ed.: David Berry; Trans.: Mitchell Abidor) Oakland CA: PM Press.

Lowy, Michael (2007). The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare. Rowman and Littlefield.

Lowy, Michael, & Besancenot, Oliver (2023; originally in French, 2014). Revolutionary Affinities: Toward a Marxist-Anarchist Solidarity. (Trans.: David Campbell). Oakland CA: PM Press.

Price, Wayne (2016). “The Authoritarian Vision of Che Guevara; Review of Samuel Farber, The Politics of Che Guevara”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29795
search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2017). “What is Libertarian Socialism? An Anarchist-Marxist Dialogue; Review of A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (Eds.). Libertarian Socialism; Politics in Black and Red”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30411?search_text=Wayne

Price, Wayne (2022). “An Anarchist Guide to The Communist Manifesto of Marx & Engels.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32578?search_text=Wayne

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

Michael Lowy and Oliver Besancenot, two Marxists from the Trotskyist tradition, have made an effort to discuss possible convergences and interactions between Marxism and anarchism. (The little book has been well translated from the French by David Campbell, an anarchist who did most of the work while in jail in New York City.)

At first it might seem absurd to seek overlaps between these two schools of socialism. Anarchism stands for freedom and self-management, but in spite of some achievements its movement has failed to successfully create anarchism in any country. Meanwhile whatever Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels originally intended, Marxism became the ideology of repressive, mass-murdering, state-capitalisms (that is, Stalinism). Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, authoritarian Marxist governments persist in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and especially in the great nation of China. Marxism and anarchism would seem to have little in common. Yet we live in the looming catastrophes of industrial capitalism. People are drawn to its radical alternatives. In this context, it is the failures of each which has drawn some anarchists and Marxists to dialogue, to learn the strengths of the alternate trend. (Although, for all their failures, anarchists never murdered tens of millions of workers, peasants, and others.)

Along with anarchism’s vision of freedom, there is a rising interest in Marxism, particularly in its analysis of how capitalism works and what might be done to end it. Some radicals focus on the humanistic, working class, and ecological aspects of Marx’s Marxism, rather than its statist, centralist, and determinist aspects. This looks to libertarian-democratic and “ultra-left” trends in Marxism, such as William Morris, the council communists, Luxemburgists, autonomists, the Johnson-Forrest Tendency, Socialisme ou Barbarie, and unorthodox and dissident Trotskyists. Unlike Stalinism, these trends in Marxism might be partners in a dialogue with revolutionary anarchists. (See Price 2017.)

Che

The authors claim to be libertarian Marxists, in opposition to both Stalinism and to social democracy (reformist “democratic socialism”). They want to see what they can learn from anarchism—and what revolutionary anarchism can learn from their view of Marxism. I am all for a Marxist-anarchist dialogue and have written some material seeking to advance it (e.g., Price 2022).

A lot depends on what one means by “Marxism” (as well as “anarchism”). The authors are admirers of Che Guevara. They have written books about him and his “revolutionary legacy” (Lowy 2007; Besancenot & Lowy 2009). In the text, they claim that the struggle of the Mexican Zapatistas show “traces of the revolutionary ethic that lead directly back to Che.” (p. 76) They do not note that the founders of the Zapatistas had abandoned the elitist guerrilla strategy of Che. They further declare that “Marx’s writings…form the political basis of the revolutionary humanism of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara.” (p. 124)

Actually Che Guevara was an admirer of Joseph Stalin. Che played a major role in turning the Cuban revolution into a one-party, one-man, dictatorship, with a state-capitalist economy, allied with Soviet Russian imperialism. Within the upper circles of the Castroite regime, Che was a strong proponent of increasing centralization and of repression of the workers. He sincerely sought to spread the revolution (as he understood the revolution), but his efforts were failures both in Africa and in Bolivia. While he wrote some high-falutin’ philosophical language about socialism, his actual conception was of a totalitarian society. (See Price 2016.)

It may seem unfair to point to the authors’ admiration of Guevara, which is only briefly referred to twice in the text. Yet it is difficult to integrate anarchism with advocacy of a Stalinist-type dictatorship, however well-meaning you might be. (Of course, many of the Trotskyist groupings have been admirers of Fidel Castro and Che; but these don’t advocate “solidarity” with anarchism.) Besancenot and Lowy may misinterpret Che as a “revolutionary humanist,” but how can they ignore his support of the Cuban dictatorship? And then seek a dialogue with anarchism?

Positive Aspects of the Book

And yet, despite this confusing contradiction, some of this book is worthwhile. Besancenot and Lowy are concerned to show “another side of history…that of the alliances and active solidarity between anarchists and Marxists.” (p. 1)

They have brief sections on events in revolutionary history when anarchists and Marxists worked together. This includes the First International, in which anarchists cooperated with Marx for years—until Marx organized the expulsion of Michael Bakunin and forced a split with the anarchists. They cover the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs of 1886. These were anarchists who came out of a Marxist background and who still used the Marxist analysis of capitalism.

They briefly cover the development of anarcho-syndicalism, which shared a revolutionary working class orientation with Marxism. They discuss the Spanish Revolution of the thirties. That revolution was betrayed by most of the Marxist and anarchist leaders, both of which joined the capitalist government together with liberal parties. Their partner, the Communist Party, tried to set up a totalitarian state. A minority of revolutionary anarchists and Marxists did try to advance the revolution, but were overwhelmed. There are brief sections (they can hardly be called “chapters”) on the May-June ’68 almost-revolution in France, on the international demonstrations against “globalization,” and on the Occupy movement.

The little book also has nine brief biographical sections on significant revolutionaries. This includes the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg. She had little use for anarchism, but her vision of revolutionary socialist democracy-from-below was compatible with anarchism. Similarly, they discuss Buenaventura Durruti. As an anarchist, he played an important role in the Spanish Revolution. He had little use for Marxism but has been respected by Marxists. The same may be said of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman. In Russia, she originally supported the Revolution and was willing to work with the Leninists—until their authoritarianism drove her into opposition.

Their little biographies include “A Few Libertarian Marxist Thinkers.” Of the three they cite, the most interesting may be Daniel Guerin. His books on anarchism are widely read. In France during World War II, he cooperated with the Trotskyist underground. Working with syndicalists, anarchists, and Trotskyists, he was a prominent opponent of French imperialism in Algeria and an early Gay liberationist. Admiring J.P. Proudhon and Bakunin, but also Luxemburg, he sought a “synthesis” of revolutionary anarchism and libertarian Marxism. (See Guerin 2017)

The Russian Revolution

The part covering the 1917 Russian Revolution is titled, “Points of Conflict,” including a section, “The Split Between Red and Black.” This is where the book’s difficulties show most clearly.

“Initially, there was a convergence between many anarchists—not only Russian but also from around the world—and the Marxist revolutionaries. Soon after, the convergence had become a dramatic clash between the two.…” (p. 80)

The “October” (Soviet) Revolution was organized by the Communists in alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (peasant-populists) and with anarchists. The initial government was a coalition of the Communists and Left SRs, generally supported by anarchists in the soviets. (“Soviet” means “council.” It originally referred to the popularly elected councils which were rooted in factory committees, village assemblies, and military units.)

But by 1920, the Leninists had banned all alternate parties, including those which had fought on their side in the Russian Civil War. These included the Left SRs and the Left Mensheviks. Anarchists were arrested, jailed, and shot. Not long after, even opposition caucuses in the one legal party were outlawed.

Essentially, the writers favor the rule of the soviets, supported by the revolutionary parties including the Communists—but criticize what happened instead: the rule of the Communist Party, with supposed support by the soviets. This went together with economic changes, “prioritizing centralized nationalization over the local collectivization of the means of production….” (p. 87) They mildly comment, “This choice, like so many others, is questionable.” (same) This is quite the understatement.

Despite this (soft) criticism of the Leninists, Besancenot and Lowy insist that the problem does not lie with Marx. “It is pointless, however, to seek a manufacturing defect in Marxism…on the question of whether to abolish the state immediately or not.” (p. 87) Similarly, they oppose “…drawing a connection between the Lenin years and the Stalin years.” (p. 89) Granted that Marx would have been horrified by what Stalin made out of Marxism—and that V.I. Lenin was no Stalin. Lenin did not aim for a totalitarian state, nor want one. This was unlike Mao Tse-tung, say, who already had Stalinist Russia as a model and goal—as did Che and Fidel.

Yet it is a bit much to deny that Marx’s strategy of working through the state was not a cause of Lenin’s building a party-state, one which laid the basis for Stalinist state-capitalism. And, like Marx, Lenin believed that he and his party knew the truth better than anyone else. This justified the one-party party-state. Believing that his party—and only his party—knew the full truth—and since only his party spoke for the proletariat—Lenin felt justified in suppressing all other points of view, including the anarchists.

In 1921, the sailors at the Kronstadt naval base rebelled. The Kronstadt fortress overlooked the capitol at Petrograd. Influenced by anarchists, the rebels demanded an end to the political monopoly of the Communists, recognition of other left political tendencies, and free elections to the soviets, as well as economic reforms. Emma Goldman urged negotiation with the rebels. Instead, the Communists crushed them militarily, and then shot the captured sailors in batches. To anarchists this was a counterrevolutionary crime. It was comparable to the 1956 crushing of the Hungarian revolution.

The two authors regard this opinion as “one-sided.” “In our view, the conflict between Kronstadt and the Bolshevik government was…a tragic and fraternal confrontation between two revolutionary currents. The responsibility for this tragedy is shared, but falls primarily on those who held power.” (p. 95) “The crushing of the sailors of Kronstadt was not a ‘tragic necessity,’ but an error and a wrong.” (p. 97)

In other words, the anarchist-influenced rebel sailors are partially to blame (they dared to demand socialist democracy) even if the “primary” fault lies with the Communist regime (which chose to massacre the sailors). This choice was a bad mistake, not a counterrevolutionary crime (no one is perfect). Still, both sides were “revolutionary currents.”

It has been argued that the Russian Communists dared not permit several political tendencies to compete in free elections. Given the poverty and destruction which followed World War I and the Civil War, the workers and peasants were unhappy with the Communists. They would likely have voted them out, supposedly with disastrous consequences. The authors quote the Trotskyist (and ex-anarchist) Victor Serge: “If the Bolshevik dictatorship fell, it was only a short step to chaos, and through chaos to a peasant uprising, the massacre of the Communists…and, in the end…another dictatorship, this time anti-proletarian.” (p. 97) They agree with this view. “A Bolshevik defeat would have opened the path to counterrevolution.” (same)

Whether this is true or not, the Bolshevik victory opened the path to (internal) counterrevolution. The one-party Communist dictatorship (assuming it ever was a “proletarian dictatorship”) led to the “anti-proletarian” dictatorship of Stalin and the Stalinist bureaucracy. Along with the super-exploitation of the workers and peasants, it engaged in “the massacre of the Communists” in the purge trials of the ‘thirties—not to mention the massacre of millions of workers and peasants. Somewhat contradicting themselves, Lowy and Besancenot agree. For “the apparatchiks in the Kremlin…the crushing of the marines at Kronstadt was a service…to their ascension to power, a power that from then on could not be contested.” (p. 100) A somewhat similar view is given of the Ukrainian independent revolutionary army organized by the anarchist Nestor Makhno—allied with, and then betrayed by, the Communists.

Policy Issues

The final part of the book is titled “Policy Issues.” It covers more theoretical, strategic, and programmatic topics. Its first section is on the “Individual and [the] Collective.” The authors declare, “the anarchist movement has held the flag of individual emancipation much higher than the Marxist family.” (p. 122)

They then go on to criticize the anarchists for being too much individualistic. They cite Max Stirner, the early-19th century German philosopher of extreme egoist-individualism. Actually Stirner had no influence in the development of anarchist theory or movement, so citing him is irrelevant. Even so, the authors admit, “he foresaw the threat that the specter of the state could potentially hang over the project of individual rights in Germany.” (p. 123) They note that Guerin referred positively to Stirner. As a gay man, Guerin liked Stirner’s opposition to moralism and puritanism, without accepting his extreme individualism.

Similarly, the writers claim that “the old tenets of anarchism [are] poorly suited to such a level of overarching political organization” as was needed in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. (p. 103) Actually the anarchist-led Makhnovist movement did a good job of organizing in the Ukraine, in the brief time allowed it. This was despite the need to fight off the Austrian, Polish, Ukrainian nationalist, White counterrevolutionary, and Russian Communist armies.

In any case, Michael Bakunin, among the first revolutionary anarchist-socialists, had a view of liberated individuality as social, productive, and interactive. (So did Marx, especially expressed in his earliest writings.) They summarize, “If it is essential to ‘re-individualize’ the communist project, it is just as necessary to ‘collectivize’ anarchist ideas.” (p. 125) They believe “a revolutionary humanist path remains open,” which they think (bizarrely) is exemplified by “Che Guevara”! (same)

Besancenot and Lowy have a section titled “Making Revolution without Taking Power?” In effect they argue that it is wrong for a revolution to establish a new state (to take state power) but necessary to establish the self-organization of the workers and oppressed (to empower the people). Their examples are the 1871 Paris Commune and the early soviets. They call the Commune “a new form of power that was no longer a state, in the conventional sense, but was nonetheless a government, democratically elected….” (p. 131) Without quibbling over terms (Kropotkin sometimes made the same distinction between “state” and “government”), anarchists can mostly agree, I think.

In a section on “Autonomy and Federalism,” the writers say that their vision of “Communism…intends to entrust as many powers as possible to the base and foster local initiatives.” (p. 132) This is the anarchist conception of decentralized federalism. “From the idea of federalism developed by the anarchists, we can retain the focus on power to the base and voluntary solidarity between collectives.” (p. 135)

There is a section on “Democratic Economic Planning and Self-Management.” Their proposal ”does not correspond in the least to what is often described as ‘central economic planning,’ for the economic and social decisions are not made by any kind of ‘center,’ but determined democratically by the populations concerned.” (p. 139) Like Michael Albert’s “participatory economy” or “Parecon,” their “democratic socialist economic planning…[includes] opposition to the capitalist market and to bureaucratic economic planning, confidence in workers’ self-organization, and anti-authoritarianism.” (p. 140) However, they have some valid criticisms of the Parecon program. They also give credit to Anton Pannekoek of the “council communists”/ libertarian Marxists “for opting for the socialization of the means of production under the control of the producers themselves, rather than for their nationalization from above.” (p. 150)

The theme of decentralist federalism is continued in “Direct and Representative Democracy.” In this section, the authors recognize that anarchists and Marxists have had important differences on these topics. But they claim that “some significant convergences can still be found. For example, both are favorable to forms of direct democracy in social struggles: general assemblies, self-organized strikes and pickets, etc.” (p. 142)

This may be true. But it covers-over an important difference. Anarchists can accept election of delegates to higher federal councils, but they insist that the base assemblies must have face-to-face direct democracy. Marx and Engels, even in their most radically democratic writings (for example, on the Paris Commune) advocated an extremely democratic form of representative democracy. They had no conception of basing this in face-to-face direct democracy. This is the anarchist tradition.

There is also a very brief discussion of whether revolutionary socialists should run and/or vote in bourgeois elections. They accept the view of both traditions that socialism cannot be achieved through elections. However, they still believe that it may be useful to run and vote, for various reasons. “Our point of view in this debate is closer to the Marxist tradition” than to the anarchist tradition of anti-electoralism. (p. 143) They do not mention that council communists and other “ultra-left” libertarian Marxists have been opposed to participation in elections. Anarchists would argue that history has demonstrated the failures of an electoralist/parliamentary strategy.

In “Union and Party,” Besancenot and Lowy summarize the lessons of the Russian Revolution and other revolutions and near-revolutions. They argue that the struggle needs radical parties and organizations (including anarchist federations) as well as mass organizations, such as labor unions and also popular councils. Parties are formed on agreements about particular programs. They are necessary to fight for a revolutionary program against reformists, liberals, conservatives, and fascists (for these will certainly have their parties). There is a historical tendency among anarchists of revolutionary federations. This includes Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” Makhno and others’ advocacy of the “Platform,” the Spanish FAI, and the current especifismo of Latin Americans.

The mass organizations provide “the framework of regular and sovereign general assemblies, open to all workers who want to mobilize…[in] the natural organ of the struggle….They can also…elect delegates, also dismissible, to participate in a coordination where the delegates from different assemblies meet to unify their activities….The power to make decisions belongs to the base…. This democratic option for organization prefigures today the way society could function tomorrow.” (p. 151)

A number of important topics are not covered in this book. These include feminism and the dominance of straight males. Also issues of white supremacy and racism, colonialism, imperialism, and national self-determination. Economic developments of world capitalism are not discussed. The writers themselves mention that they have not covered education of children, nor the vital issue of opposing fascism.

But there is consideration of the very important topic of environmentalism. This is in the section, “Ecosocialism and Anarchist Ecology.” The authors base much of their ecosocialism on the anarchist writings of Murray Bookchin, although they note that Bookchin also used concepts from Marx. Bookchin analyzed capitalist commodification, competition, and, above all, its drive to accumulate, as destroying the ecology. Bookchin wrote about the need for a new, noncapitalist, society, decentralized and directly democratic, with a liberatory transformation of technology. “…We can only admire Murray Bookchin’s coherence and clear-sightedness.” (p. 154)

They make some criticisms of Bookchin. They deny his view that there is a “post-scarcity” world. While agreeing with Bookchin on the need for economic, technological, and political decentralization, they insist on federalist coordination and planning on regional, continental, and world levels. Considering their proletarian perspective, it is odd that they do not express disagreement with Bookchin’s rejection of the major role of the working class in a revolution. Also, surprisingly, there is no reference to research about ecological themes in Marx’s works by ecological Marxist theorists. This includes John Bellamy Foster and others. (See Foster 2009.)

Revolutionary Conclusion

Besancenot and Lowy conclude with “Toward a Libertarian Marxism.” They state that “Our point of departure…is Marxism.” (p. 158) That is where they come from. They do not believe that there can be a final definition of “libertarian Marxism.” They do believe that “Marxists have much to learn from…the anarchists.” (p. 158)

Their aim, they declare, is not to create a better Marxism, with tips from anarchism. (Similarly, my goal is not to replace anarchism with a nicer version of Marxism.) Instead, “The future emancipatory battles of our century will also see this convergence, in both action and thought, of the two great revolutionary currents of the past, of the present, and of the future—Marxism and anarchism, the red flag and the black flag.” (p. 159)

The basis of this convergence is that both revolutionary class-struggle anarchism and libertarian (autonomist) Marxism share a goal. This is an international revolution by the working class and its allies among all oppressed—to overthrow the state, capitalism, and all oppressions, and to replace them with the self-organization of the workers and oppressed.

The issue is not an immediate merger of anarchism and Marxism. This is especially true when there is so much variation within each school. As I pointed out in the beginning, Lowy and Besancenot and many others see an authoritarian such as Che Guevara as within their “libertarian” version of Marxism. They may find the Communist suppression of the Kronstadt rebels as justifiable, or perhaps a tragic if understandable error. Such views must limit their dialogue with anarchism. As a revolutionary anarchist, I still find matters of interest in this book. But its limitations are also real.

References

Besancenot, Oliver, & Lowy, Michael (2009). Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Foster, John Bellamy (2009). The Ecological Revolution; Making Peace with the Planet. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Guerin, Daniel (2017). For a Libertarian Communism. (Ed.: David Berry; Trans.: Mitchell Abidor) Oakland CA: PM Press.

Lowy, Michael (2007). The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare. Rowman and Littlefield.

Lowy, Michael, & Besancenot, Oliver (2023; originally in French, 2014). Revolutionary Affinities: Toward a Marxist-Anarchist Solidarity. (Trans.: David Campbell). Oakland CA: PM Press.

Price, Wayne (2016). “The Authoritarian Vision of Che Guevara; Review of Samuel Farber, The Politics of Che Guevara”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29795
search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2017). “What is Libertarian Socialism? An Anarchist-Marxist Dialogue; Review of A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (Eds.). Libertarian Socialism; Politics in Black and Red”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30411?search_text=Wayne

Price, Wayne (2022). “An Anarchist Guide to The Communist Manifesto of Marx & Engels.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32578?search_text=Wayne

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

1 – We have seen statements about the work of TA outside of the battlefield, from medical support to education. This second one is of great interest to us, could you please clarify a bit on how you proceed with educational campaigns, not only amongst yourselves but also with local communities? Are there any lessons you wish to share about the role (and process) of revolutionary education? How do you see pedagogy as not only a tool, but also a space within the struggles you must face?

Education is what builds the foundations of a new society. It is often our best tool to defend ourselves and our communities. The kurdish liberation movement values education a lot, and this also brought us to reflect on our approach. In rojava it is a common practice to join educations of several months, where militants from different places have no other work than learn and develop. This is not a new practice from rojava, the kurdish movement has been working on their educational methods for decades. Joining some of those educations, we also noticed how much our understanding of education is connected to school, university and other state systems. And how much we should develop our own educational programs, shaped by our own political views and values. In this, the pedagogy of the oppressed of Paulo Freire can give very important perspectives.

Revolutionary education can be everything we do, if we learn from it in an organized way. Closed educations allow us to work deeper on one topic, like learning about the philosophy and political views of Abdullah Ocalan, study the proposals of Makhno or Malatesta about organized anarchism and the different attempts to put it in practice, or learn about first aid and medical care during war situations. But this also has to come with practice, which is often the best education, like when we work in society with our kurdish, arab and other comrades, when we build our organization day to day, or when we work as combat medics in the front lines. Theory brings knowledge and helps to build understanding and confidence, but is practical work what builds our experience.

Some knowledge we carry with us, is scarce here, and is important to collectivize it. We have been running educations of first aid and tactical field care to kurdish, arab and armenian comrades. We also shared our knowledge and experiences among ourselves, sometimes in short seminar formats sometimes in longer closed educations. This helped us to build our capacities and a common frame as organization, practically as well as ideologically. With time, our methods and systems of education are getting more adapted to our needs, reflecting not only of what we want to teach and learn but also how we want to do it. For some comrades it is helpful to read or listen a seminar for several ours, for others is better to do things and learn on practice. We try to keep this in mind but also challenge ourselves, like by encouraging comrades that are more familiar with academic areas to work on the ground, and push for ideological development and theoretical works with those more oriented to field work.

2- In previous statements you have discussed the need for revolutionaries to disengage from individualistic, selfish mindsets, as well as issues of ego when dealing with comrades and organization. How have you within TA managed to deal with such mindsets? We recognize this view, where anarchism and revolutionary struggle continuously straddle a difficult line between lifestyle and commodity, not allowing us to build meaningful relations on the march to liberation. Are there any lessons or warnings from your own activities that can be parted?

That is a very difficult question, because it is one of the main challenges we face. Anarchism has always discussed the contradictions between individual militants and the need revolutionary organizations. We are working to balance those points, because we see very important arguments to be made on both sides. As many anarchists before us, we reached the conclusion that organization is a necessity, not as an aim in itself but as a means to an end. We don’t accept unnecessary hierarchies and we value the individuality of our militants, often referring to the idea that “there is no organization without militants, there is no militant without organization”. With this we also want to point out the importance of individual responsibility towards the organization, as well as collective responsibility of the organization towards the individuals.

Becoming a militant of a revolutionary organization comes with individual and collective contradictions. The main aspects of our personalities have been shaped by the societies we have grown up in. Life in capitalist modernity relies on individualization. In school, in the work place, in the media we consume, we are told that individual freedom is everything that matters. “Your freedom ends where the freedom of other starts” is often the main idea running our societies. It denies collective belonging and it promotes individualist mindset and values. Is therefore no surprise that individualist anarchism manage to thrive in those capitalist societies we come from, because it connects with those individualist values that liberalism promotes. We want to challenge that. We believe our only way out is solidarity and mutual aid, and for this we have to challenge the deeply rooted individualism that we all carry with us.

Individualism can take many forms. Some are more obvious, like selfishness, elitism, or narcissism; but more subtle forms can take more time to notice, like refusing help when needed, not sharing information or knowledge with comrades, not listening or considering others proposals and ideas. We all have traces of individualism, and they are often connected with our ego and the image we have and we project of ourselves. Overcoming this requires that we are able to evaluate ourselves and others as well as our ways of relating. Criticism and self-criticism go hand in hand, we need to be able to acknowledge our shortcomings to meaningfully engage with the shortcomings of others. Admitting to ourselves that there is a difference between how we perceive ourselves/how we want to be perceived and how other perceive us can be painful. However acknowledging that gap opens the door for us to develop. Everyone has this gap, for some it is wider, for some it is more narrow, and to challenge it can create space to grow and learn. Keeping this in mind, we can build better relations that are founded in honesty and trust.

Trust is scarce in our societies. It is much easier to learn to suspect, to be afraid of your neighbor, to step on your co-workers to get upper hand and get a better piece of the cake. Capitalism relies on competition, and lying and selling yourself, on the society of spectacle. There is no place for honesty and trust in a system that is based on performance, on appearance of what you are not, on faking it and believing that one day you will make it. To be honest and transparent with our comrades necessitates vulnerability. We had been told to hide those things, to not let others see our weak points, to present ourself as the all-capable person that can do anything that is needed. All those individualist traits play against us, specially in difficult moments when stress and hardships reveal the things we try to hide.

We have been working on these issues by putting into practice tools like tekmil and platform, which we learned from the kurdish movement. We also explored other methods, and lately we have been deepening our knowledge on conflict resolution, with restorative circles and transformative justice. Transformative justice provides a good approach, connected to our ideological values and oriented towards topics like responsibility and accountability, that should always be the base of our organizing. We learned that organization is a struggle in itself, and that contradictions, conflicts and challenges will always arise in our organizing. In absence of hierarchical structures, how we take decisions and how we solve conflicts is a very important part of our organizing.

3- Maybe related to above, how is inter-personal conflict resolved at large in NES? We have seen several abstract perspectives, but little of actual accounts on the processes of justice and equity, how are such issues dealth with? Do the several autonomous groups have the freedom to deal with them “in-house”? Are all conflict resolutions centralized?

There are currently two justice systems at play in NES. One similar to state justice and one more based on communitarian justice. The communitarian system consists of peasant consensus committees and local councils that are often composed of religious leaders and community elders. These encourage people to take responsibility and agency over their own problems. However this system is not working so well, unfortunately. Because of this many conflicts are still settled through the state-like legal justice system that is half inherited from the Al-Assad regime and half reorganized by the Autonomous Administration. It is an awkward mix that works with the tools at hand in a difficult situation. The union of lawyers played an important role, as well as the effort to write the “social contract” of AANES, some kind of constitution that is revisited every few years in discussions with different political and social organizations.

The reasons that lead the Autonomous Administration to put more efforts to reorganize the general legal system instead of promoting the communitarian justice councils is not so clear to us. We suggest you talk to justice committee of the AANES directly, they will be better able to answer that. Besides these, there are also the women’s autonomous structures such as the women’s houses (mala jin) and women’s law. These have played and are playing an important role in addressing problems around gender as well as finding solutions around family conflict concerning women (marriage, divorce, abuse, etc.).

Councils, committees, communes, and autonomous organizations have some degree of freedom to deal with conflict “in-house”. How exactly it is approached and if people involve the state-like legal system depends on the nature and size of the conflict as well as the people and groups involved. With crimes that have big social impact, like brutal murders or organized treason (giving intelligence to Turkey that is used to assassinate revolutionaries, helping ISIS to plan and carry out attacks), there have been popular trials. Those trials gather different representatives of the social community, especially those more affected by the crime judged, and function as popular jury to decide the penalty.

For our organization and for organizations in europe we think it is important we come to understand the value of transformative justice, and that we build capacity to start offering alternatives to the legal ‘justice’ system, which is a racist ableist punitive lie and deeply connected to nation-state power. The topic on transformative justice has been on the table in leftist circles in europe for a while. We see it is slowly moving into a more practical phase now. Let us start with small practical adjustments, once we start gaining some experiences from the daily life, we can and should supplement them with some reading/study/theory. Conflict resolution cannot be learned from books, its fundaments can only be learned in practice, books will be very helpful to improve us but only if we are already putting it in practice. We will have to make many mistakes, and that is fine. We have a lot to unlearn from the state imposed systems of ‘justice’. We are making an imperfect start by using tools like tekmil, restorative circles and autonomous women’s structures to build on this.

4- What is the current status of art and self-expression within rojava? Has there been the chance and space for people to be able to perform, create, or show artistic creation? How is such received? How has the changing facets of the conflict affected it?

Tevgera Çand û Hûner (Tev-çand, the organization of art and culture) is a coordination of all the art and culture centers, present in every city. Most of those centers have different groups, like dance, music, theater, cinema, paint, literature, sculpture, etc. They mainly promote art connected to kurdish culture, language and identity. Every ethnic group is encouraged to promote its own traditional art and culture while also making space for other forms of art outside folkloric tradition. Tev-çand has a political approach to art, seeing it as a vehicle to share and spread the values of the revolution. A couple of successful examples are Hunergeha Welat - with their youtube channel publishing new songs and videoclips made in rojava - or the Komina Film a Rojava - the cinema commune that produced several movies, shorts, clips. Komina Film a Rojava recently published a series about rojava called “Evina Kurd” (kurdish love).

The local groups often perform in local celebrations, festive days and other cultural events. In the last years some of those groups and artists are gaining experience and getting more professional, and we start to see their art in different theaters, expositions and events. Art is seen as popular and cultural wealth, and there is no process of commodification around it. Theater, cinema and music are performed and shared for free, and we have never seen any cultural event with entrance fee. This is part of the political approach on ethics and aesthetics that is promoted. To keep it short, we can simply point the efforts to connect aesthetics to political and ethical revolutionary values. This approach challenges the standards of beauty that capitalist modernity tries to impose, seeing art as a vehicle of expression of the people, of the society and its values. A lot of art is connected to the resistance against ISIS and turkish fascism, with special focus on women’s resistances and YPJ, but also about the historical roots and struggles of the kurdish people.

In that approach to art we can see a shift that the revolution brought, that maybe started even before rojava. Kurdish cinema from the 20th century is often tragic, about the massacres and the exile that kurdish people suffered. Dengbêj, a traditional music/poetry, is also infused with stories of destroyed villages, murdered families and orphaned children. It is in this new century that kurdish art has started to reflect a new image. One not so focused on kurds just as victims of inhumane tragedies, but also as actors of change. The songs of YPG and YPJ defeating ISIS or the guerrillas fighting in the mountains, the new movies of the resistance in Sur or in Kobane, the big celebrations of NewRoz (kurdish new year) are examples of a rebirth of the kurdish people and their will to resist. They are not just a people whose faith is suffering, they are a stateless nation whose land has been occupied and whose villages burned down. They learned from other anticolonial struggles and from revolutionary movements of national liberation and they will take their destiny in their hands. They will defend their land and their culture, building a future for next generations, with weapons but also with music, with dance, with cinema.

5- What is TA’s view on the role of religion, and how has it affected their capacity to connect and relate to local communities? Have there been challenges, or chanegs in attitude of the militants? In the west we struggle to separate anti-clericalism from base islamophobia nad eurocentrism, what lessons have you gained from your insertion in Kurdish and Arab societies?

Religion is not the problem for us when it is connected to the people and ethics, it is a problem when religion is connected to power and rule. It is this wielding of authority that we are against, as you also touching with anti-clericalism. Some anarchists came here with atheist backgrounds, and when asked about our religion is easy for us to answer we have no religion. But this answer is often understood as if we have no ethics, and also made us reflect how most of us, even if not practitioners, had been raised in a christian culture.

We agree with you that we in the west can do a bad job at separating anti-clericalism from islamophobia and eurocentrism. The society we are in is overwhelmingly muslim (with small minorities of other belief), nearly everyone has belief in the Quran, even if not everyone describes themselves as practicing muslims. This reality grounds our work with people here. We should understand the importance religion holds to the people and local comrades. Knowing a little, or a lot, about islam is very helpful when we discuss with local comrades. Arguing from religion for a revolutionary perspective is a tactic that has proven successful. It is necessary to respect peoples religious conviction, but at the same time we also critique or question comrades when this leads them to take actions that are not in line with the revolutionary values in NES. There are efforts to build a democratic islam, looking at the ethical side of islamic religion and not so much at the Sharia law. This is a necessary process to come to terms with the aftermath of islamist fundamentalism carried out as theocratic fascism by ISIS. Though from the outside it might seem like ISIS is no more, the fight against its ideology very much continues here. In some regions of NES, ISIS ideology is still widespread and it will take time and effort for everyone to move towards a democratic islam.

6- Anarchist and so-called revolutionary movements in Europe have struggled for decades find something which can overcame our own weaknesses and smallness, looking at methods old and new. What is your perspective on this? Do you also agree or feel the movements are limiting themselves, and if so why? Lack of use of insurrectionary violence, lack of structures directing the struggle, lack of resources, lack of conviction?

This is a very important point and question you bring up here. We agree that movements are limiting themselves. We see the issue at the core as a lack of organizations that can create and promote long term aims perspectives, as currently we mostly see affinity based groups with short term thinking.

The wave of insurrectionism in the 90’s, especially in italy, brought a short term struggle perspective that seemed to promote effectivity. In some ways, it worked, however it did so at the cost of undermining organizational capacity. Organization capacity is crucial. By becoming an organization, we as TA, now have the ability to accumulate experience, we do not constantly have to start anew. We can also build lasting projects and relations, we can deepen our understanding and learning of other organizations that have struggled and are struggling. Not only on an individual level, but on an organizational one. Meaning that such knowledge and experiences cease to become merely tied to one person or one cell or affinity group, but that the whole organization takes ownership of it. This greatly grows our capacity as an organization.

To develop as a revolutionary organization is not easy, we already talked about this. We have to break with the liberal individualist mindset that is so deeply ingrained with capitalist socialization. Our societies are organized around those capitalist values, and to change it we have to develop our own values and social institutions, to anticipate the society we want. The things you mention lacking in anarchist movements (structures to direct the struggle, resources, conviction, action) can often be connected to the lack of organization. If we find ourselves isolated, as individuals or in small groups, our capacity to influence and change the society around us diminish. As we can learn many things in rojava, there are also many lessons we can take from the anarchist organizations in latin america. The ideas of “especifismo” (english: specifism), a theoretical frame oriented to develop specific anarchist organizations, are the result of decades of struggle. We can track them back to platformist proposal of Peter Arshinov and Nestor Maknho, but developed in practice by the Federacion Anarquista de Uruguay (FAU). As portugese anarchists, you have easy access to the materials and texts developed by brazilian anarchist organizations.

7- There was critique recently of the focus and resources given by western leftists towards nascent anarchist movements in Ukraine, who, without true autonomous structures and being inserted in statist armies, have received generous support and funds, while non-white movements have struggled for a fraction of this support. Do you agree with this critique?

We assume you are referring to the article “Anarchist who Fought in rojava: Response to ‘No War But Class War’ Debate”, that can be found on Abolition Media. We agree with the article that the amount of resources sent to Ukraine from western leftist is very disproportional with the amount of material support comrades in NES have gotten, especially given that the revolution here is so explicitly rooted in libertarian revolutionary ideology and praxis, where this is more debatable for Ukraine as the article pointed out. “Solidarity is something you can hold in your hands”, a slogan popularized by the anti-imperialist group KAK, active in Denmark in the 70s, is a statement we can very much find ourselves in. While NES has gotten an alright amount of solidarity pictures, awareness campaigns, diplomatics campaigns, etc. on the side of material, financial or other support that we can “hold in our hands” the western left has absolutely not given it serious effort.

That being said, the war in Ukraine has been going on for a bit over a year now, the war in rojava for over 10 years. Of course these timescales also have an effect. Ukraine is on the news and we aren’t, we won’t be either, until a new invasion, and even then we will only receive a fraction of the media attention that Ukraine is getting. When we look broader than Ukraine and rojava, we ask: who has been looking at the genocidal warfare in Tigray or the recent war unfolding in Sudan? Who has been organizing material support for those conflicts? The Tigray peoples self-defense forces have a long revolutionary tradition, with a project similar to the ideas of democratic confederalism. In Sudan we have recently see a military escalation after big mobilizations and uprisings shook the country, that had a remarkable anarchist organized movement not common to find in most of African countries. But few articles are written about it, and even less anarchist book-fairs discussions about those conflicts. It is not fair either that those movements received little to no media coverage, let alone material support. This is part of the colonialism that we are trying to fight against. For us this is also a reason to stay with rojava, where values of anticolonialism are very much alive.

Coming back to Ukraine, Anarchists have been struggling since the beginning of the recent conflict, they were there at Maidan square and tried to organize form there. Probably this is not the place to discuss how much this movement is rooted in the historical anarchist movement in Ukraine, with the Black Liberation Peasants Army and the Makhnovist revolution, but nowadays the presence of anarchists is crucial to question the nationalist narrative of the far-right, that has been a dominating presence in the protest in Ukraine from the start. We have a responsibility as anarchists to take our place in such times, we cannot leave all the space to the far-right, because if we do they will take it. Now the current situation in Ukraine is not a revolution aligned with our principles, but it is our task to push our principles to the forefront and make them known. We can quote Malatesta when saying that “We are in any case one of the forces acting in the society, and history will advance, as always, in the directions resultant of all the forces”.

Historically war and revolution have an important connection. War environments see state authority stumble and authority diffuse in some places. The state isn’t always there anymore to provide people with infrastructure and resources. This means there are often windows of opportunity to assist in the self organization and management of the people, initially primarily along lines of mutual aid and solidarity. This is a situation in which bringing our ideology and applying it in practice with the people can be a useful way of strengthening our tendency, as Malatesta says.

We support our anarchist comrades fighting in Ukraine, we have an approach of critical solidarity to the people of Ukraine and aim to engage the contradictions that it brings up and not devolve into a binary and dogmatic approach. We would also like to draw your attention to comrade Leshiy and comrade Ciya, they have both spend time in NES and fell on the Ukrainian front lines together with other anarchist comrades in Ukrainan front lines. We grieve this loss, and aim to learn from their lives and decisions, they also show us a way of nuanced analysis and consideration that has space for the contradictions that inevitably come up when we get our hands dirty in revolution. We agreed with the comrade who wrote the article that it is very easy to be purist and judgmental about decisions made in Ukraine and rojava from a comfortable armchair. Participating in an actual revolution or armed conflict will quickly make it clear that there are often no “clean” or clear-cut solutions and being a revolutionary in action, not just in words, means gaining a deep understanding of nuanced analysis and contradictions.

8 - How can we assist you in TA; materially or otherwise?

The main points in which we can see your assistance to be help us are; a) ideological development b) engaged network c) resist repression d) militants e) resources

a) Ideological development of anarchist struggle is the basis for us to move forward. We see that we have come to a point where we realize as european anarchists that affinity based organizing alone is not sufficient. We need anarchist organization or structures that keep us together not just based on personal affinity, but in an organized way, to be able to think long term and develop a wider strategy. By further developing anarchist ideology and praxis in our current context, we strengthen each other.

b) Engaged networks are a foundation to exchange discussion, projects, resources and experiences. We see this in the form of building long term relations with solid organizations, and such exchange can take place through visits and exchange of militants as well as other forms of communication. Related to the point about ideological development, this includes reading and discussing each other statements and letters, learning from each other experience and giving feedback, proposals and critique on them.

c) Networks also leads into resisting repression. In the past years, militants who have been to rojava and the kurdish movement in general have been increasingly criminalized. Quite a few comrades are spending time in prison or are in other kinds of legal problems. We need anarchists everywhere to push back against this criminalization.

d) We need more militants to join us in rojava to fight and struggle here. There is also opportunity for comrades are already organized in europe to join us here while remaining connected to their european organization. We would like this actually. We see this as a potential way to strengthen ties between our organization and anarchist organizations in europe.

e) On the directly material side, we need money. Since exactly what materials we need changes from time to time, sending materials directly can be a little tricky, though we can talk about this if there is a desire to do something like that. With money directly we can allocate it to the most pressing needs and make adjustments when necessary in this every changing situation we are in.

ORO CONVERSATORIO: A 50 AÑOS DEL GOLPE CÍVICO MILITAR
Los desafíos y tareas del anarquismo

Viernes 30 de septiembre // 18:00 hrs
Lugar: Vicuña Mackenna 636 - TRASOL

Viernes 6 de octubre // 18:00 hrs
Lugar: Calle Clave 437 - FLORA

Organizan:
Asamblea Anarquista Valparaíso
Federación Anarquista Santiago

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

L'esilio non è mai una decisione facile. Non è mai una scelta. Senza risorse, può diventare un vero calvario. La solidarietà è la chiave per superare questi momenti difficili.

Siamo entrati in contatto con un gruppo di anarchici sudanesi nel febbraio 2022, nel bel mezzo dei disordini rivoluzionari che scuotevano il Paese dal 2018. Nonostante le barriere linguistiche, abbiamo imparato da loro a comprendere meglio questa rivoluzione e i comitati di resistenza che la animano. Questo gruppo, composto principalmente da giovani studenti, è stato persino emulato da un gruppo anarchico nel nord del Paese.

Come diversi Paesi durante la 'Primavera araba' del 2011, il Sudan è precipitato nella guerra civile nell'aprile di quest'anno. Il Generale Hemetti, comandante della milizia "Rapid Support Forces" (RSF), ha lanciato una ribellione contro l'esercito nazionale sudanese. Le forze progressiste e rivoluzionarie del Paese si sono rifiutate all'unanimità di sostenere una parte contro l'altra, e quindi si trovano strette nella morsa tra queste due fazioni reazionarie militarizzate. Quasi 5.000 persone sono morte in questo inutile conflitto. Due milioni e mezzo di persone sono state costrette ad abbandonare le loro case, 500.000 delle quali sono fuggite dal Paese. I saccheggi e gli stupri sono in aumento e fanno parte dell'arsenale di armi da guerra utilizzate contro i civili.

Le nostre compagne e i nostri compagni anarchici sono ancora in Sudan e speravano di poter continuare le loro attività di agitazione in modo clandestino. Abbiamo fornito aiuti finanziari prima della guerra e anche all'inizio. Ma la situazione è diventata insostenibile e non consente più alcuna attività sociale o politica. Alcuni membri del gruppo hanno deciso di lasciare il Paese il più rapidamente possibile dopo che la loro casa è stata saccheggiata dall'RSF. Altri hanno deciso di rimanere per il momento, e stiamo cercando di aiutare anche loro.

In collaborazione con le compagne e i compagni che risiedono in questa parte del mondo, stiamo lavorando per offrire a tutte e tutti le migliori condizioni di sopravvivenza in questo contesto. Per coloro che intendono rimanere, dobbiamo aiutarli a soddisfare le loro esigenze e a mettere da parte il denaro necessario per una partenza di emergenza. Per coloro che vanno in esilio ora, dobbiamo consentire loro di abbandonare il Paese, evitando il più possibile i pericoli che questo tipo di viaggio di sola andata comporta, e consentire loro di continuare l’attivismo con i sudanesi in esilio e le classi sfruttate nel Paese che li ospita. Tuttavia, la regione è altamente instabile (guerre civili, colpi di Stato e altri regimi autoritari) e attualmente non è possibile lasciare il Paese.

Per fare questo, abbiamo bisogno di denaro, e i fondi di solidarietà delle nostre organizzazioni da soli non bastano. Di seguito sono riportate le spese stimate (in dollari USA):

• Documenti (visto): $400
• Viaggio: $800 (si tratta di stime di massima, poiché i costi sono difficilmente prevedibili)
• Alloggio iniziale nel Paese ospitante: $200
• Vitto per un mese nel Paese ospitante: $300
• Costi (alloggio, cibo, Internet) per il tempo di attesa in Sudan: $1000
Importo minimo: $2700

Questo bilancio provvisorio rimane instabile in un contesto economico e di sicurezza in rapida evoluzione. Copre le spese solo per un minimo di un mese. Ma la situazione è tale che le nostre compagne e i nostri compagni non saranno in grado di soddisfare le loro esigenze in un solo mese. Probabilmente avremo bisogno di molto più denaro alla fine. Qualsiasi somma donata, anche eccedente questo importo minimo, sarà utilizzata per provvedere alle necessità quotidiane dei compagni, fino a quando non saranno in grado di provvedere a se stessi.

Le donazioni vengono raccolte dalle nostre compagne e compagni in Svizzera, che hanno già una struttura di solidarietà internazionale.

Non dimenticare di menzionare "Solidarietà per il Sudan" quando si effettua una donazione. Inviare la donazione a: Association pour la Promotion de la Solidarité Internationale (APSI) Place Chauderon 5 1003 Lausanne Switzerland

IBAN: CH84 0900 0000 1469 7613 8 SWIFT/BIC: POFICHBEXXX Nome della banca: PostFinance SA; Mingerstrasse 20; 3030 Berna; Svizzera

Anche con Paypal

E con TWINT (solo Svizzera):

Appello sottoscritto da:
☆Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brasile
☆Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Svizzera
☆Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
☆Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya – Catalogna
☆Federación Anarquista Santiago (FAS) – Cile
☆Karala – Turchia
☆Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) – Stati Uniti
☆Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Svizzera
☆Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – Francia
☆Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
☆Die Plattform – Germania
☆Roja y Negra Organización Politíca Anarquista - Argentina
☆Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) Gran Bretagna
☆Tekoşîna Anarşîst (TA) – Rojava
☆Anarchist Yondae – Corea del Sud
☆Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (AL/FdCA) – Italia
☆Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/Nuova Zelanda

---

Chamado anarquista internacional de solidariedade

Apoie anarquistas sudaneses no exílio

O exílio nunca é uma decisão fácil. Nunca é uma escolha. Sem recursos, pode se tornar um verdadeiro tormento. Solidariedade é a chave para superar estes tempos difíceis.

Nós entramos em contato com um grupo de anarquistas sudaneses em fevereiro de 2022, que estavam em meio a uma agitação revolucionária que vinha chacoalhando o país desde 2018. Apesar das barreiras linguísticas, aprendemos com eles como entender melhor esta revolução e os comitês de resistência que estão no seu cerne. Esse grupo, formado em sua maioria por estudantes jovens, foi inclusive imitado por um grupo anarquista no norte do país.

Como muitos países durante a Primavera Árabe de 2011, o Sudão mergulhou em uma guerra civil em abril deste ano. General Hemetti, comandante da milícia "Forças de Suporte Rápido", formou uma rebelião contra o exercito nacional sudanês. As forças progressistas e revolucionárias do país se recusaram, de forma unânime, a apoiar um lado contra o outro e se encontraram entre essas duas faccções militarizadas reacionárias. Cerca de 5000 pessoas morretam nesse conflito desnecessário. Dois milhões e meio de pessoas foram obrigadas a deixar suas casas, das quais 500.000 fugiram do país. Saques e estupros estão aumentando e fazem parte do arsenal de armas de guerra utilizadas contra civis.

Nossas companheiras anarquistas ainda estão no Sudão e esperam conseguir dar continuidade às suas atividades de agitação clandestina. Nós garantimos apoio financeiro antes da guerra e também no início dela, mas a situação se tornou insustentável e não nos permite mais qualquer atividade política ou social. Alguns dos membros do grupo decidiram deixar o país o mais rápido possível depois de sua casa ter sido devastada pelo RSF. Outros decidiram ficar por enquanto e nós estamos tentando ajudar eles também.

Junto das companheiras que estão nessa parte no mundo, estamos trabalhando para garantir a todas as melhores condições possíveis de sobrevivência nesse contexto. Para aqueles que pretendem ficar, precisamos garantir as necessidades básicas e também a reserva financeira pro caso de uma fuga de emergência. Para aqueles em exílio agora, precisamos tirá-los do país, evitando tanto quanto for possível os perigos desse tipo de jornada só de ida e permitir que sigam militando junto das pessoas sudanesas exiladas e da classe explorada do país em que estão. Contudo, a região está extremamente instável (guerras civis, golpes de estado e outros regimes autoritários) e e no momento não é possível sair do país.

Pra fazer isso precisamos de dinheiro e o fundo de solidariedade das nossas organizações não é suficiente. Abaixo estão as dispesas estimadas (em dólares estadounidenses):

• vistos: $400
• viagem: $800 (instável)
• primeiro aluguel em outro país: $200
• comida pra um mês em outro país: $300
• custos pro tempo de espera no sudão: $1000 mínimo: $2700

Esse custo provisório é instável em um contexto econômico e de segurança que muda muito rápido. Cobre apenas os custos mínimos para um mês, mas a situação é tal que nossos companheiros não vão dar conta das suas necessidades em apenas um mês, provavelmente vamos precisar de muito mais dinheiro. Qualquer quantia doada vai ser usada para garantir as necessidades diárias dos companheiros até que consigam se manter.

As doações estão sendo recebidas pelos nossos companheiros da Suíça, que já tem uma estrutura para solidariedade internacional.

Não esqueça de mencionar "Solidarity Sudan" ao fazer a sua doação.

Envie sua doação para:

Association pour la Promotion de la Solidarité Internationale (APSI)
Place Chauderon 5
1003 Lausanne
Suiça

IBAN: CH84 0900 0000 1469 7613 8
SWIFT/BIC: POFICHBEXXX
Nome do Banco: PostFinance SA; Mingerstrasse 20; 3030 Bern; Switzerland

Também com Paypal

Assinam esse chamado:

☆Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brasil
☆Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Suíça
☆Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguai
☆Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya – Catalunha, Estado espanhol
☆Federación Anarquista Santiago (FAS) – Chile
☆Karala – Turquia
☆Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) – Estados Unidos
☆Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Suíça
☆Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – França
☆Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colômbia
☆Die Plattform – Alemanha
☆Roja y Negra Organización Politíca Anarquista - Argentina
☆Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) Grã-Bretanha
☆Tekoşîna Anarşîst (TA) – Rojava
☆Anarchist Yondae – Coreia do Sul
☆Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) –Itália
☆Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/Nova Zelândia

---

Campaña anarquista internacional de solidaridad

Apoyo a los anarquistas sudaneses en el exilio

El exilio nunca es una decisión fácil. Nunca es una elección. Sin recursos, puede convertirse en un verdadero calvario. La solidaridad es la clave para superar estos tiempos difíciles.

En febrero de 2022 conocimos a un grupo de anarquistas sudaneses en medio de los disturbios revolucionarios que han sacudido al país desde el año 2018. A pesar de las barreras lingüísticas, aprendimos de ellos cómo entender mejor a la revolución y a los comités de resistencia que se encuentran en su corazón. Este grupo, formado principalmente por jóvenes estudiantes, ha sido incluso emulado por un grupo anarquista en el norte del país.

Al igual que muchos otros países que experimentaron la "Primavera Árabe" en 2011, Sudán se sumió en una guerra civil. En abril de este año, el general Hemetti, comandante de la milicia "Fuerzas de Apoyo Rápido", lanzó una rebelión contra el Ejército Nacional Sudanés. Las fuerzas progresistas y revolucionarias del país se han negado unánimemente a apoyar a un bando contra el otro, por lo que se encuentran atrapadas en el vicio entre estas dos facciones reaccionarias militarizadas. Casi 5.000 personas han muerto en este inútil conflicto. Dos millones y medio de personas se han visto obligadas a abandonar sus hogares, 500.000 de las cuales han huido del país. Además, los saqueos y las violaciones, que forman parte del arsenal de armas de guerra utilizadas contra los/as civiles, van en aumento.

Nuestros/as compañeros/as libertarios/as están todavía en Sudán, esperando poder continuar allí sus actividades de agitación clandestinas. Les hemos proporcionado ayuda financiera tanto antes de la guerra como poco después de su comienzo. Pero la situación se ha vuelto insostenible y ya no permite la organización de ninguna actividad social o política. A raíz de que su casa fuera saqueada por las Fuerzas de Apoyo Rápido, algunos miembros del grupo decidieron abandonar el país lo antes posible. Otros/as han decidido quedarse por el momento, y también estamos intentando ayudarles.

Estamos trabajando conjuntamente con compañeros/as radicados/as en esta parte del mundo para proporcionarles las mejores condiciones posibles de supervivencia en este contexto. Tenemos que ayudarles a los/as que se quedan a cubrir sus necesidades y a reservar dinero para una salida de emergencia si resulta necesaria. Por otra parte, a los/as que se exilian ahora, necesitamos evacuarles del país en las mejores condiciones posibles, evitando, preferiblemente, los peligros que entraña este tipo de viaje sin retorno. También debe ser posible que ellos/as continúen su activismo con los/as sudaneses/as en el exilio y las clases explotadas de su país de acogida. No obstante, dado que la región es muy inestable (por la ocurrencia de guerras civiles, golpes de Estado y la presencia de otros regímenes autocráticos), a ellos/as, por el momento, no les ha sido posible la salida del país.

Para esta tarea necesitamos dinero ya que los fondos de solidaridad de nuestras organizaciones no son suficientes. Estos son nuestros gastos estimados que necesitaríamos (en dólares estadounidenses):

• Visados: $400 USD
• Viaje: $800 USD (esta cifra es aproximada, ya que los costes son muy inestables)
• Primer alquiler en el país de acogida: $200 USD
• Comida para un mes en el país de acogida: $300 USD
• Gastos (alojamiento, comida, Internet) durante el tiempo de espera en Sudán: $1,000 USD
Total mínimo: $2,700 USD

Este presupuesto provisional es aproximado en un contexto económico y de seguridad en rápida evolución y tan sólo cubre los gastos de un mes. Pero la situación es tal que nuestros/as compañeros/as no podrán cubrir sus necesidades con el dinero de un solo mes, de modo que es probable que al final necesitemos mucho más dinero. Por lo tanto, cualquier cantidad donada, incluso por encima de esta cantidad mínima, se utilizará para cubrir las necesidades cotidianas de los/as compañeros/as hasta que puedan valerse por sí mismos/as.

Las donaciones son recolectadas por compañeros/as en Suiza que ya tienen establecida la estructura para gestionar campañas de solidaridad.

No olviden incluir "Campaña de solidaridad en Sudán" como mensaje junto con su donación.

Envíen sus donaciones a:

Association pour la Promotion de la Solidarité Internationale (APSI)
Place Chauderon 5
1003 Lausanne
Suiza

IBAN: CH84 0900 0000 1469 7613 8
SWIFT/BIC: POFICHBEXXX
Nombre del banco: PostFinance SA; Mingerstrasse 20; 3030 Bern; Switzerland

Tambien se puede con Paypal

Firmado por:

☆Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brasil
☆Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Suiza
☆Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
☆Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya – Catalonia, Estado español
☆Federación Anarquista Santiago (FAS) – Chile
☆Karala – Turquia
☆Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) – Estados Unidos
☆Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Suiza
☆Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France
☆Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
☆Die Plattform – Alemania
☆Roja y Negra Organización Politíca Anarquista - Argentina
☆Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) Gran Bretaña
☆Tekoşîna Anarşîst (TA) – Rojava
☆Anarchist Yondae – Corea del Sur
☆Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italia
☆Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/Neo Zelandia

A Guide to Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism

Review of Tom Wetzel, Overcoming Capitalism: Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st Century

This is an important book. Tom Wetzel presents a vision of a free, equal, and cooperative society, without classes, states, or other forms of oppression. It would be directly managed from below in all areas, including the economy and community. He refers to this program, alternately, as “revolutionary syndicalism” or “libertarian socialism.”

Traditionally “libertarian socialism” is a synonym for “anarchist-socialism” and other views similar to anarchism, such as council-communist Marxism or guild socialism. Yet, although Wetzel occasionally refers to anarchism, he does not identify his program as “anarchist” or “anarcho-syndicalist.” He had done so previously—see his essays in the Anarchist Library—but not now, for reasons he does not explain. In my opinion, this book is an exposition of revolutionary class-struggle anarchism and an expansion of anarcho-syndicalism.

The book covers many topics, mainly divided into three sections. The first analyzes how our society works (chapters 1 through 5). The second, which is the heart of the work, covers strategies for “overcoming capitalism” (chapters 6 to 10). The last considers what a new society (“libertarian ecosocialism”) could be like (chapter 11).

Class Conflict

His view of present day society is based on a class analysis. Capitalist society is divided into layers related to the production and accumulation of profit. Holding up society is primarily the working class. It produces society’s goods and services through its labor “by hand and brain.” The capitalist class owns the means of production—capital—and is therefore able to squeeze a surplus—profits—out of the workers’ labor. The key evil of capitalism is not so much poverty (although there is plenty of poverty) but domination. People do not get to control the social forces which rule their lives. Capitalism is an immoral system to be “overcome” and replaced.

This class analysis is influenced, at least, by classical Marxism. While I am a revolutionary anarchist-socialist, I mostly agree with Karl Marx’s analysis of how capitalism works, as does Wetzel, to a certain degree. “A major contribution of Marx to the socialist movement was his analysis of the structure and dynamics of the capitalist regime….The whole capital accumulation process is built on a framework of oppression and exploitation. Thus far, libertarian socialists generally agree with these aspects of Marx’s analysis.” (pp. 312–314)

However, Wetzel criticizes Marxism for what he regards as an overly simplistic view, its main division of society into capitalists and workers. Wetzel agrees with this, but adds a middle layer of minions which directly serves the capitalists: supervisors, managers, overseers, bureaucrats, lawyers, and other better-off professionals, in both private enterprises and public services. (This does not include “white collar” workers, such as teachers or clerks, who are part of the working class.) Others have called this the “professional-managerial class” or the “coordinator class,” but Wetzel prefers “bureaucratic control class.”

The charge, repeated by Wetzel, that Marx did not expect the rise of middle management bureaucrats under capitalism is often stated but is factually untrue. (For example, see Capital, vol. 3, chapter XXIII, or Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.) Wetzel uses the concept to argue that it is not enough to oppose the capitalist owning class. It is also necessary to oppose the bureaucratic control class. It is necessary to organize so that working people can directly control their own lives without a bureaucratic elite over them, telling them what to do, and exploiting them as much as do the capitalist owners. (This continues the historical insight of anarchism at least since Michael Bakunin.)

Wetzel is well aware that class conflict is not the only social division. He feels that capitalism promotes other conflicts—such as race or gender. They overlap with—and interact with—class. For example, he sees the oppression of African-Americans as having two class functions. First, most of them are in a super-exploited, impoverished, section of the working class. Capitalists make superprofits from paying them very low wages. Secondly, racism serves to divide the working class as a whole. White workers can feel superior to workers of color and refuse to work together with them for common goals—even goals which would be to their mutual benefit. (This is a major reason the U.S. does not have universal health care unlike every other industrialized/imperialist country). Therefore racism hurts white workers, even if not as much as it does People of Color.

He explains ecological disaster as being caused by capital’s drive for accumulation of profits, as expressed by “cost shifting.” The capitalists do not pay the whole cost of what they make. Side “costs” of pollution, or disturbing the world’s climate, are “paid” by the whole of society, or just by the workers—or no one at all. They are not taken out of the profits of the specific businesses and their owners.

The author discusses specific problems of U.S. and world capitalism, including its decline in the last decades. But he does not lay out the fundamental systemic weaknesses of capitalism: its instability, its business cycles, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, its trend toward monopolization, and its trend toward stagnation. This limited analysis weakens his overall presentation.

Revolutionary Unionism and Anti-Electoralism

The basis of Wetzel’s strategy is to build a mass movement—or alliance of movements—which is organized on the same principles of the society we want to see (“prefiguration”). It needs to be actively managed by the people involved in it, horizontally associated, and committed to the concept that an injury to one is an injury to all (solidarity). Central to this strategy are radically democratic and militant unions, moving in a revolutionary direction. They may be formed by organizing new unions in the majority of (unorganized) workplaces in the U.S. Workers may also organize themselves within the existing unions, in radically democratic groupings, counter to the unions’ ruling bureaucrats.

This is distinct from a strategy of seeking to get a group of militants elected to take over the unions and run them better than the bureaucrats did, but still top down. He refers to “the two souls of unionism,” the bureaucratic, centralized, top-down organization, and the solidarity-based, democratic, self-organization of the workers who really make up the union.

While emphasizing the strategic power workers have in the economy, he does not limit his approach to radical unionism. Wetzel advocates community organizing, tenant organizing, associations of African Americans, of women, of LGBTQ people, and so on. Their methods would include mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, rent strikes, general strikes, and occupations of schools and of workplaces. As such hell-raising advances, and popular struggles win gains, he hopes that people will become more enthusiastic, they will improve their class consciousness, they will be more open to ideas from revolutionaries, and they will become ready for a revolution to replace capitalism with libertarian socialism.

This approach puts him in opposition to the strategies which dominate on the left. The main left strategy is electoralism, seeking to change society through votes. (This goes back to the electoral party-building advocated by Marx.) This is the dominant approach of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S.A.

Most “electoral socialists” are for working within the Democratic Party, despite its history as the graveyard of popular movements—and despite Marx’s opposition to building capitalist parties. Unlike left parties in Europe, the Democrats have never claimed to be “socialist” of any sort, but have always been pro-capitalist (and, in their earliest history, pro-slavery).

Some “democratic socialists” are critical of the Democrats—for good reasons—but advocate the formation of a new, “third,” party of the left, possibly based in the labor unions and other progressive forces. However, such a new party is only likely to be formed (by union bureaucrats, liberal Democrats, and various opportunists) if there are massive upheavals in society—formed in order to misdirect the popular upheavals back into electoral reformism.

Wetzel argues that the state is made to serve the interests of the ruling capitalist class and cannot be used to serve the working class and oppressed. Reforms may be won, for a time through elections, but not the transformation of society. And the state is likely to give reforms and benefits to the people only if pressured from below by mass struggles. New Deal benefits were won through large-scale union struggles, and civil rights legislation was won through massive African-American “civil disobedience” demonstrations as well as “riots.” Now the unions have been beaten back to a small minority of the work force, and African-American rights are under attack. Elections did not win lasting solutions.

He gives a history and analysis of the U.S. government machinery, demonstrating the severe limits built into its “democracy.” Of course, it is easier for working people and radicals to live under liberal democracy than under fascist or Stalinist totalitarianism. But even the most “democratic” of bourgeois representative democracies cannot be anything but top-down, capitalist-dominated, machines. They exist so that factions of the capitalist class can settle their differences without much bloodshed, and for keeping the people passive while believing they are “free”.

He writes, “A strategy for change that is focused on elections and political parties tends to focus on electing leaders to gain power in the State, to make gains for us….An electoralist strategy leads to the development of political machines in which mass organizations look to professional politicians and party operatives.” (p. 231)

Electoralist socialists may also engage in other activities, such as strike support work or community organizing. Wetzel is for working with them in such activities, forming united fronts where it is possible.

Two Forms of Prefigurative Politics

Wetzel also criticizes the program advocated by many anarchists which is sometimes called “dual power” or “counter institutions”and which he calls “evolutionary anarchism.” The idea is to build communities, small businesses, and local associations which are non-capitalist and non-statist. They could be consumer cooperatives, worker-managed enterprises (producer cooperatives), farmer-consumer associations, land trusts, credit unions, cooperative housing, independent progressive schools, and so on. These would expand until they overwhelmed capitalism and the state. (I call this the “kudzu strategy.”) There is nothing new about this. P.J. Proudhon, the first person to call himself an “anarchist,” proposed just such an approach. Today it is advocated, Wetzel notes, by the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the DSA, among others.

He is not against forming food coops or worker-run companies. These can be good in themselves. But he rejects this as a strategy for overcoming capitalism. The market is even more of a capitalist institution than the state! Various sorts of cooperatives have been built and thrived under capitalism, mainly at the periphery of the economy. They are no threat to capitalism as a whole.

Coops rarely have the capital necessary to compete with the giant corporations at the heart of the system. They are dominated by the cycles of the market. And if they did become a threat, the government would step in. You may ignore the state, but it will not ignore you. If coops became dangerous to the system, they would be outlawed and crushed by the government.

Wetzel makes “a distinction between two different kinds of organizations: (a) mass organizations of struggle (such as worker unions, tenant organizations, etc. (b) organizations that manage a social resource (such as a worker cooperative, social center, child care cooperative, land trust, and so on).” (p. 214) In his view, “the syndicalist strategy of building worker-controlled unions (and other grassroots democratic organizations) that operate through rank-and-file participation and direct collective action is indeed a strategy to build counter-power.” (pp. 218-219) And to prepare for revolution.

Anti-Leninism and the Militant Minority

The heirs of Lenin have many variations of Leninism. They range from advocates of Stalinist and Maoist totalitarianism to the many varieties of Trotskyism to the libertarian-autonomous Marxism of C.L.R. James and Raya Dunayeskaya.

Wetzel focuses on Leninism as the strategy of building a top-down centralized homogeneous party, one which aims at overthrowing the capitalist state in a revolution. It would replace it with a new state, ruled by the party. The centralized party would rule the centralized state which would control the centralized economy—eventually on a world scale. That such a party, whatever its original working class democratic ideals, would end up completely authoritarian, should not be surprising.

Wetzel is aware that the population does not spontaneously become revolutionary all at once in a homogenous wave. Instead, individuals, groups, layers, become radicalized, separately over time, as radicalization spreads through the mass of people. Syndicalists have long recognized the existence of a “militant minority” among the working class. Wetzel seeks to organize networks of militant workers (and militant community organizers, militant African-American activists, etc.). And among these to build revolutionary libertarian socialist political organizations, to be active in broader mass organizations. This has been called (awkwardly) “dual-organizationalism.”

Like the Leninist vanguard party, the libertarian socialist organization is formed to advance a program, develop its ideas, and coordinate the activities of its militants. Unlike the Leninist vanguard party, it does not aim to take power for itself, to take over mass organizations, or to rule a new state. It exists only to encourage the workers and oppressed people to organize themselves and fight for their own liberation. Naturally its internal organization must be democratic and federated, rather than the “democratic centralism” of Leninism.

Besides giving an excellent brief history of the Russian Revolution, Wetzel provides an analysis of the Stalinist social system which existed in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Maoist China, and elsewhere. He sees the “bureaucratic control class” as taking over and collectively establishing a system of exploitation of the workers and peasants. It needed an extremely authoritarian state. In my opinion this is accurate. Unfortunately he regards this as a new system of exploitation, as unlike capitalism as it is unlike feudalism. He does not name the system, but various theorists have called it “bureaucratic collectivism” or “coordinatorism.”

In my opinion, Stalinist Russia was a variant of capitalism, best called “state capitalism.” The state (composed of the bureaucratic ruling class) was an instrument of capital accumulation, the “personified agent of capital” as Marx called the bourgeoisie. It was pressured by competition on the world market with other national states and international corporations, as well as internal competition among internal agencies. The workers are bought on the labor market (selling their commodity of labor power), hired to work for money wages or salaries, produce goods for sale (commodities) which are worth more than their pay, and buy back consumer goods with their money. This realizes a surplus (profit) for the rulers. Officially it had a “planned economy,” but it never fulfilled its plans! And finally, after years of stagnation, it broke down and devolved into traditional capitalism. A similar process happened in China, but it kept its Communist Party dictatorship and state domination of the now openly capitalist market.

However, in practice there is little political difference between new system theories and state capitalist theories (although “state capitalism” gives a better explanation of how Soviet Russia could transform into traditional capitalism). The basic point is that Leninist-type parties in power create authoritarian, exploitative, systems.

The New Society

Wetzel’s presents a program for a post-revolutionary, post-capitalist, society, after the capitalists have been expropriated and their state dismantled. He believes in a new system composed of self-managed associations and communities, organized into directly democratic councils and assemblies. They would be associated horizontally through chosen delegates. These would be from the ranks of the people, for limited periods, and recallable at any time.

A stateless society would need means for settling disputes, coordinating activities (“planning”), as well as protecting people from antisocial actors (protection is not the same as seeking revenge or punishment). But this must not be a socially-alienated bureaucratic institution which stands over the rest of society, enforcing the interests of an exploiting minority—that is, a state. A workers’ or popular militia could replace the established police and army—so long as is necessary. A federation of communes and self-managed industries might be called a “polity” or even, he says, a “government” but it is not a state. (I would not use “government.” although Peter Kropotkin did at times.)

The “economy” of a free society would not be distinct from other aspects of society. In particular, Wetzel rejects the notion of centralized top-down economic planning. He cites the bad example of the Soviet Union, but would oppose it even under planners appointed by an elected government. Society is too complicated to be understood and managed by a small central group, no matter how brilliant they may be. A few top planners would tend to be corrupted by the power accumulated by their position. A centrally planned economy must have a centrally organized state. Instead, it is necessary for everyone to be involved in organizing, planning and decision making, at every level and in every way.

Similarly Wetzel rejects “market socialism.” This originally meant using central planning to imitate the market. By now it usually means worker-managed enterprises competing on the market. Democratically run by the workers, they would compete just like capitalist businesses except that there are no capitalists. (A system like this existed in Yugoslavia under Tito’s reign, with competing companies, socially owned, directed by their workers’ councils. For decades, it worked as well as traditional capitalism or the Stalinist system.)

Such an economy cannot be regarded as democratic, despite the workers councils in each enterprise. The overall system is “managed” by the uncontrolled marketplace, not the working people. The business cycle of booms and busts would dominate the worker’s cooperatives. Some would do well and others would do poorly, as businesses do in the U.S.A. The poorer enterprises would have to fire workers in bad times. In order to regulate the market, there would have to be a centralized state (Yugoslavia had a dictatorship). The workers’ councils of each enterprise might hire professional managers, as they did in Yugoslavia. These would crystallize into a “bureaucratic control” class. Over time, the system would devolve toward traditional capitalism.

For a positive program, Wetzel has been influenced by several sources, especially Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s program of Parecon (“Participatory Economics”). Factories, offices, and other workplaces would be managed by the workers’ involved. If the workers do not govern themselves, then some other class will govern them. Work would be reorganized so there would be an end to order-givers standing over order-takers. An ecological technology would be created. But there would not be independent, competing, enterprises. They would be federated and networked—coordinated by recallable delegates and group decisions.

In turn, communities, neighborhoods, and consumer groups would also be organized into assemblies, federated together. The two federations, community and producer, are composed of the same people but organized differently, in a “dual governance” or “bi-cameral” system. By dialogue and negotiation they would coordinate economic and political decisions. There would be many “distributive” centers of initiative and cooperation.

I will not go into detail about Wetzel’s proposed libertarian socialist economy. He does not support Kropotkin’s communist-anarchist approach, which was similar to Marx’s vision of the “final stage” of full communism, governed by “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” Rather he proposes to motivate workers by “paying” them, usually according to the time they work—plus “allowances” for those not able yet to work. He proposes a “non-market pricing system” so goods and services may be produced according to need and availability.

I will not evaluate Wetzel’s proposals. I am not against them but neither would I endorse them—beyond the general conception of a decentralized federation of self-governing, collectivized, industries and communities. In the tradition of Errico Malatesta, I expect that different communities, regions, and countries will experiment. They will likely try out various methods of social production, distribution of goods, ways of self-government, education, social defense, techniques of federating, types of technology, and so on. They will choose what they think is best. While it is good to speculate, it is too soon to propose a specific system.

Conclusion: The Revolutionary Strategy

Tom Wetzel advocates an approach to achieve syndicalist libertarian ecosocialism. He is not necessarily opposed to individuals voting in elections or building food cooperatives, but he does not think either is a strategy for overcoming capitalism. He proposes a strategy of non- electoral independent movements and organizations, democratically organized from below, with popular participation and active engagement. The axis of these movements must be labor, because of its centrality in production and the economy. But every sector of the population which is oppressed and exploited has to be included and mobilized. A militant minority, political organizations of revolutionary libertarian socialists, committed to this strategy, needs to be organized as part of the popular mobilization. This is a strategy for revolution. Without using the label, Wetzel has produced a major work of anarchism.

References

Wetzel, Tom (2022). Overcoming Capitalism: Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st Century. Chico CA: AK Press.

*Firstly written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review (UK) virtual journal

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.

If they happen to succeed, both the forest ecosystem with its thousands of living creatures, the villagers of İkizköy and the local people, and the whole world at this time when the climate crisis is a great threat, will suffer, as the capitalists and the state will enrich their wealth.

The people of İkizköy and ecologists from all over the geography have been resisting the state and capital for two years for their forests and nature. However, the severity of the attack on Akbelen forests increased significantly as of July 24. The gendarmerie, which has landed in the Akbelen forest with water cannon's and construction equipment, is attacking the resisting villagers and ecologists. The companies, on the other hand, are continuing to slaughter trees under state protection. The rapidly advancing tree massacre reached the guarding area of the people and the ecologists on the morning of 27 July.

Therefore, urgent action is required for Akbelen forests to survive. Every day, the people of Akbelen and the ecologists face detentions and violence by the police and gendarmerie in the area as they continue resisting. We call on everyone to support the Akbelen resistance alongside the ecosystems and peoples of the earth in order to save the Akbelen forests from the state-capital occupation.