Tensions et défis actuels autour des
constructions populaires autonomes
Diego Naim Saiegh
Institut de Théorie et d'Histoire Anarchiste – ITHA
Introduction
Dans le travail suivant, nous approfondirons certaines implications qui se manifestent aujourd’hui dans la réalisation de processus de construction populaire autonomes – en soulignant ceux qui, en raison de leurs perspectives politiques et méthodologiques, peuvent être inclus dans une matrice libertaire – dans un contexte historique traversé par les marques du chômage structurel, la croissance de la pauvreté et, d’une manière générale, par la précarité de la vie en tant que forme sociale. Nous tenterons de proposer, à travers notre parcours, certains fils d’analyse sur certains problèmes à affronter selon le contexte susmentionné, notamment dans le cadre de nos sociétés périphériques latino-américaines et quelques hypothèses sur les défis à relever pour les surmonter dans une optique émancipatrice.
Maintenant, avant d’aborder les questions soulevées, il nous semble important, ne serait-ce que dans ses grandes lignes, de souligner quelques idées générales sur le lien entre l’anarchisme et les processus d’organisation populaire, ainsi que quelques lignes sur ce que nous entendons par rapport à la construction d’une matrice libertaire.
Une perspective politico-méthodologique de la construction populaire
Si l’anarchisme en tant que courant de praxis révolutionnaire a eu tout au long de son histoire – outre ses différentes tendances – une « raison d’être », celle-ci était principalement donnée par le fait de fournir une base matérielle à la trame de ses postulats avec pour perspective émancipatrice l’organisation et la lutte nécessaires à cet effet de ceux qui sont soumis aux injustices du système de domination capitaliste d’État. Michel Bakounine a dit à ce sujet:
Il est vrai qu’il existe [dans le peuple] une grande force élémentaire, force sans doute supérieure à celle du gouvernement et à celle des classes dirigeantes prises dans leur ensemble, mais sans organisation, la force élémentaire n’est pas une force réelle. C’est cet avantage indéniable de la force organisée sur la force élémentaire du peuple, sur lequel repose le pouvoir de l’État. Le problème n’est donc pas de savoir si [le peuple] peut se révolter, mais s’il est capable de construire une organisation qui lui fournira les moyens d’atteindre une fin victorieuse. Non pas à une victoire fortuite, mais à un triomphe prolongé et définitif [1].
Dans le même esprit, l’Italien Malatesta a déclaré que les classes opprimées et exploitées:
ne pourront jamais s’émanciper tant qu’elles n’auront pas trouvé dans l’union, la force morale, la force économique et la force physique nécessaires pour vaincre la force organisée des oppresseurs [2].
De ces considérations découle donc l’importance stratégique que revêt le développement et la promotion d’organisations populaires capables de conduire et de soutenir ledit processus pour un processus de transformation sociale, constituant ainsi une force sociale articulée capable d’affronter et éventuellement de transcender le pouvoir. Or, cette impulsion vers le rôle principal de l’organisation du social d’en bas doit compter, à partir d’une logique libertaire, avec certains critères et lignes directrices qui se distinguent des autres logiques et qui donnent lieu à sa propre empreinte.
Pour l’instant, nous partons de la conception que les groupes des classes populaires doivent avoir comme première tâche d’action, la lutte pour la conquête des intérêts matériels qui rassemblent leur classe dans le cadre de ses besoins les plus immédiats. Pour cela, l’arc de confluence doit être le plus large possible. Autrement dit, il ne doit pas être traversé a priori par des limitations politiques-idéologiques, religieuses ou autres [3]. Mais cette tâche première d’action ne doit pas être étanche, mais dynamique. Elle doit être combinée de manière dialectique avec une tâche de lutte émancipatrice visant à dépasser les structures du système dominant, cherchant ainsi à construire des «embryons» de pratiques et d’organismes sociaux qui préfigurent une société libre d’exploitation et d’oppression.
L’organisation de la classe est donc dans cette perspective, comme outil d’action et de lutte, mais aussi comme école de participation démocratique et comme bastion de construction de la capacité d’autodétermination populaire, devenant, à son tour, un bastion dans le développement d’une société autogestionnaire; le pouvoir d’en bas, du peuple organisé lui-même. Cette tâche complémentaire élargit le champ de la simple revendication sociale et lui donne une orientation politique claire. La politique en termes de politique de classe autonome et donc de réappropriation également de la sphère politique comme espace d’auto-activité, d’autogestion et d’auto-institution sociale, mais aussi comme école de participation démocratique et comme bastion de construction de la capacité d’autodétermination populaire, devenant, à son tour, un bastion dans le développement d’un pouvoir autogéré d’en bas, à partir du peuple organisé lui-même.
En ces termes, cette perspective, même si elle n’établit pas de lien organique immédiat avec une approche idéologique fermée – prenant en compte, comme indiqué plus haut, l’ampleur nécessaire des confluences pour mener à bien la tâche première de la lutte protestataire – propose, une matrice que, soutenue par certaines prérogatives et lignes de construction politico-méthodologiques, nous pouvons identifier comme libertaire. Des paramètres tels que la lutte et l’action directe sans intermédiaires, la démocratie de base, l’organisation fédérative, l’indépendance de classe, la pratique préfigurative, l’antiparlementarisme, entre autres, nous montrent clairement un profil de construction au sein du peuple que l’anarchisme, en tant que courant, a historiquement porté en avant lorsque s’impliquer dans la lutte des classes, tant depuis les origines du mouvement ouvrier organisé que dans le cadre des luttes que les mouvements sociaux contemporains développent depuis plusieurs décennies jusqu’à nos jours et qui ont influencé – et continuent même d’influencer – différentes organisations populaires qui n’en ressortent pas forcément dynamisées par des militants dudit courant. Dans cette perspective d’organisation et de construction populaires que nous appelons génériquement autonomes, nous allons maintenant tenter d’analyser le panorama actuel sur lequel ces formations doivent développer leurs luttes, ainsi que les problèmes et défis auxquels elles sont confrontées lorsqu’elles y sont confrontées.
Un panorama actuel
À l’heure où nous entrons dans la troisième décennie du XXIe siècle, il ne semble pas nouveau que nous nous trouvions plongés dans une crise profonde qui, de différentes voix, est présentée comme civilisationnelle et aux multiples dimensions. Crise qui s’impose comme systémique, multifocale et mondiale, comme caractéristiques du capitalisme, en plus de certaines manifestations spécifiques aux pays ou aux régions. Un premier point pour aborder sa portée consiste sûrement à visualiser que, depuis quelques décennies et de manière de plus en plus accentuée, le processus d’expansionnisme illimité du capitalisme érode nécessairement ses propres conditions d’existence antérieures.
Alors que la substance du capital est la génération et la régénération de valeur à travers le travail abstrait – vivant mais aliéné – accumulé dans le champ de production avec ses conditions de possibilité dans le champ reproductif et l’environnement naturel. Sa volonté d’augmenter constamment la productivité – de pair avec la compétitivité – l’amène à accorder une importance croissante à la science et à la technologie dans la production. La corrélation et la tendance croissante de celles-ci sont de rendre constamment anachronique ce même processus, basé sur le travail – seul générateur de valeur. Ce faisant, le capitalisme scie la branche sur laquelle il repose: la valorisation de la valeur à travers le travail vivant et l’environnement qui la rend possible.
Bien que – et bien que cela puisse paraître contradictoire avec ce qui précède – aient proliféré ces dernières années une série de « nouveaux emplois », ceux-ci, en raison de leurs caractéristiques – informels, précaires, externalisés, « uberisés », sans droits – non seulement n’ont aucun impact sur la tendance à la dévaluation et à la réduction structurelle du travail formel qui existe encore, mais ils continuent également à être une « fuite en avant » que, avec d’autres dispositifs, le capitalisme mondial développe pour surmonter ses propres limites intrinsèques, mais qui, même s’ils sont efficaces pour réactiver le marché, les profits de certains secteurs ne vont pas générer à court terme, même de loin, un nouveau cycle de prospérité, car les technologies – qui ne produisent pas de valeur – et qui remplacent le travail humain, ne peuvent être éliminées de la production, c’est-à-dire « ils ne reviennent pas ». Ainsi, Il ne s’agit pas d’un « retournement cyclique » classique qui aurait pu se produire à un autre stade, mais plutôt d’une tendance qui s’annonce déjà comme une crise sans retour. En outre, dans ce contexte:
les grandes entreprises tentent de promouvoir un nouveau cycle expansionniste pour protéger leurs bénéfices à court terme. Pour y parvenir, comme cela s’est produit lors des crises précédentes, ils ont renouvelé leur engagement à élargir la frontière commerciale à travers la dynamique d’accumulation par dépossession. De même, dans le cadre de la financiarisation mondiale, ils favorisent la création de nouvelles bulles spéculatives pour retrouver, au moins dans l’immédiat, des niveaux élevés de rentabilité [4].
Ceci, insistons-nous, « fait avancer » mais laisse le problème sous-jacent non résolu, à savoir que même si la quantité de biens et de services peut croître, ensemble et à moyen terme, ils représentent une quantité de plus en plus petite de valeur. De même, l’argent – produit de la spéculation financière – qui circule dans le monde est « fictif » puisqu’il ne représente pas en réalité un travail investi de manière «productive» [5]. Le capitalisme est de plus en plus confronté à ses barrières économiques internes ainsi qu’à ses limitations externes naturelles – écologiques – qui, bien qu’elles présentent un horizon temporel diversifié – et dans ce domaine les luttes sociales jouent un rôle – ne peuvent être stoppées, en même temps de sa propre logique. En bref:
le capitalisme mondial a fait avancer ses contradictions, dans le temps et dans l’espace, mais il se rapproche de plus en plus de ses propres limites. L’instabilité permanente des marchés en raison de l’augmentation de la financiarisation, de l’extension de l’exploitation du travail et des inégalités sociales qui excluent de larges couches de la population de la société de consommation, de la remise en question de la division sexuelle du travail et de la nécessité de repenser la répartition des tâches productives et reproductives, l’épuisement des sources d’énergie et des ressources matérielles nécessaires au métabolisme agro-industriel-urbain-financier, les impacts du modèle économique sur les écosystèmes et le dérèglement climatique, sont autant d’entre eux,[6].
Ce panorama complète une série de définitions à prendre en compte. D’une part, et pour tout ce qui précède, il n’est pas possible de revenir à un modèle d’accumulation basé sur l’emploi massif – typique de l’ère fordiste déjà surmontée – donc un retour au «plein emploi» ou au «plein emploi» n’est pas possible, formalité massive et à défaut, ni aux recettes keynésiennes ni au rôle central de l’Etat. L’État, complice de la logique du capital, ne peut, à ce stade, « dans le meilleur des cas », que cibler certaines politiques, qui en plus de devenir des dispositifs de discipline sociale, aboutissent à entretenir et accroître des formes de précarité [ 7].
Mais les choses ne s’arrêtent pas là si l’on suppose que l’économie a pour but le bien-être des sujets, ayant comme moyen le travail et la production de biens et de services pour la satisfaction des besoins vitaux. Dans la logique du capital, et surtout avec une accentuation accrue ces derniers temps, ces termes sont pervertis et la fin d’une vie durable se transforme en un moyen pour une fin différente d’accumulation capitaliste. Cela met sur la table la configuration d’une matrice qui se manifeste avec une visibilité croissante dans le néolibéralisme et qui cristallise la précarité non seulement référencée au travail, mais comme une véritable forme sociale à caractère totalisant et en constante augmentation. Cela constitue également un conflit radical et insoluble entre la durabilité de la vie humaine et écologique et le capitalisme, que certains analystes synthétisent comme un conflit « capital-vie »:
lorsque la vie est un moyen pour atteindre une fin différente, elle est toujours menacée; la tension peut parfois s’atténuer […] mais tôt ou tard viendra un moment de désengagement où l’accumulation se fera non pas en maintenant la vie, mais au prix de sa négation ou de sa destruction [ 8].
L’ensemble de ce processus général connaît un développement étroitement lié en Amérique latine, en tant que région périphérique, bien qu’il comporte des éléments particuliers. Il s’agissait, en principe et pendant plusieurs décennies, de tout un contexte de reconfiguration sociale qui signifiait l’accentuation des inégalités préexistantes et l’émergence de nouveaux écarts politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels, constituant ainsi un scénario caractérisé, d’une part, par la fragmentation et la perte de pouvoir des secteurs populaires, et d’autre part, par la concentration politique et économique dans les élites du pouvoir internationalisé, qui était loin d’être linéaire:
De nombreux changements dans l’ordre économique ont commencé dans les années 1970 [dans la grande majorité des cas, avec des dictatures génocidaires]. Les transformations de la structure sociale ont commencé à devenir visibles dans les années 1980, au cours de la «décennie perdue», qui a culminé avec de forts épisodes d’hyperinflation et ouvert la porte à la mise en œuvre des réformes néolibérales des années 1990 [9].
En même temps:
il faut tenir compte du fait que si le premier moment de la mondialisation néolibérale, dans les années 1990, a été marqué par les privatisations et l’ajustement fiscal, le deuxième moment va de pair avec la généralisation d’un modèle extractif-exportateur visant à consolider et à creuser les écarts sociaux entre les pays du nord et du sud, basés sur le pillage de ressources naturelles de plus en plus rares, la pollution irréversible, l’extension de la monoculture et la perte de biodiversité qui en résulte [10] .
Cela dit, nous ne pouvons manquer de souligner une fois de plus que ceux-ci sont encore des manifestations d’un système mondial et qui a, comme nous l’avons déjà noté, la précarité et l’exclusion comme marque structurelle, posant à la région comme un espace concret où des corps, des vies et des territoires sont sacrifiés à ce stade au nom de la reproduction du capital transnationalisé, en plus de tel ou tel gouvernement se déclarant « progressiste » ou « populaire ».
Face à ce panorama, depuis la fin des années 80 et fondamentalement depuis les années 90, nous assistons à une confluence progressive de différents processus de lutte qui ont pris forme à travers différents moyens et qui ont connu certaines étapes qui ont marqué leur développement. Il est important de noter, à leur tour, que la chute du mur de Berlin en 1989 et l’effondrement de l’URSS en 1991 n’ont pas seulement entraîné l’effondrement des régimes du « socialisme réel », la crise des partis communistes, les socialistes, les syndicats traditionnels et les mouvements de guérilla, notamment en Amérique latine, mais aussi la faillite de tout un paradigme révolutionnaire qui avait imprégné la majeure partie de la gauche tout au long du XXe siècle. C’est que le développement imparable des forces productives amènerait le socialisme et cela, associé à la dynamique de lutte impulsée en particulier par le prolétariat, le seul sujet social doté d’une capacité de transformation – fondamentalement urbain, industriel et destinataire d’une « mission historique à remplir » – la société sans classe. Tout cela approfondit, comme nous l’avons dit, la désorientation et la crise des anciennes formes organisationnelles et méthodologiques, mais permet, de manière dialectique, en ligne avec la logique renouvelée de la domination capitaliste, l’émergence progressive de nouveaux axes de confrontation, ainsi que de nouveaux discours critiques, sujets sociaux et nouvelles formes de construction populaire, déjà en phase avec ce que nous connaissons aujourd’hui comme mouvements sociaux qui en réalité, et pour être exact, dans certains cas, plutôt que « nouveaux », nous devrions parler de formats et de schémas de conflits antagonistes « retravaillés », étant donné que bon nombre de ces initiatives avaient déjà eu un début de conception lors des événements connus sous le nom de Le « Mai français » de 1968, où, entre autres questions, ont pu se faire jour tout un ensemble de points de vue et de perspectives qui, sous le titre exhaustif de « nouvelle gauche », impliquaient même une revalorisation de tout un ensemble de prérogatives – dont nous avons développé beaucoup de points dans la première partie de cet ouvrage – de nature socialiste libertaire qui, pendant une courte période, était entrée dans un cône d’ombre.
En soulignant, maintenant, l’ampleur qu’a eu ces derniers temps sur notre continent le cadre des luttes développées par les mouvements sociaux mentionnés ci-dessus, apparus dans les années 1990, il est essentiel de souligner qu’ils ont eu – et continuent d’avoir – une grande importance. Un rôle plus important et plus global que la simple action de résistance:
Les mouvements sociaux se sont révélés être plus qu’une simple réponse défensive aux changements dans la corrélation des forces sociales et aux fortes transformations de leurs conditions de vie et de reproduction. En réalité, avec toutes leurs complexités et nuances nationales, les mouvements sociaux latino-américains ont développé une dimension plus proactive, qui ouvre la possibilité de réfléchir à de nouvelles alternatives émancipatrices basées sur la défense et la promotion de la vie et de la diversité [12].
Tensions et défis…
En termes généraux, le scénario à partir duquel les organisations et constructions populaires d’aujourd’hui, et en particulier celles conçues à partir d’une matrice libertaire ou génériquement autonome, doivent développer leurs luttes. Il est maintenant nécessaire d’établir quelques défis pour surmonter certains problèmes et tensions que présente le même scénario, afin de pouvoir prescrire quelques clés d’orientation émancipatrice pour les temps actuels.
Nous avons dit plus haut que face au processus de développement critique du capitalisme à ce stade, qui, entre autres problèmes, laisse de plus en plus hors de son orbite la formalité massive du travail, les États – et en particulier dans une grande partie de l’Amérique latine – s’efforcent de « remédier » à cette situation [13] avec toute une batterie de ressources, de programmes et de politiques ciblées, en essayant ainsi de contenir, mais aussi de discipliner, les secteurs populaires touchés par ces conséquences et d’autres conséquences structurelles du développement actuel du capital [14].
En ce qui concerne ce problème, il y a eu – il y a toujours – de nombreux débats dans le domaine des organisations populaires sur la manière d’affronter cette situation, de considérer ou non le conflit sur ces ressources comme un axe de lutte valable et si cela peut s’inscrire dans une perspective autonome de construction étant donné la relation inexorable que celle-ci confère avec l’État et la tendance à l’institutionnalisation qu’elle implique pour le champ d’exercice des organisations et de leurs luttes. Il va sans dire qu’à cet égard, les différentes réalités de chaque espace national ont leur base, mais, si, comme nous l’avons soutenu, ces mesures font encore partie d’un tout, cadre structurel-mondial, certaines réflexions deviennent pertinentes.
Si l’on part du principe que, dans ce contexte, l’éventail des axes de lutte protestataire n’est pas épuisé par les ressources étatiques concentrées, il est également vrai que, de par leurs caractéristiques, ils acquièrent une empreinte extrêmement importante dans les conditions actuelles pour faire face aux luttes pour une amélioration minime des conditions de vie dans le cadre d’un système qui laisse de plus en plus de secteurs de la population hors des circuits formels de travail [15] et donc, aussi, hors des circuits de consommation et de réassurance de leurs conditions de subsistance de base.
Maintenant, le nœud problématique par rapport à la tendance à l’institutionnalisation – qu’il serait plus correct de qualifier de formation de l’État [16] – que cela implique, bien qu’il présente effectivement une menace pour l’autonomie des constructions populaires régies par cette logique, sa configuration ne doit pas nécessairement être prescrite comme absolue. Compte tenu du scénario toujours dynamique des luttes sociales et des relations de pouvoir, le dilemme conditionnant a priori doit être considéré comme faisant partie d’un contexte de relations conflictuelles et de tension permanente où le défi se présente, non seulement dans le conflit sur les demandes d’appropriation organisée des ressources en question, mais aussi dans la lutte politique contre la logique étatique de modelage et d’aliénation.
Une autre question qu’il nous semble important de souligner dans ce cours de tensions et de défis concerne l’ordre du stratégique. Si, comme nous l’avons déjà dit, les organisations populaires autonomes et, en leur sein, fondamentalement celles traversées par une matrice libertaire, se positionnent grosso modo avec un objectif politique général de changement social en termes de résultat populaire orienté vers l’auto-activité, l’autogestion et l’autogestion, pour être cohérent avec ces postulats, il devient essentiel, en tant qu’élément stratégique, que l’on conjugue le renforcement et la consolidation organisationnelle de ces expressions populaires, mais aussi le développement continu de leur propre capacité de force – matérielle et contre-hégémonique – dans l’opposition et la confrontation au pouvoir des classes dominantes. Autrement dit, la construction d’un pouvoir populaire – que l’on pourrait considérer comme autogéré – devient vital. Il faut instituer également des espaces, des territoires, des mécanismes et des relations qui préfigurent et soutiennent le projet d’une société autogérée.
Compte tenu de cette prémisse stratégique et de tout ce que nous avons exposé en termes du processus historique que nous traversons, nous pensons qu’elle doit, à son tour, être complétée par une autre perspective qui se présente aujourd’hui comme essentielle: la multisectoralité. En fait, si depuis quelque temps on ne peut pas parler d’une classe homogène ou d’un secteur populaire spécifique qui représente l’autosuffisance ou une centralité manifeste en termes d’antagonisme et de dépassement du développement des conditions actuelles du capitalisme, car les contradictions sont multiples – économique, social, politique, culturel, environnemental – et social, le sujet de la confrontation se présente alors comme multiple. Une stratégie appropriée impliquerait donc, en ce sens, la possibilité d’articuler ces contradictions et ce sujet multiple dans une projection commune. Cela implique clairement de considérer un horizon de lutte qui tente de dépasser le cadre des revendications spécifiques mais fragmentaires de tel ou tel secteur en particulier, en dessinant une perspective engagée dans leur intégration dans des espaces à caractère multisectoriel.
¿Et sur quel axe pourrait a priori rassembler la diversité des revendications qui traversent l’univers des expressions des luttes populaires? Si, comme nous l’avons dit, dans ce contexte la logique du capital – en crise – non seulement pervertit, mais menace également la subsistance – humaine et écologique – en configurant une matrice de précarité sociale généralisée, cela pourrait être un bon point à considérer comme lien commun compte tenu de la transversalité qu’il implique aux différents secteurs soumis à cette dynamique d’expropriation et de prédation.
Face à la crise civilisationnelle, la contre-proposition ne peut pas être de récupérer la « production » […] mais d’ouvrir deux débats : qu’est-ce qu’une vie qui vaut la peine d’être vécue et comment collectiviser la responsabilité de garantir ses conditions de possibilité […] [17].
Or, face à une telle orientation générale et à partir de la congruence à avoir entre elle et les moyens pour sa réalisation, il nous importe de prescrire que ces moyens à leur tour, dans ce contexte de crise systémique, doivent jouer un rôle de tension dialectique entre les possibilités d’avancées conflictuelles vers un projet de rupture et le blocage du continuum, l’auto-érosion du capitalisme à ce stade. Ce serait un peu ce que proposait Walter Benjamin à propos du « frein d’urgence » pour éviter de se précipiter dans le vide, en promouvant une série de contre-mouvements qui fonctionnent comme des « barrages » à l’opposé de certaines perspectives « accélérationnistes » qui reproduisent et continuent à stimuler la logique du capital à mesure qu’elle continue d’émerger. Et cela pourrait être développé avec des mesures et des revendications qui, entre autres, cherchent à détourner les ressources de la logique du marché et à s’engager dans son expansion et son universalisation, à réduire la journée de travail et à répartir le travail formel qui existe encore, à socialiser et à exposer la production de richesse comme attribut historico-social, miser sur la définanciarisation de l’économie, à la protection de l’environnement… Bref, ils tendent à prioriser et à stimuler la pérennité d’une vie digne en dehors des paramètres de précarité tout en servant de cadre à la recomposition des forces du bas social, laissant place à la reconstitution d’un imaginaire social antagoniste et préparant un horizon de transformation révolutionnaire.
Cette série de mesures, ainsi que d’autres possibles, pensons-nous, n’annulent pas la dynamique historique de la lutte des classes, mais au contraire l’étendent et la complexifient en fonction des exigences du processus historique en cours, et non en étant justifiées a priori. Comme certains diraient, en tant que « simples réformes », elles ne parviennent pas, dans leur ensemble et sur la base de certaines de leurs dimensions, à être considérées comme perturbatrices de la logique capitaliste contemporaine. Pour cette raison, aucune ne peut être prise isolément et comme une fin en soi, mais plutôt comme des mesures ou des instruments qui, interdépendants, sont configurés comme objets de dispute dans un processus dynamique de lutte plus grande, visant à renverser l’état de choses.
Les références:
[1] BAKOUNINE, Mijail. La liberté. Œuvres choisies de Bakounine. Buenos Aires: Éditorial Agebe, 2005.
[2] VERNON, Richard. Malatesta. Pensée et action révolutionnaires. Buenos Aires: Éditorial Utopia Libertaria, 2007.
[3] Dans le cadre de cette grande première expérience de confluence ouvrière telle que l’Association Internationale des Travailleurs, Mijaíl Bakunin a établi; « L’Internationale accepte dans son giron, faisant abstraction absolue de toutes les différences de croyances politiques et religieuses, tous les travailleurs honnêtes, à la seule condition qu’ils acceptent dans toutes ses conséquences la solidarité de la lutte ouvrière contre le capital bourgeois, exploiteur du travail. …». Dans: NETTLAU, Max. La vie de Michel Bakounine. Michael Bakounine, une biographie. Londres: imprimé en privé, 1896-1900.
[4] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. La reconstruction non durable du statu quo: reprise ou confrontation. Dans: Viento Sur Nº176, 6 AOÛT 2021 https://vientosur.info/la-insostenible-reconstruccion-del-business-as-usual-recuperacion-vs-confrontacion/
[5] JAPPE, Anselme. Vers une histoire de la critique de la valeur. Noms, Revista de Filosofía, 2018. https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/NOMBRES/article/view/21237
[6] RAMIRO, Pedro/GONZÁLEZ, Erika. Op Cit.
[7] À tel point que par exemple en Argentine et à travers un rapport récent, il a été confirmé que dans 7 provinces le secteur précaire et informel dépasse en nombre le secteur des travailleurs formels privés, et à la lumière de cela, en plus du euphémisme qui voit habituellement cela comme une « augmentation des emplois », la réponse de l’État, à travers les déclarations d’un responsable du ministère du Développement social, est « c’est pourquoi il est important de formaliser et de développer l’économie populaire » .. Ce que cela montre en réalité, c’est que ce qui a augmenté à pas de géant, c’est le chômage et le travail de subsistance informel et précaire et que l’État est le seul qui promeut ce panorama (en collaboration avec certaines organisations liées à cette idée). cristallisation de cette situation à travers l’allocation éventuelle de ressources (simplement palliatives) pour consolider une modalité précaire de « travail » sous l’orbite de l’État lui-même. Dans: VALES, Laura. Dans 7 provinces, il y a déjà plus de travailleurs dans l’économie populaire que dans le secteur privé. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/365051-en-7-provincias-ya-hay-mas-trabajadores-de-la-economia-popul
[8] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. La durabilité de la vie au centre… Et qu’est-ce que cela signifie? Dans: L’écologie du travail : le travail qui soutient la vie, coord. de Laura Mora Cabello de Alba, Juan Escribano Gutiérrez. Espagne: Bomarzo, 2015.
[9] SVAMPA, Maristella. Changement d’époque. Mouvements sociaux et pouvoir politique -1ère éd. – Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentine, 2008.
[10] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[11] L’une des caractéristiques fondamentales des mouvements sociaux qui se sont constitués au cours des dernières décennies sur la base de la reconfiguration du scénario de luttes dans notre région, se retrouve dans la reformulation du territoire, non plus seulement comme un simple espace de reproduction sociale, mais comme nouveau scénario de lutte et de construction nourri par le pouvoir, la dynamique et la dimension stratégique.
[12] SVAMPA, Maristella. Op. Cit.
[13] Non sans recourir – avant et même après – à la répression et à la criminalisation des expressions de protestation contre les conditions générées par les lignes directrices du modèle d’accumulation que les États eux-mêmes soutenaient.
[14] Pour le dire en termes foucaldiens, l’État néolibéral développe le contrôle biopolitique de la population pauvre. Orienté vers une stratégie de maîtrise des conflits sociaux et de la misère, son objectif est d’intégrer les exclus en tant qu’exclus. Dans: SVAMPA, Maristella. Cinq thèses sur la nouvelle matrice populaire. IIGG, Faculté des Sciences Sociales, UBA: novembre 2003. Il convient de noter que si les États sont les plus grands promoteurs de ces politiques, ils ne sont pas les seuls. Des ONG et des organisations multilatérales de différents types ont également développé et continuent de développer ce type de mesures, en les articulant souvent avec les politiques des États.
[15] Sans aucune perspective apparente que cette situation puisse, compte tenu de ses caractéristiques structurelles, être inversée dans un délai considérable au-delà de certaines déclamations démagogiques des politiciens et hommes d’affaires actuels.
[16] Nous comprenons ici la formation de l’État comme l’une des formes possibles d’institutionnalisation les plus spécifiquement associées au processus d’aliénation étatique conduisant à « façonner » des constructions autonomes à l’image et à la ressemblance de la logique étatique et subordonnées à ses propres mécanismes.
[17] PÉREZ OROZCO, Amaia. Crise multidimensionnelle et durabilité de la vie . Enquêtes féministes, ISSN 2171-6080, No. 2, 2011, p. 29-53. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_INFE.2011.v2.38603
AnteayerSalida Principal
Tensions et défis actuels autour des constructions populaires autonomes
11 Octubre 2023 at 19:51
Anarkismo.net: 20 Years of Networking
26 Junio 2025 at 10:10
Miguel G. Gómez (@BlackSpartak)
Alternative unionism and the first contact
The first "black thread" in our entire history. In the 1990s, several anarcho-communist organizations existed: Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL, Switzerland), OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire (France),[1] Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchistici (FdCA, Italy),[2] Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU),[3] among others. They had been operating since the previous decade and maintained contact with each other.
Of this series of organizations, it is worth highlighting French anarcho-communism, which emerged in the 1950s. At that time, it featured the Libertarian Communist Federation and prominent theorists such as Georges Fontenis and later Daniel Guérin, as well as organizations such as the Moviment Communiste Libertaire, the Organisation Revolutionaire Anarchiste and the Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL). Organizations and journals of this movement had emerged over time, reaching the 1990s with great prestige in the European anarchist movement. Similarly, we can highlight Swiss and Italian anarcho-communism, which ran parallel, but without the same strength as their French counterpart.
In Latin America, the Uruguayan FAU was the most prominent organization due to its revolutionary trajectory and its resistance to the dictatorship. We again find an organization born in the 1950s, which achieved great importance in the 1960s and 1970s. After a few years of being swept away by repression, it managed to reorganize itself in the mid-1980s. Not only that, but due to its political work, it influenced other Latin American groups, as we will see later.
Returning to the main story, in the early 1990s, European organizations also had militants in the so-called "alternative unionism," some holding organizational positions. Therefore, some militants had the opportunity to meet each other personally through alternative union meetings. One of those militants in Spain was José María Olaizola. Throughout the 1990s, he served as Secretary of International Relations for the CGT-E and, between 1993 and 2001, as its Secretary General. At that time, the CGT's goal was to build an international. In his own words: [4]
In specific organizations, it is necessary to differentiate between the political and social or union components (often referred to as "fronts"). In the case of trade unionism, specific militants acted through social or union fronts and, because they were strong militants, they often obtained organizational positions in the unions in which they participated.
The first meeting of alternative unionism was organized in Barcelona by the CGT-E in November 1991. From that moment on, contacts developed with the French SUD-Solidaires union,[5] Unicobas Italy,[6] the Swedish SAC,[7] and other grassroots unions, all of them quite small.
In 1995, an international libertarian meeting was held in Ruesta, a town in Aragon ceded to the CGT-E. French, Italian, Swiss, Polish, and other anarchist militants attended. Ruesta was important for establishing personal ties internationally.
Ruesta saw significant participation from members of Alternative Libertaire and OSL (Switzerland), perhaps because they viewed it as the French organization's summer camp. In smaller numbers also attended a few members from the FdCA, the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon; its name in Arabic means Libertarian Alternative), and the Polish Anarchist Federation.[10] Regarding trade unionism, the majority of participants were from the CGT and SUD, although there were also people from Solidaridad Obrera (Spain) and SAC (Sweden).
From then on, these organisations and their delegates met at other international events such as the European marches against unemployment, counter-summits and alter-globalisation protests, such as those in Nice (2000), Barcelona (2001) or Genoa (2001), as well as at other meetings promoted by alternative trade unionism – that is, CGT-E, SUD-Solidaires, Unicobas, SAC, Solidaridad Obrera… – where they formed libertarian blocks. Olaizola continues:
The Uruguayans add that these contacts were not at all casual. Many of the trips abroad were organic: they were decided by the organization. “If personal trips were appropriate, connections were sought more organically rather than spontaneously.”[11] Some of these trips could last months, turning into long stays for political exchange.
On May 1, 2000, the French CNT (also known as “Vignoles”) organized the “Un Autre Futur” days. The events were supported by Alternative Libertaire and the Federation Anarchiste and served to unite French anarchism. Some 6,000 people attended the demonstration behind the CNT banner, a near-historical milestone.
But those events also served as a meeting point for libertarian syndicalist organizations: CNT-F, SAC, Unicobas, Industrial Workers of the World, FAU (Germany), RKAS (Ukraine), Democratic Confederation of Labor (Morocco) and SKT (Siberia)[12] and other countries.[13] And again, they were also a place of socialization for French, Italian, and Irish anarcho-communist militants.
In all these cases, when we talk about making contact at the political level, it's not just a matter of coincidentally meeting at an event or exchanging messages online. In many cases, it was about traveling to a place, living together, and establishing personal connections, absorbing what was happening there and debating—especially debating—and learning to transfer it back to one's place of origin... and then debating again. Personal connections were central to this entire process.
Platformism on the Internet
The second "black thread" is related to the greater connectivity provided by technology. At the dawn of the internet, several anarchist-leaning websites emerged: A-infos, Infoshop, Spunk, and a few others, which emerged in the 1990s. One of those websites was that of the Irish platformist organization Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM) [14]. In just a few years, hundreds of classic texts on the history of anarchism and the anarcho-communist or platformist movement and theory were uploaded to the internet. This movement gained a significant following around the world. Later, they redesigned the website and put it online under the domain struggle.ws, leaving the WSM website for texts related to the organization itself. This dissemination and training work would soon bear fruit with the creation of a South African organization, the Workers Solidarity Front (WSF), inspired by its Irish sister organization.
Shortly before 2000, both organizations (or members of both) created the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list. In their presentation, they clearly identified the type of members they were addressing:[15]
The mailing list's opening document bears a strong resemblance to the one that would later be published by anarkismo.net. It is typical for political organizations to issue a "points of unity" document or a "mission statement" that explains the organization's basic policies.
We can also see that they considered their references to be the 1926 Platform of the Delo Truda group; the Friends of Durruti of the Spanish Revolution; and the Manifesto written by Georges Fontenis in 1953. These three texts emphasize the need for a powerful, specific anarchist organization that will articulate the anarchist militancy that intervenes in mass organizations. Ultimately, these social organizations are the ones that will bring the Social Revolution. These are the same texts that FdCA claimed on its 30th anniversary, celebrated in 2016. [16]
The South African ZACF (also known as Zabalaza) [17] (created shortly after the dissolution of the WSF) was also inspired by the same texts, which it considered its fundamental references. Years later, it would add to the list the text "Social Anarchism and Organization," published by the Brazilian organization FARJ after its first congress in 2008. [18]
The mailing list, as we can see, brought together activists from all over the world, although predominantly from the English-speaking world. The list was used to convene an in-person meeting of platformist organizations held in Genoa in 2001, during the alterglobalization counter-summit, at the initiative of the Italian organization. [19]
We should add that in April 2001, the summit of heads of state of the countries of the American continent was held in Quebec, Canada. For the occasion, an "International Declaration of Libertarian Communists" was published, which attacked capitalist globalization and concluded its statement by calling for the construction of a libertarian socialist society. Among the signatories were several platformist organizations (NEFAC, WSM, ORA-S Czech Republic, OCL-France, OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire of France and its Lebanese counterpart) along with anarcho-syndicalist organizations from the IWA and specific synthesis organizations. This was an exception, as these currents would rarely come together again. [20]
International Libertarian Solidarity
As we have seen previously, some activists had in mind the creation of an alternative syndicalist international and a libertarian international. The definitive and stable connection between Europe and Latin America occurred around 1994, although contacts had existed before then. The Spanish-Swiss Arístides Pedraza was one of those links and put Juan Carlos Mechoso in touch with the Barcelona militants.[21] From then on, a very good relationship was established. The Spanish, French, and Swiss activists paid for their Latin American comrades' travels, organized talks, press conferences, and meetings. In this way, within the CGT-E, they met "Juan Carlos and Juan Pilo from the FAU, the Brazilians Eduardo, "el Bocha," "el Gaucho," and Verónica from the Argentine OSL. At that time, we helped cover the costs of three ‘ateneos’ in Uruguay, Cerro, Colón, and Acacias." (Olaizola) [22]
The formalization of this network of contacts and organizations would give rise to International Libertarian Solidarity (SIL). This may be our third thread. It was driven by diverse organizations with libertarian communist and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, while other groups had a less politically defined social anarchism. [23] Its first meeting was held in Madrid on April 1, 2001, at the initiative of the CGT-E.[24] The founding text was written by Juan Carlos Mechoso (Montevideo), Pepe García Rey, alias "Ramón Germinal" (Granada), and Paco Marcellán (Madrid): [25]
Regarding the list of organizations, we have the OSL (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon), FAU (Uruguay), the Gaucha Anarchist Federation (FAG, Brazil),[27] the ORA-Solidarita of the Czech Republic,[28] all of them anarcho-communist tendencies, and also the French anti-fascist network No Pasarán, the Magonista[29] organization, CIPO-RFM (Mexico)[30], and the anarcho-syndicalist organizations CGT-E, SAC (Sweden), Unicobas (Italy) and CNT-F (Vignoles, France). The latter participated just in the first meeting, but withdrew from the SIL network. Meanwhile, FdCA (Italy), ZACF (South Africa)[31], AUCA (Argentina)[32], NEFAC (North America)[33], and the newly created Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo (Spain) soon joined the network. This attempt at a specific organization in Spain didn't achieve much success.
A couple more international meetings were held in the following years. Their context was that of the resistance movement against capitalist globalization, which in Europe was characterized by counter-summits against meetings of the big Capital (such as those of the World Bank, the G8, or the European Union), which were accompanied by mass protests.
Thanks to their existence, several projects were funded, such as the "Aragón" printing press and an athenaeum in Uruguay, a community center, a cooperative, and a printing press in Brazil, a local office in Cuba, and support for the newspaper of the Argentine NGO. The most important thing is that the SIL brought together various European and Latin American activists, funded trips, published books, published newspapers, funded public events for the organizations, and much more.
As we can imagine, these contacts led to many joint workshops, conferences, debates, and interviews between several of these particular activists that continued well into the 2010s.[34]
However, this initiative of internationalist solidarity didn't last long either. The SIL was created during the period of decline in the alterglobalization movement. Furthermore, the CGT (Spain) changed its secretariat, and these contacts were no longer developed.
ELAOPA, the Porto Alegre Anarchist Conference, and the first CALA
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we find the fourth thread of international construction. Meetings between the FAU, the Brazilian FAG, and Argentine groups had been common in the 1990s. This work had borne fruit, as by the beginning of the new century, other groups of this movement already existed in other countries. Now it was time to articulate them.
On the national level, on the one hand, Brazilian groups and organizations created the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), established in 2002. It was a space for ideological, theoretical, and strategic debate, taking the scale of the event to a new level in Brazil. On the other hand, similar processes had taken place in Chile (1999), with the Anarcho-Communist Unification Congress (CUAC). Not exactly from the CUAC, but certainly influenced by that process, the Chilean Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) was created in 2002.[35]
Within the framework of the World Social Forum (WSF), held in Porto Alegre in 2003, the so-called Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) emerged.[36] The meeting proposed a space separate from the WSF, which was comprised of NGOs, political parties, and even business initiatives. The radical sector of popular movements called for class autonomy and the creation of an alliance of social movements outside of institutions. ELAOPA had the following principles:
1. The Construction of Popular Power.
2. An Anti-patriarchal and Anti-colonial Perspective.
3. Popular Protagonism and Direct Action.
4. Class Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and Internationalism.
In subsequent events, ELAOPA disassociated itself from the WSF and moved to another city, holding meetings approximately every two years. In 2025, the 15th meeting was held in Santiago, Chile, with more than 400 people representing numerous grassroots organizations.[37]
ELAOPA is a meeting of social and popular organizations, and rarely do any of them claim to be libertarian; at most, they claim to be "autonomous," "classist," "popular," or claim to have "libertarian influences." However, the militancy of so-called "anarquismo especifista" was present in many of those organizations. We are talking about the unionist, social and neighborhood militancy of the aforementioned FAU, FAG, and others, who were active in these popular movements and took advantage of the ELAOPA meetings to meet as well.
With ELAOPA, an opportunity arose for face-to-face encounters among libertarian militancy. Therefore, a separate event was created, typically held the day after the Popular Meeting ended: the Jornadas Anarquistas (Anarchist Days). They were (and are) a space not only for propaganda or libertarian culture, but also for strategic debate focused on intervention in social struggles and the promotion of the movement.[38]
The efforts were very successful. By the 2007-2008 period, several new libertarian communist organizations had been created, some with the aim of being national in scope:
Along with this array of groups, naturally, larger-scale initiatives for coordination also emerged. The largest attempt of the era was the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA), created in 2004 by the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil), AUCA (Argentina), Lucha Libertaria, and UNIPA (Brazil).[40] However, this UNIPA broke with the current to create its own political space, "Bakuninism," prioritizing alliances with the Libertarian Communist Alliance (ALC) of Mexico and the Anarchist Revolutionary Organization (ORA) of Argentina. Later, the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FOR) of Brazil was added to CALA. This first CALA lasted only a few years.
CALA adhered to especifist anarchism. They defended a strategy of democratic and disruptive popular power, but they never attempted to define the characteristics of a post-revolutionary society. They understood especifism as anarchist political organization. Therefore, they differed from platformism only in their particular Latin American anarchist tradition and the time in which both proposals emerged. Consequently, their vocation is identical, despite some distinctive developments.
The Creation of the anarkismo.net Website
As we have seen before, the SIL had already managed to connect some 11 anarcho-communist organizations, with another 3 that did not define themselves as such, but, with a little political work, could have adopt it without much difficulty. The disappearance of the SIL network left an organizational void that anarkismo.net would fill.
In the words of José Antonio Gutiérrez:[41]
Militants such as Nestor McNab (Irishman living in Rome), Paul Bowman, Andrew Flood, and Ian McKay (Ireland), Jonathan Payn (South Africa), Dimitris Troaditis (first in Athens and later in Melbourne), Adam Weaver (Miami), Nicolas Phoebus (Quebec), Wayne Price (New York) and the Chilean José Antonio Gutierrez, among others, were key figures in the political, technical, and editorial development of the new portal. They had met through the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list and other in-person meetings. They had read each other's articles and disseminated or translated them in their respective territories and languages.
Among the founding organizations of anarkismo.net were the aforementioned FAU, FAG, FdCA, and Alternative Libertaire (France). Not all of them joined at the same time, but some had been in contact from the beginning but took some time to decide (for example, FAU and OSL). Together with the organizations to which the aforementioned comrades belonged, the foundations were laid for a project that made possible the international articulation of the entire anarcho-communist or platformist movement.[42]
By then, in the first half of the 2000s, several new organizations already existed with some relevance to the libertarian communist movement. To name a few: NEFAC (Northwestern United States and Eastern Canada), CUAC and OCL (Chile), OSL and FACA (Argentina), in addition to the already well-known ZACF (South Africa), Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), and WSM (Ireland).
As we can see, the anarchist groups were predominantly male, and therefore, practically all the international delegates were men. Women attended the meetings most often when the delegations from their organizations were composed of several people.
It is equally important to mention that the roles played by the organizations' militancy in the international meetings were made possible thanks to the work of numerous comrades who, in one way or another, influenced the development and dynamism of their organizations. This occurred in multiple ways: creating theoretical, strategic, or debate contributions; meeting in different settings; disseminating experiences; or contributing to strengthening ties. Each person contributed their own grain of sand.
The movement framed within anarcho-communism understood that anarchism, if it wanted to have any relevance, should be well organized and, of course, take seriously its participation in collective struggles, seeking to empower them, and politically and strategically coordinating all the libertarian people within it.
Each organization had its own website and journals from which they projected their strategy. The most widely distributed were the monthly magazines Alternative Libertaire and Courant Alternatif [44] in France, and Alternativa Libertaria in Italy, which dated back to the 1970s and already had a readership.
On the internet, in addition to anarkismo.net, the most prolific anarcho-communist sites were the British website libcom.org, which published dozens of biographies related to Makhnovism, usually written by Nick Heath [45]; Nestor McNab's website nestormakhno.info; makhno.ru, in Russian; the Anarchist and the Platformist Tradition website[46]; and A-Infos itself, whose editorial team included the Israeli anarchist Ilan Shalif, a staunch anarcho-communist. [47] These websites contributed to spreading the movement, as struggle.ws and zabalaza.net had done before them.
A Coordination, Not an International
Anarkismo.net did not aspire to be an international, but rather a tool for sharing information about local struggles, theory, and strategies. It operated through a Collective of Delegates and an Editorial Collective, with the former taking on a political role and the latter a technical one.
Some preferred a more defined structure—moving towards an International—like Alternative Libertaire, while others preferred to maintain it as an open space. Despite this difference, some solidarity campaigns were carried out, such as the one in support of the Oaxaca uprising (2005-06).
Over the years, this movement grew stronger in Latin America, especially in Chile (OCL, FEL), Argentina (Joaquín Penina Libertarian Column [48], Red Libertaria, and Brazil (FARJ), where numerous groups, websites, and blogs emerged. And its way of interpreting anarcho-communism, called "specificism," became consolidated. Several Brazilian authors, such as Bruno Lima, Rafael Viana, and Felipe Correa, who founded the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA) along with South Africans Lucien van der Walt, Michael Schmidt and Jonathan Payn, contributed to this. Other activists, such as the aforementioned Dimitris Troaditis and the Argentine Emilio Crisi, among others, also contributed to this. The ITHA has almost served as a think tank for academic texts within the movement.
Correa defined especifismo as:[50]
In Latin America, this movement launched initiatives and trends within labor unions, as well as within the student and neighborhood movements, such as the FEL (libertarian student fronts, present in several countries, although initially emerged in Chile), Resistência Popular in Brazil, and the Federation of Base Organizations (FOB) in Argentina, among others.
To avoid referring to specificism or platformism, which are difficult for the general public to understand, the movement preferred to use the concept of organized anarchism. Elsewhere, the term "social and organized anarchism" was used to further narrow its target audience.
Anarcho-communist groups also emerged elsewhere in the world, most notably in Russia (Autonomous Action [51] – and also in its sphere of influence: Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Israel), Ukraine (RKAS-Makhno), Turkey (AKI, KaraKizil, Liberter), Australia (MAGC)[52], Greece (Western Greece Anarchist Federation), and with influence in other territories. In the former cases, anarcho-communism was mixed with insurrectionalism, while in the latter, their paths were distinct.
In November 2008, the first G20 summit was held in Washington. For this occasion, the "Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting" was issued. It was the beginning of the crisis. The real estate and financial bubbles had burst a few months earlier, and there was talk of collapse. States had to bail out banks to avoid further damage. Eleven organizations signed the declaration. Several organizations already mentioned on other occasions signed the agreement. The new ones were Common Cause (Ontario, Canada), Union Communiste Libertaire (Quebec, Canada), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Liberty & Solidarity (L&S, Great Britain) [53] and two synthesis organizations: the Asociación Obrera Canaria and the Anarchist Federation of Berlin. [54]
Sometime later, in February 2010, six organizations from the current met in Paris: the FdCA (Italy), L&S (Great Britain)[53], WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Motmakt ("Counterpower", Norway), and Alternative libertaire (France). Their objective was to assess the state of the libertarian communist movement in Europe and promote continental coordination. They created working groups to maintain relations and advance coordination.[55]
The Maturity of the Network
Around the period 2010-2013, the various groups and organizations that claimed to be anarcho-communists and that were already in mutual contact, as we have seen, consolidated the network. It was then that the Anarkismo Editorial Collective was stabilized, which, as we have already seen, was composed of a delegate from each of the organizations. Here is a table showing the organizations that comprised Anarkismo in 2010 and 2015:
2010
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Buffalo Class Action (USA)
Chasqui Anarquista (Ecuador)
Colectivo Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Common Action (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Convergencia Juvenil Clasista "Hijos del Pueblo" (Ecuador)
Estrategia Libertaria (Chile)
Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Foro del Anarquismo Organizado (Brazil)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Four Star Anarchist Organization (USA)
"Hombre y Sociedad" (Chile)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Liberty & Solidarity (UK)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Miami Autonomy & Solidarity (USA)
Motmakt (Norway)
North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA)
Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Voz Negra (Chile)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia)
Solidarity & Defense (USA)
Union Communiste Libertaire (Canada)
Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
2015
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (Italy)
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Coordination des Groupes Anarchistes (France)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazil)
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
Grupo Anarquista Bifurcación (Colombia)
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre (Colombia)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Libertäre Aktion Winterthur (Switzerland)
Libertarian Communist Group / Grwp Gomiwnyddol Libertaraidd (Wales/Cymru)
Libertære Socialister (Denmark)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Motmakt (Norway)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Organização Anarquista Socialismo Libertário (Brazil)
Organización Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Prairie Struggle Organization (Canada)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
In this list, we can already see the disappearance of NEFAC from North America, which was reduced to a few groups in New England (Buffalo and New York) and Canada (e.g., Common Cause and UCL). Eventually, in 2014, the US groups created a federation, Black Rose. [56] We can also see the founding, in 2012, of the Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazilian Anarchist Coordination), based on pre-existing groups (such as FAG, FARJ, OASL, CAZP, and others) [57] that were organized around the FAO forum and already belonged to the Anarkismo network.
The remaining organizations continued the libertarian communist or anarcho-communist tradition dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, such as Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), OSL (Switzerland, joined Anarkismo in 2010), the FAU (Uruguay) and WSM (Ireland).
The French CGA was a split from the Francophone Anarchist Federation following its call to support Jacques Chirac in the presidential elections to prevent Le Pen from winning. Over time, the CGA shifted towards anarcho-communism and eventually merged with Alternative Libertaire in 2019, creating the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL), which is currently the largest organization of its kind in the world.
Each organization has its own history, and it would take too long to describe them all here. What is obvious is that this movement was articulated on a global scale and was able to take advantage of the rise of radicalism that swept the planet in 2011, in the same way that the SIL developed during the alterglobalization movement.
2011 saw the Arab Spring, the Indignados movement, and the square occupations. It was also the moment when a new generation entered activism. The Rojava Revolution emerged with force. Anarcho-communist organizations emerged in Egypt (the Libertarian Socialist Movement, MSL), Israel (Unity), and Tunisia, which had only existed for a short time, as well as new attempts in Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan.
That year, a statement of solidarity was issued with 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. It was signed by 11 libertarian communist organizations. [58] That same year, the declaration of solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, whose people had just overthrown the Mubarak regime, was signed. [59] This time, 23 organizations signed. New initiatives included organizations from Egypt (MSL), Colombia (Vía Libre and CELIP), Chile (Libertarian Communist Federation and the magazine "Política y Sociedad"), and the United States (Autonomy and Solidarity of Miami). A number of anarcho-syndicalist groups, such as the CGT-E, Solidaridad Obrera, WSA (United States), and the ICEA (Spain), also signed the agreement. [60]
Once again, the Anarkismo network declined to formalize itself as a more solid structure—as an international federation—to avoid falling into rivalries and competition with the other libertarian internationals, the IWA and IFA at the time. However, it is undeniable that it was functioning in a fairly coordinated manner.
In 2012, eight European organizations met again in London. [61] In addition to talking about improving coordination, they launched a campaign against sovereign debt. That same year, Jornadas Anarquistas were held in Sao Paulo, convened by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and the Forum of Organized Anarchism of Brazil (FAO) [62] to develop especifist anarchism on the continent. On that occasion, they approved strategic documents around the concepts of popular power and federalism.
It was from then on that the anarchist movement would more decisively adopt this theoretical conception, more typical of the development of the class struggle in Latin America, and it would soon also reach Europe through Embat (Catalonia) and Libertäre Aktion (Bern).
In August 2012, the largest in-person meeting of the movement took place: in Saint Imier (Switzerland). Taking advantage of the International Anarchist Meeting, a tent called "Anarkismo" was set up as a meeting point for the movement's international militants and sympathizers. Approximately half of the 30 organizations that were in contact with anarkismo.net at the time sent delegates to the International Meeting, and a conference of delegates was held. The enormous growth of this movement in Latin America was evident, and a significant development was seen since the beginning of the website.
As a positive measure: Swiss and French synthesist and platformist organizations, which did not always enjoy good relations, collaborated in the preparation of the Meeting. But not everyone was under the same illusions. The organizational problems were numerous, and what the Meeting lacked most was precisely programmatic clarity:
In 2014, a joint May Day communiqué was signed by several organizations: [66] ZACF (South Africa), WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Collectife Communiste Libertaire (Bienne, Switzerland), FdCA (Italy), WSA (United States), Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia), and Prairie Struggle (United States). Months later, 14 organizations from the movement signed another communiqué in support of the Kurdish resistance. [67] This was the last joint communiqué of this era.
On November 18 and 19, 2017, several European organizations met in Genoa to exchange analyses and establish a European action plan. The Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (the new name of the veteran Italian organization), Alternative Libertaire (France), CGA (France), the Libertarian Socialist Federation (Wales, Great Britain), OSL (Switzerland), and WSM (Ireland) met.[68] Embat (Catalonia) sent his greetings to the meeting, and from then on, he became much more closely involved with this movement.
By 2020, the Union Communiste Libertaire of France was doing an extensive mapping of the movement:[69]
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?reseau-international-8794
Over the years, a tradition developed of sending greetings to each organization of the current that held a congress. This helped to forge an international movement and made all activists aware that they belonged to a movement much larger than their own organization or local context. [70]
Time Ebb
It wasn't all good news for the movement. In addition to the thorny Chilean issue, which we will soon discuss, between 2018 and 2021, WSM [71] and Zabalaza dissolved, as did other local and regional groups in North America, due to a failure to achieve generational change. Furthermore, other organizations also entered into crisis, without dissolving, such as Motmakt (Norway),[72] with whom contact was lost. Several European organizations disappeared (in Denmark, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Turkey) or their movements were unable to achieve stability (Great Britain or Russia). In the Americas, organizations in Bolivia and Peru were lost, and there were splits in Argentina, Chile, and the United States.
Another split during this period was that suffered by the Anarchist Federation (Great Britain). This organization, created in 1986 as an anarcho-communist, had long been a synthetist federation. In 2018, there was an internal conflict in AF, and a sector emerged from it that would form the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG),[73] already with a marked libertarian communist tendency. The ACG succeeded British platformist organizations that never managed to take root, such as L&S or the LSF. Even so, several anarcho-communist groups remained that have not yet considered joining the ACG.
The causes of these crises are diverse. For example, various social and political situations arose in several states that made it impossible to cultivate international relations. These relations were also interrupted in the event of internal crises and ruptures within the organizations. Another problem for maintaining stable international relations was the rapid change of delegates, with several organizations having delegates who did not speak English, while other comrades who had managed these relations moved on to other functions within their organizations. FdCA fared worse, as in just four months of 2018, they lost Donato Romito and Monia Andreani to pass away. In other cases, a more internal approach was prioritized, improving integration at the social and territorial levels, but relegating the international arena to a secondary level. Finally, the case of Michael Schmidt and his expulsion from anarkismo.net and ITHA was not without damage. [74]
The Chilean Case
At this point, we should talk about the movement in Chile. Its origins date back to 1999, with the celebration of the CUAC, initiating a process that would later give rise to the OCL in 2002. The following year, a Libertarian Student Front (FEL) was launched, and in 2006, following the so-called "Penguin Revolt" (high school students), the FEL grew exponentially. It managed to attract numerous activists, and when that generation of students went to university, they came to lead the student movement, usually controlled by communists and autonomists. Activists such as Felipe Ramírez, Fabián Araneda, and Melissa Sepúlveda held important elected positions in the Chilean Student Federation (FECH, which is unitary and semi-institutional), which at the time was one of the most powerful popular movements in Chile. Among their most notable initiatives was their highly colorful and recognizable graphic style, which was copied and adapted by many collectives elsewhere. They filled Chile with murals through their Ernesto Miranda muralist units. [75]
Some time later, this entire political space merged into the Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left). This new organization adopted strategic lines different from the libertarian communist magma that had driven the movement up to that point, shifting toward a much less defined libertarian socialism, more in line with libertarian Marxism. At the same time, they achieved a scale never seen before for a libertarian organization in recent decades, rivaling other political parties and organizations much more established in the Chilean scene.
Chilean libertarian communist sectors began supporting leftist electoral options in 2013. At first, they did so tactically, without intervening in the campaigns, but calling for a vote for a democratic rupture to overthrow the reactionary democratic regime that ruled the country. Later, in the 2018 electoral process, the Izquierda Libertaria the Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which was running in the parliamentary elections. Due to its participation, libertarian activist Gael Yeomans was elected as a deputy.[77] Since then, the Izquierda Libertaria has had more regional and national deputies, as well as senators. These efforts culminated in a progressive government in the country led by Gabriel Boric, a former autonomist student leader from the same era as the FEL. However, this has not produced the expected radicalization of society to build revolutionary alternatives in a socialist sense through popular power and constituent power. Chile continues to be a capitalist state—of a progressive nature, admittedly—without the slightest hint of socializing policies.
As can be seen, the Izquierda Libertaria [78] had abandoned traditional libertarian communist postulates and was pointed out by rivals and opponents of the anarchist communist current within anarchism as a logical derivation of all especifist anarchism. For this reason, and for other reasons as well, it suffered some splits,[79] such as Solidaridad FCL,[80] some of which in turn followed the parliamentary path, resulting in further splits.
At the Latin American level, the especifist movement distanced itself from all these Chilean groups until the Santiago Anarchist Federation (FAS)[81] emerged in 2019, once again aligned with the rest of the international movement. This FAS, therefore, emerges as a break with the imprint taken by Chilean libertarian communism, returning to Latin American especifism.
From Network to Coordination
Between 2015 and 2019, the movement experienced a setback caused by issues we have already seen, causing divisions in some organizations within the movement, hindering understanding, fostering disorientation, or directly leading to the dissolution of some organizations and the destruction of entire movements, as we have seen.
Not everything was disappointing, of course. While a national British organization (the ACG) had emerged in 2018, in 2019 Die Plattform was founded in Germany, the largest European state that until then had lacked organizations of the movement.
At the 2019 Jornadas Anarquistas, Latin American organizations spoke of the need to relaunch the movement.[82] At this time, they championed especifism, or, in other words, politically organized anarchism, and sought to consolidate it in all regions. Their communiqué defined the role of the anarchist political organization, which should be responsible for developing the theory and analytical tools to understand reality and better operate within it. They emphasized the internal political work of each organization to avoid confusion and dead ends.
As a result of this initiative, the foundations for new international work began to be laid. In December 2019, the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) was re-established, formed by the CAB (Brazil),[84] the FAR (Argentina),[85] and the FAU (Uruguay). These organizations served as a focal point for the entire movement and took over from the European organizations, which had been leading the way until then.
With CALA, the entire international libertarian communist movement was extraordinarily energized, starting with the notable efforts of Nathaniel Clavijo (Uruguay), who enlisted the help of Dimitris Troaditis (now based in Melbourne, Australia), Jonathan Payn (now in Istanbul), Johnny Rumpf (Bern, Switzerland), and Gio (France) to reorganize the movement. As always, the veterans pull the younger ones until they understand how it works.
In 2020, the year of the global pandemic, the foundations were laid for a more articulated international coordination than before. From then on, meetings became much more stable, as they could be held online. Meetings were held every month or two, and a fairly natural coordination took shape.
The reason for so many meetings was the movement's need to publish international statements. The first was to support the Chilean uprising and demand the freedom of those arrested during the December 2019 protests.[86] Later, it was signed jointly on May Day, then on June 28th, Stonewall Day, then to support the American people after the police murder of George Floyd, also on July 19th, against the repression in Turkey, on March 8th, to commemorate the anniversary of Krondstadt, the Paris Commune, on the pandemic, against the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and many others. On each occasion, between 12 and 25 organizations from around the world signed.
Another project was to support anarchist comrades in Sudan,[87] who needed financial assistance to leave the country. These days, some of those people are returning. Other coordinating initiatives have been the summer camps and schools, organized by each organization independently, such as those organized by Embat and UCL since 2018 and 2020, respectively. In the case of the former, in 2024 it helped organize the first especifist meeting in Spain, together with the organizations Liza (Madrid) and Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries (Catalonia), which was attended by people from other places and other organizations. Similarly, the French camps are attended by British, German, Swiss, Spanish, or Italian activists, depending on the occasion. Die Plattform has also organized such camps, while an Anarchist Political School was held in Australia, which has helped articulate the tendency until an anarchist federation has been formed there. Finally, this summer the first camp of the British ACG will be held.
To an outside audience, the development of organized anarchism might seem quite informal. However, it has been an organic process. There was a prior praxis dating back to the 1990s. Initially, there was a personal level, comprised of activists who sometimes met without a mandate from their organizations. Then came the level of formal meetings of the organizations, represented by delegates. The third level would be joint working groups between activists from different countries that carry out specific projects. It is necessary to know how to read the process and understand the rhythms, which are sometimes fast and other times slow. The fact is that, starting in 2020, the dynamic accelerated.
In short, the Coordination towards 2022 was composed of the following organizations:
• Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italy
• Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – Great Britain
• Federación Anarquista – Greece
• Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/New Zealand
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brazil
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (FAR) – Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Switzerland
• Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) – Australia
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba (OAC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz (OASC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán (OAT) – Argentina
• Roja y Negra – Organización Politica Anarquista (Buenos Aires) – Argentina
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Switzerland
• Tekoşina Anarşist (TA) – Rojava
• Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France, Belgium y Switzerland
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
Some organizations from Turkey, such as DAF[88] and Karala, which have since dissolved, also participated. In these cases, these organizations did not define themselves as libertarian communists or anarcho-communists, but simply anarchists, but there was always mutual understanding. Similarly, relations have always been maintained with Tekoşîna Anarşîst,[89] an organization composed of international anarchist militants in Rojava.
In some of the early meetings, contacts were also made with organizations from Iran and the Philippines, although it was clear that they did not share the basic foundations of the movement, and their paths diverged. Nevertheless, starting in 2020, a growth in the number of groups and militants worldwide was noted. In some countries, this growth has led to the establishment of national organizations with several local groups, such as in Australia, Germany, and Argentina.
Most organizations during this period focused on approving and working on their own programs, moving beyond the model of those anarchist groups that had only a vague understanding of reality and whose militancy was united only by principles, the distant goal of libertarian communism and little else.
The International Coordination of Organized Anarchism
The result of the above has been the formal construction of the Coordination at the end of 2024. This Coordination does not have the form of an International, but rather a network. It has continental sections in Europe and the Americas, and perhaps something similar will be done in the Asia-Pacific in the medium term, but it is primarily articulated at a global level.
One of its projects is the website anarkismo.net, which now acts as a speaker for the entire movement internationally.
Since the time of the communiqués, a South Korean organization and the Black Rose Federation of the United States have joined. Several more have appeared throughout, creating an increasingly complex and difficult-to-follow map.
What is worth highlighting is CALA's insistence on the theoretical and strategic unity of all the Coordination's organizations. This has allowed almost all organizations to self-evaluate and conduct their ideological, theoretical, and strategic debates, leading to current situation analyses, programs, and political lines. At that time, several non-Latin American organizations also began to call themselves "especifist," and new ones emerged elsewhere with that definition, ignoring more traditional constructs in their regions.
Regarding the currently coordinated organizations, they are:
America
• Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra – United States
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre - Colombia
• Federación Anarquista Santiago - Chile
• Roja y Negra, Organización Política Anarquista - Buenos Aires, Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (CALA)
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CALA):
• Federação Anarquista Gaúcha - Rio Grande do Sul
• Federação Anarquista Cabana - Belem do Pará
• Organização Resistência Libertária - Ceará
• Federação Anarquista Quilombo de Resistência - Bahia
• Federação Anarquista dos Palmares - Alagoas
• Coletivo Anarquista Luta de Classe - Paraná
• Coletivo Anarquista Bandeira Negra - Santa Catarina
• Organização Anarquista Maria Iêda - Pernambuco
• También hay una construcción anarquista en la Argentina formada por:
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (CALA)
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz
• Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Buenos Aires
Europe
• Anarchist Communist Group – Great Britain
• Die Plattform - Germany
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Midada, Libertär, Sozialistisch, Organisiert - Switzerland
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire - Switzerland
• Union Communiste Libertaire - France, Belgium y Switzerland
Middle East
• Tekoşîna Anarşîst - Rojava
Pacific Asia
• Anarchist Worker Solidarity Movement – New Zealand
• Anarchist Solidarity / Anarchist Yondae / 아나키스트 연대 – South Korea
• Anarchist Communist Federation - Australia:
• ACF-Brisbaine - Anarchist Communists Meanjin
• ACF-Melbourne - Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
• ACF-Geelong - Geelong Anarchist Communists
Currently, there are other libertarian communist groups and organizations in the United States, Canada, Brazil (the new OSL is noteworthy due to its size), Italy, Spain, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Indonesia, and New Zealand. These groups do not belong to the International Coordination, but maintain contact with one or more of the current's organizations, which now number several dozens altogether. Of course, they are also an active part of the entire movement, as the Coordination is by no means the entire movement, nor does it claim to be. In any case, these hundreds (or thousands already) of international militants are building a solid libertarian alternative that has already positioned itself within the broader anarchist movement.
Overview
We will conclude by reviewing the current's periods:
• The anarcho-communist current of anarchism dates back to its very beginnings with the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. Its tradition can be traced over the decades. After World War II, this current was reduced to very few countries. Of these, France, Italy, and Uruguay had the most prominent movements, surviving into the 1980s despite all kinds of difficulties.
• In the 1980s, several solid organizations were created that would last for many years: OSL (founded in 1982 in Switzerland), WSM (founded in 1984, Ireland), FdCA (1986, Italy), Union des Travailleurs Communistes Libertaires (1986, France), FAG (1985, Brazil), FAU (reorganized in 1986, Uruguay), and Anarchist Federation (1986, Great Britain, which was initially anarcho-communist). These organizations maintained contact with each other, but the synthesist and anarcho-syndicalist currents predominated by far within the anarchist movement.
• In the 1990s, new organizations began to emerge. Alternative Libertaire (1991, France; derived from previous organizations), FAG (1995), and OSL (1997) in Brazil; OSL (1996), ORA (Rosario), and AUCA (La Plata) in Argentina; CUAC in Chile (1999), among others; various groups in the United States and Canada; ORA (1996, Czech Republic); WSF (1995, South Africa)… Forming an organic relationship, on the one hand, in Latin America through the FAU and FAG, and on the other, in Europe through Alternative Libertaire, OSL, and FdCA, whose union fronts are approaching the CGT-E, and the latter invites them to its meetings. In parallel, the Anarchist Platform mailing list emerged, bringing Anglo-Saxon platformism into contact.
• In the years 1999-2003, the articulation of the movement accelerated through the resistance movement against capitalist globalization. Groups and organizations emerged in many places (too many to list here), creating spaces for interaction, such as ELAOPA, the Jornadas Anarquistas, and CALA in Latin America, and SIL in Europe, although the latter also provided solidarity with initiatives in the South. The entire anarcho-communist movement expanded.
• 2004-2009 period. These were years of ebb and flow in social struggles. Yet, the movement already maintained political relations. This resulted in the creation of anarkismo.net (2005), the signing of solidarity declarations and the first international meetings. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008 erupted.
• In the years 2010-2014, there was again a strong expansion and coordination. Initiatives multiplied: the anarchism network consolidated, new declarations were signed, the Saint Imier meeting was held (2012), and new groups and organizations emerged, and the anarchist movement reached new countries where it had no presence in Asia and Africa.
• 2015-2019 Period. Once again, a period of ebb and flow. Some veteran organizations disbanded, others entered into crisis and stagnation, and others suffered from splits or changed their ideological line. However, the previous inertia continued to produce new organizations.
• Finally, the period from 2020 to the present has given rise to greater international coordination and a climate conducive to the creation of new organizations, aided by the crisis experienced by other currents of anarchism. At this point, the libertarian communist movement is no longer unknown. It is not large, of course, but it appears much more solid than other currents of anarchism.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
CAB (2012). Principles and Practices of Especifismo.
Programmatic Declaration of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination. CAB Link.
FAU (2003). Huerta Grande: Organizational Document.
Founding Text of Uruguayan Especifismo. Available at: FAU Digital.
FAU (2003). Anarchism in the Anti-Globalization Movement.
SIL (2001). Madrid Declaration.
Founding Document of the Network. Available at: FDCA Archives.
WSM (2000). The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.
English translation of the 1926 Platform. Libcom.org.
ZACF (2010). Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Strategic Analysis of the South African Federation. Zabalaza.net.
WSM (2001). Report from the Genoa Counter-Summit. Account of the Genoa protests. Libcom.org.
Online Resources
Libertarian Communist Manifesto (Fontenis):
Full text in Spanish
SIL Archives:
FDCA Historical Documents
The Organizational Platform for a General Union of Anarchists
Nestor Makhno Archive
Publications
Corrêa, F. (2012). Social Anarchism and Organization. AK Press.
Corrêa, F. (2015). Social Anarchism and Organization: The Specific Proposal. Eleuterio Press.
Corrêa, F. (2022). Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy [Interview by M. Walmsley]. Anarkismo.net.
Fontenis, G. (1954/2013). Libertarian Communist Manifesto. Critical edition with foreword by Frank Mintz. Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation.
García, V. (2017). The Libertarian Left in Chile: From resistance to institutional politics. LOM Editions.
Gutiérrez, J.A. (2015). Anarchism in Latin America: The libertarian utopia south of the Rio Grande. Eleutherius.
Lima Rocha, B. (2013). Anarchism and class struggle: A view from Latin America. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana Magazine, 18(60), 13-28.
Lima Rocha, B. (2017). Political militancy and revolutionary strategy: The case of the Gaúcha Anarchist Federation. In Anarchism & Education (pp. 77-94). Editor Fi.
Méndez, N. & Vallota, A. (2018). Anarchism in Latin America: Networks, practices and militancy. CEHIPOL.
Olaizola Albéniz, J. M. (2013). The need to organize anarchists (II). Anarquia.cat. https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
Payn, J. (2018). Building Counter-Power: The ZACF and the South African Left. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements.
Rugai, R. (2020). Specificism: The construction of popular power in Latin America. Faísca Editor.
Troaditis, D. (2020). From Delo Truda to Anarkismo.net: A Century of Anarchist Organizing. Anarchist Studies.
Van der Walt, L. & Schmidt, M. (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. AK Press.
--------
NOTES
1 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/
2 https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
3 https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/
4 Mail communication with José María Olaizola, 05/20/2025
5 This French trade union organization dates back to 1981 as a grouping of 10 autonomous federations and independent national unions. It was significantly influenced by Trotskyist and, in some cases, libertarian currents. In the 1990s, it had around 50,000-60,000 members.
6 Known as CIB Unicobas, it is an organization of Italian grassroots trade unionism, part of the "Cobas" (grassroots committees) phenomenon. Unicobas was founded in 1991 and quickly came into contact with alternative trade unionism. It had 5,000 members.
7. An anarcho-syndicalist organization founded in Sweden in 1910 under the name Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation. In the 1950s it was excluded from the IWA, entering into conflict with the exiled Spanish CNT. A rivalry existed ever since. When the Spanish CNT split in the 1980s, giving rise to the CGT, this new organization resumed contact with the Swedish union.
8. The Confédération Romande du Travail (CRT) was founded in the early 1970s by Christian syndicalism. Several years later, due to the influence of militant trade unionists, it changed direction and became part of the sector of unions and tendencies of that time that sought to develop an alternative unionism. It dissolved in 1996. Its legacy of militant unionism would later be taken up by the SUD of the canton of Vaud.
9. Ibid.
10 In English, see “International Libertarian Meeting.” https://web.archive.org/web/20080223130405/http://flag.blackened.net/rev…
In French, see Alternative Libertaire, no. 36, October 1995, pp. 14-15:
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
11 Conversation with Nathaniel Clavijo, 05/23/2025.
12 [Sibersakaya Konfederatsia Truda] The Siberian Confederation of Labor (SKT) was founded in March 1995 by Siberian anarcho-syndicalists, who until then had been grouped in a "Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists" that operated from 1989 to 2000. It grew to around 5,000 members, according to its own source.
13 Lucien Van der Walt, "Report on Le Autre Futur" (Report on the Other Future), Paris summit, August 26, 2015
https://lucienvanderwalt.com/2015/08/26/lucien-van-der-walt-2000-report-...
14 https://www.wsm.ie/
15 Announcing Anarchist Platform Email List
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/announcing-anarchist-platform-email-list…
16 Thirty Years of Life… 11/01/2016
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/blog/2016/11/01/1986-2016-30-...
17 https://zabalaza.net/
18 The text can be read in its original language here:
https://www.cabn.libertar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FARJ_-_ANARQUIS…
19 Interview with the FdCA by NEFAC, 2003
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
20 Against Capitalist Globalization! Alternative Libertaire #96, May 2001, p. 11
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
21 A written reference can be found on the back page of the newspaper of the XVII CGT Congress in A Coruña, October 20, 2013. Juan Pilo indicates that Mechoso's trip to Europe accelerated contacts. Among others, they contacted Olaizola, then Secretary General of the CGT.
https://cgt.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diario3.qxd_.pdf
22 Olaizola, 05/20/2025
23 See some RL statements on the Radio Klara website:
https://www.radioklara.org/radioklara/?tag=red-libertaria-apoyo-mutuo
24 Naissance d'un réseau international libertaire. Extrait de mai number from Alternative Libertaire (France):
https://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00171.html
25 Consultation with José María Olaizola. 05/18/2025
26 Declaration of the International Libertarian Meeting. March 31, 2001
https://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_madrid.htm
27 https://www.instagram.com/fag.cab/
28 Interview with ORA by NEFAC, 2003:
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
29 "Magonism" is considered a type of libertarian communism native to Mexico. It takes into account the influence of indigenous peoples and draws on their traditional customs and forms of community organization. These ideas became popular in the 1990s. The concept of "Magonism" comes from Ricardo Flores Magón, one of the driving forces of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, who was an anarchist.
The Ricardo Flores Magón Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca (CIPO-RFM) was active between approximately 1997 and 2006. It coordinated various local indigenous organizations in the state of Oaxaca. It moved internationally within libertarian circles. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_Ind%C3%ADgena_Popular_de_Oaxaca_%2…
31 The acronym stands for Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation.
32 https://www.nodo50.org/auca/menu%20que%20es%20auca.html
33 NEFAC stands for North Eastern Anarchist Federation. It united groups from New England and Quebec. Their texts can be found here:
https://libcom.org/tags/nefac
34 For example, the 2008 conference organized by the CGT in Madrid, "A Libertarian Critique of the Current Situation"
https://info.nodo50.org/Jornadas-Una-critica-libertaria-de.html
35 For more information, read José Antonio Gutiérrez, "Reflections on Twenty Years of Anarcho-Communism in Chile," February 24, 2020.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31737
36 To see photos of the first meeting:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/fotos.htm
To see some initial ELAOPA documents:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/forum.htm
37 Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) in Santiago, Chile. Rojo y Negro No. 397, February 2025.
https://rojoynegro.info/articulo/encuentro-latinoamericano-de-organizaci…
38 Final Declaration of the 2003 Anarchist Conference:
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/declaracion-final-de-las-jornada…
39 List published by Daniel Barret, The Seditious Awakenings of Anarchy. Buenos Aires: Libros de Anarres, 2011. pp. 153-154
40 https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/el-anar…
41 Anarkismo.net. Interview with one of the founders
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jose-anto…
42 When an anarcho-communist network was formed, anarcho-syndicalist organizations, such as the CGT, the SAC, or the CNT-Vignoles, and grassroots trade unionists, such as Unicobas or the SUD, joined together in new networks, such as FESAL, the International Trade Union Network of Solidarity and Struggle, or the Coordinadora Rojinegra.
43 Excerpt from the interview Autonomous Action of Russia conducted with the ZACF in 2010. The interview can be read at:
https://zabalaza.net/2010/12/07/autonomous-action-russia-interviews-the-...
44 http://oclibertaire.free.fr/
45 Nick Heath is currently a member of the Anarchist Communist Group. He publishes under the pseudonym BattleScarred.
46 https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/
47 Ilan was interviewed extensively in 2025:
https://alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/57055
48 https://columnalibertaria.blogspot.com/
49 http://www.farj.org/
50 Felipe Corrêa. Interview with Mya Walmsey. Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy. An interview with Felipe Corrêa. March 2022.
51 https://avtonom.org/en
52 https://melbacg.au/
53 https://libcom.org/tags/liberty-solidarity
54 Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting, 11/17/2008. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/10681
55 Europe: Libertarian Communists Resist Liaisons. 02/03/2010 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Europe-Les-communistes-libert…
The agreements can be read here: https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rencontre-europeenne-de-group…
56 https://www.blackrosefed.org/about/
57 The CAB would not dissolve the international secretariats of each regional or local organization of the Coordinator until 2016, with each participating independently in international coordination until then.
58 Declaration of international solidarity with the 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. 02/28/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/18895?search_text=declaraci%F3n+intern…
59 International Libertarian Declaration in solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, 11/25/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/21228
60 http://www.iceautogestion.org/index.php/es/
61 WSM takes part in Conference of European Anarchist Organizations in London. March 31, 2011 https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/wsm-conference-european-anarkismo-london…
62 The FAO forum was a precursor to the CAB. It was the space where Brazilian organizations met for debate.
63 Anarchist Conference January 2011. Sao Paulo. April 27, 2011
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/jornadas-anarquistas-enero-janei…
64 Delegation returns from International Anarchist Gathering at St. Imier. August 21, 2012
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
65 José María Olaizola Albéniz. The Need for Anarchists to Organize (II). Hernani, January 27, 2013
https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
66 May Day. Building a New Workers' Movement. https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
67 International Libertarian Declaration of Solidarity with the Kurdish Resistance, 10/22/2014
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/27505
68 We Anarchist/Liberal Communists in the Classroom, in the Europe of Capital, 12/11/2017
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30713
69 The map has not been updated, so it serves to show the state of the libertarian communist movement that year.
70 Consider, for example, these messages received by UCL in 2015:
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Messages-internationaux
71 WSM Closing Statement
https://libcom.org/article/workers-solidarity-movement-closing-statement
72 https://www.motmakt.no/
73 https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/
74 2017 Statement on Michael Schmidt Case / Declaração sobre o caso Michael Schmidt
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/2017-statement-on-michael…
75 Interview with UMLEM, 04/03/2008:
https://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/7092
76 Felipe Ramírez, A Bet Revolutionary movement of the Libertarian Left. 03/11/2013
https://periodico-solidaridad.blogspot.com/2013/11/declaracion-nacional-...
77 See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_Libertaria
78 https://www.instagram.com/izqlibertaria/?hl=es
79 Regarding the breakup of the Libertarian Left, some activists issued this statement:
https://www.tercerainformacion.es/articulo/internacional/30/03/2017/chil…
80 https://solidaridadfcl.org
81 https://fasanarquista7.wordpress.com/
82 Anarchist Conference 2019, 03/20/2019.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31339
83 https://www.instagram.com/cabanarquista/
84 https://www.instagram.com/far_rosario/
85 CALA Launch Statement. December 15, 2019
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/comunicado-de-lanzamiento-de-la-...
86 Joint Internationalist Declaration for the Freedom of the Political Prisoners of the Social Uprising in the Chilean Region, December 12, 2019
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32109
87 Update on the Campaign for the Sudanese Anarchists. April 18, 2024
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32877?search_text=Sudan
88 https://www.facebook.com/DAFederasyon/
89 https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org/
Alternative unionism and the first contact
The first "black thread" in our entire history. In the 1990s, several anarcho-communist organizations existed: Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL, Switzerland), OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire (France),[1] Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchistici (FdCA, Italy),[2] Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU),[3] among others. They had been operating since the previous decade and maintained contact with each other.
Of this series of organizations, it is worth highlighting French anarcho-communism, which emerged in the 1950s. At that time, it featured the Libertarian Communist Federation and prominent theorists such as Georges Fontenis and later Daniel Guérin, as well as organizations such as the Moviment Communiste Libertaire, the Organisation Revolutionaire Anarchiste and the Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL). Organizations and journals of this movement had emerged over time, reaching the 1990s with great prestige in the European anarchist movement. Similarly, we can highlight Swiss and Italian anarcho-communism, which ran parallel, but without the same strength as their French counterpart.
In Latin America, the Uruguayan FAU was the most prominent organization due to its revolutionary trajectory and its resistance to the dictatorship. We again find an organization born in the 1950s, which achieved great importance in the 1960s and 1970s. After a few years of being swept away by repression, it managed to reorganize itself in the mid-1980s. Not only that, but due to its political work, it influenced other Latin American groups, as we will see later.
Returning to the main story, in the early 1990s, European organizations also had militants in the so-called "alternative unionism," some holding organizational positions. Therefore, some militants had the opportunity to meet each other personally through alternative union meetings. One of those militants in Spain was José María Olaizola. Throughout the 1990s, he served as Secretary of International Relations for the CGT-E and, between 1993 and 2001, as its Secretary General. At that time, the CGT's goal was to build an international. In his own words: [4]
“This intervention had the purpose of creating both an anarcho-syndicalist and alternative international and a libertarian, anarchist international, and for the two to form an international libertarian movement. In this endeavor, the CGT initiated and participated in many initiatives. There was a lot of travel, a lot of personal contact.”
In specific organizations, it is necessary to differentiate between the political and social or union components (often referred to as "fronts"). In the case of trade unionism, specific militants acted through social or union fronts and, because they were strong militants, they often obtained organizational positions in the unions in which they participated.
The first meeting of alternative unionism was organized in Barcelona by the CGT-E in November 1991. From that moment on, contacts developed with the French SUD-Solidaires union,[5] Unicobas Italy,[6] the Swedish SAC,[7] and other grassroots unions, all of them quite small.
“We organized the first meeting of alternative unionism in Barcelona on November 29, 30, and December 1, 1991, with French SUD unions, in which AL militants participated, such as Patrice Spadoni, a well-known platformist militant with whom we had an ongoing relationship, and then Laurent Esquerre of AL as well. I knew French anarchists due to my exile in Paris. Also present were the CGT of Correcteurs, a very powerful French union run by anarchists of different branches, in which Jacky Toublet was a very prominent militant member of the FA; the CRT of Switzerland [8], where Arístides Pedraza of the Swiss OSL was present; Italian and Basque unions, one English and one Russian, both very small; and the Swedish SAC, which was always reluctant to let anyone want to create a new international; and among the Italians was Unicobas (Stefano D'Errico, its general secretary). Incidentally, both Emili Cortavitarte and Chema Berro played an important role in this meeting. acting as coordinators of the meeting, representing the CGT.”[9]
In 1995, an international libertarian meeting was held in Ruesta, a town in Aragon ceded to the CGT-E. French, Italian, Swiss, Polish, and other anarchist militants attended. Ruesta was important for establishing personal ties internationally.
Ruesta saw significant participation from members of Alternative Libertaire and OSL (Switzerland), perhaps because they viewed it as the French organization's summer camp. In smaller numbers also attended a few members from the FdCA, the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon; its name in Arabic means Libertarian Alternative), and the Polish Anarchist Federation.[10] Regarding trade unionism, the majority of participants were from the CGT and SUD, although there were also people from Solidaridad Obrera (Spain) and SAC (Sweden).
From then on, these organisations and their delegates met at other international events such as the European marches against unemployment, counter-summits and alter-globalisation protests, such as those in Nice (2000), Barcelona (2001) or Genoa (2001), as well as at other meetings promoted by alternative trade unionism – that is, CGT-E, SUD-Solidaires, Unicobas, SAC, Solidaridad Obrera… – where they formed libertarian blocks. Olaizola continues:
“From here, a group emerged in practice, not just on paper, and we worked together because we had a common strategic vision, moving away from sectarianism. Jacky, Aristides, Stefano, then Gerard Mêlinand (French CNT from OCL...) joined, and later Juan Carlos Mechoso (FAU): all of them great friends and mentors for me. […]”
“We had an excellent relationship with the Italian platformist FdCA: Saberio Craparo, Donato Romito, Adriana Dadá, and Gianni Cimbalo, all great friends. I was involved in all this turmoil, and we met periodically.”
The Uruguayans add that these contacts were not at all casual. Many of the trips abroad were organic: they were decided by the organization. “If personal trips were appropriate, connections were sought more organically rather than spontaneously.”[11] Some of these trips could last months, turning into long stays for political exchange.
On May 1, 2000, the French CNT (also known as “Vignoles”) organized the “Un Autre Futur” days. The events were supported by Alternative Libertaire and the Federation Anarchiste and served to unite French anarchism. Some 6,000 people attended the demonstration behind the CNT banner, a near-historical milestone.
But those events also served as a meeting point for libertarian syndicalist organizations: CNT-F, SAC, Unicobas, Industrial Workers of the World, FAU (Germany), RKAS (Ukraine), Democratic Confederation of Labor (Morocco) and SKT (Siberia)[12] and other countries.[13] And again, they were also a place of socialization for French, Italian, and Irish anarcho-communist militants.
In all these cases, when we talk about making contact at the political level, it's not just a matter of coincidentally meeting at an event or exchanging messages online. In many cases, it was about traveling to a place, living together, and establishing personal connections, absorbing what was happening there and debating—especially debating—and learning to transfer it back to one's place of origin... and then debating again. Personal connections were central to this entire process.
Platformism on the Internet
The second "black thread" is related to the greater connectivity provided by technology. At the dawn of the internet, several anarchist-leaning websites emerged: A-infos, Infoshop, Spunk, and a few others, which emerged in the 1990s. One of those websites was that of the Irish platformist organization Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM) [14]. In just a few years, hundreds of classic texts on the history of anarchism and the anarcho-communist or platformist movement and theory were uploaded to the internet. This movement gained a significant following around the world. Later, they redesigned the website and put it online under the domain struggle.ws, leaving the WSM website for texts related to the organization itself. This dissemination and training work would soon bear fruit with the creation of a South African organization, the Workers Solidarity Front (WSF), inspired by its Irish sister organization.
Shortly before 2000, both organizations (or members of both) created the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list. In their presentation, they clearly identified the type of members they were addressing:[15]
We identify as anarchists and with the "Platformist" tradition within anarchism, which includes groups and publications such as "The Organizational Platform of Libertarian Communists," the "Friends of Durruti," and the "Manifesto of Libertarian Communism." We broadly identify with the organizational practices defended by this tradition, though not necessarily with everything they did or said. In other words, it is a starting point for our politics, not an end point.
The mailing list's opening document bears a strong resemblance to the one that would later be published by anarkismo.net. It is typical for political organizations to issue a "points of unity" document or a "mission statement" that explains the organization's basic policies.
We can also see that they considered their references to be the 1926 Platform of the Delo Truda group; the Friends of Durruti of the Spanish Revolution; and the Manifesto written by Georges Fontenis in 1953. These three texts emphasize the need for a powerful, specific anarchist organization that will articulate the anarchist militancy that intervenes in mass organizations. Ultimately, these social organizations are the ones that will bring the Social Revolution. These are the same texts that FdCA claimed on its 30th anniversary, celebrated in 2016. [16]
The South African ZACF (also known as Zabalaza) [17] (created shortly after the dissolution of the WSF) was also inspired by the same texts, which it considered its fundamental references. Years later, it would add to the list the text "Social Anarchism and Organization," published by the Brazilian organization FARJ after its first congress in 2008. [18]
The mailing list, as we can see, brought together activists from all over the world, although predominantly from the English-speaking world. The list was used to convene an in-person meeting of platformist organizations held in Genoa in 2001, during the alterglobalization counter-summit, at the initiative of the Italian organization. [19]
We should add that in April 2001, the summit of heads of state of the countries of the American continent was held in Quebec, Canada. For the occasion, an "International Declaration of Libertarian Communists" was published, which attacked capitalist globalization and concluded its statement by calling for the construction of a libertarian socialist society. Among the signatories were several platformist organizations (NEFAC, WSM, ORA-S Czech Republic, OCL-France, OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire of France and its Lebanese counterpart) along with anarcho-syndicalist organizations from the IWA and specific synthesis organizations. This was an exception, as these currents would rarely come together again. [20]
International Libertarian Solidarity
As we have seen previously, some activists had in mind the creation of an alternative syndicalist international and a libertarian international. The definitive and stable connection between Europe and Latin America occurred around 1994, although contacts had existed before then. The Spanish-Swiss Arístides Pedraza was one of those links and put Juan Carlos Mechoso in touch with the Barcelona militants.[21] From then on, a very good relationship was established. The Spanish, French, and Swiss activists paid for their Latin American comrades' travels, organized talks, press conferences, and meetings. In this way, within the CGT-E, they met "Juan Carlos and Juan Pilo from the FAU, the Brazilians Eduardo, "el Bocha," "el Gaucho," and Verónica from the Argentine OSL. At that time, we helped cover the costs of three ‘ateneos’ in Uruguay, Cerro, Colón, and Acacias." (Olaizola) [22]
The formalization of this network of contacts and organizations would give rise to International Libertarian Solidarity (SIL). This may be our third thread. It was driven by diverse organizations with libertarian communist and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, while other groups had a less politically defined social anarchism. [23] Its first meeting was held in Madrid on April 1, 2001, at the initiative of the CGT-E.[24] The founding text was written by Juan Carlos Mechoso (Montevideo), Pepe García Rey, alias "Ramón Germinal" (Granada), and Paco Marcellán (Madrid): [25]
Today, as a first step, we support the establishment of a global libertarian network in which all affinity groups that so wish can find their space, open to libertarian organizations, associations, athenaeums, unions, and other libertarian collectives. This network will serve to spread mutual support and solidarity in the struggles, it will function as a source of information and debate for the libertarian world, it will organize international meetings, it will create training schools, it will use videoconferences, the Internet and all kinds of available tools to articulate strategies that allow the introduction and guidance of the libertarian idea in the various social struggles. [26]
Regarding the list of organizations, we have the OSL (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon), FAU (Uruguay), the Gaucha Anarchist Federation (FAG, Brazil),[27] the ORA-Solidarita of the Czech Republic,[28] all of them anarcho-communist tendencies, and also the French anti-fascist network No Pasarán, the Magonista[29] organization, CIPO-RFM (Mexico)[30], and the anarcho-syndicalist organizations CGT-E, SAC (Sweden), Unicobas (Italy) and CNT-F (Vignoles, France). The latter participated just in the first meeting, but withdrew from the SIL network. Meanwhile, FdCA (Italy), ZACF (South Africa)[31], AUCA (Argentina)[32], NEFAC (North America)[33], and the newly created Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo (Spain) soon joined the network. This attempt at a specific organization in Spain didn't achieve much success.
A couple more international meetings were held in the following years. Their context was that of the resistance movement against capitalist globalization, which in Europe was characterized by counter-summits against meetings of the big Capital (such as those of the World Bank, the G8, or the European Union), which were accompanied by mass protests.
Thanks to their existence, several projects were funded, such as the "Aragón" printing press and an athenaeum in Uruguay, a community center, a cooperative, and a printing press in Brazil, a local office in Cuba, and support for the newspaper of the Argentine NGO. The most important thing is that the SIL brought together various European and Latin American activists, funded trips, published books, published newspapers, funded public events for the organizations, and much more.
As we can imagine, these contacts led to many joint workshops, conferences, debates, and interviews between several of these particular activists that continued well into the 2010s.[34]
However, this initiative of internationalist solidarity didn't last long either. The SIL was created during the period of decline in the alterglobalization movement. Furthermore, the CGT (Spain) changed its secretariat, and these contacts were no longer developed.
ELAOPA, the Porto Alegre Anarchist Conference, and the first CALA
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we find the fourth thread of international construction. Meetings between the FAU, the Brazilian FAG, and Argentine groups had been common in the 1990s. This work had borne fruit, as by the beginning of the new century, other groups of this movement already existed in other countries. Now it was time to articulate them.
On the national level, on the one hand, Brazilian groups and organizations created the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), established in 2002. It was a space for ideological, theoretical, and strategic debate, taking the scale of the event to a new level in Brazil. On the other hand, similar processes had taken place in Chile (1999), with the Anarcho-Communist Unification Congress (CUAC). Not exactly from the CUAC, but certainly influenced by that process, the Chilean Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) was created in 2002.[35]
Within the framework of the World Social Forum (WSF), held in Porto Alegre in 2003, the so-called Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) emerged.[36] The meeting proposed a space separate from the WSF, which was comprised of NGOs, political parties, and even business initiatives. The radical sector of popular movements called for class autonomy and the creation of an alliance of social movements outside of institutions. ELAOPA had the following principles:
1. The Construction of Popular Power.
2. An Anti-patriarchal and Anti-colonial Perspective.
3. Popular Protagonism and Direct Action.
4. Class Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and Internationalism.
In subsequent events, ELAOPA disassociated itself from the WSF and moved to another city, holding meetings approximately every two years. In 2025, the 15th meeting was held in Santiago, Chile, with more than 400 people representing numerous grassroots organizations.[37]
ELAOPA is a meeting of social and popular organizations, and rarely do any of them claim to be libertarian; at most, they claim to be "autonomous," "classist," "popular," or claim to have "libertarian influences." However, the militancy of so-called "anarquismo especifista" was present in many of those organizations. We are talking about the unionist, social and neighborhood militancy of the aforementioned FAU, FAG, and others, who were active in these popular movements and took advantage of the ELAOPA meetings to meet as well.
With ELAOPA, an opportunity arose for face-to-face encounters among libertarian militancy. Therefore, a separate event was created, typically held the day after the Popular Meeting ended: the Jornadas Anarquistas (Anarchist Days). They were (and are) a space not only for propaganda or libertarian culture, but also for strategic debate focused on intervention in social struggles and the promotion of the movement.[38]
The efforts were very successful. By the 2007-2008 period, several new libertarian communist organizations had been created, some with the aim of being national in scope:
The situation of "platformist" specificism is considerably more varied and complex. We already saw at the appropriate time that the Organización Comunista Libertaria, Rojo y Negro, Comunismo Libertario, the Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista, and the Colectivo Comunista Libertario in Argentina should be considered as such; the Organización Poder Popular Libertario in Bolivia; to the groups that revolve around the Forum of Organized Anarchism and the Uniâo Popular Anarquista [Unipa] in Brazil; to the Organización Comunista Libertaria, the Agitación Libertaria Collective, and the Movimiento Libertario Joaquín Murieta in Chile; to the Alianza Comunista Libertaria in Mexico; to Qhispikay Llaqta in Peru; and finally, to the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, the Cimarrón Libertarian Organization, the Libertarian Federation, and Bandera Negra in Uruguay.[39]
Along with this array of groups, naturally, larger-scale initiatives for coordination also emerged. The largest attempt of the era was the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA), created in 2004 by the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil), AUCA (Argentina), Lucha Libertaria, and UNIPA (Brazil).[40] However, this UNIPA broke with the current to create its own political space, "Bakuninism," prioritizing alliances with the Libertarian Communist Alliance (ALC) of Mexico and the Anarchist Revolutionary Organization (ORA) of Argentina. Later, the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FOR) of Brazil was added to CALA. This first CALA lasted only a few years.
CALA adhered to especifist anarchism. They defended a strategy of democratic and disruptive popular power, but they never attempted to define the characteristics of a post-revolutionary society. They understood especifism as anarchist political organization. Therefore, they differed from platformism only in their particular Latin American anarchist tradition and the time in which both proposals emerged. Consequently, their vocation is identical, despite some distinctive developments.
The Creation of the anarkismo.net Website
As we have seen before, the SIL had already managed to connect some 11 anarcho-communist organizations, with another 3 that did not define themselves as such, but, with a little political work, could have adopt it without much difficulty. The disappearance of the SIL network left an organizational void that anarkismo.net would fill.
In the words of José Antonio Gutiérrez:[41]
The idea for Anarkismo.net was initially born as the idea of creating an international magazine. Around 1999, we began talking with a comrade from Alternative Libertaire and myself, who was then in charge of international relations at CUAC [Chile], to discuss the need to get to know each other better as libertarian organizations that were on the platformist wing. There was then an email list where we exchanged discussions and experiences, but we felt we needed more in-depth articles to better understand our politics from our contexts and practices. Our idea was to create an annual international almanac of anarcho-communism, with information on the countries where we were present and their organizations, a highly reflective and critical annual review.
So we began to discuss this idea, and in February 2002, we met Nestor McNabb of the FdCA [Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici] in Dublin, along with Andrew Flood of the WSM. The three of us met at a pub in downtown Dublin, on South William Street. The pub is called Grogan's. There we discussed the idea of an annual almanac, and the idea grew. We took it to our organizations, and with the growth of the internet, we decided that, for reasons of budget, ease of distribution, etc., it was much better to have an international site on anarcho-communism.
Thus, the idea of Anarkismo was born, an anarcho-communist and multilingual site, hence the name, which is "anarchism" in Esperanto. The site, after much work, was launched on May 1, 2005, a very symbolic date. The idea began as a website, but the goal from the outset was to facilitate exchanges between organizations and better understand each other, with the aim of bringing us closer together politically and generating a trend. We didn't want to propose an international organization in name only; rather, we wanted international work and the exchange of experiences to develop gradually and organically, giving way to greater cohesion as a trend, as a movement, with a view to creating an international federation with solid foundations. That was the intention from the beginning.
Militants such as Nestor McNab (Irishman living in Rome), Paul Bowman, Andrew Flood, and Ian McKay (Ireland), Jonathan Payn (South Africa), Dimitris Troaditis (first in Athens and later in Melbourne), Adam Weaver (Miami), Nicolas Phoebus (Quebec), Wayne Price (New York) and the Chilean José Antonio Gutierrez, among others, were key figures in the political, technical, and editorial development of the new portal. They had met through the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list and other in-person meetings. They had read each other's articles and disseminated or translated them in their respective territories and languages.
Among the founding organizations of anarkismo.net were the aforementioned FAU, FAG, FdCA, and Alternative Libertaire (France). Not all of them joined at the same time, but some had been in contact from the beginning but took some time to decide (for example, FAU and OSL). Together with the organizations to which the aforementioned comrades belonged, the foundations were laid for a project that made possible the international articulation of the entire anarcho-communist or platformist movement.[42]
By then, in the first half of the 2000s, several new organizations already existed with some relevance to the libertarian communist movement. To name a few: NEFAC (Northwestern United States and Eastern Canada), CUAC and OCL (Chile), OSL and FACA (Argentina), in addition to the already well-known ZACF (South Africa), Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), and WSM (Ireland).
As we can see, the anarchist groups were predominantly male, and therefore, practically all the international delegates were men. Women attended the meetings most often when the delegations from their organizations were composed of several people.
It is equally important to mention that the roles played by the organizations' militancy in the international meetings were made possible thanks to the work of numerous comrades who, in one way or another, influenced the development and dynamism of their organizations. This occurred in multiple ways: creating theoretical, strategic, or debate contributions; meeting in different settings; disseminating experiences; or contributing to strengthening ties. Each person contributed their own grain of sand.
The movement framed within anarcho-communism understood that anarchism, if it wanted to have any relevance, should be well organized and, of course, take seriously its participation in collective struggles, seeking to empower them, and politically and strategically coordinating all the libertarian people within it.
We define ourselves as Communist Anarchists because we belong to the anarchist tradition that recognizes the need for a dual organization: a "specific" anarchist organization that works within and alongside the mass organizations of the working class.[43]
Each organization had its own website and journals from which they projected their strategy. The most widely distributed were the monthly magazines Alternative Libertaire and Courant Alternatif [44] in France, and Alternativa Libertaria in Italy, which dated back to the 1970s and already had a readership.
On the internet, in addition to anarkismo.net, the most prolific anarcho-communist sites were the British website libcom.org, which published dozens of biographies related to Makhnovism, usually written by Nick Heath [45]; Nestor McNab's website nestormakhno.info; makhno.ru, in Russian; the Anarchist and the Platformist Tradition website[46]; and A-Infos itself, whose editorial team included the Israeli anarchist Ilan Shalif, a staunch anarcho-communist. [47] These websites contributed to spreading the movement, as struggle.ws and zabalaza.net had done before them.
A Coordination, Not an International
Anarkismo.net did not aspire to be an international, but rather a tool for sharing information about local struggles, theory, and strategies. It operated through a Collective of Delegates and an Editorial Collective, with the former taking on a political role and the latter a technical one.
Some preferred a more defined structure—moving towards an International—like Alternative Libertaire, while others preferred to maintain it as an open space. Despite this difference, some solidarity campaigns were carried out, such as the one in support of the Oaxaca uprising (2005-06).
Over the years, this movement grew stronger in Latin America, especially in Chile (OCL, FEL), Argentina (Joaquín Penina Libertarian Column [48], Red Libertaria, and Brazil (FARJ), where numerous groups, websites, and blogs emerged. And its way of interpreting anarcho-communism, called "specificism," became consolidated. Several Brazilian authors, such as Bruno Lima, Rafael Viana, and Felipe Correa, who founded the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA) along with South Africans Lucien van der Walt, Michael Schmidt and Jonathan Payn, contributed to this. Other activists, such as the aforementioned Dimitris Troaditis and the Argentine Emilio Crisi, among others, also contributed to this. The ITHA has almost served as a think tank for academic texts within the movement.
Correa defined especifismo as:[50]
It is a movement that upholds a set of positions regarding the major strategic debates of anarchism. First, in relation to the organizational debate, Especifistas maintain the need for an organizational dualism, based on which anarchists articulate themselves within a political organization, as anarchists, and within social organizations (unions and social movements), as workers. Second, regarding the debate on the role of reforms, Especifistas believe that, depending on how they are sought and achieved, they can contribute to a revolutionary process. Third, regarding the debate on violence, Especifistas believe that it must always be carried out in the context of and concomitant with the construction of mass movements. On the social level, of mass movements, Especifismo promotes a program that has numerous affinities with revolutionary syndicalism.
In Latin America, this movement launched initiatives and trends within labor unions, as well as within the student and neighborhood movements, such as the FEL (libertarian student fronts, present in several countries, although initially emerged in Chile), Resistência Popular in Brazil, and the Federation of Base Organizations (FOB) in Argentina, among others.
To avoid referring to specificism or platformism, which are difficult for the general public to understand, the movement preferred to use the concept of organized anarchism. Elsewhere, the term "social and organized anarchism" was used to further narrow its target audience.
Anarcho-communist groups also emerged elsewhere in the world, most notably in Russia (Autonomous Action [51] – and also in its sphere of influence: Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Israel), Ukraine (RKAS-Makhno), Turkey (AKI, KaraKizil, Liberter), Australia (MAGC)[52], Greece (Western Greece Anarchist Federation), and with influence in other territories. In the former cases, anarcho-communism was mixed with insurrectionalism, while in the latter, their paths were distinct.
In November 2008, the first G20 summit was held in Washington. For this occasion, the "Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting" was issued. It was the beginning of the crisis. The real estate and financial bubbles had burst a few months earlier, and there was talk of collapse. States had to bail out banks to avoid further damage. Eleven organizations signed the declaration. Several organizations already mentioned on other occasions signed the agreement. The new ones were Common Cause (Ontario, Canada), Union Communiste Libertaire (Quebec, Canada), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Liberty & Solidarity (L&S, Great Britain) [53] and two synthesis organizations: the Asociación Obrera Canaria and the Anarchist Federation of Berlin. [54]
Sometime later, in February 2010, six organizations from the current met in Paris: the FdCA (Italy), L&S (Great Britain)[53], WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Motmakt ("Counterpower", Norway), and Alternative libertaire (France). Their objective was to assess the state of the libertarian communist movement in Europe and promote continental coordination. They created working groups to maintain relations and advance coordination.[55]
The Maturity of the Network
Around the period 2010-2013, the various groups and organizations that claimed to be anarcho-communists and that were already in mutual contact, as we have seen, consolidated the network. It was then that the Anarkismo Editorial Collective was stabilized, which, as we have already seen, was composed of a delegate from each of the organizations. Here is a table showing the organizations that comprised Anarkismo in 2010 and 2015:
2010
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Buffalo Class Action (USA)
Chasqui Anarquista (Ecuador)
Colectivo Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Common Action (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Convergencia Juvenil Clasista "Hijos del Pueblo" (Ecuador)
Estrategia Libertaria (Chile)
Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Foro del Anarquismo Organizado (Brazil)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Four Star Anarchist Organization (USA)
"Hombre y Sociedad" (Chile)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Liberty & Solidarity (UK)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Miami Autonomy & Solidarity (USA)
Motmakt (Norway)
North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA)
Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Voz Negra (Chile)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia)
Solidarity & Defense (USA)
Union Communiste Libertaire (Canada)
Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
2015
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (Italy)
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Coordination des Groupes Anarchistes (France)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazil)
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
Grupo Anarquista Bifurcación (Colombia)
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre (Colombia)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Libertäre Aktion Winterthur (Switzerland)
Libertarian Communist Group / Grwp Gomiwnyddol Libertaraidd (Wales/Cymru)
Libertære Socialister (Denmark)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Motmakt (Norway)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Organização Anarquista Socialismo Libertário (Brazil)
Organización Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Prairie Struggle Organization (Canada)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)
In this list, we can already see the disappearance of NEFAC from North America, which was reduced to a few groups in New England (Buffalo and New York) and Canada (e.g., Common Cause and UCL). Eventually, in 2014, the US groups created a federation, Black Rose. [56] We can also see the founding, in 2012, of the Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazilian Anarchist Coordination), based on pre-existing groups (such as FAG, FARJ, OASL, CAZP, and others) [57] that were organized around the FAO forum and already belonged to the Anarkismo network.
The remaining organizations continued the libertarian communist or anarcho-communist tradition dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, such as Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), OSL (Switzerland, joined Anarkismo in 2010), the FAU (Uruguay) and WSM (Ireland).
The French CGA was a split from the Francophone Anarchist Federation following its call to support Jacques Chirac in the presidential elections to prevent Le Pen from winning. Over time, the CGA shifted towards anarcho-communism and eventually merged with Alternative Libertaire in 2019, creating the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL), which is currently the largest organization of its kind in the world.
Each organization has its own history, and it would take too long to describe them all here. What is obvious is that this movement was articulated on a global scale and was able to take advantage of the rise of radicalism that swept the planet in 2011, in the same way that the SIL developed during the alterglobalization movement.
2011 saw the Arab Spring, the Indignados movement, and the square occupations. It was also the moment when a new generation entered activism. The Rojava Revolution emerged with force. Anarcho-communist organizations emerged in Egypt (the Libertarian Socialist Movement, MSL), Israel (Unity), and Tunisia, which had only existed for a short time, as well as new attempts in Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan.
That year, a statement of solidarity was issued with 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. It was signed by 11 libertarian communist organizations. [58] That same year, the declaration of solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, whose people had just overthrown the Mubarak regime, was signed. [59] This time, 23 organizations signed. New initiatives included organizations from Egypt (MSL), Colombia (Vía Libre and CELIP), Chile (Libertarian Communist Federation and the magazine "Política y Sociedad"), and the United States (Autonomy and Solidarity of Miami). A number of anarcho-syndicalist groups, such as the CGT-E, Solidaridad Obrera, WSA (United States), and the ICEA (Spain), also signed the agreement. [60]
Once again, the Anarkismo network declined to formalize itself as a more solid structure—as an international federation—to avoid falling into rivalries and competition with the other libertarian internationals, the IWA and IFA at the time. However, it is undeniable that it was functioning in a fairly coordinated manner.
In 2012, eight European organizations met again in London. [61] In addition to talking about improving coordination, they launched a campaign against sovereign debt. That same year, Jornadas Anarquistas were held in Sao Paulo, convened by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and the Forum of Organized Anarchism of Brazil (FAO) [62] to develop especifist anarchism on the continent. On that occasion, they approved strategic documents around the concepts of popular power and federalism.
To speak of "popular" means to imbue the project of power with an eminently classist character, although we must emphasize that we speak of power from a libertarian perspective. A project of the oppressed that arises from popular movements and that accumulates the social force necessary for a long-term confrontation, with firm, strong, and well-defined steps, which we believe are necessary from an ideological point of view.[63]
It was from then on that the anarchist movement would more decisively adopt this theoretical conception, more typical of the development of the class struggle in Latin America, and it would soon also reach Europe through Embat (Catalonia) and Libertäre Aktion (Bern).
In August 2012, the largest in-person meeting of the movement took place: in Saint Imier (Switzerland). Taking advantage of the International Anarchist Meeting, a tent called "Anarkismo" was set up as a meeting point for the movement's international militants and sympathizers. Approximately half of the 30 organizations that were in contact with anarkismo.net at the time sent delegates to the International Meeting, and a conference of delegates was held. The enormous growth of this movement in Latin America was evident, and a significant development was seen since the beginning of the website.
From the perspective of the WSM delegation, the various Anarkismo meetings held during the week were a valuable opportunity to meet comrades we might never have crossed paths with and to revitalize our involvement in the Anarkismo network. The network itself continues to expand since its very modest beginnings in 2005, both in terms of the number of organizations involved, the geographical dispersion of these organizations, and, most importantly, increased cooperation between them. When each organization presented its work during the morning of the global meeting, it was striking to see the common political and organizational approach we share, despite operating in very different contexts. It also became clear that South American organizations in particular have experienced significant growth in number and influence in recent years.[64]
As a positive measure: Swiss and French synthesist and platformist organizations, which did not always enjoy good relations, collaborated in the preparation of the Meeting. But not everyone was under the same illusions. The organizational problems were numerous, and what the Meeting lacked most was precisely programmatic clarity:
It would have been a very different matter if, for three or two years in advance, a debate had been prepared and carried out around a common analysis of the situation, a real coordination and federation of organizations and struggles had been promoted, and progress had been made toward establishing a common program... we would be able to reflect and we would have real elements to evaluate, that the fruit of this work in St. Imier or elsewhere would have culminated, and the logic of this culmination would not be a meeting but the creation of an anarchist international.[65]
In 2014, a joint May Day communiqué was signed by several organizations: [66] ZACF (South Africa), WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Collectife Communiste Libertaire (Bienne, Switzerland), FdCA (Italy), WSA (United States), Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia), and Prairie Struggle (United States). Months later, 14 organizations from the movement signed another communiqué in support of the Kurdish resistance. [67] This was the last joint communiqué of this era.
On November 18 and 19, 2017, several European organizations met in Genoa to exchange analyses and establish a European action plan. The Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (the new name of the veteran Italian organization), Alternative Libertaire (France), CGA (France), the Libertarian Socialist Federation (Wales, Great Britain), OSL (Switzerland), and WSM (Ireland) met.[68] Embat (Catalonia) sent his greetings to the meeting, and from then on, he became much more closely involved with this movement.
By 2020, the Union Communiste Libertaire of France was doing an extensive mapping of the movement:[69]
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?reseau-international-8794
Over the years, a tradition developed of sending greetings to each organization of the current that held a congress. This helped to forge an international movement and made all activists aware that they belonged to a movement much larger than their own organization or local context. [70]
Time Ebb
It wasn't all good news for the movement. In addition to the thorny Chilean issue, which we will soon discuss, between 2018 and 2021, WSM [71] and Zabalaza dissolved, as did other local and regional groups in North America, due to a failure to achieve generational change. Furthermore, other organizations also entered into crisis, without dissolving, such as Motmakt (Norway),[72] with whom contact was lost. Several European organizations disappeared (in Denmark, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Turkey) or their movements were unable to achieve stability (Great Britain or Russia). In the Americas, organizations in Bolivia and Peru were lost, and there were splits in Argentina, Chile, and the United States.
Another split during this period was that suffered by the Anarchist Federation (Great Britain). This organization, created in 1986 as an anarcho-communist, had long been a synthetist federation. In 2018, there was an internal conflict in AF, and a sector emerged from it that would form the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG),[73] already with a marked libertarian communist tendency. The ACG succeeded British platformist organizations that never managed to take root, such as L&S or the LSF. Even so, several anarcho-communist groups remained that have not yet considered joining the ACG.
The causes of these crises are diverse. For example, various social and political situations arose in several states that made it impossible to cultivate international relations. These relations were also interrupted in the event of internal crises and ruptures within the organizations. Another problem for maintaining stable international relations was the rapid change of delegates, with several organizations having delegates who did not speak English, while other comrades who had managed these relations moved on to other functions within their organizations. FdCA fared worse, as in just four months of 2018, they lost Donato Romito and Monia Andreani to pass away. In other cases, a more internal approach was prioritized, improving integration at the social and territorial levels, but relegating the international arena to a secondary level. Finally, the case of Michael Schmidt and his expulsion from anarkismo.net and ITHA was not without damage. [74]
The Chilean Case
At this point, we should talk about the movement in Chile. Its origins date back to 1999, with the celebration of the CUAC, initiating a process that would later give rise to the OCL in 2002. The following year, a Libertarian Student Front (FEL) was launched, and in 2006, following the so-called "Penguin Revolt" (high school students), the FEL grew exponentially. It managed to attract numerous activists, and when that generation of students went to university, they came to lead the student movement, usually controlled by communists and autonomists. Activists such as Felipe Ramírez, Fabián Araneda, and Melissa Sepúlveda held important elected positions in the Chilean Student Federation (FECH, which is unitary and semi-institutional), which at the time was one of the most powerful popular movements in Chile. Among their most notable initiatives was their highly colorful and recognizable graphic style, which was copied and adapted by many collectives elsewhere. They filled Chile with murals through their Ernesto Miranda muralist units. [75]
Some time later, this entire political space merged into the Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left). This new organization adopted strategic lines different from the libertarian communist magma that had driven the movement up to that point, shifting toward a much less defined libertarian socialism, more in line with libertarian Marxism. At the same time, they achieved a scale never seen before for a libertarian organization in recent decades, rivaling other political parties and organizations much more established in the Chilean scene.
In this context, a sector of libertarians—which I would venture to say is the majority—has made a series of reflections that have shaped the political approach known as "Democratic Rupture" in various articles and public documents, as well as in internal discussion processes. Despite this, there is still some confusion regarding the implications of this wager, which we will try to clarify to some extent with this article.[76]
Chilean libertarian communist sectors began supporting leftist electoral options in 2013. At first, they did so tactically, without intervening in the campaigns, but calling for a vote for a democratic rupture to overthrow the reactionary democratic regime that ruled the country. Later, in the 2018 electoral process, the Izquierda Libertaria the Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which was running in the parliamentary elections. Due to its participation, libertarian activist Gael Yeomans was elected as a deputy.[77] Since then, the Izquierda Libertaria has had more regional and national deputies, as well as senators. These efforts culminated in a progressive government in the country led by Gabriel Boric, a former autonomist student leader from the same era as the FEL. However, this has not produced the expected radicalization of society to build revolutionary alternatives in a socialist sense through popular power and constituent power. Chile continues to be a capitalist state—of a progressive nature, admittedly—without the slightest hint of socializing policies.
As can be seen, the Izquierda Libertaria [78] had abandoned traditional libertarian communist postulates and was pointed out by rivals and opponents of the anarchist communist current within anarchism as a logical derivation of all especifist anarchism. For this reason, and for other reasons as well, it suffered some splits,[79] such as Solidaridad FCL,[80] some of which in turn followed the parliamentary path, resulting in further splits.
At the Latin American level, the especifist movement distanced itself from all these Chilean groups until the Santiago Anarchist Federation (FAS)[81] emerged in 2019, once again aligned with the rest of the international movement. This FAS, therefore, emerges as a break with the imprint taken by Chilean libertarian communism, returning to Latin American especifism.
From Network to Coordination
Between 2015 and 2019, the movement experienced a setback caused by issues we have already seen, causing divisions in some organizations within the movement, hindering understanding, fostering disorientation, or directly leading to the dissolution of some organizations and the destruction of entire movements, as we have seen.
Not everything was disappointing, of course. While a national British organization (the ACG) had emerged in 2018, in 2019 Die Plattform was founded in Germany, the largest European state that until then had lacked organizations of the movement.
At the 2019 Jornadas Anarquistas, Latin American organizations spoke of the need to relaunch the movement.[82] At this time, they championed especifism, or, in other words, politically organized anarchism, and sought to consolidate it in all regions. Their communiqué defined the role of the anarchist political organization, which should be responsible for developing the theory and analytical tools to understand reality and better operate within it. They emphasized the internal political work of each organization to avoid confusion and dead ends.
Our lives depend on [our social] insertions, but the Political Organization, that small engine that drives the popular movement, is necessary alongside it. The Anarchist Political Organization, in the especifist conception, is not avant-garde, but rather one of militant self-denial, with the aim of incentivizing and guiding a process of revolutionary rupture with broad participation of the organized people. We deeply respect the specific nature of that level. We have called this process Popular Power, a process of building the organizations of popular power that will replace the bourgeois power structures. Thus, social insertion and political organization go hand in hand and are articulated horizontally in a very different way than that proposed and developed by all the vanguardist movements of the left to date, which have done nothing more than limit the development of popular organizations and instrumentalize them as "apparatuses" useful to their parties. For this reason, Especifist Anarchism speaks of a Strong People [Pueblo Fuerte] and not a "strong party," as all currents of Marxism have proposed. We advocate a Strong People, a people who construct their destiny and their own opportunities and degrees of freedom according to their experience of struggle, development, and progress in the process of rupture.
As a result of this initiative, the foundations for new international work began to be laid. In December 2019, the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) was re-established, formed by the CAB (Brazil),[84] the FAR (Argentina),[85] and the FAU (Uruguay). These organizations served as a focal point for the entire movement and took over from the European organizations, which had been leading the way until then.
“…We are convinced that Anarchism must be operational, agile, and in tune with new social realities in order to confront the harshness that this ruthless system imposes on those at the bottom. But to do so, we reiterate, Anarchism must be politically organized. It is Political Organization that allows militants to process the necessary discussions and debates, make pertinent analyses of the conjuncture, define action and development plans, fine-tune tactics, and also design a final strategy and adapt that strategy to each period of action, to each conjuncture…”[85]
With CALA, the entire international libertarian communist movement was extraordinarily energized, starting with the notable efforts of Nathaniel Clavijo (Uruguay), who enlisted the help of Dimitris Troaditis (now based in Melbourne, Australia), Jonathan Payn (now in Istanbul), Johnny Rumpf (Bern, Switzerland), and Gio (France) to reorganize the movement. As always, the veterans pull the younger ones until they understand how it works.
In 2020, the year of the global pandemic, the foundations were laid for a more articulated international coordination than before. From then on, meetings became much more stable, as they could be held online. Meetings were held every month or two, and a fairly natural coordination took shape.
The reason for so many meetings was the movement's need to publish international statements. The first was to support the Chilean uprising and demand the freedom of those arrested during the December 2019 protests.[86] Later, it was signed jointly on May Day, then on June 28th, Stonewall Day, then to support the American people after the police murder of George Floyd, also on July 19th, against the repression in Turkey, on March 8th, to commemorate the anniversary of Krondstadt, the Paris Commune, on the pandemic, against the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and many others. On each occasion, between 12 and 25 organizations from around the world signed.
Another project was to support anarchist comrades in Sudan,[87] who needed financial assistance to leave the country. These days, some of those people are returning. Other coordinating initiatives have been the summer camps and schools, organized by each organization independently, such as those organized by Embat and UCL since 2018 and 2020, respectively. In the case of the former, in 2024 it helped organize the first especifist meeting in Spain, together with the organizations Liza (Madrid) and Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries (Catalonia), which was attended by people from other places and other organizations. Similarly, the French camps are attended by British, German, Swiss, Spanish, or Italian activists, depending on the occasion. Die Plattform has also organized such camps, while an Anarchist Political School was held in Australia, which has helped articulate the tendency until an anarchist federation has been formed there. Finally, this summer the first camp of the British ACG will be held.
To an outside audience, the development of organized anarchism might seem quite informal. However, it has been an organic process. There was a prior praxis dating back to the 1990s. Initially, there was a personal level, comprised of activists who sometimes met without a mandate from their organizations. Then came the level of formal meetings of the organizations, represented by delegates. The third level would be joint working groups between activists from different countries that carry out specific projects. It is necessary to know how to read the process and understand the rhythms, which are sometimes fast and other times slow. The fact is that, starting in 2020, the dynamic accelerated.
In short, the Coordination towards 2022 was composed of the following organizations:
• Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italy
• Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – Great Britain
• Federación Anarquista – Greece
• Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/New Zealand
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brazil
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (FAR) – Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Switzerland
• Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) – Australia
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba (OAC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz (OASC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán (OAT) – Argentina
• Roja y Negra – Organización Politica Anarquista (Buenos Aires) – Argentina
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Switzerland
• Tekoşina Anarşist (TA) – Rojava
• Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France, Belgium y Switzerland
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
Some organizations from Turkey, such as DAF[88] and Karala, which have since dissolved, also participated. In these cases, these organizations did not define themselves as libertarian communists or anarcho-communists, but simply anarchists, but there was always mutual understanding. Similarly, relations have always been maintained with Tekoşîna Anarşîst,[89] an organization composed of international anarchist militants in Rojava.
In some of the early meetings, contacts were also made with organizations from Iran and the Philippines, although it was clear that they did not share the basic foundations of the movement, and their paths diverged. Nevertheless, starting in 2020, a growth in the number of groups and militants worldwide was noted. In some countries, this growth has led to the establishment of national organizations with several local groups, such as in Australia, Germany, and Argentina.
Most organizations during this period focused on approving and working on their own programs, moving beyond the model of those anarchist groups that had only a vague understanding of reality and whose militancy was united only by principles, the distant goal of libertarian communism and little else.
The International Coordination of Organized Anarchism
The result of the above has been the formal construction of the Coordination at the end of 2024. This Coordination does not have the form of an International, but rather a network. It has continental sections in Europe and the Americas, and perhaps something similar will be done in the Asia-Pacific in the medium term, but it is primarily articulated at a global level.
One of its projects is the website anarkismo.net, which now acts as a speaker for the entire movement internationally.
Since the time of the communiqués, a South Korean organization and the Black Rose Federation of the United States have joined. Several more have appeared throughout, creating an increasingly complex and difficult-to-follow map.
What is worth highlighting is CALA's insistence on the theoretical and strategic unity of all the Coordination's organizations. This has allowed almost all organizations to self-evaluate and conduct their ideological, theoretical, and strategic debates, leading to current situation analyses, programs, and political lines. At that time, several non-Latin American organizations also began to call themselves "especifist," and new ones emerged elsewhere with that definition, ignoring more traditional constructs in their regions.
Regarding the currently coordinated organizations, they are:
America
• Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra – United States
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre - Colombia
• Federación Anarquista Santiago - Chile
• Roja y Negra, Organización Política Anarquista - Buenos Aires, Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (CALA)
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CALA):
• Federação Anarquista Gaúcha - Rio Grande do Sul
• Federação Anarquista Cabana - Belem do Pará
• Organização Resistência Libertária - Ceará
• Federação Anarquista Quilombo de Resistência - Bahia
• Federação Anarquista dos Palmares - Alagoas
• Coletivo Anarquista Luta de Classe - Paraná
• Coletivo Anarquista Bandeira Negra - Santa Catarina
• Organização Anarquista Maria Iêda - Pernambuco
• También hay una construcción anarquista en la Argentina formada por:
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (CALA)
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz
• Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Buenos Aires
Europe
• Anarchist Communist Group – Great Britain
• Die Plattform - Germany
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Midada, Libertär, Sozialistisch, Organisiert - Switzerland
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire - Switzerland
• Union Communiste Libertaire - France, Belgium y Switzerland
Middle East
• Tekoşîna Anarşîst - Rojava
Pacific Asia
• Anarchist Worker Solidarity Movement – New Zealand
• Anarchist Solidarity / Anarchist Yondae / 아나키스트 연대 – South Korea
• Anarchist Communist Federation - Australia:
• ACF-Brisbaine - Anarchist Communists Meanjin
• ACF-Melbourne - Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
• ACF-Geelong - Geelong Anarchist Communists
Currently, there are other libertarian communist groups and organizations in the United States, Canada, Brazil (the new OSL is noteworthy due to its size), Italy, Spain, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Indonesia, and New Zealand. These groups do not belong to the International Coordination, but maintain contact with one or more of the current's organizations, which now number several dozens altogether. Of course, they are also an active part of the entire movement, as the Coordination is by no means the entire movement, nor does it claim to be. In any case, these hundreds (or thousands already) of international militants are building a solid libertarian alternative that has already positioned itself within the broader anarchist movement.
Overview
We will conclude by reviewing the current's periods:
• The anarcho-communist current of anarchism dates back to its very beginnings with the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. Its tradition can be traced over the decades. After World War II, this current was reduced to very few countries. Of these, France, Italy, and Uruguay had the most prominent movements, surviving into the 1980s despite all kinds of difficulties.
• In the 1980s, several solid organizations were created that would last for many years: OSL (founded in 1982 in Switzerland), WSM (founded in 1984, Ireland), FdCA (1986, Italy), Union des Travailleurs Communistes Libertaires (1986, France), FAG (1985, Brazil), FAU (reorganized in 1986, Uruguay), and Anarchist Federation (1986, Great Britain, which was initially anarcho-communist). These organizations maintained contact with each other, but the synthesist and anarcho-syndicalist currents predominated by far within the anarchist movement.
• In the 1990s, new organizations began to emerge. Alternative Libertaire (1991, France; derived from previous organizations), FAG (1995), and OSL (1997) in Brazil; OSL (1996), ORA (Rosario), and AUCA (La Plata) in Argentina; CUAC in Chile (1999), among others; various groups in the United States and Canada; ORA (1996, Czech Republic); WSF (1995, South Africa)… Forming an organic relationship, on the one hand, in Latin America through the FAU and FAG, and on the other, in Europe through Alternative Libertaire, OSL, and FdCA, whose union fronts are approaching the CGT-E, and the latter invites them to its meetings. In parallel, the Anarchist Platform mailing list emerged, bringing Anglo-Saxon platformism into contact.
• In the years 1999-2003, the articulation of the movement accelerated through the resistance movement against capitalist globalization. Groups and organizations emerged in many places (too many to list here), creating spaces for interaction, such as ELAOPA, the Jornadas Anarquistas, and CALA in Latin America, and SIL in Europe, although the latter also provided solidarity with initiatives in the South. The entire anarcho-communist movement expanded.
• 2004-2009 period. These were years of ebb and flow in social struggles. Yet, the movement already maintained political relations. This resulted in the creation of anarkismo.net (2005), the signing of solidarity declarations and the first international meetings. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008 erupted.
• In the years 2010-2014, there was again a strong expansion and coordination. Initiatives multiplied: the anarchism network consolidated, new declarations were signed, the Saint Imier meeting was held (2012), and new groups and organizations emerged, and the anarchist movement reached new countries where it had no presence in Asia and Africa.
• 2015-2019 Period. Once again, a period of ebb and flow. Some veteran organizations disbanded, others entered into crisis and stagnation, and others suffered from splits or changed their ideological line. However, the previous inertia continued to produce new organizations.
• Finally, the period from 2020 to the present has given rise to greater international coordination and a climate conducive to the creation of new organizations, aided by the crisis experienced by other currents of anarchism. At this point, the libertarian communist movement is no longer unknown. It is not large, of course, but it appears much more solid than other currents of anarchism.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
CAB (2012). Principles and Practices of Especifismo.
Programmatic Declaration of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination. CAB Link.
FAU (2003). Huerta Grande: Organizational Document.
Founding Text of Uruguayan Especifismo. Available at: FAU Digital.
FAU (2003). Anarchism in the Anti-Globalization Movement.
SIL (2001). Madrid Declaration.
Founding Document of the Network. Available at: FDCA Archives.
WSM (2000). The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.
English translation of the 1926 Platform. Libcom.org.
ZACF (2010). Towards a Fresh Revolution.
Strategic Analysis of the South African Federation. Zabalaza.net.
WSM (2001). Report from the Genoa Counter-Summit. Account of the Genoa protests. Libcom.org.
Online Resources
Libertarian Communist Manifesto (Fontenis):
Full text in Spanish
SIL Archives:
FDCA Historical Documents
The Organizational Platform for a General Union of Anarchists
Nestor Makhno Archive
Publications
Corrêa, F. (2012). Social Anarchism and Organization. AK Press.
Corrêa, F. (2015). Social Anarchism and Organization: The Specific Proposal. Eleuterio Press.
Corrêa, F. (2022). Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy [Interview by M. Walmsley]. Anarkismo.net.
Fontenis, G. (1954/2013). Libertarian Communist Manifesto. Critical edition with foreword by Frank Mintz. Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation.
García, V. (2017). The Libertarian Left in Chile: From resistance to institutional politics. LOM Editions.
Gutiérrez, J.A. (2015). Anarchism in Latin America: The libertarian utopia south of the Rio Grande. Eleutherius.
Lima Rocha, B. (2013). Anarchism and class struggle: A view from Latin America. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana Magazine, 18(60), 13-28.
Lima Rocha, B. (2017). Political militancy and revolutionary strategy: The case of the Gaúcha Anarchist Federation. In Anarchism & Education (pp. 77-94). Editor Fi.
Méndez, N. & Vallota, A. (2018). Anarchism in Latin America: Networks, practices and militancy. CEHIPOL.
Olaizola Albéniz, J. M. (2013). The need to organize anarchists (II). Anarquia.cat. https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
Payn, J. (2018). Building Counter-Power: The ZACF and the South African Left. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements.
Rugai, R. (2020). Specificism: The construction of popular power in Latin America. Faísca Editor.
Troaditis, D. (2020). From Delo Truda to Anarkismo.net: A Century of Anarchist Organizing. Anarchist Studies.
Van der Walt, L. & Schmidt, M. (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. AK Press.
--------
NOTES
1 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/
2 https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/
3 https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/
4 Mail communication with José María Olaizola, 05/20/2025
5 This French trade union organization dates back to 1981 as a grouping of 10 autonomous federations and independent national unions. It was significantly influenced by Trotskyist and, in some cases, libertarian currents. In the 1990s, it had around 50,000-60,000 members.
6 Known as CIB Unicobas, it is an organization of Italian grassroots trade unionism, part of the "Cobas" (grassroots committees) phenomenon. Unicobas was founded in 1991 and quickly came into contact with alternative trade unionism. It had 5,000 members.
7. An anarcho-syndicalist organization founded in Sweden in 1910 under the name Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation. In the 1950s it was excluded from the IWA, entering into conflict with the exiled Spanish CNT. A rivalry existed ever since. When the Spanish CNT split in the 1980s, giving rise to the CGT, this new organization resumed contact with the Swedish union.
8. The Confédération Romande du Travail (CRT) was founded in the early 1970s by Christian syndicalism. Several years later, due to the influence of militant trade unionists, it changed direction and became part of the sector of unions and tendencies of that time that sought to develop an alternative unionism. It dissolved in 1996. Its legacy of militant unionism would later be taken up by the SUD of the canton of Vaud.
9. Ibid.
10 In English, see “International Libertarian Meeting.” https://web.archive.org/web/20080223130405/http://flag.blackened.net/rev…
In French, see Alternative Libertaire, no. 36, October 1995, pp. 14-15:
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
11 Conversation with Nathaniel Clavijo, 05/23/2025.
12 [Sibersakaya Konfederatsia Truda] The Siberian Confederation of Labor (SKT) was founded in March 1995 by Siberian anarcho-syndicalists, who until then had been grouped in a "Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists" that operated from 1989 to 2000. It grew to around 5,000 members, according to its own source.
13 Lucien Van der Walt, "Report on Le Autre Futur" (Report on the Other Future), Paris summit, August 26, 2015
https://lucienvanderwalt.com/2015/08/26/lucien-van-der-walt-2000-report-...
14 https://www.wsm.ie/
15 Announcing Anarchist Platform Email List
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/announcing-anarchist-platform-email-list…
16 Thirty Years of Life… 11/01/2016
https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/blog/2016/11/01/1986-2016-30-...
17 https://zabalaza.net/
18 The text can be read in its original language here:
https://www.cabn.libertar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FARJ_-_ANARQUIS…
19 Interview with the FdCA by NEFAC, 2003
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
20 Against Capitalist Globalization! Alternative Libertaire #96, May 2001, p. 11
https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…
21 A written reference can be found on the back page of the newspaper of the XVII CGT Congress in A Coruña, October 20, 2013. Juan Pilo indicates that Mechoso's trip to Europe accelerated contacts. Among others, they contacted Olaizola, then Secretary General of the CGT.
https://cgt.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diario3.qxd_.pdf
22 Olaizola, 05/20/2025
23 See some RL statements on the Radio Klara website:
https://www.radioklara.org/radioklara/?tag=red-libertaria-apoyo-mutuo
24 Naissance d'un réseau international libertaire. Extrait de mai number from Alternative Libertaire (France):
https://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00171.html
25 Consultation with José María Olaizola. 05/18/2025
26 Declaration of the International Libertarian Meeting. March 31, 2001
https://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_madrid.htm
27 https://www.instagram.com/fag.cab/
28 Interview with ORA by NEFAC, 2003:
https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...
29 "Magonism" is considered a type of libertarian communism native to Mexico. It takes into account the influence of indigenous peoples and draws on their traditional customs and forms of community organization. These ideas became popular in the 1990s. The concept of "Magonism" comes from Ricardo Flores Magón, one of the driving forces of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, who was an anarchist.
The Ricardo Flores Magón Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca (CIPO-RFM) was active between approximately 1997 and 2006. It coordinated various local indigenous organizations in the state of Oaxaca. It moved internationally within libertarian circles. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_Ind%C3%ADgena_Popular_de_Oaxaca_%2…
31 The acronym stands for Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation.
32 https://www.nodo50.org/auca/menu%20que%20es%20auca.html
33 NEFAC stands for North Eastern Anarchist Federation. It united groups from New England and Quebec. Their texts can be found here:
https://libcom.org/tags/nefac
34 For example, the 2008 conference organized by the CGT in Madrid, "A Libertarian Critique of the Current Situation"
https://info.nodo50.org/Jornadas-Una-critica-libertaria-de.html
35 For more information, read José Antonio Gutiérrez, "Reflections on Twenty Years of Anarcho-Communism in Chile," February 24, 2020.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31737
36 To see photos of the first meeting:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/fotos.htm
To see some initial ELAOPA documents:
https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/forum.htm
37 Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) in Santiago, Chile. Rojo y Negro No. 397, February 2025.
https://rojoynegro.info/articulo/encuentro-latinoamericano-de-organizaci…
38 Final Declaration of the 2003 Anarchist Conference:
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/declaracion-final-de-las-jornada…
39 List published by Daniel Barret, The Seditious Awakenings of Anarchy. Buenos Aires: Libros de Anarres, 2011. pp. 153-154
40 https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/el-anar…
41 Anarkismo.net. Interview with one of the founders
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jose-anto…
42 When an anarcho-communist network was formed, anarcho-syndicalist organizations, such as the CGT, the SAC, or the CNT-Vignoles, and grassroots trade unionists, such as Unicobas or the SUD, joined together in new networks, such as FESAL, the International Trade Union Network of Solidarity and Struggle, or the Coordinadora Rojinegra.
43 Excerpt from the interview Autonomous Action of Russia conducted with the ZACF in 2010. The interview can be read at:
https://zabalaza.net/2010/12/07/autonomous-action-russia-interviews-the-...
44 http://oclibertaire.free.fr/
45 Nick Heath is currently a member of the Anarchist Communist Group. He publishes under the pseudonym BattleScarred.
46 https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/
47 Ilan was interviewed extensively in 2025:
https://alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/57055
48 https://columnalibertaria.blogspot.com/
49 http://www.farj.org/
50 Felipe Corrêa. Interview with Mya Walmsey. Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy. An interview with Felipe Corrêa. March 2022.
51 https://avtonom.org/en
52 https://melbacg.au/
53 https://libcom.org/tags/liberty-solidarity
54 Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting, 11/17/2008. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/10681
55 Europe: Libertarian Communists Resist Liaisons. 02/03/2010 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Europe-Les-communistes-libert…
The agreements can be read here: https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rencontre-europeenne-de-group…
56 https://www.blackrosefed.org/about/
57 The CAB would not dissolve the international secretariats of each regional or local organization of the Coordinator until 2016, with each participating independently in international coordination until then.
58 Declaration of international solidarity with the 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. 02/28/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/18895?search_text=declaraci%F3n+intern…
59 International Libertarian Declaration in solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, 11/25/2011
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/21228
60 http://www.iceautogestion.org/index.php/es/
61 WSM takes part in Conference of European Anarchist Organizations in London. March 31, 2011 https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/wsm-conference-european-anarkismo-london…
62 The FAO forum was a precursor to the CAB. It was the space where Brazilian organizations met for debate.
63 Anarchist Conference January 2011. Sao Paulo. April 27, 2011
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/jornadas-anarquistas-enero-janei…
64 Delegation returns from International Anarchist Gathering at St. Imier. August 21, 2012
https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
65 José María Olaizola Albéniz. The Need for Anarchists to Organize (II). Hernani, January 27, 2013
https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/
66 May Day. Building a New Workers' Movement. https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…
67 International Libertarian Declaration of Solidarity with the Kurdish Resistance, 10/22/2014
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/27505
68 We Anarchist/Liberal Communists in the Classroom, in the Europe of Capital, 12/11/2017
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30713
69 The map has not been updated, so it serves to show the state of the libertarian communist movement that year.
70 Consider, for example, these messages received by UCL in 2015:
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Messages-internationaux
71 WSM Closing Statement
https://libcom.org/article/workers-solidarity-movement-closing-statement
72 https://www.motmakt.no/
73 https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/
74 2017 Statement on Michael Schmidt Case / Declaração sobre o caso Michael Schmidt
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/2017-statement-on-michael…
75 Interview with UMLEM, 04/03/2008:
https://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/7092
76 Felipe Ramírez, A Bet Revolutionary movement of the Libertarian Left. 03/11/2013
https://periodico-solidaridad.blogspot.com/2013/11/declaracion-nacional-...
77 See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_Libertaria
78 https://www.instagram.com/izqlibertaria/?hl=es
79 Regarding the breakup of the Libertarian Left, some activists issued this statement:
https://www.tercerainformacion.es/articulo/internacional/30/03/2017/chil…
80 https://solidaridadfcl.org
81 https://fasanarquista7.wordpress.com/
82 Anarchist Conference 2019, 03/20/2019.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31339
83 https://www.instagram.com/cabanarquista/
84 https://www.instagram.com/far_rosario/
85 CALA Launch Statement. December 15, 2019
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/comunicado-de-lanzamiento-de-la-...
86 Joint Internationalist Declaration for the Freedom of the Political Prisoners of the Social Uprising in the Chilean Region, December 12, 2019
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32109
87 Update on the Campaign for the Sudanese Anarchists. April 18, 2024
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32877?search_text=Sudan
88 https://www.facebook.com/DAFederasyon/
89 https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org/
A different reading of several concepts
21 Abril 2025 at 14:21
A different reading of several concepts
By Zaher Baher
April 2025
1. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
This concept was introduced by Lenin, who wrote this book in 1916 during World War I (WW1) while he was in Switzerland, a year before the October Revolution. In writing this book, Lenin greatly benefited from Marx's economic analysis.
The research that Lenin conducted and presented in this book is based on several key points and events in the stages of imperialism, which have been given different titles by economists and historians. According to their definitions, a strong nation or rather, a powerful state expands its influence over weaker countries or regions through political, economic, or military control. This often involves colonization, exploitation, the plundering of resources, and the domination of local populations.
Imperialism has existed in various forms throughout history, but the term is most commonly associated with the period from the 15th to the 20th century. Earlier examples include empires such as the Roman, Persian, and Chinese empires, which expanded by conquering territories.
For Lenin, the term was broadened to explain the economic and political causes of imperialism and its role in triggering global conflicts such as WWI. He argued that imperialism was a natural evolution of capitalism, driven by monopoly and finance capital, which sought new markets through colonial expansion. Lenin defined imperialism as the ‘Highest stage of capitalism,’ in which large corporations and banks dominate economies and seek new markets and resources abroad.
He identifies five main characteristics of imperialism:
1. Capitalism leads to the concentration of production and the rise of monopoly capital, which dominates all industries.
2. The merger of banking and industrial capital results in the emergence of financial oligarchies.
3. The export of capital (investment in foreign markets) becomes more significant than the export of goods.
4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies that divide the world among themselves.
5. The territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers is completed, leading to conflict.
Drawing on Marx's writings on economics, Lenin understood that capitalism was evolving toward monopoly, with small businesses being exploited by large corporations. The issue of currency and monetary institutions was an inevitable response to the phenomenon of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is characterized by the conflict between companies and wealth, which leads to exploitation and ultimately to great wars. Lenin saw WWI as a direct consequence of imperialism’s competition for colonies, raw materials, and markets.
Was Lenin's concept right?
Before answering the question, I must emphasize that Marxists, like religious individuals, are ideologists. They continue to believe that definitions of modern capitalism, formulated in a specific historical context, remain valid even after all these years. Their biggest challenge much like that of religious individuals is their tendency to detach interpretation, discourse, and concepts from their original source, time, place, and reality.
If we examine the reality of modern capitalism, the progress and changes that it has undergone, it becomes clear that this concept is flawed and has become obsolete. Rejecting it is not difficult, as the justifications used to support it can now be objectively assessed as either true or false.
Lenin believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse and that socialism would emerge, leaving no further stage or development for capitalism beyond imperialism. However, we see that instead of collapsing, capitalism has largely sustained itself through various reforms, such as the implementation of different service policies, globalization, and the advancement of new technologies and innovations.
Another argument made by Lenin was that capitalism is inherently monopolistic. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, global trade, the digital economy, and the occurrence of various short- and long-term wars, capitalism has not only managed to modernize itself but has also expanded beyond mere monopolization. Large corporations engage in intense competition to create new markets and revitalize existing ones, ensuring their continued relevance and profitability.
Another key principle in Lenin's concept was that foreign investment and expansion often occurred through force and occupation. However, today, we see that many of these transactions are voluntary, and states do not always act under pressure from one another. Instead, numerous trade and industrial agreements exist between countries. Additionally, states employ economic strategies such as adjusting interest rates, managing inflation, and imposing tariffs. These measures influence both the value of their currency and the dynamics of production and trade.
Another important point to consider, despite the existence of exploitation and cheap labour, is that most investments and large-scale projects today are carried out through contracts between major corporations and the states that require these projects, or between states themselves. In the modern era, no country can complete all its projects solely with its own companies or government resources; instead, they rely on large corporations or other states to execute these projects.
For example, many African countries are undertaking major projects such as roads, large bridges, dams, and various other infrastructure developments through partnerships with China and Chinese companies. Additionally, many states finance these projects through loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, despite the fact that the contractual conditions can be extremely challenging and stringent. While some projects or loans may be necessary and unavoidable, they are largely undertaken voluntarily rather than being imposed through occupation, exploitation, or the forced extraction of resources.
In conclusion, some of Lenin’s assertions remain valid, particularly regarding the persistence of great power hegemony, war, and oppression, which continue to this day. However, while economic hegemony still exists, it has evolved into a more complex and resilient system than Lenin initially predicted.
In my opinion, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism has moved beyond that stage and has now reached the stage of globalization. Globalization and imperialism are two distinct phases with different definitions and paths of development. While imperialism was indeed a stage in capitalism’s evolution, it was not its peak. Imperialism existed in a time when globalization had not yet emerged, and with the rise of globalization, imperialism as it once existed has ceased to be relevant.
2 The Third World Theory
In my opinion, this theory is closely connected to the earlier discussion on imperialism, despite the years that separate them. According to Lenin, imperialism is not only the primary enemy of the working class but also the arch-enemy of colonized nations, as it involves occupying and plundering their natural and human resources while preventing them from achieving independence and progress. Although Lenin did not specifically use the concept of the ‘Third World’ his theory inherently applies to regions and countries that were once occupied and exploited by imperialist powers. It is essentially the basis of the theory of the third world theory.
In this context, Lenin believed that the struggle for national liberation should be initiated, with the workers of the country serving as the main force in this struggle alongside the national liberation movement. Lenin wrote several important texts on this issue, including ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914–), where he argued that oppressed nations have the right to secede and form independent states. He emphasized that Marxists must support this right while simultaneously advocating for the unity of the proletariat. Lenin stressed the importance of addressing the issue of oppressed nations, particularly those in Asia, in their quest for independence from imperialist powers.
Lenin elaborates on the connection between the socialist revolution and the struggle for national liberation in his 1916 text, ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1916). He emphasizes that the right to self-determination is a democratic right that fosters unity among workers across different nations. Written in February of that year, these writings extensively discuss national liberation movements, anti-imperialism, and the role of oppressed nations in the global revolutionary struggle. Lenin's works highlight the liberation struggles of nations in Asia, Africa, and other colonized regions.
When Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism is the Highest Stage of Capitalism in1917, he once again emphasized the role of revolutionary movements in Asia. His views on national liberation and national destiny aligned closely with many anti-colonial movements across Asia.
Later, in 1920, Lenin revisited this topic in his Theses on ‘National and Colonial Questions’, presented at the Second Congress of the Communist International. There, he reaffirmed his belief that communists should support anti-colonial and national liberation movements.
Obviously, Lenin relied on the positions of Marx and Engels, who wrote on the issue of Ireland and Poland in their time and supported the independence of both countries, which they believed would benefit the labor movement in both countries.
The above writings were part of a series in which Lenin addressed the national liberation movement. However, despite these contributions, the idea of the ‘Third World Theory’ did not immediately develop into a fully universal theory. Instead, Lenin’s work laid a strong foundation for the theory, which evolved through various stages and efforts before eventually developing into the ‘Third World Theory.’
Third World Theory later emerged as a political and economic concept during the pre and post-Cold War era, initially taking shape in the 1950s and 1960s. The theory focused on countries that were neither aligned with the Western Bloc (led by the U.S. and its NATO allies) nor the Eastern Bloc (led by the former Soviet Union and its allies). Instead, these nations mostly former colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East sought to establish their own independent political and economic paths.
The concept or term Third World Theory was first introduced by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. He drew a comparison between the Third World and the Third Estate in pre-revolutionary 19th-century France. The term originally referred to the common people, who were marginalized and exploited, highlighting their need for revolution.
The political and ideological development of ‘Third World Theory’ then entered a new stage, closely linked to the leaders and thinkers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and anti-imperialist struggles. To this end, Asian and African leaders gathered in 1955 at a conference in Indonesia to promote cooperation and oppose colonialism. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was officially founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The ‘Third World’ thus became a symbol of resistance, anti-imperialism, and the aspiration for a new world order.
The formation of the Chinese Communist Party and the movement led by Mao Zedong, culminating in their victory in 1949, played a crucial role in linking Mao’s theories on nationalism and anti-imperialism with Lenin’s theses. This connection significantly influenced other national movements and contributed to the further development of ‘Third World Theory’. As the theory evolved, it entered a new stage and, by the 1970s, became a manifesto for various movements that sought to challenge imperialism and assert national sovereignty.
The essence of the Third World Theory
Since the 1970s, the theory of the Third World has gained significant meaning in both form and content. Many communist parties, as well as other groups under different names but still adhering to communist ideologies, have expressed the world in this way and shaped their tactics and goals accordingly. Their vision of the world introduced a new purpose and redefined its structure.
The First World consisted of the Great Powers (the USA and the USSR), which the theory identified as two imperialist forces. The Second World included developed industrialized countries, such as European countries and several others, positioned between the powerful nations and the industrially backward countries. The Third World comprised nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were considered underdeveloped.
According to this theory, the main conflict for these parties, including the left and the communists, is the conflict between their country and the two countries that are considered imperialists (US and Russia). In this regard, they believed that the Third World was the primary force for revolutionary change.
The expansion and damage of the theory reached the point where it became the ultimate criterion for defining the revolutionary movement. Whoever fought against imperialism was a revolutionary. Even worse than this, the theory was ignoring the oppression role of the internal national bourgeoisie because it was considered a patriotic power. So therefore the fight against the bourgeoisie and the domestic capitalists, who were considered national capitalists or patriotic capitalists rejected overruled by these parties and organisation. The theory has seen considered domestic capitalists as a step toward the socialist revolution because supporting those means developing the country's economy in terms of industry, which means increasing the number of workers by industrializing it and taking the country towards capitalism. According to this theory it brings us closer to the socialist revolution.
The two worst aspects of this theory were that, in some countries, pro-Russian parties supported their governments due to their alignment with Russia, believing that this would lead the country towards socialism through capitalism and supporting the Russia under the so called policy of the non-capitalistic development towards socialism. In countries such as Iraq, it was different, the Communist Party convinced their members and the public that socialism could be achieved through a democratic state or a people's democracy state by developing a non-capitalist path.
Another disadvantage drawback of this theory is that even among leftists, social democrats, and parties such as the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, their stance on international conflicts has been shaped by this framework. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, they supported Iran. This position was particularly evident in the British Socialist Workers Party at the time.
In contemporary conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, these leftists support Ukraine because they see Russia as the main imperialist force. Similarly, in conflicts involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel, leftists take the side of these organizations against Israel, viewing it as a major U.S. military base. According to the 'Third World Theory,' they also support countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American nations governed by leftist parties that oppose the United States. Thus, the theory of the three worlds has become a criterion for these leftists to determine which powers align with or oppose the United States in global conflicts.
Applying this theory to any of the fields mentioned above serves the capitalist system by dividing workers, turning themselves against each other, and weakening their collective struggle. Furthermore, the misuse of the concept of imperialism is a critical mistake that could severely harm the workers' movement and the masses.
Today, the entire world operates under capitalism, though it is divided into developed and undeveloped industrialized countries. The conflicts between these states are essentially wars of oppression and attacks on the workers' movement, both directly and indirectly. The names of these states, the parties that govern them, and their claims are irrelevant. This serves as a justification for categorizing capitalism into two parts: imperialism, the “negative” aspect of capitalism, and the other, which is seen as the "good" part of capitalism.
Everyone’s struggle must focus on striking at the capitalists, local and national governments, and the system’s main pillar: the state. This is the only radical and comprehensive way to bring down the system itself. It is not about supporting the state in its wars but rather rebelling against it by any way possible, both individually and collectively. The core of the struggle is to address the conflict between the capitalist state and the workers, and the masses, with the goal of eliminating wage labour system and dismantling the greatest pillar of capitalism: the state.
Unfortunately, the ‘Third World Theory’ still exists today and continues to play a significant role in dividing and misleading us. It leads us to trust the national regime, the nation-state, and the idea of a legitimate war against "imperialism," which is seen by them as the great fortress of capitalism.
In my opinion, the concept of imperialism, as used by some anarchists, is incorrect. It divides capitalism and capitalist states into "good" and "bad," which in turn divides the working class, the masses, and their movements. This is a clear distortion of the idea that capitalism is a global system, and its opposing movement must also be global. This approach represents a return to the Third World theory, and it’s use serves to defend the war between capitalist states by justifying one side and demonizing the other. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, this approach is rooted in the Third World Theory, which has caused significant harm to our movement in the past.
3 The Nation-state
The common definition of a nation-state is a country where most of the population shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, or historical background. It has a defined territory with recognized borders and a government that holds sovereignty (control) over both the land and its people. A central authority enforces laws and is said to maintain order and security. Additionally, a nation-state is recognized as an independent entity by other states and international organizations, often maintaining diplomatic relations through envoys and diplomats.
In addition to the above, the nation-state is believed to have full control over its internal and external affairs, maintaining independence in this regard. It is also commonly described as a national achievement and a political entity defined by a shared cultural, linguistic, or national identity.
The nation-state is often described as having citizens who are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language, race, or ancestry. The idea is that the political boundaries of the state align with the cultural boundaries of the nation. It is believed that this sense of shared identity fosters a feeling of ownership over the country and its governance, allowing the nation-state to maintain stability, national unity, and social cohesion.
But is that true?
Today, when we examine any nation-state in the world, we must question whether this concept promoted by authorities, national parties, nationalists, social democrats, and even some leftists is right? Does a state truly exist under the name of a nation-state? How much longer will this idea continue to dominate our thinking simply because it is favoured by academics, economists, and intellectuals who serve the system?
In my opinion, there is substantial evidence to prove that the term is incorrect. However, I will focus on three key points that clearly demonstrate the flaws in this concept.
First, no state or country is truly independent, especially in terms of economic self-sufficiency, which is essential for political independence. Even major powers like the United States, Japan, Germany, and Britain rely on others to a varying degree, both economically and, at times, politically.
In this case, there is no need to rely on statistics, as it is evident that international trade, participation in trade institutions, economic agreements, and industrial treaties all demonstrate this dependence. Anyone who shops in a market or searches online will find that many versions of the same product come from different countries. Therefore, neither states nor countries are truly independent, nor can they remain so. This is a defining feature of capitalist progress and globalization. If any modern state or country attempts to withdraw from this system, it will gradually weaken and may even collapse.
Second, the nation-state, whose core institution is the government, primarily serves a particular class typically a small minority of elites and the upper class. In most of these states and countries, the general population and citizens do not necessarily belong to the dominant national identity as defined by the state. Furthermore, the nation-state prioritizes the interests of large corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy—regardless of race or gender rather than those of the majority, including mainly workers and the exploited. Therefore, it is misleading to label a state as a "nation-state" simply because its official language aligns with that of the dominant nation. Moreover, due to globalization, the indigenous cultures of many nations have weakened or even partially disappeared.
Third, the idea that nation-states are defined by a common language and culture is inaccurate. Nearly all states, aside from their dominant national group, include ethnic minorities, some of whom have lived there for generations. These minorities have their own distinct cultures, traditions, and religions, which are not shared with the dominant nation or other minority groups. While they may coexist and respect one another, their cultural identities remain separate.
That being said, there is no denying that English is the official language in Britain, French in France and German in Germany, just as other countries have their own official languages used by everyone. However, these official languages are not necessarily learned or adopted voluntarily by non-English or non-French or non-German communities. In fact, the living conditions in these countries often compel people to learn the official language English in the UK, French in France and German in Germany. Education, writing, public speaking, work, theatre, and market transactions are all conducted in the official language, rather than in the native languages of minority communities.
This is despite the fact that in many nation-states, such as Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, China, Rwanda, Congo, and many others, the ruling class of the dominant nation often implements discriminatory policies. These include the repression of minority groups through violence, arrests, expulsions, and the banning of their languages, cultures, and religions.
It is clear that the nation-state does not embody the basic principles outlined above, and the concepts associated with it do not truly apply. The term "nation-state" turns out to be a misleading or meaningless label, rather than a reflection of reality. Capitalism has intentionally used this concept to its advantage, benefiting from it in numerous ways while also using it as an excuse for both leftist and nationalist movements to fight whether peacefully or with arms. In the context of armed movements, the system itself has been the primary winner and beneficiary. Therefore, through the use of this term, capitalism has benefited in every possible way.
4 White man
The concept of the white man regarding race, culture, and social relationships has, like many other concepts and phenomena, evolved to some extent over time and throughout the different stages of human history.
Ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, did not classify people by 'race' in the modern sense. Instead, they differentiated individuals based on culture, language, and geography. While they did recognize physical differences, such as skin colour, these distinctions did not imply a social (categories) or systemic hierarchy as they would in later periods.
It is generally understood that the term 'white man' refers to an individual classified as belonging to the white racial group, typically associated with people of European descent. From a historical perspective, this concept is not solely biological, as its meaning is also shaped by historical developments and the individual's position within a social context.
Like the concept of race itself, the idea of the 'white man' has been modernized and adapted over time to reflect social status. For instance, during the colonization of nations and the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, the concept of race began to take shape and was developed to justify the enslavement of Africans and the displacement of indigenous peoples. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants were not considered fully 'white' in the United States. The colony of Virginia (in what is now the United States) is often cited as one of the earliest places, in the late 1600s, where 'whiteness' was legally defined and used to create a social divide between poor Europeans and enslaved Africans.
Undoubtedly, the law has long served as an effective tool for ruling class and classes to enforce their interests. Throughout history, repression, slavery, and even discrimination against women have been legalized in many countries to benefit those in power. In the past, laws and policies in places like in the United States and European colonies granted legal privileges to 'white' people, often at the expense of excluding others. These laws and policies promoted racial hierarchies as a means of maintaining power and justifying inequality.
In short, the term 'white man,' when associated with racial issues, was primarily coined during the periods of colonialism and slavery. It served to establish a system of privilege and power for Europeans and their descendants. Race, as it is used in society, is a social construct rather than a concept grounded in biology.
Considering the above, can we still use the idea of whiteness or white skin, or the concept of the white person, in today's context?
Although in societies where the term has been used it is associated with social, political, and economic privileges, I find the use of the term 'white man' problematic for at least two reasons:
First, there are millions of 'white' women and men in predominantly 'white' societies whose living conditions and social status are no better than those of Black people and others of different skin colours. Like many others in these societies, they face oppression and marginalization, regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship. Their political and economic interests are suppressed by the same economic and political system that oppresses both white and non-white individuals. Their struggle unites them against the exploiters, the state, and the state’s laws.
Second, some Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, (BAME) individuals have held high social and political positions, such as Rishi Sunak (The Prime Minister of the UK from 25/10/22 to 05/07/2024), Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024), and Kemi Badenoch, the current leader of the Conservative Party in the UK and Nadhim Zahawi the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there are dozens of non-white Members of Parliament in Westminster, Scotland, and Wales, who hold political power and play a role in shaping the policies of their parties and countries.
Of course, this is true not only for Britain but also for the entire region of Europe, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, the issue of race should not be viewed as a biological phenomenon, but rather as a matter of superiority, domination, and political and economic status. We could even argue that they have no distinct race, nation, or country; their passports represent their wealth, which grants them that social status. This concept is completely rejected, especially when it carries historical weight or is used in the context of power dynamics or stereotypes.
That being said, it cannot be denied that racism remains a significant issue in these countries, driven by political, legal, and economic factors that the state both directly and indirectly fosters to divide its citizens for its own interests.
5 All wars are wars for power
The term “class war” was not commonly used before the 19th century, but the concept of conflict between social classes had existed for centuries. For example, in medieval Europe, peasant uprisings such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525 were essentially struggles between social classes, even though the specific term “class war” was not explicitly used at the time.
In France, during the Revolution (1789–1799), veterans, intellectuals, and revolutionaries of the time used terminology that closely resembled the concept of “class war.”
The term “class war” was largely popularized by the French anarchist and socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid-nineteenth century. He was among the first to explicitly refer to “class war,” rather than merely “class struggle.” In his writings, Proudhon described the economic and social conflict between workers and capitalists as a form of war.
However, the concept of “class war” as an explicit notion of violent or revolutionary class struggle was later developed further by Marxists and other socialists, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea was more thoroughly explored and debated, and over time, class warfare came to be increasingly associated with authoritarianism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels primarily used the term "class struggle", Klassenkampf in German—rather than "class war," although they did refer to class warfare when discussing revolutionary confrontation. This language first appeared in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), where they famously wrote that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." They argued that this struggle would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Engels, in particular, referred more explicitly to "class war" in some of his letters and speeches when discussing revolution.
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, frequently invoked the idea of class war to describe violent revolutionary action against the state and capitalists. During and after the Paris Commune of 1871, the use of the term “class war” became firmly established among revolutionaries, especially following the brutal suppression of the uprising by French authorities.
Marx and Engels, along with later Marxist thinkers, viewed class struggle as a real and driving force behind material conditions. They agreed that the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat had fundamentally opposing interests, which formed the foundation of their social conflict. All of them connected the proletarian goal to the seizure of state power as a means to eliminate class differences and ultimately abolish classes altogether.
In many cases, the theory of class struggle was used as a tool to mobilize the masses and popularize revolutionary movements. However, the result was often the creation of a new ruling power rather than the actual dissolution of class divisions. Revolutionary leaders, in their pursuit of popular support, frequently invoked the idea of class war to inspire and rally workers and peasants.
In my opinion, many of the wars throughout history that have been labelled as class wars were not truly about class struggle, but rather about power and the seizure of power. These conflicts were often framed in terms of economic inequality and oppression, which served as means to rally support and legitimize the cause. While it is true that many individuals participated in these wars suffering, becoming disabled, or even sacrificing their lives and families—the core of these conflicts was ultimately about the struggle for power. Uprisings, revolutions, and struggles often resulted in the rise of new elites, rather than the creation of a truly classless society. Once in power, these leaders tended to prioritize maintaining their own authority over attaining genuine classless society and social equality.
Disguised wars have often been labelled as class wars, such as the French Revolution (1789–1799), in which the Jacobins overthrew the aristocracy, only to establish a new elite, followed by Napoleon's eventual rise to power.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, is another example of a power struggle that was initially framed as a class struggle but, in reality, was a struggle for power. Over time, the scope of this power struggle became so concentrated that authority shifted from the broader revolutionary movement to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party's revolution, led by Mao Zedong, which culminated in victory in 1949, was also fundamentally a struggle for power.
Other examples include the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires, the wars between some Arab countries and Israel in 1967 and 1973, the wars in Southeast Asia, the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that all these conflicts whether class-based, religious, or ethnic are essentially struggles for power, including self-defence wars to prevent foreign powers from replacing domestic authority.
None of these wars can be considered class wars; rather, they are struggles to regain or seize power. Whether one side attacked and the other defended is irrelevant to the core issue these are wars driven by the desire for control and authority.
As I mentioned earlier, both Proudhon and Bakunin spoke of class war, class struggle, or class violence, but they never framed these as authoritarian wars or wars fought to seize power. Similarly, although anarchists acknowledge the existence of class struggle, it is not for the purpose of gaining political power. For them, political struggle is not a means or a bridge to achieve political power or the supremacy of one class over another. Instead, it is a means to destroy the supremacy of all classes and eradicate all forms of political power. Therefore, it can be said that, both theoretically and practically, anarchists were the only ones who did not use class struggle or class war as a tool to gain power.
I will conclude with a question: If all these wars were truly class wars and not struggles for power, why have none of them eliminated the distinctions between class and power? Why, instead, have they deepened the class divide and strengthened power as a form of state authority?
Zaherbaher.com
By Zaher Baher
April 2025
1. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
This concept was introduced by Lenin, who wrote this book in 1916 during World War I (WW1) while he was in Switzerland, a year before the October Revolution. In writing this book, Lenin greatly benefited from Marx's economic analysis.
The research that Lenin conducted and presented in this book is based on several key points and events in the stages of imperialism, which have been given different titles by economists and historians. According to their definitions, a strong nation or rather, a powerful state expands its influence over weaker countries or regions through political, economic, or military control. This often involves colonization, exploitation, the plundering of resources, and the domination of local populations.
Imperialism has existed in various forms throughout history, but the term is most commonly associated with the period from the 15th to the 20th century. Earlier examples include empires such as the Roman, Persian, and Chinese empires, which expanded by conquering territories.
For Lenin, the term was broadened to explain the economic and political causes of imperialism and its role in triggering global conflicts such as WWI. He argued that imperialism was a natural evolution of capitalism, driven by monopoly and finance capital, which sought new markets through colonial expansion. Lenin defined imperialism as the ‘Highest stage of capitalism,’ in which large corporations and banks dominate economies and seek new markets and resources abroad.
He identifies five main characteristics of imperialism:
1. Capitalism leads to the concentration of production and the rise of monopoly capital, which dominates all industries.
2. The merger of banking and industrial capital results in the emergence of financial oligarchies.
3. The export of capital (investment in foreign markets) becomes more significant than the export of goods.
4. The formation of international capitalist monopolies that divide the world among themselves.
5. The territorial division of the world among the imperialist powers is completed, leading to conflict.
Drawing on Marx's writings on economics, Lenin understood that capitalism was evolving toward monopoly, with small businesses being exploited by large corporations. The issue of currency and monetary institutions was an inevitable response to the phenomenon of capitalism. At its core, capitalism is characterized by the conflict between companies and wealth, which leads to exploitation and ultimately to great wars. Lenin saw WWI as a direct consequence of imperialism’s competition for colonies, raw materials, and markets.
Was Lenin's concept right?
Before answering the question, I must emphasize that Marxists, like religious individuals, are ideologists. They continue to believe that definitions of modern capitalism, formulated in a specific historical context, remain valid even after all these years. Their biggest challenge much like that of religious individuals is their tendency to detach interpretation, discourse, and concepts from their original source, time, place, and reality.
If we examine the reality of modern capitalism, the progress and changes that it has undergone, it becomes clear that this concept is flawed and has become obsolete. Rejecting it is not difficult, as the justifications used to support it can now be objectively assessed as either true or false.
Lenin believed that capitalism would inevitably collapse and that socialism would emerge, leaving no further stage or development for capitalism beyond imperialism. However, we see that instead of collapsing, capitalism has largely sustained itself through various reforms, such as the implementation of different service policies, globalization, and the advancement of new technologies and innovations.
Another argument made by Lenin was that capitalism is inherently monopolistic. However, with the rise of neoliberalism, global trade, the digital economy, and the occurrence of various short- and long-term wars, capitalism has not only managed to modernize itself but has also expanded beyond mere monopolization. Large corporations engage in intense competition to create new markets and revitalize existing ones, ensuring their continued relevance and profitability.
Another key principle in Lenin's concept was that foreign investment and expansion often occurred through force and occupation. However, today, we see that many of these transactions are voluntary, and states do not always act under pressure from one another. Instead, numerous trade and industrial agreements exist between countries. Additionally, states employ economic strategies such as adjusting interest rates, managing inflation, and imposing tariffs. These measures influence both the value of their currency and the dynamics of production and trade.
Another important point to consider, despite the existence of exploitation and cheap labour, is that most investments and large-scale projects today are carried out through contracts between major corporations and the states that require these projects, or between states themselves. In the modern era, no country can complete all its projects solely with its own companies or government resources; instead, they rely on large corporations or other states to execute these projects.
For example, many African countries are undertaking major projects such as roads, large bridges, dams, and various other infrastructure developments through partnerships with China and Chinese companies. Additionally, many states finance these projects through loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, despite the fact that the contractual conditions can be extremely challenging and stringent. While some projects or loans may be necessary and unavoidable, they are largely undertaken voluntarily rather than being imposed through occupation, exploitation, or the forced extraction of resources.
In conclusion, some of Lenin’s assertions remain valid, particularly regarding the persistence of great power hegemony, war, and oppression, which continue to this day. However, while economic hegemony still exists, it has evolved into a more complex and resilient system than Lenin initially predicted.
In my opinion, imperialism is not the highest stage of capitalism. Capitalism has moved beyond that stage and has now reached the stage of globalization. Globalization and imperialism are two distinct phases with different definitions and paths of development. While imperialism was indeed a stage in capitalism’s evolution, it was not its peak. Imperialism existed in a time when globalization had not yet emerged, and with the rise of globalization, imperialism as it once existed has ceased to be relevant.
2 The Third World Theory
In my opinion, this theory is closely connected to the earlier discussion on imperialism, despite the years that separate them. According to Lenin, imperialism is not only the primary enemy of the working class but also the arch-enemy of colonized nations, as it involves occupying and plundering their natural and human resources while preventing them from achieving independence and progress. Although Lenin did not specifically use the concept of the ‘Third World’ his theory inherently applies to regions and countries that were once occupied and exploited by imperialist powers. It is essentially the basis of the theory of the third world theory.
In this context, Lenin believed that the struggle for national liberation should be initiated, with the workers of the country serving as the main force in this struggle alongside the national liberation movement. Lenin wrote several important texts on this issue, including ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1914–), where he argued that oppressed nations have the right to secede and form independent states. He emphasized that Marxists must support this right while simultaneously advocating for the unity of the proletariat. Lenin stressed the importance of addressing the issue of oppressed nations, particularly those in Asia, in their quest for independence from imperialist powers.
Lenin elaborates on the connection between the socialist revolution and the struggle for national liberation in his 1916 text, ‘The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (1916). He emphasizes that the right to self-determination is a democratic right that fosters unity among workers across different nations. Written in February of that year, these writings extensively discuss national liberation movements, anti-imperialism, and the role of oppressed nations in the global revolutionary struggle. Lenin's works highlight the liberation struggles of nations in Asia, Africa, and other colonized regions.
When Lenin wrote ‘Imperialism is the Highest Stage of Capitalism in1917, he once again emphasized the role of revolutionary movements in Asia. His views on national liberation and national destiny aligned closely with many anti-colonial movements across Asia.
Later, in 1920, Lenin revisited this topic in his Theses on ‘National and Colonial Questions’, presented at the Second Congress of the Communist International. There, he reaffirmed his belief that communists should support anti-colonial and national liberation movements.
Obviously, Lenin relied on the positions of Marx and Engels, who wrote on the issue of Ireland and Poland in their time and supported the independence of both countries, which they believed would benefit the labor movement in both countries.
The above writings were part of a series in which Lenin addressed the national liberation movement. However, despite these contributions, the idea of the ‘Third World Theory’ did not immediately develop into a fully universal theory. Instead, Lenin’s work laid a strong foundation for the theory, which evolved through various stages and efforts before eventually developing into the ‘Third World Theory.’
Third World Theory later emerged as a political and economic concept during the pre and post-Cold War era, initially taking shape in the 1950s and 1960s. The theory focused on countries that were neither aligned with the Western Bloc (led by the U.S. and its NATO allies) nor the Eastern Bloc (led by the former Soviet Union and its allies). Instead, these nations mostly former colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East sought to establish their own independent political and economic paths.
The concept or term Third World Theory was first introduced by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. He drew a comparison between the Third World and the Third Estate in pre-revolutionary 19th-century France. The term originally referred to the common people, who were marginalized and exploited, highlighting their need for revolution.
The political and ideological development of ‘Third World Theory’ then entered a new stage, closely linked to the leaders and thinkers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and anti-imperialist struggles. To this end, Asian and African leaders gathered in 1955 at a conference in Indonesia to promote cooperation and oppose colonialism. In 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was officially founded in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The ‘Third World’ thus became a symbol of resistance, anti-imperialism, and the aspiration for a new world order.
The formation of the Chinese Communist Party and the movement led by Mao Zedong, culminating in their victory in 1949, played a crucial role in linking Mao’s theories on nationalism and anti-imperialism with Lenin’s theses. This connection significantly influenced other national movements and contributed to the further development of ‘Third World Theory’. As the theory evolved, it entered a new stage and, by the 1970s, became a manifesto for various movements that sought to challenge imperialism and assert national sovereignty.
The essence of the Third World Theory
Since the 1970s, the theory of the Third World has gained significant meaning in both form and content. Many communist parties, as well as other groups under different names but still adhering to communist ideologies, have expressed the world in this way and shaped their tactics and goals accordingly. Their vision of the world introduced a new purpose and redefined its structure.
The First World consisted of the Great Powers (the USA and the USSR), which the theory identified as two imperialist forces. The Second World included developed industrialized countries, such as European countries and several others, positioned between the powerful nations and the industrially backward countries. The Third World comprised nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were considered underdeveloped.
According to this theory, the main conflict for these parties, including the left and the communists, is the conflict between their country and the two countries that are considered imperialists (US and Russia). In this regard, they believed that the Third World was the primary force for revolutionary change.
The expansion and damage of the theory reached the point where it became the ultimate criterion for defining the revolutionary movement. Whoever fought against imperialism was a revolutionary. Even worse than this, the theory was ignoring the oppression role of the internal national bourgeoisie because it was considered a patriotic power. So therefore the fight against the bourgeoisie and the domestic capitalists, who were considered national capitalists or patriotic capitalists rejected overruled by these parties and organisation. The theory has seen considered domestic capitalists as a step toward the socialist revolution because supporting those means developing the country's economy in terms of industry, which means increasing the number of workers by industrializing it and taking the country towards capitalism. According to this theory it brings us closer to the socialist revolution.
The two worst aspects of this theory were that, in some countries, pro-Russian parties supported their governments due to their alignment with Russia, believing that this would lead the country towards socialism through capitalism and supporting the Russia under the so called policy of the non-capitalistic development towards socialism. In countries such as Iraq, it was different, the Communist Party convinced their members and the public that socialism could be achieved through a democratic state or a people's democracy state by developing a non-capitalist path.
Another disadvantage drawback of this theory is that even among leftists, social democrats, and parties such as the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, their stance on international conflicts has been shaped by this framework. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, they supported Iran. This position was particularly evident in the British Socialist Workers Party at the time.
In contemporary conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, these leftists support Ukraine because they see Russia as the main imperialist force. Similarly, in conflicts involving Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups against Israel, leftists take the side of these organizations against Israel, viewing it as a major U.S. military base. According to the 'Third World Theory,' they also support countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and other Latin American nations governed by leftist parties that oppose the United States. Thus, the theory of the three worlds has become a criterion for these leftists to determine which powers align with or oppose the United States in global conflicts.
Applying this theory to any of the fields mentioned above serves the capitalist system by dividing workers, turning themselves against each other, and weakening their collective struggle. Furthermore, the misuse of the concept of imperialism is a critical mistake that could severely harm the workers' movement and the masses.
Today, the entire world operates under capitalism, though it is divided into developed and undeveloped industrialized countries. The conflicts between these states are essentially wars of oppression and attacks on the workers' movement, both directly and indirectly. The names of these states, the parties that govern them, and their claims are irrelevant. This serves as a justification for categorizing capitalism into two parts: imperialism, the “negative” aspect of capitalism, and the other, which is seen as the "good" part of capitalism.
Everyone’s struggle must focus on striking at the capitalists, local and national governments, and the system’s main pillar: the state. This is the only radical and comprehensive way to bring down the system itself. It is not about supporting the state in its wars but rather rebelling against it by any way possible, both individually and collectively. The core of the struggle is to address the conflict between the capitalist state and the workers, and the masses, with the goal of eliminating wage labour system and dismantling the greatest pillar of capitalism: the state.
Unfortunately, the ‘Third World Theory’ still exists today and continues to play a significant role in dividing and misleading us. It leads us to trust the national regime, the nation-state, and the idea of a legitimate war against "imperialism," which is seen by them as the great fortress of capitalism.
In my opinion, the concept of imperialism, as used by some anarchists, is incorrect. It divides capitalism and capitalist states into "good" and "bad," which in turn divides the working class, the masses, and their movements. This is a clear distortion of the idea that capitalism is a global system, and its opposing movement must also be global. This approach represents a return to the Third World theory, and it’s use serves to defend the war between capitalist states by justifying one side and demonizing the other. Whether done consciously or unconsciously, this approach is rooted in the Third World Theory, which has caused significant harm to our movement in the past.
3 The Nation-state
The common definition of a nation-state is a country where most of the population shares a common language, culture, ethnicity, or historical background. It has a defined territory with recognized borders and a government that holds sovereignty (control) over both the land and its people. A central authority enforces laws and is said to maintain order and security. Additionally, a nation-state is recognized as an independent entity by other states and international organizations, often maintaining diplomatic relations through envoys and diplomats.
In addition to the above, the nation-state is believed to have full control over its internal and external affairs, maintaining independence in this regard. It is also commonly described as a national achievement and a political entity defined by a shared cultural, linguistic, or national identity.
The nation-state is often described as having citizens who are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language, race, or ancestry. The idea is that the political boundaries of the state align with the cultural boundaries of the nation. It is believed that this sense of shared identity fosters a feeling of ownership over the country and its governance, allowing the nation-state to maintain stability, national unity, and social cohesion.
But is that true?
Today, when we examine any nation-state in the world, we must question whether this concept promoted by authorities, national parties, nationalists, social democrats, and even some leftists is right? Does a state truly exist under the name of a nation-state? How much longer will this idea continue to dominate our thinking simply because it is favoured by academics, economists, and intellectuals who serve the system?
In my opinion, there is substantial evidence to prove that the term is incorrect. However, I will focus on three key points that clearly demonstrate the flaws in this concept.
First, no state or country is truly independent, especially in terms of economic self-sufficiency, which is essential for political independence. Even major powers like the United States, Japan, Germany, and Britain rely on others to a varying degree, both economically and, at times, politically.
In this case, there is no need to rely on statistics, as it is evident that international trade, participation in trade institutions, economic agreements, and industrial treaties all demonstrate this dependence. Anyone who shops in a market or searches online will find that many versions of the same product come from different countries. Therefore, neither states nor countries are truly independent, nor can they remain so. This is a defining feature of capitalist progress and globalization. If any modern state or country attempts to withdraw from this system, it will gradually weaken and may even collapse.
Second, the nation-state, whose core institution is the government, primarily serves a particular class typically a small minority of elites and the upper class. In most of these states and countries, the general population and citizens do not necessarily belong to the dominant national identity as defined by the state. Furthermore, the nation-state prioritizes the interests of large corporations, capitalists, and the wealthy—regardless of race or gender rather than those of the majority, including mainly workers and the exploited. Therefore, it is misleading to label a state as a "nation-state" simply because its official language aligns with that of the dominant nation. Moreover, due to globalization, the indigenous cultures of many nations have weakened or even partially disappeared.
Third, the idea that nation-states are defined by a common language and culture is inaccurate. Nearly all states, aside from their dominant national group, include ethnic minorities, some of whom have lived there for generations. These minorities have their own distinct cultures, traditions, and religions, which are not shared with the dominant nation or other minority groups. While they may coexist and respect one another, their cultural identities remain separate.
That being said, there is no denying that English is the official language in Britain, French in France and German in Germany, just as other countries have their own official languages used by everyone. However, these official languages are not necessarily learned or adopted voluntarily by non-English or non-French or non-German communities. In fact, the living conditions in these countries often compel people to learn the official language English in the UK, French in France and German in Germany. Education, writing, public speaking, work, theatre, and market transactions are all conducted in the official language, rather than in the native languages of minority communities.
This is despite the fact that in many nation-states, such as Iran, Iraq, India, Sri Lanka, Turkey, China, Rwanda, Congo, and many others, the ruling class of the dominant nation often implements discriminatory policies. These include the repression of minority groups through violence, arrests, expulsions, and the banning of their languages, cultures, and religions.
It is clear that the nation-state does not embody the basic principles outlined above, and the concepts associated with it do not truly apply. The term "nation-state" turns out to be a misleading or meaningless label, rather than a reflection of reality. Capitalism has intentionally used this concept to its advantage, benefiting from it in numerous ways while also using it as an excuse for both leftist and nationalist movements to fight whether peacefully or with arms. In the context of armed movements, the system itself has been the primary winner and beneficiary. Therefore, through the use of this term, capitalism has benefited in every possible way.
4 White man
The concept of the white man regarding race, culture, and social relationships has, like many other concepts and phenomena, evolved to some extent over time and throughout the different stages of human history.
Ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, did not classify people by 'race' in the modern sense. Instead, they differentiated individuals based on culture, language, and geography. While they did recognize physical differences, such as skin colour, these distinctions did not imply a social (categories) or systemic hierarchy as they would in later periods.
It is generally understood that the term 'white man' refers to an individual classified as belonging to the white racial group, typically associated with people of European descent. From a historical perspective, this concept is not solely biological, as its meaning is also shaped by historical developments and the individual's position within a social context.
Like the concept of race itself, the idea of the 'white man' has been modernized and adapted over time to reflect social status. For instance, during the colonization of nations and the transatlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, the concept of race began to take shape and was developed to justify the enslavement of Africans and the displacement of indigenous peoples. However, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants were not considered fully 'white' in the United States. The colony of Virginia (in what is now the United States) is often cited as one of the earliest places, in the late 1600s, where 'whiteness' was legally defined and used to create a social divide between poor Europeans and enslaved Africans.
Undoubtedly, the law has long served as an effective tool for ruling class and classes to enforce their interests. Throughout history, repression, slavery, and even discrimination against women have been legalized in many countries to benefit those in power. In the past, laws and policies in places like in the United States and European colonies granted legal privileges to 'white' people, often at the expense of excluding others. These laws and policies promoted racial hierarchies as a means of maintaining power and justifying inequality.
In short, the term 'white man,' when associated with racial issues, was primarily coined during the periods of colonialism and slavery. It served to establish a system of privilege and power for Europeans and their descendants. Race, as it is used in society, is a social construct rather than a concept grounded in biology.
Considering the above, can we still use the idea of whiteness or white skin, or the concept of the white person, in today's context?
Although in societies where the term has been used it is associated with social, political, and economic privileges, I find the use of the term 'white man' problematic for at least two reasons:
First, there are millions of 'white' women and men in predominantly 'white' societies whose living conditions and social status are no better than those of Black people and others of different skin colours. Like many others in these societies, they face oppression and marginalization, regardless of race, nationality, or citizenship. Their political and economic interests are suppressed by the same economic and political system that oppresses both white and non-white individuals. Their struggle unites them against the exploiters, the state, and the state’s laws.
Second, some Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic, (BAME) individuals have held high social and political positions, such as Rishi Sunak (The Prime Minister of the UK from 25/10/22 to 05/07/2024), Humza Yousaf (First Minister of Scotland and Leader of the Scottish National Party from March 2023 to May 2024), and Kemi Badenoch, the current leader of the Conservative Party in the UK and Nadhim Zahawi the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, there are dozens of non-white Members of Parliament in Westminster, Scotland, and Wales, who hold political power and play a role in shaping the policies of their parties and countries.
Of course, this is true not only for Britain but also for the entire region of Europe, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries.
Therefore, the issue of race should not be viewed as a biological phenomenon, but rather as a matter of superiority, domination, and political and economic status. We could even argue that they have no distinct race, nation, or country; their passports represent their wealth, which grants them that social status. This concept is completely rejected, especially when it carries historical weight or is used in the context of power dynamics or stereotypes.
That being said, it cannot be denied that racism remains a significant issue in these countries, driven by political, legal, and economic factors that the state both directly and indirectly fosters to divide its citizens for its own interests.
5 All wars are wars for power
The term “class war” was not commonly used before the 19th century, but the concept of conflict between social classes had existed for centuries. For example, in medieval Europe, peasant uprisings such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1525 were essentially struggles between social classes, even though the specific term “class war” was not explicitly used at the time.
In France, during the Revolution (1789–1799), veterans, intellectuals, and revolutionaries of the time used terminology that closely resembled the concept of “class war.”
The term “class war” was largely popularized by the French anarchist and socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in the mid-nineteenth century. He was among the first to explicitly refer to “class war,” rather than merely “class struggle.” In his writings, Proudhon described the economic and social conflict between workers and capitalists as a form of war.
However, the concept of “class war” as an explicit notion of violent or revolutionary class struggle was later developed further by Marxists and other socialists, particularly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea was more thoroughly explored and debated, and over time, class warfare came to be increasingly associated with authoritarianism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels primarily used the term "class struggle", Klassenkampf in German—rather than "class war," although they did refer to class warfare when discussing revolutionary confrontation. This language first appeared in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848), where they famously wrote that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." They argued that this struggle would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Engels, in particular, referred more explicitly to "class war" in some of his letters and speeches when discussing revolution.
Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist, frequently invoked the idea of class war to describe violent revolutionary action against the state and capitalists. During and after the Paris Commune of 1871, the use of the term “class war” became firmly established among revolutionaries, especially following the brutal suppression of the uprising by French authorities.
Marx and Engels, along with later Marxist thinkers, viewed class struggle as a real and driving force behind material conditions. They agreed that the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) and the proletariat had fundamentally opposing interests, which formed the foundation of their social conflict. All of them connected the proletarian goal to the seizure of state power as a means to eliminate class differences and ultimately abolish classes altogether.
In many cases, the theory of class struggle was used as a tool to mobilize the masses and popularize revolutionary movements. However, the result was often the creation of a new ruling power rather than the actual dissolution of class divisions. Revolutionary leaders, in their pursuit of popular support, frequently invoked the idea of class war to inspire and rally workers and peasants.
In my opinion, many of the wars throughout history that have been labelled as class wars were not truly about class struggle, but rather about power and the seizure of power. These conflicts were often framed in terms of economic inequality and oppression, which served as means to rally support and legitimize the cause. While it is true that many individuals participated in these wars suffering, becoming disabled, or even sacrificing their lives and families—the core of these conflicts was ultimately about the struggle for power. Uprisings, revolutions, and struggles often resulted in the rise of new elites, rather than the creation of a truly classless society. Once in power, these leaders tended to prioritize maintaining their own authority over attaining genuine classless society and social equality.
Disguised wars have often been labelled as class wars, such as the French Revolution (1789–1799), in which the Jacobins overthrew the aristocracy, only to establish a new elite, followed by Napoleon's eventual rise to power.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks, is another example of a power struggle that was initially framed as a class struggle but, in reality, was a struggle for power. Over time, the scope of this power struggle became so concentrated that authority shifted from the broader revolutionary movement to the central committee of the Bolshevik Party. Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party's revolution, led by Mao Zedong, which culminated in victory in 1949, was also fundamentally a struggle for power.
Other examples include the wars between the Safavid and Ottoman Empires, the wars between some Arab countries and Israel in 1967 and 1973, the wars in Southeast Asia, the Falklands War, the Iran-Iraq War, the two Gulf Wars, and the ongoing conflict between Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel, as well as the war between Russia and Ukraine. It is evident that all these conflicts whether class-based, religious, or ethnic are essentially struggles for power, including self-defence wars to prevent foreign powers from replacing domestic authority.
None of these wars can be considered class wars; rather, they are struggles to regain or seize power. Whether one side attacked and the other defended is irrelevant to the core issue these are wars driven by the desire for control and authority.
As I mentioned earlier, both Proudhon and Bakunin spoke of class war, class struggle, or class violence, but they never framed these as authoritarian wars or wars fought to seize power. Similarly, although anarchists acknowledge the existence of class struggle, it is not for the purpose of gaining political power. For them, political struggle is not a means or a bridge to achieve political power or the supremacy of one class over another. Instead, it is a means to destroy the supremacy of all classes and eradicate all forms of political power. Therefore, it can be said that, both theoretically and practically, anarchists were the only ones who did not use class struggle or class war as a tool to gain power.
I will conclude with a question: If all these wars were truly class wars and not struggles for power, why have none of them eliminated the distinctions between class and power? Why, instead, have they deepened the class divide and strengthened power as a form of state authority?
Zaherbaher.com
lenin.jpg
imperialism.jpg
-
Anarkismo
- Communiqué de vœux et de propositions aux camarades présentes aux Journées d'Eté Rouge et Noir 2024
Communiqué de vœux et de propositions aux camarades présentes aux Journées d'Eté Rouge et Noir 2024
9 Octubre 2024 at 18:24
Chers camarades,
notre Organisation ─ Alternativa Libertaria/Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici ─ vous adresse ses salutations les plus fraternelles et ses meilleurs vœux pour les Journées d'Eté Rouge et Noir 2024.
Outre les camarades de l'UCL, nous saluons les camarades de Die Plattform et d'Embat, dont nous savons qu'ils seront présents à Bécours pour participer aux activités, aux débats et à la confrontation politique de cette semaine.
Cette année, nous ne pourrons malheureusement pas être présents à vos côtés, mais nous tenons néanmoins à vous adresser nos salutations et à vous faire part de notre brève contribution.
Tout d'abord, nous espérons que nos Organisations pourront coopérer de plus en plus étroitement et fructueusement. Nous pensons que le réseau Anarkismo doit grandir et s'améliorer, et nous sommes engagés dans la naissance, la croissance et la formalisation d'une coordination européenne réelle et efficace de nos Organisations.
En ces temps de résurgence de l'extrême droite et d'attaques de plus en plus graves de la bourgeoisie contre les droits et les conditions de vie des travailleurs et des travailleuses et contre l'environnement, il est impératif que les communistes anarchistes sachent se confronter, étudier et agir de concert et efficacement pour constituer une force révolutionnaire capable de contribuer, avec d'autres, à la résistance sociale et syndicale et aux mobilisations de masse contre la droite au pouvoir.
Les domaines de la lutte des classes, de l'intervention syndicale, de l'activisme social, écologique et antimilitariste sont d'une importance primordiale pour nous et c'est là que nous sommes le plus présents avec nos militants. C'est dans ces domaines que nous vous invitons à collaborer, en identifiant des stratégies et des tactiques d'intervention communes et incisives.
L'internationalisme et la solidarité avec les prolétaires des pays en guerre, les droits des minorités LGBTQ+, les luttes pour une école et une université laïques, libres et de masse sont d'autres axes sur lesquels nous devons travailler ensemble.
Notre Organisation est actuellement engagée, dans les localités où elle est présente avec ses militants, dans l'intervention syndicale au sein de la CGIL, le plus grand syndicat d'Italie, au sein de la minorité critique, sur des positions anti-réformistes et anti-bureaucratiques inspirées par les mots d'ordre d'unité de classe, de progression des acquis salariaux et des droits, et de transformation radicale de la société dans un sens anticapitaliste, communiste et libertaire.
Nous sommes également engagés dans le mouvement antimilitariste et anti-impérialiste, participant aux luttes pour la fermeture des bases militaires de l'OTAN en Italie, mais aussi dans le mouvement écologique et pour une consommation critique et consciente. Avec d'autres groupes libertaires, nous participons à des initiatives culturelles et à la propagande politique de nos idées communes.
Avec nos forces limitées, nous sommes toujours prêts à travailler ensemble, toujours plus unis vers la perspective d'une Organisation internationale des communistes anarchistes et libertaires qui puisse servir de référence aux nouvelles générations de militants dans les luttes présentes et futures.
Secrétariat National
Alternativa Libertaria/Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici
Août 2024
notre Organisation ─ Alternativa Libertaria/Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici ─ vous adresse ses salutations les plus fraternelles et ses meilleurs vœux pour les Journées d'Eté Rouge et Noir 2024.
Outre les camarades de l'UCL, nous saluons les camarades de Die Plattform et d'Embat, dont nous savons qu'ils seront présents à Bécours pour participer aux activités, aux débats et à la confrontation politique de cette semaine.
Cette année, nous ne pourrons malheureusement pas être présents à vos côtés, mais nous tenons néanmoins à vous adresser nos salutations et à vous faire part de notre brève contribution.
Tout d'abord, nous espérons que nos Organisations pourront coopérer de plus en plus étroitement et fructueusement. Nous pensons que le réseau Anarkismo doit grandir et s'améliorer, et nous sommes engagés dans la naissance, la croissance et la formalisation d'une coordination européenne réelle et efficace de nos Organisations.
En ces temps de résurgence de l'extrême droite et d'attaques de plus en plus graves de la bourgeoisie contre les droits et les conditions de vie des travailleurs et des travailleuses et contre l'environnement, il est impératif que les communistes anarchistes sachent se confronter, étudier et agir de concert et efficacement pour constituer une force révolutionnaire capable de contribuer, avec d'autres, à la résistance sociale et syndicale et aux mobilisations de masse contre la droite au pouvoir.
Les domaines de la lutte des classes, de l'intervention syndicale, de l'activisme social, écologique et antimilitariste sont d'une importance primordiale pour nous et c'est là que nous sommes le plus présents avec nos militants. C'est dans ces domaines que nous vous invitons à collaborer, en identifiant des stratégies et des tactiques d'intervention communes et incisives.
L'internationalisme et la solidarité avec les prolétaires des pays en guerre, les droits des minorités LGBTQ+, les luttes pour une école et une université laïques, libres et de masse sont d'autres axes sur lesquels nous devons travailler ensemble.
Notre Organisation est actuellement engagée, dans les localités où elle est présente avec ses militants, dans l'intervention syndicale au sein de la CGIL, le plus grand syndicat d'Italie, au sein de la minorité critique, sur des positions anti-réformistes et anti-bureaucratiques inspirées par les mots d'ordre d'unité de classe, de progression des acquis salariaux et des droits, et de transformation radicale de la société dans un sens anticapitaliste, communiste et libertaire.
Nous sommes également engagés dans le mouvement antimilitariste et anti-impérialiste, participant aux luttes pour la fermeture des bases militaires de l'OTAN en Italie, mais aussi dans le mouvement écologique et pour une consommation critique et consciente. Avec d'autres groupes libertaires, nous participons à des initiatives culturelles et à la propagande politique de nos idées communes.
Avec nos forces limitées, nous sommes toujours prêts à travailler ensemble, toujours plus unis vers la perspective d'une Organisation internationale des communistes anarchistes et libertaires qui puisse servir de référence aux nouvelles générations de militants dans les luttes présentes et futures.
Secrétariat National
Alternativa Libertaria/Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici
Août 2024
Malatesta’s Revolutionary Anarchism in British Exile
28 Febrero 2024 at 01:50
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.
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.
61z6jtrb0ml.jpg
An Anarchist View of Trotsky’s "Transitional Program"
21 Noviembre 2023 at 22:26
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)
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)
octoberrevolution.jpeg
An Attempted Marxist-Anarchist Dialogue [2]
3 Octubre 2023 at 00:05
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
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
An Attempted Marxist-Anarchist Dialogue
3 Octubre 2023 at 01:13
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
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
61thrfbmy8l.jpg
Anarchists in Rojava: Revolution is a struggle in itself
4 Octubre 2023 at 17:52
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.
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.
1.jpeg
Militants of TA planting an olive tree in a field
Making ready some basic DIY IFAKs (individual First Aid Kit) for SDF forces
A view from next to qada azadî (freedom square) in Kobane, with a sculpture, the flag of Rojava and the eagle sculpture
A commemoration of şehids in Til Temir, with mother carring pictures of their şehid sons and daughters
Cooking a tea pot in the fire to make some tea.
A newly made park in front of the wheat silos at the entrance of Hasakah city
Carring the body of Şehid Tekoşer to the borderof semalka, among hunderds of people who gathered to give a goodbye
A cat resting next to basic equipment
A Talk on the Ukrainian-Russian War
30 Agosto 2023 at 21:36
When the Russian state invaded Ukraine, I was immediately on the side of the Ukrainian people. Mainly this was because, like most people, I hate oppression, exploitation, and bullying. I am on the side of the oppressed, the exploited, the beaten, the marginalized, and the dominated. Especially whenever they fight back. While my political opinions have evolved over the years, this attitude has continued to be at the heart of my worldview.
Also, I have long supported the freedom of an oppressed people to national self-determination. I learned this concept during the fight against the U.S.-Vietnamese war (dating myself). My comrades and I had no illusions in the North Vietnamese state nor the leaders of the south Vietnamese war (the “Viet Cong” or NLF). They were Stalinists and would establish a Communist-type state-capitalist dictatorship (as they did). They received military aid from the imperialist Soviet Union. But there was no question that the peasants and workers of Vietnam were supporting the war and its leadership. We gave no political support to the Stalinist leaders and rulers, we were their opponents. Yet we definitely were in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their fight for independence and unity and whatever freedoms they might gain. We wanted the U.S. military forces to lose.
I thought these lessons of the Vietnamese-U.S. war applied to this war. They implied solidarity with the Ukrainian people (however much we opposed the Ukrainian state and its capitalist “oligarchs”) and full opposition to the Russian invaders. It implied that the oppressed people have the right to get arms from wherever they can, even from other imperialists who were competing with their immediate aggressor (then the Soviet Union, now the U.S. and NATO).
However, when I wrote this, I received much disagreement, often expressed with great personal hostility, expressed in name-calling, childish insults, and red-baiting. I was betraying anarchism! Some of my critics could not separate political disagreement from personal conflicts.
The first wave of arguments I faced held that “no anarchist” would support the war. This was because anarchists did not support wars, or anarchists did not support wars between capitalist states. This is to say that my critics rejected (or ignored) the importance of imperialism. They did not distinguish between wars between imperialist states and wars between an oppressed, colonized, nation and an imperialist state.
It was repeatedly pointed out to me that Peter Kropotkin had supported France and the Allies in World War I but that almost all anarchists at the time and later felt that he was badly mistaken. His comrade Errico Malatesta had written to condemn Kropotkin for taking sides in the Great War. But my critics did not know that Malatesta had also supported wars of national liberation by oppressed peoples (for example, in Libya against the Italian army, or in Cuba against the Spanish empire). (Price Nov. 2022)
I demonstrated that “classical anarchists” had supported popular struggles for national self-determination: including, but not limited to, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Makhno, and others. All (with the exception of Kropotkin) distinguished between wars among imperialists (of which they opposed all sides) and wars between imperialists and oppressed, non-imperialist, countries (of which they supported the oppressed peoples). (Price July 2022; 2023)
I also pointed out that many—perhaps most—of the Ukrainian anarchists supported—and participated in—the Ukrainian side of the war. Similarly, Russian and Belarusian anarchists were on the side of the Ukrainian people, and so were many other anarchists.
In a report on the 2023 International Anarchist Conference at St. Imier, Switzerland, a commentator wrote,
“Most events held on the war accepted the right of self-defence for Ukrainians as the minimum anarchist political basis….The event by anarchists from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who are actively resisting the invasion, was one of the most interesting of the meeting.” (Transnational Institute 2023)
All this does not prove that it is right to support the Ukrainian people, but it does disprove the claim that no anarchist would take such a stand.
In general, my opponents could not distinguish between “nationalism” and “national self-determination” or “liberation.” “National liberation” meant the freeing of a people from the oppression of the state of another nation. “National self-determination” meant that a people were able to decide for itself whether to be independent and what kind of political and economic system to have (which could be a capitalist state or libertarian socialism). But “nationalism” is one possible program meant to supposedly solve national oppression—by creating a new state and national capitalist economy (perhaps state capitalist). Anarchists should be for “national self-determination” and “national liberation” but are thoroughly opposed to “nationalism.” Instead we advocate international anarchist socialism to achieve freedom for all peoples everywhere.
Others argued that Ukraine did not deserve national defense because it was not really a nation! They claimed that Ukraine was a recent invention, that its people were indistinguishable from Russians, and so on. (While not supporting the Russian invasion, many anarchists repeat Putin’s propaganda and lies.) In my opinion, all these claims were irrelevant. Historically there had been a Ukraine for centuries, oppressed by the Czars and then by the Stalinists. During the 70 years of the Soviet Union, there had been a recognized Ukrainian Republic in the USSR. But this too was not really relevant.
What was important was that the Ukrainians regarded themselves as a nation. In 1991 the Ukrainian people voted overwhelming for national independence from Russia—by more than 92 per cent. This included about 80 per cent in the eastern, mainly Russian-speaking, Donbas and about 54 per cent in Crimea. (Mirra 2023; p. 126) It was their opinion which counts, not that of foreign anarchists nor of Putin and his army.
To which some replied, that therefore the people of the eastern Ukraine, the Donbas, were a nation or nations because they had voted for their own republics merged into Russia. I would agree, except that the drive for their “national separation” was so clearly a Russian put-up job (with Russian soldiers everywhere). Indeed the whole movement for Donbas secession was organized since 2014 by Russian and pro-Russian agents.
Another argument was that anarchists must not support a capitalist state. In fact, no Ukrainian anarchists gave any political support to the Zelensky government. They did not vote for it nor urge others to vote for it. They did not join the ruling party nor any other. They did not participate in the government in any way. They have opposed the neoliberal austerity and anti-union policies of the Zelensky government. There is no “Popular Front.”
Suppose there was a strike in the U.S. Anarchists would be on the side of the workers. Outside anarchists would do labor-support activities to help the strike. Anarchist workers at the workplace would join the strike and be active in its organizing. Yet the union would undoubtedly be run by a bureaucratic and possibly corrupt leadership. Should anarchists still participate? Or should they stand aside or perhaps cross the picket lines, because the union was undemocratic and centralized? Obviously, revolutionary anarchists would join the strike and be the most militant strikers, while fighting for a more democratic, federalist, and militant union. The same is true of anarchists in a just national war of self-determination, being part of the war while working for an eventual anarchist-socialist revolution.
Anarchists are participating in the war. Some distribute food and medicines. Others help refugees. But some formed Territorial Defense groups affiliated with the army. And some joined the army, fighting at the front.
It would have been optimal if Ukrainian anarchists had been able to organize militias or guerrilla groups independently of the state. Unfortunately they are far too weak to do that. They must either support the existing army in one way or another, or be passive. After all, while Ukrainian anarchists have much to criticize the army for, anarchists are not opposed to its fighting the Russian invaders!
Suppose anarchists were to say to the Ukrainian people, “We are against the Russian invasion, but we are also against the national army—we are even for sabotaging it—because it is the army of a state and capitalism.” Most workers would (correctly) regard this as treasonous de facto support of the invaders. On the other hand, anarchist participation in the war, in whatever capacity, can only increase positive views of anarchists among the population.
Much of the opposition to supporting Ukraine is due to its getting arms and aid from the U.S. and the rest of NATO. It is often called a “proxy war.” There is an assumption by many that only U.S. imperialism is evil. But while U.S. imperialism is terrible, it is not the only imperialism. There is Russian imperialism, as the Ukrainians know.
It is not unusual for one imperialist power to intervene when a colony rebels against its imperialist master. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often aided, with guns or money, national struggles against Western imperialists—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile the U.S. was “on the side” of eastern European states against the Soviet Union. Even during World War II, Nazi Germany gave “support” to Arab rebels in Britain and France’s colonies, and even to Ireland, while Imperial Japan claimed to be “freeing” Asian colonies from Britain, France, and Holland. So it was not surprising that Soviet Russia gave aid to Vietnam against the U.S.—or that the U.S. and allies should give aid to Ukraine. The U.S. state is acting for its reasons, its imperial interests in weakening its imperial competitor, not out of the “idealism” of its cynical politicians.
But make no mistake. For the Ukrainians, this is no “proxy war.” It is their villages, towns, and cities which are bombed and destroyed, not those of the U.S., Germany, or Britain. It is their population which is being massacred on the ground and from the air. It is their soldiers who are fighting and being killed in massive numbers. They are fighting and dying for their country, their people, and no one else.
I would not offer tactical advice to Ukrainian anarchists. But strategically I would say that their goals are two-fold: to defeat the Russian invasion and to spread anarchist ideas among the people, especially the workers. As revolutionary anarchists, we continue to be in solidarity with the oppressed, especially when they fight for their freedom.
References
Mirra, Carl (2023). “The War in Ukraine.” New Politics. Summer 2023. Pp. 125—137.
Price, Wayne (July 2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666
Price, Wayne (Nov. 2022). “Kropotkin and War—Today.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32683?search_text=Wayne+Price
Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774?search_text=Wayne+Price
Transnational Institute of Social Ecology (2023). “Report From the International Anarchist Meeting in St. Imier, Switzerland”
https://anarchistnews.org/content/report-international-anarchist-meeting-st-imier-switzerland
* submitted to Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine
Also, I have long supported the freedom of an oppressed people to national self-determination. I learned this concept during the fight against the U.S.-Vietnamese war (dating myself). My comrades and I had no illusions in the North Vietnamese state nor the leaders of the south Vietnamese war (the “Viet Cong” or NLF). They were Stalinists and would establish a Communist-type state-capitalist dictatorship (as they did). They received military aid from the imperialist Soviet Union. But there was no question that the peasants and workers of Vietnam were supporting the war and its leadership. We gave no political support to the Stalinist leaders and rulers, we were their opponents. Yet we definitely were in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their fight for independence and unity and whatever freedoms they might gain. We wanted the U.S. military forces to lose.
I thought these lessons of the Vietnamese-U.S. war applied to this war. They implied solidarity with the Ukrainian people (however much we opposed the Ukrainian state and its capitalist “oligarchs”) and full opposition to the Russian invaders. It implied that the oppressed people have the right to get arms from wherever they can, even from other imperialists who were competing with their immediate aggressor (then the Soviet Union, now the U.S. and NATO).
However, when I wrote this, I received much disagreement, often expressed with great personal hostility, expressed in name-calling, childish insults, and red-baiting. I was betraying anarchism! Some of my critics could not separate political disagreement from personal conflicts.
The first wave of arguments I faced held that “no anarchist” would support the war. This was because anarchists did not support wars, or anarchists did not support wars between capitalist states. This is to say that my critics rejected (or ignored) the importance of imperialism. They did not distinguish between wars between imperialist states and wars between an oppressed, colonized, nation and an imperialist state.
It was repeatedly pointed out to me that Peter Kropotkin had supported France and the Allies in World War I but that almost all anarchists at the time and later felt that he was badly mistaken. His comrade Errico Malatesta had written to condemn Kropotkin for taking sides in the Great War. But my critics did not know that Malatesta had also supported wars of national liberation by oppressed peoples (for example, in Libya against the Italian army, or in Cuba against the Spanish empire). (Price Nov. 2022)
I demonstrated that “classical anarchists” had supported popular struggles for national self-determination: including, but not limited to, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Makhno, and others. All (with the exception of Kropotkin) distinguished between wars among imperialists (of which they opposed all sides) and wars between imperialists and oppressed, non-imperialist, countries (of which they supported the oppressed peoples). (Price July 2022; 2023)
I also pointed out that many—perhaps most—of the Ukrainian anarchists supported—and participated in—the Ukrainian side of the war. Similarly, Russian and Belarusian anarchists were on the side of the Ukrainian people, and so were many other anarchists.
In a report on the 2023 International Anarchist Conference at St. Imier, Switzerland, a commentator wrote,
“Most events held on the war accepted the right of self-defence for Ukrainians as the minimum anarchist political basis….The event by anarchists from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, who are actively resisting the invasion, was one of the most interesting of the meeting.” (Transnational Institute 2023)
All this does not prove that it is right to support the Ukrainian people, but it does disprove the claim that no anarchist would take such a stand.
In general, my opponents could not distinguish between “nationalism” and “national self-determination” or “liberation.” “National liberation” meant the freeing of a people from the oppression of the state of another nation. “National self-determination” meant that a people were able to decide for itself whether to be independent and what kind of political and economic system to have (which could be a capitalist state or libertarian socialism). But “nationalism” is one possible program meant to supposedly solve national oppression—by creating a new state and national capitalist economy (perhaps state capitalist). Anarchists should be for “national self-determination” and “national liberation” but are thoroughly opposed to “nationalism.” Instead we advocate international anarchist socialism to achieve freedom for all peoples everywhere.
Others argued that Ukraine did not deserve national defense because it was not really a nation! They claimed that Ukraine was a recent invention, that its people were indistinguishable from Russians, and so on. (While not supporting the Russian invasion, many anarchists repeat Putin’s propaganda and lies.) In my opinion, all these claims were irrelevant. Historically there had been a Ukraine for centuries, oppressed by the Czars and then by the Stalinists. During the 70 years of the Soviet Union, there had been a recognized Ukrainian Republic in the USSR. But this too was not really relevant.
What was important was that the Ukrainians regarded themselves as a nation. In 1991 the Ukrainian people voted overwhelming for national independence from Russia—by more than 92 per cent. This included about 80 per cent in the eastern, mainly Russian-speaking, Donbas and about 54 per cent in Crimea. (Mirra 2023; p. 126) It was their opinion which counts, not that of foreign anarchists nor of Putin and his army.
To which some replied, that therefore the people of the eastern Ukraine, the Donbas, were a nation or nations because they had voted for their own republics merged into Russia. I would agree, except that the drive for their “national separation” was so clearly a Russian put-up job (with Russian soldiers everywhere). Indeed the whole movement for Donbas secession was organized since 2014 by Russian and pro-Russian agents.
Another argument was that anarchists must not support a capitalist state. In fact, no Ukrainian anarchists gave any political support to the Zelensky government. They did not vote for it nor urge others to vote for it. They did not join the ruling party nor any other. They did not participate in the government in any way. They have opposed the neoliberal austerity and anti-union policies of the Zelensky government. There is no “Popular Front.”
Suppose there was a strike in the U.S. Anarchists would be on the side of the workers. Outside anarchists would do labor-support activities to help the strike. Anarchist workers at the workplace would join the strike and be active in its organizing. Yet the union would undoubtedly be run by a bureaucratic and possibly corrupt leadership. Should anarchists still participate? Or should they stand aside or perhaps cross the picket lines, because the union was undemocratic and centralized? Obviously, revolutionary anarchists would join the strike and be the most militant strikers, while fighting for a more democratic, federalist, and militant union. The same is true of anarchists in a just national war of self-determination, being part of the war while working for an eventual anarchist-socialist revolution.
Anarchists are participating in the war. Some distribute food and medicines. Others help refugees. But some formed Territorial Defense groups affiliated with the army. And some joined the army, fighting at the front.
It would have been optimal if Ukrainian anarchists had been able to organize militias or guerrilla groups independently of the state. Unfortunately they are far too weak to do that. They must either support the existing army in one way or another, or be passive. After all, while Ukrainian anarchists have much to criticize the army for, anarchists are not opposed to its fighting the Russian invaders!
Suppose anarchists were to say to the Ukrainian people, “We are against the Russian invasion, but we are also against the national army—we are even for sabotaging it—because it is the army of a state and capitalism.” Most workers would (correctly) regard this as treasonous de facto support of the invaders. On the other hand, anarchist participation in the war, in whatever capacity, can only increase positive views of anarchists among the population.
Much of the opposition to supporting Ukraine is due to its getting arms and aid from the U.S. and the rest of NATO. It is often called a “proxy war.” There is an assumption by many that only U.S. imperialism is evil. But while U.S. imperialism is terrible, it is not the only imperialism. There is Russian imperialism, as the Ukrainians know.
It is not unusual for one imperialist power to intervene when a colony rebels against its imperialist master. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often aided, with guns or money, national struggles against Western imperialists—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Meanwhile the U.S. was “on the side” of eastern European states against the Soviet Union. Even during World War II, Nazi Germany gave “support” to Arab rebels in Britain and France’s colonies, and even to Ireland, while Imperial Japan claimed to be “freeing” Asian colonies from Britain, France, and Holland. So it was not surprising that Soviet Russia gave aid to Vietnam against the U.S.—or that the U.S. and allies should give aid to Ukraine. The U.S. state is acting for its reasons, its imperial interests in weakening its imperial competitor, not out of the “idealism” of its cynical politicians.
But make no mistake. For the Ukrainians, this is no “proxy war.” It is their villages, towns, and cities which are bombed and destroyed, not those of the U.S., Germany, or Britain. It is their population which is being massacred on the ground and from the air. It is their soldiers who are fighting and being killed in massive numbers. They are fighting and dying for their country, their people, and no one else.
I would not offer tactical advice to Ukrainian anarchists. But strategically I would say that their goals are two-fold: to defeat the Russian invasion and to spread anarchist ideas among the people, especially the workers. As revolutionary anarchists, we continue to be in solidarity with the oppressed, especially when they fight for their freedom.
References
Mirra, Carl (2023). “The War in Ukraine.” New Politics. Summer 2023. Pp. 125—137.
Price, Wayne (July 2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666
Price, Wayne (Nov. 2022). “Kropotkin and War—Today.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32683?search_text=Wayne+Price
Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say About National Self-Determination?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774?search_text=Wayne+Price
Transnational Institute of Social Ecology (2023). “Report From the International Anarchist Meeting in St. Imier, Switzerland”
https://anarchistnews.org/content/report-international-anarchist-meeting-st-imier-switzerland
* submitted to Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine
images.jpg
A Guide to Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism
3 Agosto 2023 at 12:17
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
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
51wr6zzxrwl.jpg
The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism
30 Junio 2023 at 01:01
This is an outstanding overview of the anarchist movement. It covers the period from 1868 (the approximate beginning of revolutionary anarchism as a movement) to 1939 (the defeat of the Spanish Revolution and the beginning of World War II). While anarchism has been a world movement, this book only covers European and U.S. anarchism, which has inherent limitations (also, the author admits to only reading English). Further, the text does not discuss all tendencies which have been regarded as anarchist. It does not deal with individualist or market-oriented anarchisms, nor with anarchist-pacifism nor some other trends.
Instead it focuses on what has been referred to as revolutionary class-struggle anarchism, also called libertarian socialism or communism. Today some advocate anarchisms without revolution or the working class. However, Lucien van der Walt considers that “the broad anarchist tradition.” (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009; p. 19) Baker might agree with this, but would probably not go as far as van der Walt when he writes, “‘Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view it is the only anarchism.” (same; emphasis in original) In any case, this is the anarchism that Baker concentrates on, which in itself contains a host of internal conflicts and controversies.
Unlike some other books on this subject, Baker does not report on the lives and works of the most influential anarchists. Instead she is interested in the ideas and practices of the movement as such. This involves an effort to research what members of the movement—influential writers but also ordinary militants—were doing and saying. She tries to reconstruct the basic trends within anarchism during this period (in Europe and the U.S.), to draw them out and rationally discuss them.
Anarchism does not have an official, orthodox, philosophy, comparable to the “dialectical materialism” of Marxism. But, as Baker summarizes, “The central argument of this book is that…anarchists…were grounded in a theoretical framework—the theory of practice—which maintained that, as people engage in activity, they simultaneously change the world and themselves…the anarchist commitment to the unity of means and ends.” (p. 10)
In philosophy this is often called “praxis,” a Greek word meaning practice-integrated-with-theory, as opposed to superficially empirical practice. As Baker knows, this was a fundamental aspect of Karl Marx’s method, developed out of the dialectical theory of G.W.F. Hegel. Michael Bakunin, a “founder” of revolutionary anarchism, also studied Hegel’s philosophy. A number of philosophers have considered the implications of focusing on humanity as actively productive, consciously interacting with objective reality, simultaneously changing the world and themselves. (Bernstein 1971; Price 2014)
Controversies Among Anarchists
The book begins with the origins of the anarchist movement as an anti-statist wing of working class socialism. It reviews the values and basic strategies of anarchist anti-capitalism. This focuses on “direct action” by workers and the oppressed against the bosses and the state. Direct action included strikes, boycotts, tenant strikes, and civil disobedience. But anarchists also established schools for children and adults, community libraries, popular theaters, and sports clubs.
“Anarchism…emerged in parallel with, and opposition to, various forms of state socialism.” (p. 141) Baker goes through anarchists’ reasons for rejecting parliamentarianism as well as Leninist revolutionary replacement of the existing state with a new (dictatorial) one. The state is a centralized, bureaucratic, hierarchical institution, standing over and above the rest of society, serving the interests of an exploitive minority. It cannot be used to build a classless, stateless, and non-oppressive society, whatever Marxists may think. She points out, correctly, that the program of state socialism in practice can only end in state capitalism.
While revolutionary anarchists agreed on certain fundamental commitments, they also had a number of disagreements. “Broadly speaking the anarchist movement can be divided into two main strategic schools of thought: insurrectionist anarchism and mass anarchism.” (p. 171) (These were not terms used at the time, but were later assigned by van der Walt.) There was a great deal of overlapping of the schools in actual practice by individuals and groups; these are “pure types.” (“Insurrectionism” has also been called “terrorism” by some, “guerrilla warfare” by others.)
The “insurrectionists” built little groups, which fluctuated in composition, and were associated—if at all—in loose networks. They were regarded as “anti-organizationalists,” although they put out newspapers and had networks. They engaged in violent actions by individuals or small groups against the government or capitalist enterprises, sometimes against individual politicians or businesspeople or just random citizens (eventually called “propaganda of the deed”). By such methods they hoped to trigger social revolution.
The “mass anarchists” (I would have preferred “mass struggle anarchists”) wanted big associations, such as labor unions, community groups, anti-war organizations. These would be radically democratic, militant, and independent of capitalist institutions. This type of anarchist was often “dual-organizationalist,” being for specific organizations of anarchists which would work inside and out of larger mass organizations. Their goal was to build popular struggles by workers and every other oppressed group, initially around immediate reform issues, but eventually leading to a social revolution.
Baker clearly comes down against insurrectionist anarchism due to its 150 years of failure. It is true that mass struggle anarchism also has not succeeded in making the revolution. But it has led to large unions in a number of countries, big anarchist federations, and significant military struggles. This is not enough—nothing short of a successful revolution is enough—but it has been more than insurrectionism has done.
Baker is fully aware that anarchist-socialist revolution must include all the oppressed and exploited, with concerns which overlap with class issues but also are distinct. This includes women, African-Americans, and so on. (But she does not discuss ecological issues.) “We must…struggle against all forms of oppression simultaneously. The self-emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved through intersectional class struggle.” (p. 359)
This included support for national liberation struggles against imperialist domination (which is very different from taking sides in wars in which both sides are imperialists). “For anarchists, this commitment to universal human solidarity entailed an opposition to imperialism and colonialism and the support of anti-colonial national liberation movements….According to Maximoff, ‘the anarchists demand the liberation of all colonies and support every struggle for national independence….’ The main goal of national liberation movements—emancipation—could only be achieved through the methods of anarchism, rather than the establishment of a new state.” (pp. 109—110) That is quite contrary to the belief of many ignorant anarchists today that anarchism is opposed to national self-determination. (Many anarchists reject support for the Ukrainian people against Russian imperialist aggression on this false ground.)
Syndicalist Anarchism
However, for Baker, this “intersectionality” does not deny the importance of the working class. This class has a central role in the total process of production and therefore has potentially great strategic power. This leads to her discussion of syndicalism. “All forms of syndicalist anarchism argued that workers should form federally structured trade unions that engaged in direct action and were independent of political parties….to pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present and overthrowing capitalism…in the long term.” (p. 279)
She divides “syndicalist anarchism” into three types: “revolutionary syndicalism,” “syndicalism-plus,” and “anarcho-syndicalism.” In her categorizing, revolutionary syndicalism would be open to all workers in their shop or industry, regardless of whether they were anarchists. Anarchist militants would seek to make the union as worker-run and militant as possible, with no association with any political party or tendency.
Syndicalism-plus (a term she took from Iain McKay) also had an “open” membership and would be non-affiliated to any political grouping. While anarchists would not try to take over the unions, they would not dissolve in them either. They would still form their own specific anarchist organization, to work inside and outside the syndicalist union. Anarcho-syndicalism, in her conception, would explicitly commit its unions to anarchist revolution. Probably this would be written into their constitutions. Baker reviews the arguments pro and con for the different versions of syndicalist anarchism. She notes that the distinction between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism has become blurred (which she largely blames on Rudolf Rocker).
As mentioned, Baker says that syndicalist anarchists (in contrast to insurrectionist anarchists) “pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present….” However, she makes one exception: “One reform that mass anarchists consistently opposed was universal suffrage within existing capitalist states…included women’s suffrage….” (p. 237) I don’t doubt her accuracy but I think this is as aspect of anarchist sectarian over-purity.
I am thinking of the struggle for the right to vote for African Americans in the early ‘60s. Undoubtedly, there was the conscious aim of the liberal wing of the U.S. capitalist class to co-opt the mass movement and channel it into the Democratic Party . And the Black leadership was agreeable to this. On the other hand, the actual struggle involved massive civil disobedience (law-breaking) and independent organizing. The goal of being allowed to vote was also a valid goal. It meant that Black people would no longer be second class citizens. It is better to live under a bourgeois democracy than under a racist and semi-fascist tyranny (which is what the segregationist South was). This does not deny the need for anarchists to point out the limitations of bourgeois representative democracy, which would not really free the Black population from the bottom of society. (Another example of sectarian inflexibility is the syndicalist anarchists rejection of “joining reformist unions.” [p. 273] Carried out consistently, it would limit their ability to reach the mass of workers.)
Baker’s last chapter before concluding is about organizational dualism. This is the idea that anarchists should organize themselves, or at least those with whom they are in substantial agreement. And this organized minority should become part of broader organizations and movements, including but not limited to, unions. She reviews the history from Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” to the syndicalists’ concept of the “militant minority,” to the “Platform” of Makhno and Arshinov, to Malatesta’s ideas, and so on. Such political organization would be different from the Leninist concept of the centralized vanguard party. It would not aim at taking power for itself or establishing its own state. Its only aim was to encourage the workers and oppressed to organize themselves and reorganize society by themselves. To help people change the world as they change themselves.
References
Baker, Zoe (2023). Means & Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Chico CA: AK Press.
Bernstein, Richard J. (1971). Praxis and Action; Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activity. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Price, Wayne (2014) “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism.” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-anarchism-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism
van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
Oakland CA: AK Press.
*written for Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine
Instead it focuses on what has been referred to as revolutionary class-struggle anarchism, also called libertarian socialism or communism. Today some advocate anarchisms without revolution or the working class. However, Lucien van der Walt considers that “the broad anarchist tradition.” (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009; p. 19) Baker might agree with this, but would probably not go as far as van der Walt when he writes, “‘Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view it is the only anarchism.” (same; emphasis in original) In any case, this is the anarchism that Baker concentrates on, which in itself contains a host of internal conflicts and controversies.
Unlike some other books on this subject, Baker does not report on the lives and works of the most influential anarchists. Instead she is interested in the ideas and practices of the movement as such. This involves an effort to research what members of the movement—influential writers but also ordinary militants—were doing and saying. She tries to reconstruct the basic trends within anarchism during this period (in Europe and the U.S.), to draw them out and rationally discuss them.
Anarchism does not have an official, orthodox, philosophy, comparable to the “dialectical materialism” of Marxism. But, as Baker summarizes, “The central argument of this book is that…anarchists…were grounded in a theoretical framework—the theory of practice—which maintained that, as people engage in activity, they simultaneously change the world and themselves…the anarchist commitment to the unity of means and ends.” (p. 10)
In philosophy this is often called “praxis,” a Greek word meaning practice-integrated-with-theory, as opposed to superficially empirical practice. As Baker knows, this was a fundamental aspect of Karl Marx’s method, developed out of the dialectical theory of G.W.F. Hegel. Michael Bakunin, a “founder” of revolutionary anarchism, also studied Hegel’s philosophy. A number of philosophers have considered the implications of focusing on humanity as actively productive, consciously interacting with objective reality, simultaneously changing the world and themselves. (Bernstein 1971; Price 2014)
Controversies Among Anarchists
The book begins with the origins of the anarchist movement as an anti-statist wing of working class socialism. It reviews the values and basic strategies of anarchist anti-capitalism. This focuses on “direct action” by workers and the oppressed against the bosses and the state. Direct action included strikes, boycotts, tenant strikes, and civil disobedience. But anarchists also established schools for children and adults, community libraries, popular theaters, and sports clubs.
“Anarchism…emerged in parallel with, and opposition to, various forms of state socialism.” (p. 141) Baker goes through anarchists’ reasons for rejecting parliamentarianism as well as Leninist revolutionary replacement of the existing state with a new (dictatorial) one. The state is a centralized, bureaucratic, hierarchical institution, standing over and above the rest of society, serving the interests of an exploitive minority. It cannot be used to build a classless, stateless, and non-oppressive society, whatever Marxists may think. She points out, correctly, that the program of state socialism in practice can only end in state capitalism.
While revolutionary anarchists agreed on certain fundamental commitments, they also had a number of disagreements. “Broadly speaking the anarchist movement can be divided into two main strategic schools of thought: insurrectionist anarchism and mass anarchism.” (p. 171) (These were not terms used at the time, but were later assigned by van der Walt.) There was a great deal of overlapping of the schools in actual practice by individuals and groups; these are “pure types.” (“Insurrectionism” has also been called “terrorism” by some, “guerrilla warfare” by others.)
The “insurrectionists” built little groups, which fluctuated in composition, and were associated—if at all—in loose networks. They were regarded as “anti-organizationalists,” although they put out newspapers and had networks. They engaged in violent actions by individuals or small groups against the government or capitalist enterprises, sometimes against individual politicians or businesspeople or just random citizens (eventually called “propaganda of the deed”). By such methods they hoped to trigger social revolution.
The “mass anarchists” (I would have preferred “mass struggle anarchists”) wanted big associations, such as labor unions, community groups, anti-war organizations. These would be radically democratic, militant, and independent of capitalist institutions. This type of anarchist was often “dual-organizationalist,” being for specific organizations of anarchists which would work inside and out of larger mass organizations. Their goal was to build popular struggles by workers and every other oppressed group, initially around immediate reform issues, but eventually leading to a social revolution.
Baker clearly comes down against insurrectionist anarchism due to its 150 years of failure. It is true that mass struggle anarchism also has not succeeded in making the revolution. But it has led to large unions in a number of countries, big anarchist federations, and significant military struggles. This is not enough—nothing short of a successful revolution is enough—but it has been more than insurrectionism has done.
Baker is fully aware that anarchist-socialist revolution must include all the oppressed and exploited, with concerns which overlap with class issues but also are distinct. This includes women, African-Americans, and so on. (But she does not discuss ecological issues.) “We must…struggle against all forms of oppression simultaneously. The self-emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved through intersectional class struggle.” (p. 359)
This included support for national liberation struggles against imperialist domination (which is very different from taking sides in wars in which both sides are imperialists). “For anarchists, this commitment to universal human solidarity entailed an opposition to imperialism and colonialism and the support of anti-colonial national liberation movements….According to Maximoff, ‘the anarchists demand the liberation of all colonies and support every struggle for national independence….’ The main goal of national liberation movements—emancipation—could only be achieved through the methods of anarchism, rather than the establishment of a new state.” (pp. 109—110) That is quite contrary to the belief of many ignorant anarchists today that anarchism is opposed to national self-determination. (Many anarchists reject support for the Ukrainian people against Russian imperialist aggression on this false ground.)
Syndicalist Anarchism
However, for Baker, this “intersectionality” does not deny the importance of the working class. This class has a central role in the total process of production and therefore has potentially great strategic power. This leads to her discussion of syndicalism. “All forms of syndicalist anarchism argued that workers should form federally structured trade unions that engaged in direct action and were independent of political parties….to pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present and overthrowing capitalism…in the long term.” (p. 279)
She divides “syndicalist anarchism” into three types: “revolutionary syndicalism,” “syndicalism-plus,” and “anarcho-syndicalism.” In her categorizing, revolutionary syndicalism would be open to all workers in their shop or industry, regardless of whether they were anarchists. Anarchist militants would seek to make the union as worker-run and militant as possible, with no association with any political party or tendency.
Syndicalism-plus (a term she took from Iain McKay) also had an “open” membership and would be non-affiliated to any political grouping. While anarchists would not try to take over the unions, they would not dissolve in them either. They would still form their own specific anarchist organization, to work inside and outside the syndicalist union. Anarcho-syndicalism, in her conception, would explicitly commit its unions to anarchist revolution. Probably this would be written into their constitutions. Baker reviews the arguments pro and con for the different versions of syndicalist anarchism. She notes that the distinction between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism has become blurred (which she largely blames on Rudolf Rocker).
As mentioned, Baker says that syndicalist anarchists (in contrast to insurrectionist anarchists) “pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present….” However, she makes one exception: “One reform that mass anarchists consistently opposed was universal suffrage within existing capitalist states…included women’s suffrage….” (p. 237) I don’t doubt her accuracy but I think this is as aspect of anarchist sectarian over-purity.
I am thinking of the struggle for the right to vote for African Americans in the early ‘60s. Undoubtedly, there was the conscious aim of the liberal wing of the U.S. capitalist class to co-opt the mass movement and channel it into the Democratic Party . And the Black leadership was agreeable to this. On the other hand, the actual struggle involved massive civil disobedience (law-breaking) and independent organizing. The goal of being allowed to vote was also a valid goal. It meant that Black people would no longer be second class citizens. It is better to live under a bourgeois democracy than under a racist and semi-fascist tyranny (which is what the segregationist South was). This does not deny the need for anarchists to point out the limitations of bourgeois representative democracy, which would not really free the Black population from the bottom of society. (Another example of sectarian inflexibility is the syndicalist anarchists rejection of “joining reformist unions.” [p. 273] Carried out consistently, it would limit their ability to reach the mass of workers.)
Baker’s last chapter before concluding is about organizational dualism. This is the idea that anarchists should organize themselves, or at least those with whom they are in substantial agreement. And this organized minority should become part of broader organizations and movements, including but not limited to, unions. She reviews the history from Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” to the syndicalists’ concept of the “militant minority,” to the “Platform” of Makhno and Arshinov, to Malatesta’s ideas, and so on. Such political organization would be different from the Leninist concept of the centralized vanguard party. It would not aim at taking power for itself or establishing its own state. Its only aim was to encourage the workers and oppressed to organize themselves and reorganize society by themselves. To help people change the world as they change themselves.
References
Baker, Zoe (2023). Means & Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Chico CA: AK Press.
Bernstein, Richard J. (1971). Praxis and Action; Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activity. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Price, Wayne (2014) “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism.” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-anarchism-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism
van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
Oakland CA: AK Press.
*written for Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine
meansandends1.jpg
Reflections on Identity Politics and Revolutionary Organizing
28 Junio 2023 at 12:29
Pride is not an event widely celebrated in Rojava, but for us it is an important date and a reason to reflect on the current state of the queer struggle and the situation of the LGBT+ movement. On this occasion, we want to share something more than just a solidarity picture. A comrade wrote this text reflecting on their experience in Rojava. These are some lessons we can draw inspiration from.
The text doesn’t represent the position of our organization, but it aims to contribute to the discussions on these topics.
For a wild Pride!
Down with rainbow capitalism!
- Tekosina Anarsist
Reflections on Identity Politics and Revolutionary Organizing
When I was first being politicized, a world opened up for me. I felt like I finally found words to describe the experiences I had been having. I thought I had been alone with those experiences, but through my journey into politics, I began to understand the systemic nature of them, identity based politics were a big part of this for me. This also ignited a fire and anger in me. In those early days, I directed this anger towards individuals of those groups who oppressed me. I blamed the individuals and thought it just to demonize them. I organized in separatist groups and was dismissive and without hope for those individuals that were part of oppressing groups.
I have moved from being on the extra-parliamentary left, an “activist” one might say, to becoming a more ideologically motivated and educated revolutionary, for who the struggle is not just something to do in my free time, but struggle is the basis of my daily life. During this transition I realized that the way I was directing my anger was not constructive in progressing the struggle against oppression and for a free life. Not that I think my anger was unjust, simply that I now think that I can do better things with my anger than release it on the nearest man. I was with my own hands creating division and conflict among comrades who I was supposed to struggle alongside with. I needed to overcome the framework of identity politics, because it splits us up, and weakens the revolutionary struggle. I went looking for perspectives with more nuance and wanted to aim toward unity of oppressed peoples, at the same time I searched for ways to incorporate some of the valuable lessons that identity politics had taught me. Here are some of the things I learned along the way so far.
What is Identity Politics?
Identity politics is when people organize mainly according their identities of gender, race ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc. The logic of identity politics is often used to organize as single-issue activism or separatists, this means that a group of people organizes along the lines of a common identity. For example women separatists (a group of only women), or people of colour separatists (a group of only people of colour). These days there are many groups organized with this method. Many of those group use the rhetoric of revolution but are very liberal in the praxis, focusing almost exclusively on right and reform, though there are a few that also have more revolutionary praxis. This text aims to address some of the short comings of identity politics and separatist organizing. It will also consider some of the strengths and lessons we could and should take from separatist organizing. Moreover it will offer one possible alternative that strives to incorporate the contributions coming from separatist spaces while working to unite rather than split revolutionary organizing.
Coming together with those who experience the same or similar oppressions as oneself can be a very validating experience. It can help to contextualize personal experiences and hardships within capitalism, thereby coming to understand the events in one’s personal life through a wider lens. In turn understanding experiences of oppression through an anti-capitalist framework can combat isolation that some people feel in their experiences. In gathering with others with similar identity some people can find a space and calm to heal from oppression related traumas or problems, as well as gathering the strength to continue to live and take part in struggle. Moreover, it is often times from such “safe spaces”, in which one is temporarily somewhat shielded from people of the oppressive dynamic,that there is room to reflect. From this reflection new analysis and theory are conceptualized, therefore it can have an important function in developing analysis and theory that brings us forward. For these reasons groups or spaces based on identity, in which oppressed identities are cared for, explored and celebrated, are very valuable to oppressed individuals, and can make great contributions in our fight against patriarchy and capitalism.
Causes and Shortcoming of Identity Politics
I think separatist spaces do also have downsides that we should be careful of if our aim is the overthrow of capitalism, classless society and the genuine change of social relations in society. When identity politics become the main approach to organizing, this results in oppressed people being pitted against each other and pitting themselves against each other. One way this happens is by identity based organizing more and more niche, for example a women’s group becoming a queer women’s group, becoming a neurodivergent queer women’s group, etc. There is of course nothing wrong with those individuals wanting to seek connections with others that have similar experiences, like was outline in the previous paragraph, but taking that identity as the basis of organizing ultimately weakens our power. It distances us for other people that we could and should ally ourselves with.
An other unfortunate outcome of identity based politics can be that experiences that contain multitudes and nuance are erased in favour of black and white narratives, this contributes to issues of intersectionality (such as misogynoir, transmisogyny, transmisogynoit, etc.) to be overlooked. An example of where we can see this is in class reductionism. Class reductionism creates a mentality of “we are all working class, so we do not need to talk about race or gender or ability”. It poses that the working class background makes all the other differences among people irrelevant. This of course is not the case, those difference are very much relevant and important.
Why does this happen? Because we live in a capitalist society, and it is in the interest of the rich and powerful (capitalist class) to keep the working class divided. If working and other oppressed people consist of many small groups that fight among themselves, rather than unite to fight against the capitalists, this is an obvious advantage to them. Therefor those voices and actions that are in favour of the status quo are supported and those that threaten the status quo are side-lined or demonized by liberals and conservatives. Any discussion of the root causes, the capitalist system, are avoided, dismissed or silenced. A very obvious example of this is the parts of the white working class in western and northern Europe blaming immigrants from poorer countries for “stealing their jobs/changing the culture/destroying the country/taking over the country”. The immigrants are not the problem, they are the scapegoats. The problem is the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class that results in harsh working and living conditions.
How does this happen? Through the ideology of liberalism, by which we are absolutely surrounded, the focus is laid on the differences in identity and how individuals oppress other individuals in daily life. It manifests in the creation of increasingly specific in-groups, and their respective out-groups. The out-group is often seen as an inconsolable aggressor. For example, LGBTI+ people as the in-group and cis-hetero people as the out-group, cis-hets being seen as unchangeably oppressive towards LGBTI+ people, and a dismissive attitude towards cis-het people is taken on. Or women as the in-group and men as the out-group, with the hope of men changing being little to none, dismissing them as a group.
Coming Together
I understand this desire to organize or even live in a separatist manner, because living in this world as an oppressed person is exhausting and separatist spaces can be a safe haven from that. However, if we call ourselves revolutionaries and want to earn that title, we need to organize with the whole working class and all oppressed peoples, not just those most similar to ourselves. I said it before, but I think it bears repeating since this is such a crucial point: a result of this identity driven politics is that the working class and oppressed people are split into small, easily governable groups, divided rather than united by their different identities. The focus lies on the difference. We cannot meaningfully liberate ourselves if oppressed peoples cannot see and understand the common roots of their problem, namely the capitalist system.
Identity politics are a response to legitimate issues. In order to unify the working class and all oppressed peoples, we must take these issues seriously in our approach to class struggle. To do this a move needs to be made from using identity-based politics to divide, to valuing our differences. We need to be open to learn from each other. We also have a duty to teach each other. We do not need to teach every random person about (our) oppression and help them understand it, but for those who we consider our comrades and friends, those we are organized with, we should. Yes there is google, but googling things as complex as oppression, how oppressions intersect, how to dismantle and overcome them, is often not the most fruitful strategy if we want to grow stronger together. We will have to discuss, explain, teach, listen, fight and change. Frustration at oneself and one’s comrades is a part of coming together. We will also disappoint each other, because we will make mistakes. In the face of those mistakes and shortcomings we cannot just throw out the comrades that messed up, because we all make mistakes from time to time, so this is not a strategy that will get us very far. We need to give a serious effort to correct the mistakes of our comrades, not just try one method, but try all the ways we can think of. Do not give up on each other so easily.
Ideas from Turkey and Kurdistan
All this is of course no easy task. To overcome these challenges we will need willingness, commitment, and a plan. One way to achieve this is by looking at the methods and approaches of the revolutionary movement from Turkey, which has currently also grown its reach to areas outside of the borders of the Turkish state, and Kurdistan. The revolutionary movement in those places has been predominantly communist, communard and apoist (following the ideology of Abdullah Öcalan), though anarchist groups have also been present. The Turkish and Kurdish revolutionary movements have been fighting in its current form for over 50 years against the fascist Turkish state and oppression all over Kurdistan. It has faced many challenges and learned a lot of valuable lessons over that time. Since the ‘90’s great progress has been made in the involvement and position of women comrades in this struggle. A big pioneer in the creation of these structures was, and is, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who in their 1987 established a women’s structure, the YJWK, inside the PKK. I doubt a copy paste of their methods will suit organizing in Europe and North America, but I absolutely think it is worth our time of day to consider how we can learn from them and how to apply that.
In these movements, in many collectives, groups, organizations and parties, there are women’s sub-organizations that function semi-autonomously. These women’s groups/organizations are connected to the overall collective/organization, and the vast majority of all work and actions are carried out through the overall collective/organization. However on issues specifically related to women, these women’s groups have decision making power.
What exactly women’s issues includes is decided by the women’s and overall organization together through discussion. The women’s groups can work autonomously in giving education about patriarchy and all topics connected to it, and reach out to other groups or collectives to collaborate, they can make zines, events, talks to comrades, friends, and whoever wants to listen, etc. Moreover the women’s group is responsible for supporting the women in the collective/organization/network on issues of health, patriarchal violence, and can address women’s internalized patriarchy. It is also a space for women to discuss their experiences, analyze and theorize them.
This way they incorporate many of the functions I mentioned before as being very important of separatist spaces, like space for recovery and healing, building up of strength, discussion and analysis. But unlike separatist groups/organizations they remain connected with people of other identities as well, they engage, discuss, educate the comrades of the overall collective/organization. This connection comes about through that the women comrades are first and foremost organized in the overall collective/organization and secondly in the women’s group. The women’s group is ultimately accountable to the general collective/organization. Its aim should always be to strengthen the overall collective/organization, not undermine it. The women’s group should engage, or at least inform, the overall collective/organization as much as possible in the works and discussions it is having. The basic assumption necessary for any of this to work is of course that our enemy is patriarchy. Individual male comrades will make mistake and have patriarchal behaviors, but they are not our enemy. They are our comrades, and we are struggling together.
This hybrid that includes an overall collective/organization that welcomes people of all identities as well as some aspects of separatism can provide us with a good way forward in which the organizational structure will be better equipped to take on the issues related to specific identities and simultaneously remain focused on uniting oppressed peoples rather than dividing them. We can learn and take inspiration from the method of organizing and incorporate it into our own organizing in ways we think relevant and current. In the revolutionary movements from Turkey and Kurdistan this method is only used to set up women’s organizations (until now), as far as I am aware, but I imagine that this method can be used more broadly, for example through LGBTI+, PoC and other oppressed groups.
This is just one proposal, but even if this is not something that fits within your collective/organization, I urge everyone to think about how to solve the problems brought up by identity politics. These are some central questions of our time, we can look to revolutionary struggles around the world, past and present for inspiration on how we can solve them. I am confident we will solve them, together. We have to, because the current state of our society is unacceptable.
The text doesn’t represent the position of our organization, but it aims to contribute to the discussions on these topics.
For a wild Pride!
Down with rainbow capitalism!
- Tekosina Anarsist
Reflections on Identity Politics and Revolutionary Organizing
When I was first being politicized, a world opened up for me. I felt like I finally found words to describe the experiences I had been having. I thought I had been alone with those experiences, but through my journey into politics, I began to understand the systemic nature of them, identity based politics were a big part of this for me. This also ignited a fire and anger in me. In those early days, I directed this anger towards individuals of those groups who oppressed me. I blamed the individuals and thought it just to demonize them. I organized in separatist groups and was dismissive and without hope for those individuals that were part of oppressing groups.
I have moved from being on the extra-parliamentary left, an “activist” one might say, to becoming a more ideologically motivated and educated revolutionary, for who the struggle is not just something to do in my free time, but struggle is the basis of my daily life. During this transition I realized that the way I was directing my anger was not constructive in progressing the struggle against oppression and for a free life. Not that I think my anger was unjust, simply that I now think that I can do better things with my anger than release it on the nearest man. I was with my own hands creating division and conflict among comrades who I was supposed to struggle alongside with. I needed to overcome the framework of identity politics, because it splits us up, and weakens the revolutionary struggle. I went looking for perspectives with more nuance and wanted to aim toward unity of oppressed peoples, at the same time I searched for ways to incorporate some of the valuable lessons that identity politics had taught me. Here are some of the things I learned along the way so far.
What is Identity Politics?
Identity politics is when people organize mainly according their identities of gender, race ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc. The logic of identity politics is often used to organize as single-issue activism or separatists, this means that a group of people organizes along the lines of a common identity. For example women separatists (a group of only women), or people of colour separatists (a group of only people of colour). These days there are many groups organized with this method. Many of those group use the rhetoric of revolution but are very liberal in the praxis, focusing almost exclusively on right and reform, though there are a few that also have more revolutionary praxis. This text aims to address some of the short comings of identity politics and separatist organizing. It will also consider some of the strengths and lessons we could and should take from separatist organizing. Moreover it will offer one possible alternative that strives to incorporate the contributions coming from separatist spaces while working to unite rather than split revolutionary organizing.
Coming together with those who experience the same or similar oppressions as oneself can be a very validating experience. It can help to contextualize personal experiences and hardships within capitalism, thereby coming to understand the events in one’s personal life through a wider lens. In turn understanding experiences of oppression through an anti-capitalist framework can combat isolation that some people feel in their experiences. In gathering with others with similar identity some people can find a space and calm to heal from oppression related traumas or problems, as well as gathering the strength to continue to live and take part in struggle. Moreover, it is often times from such “safe spaces”, in which one is temporarily somewhat shielded from people of the oppressive dynamic,that there is room to reflect. From this reflection new analysis and theory are conceptualized, therefore it can have an important function in developing analysis and theory that brings us forward. For these reasons groups or spaces based on identity, in which oppressed identities are cared for, explored and celebrated, are very valuable to oppressed individuals, and can make great contributions in our fight against patriarchy and capitalism.
Causes and Shortcoming of Identity Politics
I think separatist spaces do also have downsides that we should be careful of if our aim is the overthrow of capitalism, classless society and the genuine change of social relations in society. When identity politics become the main approach to organizing, this results in oppressed people being pitted against each other and pitting themselves against each other. One way this happens is by identity based organizing more and more niche, for example a women’s group becoming a queer women’s group, becoming a neurodivergent queer women’s group, etc. There is of course nothing wrong with those individuals wanting to seek connections with others that have similar experiences, like was outline in the previous paragraph, but taking that identity as the basis of organizing ultimately weakens our power. It distances us for other people that we could and should ally ourselves with.
An other unfortunate outcome of identity based politics can be that experiences that contain multitudes and nuance are erased in favour of black and white narratives, this contributes to issues of intersectionality (such as misogynoir, transmisogyny, transmisogynoit, etc.) to be overlooked. An example of where we can see this is in class reductionism. Class reductionism creates a mentality of “we are all working class, so we do not need to talk about race or gender or ability”. It poses that the working class background makes all the other differences among people irrelevant. This of course is not the case, those difference are very much relevant and important.
Why does this happen? Because we live in a capitalist society, and it is in the interest of the rich and powerful (capitalist class) to keep the working class divided. If working and other oppressed people consist of many small groups that fight among themselves, rather than unite to fight against the capitalists, this is an obvious advantage to them. Therefor those voices and actions that are in favour of the status quo are supported and those that threaten the status quo are side-lined or demonized by liberals and conservatives. Any discussion of the root causes, the capitalist system, are avoided, dismissed or silenced. A very obvious example of this is the parts of the white working class in western and northern Europe blaming immigrants from poorer countries for “stealing their jobs/changing the culture/destroying the country/taking over the country”. The immigrants are not the problem, they are the scapegoats. The problem is the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class that results in harsh working and living conditions.
How does this happen? Through the ideology of liberalism, by which we are absolutely surrounded, the focus is laid on the differences in identity and how individuals oppress other individuals in daily life. It manifests in the creation of increasingly specific in-groups, and their respective out-groups. The out-group is often seen as an inconsolable aggressor. For example, LGBTI+ people as the in-group and cis-hetero people as the out-group, cis-hets being seen as unchangeably oppressive towards LGBTI+ people, and a dismissive attitude towards cis-het people is taken on. Or women as the in-group and men as the out-group, with the hope of men changing being little to none, dismissing them as a group.
Coming Together
I understand this desire to organize or even live in a separatist manner, because living in this world as an oppressed person is exhausting and separatist spaces can be a safe haven from that. However, if we call ourselves revolutionaries and want to earn that title, we need to organize with the whole working class and all oppressed peoples, not just those most similar to ourselves. I said it before, but I think it bears repeating since this is such a crucial point: a result of this identity driven politics is that the working class and oppressed people are split into small, easily governable groups, divided rather than united by their different identities. The focus lies on the difference. We cannot meaningfully liberate ourselves if oppressed peoples cannot see and understand the common roots of their problem, namely the capitalist system.
Identity politics are a response to legitimate issues. In order to unify the working class and all oppressed peoples, we must take these issues seriously in our approach to class struggle. To do this a move needs to be made from using identity-based politics to divide, to valuing our differences. We need to be open to learn from each other. We also have a duty to teach each other. We do not need to teach every random person about (our) oppression and help them understand it, but for those who we consider our comrades and friends, those we are organized with, we should. Yes there is google, but googling things as complex as oppression, how oppressions intersect, how to dismantle and overcome them, is often not the most fruitful strategy if we want to grow stronger together. We will have to discuss, explain, teach, listen, fight and change. Frustration at oneself and one’s comrades is a part of coming together. We will also disappoint each other, because we will make mistakes. In the face of those mistakes and shortcomings we cannot just throw out the comrades that messed up, because we all make mistakes from time to time, so this is not a strategy that will get us very far. We need to give a serious effort to correct the mistakes of our comrades, not just try one method, but try all the ways we can think of. Do not give up on each other so easily.
Ideas from Turkey and Kurdistan
All this is of course no easy task. To overcome these challenges we will need willingness, commitment, and a plan. One way to achieve this is by looking at the methods and approaches of the revolutionary movement from Turkey, which has currently also grown its reach to areas outside of the borders of the Turkish state, and Kurdistan. The revolutionary movement in those places has been predominantly communist, communard and apoist (following the ideology of Abdullah Öcalan), though anarchist groups have also been present. The Turkish and Kurdish revolutionary movements have been fighting in its current form for over 50 years against the fascist Turkish state and oppression all over Kurdistan. It has faced many challenges and learned a lot of valuable lessons over that time. Since the ‘90’s great progress has been made in the involvement and position of women comrades in this struggle. A big pioneer in the creation of these structures was, and is, the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who in their 1987 established a women’s structure, the YJWK, inside the PKK. I doubt a copy paste of their methods will suit organizing in Europe and North America, but I absolutely think it is worth our time of day to consider how we can learn from them and how to apply that.
In these movements, in many collectives, groups, organizations and parties, there are women’s sub-organizations that function semi-autonomously. These women’s groups/organizations are connected to the overall collective/organization, and the vast majority of all work and actions are carried out through the overall collective/organization. However on issues specifically related to women, these women’s groups have decision making power.
What exactly women’s issues includes is decided by the women’s and overall organization together through discussion. The women’s groups can work autonomously in giving education about patriarchy and all topics connected to it, and reach out to other groups or collectives to collaborate, they can make zines, events, talks to comrades, friends, and whoever wants to listen, etc. Moreover the women’s group is responsible for supporting the women in the collective/organization/network on issues of health, patriarchal violence, and can address women’s internalized patriarchy. It is also a space for women to discuss their experiences, analyze and theorize them.
This way they incorporate many of the functions I mentioned before as being very important of separatist spaces, like space for recovery and healing, building up of strength, discussion and analysis. But unlike separatist groups/organizations they remain connected with people of other identities as well, they engage, discuss, educate the comrades of the overall collective/organization. This connection comes about through that the women comrades are first and foremost organized in the overall collective/organization and secondly in the women’s group. The women’s group is ultimately accountable to the general collective/organization. Its aim should always be to strengthen the overall collective/organization, not undermine it. The women’s group should engage, or at least inform, the overall collective/organization as much as possible in the works and discussions it is having. The basic assumption necessary for any of this to work is of course that our enemy is patriarchy. Individual male comrades will make mistake and have patriarchal behaviors, but they are not our enemy. They are our comrades, and we are struggling together.
This hybrid that includes an overall collective/organization that welcomes people of all identities as well as some aspects of separatism can provide us with a good way forward in which the organizational structure will be better equipped to take on the issues related to specific identities and simultaneously remain focused on uniting oppressed peoples rather than dividing them. We can learn and take inspiration from the method of organizing and incorporate it into our own organizing in ways we think relevant and current. In the revolutionary movements from Turkey and Kurdistan this method is only used to set up women’s organizations (until now), as far as I am aware, but I imagine that this method can be used more broadly, for example through LGBTI+, PoC and other oppressed groups.
This is just one proposal, but even if this is not something that fits within your collective/organization, I urge everyone to think about how to solve the problems brought up by identity politics. These are some central questions of our time, we can look to revolutionary struggles around the world, past and present for inspiration on how we can solve them. I am confident we will solve them, together. We have to, because the current state of our society is unacceptable.
For a wild Pride!
-
No hay más artículos
