(en) Libertarian Socialism # 2 - Theory and Ideology by Anarchist Brazilian Coordination ( CAB ) (pt)

Text published in the journal which conceptually discusses theory and ideology.. Holds the 
following positions: 1) The theory is related to the knowledge society and ideology to a 
relatively autonomous level of analysis that often translates into political practices 
founded on a conception of "becoming" of society, 2). anarchism is therefore an ideology 
and has historically used different social theories to understand reality;. 3) Theory and 
ideology are the bases of political practice. ---- "Anarchism is [... ] a human 
aspiration, which is not founded in any real or supposed natural need true, but that may 
take place according to human will. ---- Leverages the means that science provides the man 
in the fight against nature and against the contrasting wills, can take advantage the 
progress of philosophical thought when they serve to teach men reason better and 
distinguish with greater accurately the actual fantastic, but you can not mistake it, 
without falling into absurdity, nor science, nor with any philosophical system." -- Errico 
Malatesta


THE DEBATE AND ORGANIC THEME

During the Plenary of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination (CAB), in early 2013, we devote 
time, among other matters, to reach some agreements and sign a collective position on the 
debate on theory and ideology, which has been held for years by organizations especifista 
of anarchism in Brazil and other countries.

The document that has motivated this discussion was written in 1972 by the Uruguayan 
Anarchist Federation (FAU) and is called "Huerta Grande: the importance of theory," having 
been drawn from the contributions of Errico Malatesta and other theorists. Since the 
1990s, this document has been debated between militants and our current organizations, 
which have also made contributions, updates and insights needed; fruit of this debate were 
the productions of organizations that, at the time, were part of the Forum of Organized 
Anarchism (FAO), in the mid-2000s.

With the gain organicity driven by the transformation of the FAO in CAB, one of our goals 
in 2012 was to resume this discussion in organizations that make up the cabinet and, what 
seemed to us more relevant, reach common positions in order to continue the ongoing 
process of gaining organic nature we have in mind to become a national organization. The 
following text presents the collective agreements and positions established in 2013, after 
these long discussions in the CAB and organizations that, through the Federalist mechanism 
were established as points accordingly.

The discussion of theory and ideology seems central theme, as some issues are fundamental. 
What is anarchism? What characterizes historically as such? What is our bond with the 
classical anarchists? Anarchism is a tool for theorizing about the company, a practice 
policy that aims to transform it or both? We use authors from outside the field to 
understand anarchist society we live in? To what extent our way of theorizing on society 
affects our ideology and vice versa? There is scientific socialism? In short, it is about 
an ancient and complex discussion, which extrapolates very anarchist field and aims to 
provide answers to our attempts to understand the society we live in and the best 
strategies to intervene in it, based on our principles and our overall strategy, and to 
establish a revolutionary process of transformation towards libertarian socialism.

The content of this discussion, we need to dwell on topics that have been discussed for 
more than a century: the nature of knowledge production, the similarities and differences 
between natural and social sciences, the relationship between social theories and 
ideologies and doctrines policies, the nature and functioning of politics among others. We 
know that the debate about ideology has been largely marked by Marxist approaches and the 
debate about the theory involves complex epistemological reflections. Ie: it is not a 
simple discussion. So do not expect to exhaust it here and not even give her an academic 
approach, it would have no practical functionality. Our intention is to reflect on the 
subject in terms of our political practice and establish tools that contribute to its 
advancement.

We understand that the reflections posted here must be linked to concrete political 
practice of our organization and we would not go beyond what we need for the moment. If we 
do, we run the risk of detaching the smell of food ingredients that we use for everyday 
cooking, in addition, we must be careful not to create or accept a cookbook without cooks. 
We are not intended to constitute a theoretical - methodological system, our goal is to 
develop a set of tools necessary to the exercise of political, as mediation between the 
context in which we live and our society project.

We intend, in the following lines, hold the following positions: 1.) The theory is related 
to the knowledge society and ideology to a relatively autonomous level of analysis that 
often translates into political practices founded on a conception of "becoming ". society; 
2) anarchism is therefore an ideology and has historically used different social theories 
to understand reality - a subject that will deal a little further in the text" different 
Theoretical Approaches of Anarchists: the relationship between social spheres ",. 3) 
Theory and ideology are the bases of political practice.


THEORY

Define theory as a systematic set of concepts, statements and explanations which aims to 
provide knowledge about reality. The theory structure, prepares and verifies knowledge to 
describe the order, regularity and organization of the phenomena it addresses. She is 
bound to know what the process actually is (and not what it should be), and to understand, 
as accurately as possible, different phenomena that occur in a given reality.

When we define the theory in this way, we approach the definition of FAU: "The theory 
points to the development of conceptual tools to think rigorously and deeply know the 
reality" FAU also connects theory with science: "It is in this sense that we can speak of 
the theory as being a science." (FAU, "Huerta Grande") However, that science talk? We 
design the function of scientific theory?

Mikhail Bakunin and Malatesta have reflections that can contribute to these responses. 
Bakunin said that "science understands the thought of reality, not reality itself, the 
thought of life, not life" (Bakunin, "God and the State"). The statement allows us to 
claim that Bakunin 's creations fit life to life itself and that the theory, as a way of 
thinking about life, always has a lag in relation to it; theories in general should always 
seek an enhancement for a better understanding of the phenomena of life. Bakunin also 
states that "the universal science is therefore an ideal which man can never accomplish. 
Is always forced to be content with the knowledge of their world. [... ] Science is, 
however, very huge for it to be dominated by a man or a generation." (Bakunin, 
"Philosophical Considerations on the Divine Ghost") That is, we will never have a science 
or general theory, which gives an account of all reality, the theoretical- scientific 
field is a social-historical legacy and, therefore, has its limitations.

Malatesta, based on similar positions, conceives the theoretical- scientific field, in 
particular with regard to the analysis of society, always as a temporary field, which 
calls into question the criterion of truth itself:

"In science, theories, always provisional and hypothetical, are a means room to regroup 
and link the known facts, and a useful tool for research, findings and interpretation of 
new facts: but they are not the truth. [... ] The question must be the position of those 
who aspire increasingly coming to the truth or at least to that portion of truth which it 
is possible to achieve." (Malatesta, "Anarchism y Ciencia")

The analysis methods and social theories should always horizon proper understanding of 
reality, but these methods and theories can not be conceived as absolute truths, no, in 
this sense, a theory of definite scientific basis for social explanation.

Malatesta also emphasizes that "the mission of science is to discover and formulate the 
conditions under which the fact necessarily produces and repeats:. Meaning is to say what 
is and what must necessarily be" (Anarchism y Ciencia) This statement reinforces the 
placed above argument, that the role of science and, therefore, scientific theory, it 
always relates to an explanation of what is, or even what shall be in the order of the 
elements of the extrapolation prediction of theory science, science, as conceived by 
Malatesta, can not explain the future and not what it should be, which is one of the 
characteristics of ideology. The anarchist strategy certainly relies on structural and 
cyclical explanations of reality and therefore relates to the scientific theory, however, 
their final objectives - revolutionaries, socialists and libertarians - and own strategic 
means designed to achieve those objectives are not belong strictly to scientific or 
theoretical field. May be related, but are not limited to it.

For this reason, we understand that one can not speak of "scientific socialism"; anarchism 
as a socialist current, still having relationships with science, can not be considered as 
such, and not only as a social theory. The same can be said for other types of socialism. 
Malatesta review this sense, the unfolding, in a positivist sense, this notion of 
scientific socialism in its various chains, including anarchism.

"Scientism (do not say science) that prevailed in the second half of the nineteenth 
century produced a tendency to view scientific truths, ie, natural laws and therefore 
needed and lethal, which was only the concept corresponding to the diverse interests and 
the diverse aspirations, each had justice, progress etc.., of whom was born ' scientific 
socialism ' and also the ' scientific anarchism ' that even professed by our major 
representatives, always seemed baroque conceptions, that confused things and distinct 
concepts by their very nature." (Malatesta, "Anarchism y Ciencia")

In our view, Bakunin and Malatesta, by means of these contributions have elements that 
allow us to put some answers to the above questions. We talk about scientific methods and 
theories of society and, accordingly, we understand that the social sciences are distinct 
from the natural sciences and the latter can not take as an ideal model of science (what 
differentiates us from the positivists and empiricists); theories we use to understand 
society - they have structural focus, cyclical, past or present - should seek permanent 
improvements, since we will never know the company thoroughly and we will not unerringly 
predict its future, we must consider the provisional theoretical- scientific field and 
uncertainties and we always have to be open to adjust our methods and social theories to 
understand reality more adequately.

When Malatesta refers confusion of " things and different concepts," he places a concern 
about the confusion of theory and ideology, ie on the knowledge society and the activities 
that take place on it. Consider that anarchism is not a theory or a science allows, to 
meet the requirements that the theoretical and scientific production puts us, we seek 
contributions from other ideological camps; understand not seek essential theoretical- 
methodological reference only among anarchists authors, even because among them there are 
fundamental differences. Furthermore, we understand that there is a method and 
unquestionable, reproducible and applicable to any theory and any situation, in any time. 
Be open to improve existing methods and social theories and make use of new is just a 
mechanism to avoid crystallization and dogmatism that transform theory into ideological 
element. Without that experience can, so to speak, challenge the theory, this becomes a 
dogma that, in a false way, force reality undoubtedly always greater than the theory to 
fit a system that explains everything and everything concludes. The theory must be 
constructed or applied from a careful observation of reality, for it is from this 
observation that one can confront theory with reality and thus validate it, improve it, or 
even discard it. The theory must be open to the universe that seeks to explain: it reaps 
confirmation and certain data that contradict it, becomes checks (for data), reviews (on 
its own operation) and modifications (about herself) if arise.

We understand that the necessary opening in this field requires us to use, even with 
criteria, other theoretical and methodological frameworks that go beyond the anarchist 
camp. For us, the anarchist ideology must be designed much more in terms of political- 
ideological principles (which does not exclude elements of a theoretical nature in its 
doctrinal framework) than by elements of the analysis method and social theory, so we 
thought possible, and even desirable, we take into methods and theories that have been or 
are being produced outside the anarchist account field. Our parameter to incorporate the 
theoretical and methodological contributions is not whether or not they have the "label" 
of anarchism.

We know, however, that the theoretical - scientific field is not neutral. It is precisely 
because we believe that theories convey values ??, ie, there is ideology in theory, we 
think we should, where necessary, use or develop theoretical elements that contribute to 
our political practice. We believe that we must be careful in moments of theoretical 
dialogue, we import not unintentionally ideological elements of other chains that 
contradict our principles or even our overall strategy. It is under the horizon of radical 
social transformation that we set out to understand the reality and intervene in it. 
Therefore, they are not any methods or theories that serve us, yet we must always be open 
to use new elements that help us to better understand the reality and thus intervene more 
appropriately on it.

Even considering the provisional field theory and for which we should have proper opening, 
know that it is a mistake to believe that the theory can cut the amorphous data anyway. If 
it seems correct to say that the theory is embedded in the construction of reality, it is 
false to believe that she, alone, constructs its object. This view is untenable, even in 
the natural sciences, in which consciousness in general, does not cut the object the way 
you want, and even less guarantee that the forms it builds necessarily find a material 
that matches them. It becomes absurd when it comes to the social field. That there is a 
definitive and true knowledge about the company, does not mean that there is no social 
knowledge or you can say anything, that every theory is just a mere "speech" or that 
anything goes in the theoretical field.

We understand the need to treat "theory as a toolbox," as conceived by Michel Foucault, 
trying " not to build a system, but an instrument" for social analysis, which "can only be 
done gradually, starting a reflection (necessarily historical in some of their dimensions) 
on given situations." (Foucault, "Power - Know Strategy") We have as their fundamental 
purpose, the theoretical - methodological field, build that, toolbox able to provide us, 
whenever necessary, the most appropriate tools for understanding social reality.

However, the theory has a function for us: she should inform our policy and practice, 
while feeding her. "If not for us to produce new knowledge useful political practice, the 
theory is useless, becomes mere issue of unproductive talk, sterile polemics 
ideologizante." (FAU, "Huerta Grande") We consider the utmost relevance to the 
relationship between theory and practice. The theory must be linked with those areas where 
we fight through our membership, otherwise we will end up just theorizing by pure sport or 
no ties to our membership. We need to discuss how to make the analysis of reality, from 
March that constitute our policy and practice whereby tooling. We, clearly, constantly 
exercising the theoretical work in our organizations. And the more connected with the 
practice, the theory more able to cope with the real and thus be useful and appropriate; 
away from the more concrete political practice runs the serious risk of becoming eccentric 
and incomprehensible, assuming that features remain in the abstract field, philosophy and 
the philosophy unfeasible this analysis we seek reality. But the theory, being intertwined 
with the need to respond to situations of political and social struggle can not also be 
produced only as a justification for it. We must at the same time, see how the theory 
subsidizes and guides the political- social intervention. The political and social 
practice can lead to theoretical formulation to falsehood, with this sophisticated feature 
of turning mere justification of actions and not as an instrument of knowledge of reality. 
So it is important to understand that the theoretical problem is not solved simply by 
social activism in the strict sense. We do not understand the theory without their 
involvement with social change and not as a justification of a political practice.

For a political organization, the theory is relevant precisely to allow an adequate 
knowledge of the reality in which it operates and therefore the choice of means consistent 
with the purposes for which it wishes to achieve. Meet a given context will allow the 
political organization she trace their strategies and tactics knowing more or less exactly 
where she leaves and where you're going, trying to do so, to establish the most 
appropriate ways. Not knowing where we started may involve strategic mistakes and thus 
with not walking toward the goals we desire.


IDEOLOGY

Discuss the ideology, for us, means that we have to differentiate two approaches used: the 
first, in the broadest sense of ideology as part of the ideological / cultural sphere and 
therefore, the ideas, representations and values ??that are produced and reproduced in the 
imaginary the different social subjects, the second in a narrower sense, ideology as a 
doctrine, and therefore, as sets of thought and action developed historically and act 
politically in the play of forces of society, which is responsible for establishing 
relationships power. We will address the following two approaches.

Ideology as an element of cultural / ideological sphere

We believe that we live in a system with a given structure and we can think of the 
representation of systemic- structural assembly through interaction between three key 
spheres: economic, political / legal / military and cultural / ideological.

Therefore, discussing ideology, in this broad sense, involves some notions that are 
related to this third sphere of the social field, which is based on the notions of culture 
and ideology. The culture is related to the attitudes, norms, beliefs, more or less shared 
by members of a society. Involves knowledge, art, morals, customs and habits, and has 
relationship with social institutions, the way of life in society, the family stocks, 
bonds, ties and prospects. Ideology refers to everything that circulates in the field of 
ideas and subjectivities. The feelings of religiosity and the world of utopias and 
aspirations of human beings are at this level. The contents of the messages, aesthetics 
and values ??contained in the communication and culture are also on this level. This 
sphere, therefore, relates to the field of ideas, subjectivities and symbolic.

It is essential to take into account the process of social and historical constitution of 
these ideas, representations and values ??that are produced and reproduced in the social 
imaginary of different subjects. However, although the ideology bind up the historical and 
social conditions, it does not mechanically emanates from them. Ideology "requires a 
certain development of his analysis not to be relegated to the ideological apparatus that 
relies on the relationship between infrastructure and superstructure, and not in her 
character so commonly attributed to distort, mask the 'reality' and the 'rationality'." 
(FAU - FAG, "Wellington Gallarza Tavares and Malvina") do not consider the cultural / 
ideological sphere is simply a mechanical reflection of the other spheres, and, if on one 
hand it suffers economic and political determination, on the other produces and reproduces 
important elements for structural and systemic constitution of our societies.

"In certain historical moments, strongly produces an articulated set of ideas, 
representations, notions within the social imaginary of different subjects. Is this 
articulated set of fictional character, who takes the form of 'certainties' advocated by 
social subjects themselves. That's what these guys can turn into protagonists of their own 
history or liabilities and / or disciplined by the dominant forces subject. That's what we 
call ideology. Thus, ideology has to do directly with the historical constitution of 
social subjects and the way they express themselves in society. It is something quite 
distinct from the notion that ideology is the falsification of reality, precisely because 
it is a fundamental component of any social reality." (FAU - FAG, "Wellington Gallarza 
Tavares and Malvina")

Ideology is thus an important element of social reality. If it does not follow 
mechanically of economic and political conditions, we must keep in mind that the work of 
ideological production, production of an ideology of transformation is relevant to our 
proposal for social transformation. Also do not want to go to the other opposite, would 
consider that cultural / ideological sphere is the most relevant and necessarily 
determines all other, is not a mere cultural and ideological combat that provide social 
transformations we desire, since "it is the idea that should excite the will, but certain 
conditions that are necessary for the idea to be born and to act." (Malatesta, "'idealism' 
and 'materialism'") In addition, one should point out that the ideological / cultural 
sphere has a slower processing than others, and it has non- rational elements. A coherent 
strategy, ideological changes must be designed taking into account both factors.

We have to aim at, with regard to this sphere, construct other social subjects with other 
ideas, representations and other values, taking into account our experience classist.

"Our will to change our intentions and make up a social and political imaginary 
revolutionary matrix. Think this imaginary just like a finished model and defined (more or 
less conscious ideology) already prescribed in books and brochures is to ignore an entire 
folk tradition that is based on historical resistance of the class." (FARJ. "The OAS as a 
consequence of the accumulation organizational")

Practices involving the ideological field and rely on values ??such as freedom and 
emancipation seem central to modify the currently prevailing notions, which materialize in 
the bodies and minds of different subjects. We believe it is important to reflect on 
whether we are, in fact, producing and reproducing a libertarian and socialist ideology, 
or if we are just reproducing the prevailing ideology of our system of domination.

The ideology and anarchism as a doctrine

Discuss the ideology as a doctrine - and therefore, as sets of thought and action 
developed historically and act politically in the play of forces of society, which is 
responsible for the establishment of power relations - and situate anarchism as an 
ideology also implies some notions.

In the field of politics is in play a dynamic interplay of work and knowledge, which can 
not be precisely measured. It's kind of a "gray zone" where it is difficult to determine a 
color in its pure state. The concept of doctrine is precisely in this area that briefly 
indicated. We must remember that ideologies can derive in policy as conceptualized, but 
also has its manifestations in other ways, like religion, to refer to a common case and 
chain. For our purposes, the doctrine as rational systematization of ideological elements 
is already the product of the interactions of the social imaginary - in their " pre - 
reflective " forms - with certain elements of the theoretical interpretation. The 
"principles" are formed in the region crisscrossed policy.

In the political - doctrinal sense, "ideology is thought and action" (FAU, "What is 
Ideology") and thus can not be conceived as thoughts or actions taken separately. 
Anarchism is thus an ideology that contains elements of doctrinal, political and 
theoretical dynamically interacting.

"Anarchism is a stream of thought and tradition of socialist struggle, if entering as a 
variant of the ideas and practices constructed in this field. Throughout its history, has 
entered into certain ideological precepts that gave him a style and outlined goals. 
Anarchism, then, emerged as a proposed fight (articulating organizational and political- 
theoretical- ideological precepts) in favor of the historic interest of the workers." 
(CAZP. "Declaration of Principles")

Anarchism is composed of a set of thoughts and actions articulated systematically. 
Involves ideas, aspirations, values, feelings and motivations that interact with the 
political practices. The anarchist ideology provides the strategic basis for policy 
interventions that aim to transform power relations, it includes means (strategies) to 
achieve its revolutionary horizons, which translates, in historical terms, in political 
practice. This policy practice on three central elements:

"1. Formulating a finalist goal (which should be explained in the clearest possible way). 
2. The seizure or cut understanding of the reality in which we live, through his deep and 
thorough analysis. 3. The closest possible to forecast the future of the reality of their 
processing what is spontaneous, as intentional. Ie, in our case, ideology does not admit 
the character of an interested spectator and analytical conditions or spontaneous 
transformation of reality, but it forces us to think voluntarily, willfully, towards their 
future." (FAU, "What is Ideology")

The anarchist ideology, in order to intervene politically in reality in order to transform 
power relations, sets objectives, readings of reality, appropriate strategies and tactics 
for such intervention. Its objectives are socialists and libertarians and point to the 
creation of a federalist system and self-management; establish their critical readings of 
reality, structural and cyclical, the systems of domination, their strategies are 
consistent with their goals and revolutionary.


THEORY AND IDEOLOGY

Having defined and briefly discussed the concepts of theory and ideology with which we 
work, we want at this time to relate them, since even the distinction, we do not consider 
concepts watertight, they certainly have relationships. We return here to the argument 
presented at the beginning of this text, that "the theory is related to the knowledge 
society and ideology to a relatively autonomous level of analysis that often translates 
into political practices founded on a conception of 'become' the society"; resume here 
this distinction and put some questions that allow us to think of the relationship between 
theory and ideology. Firstly, we can say that, taking into account the anarchist ideology, 
"according to the theory Racing understanding of past and present reality, the ideology 
competes function to intervene on this reality in order to transform it." (OASL, 
"Declaration of Principles")

Emphasize the need for a coherent policy practice, differentiate the concepts of theory 
and ideology, as we demonstrate, the first is related to the field of knowledge, science, 
and the second to the field of doctrine, policy.