Today's Topics:
1. Czech, AFED, In a cooperative cafe about France Yellow Vests
- Report from debate [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Britain, AFED, organise magazine - The Boardgame is
Political | RBG (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Britain, freedom news: Class War's Poor Doors Victory - An
Insider's View (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. el miliciano cnt-ait chiclana: Reversing climate change
could be as simple as planting millions of trees across the
Planet (ca, it) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. US, black rose fed: TOWARDS AN ANARCHIST THEORY OF POWER
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
On Wednesday, February 20, Prague's cooperative café ROH was filled with people interested
in current events in France. They came to a debate organized by the KPK (Collectively
Against Capital) group, whose central theme was the French Yellow Vest movement (Gilets
jaunes), whose regular Saturday demonstrations have been taking place since autumn 2018
(not only) in squares across France. ---- A member of the French organization Mouvement
Communiste Ahmed briefly summed up what Yellow Vests are, how this movement originated,
what they want and who goes to their demonstrations. He also paused for the reasons that
led to a wave of disagreement and subsequently gave rise to this movement. In 2018, the
French government reduced the speed limit on secondary roads from 90 km per hour to 80 km.
This was particularly true of professional drivers, who at the time managed to mobilize
only a small number of people. A higher impulse was then the tax on fuel. Despite various
minor protests and a petition in May 2018, the protesters gradually reached the traffic
blockage that took place on November 17, 2018. Around 300,000 people took part in 300 places.
After a brief introduction to the context, Ahmed's presentation of the topic was more of a
reproach to the movement. For this occasion, we will select only a few of them that are
largely intertwined.
Protests revolve around working conditions and occupational restrictions. But, as Ahmed
pointed out, the unemployed are completely forgotten at the events. In France,
unemployment is stable at 9-10%.
Ahmed also commented negatively on the violence often associated with Yellow Vests. He
calls it a manifestation of weakness. At the same time, the distribution of forces will
not change with a broken shop window or a lit car. On the contrary, it is just an
opportunity for the police to intensify repressive measures. Incidentally, this has
already been done in connection with the protests - the anti-masking law has been
tightened, and the prison is currently threatened to be violated. At the same time, the
police draw up lists of participants in violent demonstrations and ban them from
participating in similar events.
It is also a question of what concrete weekly demonstrations actually have impacts.
According to Ahmed, the movement and methods are relatively ineffective. The blockades are
rather toothless, in fact they do not prevent anyone from doing work (for example, he
mentioned groups blocking roundabouts somewhere outside the city, where only a few cars
pass daily). Saturday's demonstrations are more of a weekend entertainment for many of the
participants. A week ago they go to work in an orderly manner, and when they are off, they
put on their waistcoats and go somewhere in the square or "block" the roundabout. In
general, they do not need to step out of their comfort in the protests.
Due to the low degree of coordination of individual events, people have space to bring
their problems into protests, which are no longer related to the basic impulse of the
event. This also gives a chance to various radical right-wing forces, whose participation
was also considered in our country as one of the main arguments for approaching Yellow
Vests with great caution. Some manifestations of ultra-rightists are said to be more like
anecdotes, such as Nazis hajlní at a roundabout. Their agenda, however, penetrates the
demands of the movement, which often does not avoid anti-migration attitudes related to
the belief that who is in France must work.
There is a question that has finally been raised in the debate - how do anarchist groups
get involved in the movement? After all, thematic openness and the associated
indivisibility could be used to push some of the anarchist political 'agenda' into demand.
According to Ahmed, French anarchists take a rather benevolent attitude towards the whole
movement. On the one hand, they appreciate that people are organizing, on the other hand
they are reluctant to watch the radical right's involvement in the protests. He also
mentioned the involvement of various rebel groups, which are mainly involved in the more
violent parts of the protests. He stressed that it is not readable from their actions, why
they do it, that they look to the "normal man" the same as the Nazis who are hitting with
bitches. While similar groups are posting on Facebook, why are they taking part in these
events,
Although Ahmed's entire performance was more of a criticism, the aim was certainly not to
categorically condemn the entire Yellow Vest movement. Perhaps the other spectators who
fully filled the capacity of the ROH café, from its presentation and the subsequent very
lively and long discussions, took the feeling that there was a mass protest movement in
France, which we may not like in all respects but definitely over it. we cannot just wave
our hands and it will only benefit us if we at least follow him and discuss it.
Finally, it is advisable to thank the Collectively Against Capital Group for organizing
beneficial events. At the end of 2018, KPK on Yellow Vests also published a newsletter
available for the event. You can download it HERE .
http://protikapitalu.org/down/GILETS%20JAUNES_cz_final.pdf
https://www.afed.cz/text/7005/v-druzstevni-kavarne-o-zlutych-vestach
------------------------------
Message: 2
The debate on the political nature of content in board games is one which has come to the
forefront due the increase in gaming in general. Among the main titles on which it debated
there is The Landlord's Game of 1903, the original title of Monopoly. Monopoly was born as
political criticism and intends to address an important issue: that of the monopolisation
of the landowning market. ---- However, in Monopoly landlord accumulation is not
accompanied by texts, mechanics or critical images. Nothing is aimed at an organic
critique of the accumulation and the identification of the player is not supported by
emotions against the game or the role that it plays within it, rather against the other
players. In Monopoly there's a critical intent towards market monopolization but it is too
softened by mechanics to succeed and certainly cannot be considered a radical leftist
critique to the society of that time.
With the arrival of Professor Bertell Ollman things change. In 1978 Class Struggle was
born "To prepare for life in capitalist America". It's "an educational game for kids from
8 to 80" and with it opened the way for serious game philosophy towards a radical leftist
social critique in the world of board games.
It was not a matter of taking a politically active topic too far. In Class Struggle the
critique of some aspects of social and political life during the cold war years are
evident, transparent and even full of propaganda intentions (such as the card "If it is
the opium of older workers, than opium (pot) is the religion of the younger set"). The
content isn't sweetened to increase the mass appeal of the game, it just goes to the
point: avoid the nuclear catastrophe fuelled by the capitalists and to steer the workers
towards the construction of committees, unions and parties for the creation of a socialist
society in the USA.
The board games up to this point had emancipated themselves only from ancient religious
function to arrive at an alleged neutrality of their own content, all in favour of the
mechanics: strategy, mechanics for entertainment, challenge, gambling, bluff, frustration
and observation, and attention skills. Actually the themes aren't neutral, they are often
full of sacred, militarist, bourgeois contents etc. and at best they try to show sincere
criticism through fantastic metaphors.
Only one year after the creation of Class Struggle, in 1980, in Italy the C.UnS.A. -
Collettivo un Sacco Alternativo - carries on Ollman's experiment with the publication of
Corteo (‘Demonstration'): A simulation of street clashes in Italy, between the police and
various movements of the '77 such as Autonomia Operaia, Marxist-Leninists, Lotta Continua,
Democrazia Proletaria, Anarchists, Feminists, radicals etc.
The rules book is descriptive, it maintains the textual prolixity typical of those years
and describes ironically the performance of critical operations.
This begins in the manual, when for example it describes how;
"The reactionary right has organized a rally in a town square to demand the anti-strike
law, the deportation of gays, the closure of the underground press and the death penalty.
Authoritative members of the Government and the Dominant Party send certificates of
understanding and solidarity. "
(Storia di un CORTEO, scenario antifascista, Mondadori, 1980, p. 27)
The game mechanics are quite exciting, and they complete the alternative theme well: you
can play like a human tide (the Demonstration) that although slow and divided into many
ideological currents, when compacted, is invincible (the union is strength!); on the other
hand it can be fast but fragile if scattered in small groups. Even the representation of
opponents is interesting. The fascists, for example, just get hit, a sign of the times in
which social movements shined. In fact there is no Fascist player, the Fascist pawns are
directly controlled by the police player as points to be taken away from the opponent.
Riot - Cast the First Stone (made by No Board Games) can be considered a tribute to both
games even if the mechanics are certainly different (it is in fact a strategic one with
the addition of card driven mechanics and area control). However, the setting is
undoubtedly different. In Riot we certify the dark times we live, it is linked to the
reality that surrounds us and not a simple historical reconstruction, the game in box can
be an element of education in the here and now.
For example, the question that has prompted the insertion of Nationalists within Riot is
the demand for the development of an Anti-Fascist culture accessible to those who are not
reached by essays, flyers and revolutionary media but are more reachable through use of
pop culture, gaming and nerd culture. For those who have tried Class Struggle, they will
have had a smattering of Marxist culture and will know well what values to attribute to
"Capitalists" and "Workers", the merits of the ‘chance cards' and the highly captioned
board. For those who have played the game Corteo, they will know well which neighbourhoods
the activists come from and how the police protect the various Fascist rallies. At the
same time Riot, in giving control of the Fascists to a player, shows how the political
affinity of the Nationalists lies with power and not with the other demonstrators and how
their action must be, in terms of game mechanics, rather slimy.
It is also important to remember that with the canned game one socialises: that is, one
can understand more about their peers, learn to be together, orient oneself within a theme
with mechanics designed to educate as well as let us learn a new vocabulary. The words we
choose to describe the theme, the game mechanics and the names of the components create a
text practised and discussed continuously. The boxed game is shared par excellence: it is
not a book, a video game, it is not an island. You can learn, you can debate.
Engaging with new forms of media is essential for political organising, we cannot exclude
any form of communication and we should seek to understand how today, unlike yesterday,
there are more effective and often unexpected means to reach a wider audience than a
magazine, a flyer, a song or a book.
Finally we consider the tinkering and hacking methods of gamers is certainly a positive.
We want to develop this kind of community, one which goes from modification of cultural
objects to self-production and DIY games creating more independent and radical production. ?
Anteo is part of the No Board Games collective, an independent board game publisher but,
above all, a project of reappropriation and radicalization of board game culture.
Their game Riot - Cast the First Stone will be included in the next edition printed of
Organise!
http://organisemagazine.org.uk/2019/07/23/the-boardgame-is-political-rbg/
------------------------------
Message: 3
In July 2014 a number of people from Class War had gathered in South Norwood for the
opening of the Sensible Garden, a strip of unused land reclaimed by the South Norwood
Tourist Board for the community. One of them was angry, which I guess isn't too unusual
for Class War. On this particular occasion it was a newspaper report highlighting social
segregation at a block of flats at One Commercial Street in Aldgate on the edge of the
City of London that had provoked. ---- They burst into the gathering saying that something
had to be done. They insisted. At that moment the best political campaign I've ever been
involved in started and the ripples from that day continue to spread out. Last week the
government announced that they would end what became known as Poor Doors and the
segregation they create.
I committed to being a Class War election candidate in autumn 2013 and the Poor Doors
campaign overlapped our preparations for the 2015 general election. In fact I don't think
you can write about the Class War election campaign without telling the story of their
Poor Doors campaign too. I'm currently writing a thesis on what Class War did in the
election, how and why they stood candidates and Poor Doors helps set the scene.
I'm not going to write about the election here too much but it is important to point out
what the Poor Doors campaign gave us. It provided a focal point to rally behind. Very
quickly the protests we held turned into weekly gatherings. The dates and times were well
publicised and the protests just seemed to grow and grow. It was in the pub before and
after Poor Doors protests that Class War (at least the London part of it) were able to do
their election planning on top of arranging the protests themselves. As a method of
organising it was somewhat unorganised but it was amazing how much was achieved as people
just openly discussed the plans for the protests, huddles around pints in small groups:
traditional Class War democracy in action.
We had been looking for a reason to have weekly meetings for a while for the purpose of
the election and then suddenly this issue made it possible. Not that any of the
discussions were officially minuted or an agenda produced. It was much more organic than
that. It was simply a regular time and place where people got organised.
The protests themselves were sometimes just festival like. Musicians came along as we
talked to passers-by. Other protests were a bit more aggressive in style. At the second
protest I recall a resident in the rich area of the flats dropping urine on the protest
below, much to the annoyance of the police when that whipped up anger. Sometimes people
from the poor area of the flats would join us to tell us about what segregation feels like.
As the protests grew, so did the police presence. This led to arrests on four occasions to
my counting. On one occasion we managed to get into the foyer of the rich flats and in the
altercations that followed a vase of flowers was knocked off a desk resulting in arrest
for Ian Bone, and the some imaginative adverts for the next protest on behalf of the
anarchist group Vase War. One person was arrested for refusing to let go of what the
police claimed was an offensive banner declaring politicians David Cameron, Ed Miliband,
Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage "All Fucking Wankers". At the protest on November 5th 2014
Jane Nicholl was arrested for setting fire to an effigy of Boris Johnson who was London
mayor at the time. Finally in the run up to the election Lisa Mckenzie, who had got
involved with Class War for a time after coming to an early Poor Doors protests and then
becoming a Class War candidate in the election, was arrested for allegedly putting a
sticker on a window at the development.
Class War wouldn't have had Lisa and at least one other candidate if it hadn't been for
Poor Doors. It seemed to inspire people to sign up to helping the election campaign in
whatever way they could and we saw our online presence grow as a result. This enabled us
to organise two massive protests early on coinciding with the London Anarchist Bookfair
and student protests in October and November respectively. The protest on the day of the
national student march included some battles with the police as the crowd swelled into the
road and attempted to gain entry to the building.
In November 2014 the owners of the building gave up and sold it on. The new owners were
willing to negotiate so Class War went into discussions with them. I'm told the meeting
didn't go well and so a truce was short lived. Protests restarted and the break didn't
prevent momentum. The protests just got bigger and more interesting. The introduction one
evening of flaming torches and a spontaneous march blocking Tower Bridge produced some
fantastic photo opportunities but also took the message beyond the local area.
Likewise, the publicity that Class War received meant that the protests were known about
beyond our own little world. Union banners were brought along and other groups came to
provide solidarity. The E15 Mothers were visitors on occasion for example and there was a
sense that housing campaigns were coming together, links were being made and a general
fightback being organised.
Of course, fighting poor doors at one residence could only ever really be symbolic of a
wider problem and by the New Year we were starting to wonder how long we could carry on. A
second front was created for us with the news that a new development at Tower Bridge would
also have poor doors and segregated garden space. This created problems for a small group.
I don't want to give the impression that hundreds of people turned up to every Poor Doors
protest. Sometimes it was just a few of us. Sometimes it was rowdy and sometimes it was
just jolly. The importance was that it was a regular nuisance to the powerful and a
regular chance for us all to get together.
The Class War Womens Death Brigade (WDB) was formed during the protests. There are frankly
better people to talk about this group than me, except to say that it emphasised the Class
War in its current iteration perfectly. When Jane Nicholl was arrested and subsequently
banned from protesting at the building until her trial, the following protest saw the WDB
turn up wearing identical outfits to the one worn by Jane when she was arrested.
Solidarity was the order of the day while Jane waited in a pub just outside the exclusion
zone for a post protest drink or two. Meeting weekly allowed this to be just as much a
social event as a political protest. And this consequently made it difficult to police.
The sight of a several women dressed identically dancing behind a banner a declaring "FUCK
CAPITLAISM, FUCK PATRIARCHY" seemed to flummox the police a little. They really didn't
know how to deal with them.
One week before the election the first Fuck Parade was organised. The idea was to have a
party through the streets, starting at One Commercial Street and then just moving off
wherever the crowd chose to go. It was May Day and the turnout was fantastic. Protests
were always good when the Met Police were busy. It often meant the City of London Police
were called in to deal with us instead. They didn't seem to have a clue and were prone to
making the odd mistakes which whipped up the crowd. The Met, let's face it, know how to
handle large crowds. That frisson of excitement you get when you see the Met have left it
to the numpties this week because they're stretched doing other stuff.
On the day of the general election some of us were in court with Jane Nicholl watching the
police try to argue that effigies shouldn't be burned on Guy Fawkes Night. Actually they
kept changing the charge in an effort to get her locked up. They eventually settled on
endangering life and relied on one of their number being the person terrified for their
existence. The only problem they had was the evidence of collusion in their notes and the
fact that the only picture of the terrified officer was of him standing close to the
effigy as it burned, with his hands behind his back, smiling. Their case collapsed. The
Met may be good at crowd control, not so hot in court as was proved with the other cases.
Lisa McKenzie was found not guilty later and much later the protester who had been
arrested for refusing to let go of the ‘offensive' banner had their case collapse before
it reached court as it turned out the police had destroyed the banner: the only evidence
they had.
Now we have the news that the Tories plan to outlaw Poor Doors. An opportunity missed by
Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who pledged to do this when he came into office. A victory
for Class War? Well, we'll say so. The Poor Doors protests are significant for a number of
reasons. The first is that they helped Class War organise for the election campaign. The
second is that they renewed Class War, giving it a regular weekly outing which brought in
new people and new ideas in the fight against gentrification. The third is that it kept
the issue of poor doors in the news. The media rarely mention the Class War campaign
itself but would the issue be prominent if those weekly protests hadn't captured the
imaginations of people? The protests were reported on around the world and Class War
ensured that.
Organising weekly protests is something I've done with a few different groups now. With
each one they have turned out to be amazing and successful. I think we can learn a great
deal from the Class War Poor Doors protests. Even meeting just socially before and after
the protest was enough to get things ready and prepared each week. Imagine what could be
achieved with agendas and minutes, if you must.
Victory to Class War then but more importantly the end of poor doors seems in sight. Those
of us involved will rejoice at that but we will also always miss those vibrant, fun,
protests. They were a wonderful way to do politics.
Jon Bigger
https://freedomnews.org.uk/class-wars-poor-doors-victory-an-insiders-view/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Reversing anthropogenic climate change could be as simple as planting millions and
millions of trees. To get rid of approximately a quarter of the carbon stored in Earth's
atmosphere, a team of European researchers suggests that we plant some 500,000 million
trees throughout the planet. ---- The study, recently published in Science Magazine ,
suggests that perhaps the best solution to combat the current climate crisis would be to
increase the population of trees, which would drastically reduce the concentration of
carbon by-products in the atmosphere. The total plantation area suggested by the group of
scientists is around 0.9 billion hectares, an area equivalent to the entire United States.
---- According to Professor Tom Crowther of ETH-Zurich, lead author of the study, acting
now could reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by up to 25%. If we can, we could go
back in time and return to the values of concentration observed about a century ago.
It would be a phasing out of fossil fuels, and for the plan to be effective, we would need
several decades.
Planting today would take another 50 to 100 years, before the trees can efficiently absorb
the 200 billion metric tons of carbon in the atmosphere.
According to the study, even limiting the increase in global temperature to 1.5 ° C above
pre-industrial levels, the tree planting plan could progressively reduce carbon,
especially in tropical regions, which would help to contain even more the global increase
of temperatures.
It is a climate solution that can start today, is the least expensive and all humans on
the planet could participate. Crowther also points out that "it is a solution to climate
change that does not require that President Trump begin to immediately believe in climate
change, or that scientists find technological solutions to extract carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere."
Where to plant the trees
The study is mainly based on the analysis of 80,000 satellite images of the protected
forest regions of the world to evaluate the coverage of trees in each one of them.
Later they apply a software of cartography of Google Earth Engine, with the end to develop
a model of prediction of possible areas of growth of trees. More than half of the global
reforestation potential would be carried out in six countries: Russia, Canada, China,
Brazil, Australia and the United States.
Despite being an open-eyes plan, countries such as Brazil are currently moving in the
opposite direction, in terms of increasing forest areas. Deforestation in this region of
South America has been increasing, and the most recent satellite images show that every
minute, Amazon rainforest is lost equivalent to the surface of a football field.
With all the political battles that are underway around the world related to
deforestation, there is a part of the scientific community that does not approve of the
optimistic proposal presented by Crowther and his team.
Planting trees to absorb two thirds of the anthropogenic carbon accumulated to date sounds
too good to be true.
Professor Simon Lewis of University College London says the amount of carbon the study
said the trees would absorb was too high. In addition, he affirms that the study would not
have taken into account, the carbon that was already in the soil before planting the trees
or the hundreds of years it would take the trees to reach their maximum storage potential.
Posted by THE MILITARY at 8:36 AM
http://elmilicianocnt-aitchiclana.blogspot.com/2019/07/revertir-el-cambio-climatico-podria-ser.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
The following piece by Brazilian anarchist Felipe Corrêa reviews contemporary discussions
of power from an anarchist perspective and their contributions to a broader theory of
power for utilization in building analysis and strategy. To avoid confusion the article
title has been changed to refer to an "anarchist theory of power" but we have preserved
the articles use of the phrase "libertarian theory of political power" - as outside the
U.S. the term "libertarian" has always historically been associated with anarchism. ----
By Felipe Corrêa ---- Part 1: Ibáñez and Libertarian Political Power ---- In this first
article of the series I will use for discussion the article "For a Libertarian Political
Power" ("Por um Poder Político Libertário"), by Tomás Ibáñez[*]. In it - a short article,
which does not exceed more than a few pages - the author places himself critically in
relation to the libertarian approach that had been made the theme. The article by Ibáñez
was originally written as a contribution for the seminar "Power and its Negation" ("O
Poder e sua Negação"), promoted by the CIRA and the CSL Pinelli, in July of 1983. Until
that time, for the author, anarchism was "tied to the rigidity of concepts and proposals
created, for the most part, during the 18th and 19th centuries." And, for him, to discuss
the question of power in depth would be a relevant renovation in the theoretical camp of
anarchism.
The Semantic Problem With Discussions About Power
Already at that time Ibáñez identified that "the polysemy[a word that has more than one
meaning]of the term ‘power' and the breadth of their semantic spectrum constitute the
conditions for a dialog of the deaf." For him, in the discussion about power, the
discourses overlap and do not articulate with one another. And this happens because "they
deal with profoundly different objects, in the confusion induced by the recourse to
another common term: power."
And so the identified need for "our defining the term ‘power', before we initiate the
discussion." Regardless of such efforts, the author did not believe it to be possible to
arrive at an objective and ‘aseptic' definition of the word "power," since "it deals with
a political term loaded with meaning, always analysed from a precise political location,
and of which it is not possible to have a ‘neutral' definition."
Power From a Triple Definition
The first element to start a definition of power is that, within a libertarian
perspective, it cannot be considered only in a negative manner: "in terms of
negation/denial, exclusion, refusal, opposition, contradiction." For Ibáñez, power can be
defined starting from three interpretations: 1.) as capacity, 2.) as asymmetry in power
relations, and 3.) as structures and mechanisms of regulation and control. Let's see,
according to the author himself, how one defines power in each of these meanings.
1. Power as capacity
"In one of its senses, probably the most general and diachronically first, the term
‘power' acts as an equivalent of the expression ‘capacity to', i.e.: as a synonym for all
the effects of which a given agent, animated or not, can be the direct or indirect cause.
It is interesting that, from the beginning, power is defined in relational terms, to the
extent that, in order for an element to be able to produce or inhibit an effect, it is
necessary to establish an interaction."
Thought of in this sense, power could be conceived as ‘having power to' or ‘having power
for', a capacity for realisation or a potential force that could be applied in a social
relation. This places social relations as the premise of this definition of power. That
is, interaction between social agents.
2. Power as asymmetry in power relations
"In a second sense the term ‘power' refers to a certain type of relation between social
agents, and one is now accustomed to characterising it as an asymmetric or unequal
capacity that the agents possess to cause effects on the other pole of a given relationship."
While still anchored in power as capacity, this other meaning allows us to think of the
asymmetries of the different social forces that are encountered in a particular social
relationship. These forces, always asymmetric and unequal, when in interaction/relation,
forge the effects over one or more poles, as each one of them possesses a distinct force
and, therefore, a distinct capacity. Again, it affirms power as a relationship between
social agents, each one of which has a distinct capacity to cause effects on others.
3. Power as structures and mechanisms of regulation and control
"In a third meaning, the term ‘power' refers to the macro-social structures and the
macro-social mechanisms of regulation or of social control. In this sense it speaks of
‘instruments' or ‘devices' of power, of ‘centers' or of ‘structures' of power, etc."
Conceived of in this way power would constitute the "system" of a given society, with
regards to its structures and mechanisms of regulation and of control. It would be the set
of rules of a given society, which involves both the taking of decisions for its
establishment and to define its control, as well as the actual application of this
control. A structuring of society that makes deliberative and executive instances necessary.
What Are the Possibilities of a Society Without Power?
Departing from these three interpretations, it can be affirmed that "to speak of a society
‘without power' constitutes an aberration, whether we position ourselves from the point of
view of power/capacity (meaning that one would have a society that ‘couldn't do'
anything?), whether we position ourselves at the level of asymmetric relations (which
would mean social interactions without asymmetric effects?), or by positioning ourselves
from the point of view of power as mechanisms and structures of macro-social regulation
(which would be a system whose elements were not ‘forced' by the set of relations that
define exactly that system itself?)."
There is no society without social agents with capacity, and there is no society where all
social relations are symmetric - that is, a society in which all social agents have the
same capacity to cause effects on others, in all social relations - or without structures
and mechanisms of social control and regulation. This allows us to agree with Ibáñez in
relation to the absurd which means, taking into account the definitions presented by the
author, speaking of society without power, of struggling against power, of ending or
destroying power.
Ibáñez believes that "power relations are inherently linked to the social fact itself,
they are inherent in it, impregnate it, contain it, at the very instant in which they
emanate from it." When dealing with any aspect of the so-called social context, it can be
affirmed that in it exist interactions between diverse elements that constitute a given
system. For the author, besides this, "there are inevitably certain effects of the power
of the system on its elements, exactly as there are also effects of the power between the
elements of the system." That is, power permeates both the relations between elements as
well as the relations between the system and elements.
To conceive of a society without power means, for the author, to believe in the
possibility of the existence of a "society without social relations, without social rules
and without processes of social decisions." That is, it would be to conceive the
"unthinkable."
A Libertarian Conception of Power
Such arguments allow for the affirmation that "there exists a libertarian conception of
power, and it is false that this has to constitute a negation/denial of power." To deny
this fact would necessarily imply a difficulty both in terms of analysis of the reality,
and in terms of conception of a strategy. "While this is not fully assumed by libertarian
thought," Ibáñez emphasises, "it will not be capable of initiating the analyses and
actions that enable it to have force in the social reality."
And what he argues makes sense if we look at the history of anarchism or even that which
was called the "libertarian camp." Going beyond the semantic assertions - which very often
gave/give to the word ‘power' a State meaning - it seems clear that "libertarian thought"
never denied the capacity of social agents, the asymmetries in power relations or the
structures and mechanisms of regulation and control.
An example that is significantly common in the libertarian tradition. Considering the
asymmetric relations of classes in capitalist society and, basing it on the idea of the
capacity of the working class, libertarians seek to promote a social revolution in which
the force of the dominant class is overridden and which establishes a system of regulation
and control founded on self-management and on federalism. Even with this generic example,
it can be said that if the dominant class is removed from its condition of domination and
gives way to a libertarian structure, even in the future society, this power relation
between the dominant class separated from domination and the working class constitutes an
asymmetric relation.
In this sense it is possible to assume that in fact, historically, there is a libertarian
conception of power that - even though it has not been discussed in sufficient depth and
has been complicated by a series of factors - possesses elements of relevance to this
debate which is now being realised.
Domination as a Type of Power
When libertarians realize a discourse against power, says Ibáñez, they use the "term
‘power' to refer in fact to a ‘certain type of power relation', that is, very concretely,
to the type of power that is encountered in the ‘relations of domination', in the
‘structures of domination', in the ‘devices of domination', or in the ‘instruments of
domination' etc. (be these relations of a coercive, manipulative or other nature)." So,
for him, domination is a type of power relation, but you cannot define domination as
power, as they constitute distinct categories. For the author, you can not encompass in
the relations of domination "the relations that link the freedom of the individual to that
of groups." That is, you can not incorporate libertarian relations in to the category of
domination. But this seems somewhat obvious. What is not obvious, in fact, is that when
you equate power with domination, you assume that power is contrary to freedom. An
affirmation with which the author disagrees. "Freedom and power are not really situated
according to a relation of simple opposition." And: "Power and freedom thus find
themselves in an inextricably complex relation of antagonism/possibility." Thus conceived,
power could be contradictory to freedom, but could also potentialize its realization. It
would be, in fact, the type of power that would determine this relation with freedom.
Thus, Ibáñez believes that "libertarians are situated, in reality, against the social
systems based on relations of domination (in the strict sense).' Down with power!' is a
formula that should disappear from the libertarian lexicon and be replaced by ‘Down with
relations of domination'. But on this point it is necessary to try to define the
conditions that make such a society possible."
Against Domination and for a Libertarian Political Power
It can be said, based on this structural argument, that "libertarians are not against
power, but against a certain kind of power," and in their strategies seek to be "builders
of a variety of power, which it is convenient (and accurate) for us now to call
‘libertarian power', or, more precisely: ‘libertarian political power'." This would mean
to assume that libertarians defend a (libertarian) working model of instruments, devices
and relations of power.
Image: "In the Jaws of Power" by SL Rote. Blog/Website
Part 2: Bertolo and Power as Social Function of Regulation
In this second article of the series, I will be using the article "Power, Authority,
Domination"[**]by Amedeu Bertolo for discussion. The main contributions of the author will
be presented schematically.
Discussions on the Issues of Power, Authority and Domination
According to the author, "the custom, not only academically, is to start a discourse of
semantic definitions from: 1) an etymological point of view and/ or 2) a historical point
of view." However, for him, neither of the approaches have much relevance to the
discussion he intends to have. According to his claims, the etymology of the three terms
is of distant origin, in terms of time, allowing one, at most, to carry out an exercise in
"linguistic archaeology." Besides this, for him the three terms have a very similar
original meaning. Power, for example, "derives from the Latin ‘polis' (boss, owner)";
"Domination derives from ‘dominus' (head of the household, head of the family); Authority,
by contrast, comes from the Latin ‘auctor', which in its origin means one that make
believe, that adds something"[1].
With relation to the historical usage of the terms, Bertolo identifies that they are
multipurpose and can, in many cases, be substituted for one another. And in this case,
according to his belief, a historical analysis also could not solve the problem posed. For
him, "in relation to the definitions of authority and power, they have everything for
everyone," which motivates him to search for some definitions that will be now reproduced.
Definitions of Power
"Power is a) capacity or natural faculty to act[...]; b) general or moral faculty, right
to do something; c) authority, especially in the concrete sense, the body constituted to
exercise it, government' (Lalande,1971). ‘Power is the participation in decision making'
and ‘a decision is a line of conduct which carries severe sanctions' (Lasswell and Kaplan,
1969). Power is the ‘right to be in charge' (Ferrero, 1981). ‘We call power the capacity
of a social class to realise its specific objective interests' (Poulantzas, 1972). ‘Power
is the ability to establish and execute decisions, even when others oppose them' (Mills,
1970). Power ‘is a permanent body which we are accustomed to obey, which has material
means to oblige us and that, thanks to the belief that one has in its strength, to the
belief in its right to command, that is, in its legitimacy and in the hope of its
kindness' (Jouvenel, 1947). By power, one must understand ‘all the means by which one can
persuade the will of other men' (Mousnier, 1971). You can define power as the ‘capacity to
realise desires' (Russell,1967). ‘By power one must understand[...]the possibility for
specific mandates (or for any mandate) to be obeyed by part of a given group of men'
(Weber, 1980). ‘Power is communication regulated by a code (Luhman, 1979)."
Definitions of Authority
"Authority is ‘any power exercised over a man or group of people by another man or group'
(Abbagnano, 1964). ‘Authority is a relationship between unequals' (Sennet,1981).
‘Authority is a way to define and interpret differences in strength' (Sennet, ibid.),
‘Authority is a quest for stability and security from the force of others' (Sennet,
ibid.). Authority is an ‘accepted dependence' (Horkheimer, no date). Authority is
(psychological) superiority or personal ascendence[...]and (sociological) right to decide
and/ or command' (Lalande, 1971). ‘The essence of authority[...]is to give to a human
being that security and that recognition in the decision that logically corresponds to an
effective and supra-individual axiom or to a deduction' (Simmel, 1978). ‘Authority is the
expected and legitimate possession of power' (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1969)."
Definitions of Domination
Distinctly from the broad definitions of power and authority, the author notes that, in
relation to domination, there is a little more conceptual agreement: "the word domination
is almost only used in the sense of the power to imposed ad altri (by law or in fact)
one's own will, with instruments of coercion, physical or mental." The term domination,
and its correlating adjectives and verbs, is less "multi-purpose than authority and power.
Perhaps by reason of the emotively negative value disseminated that exists in its current
use." Still, Bertolo highlights three cases in which domination is used in a "neutral"
sense: Simmel (1978), "for whom domination is a universal category of social interaction,
of which power is a particular form"; Dahrendorf (1970), "who proposes a definition of
domination as ‘possession of authority, that is, as a right to promulgate authoritarian
orders"; Lasswell and Kaplan (1969), who consider that "domination is an effective model
of power (but the English term used is ‘rule' and not ‘domination', which could be
translated differently)."[2]
As it can clearly be noted in the definitions above, the semantic range certainly poses
difficulties to the debate. There is, as the author points out, a fundamental question
that arises between what you might call a form-content issue, in which it is impossible to
deepen the discussion by taking only the form (the name of concepts such as "power,"
"authority," "domination" etc.), without entering into the contents given historically by
the authors in the discussions about the themes. It is, in this sense, about going beyond
the terms - that is, the name given to a particular "box" - and entering into concepts -
that is, investigating the contents of the box. An aspect that would already eliminate
much of the polemics generated in discussions of the libertarian universe.[3]
Thus, as Bertolo puts it, it is "necessary to resume the attempt of definition from an
identification of the concepts and the contents, even though, naturally, this way of
proceeding implies some difficulties in lexicon that we will try to overcome." In reality,
the problems identified in relation to the discussion about power do not exist only in
anarchism: "it may be comforting for the anarchists to know that not even official science
has brought much clarity to this set of ‘things' (relations, behaviors, social
structures...) that are classified as power (or as authority or as domination) in the last
century." A problem which, if it affects human sciences in general, could not fail to
affect anarchism.
Anarchism and the Theory of Power
Bertolo identifies the gap in theoretical anarchist discussions about the theme of power.
It would mean, for him, not necessarily "to unfasten it, but at least to clearly define an
extremely complex conceptual node - and not simply to find an agreement in relation to the
words - a central node within anarchist thought."
Paradoxically, he says, "anarchism - which can be regarded as the most radical critique of
domination explained so far, a theoretical and practical critique - has not produced a
more articulated and subtle theory of power than the apologists of domination."
The author believes that "the brilliant intuitions about power that the ‘fathers' of
anarchism had were not followed by an adequate reflection on their importance." Intuitions
which, following this, would even be fruitful today, but which, if they are not the
subject of discussion and deepening of understanding, run the risk of "sclerosis in
stereotyped formulas, in beliefs, in taboos, losing a large part of its usefulness as a
fundamental working hypothesis for the interpretation and transformation of reality."
The need for deepening the debate on power, therefore, would be fundamental in the
libertarian camp for the establishment of adequate methods of analysis and of strategies
capable of carrying out social transformation. For this, the intuitions that Bertolo
understood to be present in the classics would not be enough: "The intuitions have become
sclerosis and the relative lack of terminological and conceptual precision, inevitable and
perhaps necessary in the first developments of reflection, becomes an obstacle to the
progress of thought and action, the source of unjustifiable ‘orthodoxies' and, therefore,
of unjustifiable ‘heresies', of traditional immobility and of ‘innovative' nonsense, of
semantic discussions and of social powerlessness."
This writing by Bertolo intends, as he himself affirms, "modestly and ambitiously - to
propose some definitions that, according to the author, could make the debate between
anarchists not only more rewarding, but also make the confrontation between anarchists and
non-anarchists less arduous." Otherwise, he believes, one runs the risk of continuing a
"dialogue of the deaf." For this he proposes to define, in terms of form and content,
power, authority and domination: "it is clear that the defining work is directed not so
much at the terms, but the concepts behind the terms and at the contents behind the concepts."
Proposed Definition
Seeking a conceptual alignment, Bertolo suggests standard definitions for power, authority
and domination.
Power
"The production and application of norms and sanctions then define the function of social
regulation, a function for which I propose the term power." The author believes that
power, defined in these terms, is related to Proudhon's concept of collective force and
also with the definition of Lasswell and Kaplan posed earlier: "Power is participation in
decision making" and "a decision is a line of conduct which carries severe sanctions." He
believes that Clastres also works with a similar definition to distinguish "non-coercive
power," which would resemble this definition of power, and "coercive power," which is
close to the author's definition of domination. For Clastres, "political power as coercion
(or as relations of command-obedience) is not the model of true power, but simply a
particular case." He also maintains that "the social is not thinkable without the
political, in other words, there is no society without power."
In this sense, there are a few elements that should be highlighted. For Bertolo, power is
defined around social regulation and may or may not be coercive (and therefore imply
domination). In this sense, as any society has regulatory systems, there could not be, in
this sense, society without power, endorsing Clastres' affirmation.
Identifying that one uses in the literature on the topic the term power to describe
different conceptual categories, the author proposes "to retain this term only to
define[...]the social function of regulation, the processes by which a society is
regulated, producing standards, applying them, making them to be respected." And in this
sense, to define power from a macro level, that would function in terms of societal
management and would be linked to the decision making processes.
Authority
For the category of authority, Bertolo defends the following usage: "I propose, finally,
to call authority the asymmetries of competence that determine asymmetries of reciprocal
determinations between individuals and the influence in the asymmetries by reason of
personal characteristics." In this sense, authority would be fundamentally linked to the
capacity to properly execute a certain activity and the multiple influences that,
personally, are exercised in this sense. Distinguishing personal and functional relations,
Bertolo puts it thus: "in the case of personal relations, we can define the asymmetry as
influence; in the case of functional relations we can define the asymmetry as authority."
Domination
"Domination, then, defines the relations between unequals - unequals in terms of power,
namely, freedom - the situations of ‘supra-ordination' and subordination; it defines the
systems of permanent asymmetry between social groups." Domination, in this sense, would
imply the inequalities of power that would define permanent relations of
command/obedience, also at the macro level, not between individuals, but between social
groups (castes, classes etc.).
The relations of domination are based, therefore, on the relations of command/obedience,
"in which the command has the content of regulating the behavior of that which obeys."
This relation of command/obedience, according to Bertolo, does not come from the
regulatory function. He argues that one does not obey (in a broad sense) a norm; for him
one respects a norm. Obedience is connected to a command, "that is, to the way in which a
norm is presented within a system of domination." Thus, domination would be fundamentally
linked to the "expropriation of the regulatory function exercised by a minority,"
responsible for enforcing its rules "on the rest of society" - that is, it would be linked
to imposition.
Therefore, if the "social function of regulation" of a society is "exercised only by a
part of the society, if the power is then the monopoly of a privileged (dominant) sector,
this gives rise to another category, to a set of hierarchical relations of
command/obedience that I propose to call domination." Domination, defined in this way,
would imply hierarchy and the monopoly of power.
Power, Authority and Domination
Defined in these terms, Bertolo affirms that power and authority would be "neutral"
concepts, that is, they are neither necessarily good nor bad. Authority would imply
something evident in society; the differences in competencies between individuals and
groups and the interaction and mutual influence that is exercised between the diverse
agents in any social relationship. That is, it is a category that embraces social
diversity and assumes it as inevitable. In relation to power, the author says: "we define
power in this way as a ‘neutral' and even necessary social function, not only for the
existence of society, of culture and of man, but also for the exercise of that freedom
seen as a choice between certain possibilities, which we take as a departure point for our
discourse."
This relation between power and freedom allows us to better understand Bertolo's
propositions. For him, freedom is directly linked to the possibility of choice that each
one has and, thus, "the level of participation in the process of regulation" is
fundamental "for freedom as self-determination, because the individual is freer[...]the
greater is their access to power." If power is defined around the regulatory functions of
a society, it is natural that, the more these functions are shared, the higher would be
the level of freedom of this society. "An equal access to power for all members of a
society is, then, the first and inescapable condition of equal liberty for all." What the
author calls "power for all," that is, a generalised democratisation of power, or at least
a generalisation of the opportunities for the access to power, would be fundamental for
societal processes of freedom, of equality and, why not, of democracy.
The differentiation between the concepts of power and domination is fundamental for
Bertolo. Power, as we have seen, would imply social regulation. This power could be more
or less shared in a given society and, when it is exercised by a minority from
hierarchical relationships of command/obedience, this means that this power implies
domination. The more collective is the power, the greater is the freedom of a society -
and, therefore, it is possible to note a connection made by the author between freedom and
equality.
Philosophical Contributions
Bertolo's article also contains some philosophical reflections that may help in
understanding the topic. Below are the main points of discussion, which will be briefly
presented.
Bertolo wants to take into account the "cultural determinations" of man and not the
"natural determinations" marked by instinct and by environment which, he believes, "do not
play a similar role in this strange animal that is man." For him, "man does not know
instinct in the strict sense (that is, accurate answers to genetically inherited behavior
in response to given environmental stimuli), but, at most, traces or residues of instinct,
which have little or no social significance." Therefore, he understands that "to man, the
‘environment' is more cultural than natural," since "the environment of human beings is
constituted by relations with other humans and that the relations with the world ‘of
objects' passes through a symbolic mediation." Thus, a discussion about power must evade
the pursuit of man's natural instincts, which would be present in a given human nature.
As for him the human environment is much more cultural than natural, power, from the
perspective of social regulation, does not stem from a natural instinct or specific human
nature, but from a determined culture forged in social relations. "Man must produce norms,
but he can produce the norms that he wants." The norms would then be a central operation
of society and its content would not be determined a priori, but would be forged in the
midst of a reality that is at the same time cultural and social.
This social reality is forged by a dialectic reality between individuals and society, a
relationship in which the individual, though they can also determine the society, is more
determined by it: "the single individual is always more determined by the society than
they can determine it. Man produces society collectively, but is modeled by it individually."
Thus, one could say that a type of power that implies domination should not be analysed by
the natural instincts or by the human nature of man, but by their relations, which imply
social and cultural aspects. Bertolo identifies two fundamental types of justifications of
domination: "a first type of approach is that which, proceeding from domination to power,
justifies the first with bio-psychological motivations (that is, innate ‘natural'
psychological mechanisms): there are personalities naturally predisposed to domination and
others naturally predisposed to submission." This approach relies on the "most attractive
structural elements, coming to say that the ‘natural' subdivision of man in to two
categories (the masters by nature and the slaves by nature) produces a beneficial effect
for both and, ultimately, it is an admirable contrivance of nature or of providence to
make human society and the advantages derived from it possible." "The second type of
approach is cultural," and those that defend it consider the natural explanations of
power/domination unsustainable. From this approach, it is considered that power/domination
"is not the effect of a pre-existing inequality but, on the contrary, is the cause of the
first fundamental inequality amongst men."
Bertolo believes still to be able to classify the approaches to the genesis of
power/domination differently: "those who explicitly or implicitly assume it, presenting
man and/or society as the same, and those who posit its birth at a certain moment in history."
In his concept of domination, the author dismisses the natural, bio-psychological
approaches, intending instead a cultural approach to domination. For him, studies such as
those of Clastres, as for example Society Against the State, demonstrate that there is a
history of cultures that did not have domination, but only power. Although it is only a
hypothesis, Bertolo identifies the origin of domination as a cultural change in society
that would have occurred at a particular moment, when man had already been living in society.
Anarchism, Power and Authority and Domination
Departing from the definitions proposed by Bertolo, some conclusions are possible.
Dividing the asymmetries in the social relations between authority (functional) and
influence (personal), it can be affirmed that the author works with four key categories:
Power: Social regulatory function, a set of processes with which a society regulates
itself by producing norms, applying them, making them to be respected.
Domination: Social regulatory function that is exercised only by a part of society, the
power being the monopoly of a privileged (dominant) sector and implying hierarchical
relations and those of command/obedience.
Authority: Asymmetries of competence that determine asymmetries of reciprocal
determinations between individuals.
Influence: Asymmetries that exist by reason of personal characteristics.
When the author assumes power and authority (also including influence) as "neutral"
categories, he is conducting a trial from the anarchist ethic/morality. Neutral because,
in these terms, anarchism historically considered to be within its camp of ethically and
morally justifiable relations, relations of influence, of authority and also of power -
understanding them, clearly, from the categories defined by Bertolo.
Historically, anarchism placed itself in opposition to domination: for anarchists, social
regulation should be collectivised, and the proposals of self-management, of federalism
and of direct democracy have always sought this sense of sharing power and of exercising
it for the benefit of the collectivity.
Capitalist and statist society has always been understood as a society not only of power,
but of domination, since the power would not be collectivised and would be exercised only
by a minority - which has been called by various terms (the ruling class, the capitalist
class, the bourgeoisie etc.) - which would exercise hierarchy and relations of
command/obedience over the majority - (which has been called the proletariat, the
oppressed class, the working class etc.).
In this sense, the anarchist strategy was aimed at transforming the relations of
domination into relations of power, which should have no hierarchy or relations of
command/obedience in its womb. The power sought by anarchism must be collectivised,
socialised; it being the participation in power - or at least the opportunity for
participation, open to the whole population - which should decide its rules and guarantee
their application on the basis of mechanisms democratic in fact (direct democracy),
guaranteed by self-management and by federalism.
Felipe Corrêa is a teacher and political militant in São Paulo, Brazil. He is a
participant with the Institute of Theory and Anarchist History (ITHA) and Coordenação
Anarquista Brasileira or Brazilian Anarchist Coordination.
Felipe Corrêa is a teacher and political militant in São Paulo, Brazil. He is a
participant with the Institute of Theory and Anarchist History (ITHA) and Coordenação
Anarquista Brasileira or Brazilian Anarchist Coordination.
If you enjoyed this piece we also recommend the piece "Anarchism, Power, Class, and Social
Change" also by Corrêa and "Libertarian Socialism in South America: A Roundtable
Interview," a three part series interviewing members of anarchist organizations in Chile,
Argentina and Brazil.
This piece was originally published in Portuguese on the site Estratégia e
Análise.Translation by Jonathan Payn of ZACF, South Africa with revisions by the author.
Translator Notes
* Tomás Ibáñez. "For a Libertarian Political Power: epistemological and strategic
considerations around a concept." Article originally published in 1983 in the Italian
magazine Volontà. For the quotes I use a translation into Portuguese by Miguel Serras
Pereira, done for a Portuguese publication from the 1980s. The article is also on the
compilation called Actualidad del Anarquismo, published by Aarres Books, Buenos Aires in
2007.[Translator to English's note: quotes were subsequently translated from Portuguese to
English and not from the Italian, and there might therefore be slight discrepancies].
** Amedeu Bertolo. "Poder, Autoridad, Dominio: una propuesta de definición." Article
originally published in 1983 in the Italian magazine Volontà. Quotations translated in to
Portuguese from the Spanish version (and subsequently into English from Portuguese -
English translator's note), translated by Heloísa Castellanos, available on the internet
and contained in the compilation organised by Christian Ferrer, El Lenguaje Libertario,
published by Libros de Anarres/ Anarres Books of Buenos Aires in 2005.
Author Notes
1. I have resorted, for this translation, to the Italian original "Potere, autorità,
dominio: una proposta di definizione." In Italian, Bertolo says: "Potere' deriva dal
latino potis (padrone, possessore), così come ‘dominio' deriva da dominus (padrone di
casa, capofamiglia); ‘autorità' invece viene dal latino auctor che significava
originariamente colui che fa crescere, che accresce." An excerpt somewhat different to the
Spanish translation: "Poder deriva del latín ‘polis' (= patrin, amo) así como Dominación
deriva de ‘dominus' (dueño de casa, jefe de familia); Autoridad, en cambio, proviene del
latín ‘auctor', que en su origen significa el que hace crecer, el que acrecienta." The
Italian version can be read here.
2. Bibliography (in order of citation): A. Lalande, Dizionario critico di filosofia,
ISEDI, Milán, 1971. / H. D. Lasswell y A. Kaplan, Potere e società, Etas, Milán, 1969. /
G. Ferrero, Potere, Sugarco, Milán, 1981. / N. Poulantzas, in Franco Ferrarotti, La
sociologia del potere, Laterza, Bari, 1972. / W. Mills, Politica e potere, Bompiani,
Milán, 1970. / B. De Jouvenel, Il Potere, Rizzoli, Milán, 1947. / R. Mousnier, Le
gerarchie sociali dal 1450 ai nostri giorni, Vita e pensiero, 1971. / B. Russell, Il
potere, Feltrinelli, Milán, 1967. / M. Weber, Economía y sociedad, F.C.E., México, 1980. /
N. Luhman, Potere e complessità sociale, Il Saggiatore, Milán, 1979. / N. Abbagnano,
Dizionario di filosofia, UTET, Turín, 1964. / R. Sennet, La autorità, Bompiani, Milán,
1981. / M. Horkheimer, citado por T. Eschemburg, Dell'autorità, Il Mulino, Bolonia, 1970.
/ G. Simmel, Il dominio, Bulzoni, Roma, 1978. / R. Dahrendorf, Classi e conflitto de
classe nella società industriale, Laterza, Bari, 1970.
3. You can say that Proudhon was against authority and can easily obtain excerpts from his
writings with this affirmation. Similarly, one can affirm that Bakunin was against power
and can also find support for this in his theoretical texts. However, both claims become
empty if you do not say what Proudhon meant by authority and what Bakunin meant by power.
Briefly applying a content analysis in relation to the claims put forward, we can say that
Proudhon, on affirming himself against authority, opposed authority as alienation and
appropriation of the collective force by a monopoly; Bakunin, on opposing power,
positioned himself against the State. Without deepening the discussion in these terms, the
debate about power becomes completely empty.
http://blackrosefed.org/towards-anarchist-theory-of-power-correa/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten