WORLD WORLDWIDE SOUTH AMERICA COLOMBIA News Journal Update - (en) Colombia, ViaLbre: Some theses for an anarchist political theory (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 In this text we present some theses for an anarchist political theory,

arising from the theoretical and practical reflections of the Vía Libre
Libertarian Group. For this we explore the roots, the emergence, the
character and the strategic debates that run through anarchism as a
current. Likewise, we reconstruct their antagonisms and reflect on their
forms of action, in addition to proposing some views on contemporary
society and its more general societal horizons. ---- 1. Anarchism has
deep roots in previous social traditions. ---- Anarchism is a relatively
short political tradition, which inherits and continues political
traditions that are much longer and older than itself. In this way we
think that it takes up the millennial traditions of communitarianism and
republicanism,

However, this continuity operates through a selective process, filtering
and reworking some elements, and affirming and discarding others. In
this way, there is a particular emphasis on autonomous communitarianism,
the one that quarrels with centralized and hierarchical societies;
plebeian republicanism, one that opposes the oligarchic powers of the
cities or regions; democratic revolutions, those that seek social and
not only legal equality among the participants of the political
community; and socialism from below, which postulates the centrality of
the action and needs of those below over bureaucratic forms and interests.

However, there is also a peculiarity here, since anarchism is not the
only one that claims and continues these traditions. In fact, it is only
a perhaps minority option of autonomous communitarianism, plebeian
republicanism or democratic revolutions, as well as in a slightly
different case, it is the majority, although clearly not the only,
expression of socialism from below.

However, these previous roots do guide the consistency of the anarchist
proposal. In this way, a centralist, or monarchical, or aristocratic, or
capitalist anarchism does not exist in a coherent and active way,
precisely because of the consonance of anarchism with the previous
traditions that give it life, and its recognition under
anti-hierarchical, anti-oligarchic, and anti-hierarchical principles.
more general and preceding capitalists.

2. Anarchism is an original socialist current

Anarchism is a particular and original form of modern socialism, born
from a radical critique of the inequality and injustice of the 19th
century capitalist society. In this sense, it was formed within the
labor and popular movement of its time, in the midst of the class
struggle and other social struggles, and in opposition to the
capitalist, statist and imperialist expansion that was experienced
during that period.

In this sense, it is a current that grew in a constant critical
dialogue, with other socialist currents that have accompanied it in its
development. First, it did so with the romantic socialism that preceded
it and then with the Marxism that is contemporary to it, to later
establish conversations and debates with social democracy, Leninism and
the left nationalisms that followed it.

Therefore, throughout its history it has established various conflictive
relationships, sometimes marked by cooperation and sometimes by
struggle, with other socialist currents. It has had critical historical
scenarios often shared with those other socialist currents, such as
France in 1871, Mexico in 1910, Russia and Ukraine in 1917, Korea and
China in 1931, Spain in 1936 or Cuba in 1959. and learned in a positive
and negative key from these rich experiences that overwhelm him, but
have defined him.

In this sense, political sectors such as conservative libertarians,
mostly close to the authoritarian right of Pinochet and Videla, Trump
and Bolsonaro, argue that more than half a century after the rise of
anarchism, some of their own thinkers reinvented from above and from the
absolute ignorance of the subject, a supposed anarchism that would be
right-wing, individualist and capitalist. However, soon these free
market fundamentalists who do not seem to be bothered by dictatorships
and the most open authoritarianism in the most diverse fields of social
life, act politically in the most traditionalist conservative political
movements, showing essential flaws in formulation and coherence.

And this simply because in ethical, philosophical and historical terms,
anarchism was, is and will be an anti-capitalist current, from below and
to the left, while capitalism, even in its most fanciful free-market
visions, is an authoritarian system, which it bases and reproduces
domination and the most diverse social hierarchies.

3. Anarchism is a short, bodily, defined political movement with a
coherent diversity.

In continuity with the above, faced with a metaphysical and timeless
idea of an anarchism that has always existed, as part of the purest and
highest human spirit, closer to the field of lyrical poetry than to
political theory, we affirm the existence of a much more immediate,
physical and concrete anarchism, which we can place 150 years ago, with
specific organizations such as the International Alliance of Socialist
Democracy led by Mikhail Bakunin, which acted in specific social
movements, such as within the first International Association of Workers
(AIT) and the popular movements of various European countries.

In this way, in the face of a spiritualist and abstract thesis of
anarchism only as a diverse collection of values, we affirm a more
corporeal and concrete definition of it as a social and political
current. Faced with an idea of pure intellectual sympathy that allows
every intellectual and every artist, regardless of their specific
political positions and actions, to be considered by some of their
followers as "anarchist" in the most generic way possible, we affirm the
clearest and simplest idea of anarchism as a collective identity, the
result of a necessary participation in a common political movement.

On the other hand, we consider that against the idea of an anarchism
dominated by absolutely unintelligible tendencies among themselves,
completely fragmented and confronting itself, without any shared
identity, there is good philosophical, historical and practical
evidence, instead, of the existence of a common theoretical body, of
course changing and plural, articulated with multiple internal
dialogues, with various spaces for meeting and cooperation, and with a
mutable but coherent ideological matrix.

4. We defend an open, collective anarchism rooted in its present.

In opposition to the idea of a political ideology with an already closed
proposal, which elaborated all its theoretical and practical responses
in the philosophical considerations of the thinkers of the 18th, 19th
and early 20th centuries, we think of an open current, with concerns
permanent and always in a reflective dialogue with their own present.

In this sense, anarchism has of course its key thinkers, always plural,
as well as its concrete historical experiences, always diverse in time
and geography, but it does not seek to establish a complete and
necessary universal political model, since it remains an open and
collective tradition. With clear strong ideas, yes, but open to reworking.

This distances anarchism from various currents of Marxism, for example,
which frozen and decontextualized their own historical experience to
make it a metaphysical value applicable in all places and times, such as
Russian Leninism, Chinese Maoism, Albanian Hoxism or Cuban Guevarism. ,
which made a particular experience marked by a strong cult of
personality, a universal recipe to copy.

On the other hand, in opposition to a reading of a uniform and
Eurocentric anarchism, we think of a current that today, but also for a
long time, seeks to take root in various local and sectoral contexts,
originated in Europe, but also an important part of the history of the
Americas, Asia and Africa, with a presence both inside and outside the
colonial world.

We think of anarchism as a current that seeks to insert itself into the
debates and struggles of its own present and its own territories,
learning and dialoguing with various oppressed social sectors and
seeking to influence and enrich their political practices.

5. An anarchism with debates and strategic bets

Picking up Felipe Correa's proposal, anarchism has gone through various
strategic debates throughout its history. Thus, the debates on loose or
structured organization, on specific organization or social
organization, on immediate struggles or finalist bets, and on various
socialist economic projects such as mutualism, collectivism or communism
have been key.

However, it seems clear that these debates have not remained stagnant in
time and the movement has had a majority orientation in defense of
organizations structured with protection of personal independence, with
a preference for social organizations, especially trade unions, without
forgetting the specific activity, betting on immediate struggles without
losing the ultimate vision and communist horizons that does not deny
various mutualist and collectivist experiments.

In particular, the Vía Libre Libertarian Group reconstructs these
debates insisting on the importance of a previously minority position,
but key in our present, of the specific, structured and effective
anarchist organization, which in turn participates in social and popular
movements, within of a coherent commitment to organizational dualism.

In this sense, from Vía Libre we return to the rich tradition of social
and organized anarchism, which includes various historical experiences,
such as the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy, the specific
anarchist organizations present in the social movements in Ukraine,
Italy or Bulgaria, the various bets of world libertarian syndicalism,
the proposal of the Organizational Platform for the General Union of
Anarchists and the subsequent platformism, and the Latin American
specificism of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), all with their
possibilities and limitations.

6. An anti-authoritarian reading of the various forms of social domination.

Reductionist definitions of anarchism as a mere opposition or rejection
of the State and its institutions of control and repression are very
common. These definitions generally lose sight of a much richer
reflection on the opposition to permanent hierarchical relationships,
which anarchism has explored throughout its history.

For this reason, we think it is more accurate to situate the axis of
anarchism's negative identity in a more general rejection of social
domination, a broader and more general phenomenon than statism or
capitalism. In this way we obtain a more complex and coherent vision
than if we only focus our gaze on some of the particular ways of domination.

In this sense, the perspective of domination allows us to better
understand and act more effectively against various hierarchical
relationships and structures, which sometimes precede and condition the
State, such as the patriarchal system and male dominance, the so-called
divine ghost and its legitimization of principle of authority as Bakunin
already reflected, or the systems of caste and ethnic inequality.

Likewise, this approach allows a more lucid reading of the very changing
structure of the State and its various mechanisms of consensus and
coercion, as well as the formation and exploitation of social classes
and the exploitation of one over another, in addition to the formation
of the capitalist mode of production, in turn generator of capitalist
oppression and articulator of various social oppressions.

7. A proposal that combines social demands and popular self-management.

In a society organized and dominated by the State, multiple
relationships are necessary with this political institution, the main
organizer of life in the present. However, we think that this should be
above all a relationship of demand, conflict and independence with the
State and business institutions, fundamentally mediated by a commitment
to social struggle and popular self-organization.

In parallel, we consider it key that the social demands of popular
movements that seek to improve the lives of people and communities in
the short and medium term are managed under forms of direct
self-management by their own participants, under criteria of
prefiguration and anticipation of the new libertarian society.

8. A commitment to the construction of the public community beyond the
State.

We believe that anarchism must currently defend the social services of
the public state sector of capitalist societies, but it must do so from
a perspective of collective and participatory appropriation of its
public dimension, and of continuous transfer of the public to various
self-organized communities that can and they need to federate with each
other.

 From this perspective, the construction of a libertarian-inspired,
strong, classist and democratic trade unionism in the public sector is
key to developing democratic self-management by the working class and
social sectors, as well as the development of multiple instances of
organizations. of users and local communities.

9) A program to develop the germs of anarchy present in the society of
domination.

Anarchism does not fail to warn of the spontaneous presence of the germs
of anarchy in our own present. Even in today's society, marked and
organized by social domination, many social practices of
self-organization and mutual support, strong among the working class and
the oppressed social sectors, also develop on multiple margins of the
system.

On the other hand, despite the strong presence of a vertical and
bureaucratic politics, and the tendency towards fragmentation and local
and sectoral isolation, there is an ever-continuous revival of
horizontal tendencies and popular direct action in the most diverse
social struggles of our present. In this sense, combining the already
present tendencies of self-organization and horizontal struggle, uniting
and strengthening them, is essential in our activity.

We believe that anarchism is at the same time an ethical and political
proposal, which links personal projects and collective constructions,
which seeks to generate free people in the midst of a free society. For
this, it is a commitment to build new altruistic people in supportive
communities, based on the recognition of the many limitations and
defects of our present, but also of the possibilities and potential that
exist in it.

10) The construction of anti-capitalist alternatives and communist horizons.

We believe that it is necessary to promote multiple self-management
practices from today, both in cooperatives, as well as in community
economic projects and worker self-management, which in their
articulation process develop a diversity of alternative economies that
are viable and sustainable, while at the same time continually seek
frameworks that overcome the capitalist present.

For this, in our self-management experiences, both a mutualist anchor is
key, that is, an awareness of the limitations of economic practice still
governed by the framework of the global capitalist market, as well as a
communist horizon, that is, a goal of free communities that can inspire
daily our behaviors and work.

In this sense, we consider it key to think and act in favor of earthly
transitions to anarchic communism, far from the apocalyptic and
religious accents that the transition to communism has often had in the
imaginary of the various socialist currents, and in line with recovering
and generalize our own community and libertarian practices.

In this way we seek to build from now on a free community life without
domination, whose roots are found precisely in today's own struggles.

https://grupovialibre.org/2023/08/13/algunas-tesis-para-una-teoria-politica-anarquista/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca