This article arises from the need to break with certain dogmas that have
been established in recent decades within the libertarian movement. Icall them dogmas not with a derogatory intent, but rather descriptively;
that is, they are positions that do not arise from a rigorous study of
history or from an update of postulates based on our material reality.
They arise, in my opinion, strongly influenced by the creation of a new
"anarchist" identity, born primarily from the defeats of the last
century and the gradual assimilation of capitalist realism. A capitalist
realism that, in practice, denies the possibility of revolution and
seeks refuge in small spaces, which are sustained by this new identity.
Little by little, the paradigm of revolution is supplanted by that of
resistance, and from this new paradigm emerges a new "anarchism" that
ignores its history and denies the present.
By this, I don't mean to say that the entire current libertarian
movement fully identifies with this new "anarchism," nor that criticisms
of historical positions or practices of the libertarian movement cannot
be made. What I do want to emphasize is the need to abandon the paradigm
of resistance and rebuild a movement capable of confronting the systems
of domination that oppress us, a movement that sincerely believes again
in revolution. We cannot accomplish this task without first shedding all
forms of dogmatism. Let us confront our ideas honestly and
constructively, leaving aside the ghosts of the past. We start from the
position that the individual does not exist before society and,
therefore, their self-perception and way of acting are within the very
margins of society; they are socially determined. Therefore, all
spontaneous development is based on a materiality that tends to
replicate already existing social forms. That is to say, in a bourgeois
society, there will be a tendency to replicate bourgeois forms of
organization, work, etc. This is why believing that our class can
spontaneously organize itself along revolutionary lines is erroneous. A
workers' organization is not in itself revolutionary. To give a concrete
example, the women's section of the Falange, although made up of women,
was not at all a feminist organization, much less a revolutionary one.
And we can see many others like this example, from unions to
neighborhood associations to collectives of all kinds.
Moments of spontaneous revolt, just like organizations composed of women
workers, do not necessarily have a revolutionary character in
themselves, which does not mean that they cannot harbor a certain
revolutionary potential. A potential that must be exploited by the
vanguard to transform that spontaneous organization/movement into a
truly revolutionary movement. It is important to clarify that exploiting
this potential is not the same as taking advantage of it as if the
vanguard were something external to the mass movement. Evidently, the
vanguard benefits from this movement as part of it, and by exploiting
its potential, what it does is elevate the capabilities of the mass
movement, which generates greater real strength.
Is anarchism vanguardist?
To answer this question, we first need to define what we mean by the
vanguard. Currently, when we talk about the vanguard, it is usually
associated with the dirigiste definition of the vanguard and its
historical trajectory. In my opinion, the vanguard (referring to the
revolutionary vanguard) is nothing more than a group of militants who
represent the most advanced sector of a revolutionary movement. That is,
its driving force. This vanguard can exist at a theoretical level (such
as Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Dielo Truda, etc.) and at a practical
level ("The Friends of Durruti," the International Alliance of Socialist
Democracy, trade union cadres of revolutionary unions, Committees for
the Defense of '36, etc.).
Although these avant-gardes have historically tended to organize
themselves through various means, this is not an essential requirement.
In the case of the theoretical avant-garde, it is common to find authors
who were not formally organized as a vanguard. It is important to
differentiate between the abstract concept of "vanguard," in the
singular, which refers to the entire set of those sectors most advanced
in the class struggle (when we speak of the most advanced sectors, we
refer to those with greater capabilities, a higher level of class
consciousness, etc.), and the avant-gardes, in the plural, which are the
sectors themselves and the concrete form taken by the spearhead of the
proletariat, whether at the level of an organization or individually,
with a development differentiated from the rest of the vanguards.
Vanguard movements emerge naturally and are necessary when pursuing a
revolutionary objective. There isn't necessarily just one; in fact, it's
most logical, common, and historically verifiable for several to
coexist, fighting each other through their theoretical postulates and
concrete practices, with the intention of discerning which is correct.
This confrontation of ideas is essential to achieving revolution, as
long as it takes place in an atmosphere of camaraderie and honesty. In
this confrontation, erroneous positions will disappear, and correct ones
will strengthen and dominate the movement.
I want to clarify that these vanguard movements, like any honest
activist, seek the hegemony of their ideas and practices; that is, they
seek to ensure that things develop the way they believe is right. This
doesn't mean denying debate and uncritically locking ourselves into our
positions; quite the opposite. If I think and act in the way I consider
best to achieve common goals, what I should want is to demonstrate that
my proposal is the best, or to be shown that others are, and therefore
join them. This is the way the vanguard should hegemonize, not through
tricks or dishonest actions. It is important to clarify that these
positive hegemonization processes can occur when they are based on the
good praxis we discussed earlier. Those who attempt to "hegemonize"
through dishonest attitudes and various methods of manipulation cannot
be considered part of the vanguard; on the contrary, they are elements
that seek to destroy everything they are unable to control,
delegitimizing the role of the vanguards in general and the conception
of the vanguard in particular. These groups represent reaction and are
nothing other than class enemies. This is why the duty of the vanguards
is to combat them relentlessly to prevent them from destroying these
mass movements or separating them from the revolutionary horizon that
the vanguards seek to project.
How the Anarchist Vanguard Should Act
As anarchists, our praxis is linked to our objectives, and this premise
can be extrapolated to the vanguard. Our objective is not to create a
state that the population tolerates; our objective is to create a system
based on participation, and therefore the anarchist vanguard needs to
work along these lines. It's of no use to us for the working class to
passively support us; we need them to actively engage in our
revolutionary project.
Let's take a practical example. In the union sphere, our work cannot be
based on delegation, since our objective in a workplace is not to have
enough votes to sit down with management and seek the best situation for
both parties; our objective is to impose ourselves on management, and
for that, we need to have real strength (in a workplace, the maximum
expression of this strength could be a strike supported by the entire
workforce). The objective of the driving force of a union branch (what
we could call the workplace union vanguard) is not only to understand
the problems of the workforce and seek solutions together with the boss.
The objective of this driving force must be to organize the workforce to
negotiate with the company on the terms established by the workforce.
However, to achieve this, this vanguard cannot present itself as a group
of messianic individuals who come to solve all problems, but rather as a
group of highly committed colleagues who organize, train, contribute,
and encourage the rest. Not as an external agent, but as the core of
this worker organization within the company. This does not mean that
they will not bring proposals or that they will seek to prevent the
section from adopting what they consider to be the best strategies, but
the key is that the rest must adopt their proposals; that is, they must
make them their own. This means that the proposals are likely not to
turn out exactly as this vanguard wants, or that, on occasion, those
proposals are rejected outright. If this happens, it is not enough to
resign ourselves or blame our colleagues for not supporting us; we must
analyze what went wrong with our proposal and why it was not accepted.
Perhaps we haven't been able to explain it correctly, or we have
analyzed the issues incorrectly. Perhaps we have tried to rush ahead,
and our comrades didn't have enough confidence to take on that level of
action.
The vanguard's role should be none other than to serve as the driving
force of the proletariat. It must be composed of educated, honest,
committed, egoless militants who are capable of analyzing reality,
reaching out to others, presenting their proposals and convincing
others, educating and, ultimately, pushing the entire working class onto
the path of revolution.
Conclusion
In the current situation, we need to refound the anarchist vanguard, a
vanguard insofar as it appears as an internal and intrinsic element of
the struggles, as a group of militants with a very high level of
commitment and capable of presenting itself as the best political option.
We want to refound this vanguard that in the past managed to bring our
class to the brink of revolution. We must not fall into discouragement
and think that all is lost, that the revolution is impossible. We must
accept our past mistakes and take a step forward. We must take stock of
what went wrong in the past and correct it. We must accept that if the
revolution failed and our ideas declined, it was not because the
revolution is impossible, nor because of external factors. Rather, we
failed as a movement because we made mistakes, because we did not know
how to refine our plan, because we did not take certain external factors
into account. And we cannot blame ourselves for that, but we now have
that experience. If we are not capable of self-criticism and improving
based on past experience, it will be our fault, and we will be doomed to
eternal defeat.
I don't want to end this article on a sad note. We have been able to
make great strides along the path of revolution, although that is not
enough. What is clear is that, if we believe in revolution again, we
have the capacity to change the world. Revolutions do not just happen;
they are not things of the past or geological processes that take
thousands of years to form. Revolutions are built, and that is our task.
I often hear the resigned idea that "even if we do things right, we will
not be the ones who see the revolution." But we don't know that; history
has taught us that revolutionary processes can develop faster than we
think. Why isn't it possible that, if we do what we must do, we will not
be participants in that revolution? If we are able to analyze our
experience, present and past, seek solutions to the mistakes that have
caused us to be here today, and highlight our successes, without a
doubt, we will once again be one of the great fears of the bourgeoisie;
we will once again have the opportunity to reach that new world. We may
be defeated again when we finally return to the gates, but our
experience will serve those who come before us, enabling them to
reorganize, taking into account our mistakes and, therefore, building a
much stronger movement.
We don't know the future; the only thing we can know with certainty is
whether tomorrow, when we take stock of our work, we will be able to be
proud of what we have accomplished or, on the contrary, whether we will
regret not having done, for a thousand reasons, what we should have done
at the time. That moment is today. As anarchists, we have the
responsibility to begin working now on tomorrow's revolution, as the
saying goes, "for those who were, we are, and for those who are, we
shall be."
T. Mora
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/03/13/anarquismo-y-vanguardia/
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten