What follows is the first part of a much longer interview we conducted
with Brazil's sister organization OSL (Organización Socialista
Libertaria). This first part focuses on: The OSL and its conception of
anarchism. ---- What is the origin of OSL? ---- Our organization,
although new, is heir to an experience that goes back to the beginning
of specific anarchism in Brazil (less than the 1990s). Even the name we
have chosen is a reference to the old OSL, which between 1997 and 2000
was the first attempt to form a specific anarchist organization of
national scope. The old OSL had its limits and ultimately could not move
forward. At the end of the process, his militancy realized that, at that
moment, investing in a national organization was "starting to build the
house from the roof". He decided to take a few steps back and refocus
the process.
On the one hand, to strengthen the grassroots work, the construction and
participation in popular movements and social struggles - what was done
with the foundation of different Popular Resistance - trend groupings
(intermediate organizations between the political organization and the
movements of masses), which aimed to gather libertarian sectors of
workers and have an impact on these movements and struggles. On the
other hand, resume the debate at an ideological, anarchist level,
creating an organizational broth that could point, in the medium term,
to this national anarchist organization. For this, the Forum of
Organized Anarchism (FAO) was created in 2002, which sought to unite
anarchists who agreed on two priority axes: the need for organization of
anarchists and the need for social work (grassroots, mass) .
This process allowed the development of specificist anarchism in Brazil.
There were collectives and organizations that remained in the process,
others that arose and/or that were added to it; but there were also
those that disarticulated or broke. However, in general, particularly
from 2008/9 onwards, the FAO has established itself and managed to
develop significantly, consolidating a series of organizational
initiatives in different States of Brazil. This allowed considerable
progress, which culminated in the founding of the Brazilian Anarchist
Coordination (CAB), in 2012.
The idea to articulate a coordination was exactly to take an
organizational step and transform the old forum (space for exchanges of
reports, experiences, etc.) into something with a little more organicity
and alignment. Coordination was exactly this means between the forum and
the political organization. We actively participated in this process in
the 10 years we were in the CAB; with it we manage to advance some
initial alignments in terms of theory and practice.
The OSL was born in July 2023, from a merger between the Anarchist
Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ, state of Rio de Janeiro), the
Coletivo Mineiro Popular Anarquista (COMPA, state of Minas Gerais), the
Rusga Libertaria (RL, state of Mato Grosso), the Anarchist Organization
Socialismo Libertário (OASL, state of São Paulo), as well as different
individuals. The OSL settled for a sector with roughly half the
militancy of the CAB, which dissociated itself from it on the
understanding that coordination had fulfilled its role and that it was
necessary to take a step further.
" WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO BUILD A SOCIALIST AND LIBERTARY ALTERNATIVE FOR
BRAZIL"
But why is this new libertarian communist organization of a specific
type formed?
In our assessment, the process of growth that we end up adopting in
Brazil (based on the constitution and articulation of "organic groups",
as recommended by the process of Brazilian anarchist construction, since
the 1990s), had the virtue of advancing anarchism organized
geographically in different regions and aggregating many people, on the
other hand it ended up showing certain limits.
This growth, which took place in the context of the FAO and the CAB,
occurred in a somewhat disorderly manner, and allowed the grouping of
groups and organizations which, in addition to the agreement with
anarchist principles and specific, they had many differences. It ended
up stimulating a certain local/regional autonomy of state bodies, making
it increasingly difficult to align and homogenize theoretical and
strategic positions, and move towards unitary structures and lines. It
is clear that the situation has had a certain influence on this process,
as well as the uneven development that has occurred in the different
regions. However, in our assessment this has not been the crux of the
matter.
In the context of the discussions for the construction of our national
organization (which was always the objective of the FAO and the CAB) and
the internal conflicts that occurred around them, it gradually became
clear to us , especially from 2019, that there was a complicated
scenario in our coordination. On the one hand, very different
conceptions of political line (anarchism, specifism, theory) and
strategic- tactical line (programme, political practice). On the other
hand, an entire sector with little interest/intention to advance
homogenization and unification, essential for the formation of a
political organization. Moreover, even in the sectors that defended this
advance, there were often very heterogeneous positions.
It was clear to us that the paths we had were the following. 1.) Keep
the CAB in the stage it was in, without moving towards a national
organization; solution that, after 10 years of CAB, did not seem right
to us. 2.) Insist on this process of homogenization and unification,
making the dispute internal in the CAB; which, in our reading, would
greatly raise the level of conflicts, which was already high, and would
certainly not attract certain sectors. 3.) Propose the closure of the
CAB and place our organizational proposal; thus, militancy and state
bodies that agreed could join us, and those that did not agree would be
free to build other projects.
We choose the latter path because we do not think it is right to remain
in this organizational state and neither invest in an internal dispute
that, according to our assessment, would take some years to resolve,
would bring us back inside and greatly intensify the internal level of
conflict ( that there would be wear, splits, expulsions, etc.). All
this, in our opinion, would be very bad for our militancy and our social
work (trade union, community, agrarian etc.) also contributed to this
option is the fact that our CAB regional (Southeast - Center West) was,
from 2021, functioning as an organization. They were unifying processes,
instances, lines, etc. And we saw, in practice, how this not only
advanced the process, but facilitated the daily organizational life. In
other words, it was not only possible, but also advantageous and
desirable to invest the organization in this coordination step.
With the disagreement of the majority of the state bodies of the CAB to
follow the path proposed by us, we decide to break in 2022. We leave
FARJ, COMPA, RL, OASL and, trying to maintain a public relationship of
respect with the CAB, we start the construction of the new organization,
which has been articulated in different sessions of our first congress
(CONOSL). In very general terms, in addition to founding the OSL, we
have aligned our organization, our lines and provided conditions for
nationalization (presence in all regions of Brazil).
Our centers and regions have been operating in a unique national
structure with the same organicity and advanced for an ideological,
theoretical, strategic and tactical unity. We have started from classic
references of anarchism that are at the base of organizational dualism
(of which specifism and platformism are historical expressions) and
tried to deepen and update our conceptions. We are beginning to develop
more significantly the structural and conjunctural analyses, our maximum
and minimum program, in addition to other elements. We have already
started our expansion towards the north-east and towards the south of
the country.
We are very encouraged by this new organizational moment and by the
advances that, despite being modest, seem very consistent to us, even
more so if we consider that OSL has been in existence for a year. We are
also very motivated by other important aspects, such as the optimal
internal climate and the growth of our social work, which we will talk
about later. Without a doubt, we are sure that we are contributing to
building a socialist and libertarian alternative for Brazil.
For the uninformed people, what is especifismo for you others?
Specificism is a historical expression of anarchist organizational
dualism. We believe that since its emergence in the late 1860s,
anarchism has developed this organizational form, organizational
dualism. It is exactly what Mikhaïl Bakunin defended and who founded the
Alliance, the first anarchist organization in history. Over the years,
militants and anarchist organizations defended this organizational form,
based on the need for concomitant organization of anarchists on two
levels: a political-ideological, anarchist one, and another social,
popular, mass one.
In its homogeneous and programmatic version of specific anarchist
organization, this tradition was defended by some classics. It had its
origin in the Alliance (or allianceism), and had two more relevant
historical expressions. One of them, inspired by the "Organizing
Platform of the General Union of Anarchists", written by the Dielo Truda
group, which came to be called "platformism", whose impact was felt
between the 1920s and 1950, mainly in Bulgaria, France and Italy, and
which, between the 1980s and 1990s, spread to countries such as South
Africa and Ireland. Another of these expressions, in which the Uruguayan
Anarchist Federation (FAU) played a leading role, was called
"specificism", whose impact was felt not only in Uruguay in the 1960s
and 1970, but in other South American countries, such as Brazil, Chile
and Argentina, especially from the 1990s onwards.
The term "specificism" and its variations were historically used in
Uruguay and other countries to refer to anarchists who advocated the
need for a specific anarchist organization. What the FAU did was to give
a more precise meaning to this term, based on its practical and
theoretical conceptions. The FAU arrived at this conception based on
references such as Bakunin, Errico Malatesta, revolutionary syndicalists
and expropriating anarchists, together with a reflection on imperialism
in Latin America stimulated, among others, by Abraham Guillén.
The OSL claims this homogeneous and programmatic organizational dualism,
of organizations that have unity of theoretical, ideological, strategic
and tactical positions. The main references are specificism and
platformism, which we understand as the legitimate heirs of allianceism.
We also have a reference in revolutionary syndicalism, in terms of mass
strategy, because we identify similarities between it and our proposal
to organize the oppressed classes and build a libertarian project of
popular power. Thus, we differ from anti-organizational,
anarcho-syndicalist anarchist positions (which generally fuse anarchist
organization and mass organization) and from the more heterogeneous
forms of specific anarchist organization, such as synthetism (which are
characterized by the plurality of political and programmatic positions ).
We can explain these positions a little better. We defend a conception
of mass anarchism, having revolutionary syndicalism as a strategy, which
is based on the construction and strengthening of popular movements
based on a clear line of action. But at the same time we defend the need
for a specifically anarchist organization, which is based on the
construction of a strategy and a unitary program for intervention in
reality. For us, it is only through an organization that anarchists can
enhance their power of intervention in reality and strengthen themselves
in disputes with other political and ideological currents. This is the
organizational dualism that guides our organization, which is very far
from individualist, primitivist, insurrectionist or post-anarchist
libertarian conceptions.
We conceive of the anarchist organization as a party based on some
organizational principles: self-management and federalism; theoretical
and ideological unity; the strategic and tactical unit; collective
responsibility and discipline. Of course, this is a party that,
precisely because it is anarchist, does not dispute the power of the
State or has authoritarian features.
For us, the role of the specific anarchist organization is: 1.)
Articulating anarchist militancy, avoiding the dispersion of forces,
since alone we are not able to dispute against other currents and
organizations and nor to influence popular movements with libertarian
principles. 2.) Constantly promote class struggle and a revolutionary
perspective, as we believe that unions and social movements do not
spontaneously move in this direction. Anarchist organization is
necessary to strengthen and radicalize these struggles, as well as to
defend and propagate our program among the oppressed classes. 3.) To
accumulate experiences of the oppressed classes, since we observe that
on several occasions there are losses of the forces accumulated in
movements and struggles, especially in periods of ebb; and the anarchist
organization can guarantee that this accumulation is preserved and
overcome in the future. 4.) Build a self-management project of popular
power, from the bottom up and from the periphery to the center, unifying
the different sectors (movements, struggles, etc.) of the oppressed
classes, based on a structure and a libertarian and complementary
relationship with the movements and the masses. 5.) To produce theory,
so that we can adequately interpret our past and our present and produce
a program capable of advancing our political project. For this, we have
advanced in the development of a method of analysis that we call
materialism or libertarian realism, as well as in a libertarian social
theory of our own. Some of these notions are found in a document of our
organization entitled "No s sos Principio o s e Estratégia Geral".
What differentiates this especifismo/plataformismo from other branches
of socialism?
Our socialism is libertarian and, therefore, differs from authoritarian
currents, which seek to conquer the State (via elections, reforms or
revolution) and which end up giving continuity to the domination of the
oppressed classes (following the bureaucracy, the alliances strategic
with bourgeoisie etc.). Our socialism is revolutionary and therefore
differs from reformist currents, which consider the reforms of
capitalism-statism as an end in itself or which believe that it is
possible to reach socialism by a cumulative set of restricted reforms.
Our socialism is also deeply classist and internationalist. So it
differs from the conceptions that affirm that it is no longer possible
to speak in social classes or to maintain a perspective based on class
struggle; it also differs from those positions which claim that class is
'just another oppression' or which treat it only in terms of class
identity. For us, the relationship between classes is structural and,
when addressing nationality, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc.,
we always do so from this classist perspective. Our socialism also
differs from the various forms of nationalism: ethnic-racial, religious,
territorial, anti-colonial/imperialist, etc.
As we have said, we defend mass anarchism and therefore support the need
for organization (as opposed to anti-organizationists), the need to
fight for reforms that point towards a revolutionary project (as opposed
to those who are opposed to the struggles for reforms), and the need for
advanced forms of struggle that are linked to mass struggles (as opposed
to those who consider acts of violence as tools to mobilize the masses).
In the anarchist organizational debate, we are organizational dualists,
and so we differ from those who organize only at the mass level, from
those who seek to circumscribe popular movements to anarchism, or from
those who believe that an anarchist collective or organization is
enough. We support the homogeneous and programmatic model of specific
anarchist organization, based on unity, which was historically expressed
in specificism and platformism, differentiating ourselves from the
heterogeneous model of synthesis. As we maintain that the anarchist
organization is self-managing/federalist and that it must have a
complementary and non-hierarchical relationship with the popular
movements, we differ from the Leninist parties.
In theoretical terms, our libertarian materialism/realism differs from
Marxist, neopositivist, or postmodern/poststructuralist approaches.
Below we make some counterpoints, but we recommend again to those
interested to read the document "Our Principles and General Strategy".
We can say that we have tried to avoid the contemporary temptation to
fight Marxism with postmodernism and vice versa, a trait that,
unfortunately, we identify with almost the entire left. We are building
a libertarian social theory from classic and contemporary authors of
anarchism, avoiding falling into this trap.
On the one hand, we think it is essential to overcome the limits and
resolve the contradictions of Marxism. On the other hand, we also
consider it important to avoid the enormous problems and misconceptions
of postmodernism, which has advanced globally with the adoption of
progressive liberalism by a considerable part of the left. We want to
affirm the importance of a critical science and reason, as well as a
reconciliation, on class bases, of the discussion on nationality,
gender/sexuality and race/ethnicity. Soon we want to publish material
that, in addition to explaining our theoretical positions in more depth,
also explains their differences with Marxism and postmodernism.
In addition to anarchism, what other historical experiences of the
struggle of the peoples of Brazil and Latin America inspired the OSL?
First of all, we must not forget that we are an internationalist
organization. To the extent that capitalism-statism is an international
and global system, our proposal must also accompany this perspective.
This is why organized anarchism, specificist and platformist, has an
international and global project, and has theoretical and practical
references that are also international and global.
But, having said that, we want to say that the fact that our
organization is located in Latin America in general, and in Brazil in
particular, means that, without a doubt, we are permanently inspired by
mobilizations and resistances in our region. We have a great tradition
of movements and struggles that have involved workers, enslaved people,
farmers, indigenous people, quilombolas, women and other subjects. It is
a broad experience of the oppressed classes, which started from
colonization and extends to the present. Below, we will mention some of
these movements and struggles that inspire us on a daily basis.
In Brazil, there were several indigenous organizations and
confederations, which fought against the Portuguese Empire, such as the
Confederation of the Tamoios (1557-1567), when the Tupinambás organized
an insurrectionary process against the Portuguese occupation in the
coastal region between Bertioga and Cap Frio. We can also mention the
Quilombo dos Palmares (1597-1695), a self-governing territory that
contained more than 20,000 inhabitants among freed Africans, indigenous
people and white allies, in the territory that is today the state of
Alagoas. It lasted almost a hundred years and freed other enslaved and
dominated peoples; he fought against the great Empires of the time
(Portugal and Spain) and inspired other processes of resistance to
slavery and colonization.
In general, the indigenous uprisings throughout Latin America must also
be remembered. They did not boil down to a desire for national and
statist independence, but aspired to the self-organization of several
peoples. Examples were the resistance of Túpac Amaru in the 16th
century, and of his descendant, Túpac Amaru II, in the 17th century.
Alongside the tradition of the Haitian Revolution (1791), several
indigenous, peasant and abolitionist struggles against slavery still
stirred up in Brazil. One of these was Canudos (1896-1897), another
self-organized territory in Brazil, which fought against hunger and
terrible living conditions, in the sertão of the state of Bahia. It was
led by Antnionio Conselheiro and, despite the contradictions, in
particular the messianic character of its leader and the religious
discourse, it organized a communal territory with more than 25,000
people, representing a threat to the order of the Empire and the future
republic
The abolitionist struggles against black slavery, which culminated in
abolition in 1889, and certain episodes of more radicalized
confrontation, such as the Mexican Revolution (1910-1913), were and
continue to be important for Brazilian anarchists. to have prominent
role of the anarchists, the fight for the independence of Cuba and the
fight against the occupation of Spain in Morocco.
Another fundamental source of inspiration was the experience of
revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism in Latin America,
carried out at the beginning of the 20th century. The anarchists were
fundamental in the construction of these forms of trade unionism in
countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, proposing to organize
workers at the base and encouraging their direct action for immediate
conquests against capital and the State and, at the same time time,
build a way for the revolutionary transformation of these societies.
Within this movement, women played a prominent role in different
localities. Both in the articulations and class confrontations and in
the struggles that involved the female issue, and that were responsible
for promoting, in society and in the movement itself, the need for
women's emancipation.
In Brazil, this revolutionary unionism drove three important strike
cycles: 1906-1907, 1913-1914, 1917-1920. The Great Assembly of
Representatives of the Soviet Union (1917), the general strike of
Curitiba (1917), the strike of the workers of the Company Cantarera and
Viació Fluminense (1918), the Anarchist Insurrection of Rio de Janeiro
(1918), the mobilization of the Union of Civil Construction Workers
(UOCC) and the conquest of the eight major mobilizations in Rio de Janeiro
These mobilizations brought together thousands of workers and achieved
the first labor rights in Brazil. In this period, several port and
factory dams were taken, through insurrectionary processes. The first
trade union organization of a national nature was the Brazilian Workers'
Confederation (1906), influenced by anarchist and feminist
organizations, such as the Anarchist Alliance (1916), the Communist
Anarchist Party of Brazil (1919) and the Feminist Communist League (1920). .
More recently, other Latin American experiences can be mentioned. From
the fight against the military dictatorship in different Latin American
countries, especially in Uruguay with the FAU - which led a radicalized
process of struggle, by means of an armed arm (Organización Popular
Revolucionaria 33 Orientals, OPR-33) and an arm of the masses (Tendència
Combativa / Convención Nacional de Trabajadores, CNT), deeply
influential - to numerous mobilizations of farmers, rural and urban
workers. From the revolts of the Mapuche people to the Zapatistas of
Chiapas, in Mexico.
In the years 1990-2000, anarchists in Brazil spoke of a process of
"democratic radicalization" and a "prolonged popular struggle". How do
you rate this concept today?
These are concepts that were very relevant in this period that you cite
and that were incorporated into our theoretical proposal.
When we talk about "democratic radicalization", this sums up, in other
words, our conception of generalized socialization, our own conception
of socialism. This conception differs from the notion that socialism
means only the socialization of private ownership of the means of
production. Without mentioning that, throughout the 20th century, a huge
sector of socialists ethically "transformed" socialization into
nationalization (which are completely different notions), the fact is
that this democratic radicalization means, in our current, a
socialization that involves the fields economic, political and
moral-intellectual (cultural). The radicalization of democracy means
implementing self-management in economic terms (end of private property
and establishment of collective property), political (end of the State
and political decision-making established by popular and grassroots
organizations) and cultural (end of the monopoly of the production and
dissemination of knowledge and information and its consequent
socialization).
When we talk about "prolonged popular struggle", this reminds us of
something relevant: the fact that a revolutionary social transformation
such as this before us is not a short- or medium-term project. We
believe there are no shortcuts to it. We have seen how the revolutions
of the 20th century tried to shorten this process and did little more
than replace bourgeois rule with bureaucratic rule, giving continuity to
class society, domination, exploitation, etc. This process of socialist
and libertarian transformation that we want to promote is something that
must be built daily, step by step, and it is essential to have
revolutionary patience for this. In general, we use a metaphor when we
talk about this topic: we are running a marathon and it is not good to
want to run ahead only to give up after a short time; we must be able to
endure over time and ensure the victory of the oppressed classes in the end.
Today, although there is a lot of talk about colonialism and
imperialism, there is not so much talk about National Liberation.
Considering that the specificist anarchism of the 60-70s spoke of social
and national revolution at the same time, today, how do you assess this
issue?
This is an interesting topic. When we study anarchism and leave the
North Atlantic axis (Western Europe and the USA), on which historians of
anarchism have concentrated almost exclusively, we find a long tradition
of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and national liberation struggles .
The national question has always been dear to the anarchists of the
peripheral countries, who in most cases have dealt with it consistently.
They defended libertarian, revolutionary, classist and internationalist
theoretical and practical lines.
This has been the case in various contexts. For example, in
revolutionary Ukraine (1918-1921), when the Makhnovists had to face
Austro-German imperialism; in revolutionary Manchuria/Korea (1929-1932),
when anarchists were forced to fight against Japanese imperialism; in
the Uruguay of the pre-1973 military dictatorship, when the FAU had to
face US imperialism.
Today we have an interesting panorama. Part of anarchism (and the left
itself) of the North Atlantic axis continues to minimize the national
question and, especially in the case of anarchists, to confuse national
liberation struggles with nationalism. On the other hand, a growing
influence (curiously, often due to the influence of the United States
and Western Europe) of decolonial, postcolonial and other theoretical
perspectives that, while on the one hand they make correct criticisms of
Eurocentrism, on the other another, they often fall into postmodernism,
into nationalisms and end up having a limited influence in practice.
For us, all this becomes clear when we analyze the genocide that the
State of Israel is currently carrying out against the Palestinian
population. The Zionism that subsidizes the Israeli government is a
colonialist and racist doctrine, and we are witnessing in real time an
unprecedented massacre, which must be denounced and combated with all
the necessary force. It is clear that this is not a criticism of the
Jewish people, nor a form of anti-Semitism, since, among Jews, there
have been and are other doctrines contrary to Zionism, and many of them
are against the current genocide . The curious thing is that many of
these who adopt decolonial, postcolonial, etc. positions. they remain
silent in relation to what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
We must resume this anti-colonial and anti-imperialist anarchist
tradition throughout the world. This will be important in combating not
only Israeli Zionism, but also American imperialism. Among other things,
this will also make anarchists improve their analyzes and positions on
the war between Russia and Ukraine. For example, it has been common in
the global left (and even in sectors of anarchism) to assume the
positions of US imperialism in the region and defend Ukraine acutely;
and also uncritically second Russia's imperialist interests in the
region, as this would be a way of undermining US imperialism.
Ultimately, it is necessary to resume the anti-colonial,
anti-imperialist and national liberation anarchist tradition, making it
possible to understand reality and adopt forms of political intervention
based on libertarian, revolutionary, classist and internationalist budgets.
https://embat.info/entrevista-osl-part1/
_________________________________________
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
with Brazil's sister organization OSL (Organización Socialista
Libertaria). This first part focuses on: The OSL and its conception of
anarchism. ---- What is the origin of OSL? ---- Our organization,
although new, is heir to an experience that goes back to the beginning
of specific anarchism in Brazil (less than the 1990s). Even the name we
have chosen is a reference to the old OSL, which between 1997 and 2000
was the first attempt to form a specific anarchist organization of
national scope. The old OSL had its limits and ultimately could not move
forward. At the end of the process, his militancy realized that, at that
moment, investing in a national organization was "starting to build the
house from the roof". He decided to take a few steps back and refocus
the process.
On the one hand, to strengthen the grassroots work, the construction and
participation in popular movements and social struggles - what was done
with the foundation of different Popular Resistance - trend groupings
(intermediate organizations between the political organization and the
movements of masses), which aimed to gather libertarian sectors of
workers and have an impact on these movements and struggles. On the
other hand, resume the debate at an ideological, anarchist level,
creating an organizational broth that could point, in the medium term,
to this national anarchist organization. For this, the Forum of
Organized Anarchism (FAO) was created in 2002, which sought to unite
anarchists who agreed on two priority axes: the need for organization of
anarchists and the need for social work (grassroots, mass) .
This process allowed the development of specificist anarchism in Brazil.
There were collectives and organizations that remained in the process,
others that arose and/or that were added to it; but there were also
those that disarticulated or broke. However, in general, particularly
from 2008/9 onwards, the FAO has established itself and managed to
develop significantly, consolidating a series of organizational
initiatives in different States of Brazil. This allowed considerable
progress, which culminated in the founding of the Brazilian Anarchist
Coordination (CAB), in 2012.
The idea to articulate a coordination was exactly to take an
organizational step and transform the old forum (space for exchanges of
reports, experiences, etc.) into something with a little more organicity
and alignment. Coordination was exactly this means between the forum and
the political organization. We actively participated in this process in
the 10 years we were in the CAB; with it we manage to advance some
initial alignments in terms of theory and practice.
The OSL was born in July 2023, from a merger between the Anarchist
Federation of Rio de Janeiro (FARJ, state of Rio de Janeiro), the
Coletivo Mineiro Popular Anarquista (COMPA, state of Minas Gerais), the
Rusga Libertaria (RL, state of Mato Grosso), the Anarchist Organization
Socialismo Libertário (OASL, state of São Paulo), as well as different
individuals. The OSL settled for a sector with roughly half the
militancy of the CAB, which dissociated itself from it on the
understanding that coordination had fulfilled its role and that it was
necessary to take a step further.
" WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO BUILD A SOCIALIST AND LIBERTARY ALTERNATIVE FOR
BRAZIL"
But why is this new libertarian communist organization of a specific
type formed?
In our assessment, the process of growth that we end up adopting in
Brazil (based on the constitution and articulation of "organic groups",
as recommended by the process of Brazilian anarchist construction, since
the 1990s), had the virtue of advancing anarchism organized
geographically in different regions and aggregating many people, on the
other hand it ended up showing certain limits.
This growth, which took place in the context of the FAO and the CAB,
occurred in a somewhat disorderly manner, and allowed the grouping of
groups and organizations which, in addition to the agreement with
anarchist principles and specific, they had many differences. It ended
up stimulating a certain local/regional autonomy of state bodies, making
it increasingly difficult to align and homogenize theoretical and
strategic positions, and move towards unitary structures and lines. It
is clear that the situation has had a certain influence on this process,
as well as the uneven development that has occurred in the different
regions. However, in our assessment this has not been the crux of the
matter.
In the context of the discussions for the construction of our national
organization (which was always the objective of the FAO and the CAB) and
the internal conflicts that occurred around them, it gradually became
clear to us , especially from 2019, that there was a complicated
scenario in our coordination. On the one hand, very different
conceptions of political line (anarchism, specifism, theory) and
strategic- tactical line (programme, political practice). On the other
hand, an entire sector with little interest/intention to advance
homogenization and unification, essential for the formation of a
political organization. Moreover, even in the sectors that defended this
advance, there were often very heterogeneous positions.
It was clear to us that the paths we had were the following. 1.) Keep
the CAB in the stage it was in, without moving towards a national
organization; solution that, after 10 years of CAB, did not seem right
to us. 2.) Insist on this process of homogenization and unification,
making the dispute internal in the CAB; which, in our reading, would
greatly raise the level of conflicts, which was already high, and would
certainly not attract certain sectors. 3.) Propose the closure of the
CAB and place our organizational proposal; thus, militancy and state
bodies that agreed could join us, and those that did not agree would be
free to build other projects.
We choose the latter path because we do not think it is right to remain
in this organizational state and neither invest in an internal dispute
that, according to our assessment, would take some years to resolve,
would bring us back inside and greatly intensify the internal level of
conflict ( that there would be wear, splits, expulsions, etc.). All
this, in our opinion, would be very bad for our militancy and our social
work (trade union, community, agrarian etc.) also contributed to this
option is the fact that our CAB regional (Southeast - Center West) was,
from 2021, functioning as an organization. They were unifying processes,
instances, lines, etc. And we saw, in practice, how this not only
advanced the process, but facilitated the daily organizational life. In
other words, it was not only possible, but also advantageous and
desirable to invest the organization in this coordination step.
With the disagreement of the majority of the state bodies of the CAB to
follow the path proposed by us, we decide to break in 2022. We leave
FARJ, COMPA, RL, OASL and, trying to maintain a public relationship of
respect with the CAB, we start the construction of the new organization,
which has been articulated in different sessions of our first congress
(CONOSL). In very general terms, in addition to founding the OSL, we
have aligned our organization, our lines and provided conditions for
nationalization (presence in all regions of Brazil).
Our centers and regions have been operating in a unique national
structure with the same organicity and advanced for an ideological,
theoretical, strategic and tactical unity. We have started from classic
references of anarchism that are at the base of organizational dualism
(of which specifism and platformism are historical expressions) and
tried to deepen and update our conceptions. We are beginning to develop
more significantly the structural and conjunctural analyses, our maximum
and minimum program, in addition to other elements. We have already
started our expansion towards the north-east and towards the south of
the country.
We are very encouraged by this new organizational moment and by the
advances that, despite being modest, seem very consistent to us, even
more so if we consider that OSL has been in existence for a year. We are
also very motivated by other important aspects, such as the optimal
internal climate and the growth of our social work, which we will talk
about later. Without a doubt, we are sure that we are contributing to
building a socialist and libertarian alternative for Brazil.
For the uninformed people, what is especifismo for you others?
Specificism is a historical expression of anarchist organizational
dualism. We believe that since its emergence in the late 1860s,
anarchism has developed this organizational form, organizational
dualism. It is exactly what Mikhaïl Bakunin defended and who founded the
Alliance, the first anarchist organization in history. Over the years,
militants and anarchist organizations defended this organizational form,
based on the need for concomitant organization of anarchists on two
levels: a political-ideological, anarchist one, and another social,
popular, mass one.
In its homogeneous and programmatic version of specific anarchist
organization, this tradition was defended by some classics. It had its
origin in the Alliance (or allianceism), and had two more relevant
historical expressions. One of them, inspired by the "Organizing
Platform of the General Union of Anarchists", written by the Dielo Truda
group, which came to be called "platformism", whose impact was felt
between the 1920s and 1950, mainly in Bulgaria, France and Italy, and
which, between the 1980s and 1990s, spread to countries such as South
Africa and Ireland. Another of these expressions, in which the Uruguayan
Anarchist Federation (FAU) played a leading role, was called
"specificism", whose impact was felt not only in Uruguay in the 1960s
and 1970, but in other South American countries, such as Brazil, Chile
and Argentina, especially from the 1990s onwards.
The term "specificism" and its variations were historically used in
Uruguay and other countries to refer to anarchists who advocated the
need for a specific anarchist organization. What the FAU did was to give
a more precise meaning to this term, based on its practical and
theoretical conceptions. The FAU arrived at this conception based on
references such as Bakunin, Errico Malatesta, revolutionary syndicalists
and expropriating anarchists, together with a reflection on imperialism
in Latin America stimulated, among others, by Abraham Guillén.
The OSL claims this homogeneous and programmatic organizational dualism,
of organizations that have unity of theoretical, ideological, strategic
and tactical positions. The main references are specificism and
platformism, which we understand as the legitimate heirs of allianceism.
We also have a reference in revolutionary syndicalism, in terms of mass
strategy, because we identify similarities between it and our proposal
to organize the oppressed classes and build a libertarian project of
popular power. Thus, we differ from anti-organizational,
anarcho-syndicalist anarchist positions (which generally fuse anarchist
organization and mass organization) and from the more heterogeneous
forms of specific anarchist organization, such as synthetism (which are
characterized by the plurality of political and programmatic positions ).
We can explain these positions a little better. We defend a conception
of mass anarchism, having revolutionary syndicalism as a strategy, which
is based on the construction and strengthening of popular movements
based on a clear line of action. But at the same time we defend the need
for a specifically anarchist organization, which is based on the
construction of a strategy and a unitary program for intervention in
reality. For us, it is only through an organization that anarchists can
enhance their power of intervention in reality and strengthen themselves
in disputes with other political and ideological currents. This is the
organizational dualism that guides our organization, which is very far
from individualist, primitivist, insurrectionist or post-anarchist
libertarian conceptions.
We conceive of the anarchist organization as a party based on some
organizational principles: self-management and federalism; theoretical
and ideological unity; the strategic and tactical unit; collective
responsibility and discipline. Of course, this is a party that,
precisely because it is anarchist, does not dispute the power of the
State or has authoritarian features.
For us, the role of the specific anarchist organization is: 1.)
Articulating anarchist militancy, avoiding the dispersion of forces,
since alone we are not able to dispute against other currents and
organizations and nor to influence popular movements with libertarian
principles. 2.) Constantly promote class struggle and a revolutionary
perspective, as we believe that unions and social movements do not
spontaneously move in this direction. Anarchist organization is
necessary to strengthen and radicalize these struggles, as well as to
defend and propagate our program among the oppressed classes. 3.) To
accumulate experiences of the oppressed classes, since we observe that
on several occasions there are losses of the forces accumulated in
movements and struggles, especially in periods of ebb; and the anarchist
organization can guarantee that this accumulation is preserved and
overcome in the future. 4.) Build a self-management project of popular
power, from the bottom up and from the periphery to the center, unifying
the different sectors (movements, struggles, etc.) of the oppressed
classes, based on a structure and a libertarian and complementary
relationship with the movements and the masses. 5.) To produce theory,
so that we can adequately interpret our past and our present and produce
a program capable of advancing our political project. For this, we have
advanced in the development of a method of analysis that we call
materialism or libertarian realism, as well as in a libertarian social
theory of our own. Some of these notions are found in a document of our
organization entitled "No s sos Principio o s e Estratégia Geral".
What differentiates this especifismo/plataformismo from other branches
of socialism?
Our socialism is libertarian and, therefore, differs from authoritarian
currents, which seek to conquer the State (via elections, reforms or
revolution) and which end up giving continuity to the domination of the
oppressed classes (following the bureaucracy, the alliances strategic
with bourgeoisie etc.). Our socialism is revolutionary and therefore
differs from reformist currents, which consider the reforms of
capitalism-statism as an end in itself or which believe that it is
possible to reach socialism by a cumulative set of restricted reforms.
Our socialism is also deeply classist and internationalist. So it
differs from the conceptions that affirm that it is no longer possible
to speak in social classes or to maintain a perspective based on class
struggle; it also differs from those positions which claim that class is
'just another oppression' or which treat it only in terms of class
identity. For us, the relationship between classes is structural and,
when addressing nationality, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc.,
we always do so from this classist perspective. Our socialism also
differs from the various forms of nationalism: ethnic-racial, religious,
territorial, anti-colonial/imperialist, etc.
As we have said, we defend mass anarchism and therefore support the need
for organization (as opposed to anti-organizationists), the need to
fight for reforms that point towards a revolutionary project (as opposed
to those who are opposed to the struggles for reforms), and the need for
advanced forms of struggle that are linked to mass struggles (as opposed
to those who consider acts of violence as tools to mobilize the masses).
In the anarchist organizational debate, we are organizational dualists,
and so we differ from those who organize only at the mass level, from
those who seek to circumscribe popular movements to anarchism, or from
those who believe that an anarchist collective or organization is
enough. We support the homogeneous and programmatic model of specific
anarchist organization, based on unity, which was historically expressed
in specificism and platformism, differentiating ourselves from the
heterogeneous model of synthesis. As we maintain that the anarchist
organization is self-managing/federalist and that it must have a
complementary and non-hierarchical relationship with the popular
movements, we differ from the Leninist parties.
In theoretical terms, our libertarian materialism/realism differs from
Marxist, neopositivist, or postmodern/poststructuralist approaches.
Below we make some counterpoints, but we recommend again to those
interested to read the document "Our Principles and General Strategy".
We can say that we have tried to avoid the contemporary temptation to
fight Marxism with postmodernism and vice versa, a trait that,
unfortunately, we identify with almost the entire left. We are building
a libertarian social theory from classic and contemporary authors of
anarchism, avoiding falling into this trap.
On the one hand, we think it is essential to overcome the limits and
resolve the contradictions of Marxism. On the other hand, we also
consider it important to avoid the enormous problems and misconceptions
of postmodernism, which has advanced globally with the adoption of
progressive liberalism by a considerable part of the left. We want to
affirm the importance of a critical science and reason, as well as a
reconciliation, on class bases, of the discussion on nationality,
gender/sexuality and race/ethnicity. Soon we want to publish material
that, in addition to explaining our theoretical positions in more depth,
also explains their differences with Marxism and postmodernism.
In addition to anarchism, what other historical experiences of the
struggle of the peoples of Brazil and Latin America inspired the OSL?
First of all, we must not forget that we are an internationalist
organization. To the extent that capitalism-statism is an international
and global system, our proposal must also accompany this perspective.
This is why organized anarchism, specificist and platformist, has an
international and global project, and has theoretical and practical
references that are also international and global.
But, having said that, we want to say that the fact that our
organization is located in Latin America in general, and in Brazil in
particular, means that, without a doubt, we are permanently inspired by
mobilizations and resistances in our region. We have a great tradition
of movements and struggles that have involved workers, enslaved people,
farmers, indigenous people, quilombolas, women and other subjects. It is
a broad experience of the oppressed classes, which started from
colonization and extends to the present. Below, we will mention some of
these movements and struggles that inspire us on a daily basis.
In Brazil, there were several indigenous organizations and
confederations, which fought against the Portuguese Empire, such as the
Confederation of the Tamoios (1557-1567), when the Tupinambás organized
an insurrectionary process against the Portuguese occupation in the
coastal region between Bertioga and Cap Frio. We can also mention the
Quilombo dos Palmares (1597-1695), a self-governing territory that
contained more than 20,000 inhabitants among freed Africans, indigenous
people and white allies, in the territory that is today the state of
Alagoas. It lasted almost a hundred years and freed other enslaved and
dominated peoples; he fought against the great Empires of the time
(Portugal and Spain) and inspired other processes of resistance to
slavery and colonization.
In general, the indigenous uprisings throughout Latin America must also
be remembered. They did not boil down to a desire for national and
statist independence, but aspired to the self-organization of several
peoples. Examples were the resistance of Túpac Amaru in the 16th
century, and of his descendant, Túpac Amaru II, in the 17th century.
Alongside the tradition of the Haitian Revolution (1791), several
indigenous, peasant and abolitionist struggles against slavery still
stirred up in Brazil. One of these was Canudos (1896-1897), another
self-organized territory in Brazil, which fought against hunger and
terrible living conditions, in the sertão of the state of Bahia. It was
led by Antnionio Conselheiro and, despite the contradictions, in
particular the messianic character of its leader and the religious
discourse, it organized a communal territory with more than 25,000
people, representing a threat to the order of the Empire and the future
republic
The abolitionist struggles against black slavery, which culminated in
abolition in 1889, and certain episodes of more radicalized
confrontation, such as the Mexican Revolution (1910-1913), were and
continue to be important for Brazilian anarchists. to have prominent
role of the anarchists, the fight for the independence of Cuba and the
fight against the occupation of Spain in Morocco.
Another fundamental source of inspiration was the experience of
revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism in Latin America,
carried out at the beginning of the 20th century. The anarchists were
fundamental in the construction of these forms of trade unionism in
countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, proposing to organize
workers at the base and encouraging their direct action for immediate
conquests against capital and the State and, at the same time time,
build a way for the revolutionary transformation of these societies.
Within this movement, women played a prominent role in different
localities. Both in the articulations and class confrontations and in
the struggles that involved the female issue, and that were responsible
for promoting, in society and in the movement itself, the need for
women's emancipation.
In Brazil, this revolutionary unionism drove three important strike
cycles: 1906-1907, 1913-1914, 1917-1920. The Great Assembly of
Representatives of the Soviet Union (1917), the general strike of
Curitiba (1917), the strike of the workers of the Company Cantarera and
Viació Fluminense (1918), the Anarchist Insurrection of Rio de Janeiro
(1918), the mobilization of the Union of Civil Construction Workers
(UOCC) and the conquest of the eight major mobilizations in Rio de Janeiro
These mobilizations brought together thousands of workers and achieved
the first labor rights in Brazil. In this period, several port and
factory dams were taken, through insurrectionary processes. The first
trade union organization of a national nature was the Brazilian Workers'
Confederation (1906), influenced by anarchist and feminist
organizations, such as the Anarchist Alliance (1916), the Communist
Anarchist Party of Brazil (1919) and the Feminist Communist League (1920). .
More recently, other Latin American experiences can be mentioned. From
the fight against the military dictatorship in different Latin American
countries, especially in Uruguay with the FAU - which led a radicalized
process of struggle, by means of an armed arm (Organización Popular
Revolucionaria 33 Orientals, OPR-33) and an arm of the masses (Tendència
Combativa / Convención Nacional de Trabajadores, CNT), deeply
influential - to numerous mobilizations of farmers, rural and urban
workers. From the revolts of the Mapuche people to the Zapatistas of
Chiapas, in Mexico.
In the years 1990-2000, anarchists in Brazil spoke of a process of
"democratic radicalization" and a "prolonged popular struggle". How do
you rate this concept today?
These are concepts that were very relevant in this period that you cite
and that were incorporated into our theoretical proposal.
When we talk about "democratic radicalization", this sums up, in other
words, our conception of generalized socialization, our own conception
of socialism. This conception differs from the notion that socialism
means only the socialization of private ownership of the means of
production. Without mentioning that, throughout the 20th century, a huge
sector of socialists ethically "transformed" socialization into
nationalization (which are completely different notions), the fact is
that this democratic radicalization means, in our current, a
socialization that involves the fields economic, political and
moral-intellectual (cultural). The radicalization of democracy means
implementing self-management in economic terms (end of private property
and establishment of collective property), political (end of the State
and political decision-making established by popular and grassroots
organizations) and cultural (end of the monopoly of the production and
dissemination of knowledge and information and its consequent
socialization).
When we talk about "prolonged popular struggle", this reminds us of
something relevant: the fact that a revolutionary social transformation
such as this before us is not a short- or medium-term project. We
believe there are no shortcuts to it. We have seen how the revolutions
of the 20th century tried to shorten this process and did little more
than replace bourgeois rule with bureaucratic rule, giving continuity to
class society, domination, exploitation, etc. This process of socialist
and libertarian transformation that we want to promote is something that
must be built daily, step by step, and it is essential to have
revolutionary patience for this. In general, we use a metaphor when we
talk about this topic: we are running a marathon and it is not good to
want to run ahead only to give up after a short time; we must be able to
endure over time and ensure the victory of the oppressed classes in the end.
Today, although there is a lot of talk about colonialism and
imperialism, there is not so much talk about National Liberation.
Considering that the specificist anarchism of the 60-70s spoke of social
and national revolution at the same time, today, how do you assess this
issue?
This is an interesting topic. When we study anarchism and leave the
North Atlantic axis (Western Europe and the USA), on which historians of
anarchism have concentrated almost exclusively, we find a long tradition
of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and national liberation struggles .
The national question has always been dear to the anarchists of the
peripheral countries, who in most cases have dealt with it consistently.
They defended libertarian, revolutionary, classist and internationalist
theoretical and practical lines.
This has been the case in various contexts. For example, in
revolutionary Ukraine (1918-1921), when the Makhnovists had to face
Austro-German imperialism; in revolutionary Manchuria/Korea (1929-1932),
when anarchists were forced to fight against Japanese imperialism; in
the Uruguay of the pre-1973 military dictatorship, when the FAU had to
face US imperialism.
Today we have an interesting panorama. Part of anarchism (and the left
itself) of the North Atlantic axis continues to minimize the national
question and, especially in the case of anarchists, to confuse national
liberation struggles with nationalism. On the other hand, a growing
influence (curiously, often due to the influence of the United States
and Western Europe) of decolonial, postcolonial and other theoretical
perspectives that, while on the one hand they make correct criticisms of
Eurocentrism, on the other another, they often fall into postmodernism,
into nationalisms and end up having a limited influence in practice.
For us, all this becomes clear when we analyze the genocide that the
State of Israel is currently carrying out against the Palestinian
population. The Zionism that subsidizes the Israeli government is a
colonialist and racist doctrine, and we are witnessing in real time an
unprecedented massacre, which must be denounced and combated with all
the necessary force. It is clear that this is not a criticism of the
Jewish people, nor a form of anti-Semitism, since, among Jews, there
have been and are other doctrines contrary to Zionism, and many of them
are against the current genocide . The curious thing is that many of
these who adopt decolonial, postcolonial, etc. positions. they remain
silent in relation to what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
We must resume this anti-colonial and anti-imperialist anarchist
tradition throughout the world. This will be important in combating not
only Israeli Zionism, but also American imperialism. Among other things,
this will also make anarchists improve their analyzes and positions on
the war between Russia and Ukraine. For example, it has been common in
the global left (and even in sectors of anarchism) to assume the
positions of US imperialism in the region and defend Ukraine acutely;
and also uncritically second Russia's imperialist interests in the
region, as this would be a way of undermining US imperialism.
Ultimately, it is necessary to resume the anti-colonial,
anti-imperialist and national liberation anarchist tradition, making it
possible to understand reality and adopt forms of political intervention
based on libertarian, revolutionary, classist and internationalist budgets.
https://embat.info/entrevista-osl-part1/
_________________________________________
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