In 2001, the autonomist collective Tiqqun published their popular text, "How to Do It?" This text is a clear example of its time and perfectly encapsulates the spirit of defeat that permeated the libertarian movement for far too long. With their distinctive poetic and cryptic style, they argue that emancipatory political practice must abandon the revolutionary "what to do?" to focus on the "how to do it?" embodying the prevailing common sense of the era: the abandonment of any mass emancipatory project in favor of particular lifestyle experiences.
This article aims to defend-within social and organized anarchism, and also within the context of Specifist or Platformist organizations-the ethical codes for political intervention from a strategic, rather than a moral, perspective. In contrast to positions that understand these documents as guides designed for a politics focused on " forms , " prioritizing "how to do" over "what to do," we propose understanding these theoretical developments as central components of our strategic tools.
At the same time, we believe that a strategic reading of these ethical codes is necessary to move away from individualistic dynamics with which we have not yet decisively broken free and which lead us to identity politics, self-referential and completely detached from mass movements.
What is a militant code of ethics?
It is a document, established within a militant organization as a fundamental text, that explains how the political activity of the organization's members unfolds in the various spaces where they are active. It outlines which practices and attitudes are acceptable and promoted by the organization, and which are not accepted or are even sanctioned. This allows us to identify and challenge those attitudes that undermine the assembly process both internally and in the spaces where we are active.
In turn, it is a practical tool that guarantees the good representation of the organization in the spaces in which its members participate, and also provides guidelines to the organization itself to have internal debates in an ethical and honest manner.
An example of this can be found here in Liza's code of ethics.
What needs do militant ethical codes address?
It addresses the shortcomings we have experienced as activists in other organizations that prioritized personal affinity over political objectives. It serves to guide our political intervention and activist behavior both within the organization itself and in broader, shared spaces. In other words, it allows us to pursue our primary objective: the development of spaces for class self-organization.
But, and here comes the problem we want to point out, they often try to fulfill the function of many libertarian activists of explaining and justifying their political activity to the libertarian movement, which claims to be critical of and a defender of those who threaten the autonomy of self-organized spaces.
And so we went from thinking of a document that helps us achieve our political objectives, to a text that serves as a shield to defend ourselves against "anarchist" criticisms , prioritizing the need to have a declaration of agreed principles, to differentiate ourselves from ideologies that defend the co-optation of spaces as a valid tool to achieve their ends and also to guarantee our good work in the face of libertarian comrades who maintain a constant suspicion against our organizations.
What is this anti-authoritarian alert that they are trying to appease?
Part of the libertarian movement has for years defended positions that prioritize individual over collective participation in mass movements. Group and organized participation has become synonymous with a threat due to its potential to become bureaucratized and replicate authoritarian dynamics. This has led to criticism of any political organization that seeks to participate in broad and pluralistic spaces, under the accusation of co-optation and authoritarianism.
The limits of libertarian individualist critique
However, years of activism have made it clear that individual participation in broad spaces is no more justified than collective participation. Moreover, collective forms of participation allow spaces to be more representative and garner more support than can be achieved directly through individual action.
Individual participation does not free us from dishonest methods and practices, from actions aimed at limiting the autonomy of spaces, or from processes of co-optation by individuals. And certainly, individual participation has not been able to confront these processes of co-optation, neither those carried out by authoritarian or reformist parties, nor those perpetrated by more or less charismatic individuals.
Nor have spaces formed by individuals been any safer from the dynamics of bureaucratization. Individual participation does not guarantee that spaces will develop with fairer, more horizontal, or politically combative dynamics.
We all know how large spaces for self-organization are frequented by informal organizations that operate opaquely. These individualistic dynamics transform informal conversations after the assembly, among people with a certain ideological affinity, into the true decision-making spaces, shifting the center of decision-making to the private sphere of a select few.
Critique of moralistic understandings of ethical codes
As long as we continue to understand and explain the ethical codes we've adopted as a response to these co-optation dynamics, we'll be pandering to individualistic common sense. These criticisms are, for the most part, completely divorced from our political practice and only seek to drain our energy with sterile debates. It's a waste of time and energy to feed a ghetto that is not representative of the working class we want to reach.
Our practice is demonstrated through actions, not words or codes. We must show ourselves on the front lines of the masses as revolutionary militants who contribute to spaces of self-organization. Only in this way will we earn their respect. Ideas are established through militant work that is useful to our class, not through empty, self-referential speeches.
We don't have to justify ourselves to people who have no intention of participating in strategic debates honestly and with commitment. Instead of dedicating our time to dismantling the liberal discourse that perpetuates individualistic dynamics, we choose to distance ourselves further and further from society by debating issues that have no bearing on the reality we want to transform. If we intend to combat cultural hegemony, we must examine the extent to which the liberal discourse has materialized within our movement, under the premise that defending individual liberty is more important than building solid structures capable of confronting the state and capital.
Let's stop focusing our politics, and dedicating a significant portion of our time, to a self-destructive and condescending political environment. With this practice, all we achieve is perpetuating an egocentric and self-referential politics that prioritizes the "how" over the "what," without fostering a connection between the two.
From the politics of how , to the politics of what: a "how" for a "what"
Anarchism has worked hard to show how certain paths-authoritarian, interventionist, and paternalistic-do not lead to widespread emancipation. Tools such as direct action, self-management, and autonomy are essential for the development of revolutionary processes.
But the necessary coherence between means and ends has become a coherence between means and " principles . " Lifestyle anarchism, which subordinates any ultimate goal to immediate gratification and group confirmation, has led us to accept certain premises that are highly detrimental to any policy that aspires to be revolutionary or even simply transformative.
Using ethical codes to justify our political practice implies that we accept that individual participation is less dangerous than collective participation, or that collective participation is potentially more dangerous than individual participation, and while organizations adopt ethical codes, lone wolves and "free riders"-those who are only accountable to themselves-continue to impose their liberal dynamics in these spaces.
Understanding ethical codes as internal standards of behavior, instead of applying and sharing them with broader groups to unleash their full strategic potential, limits them to mere internal protocols. We must be able to disseminate these codes to the various organizations, assemblies, and unions in which we participate. The true value of these codes lies in fostering a militant culture within the spaces where we operate; only then will they transcend being isolated internal documents and become a powerful tool for transformation.
This moral understanding of ethical codes involves a shift from the " what " to the " how " without creating any connection between the two. It implies a renunciation of building spaces with well-founded strategic objectives in favor of the autonomist logic of creating supposedly alternative spaces. And without realizing it, we have returned to the fold of political impotence.
Failing to draw the necessary strategic conclusions, our energy is once again channeled into a self-satisfied political ghetto, subservient to political correctness and informal dynamics. Under the ghetto's logic, which prioritizes the appearance of rebellion over the real transformation of society, our capacity to generate a politically valid strategy and tactics for our struggle is nullified. This inability to act outside the ghetto leads to political impotence that benefits our class enemies and causes us to abandon our historical duty as anarchists, turning us into a political caricature devoid of offensive power.
Codes of ethics as top-priority strategic developments
The logic of platformism stems from the socialist principle that the working class will only liberate itself through conscious action to seize power. Therefore, we reject insular and niche politics and advocate for mass politics. We don't believe that revolution can be made by individual revolutionaries, but rather by the working class as a whole, the revolutionary subject, when it decides to change everything from top to bottom. For this reason, our understanding of revolutionary politics is one of the masses.
But far from a simplistic understanding of this maxim, and thanks to the application of social, political, and historical analytical tools, it is concluded that this process is neither mechanical nor automatic. For the working class to participate in its own struggle, it must develop class consciousness[1]and build an organization capable of ending the bourgeois system of capitalist exploitation.[2]
This political process contains within itself a revolutionary and transformative potential that makes it a real threat to the bourgeois system, which is why it has historically been persecuted and massacred, with the ultimate goal of nullifying the workers' capacity to carry out the economic and social revolution.
We anarchists must organize ourselves with strategic and operational unity to be an agent that can foster this process of self-construction and the development of an emancipatory trajectory. One of our main tasks is to defend class movements in their construction from social-democratic and bourgeois drifts and from those agents who threaten this development by depriving them of the tools and understanding necessary to wage their own struggles.
Codes of ethics serve to explain the pitfalls and threats faced by self-organizing processes and how to combat them. Focusing on a self-referential reading, which does not seek to apply the code of ethics to workers' spaces, is to relinquish its strategic potential.
The ethical codes aim to help us evaluate and safeguard the development of self-organized spaces. We have no interest in co-opting political spaces because we understand that co-optation eliminates their revolutionary potential. We don't need to justify ourselves; it is our own conviction in the platformist idea and our will to make it a reality that guides, and will always guide, our political action. No accusation can diminish our honest intention to achieve total emancipation for our class.
For more information, we recommend reading the article "Co-optation is not hegemony" here .
A space co-opted by an organization ceases to produce revolutionary subjectivity-class consciousness-in its participants. It prevents its members from developing analytically, strategically, or practically, since all these activities become controlled. We don't defend the autonomy of these spaces because we are pure of heart. We defend autonomous spaces because without them, revolution cannot occur, or because once achieved, it will degenerate and be defeated by itself.
The only way to develop the revolutionary potential of our class and to achieve worker consciousness is the tireless defense of the spaces of worker self-organization because these spaces are the only ones that represent our fundamental interests[3]as a class.
The slogan "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves" must be understood strategically; it is not an empty slogan. It means that only when the working class as a whole takes direct control of all social activity will a systemic change have occurred. Conquering hegemony and regaining control over our lives is a fundamental task of our movement; only in this way will we move from transforming the desire for social change and the hope for a new world into a revolutionary reality.
We carry a new world in our hearts and that world is growing at this very moment.
Liza, Anarchist Platform of Granada.
[1] Defines the ability to understand the social class to which one belongs and to be aware of the antagonistic social interests and relationships, whether economic or ideological, that condition or determine us
[2] Define the system that concentrates political, social, and economic power in the class that owns the means of production, the bourgeoisie, who obtain their wealth through labor exploitation and the extraction of surplus value from the working class. This system provides itself with structures and tools for its own historical maintenance.
[3] Those inherent interests and social aspirations common to the entire working class; the achievement of these interests implies direct conflict with the bourgeoisie
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/01/29/los-codigos-eticos-como-desarrollos-estrategicos/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Spaine, Regeneracion - Codes of Ethics as Strategic Developments - Never again a politics of the "what" without the "how, " nor of the "how" without the "what" By Liza (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten