We have always considered the idea of training fundamental, since any action or theorizing without reflection that leads to learning through a systematization of the steps taken remains a stumbling walk. Therefore, a school for activists should be a natural process for establishing a solid foundation. Are we going to trust the theoretical constructs of academics who have little or no involvement in daily activism? Or intellectuals with a lot of rhetoric, more like influencers than activists, embroiled in petty squabbles? It is much better to trust the collective brain that builds and makes things work in this world, but placed at the service of a socialist and libertarian movement for social transformation.
When you hear about experiences of schools like this, of anarchist organizations in the past, the immediate feeling is that this is precisely what we need; that a stable and continuous form of those isolated seminars and training sessions that we usually do can be materialized.
"Our goal was to create a holistic activism..." a comrade recounted before explaining that holistic meant capable of encompassing all problems . At the end of his story, he concluded, "But that's no longer possible..." with a firm gaze, peering over his enormous mustache. How could it no longer be possible? Wasn't that precisely what we needed? We continued discussing the topic for a while, him convinced that it wasn't, that people no longer had the patience or desire for something like that, that the 70s were over, and we had to keep going. He, who had always kept going even when some had declared the end of history; along with so many others who, by refusing to accept that thesis, had continued with The Idea.
There's an old saying around here: anarchism is a way of life. (...) How much it meant! It contained no arrogance or elitism; it meant, in a phrase, things like this: complete dedication to the cause; feeling it and practicing it every day; being consistent; resisting being complicit with the system by engaging in behaviors aligned with it; combating the superficiality of ethereal and vain words.[1](Juan Carlos Mechoso).
We never resolved this debate, like many others that have remained unresolved. However much time and geography separated us, it somehow united us. Even when we disagreed on something, we saw the same thing: our movement as something alive, as a tension .
Donato may have been right, and in an era where the present is the sole defining factor of time, where the immediacy of consumption has permeated the political sphere-and demands everything quick and easy to satisfy personal appetites-perhaps there is no longer room for a cadre school and the creation of that holistic militancy. But even so, however much we must reckon with this reality, we cannot surrender to it. Perhaps we can still believe in the school of activists. In this last decade, comments and proposals on the matter have resurfaced... who knows if one day we will secure the resources for it.
We often talk so much about revolutions and wars that we overlook a crucial detail: it is people who make all of this happen, and more than opportunities and crises, what is needed is people. An organization is, fundamentally, a group of people. How do we empower them to take the initiative and carry out the things they have collectively decided to do? By fostering personal initiative within the group, of course. As anarchists, we cannot take refuge in the pure authority of orders and the coercion that arises from their non-compliance (whether by the assembly or by an individual). One possible answer could be: shared responsibility, both individual and collective.
When we talk about history, we also forget this very detail: that these were people, with all their complexities, and not only did they not know what would happen next, but they also had to worry-and surely with great stress and anxiety-about that uncertain future. Furthermore, we must add the responsibility they felt towards the people they loved. That there are comrades today who think they can definitively say what the right attitude was, what decision should have been made, makes us feel incredibly dizzy with the lack of perspective... Of course, we recognize that it's a debate that moves and stimulates, but as a thought exercise to consider scenarios and learn from them. The problem arises when we start taking it so seriously that we actually believe we know the precise answer.
In this sense, it would be important that in our ideal school we look at history, first and foremost, as a way of understanding the concrete problems presented by the class struggle and the reasons behind the responses of our past comrades, and to draw lessons for the present from this search. We must completely abandon the idea of approaching our history as a movement, as a moral tribunal of the correct decisions-which, moreover, reduces all complexity to one's own taste or whim-that our past comrades had to make .
This also leads us to another important reflection: a careful reading of our political tradition. Not as a dogmatic element, but with a profound approach that takes into account the respect we owe to those who came before us. Unlike other currents, we are fortunate not to be bound to any specific personality, which is quite consistent if we understand that anarchism is characterized as the socialism that accepts and desires freedom. At the same time, this freedom ends up creating a certain difficulty when seeking a point of reference. This is understandable. In an era where every need must be satisfied immediately, we can end up looking for easy answers (even if they are crafted with a certain rhetoric). When seeking to answer our doubts, it is often much easier to reduce our ideological perspective in the most simplistic way possible, or to look for what we haven't known how to ask, or to look in our tradition, in other currents, or in political traditions. And that is how, from time to time-even within our own ranks-we see comrades who, with the best of intentions; They take refuge in parts of Marxism or other ideological currents without limiting themselves to extracting what is useful that can be found in them, and end up being enchanted by the siren song of shortcuts and immediate answers.
Therefore, in our ideal school, we should proceed with a meticulous understanding that can thus avoid not only these simplistic reductions, but also their direct and equally absurd opposite: those who from the top of their towers reproach the world for being the world, the people for being the people, and the masses for being the masses; claiming the lost days of glory, reducing anarchism to an absolute and identity-based dogma.
But the core of the school must undoubtedly be the organizational conception and the ethical dimension of political practice. This is where everything hinges, the very foundation of our revolutionary project. For these two pillars distinguish between a vanguard that leads, and an organization of cadres that accompanies and fuels the revolutions of the working class.
In this way it would not be difficult, but quite the opposite; the understanding and full incorporation of the principle of collective responsibility-a discipline that has frequently generated controversy-could occur almost naturally, which is essential for any revolutionary action that truly intends to be so.
As one of the school's core principles, we would quickly overcome the prejudice and fear that the word "discipline" evokes in those who readily associate it with military or state institutions. It would soon become clear that discipline is not only about fulfilling the commitments you've made as an organization, but also about having a holistic vision: keeping the organization's objectives clear and prioritizing them over your subjective and personal feelings, whether in an internal meeting or during a social interaction. By internalizing the ideology to which our organization adheres-along with the broader trajectory of our movement-the school will naturally generate a framework for every decision or commitment. It won't always be perfectly aligned, but the distance between these reference points helps us understand where we stand.
Once we confront these issues, we could have a much more fluid development, where the theoretical debate would continue to be based not only on the strategic reality of the class struggle and how that reality unfolds, but would also have solid foundations. It wouldn't have to depend on the intellectualism of a few individuals and their corresponding egos, on their personal preferences and ambitions. By consolidating a school of militants, we can finally reduce the influence of the arrogance and personalism that so characterize academia. Who knows, thanks to this school we could debunk this myth-created by liberalism and adopted by Marxism-Leninism-that great thinkers are capable of guiding the masses, that their ideas can win hearts and minds by projecting the entire content of theories. And that this is why anarchism has shown weakness, lacking men-yes, usually men-who can synthesize and condense into comprehensive theories the entire revolutionary future of an era, cycle, etc.
This myth can harm those who feel frustrated and weak compared to the perceived capabilities of other movements. It also fosters a militant base of inflated egos who, to feed those same egos, try to mobilize those around them. Furthermore, it complicates understanding the role of political organization, ideological activism, and revolutionary action.
To be ferment
Besides the seminars, readings, and actions, we've perhaps begun to understand our cadre training primarily through one-on-one conversations or small group discussions with our comrades . It's been a scattered and certainly very informal process; where someone would tell you something, one question would lead to another, to a memory... In this way, we've learned to better interpret moments and texts, but above all, reality itself.
It's not easy to imagine, but it would be absolutely necessary to structure and formalize all the training that those of us who are active in anarchist political organizations have received, in a completely unsystematic way, so that we can replicate it and offer it to everyone. And yes, we are aware that it is a very difficult task, but we also start from the conviction that even if it isn't holistic activism, it is an essential step for the tasks that lie ahead for us revolutionaries. To move towards that horizon.
The exercise of regaining that ability to find balance with reality and to exist within it while simultaneously developing bolder horizons. It is no coincidence that such plans are developed within trade unionism and among the working class. Once we truly understand this, we realize that it is no longer possible to escape this truth and look elsewhere. It is pointless; it becomes part of your worldview.
But perhaps nothing exemplifies this balance as well as the formula of acting while enduring. These words summarized the duality of the statement that "one must act to endure, and one must endure to act." This is how the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation defined its revolutionary strategy while confronting the gigantic repressive apparatus deployed by the CIA and the bourgeoisies of the Southern Cone in Operation Condor. Our comrades knew that to exist politically, action was essential; otherwise, the ground would be abandoned and occupied by others-neoliberalism or other authoritarian currents. But at the same time, they were aware that to do everything they wanted, it was necessary to survive and endure over time. Their activity was the most successful in sustaining the struggle against the regime, managing to carry out actions even when they seemed impossible. This is a story that lies at the heart of Especifism , although today it seems so easy for many who define themselves as Especifists to disregard it. Perhaps old Europe doesn't need to hear what a few Latinos have to say , but our schools should certainly start from this premise. Without Eurocentric prejudices.
The accumulation of social power is not a board game, nor is it a beautiful theory that can be modulated according to our personal desires. It is a difficult process, where once again we must remember this characteristic of the equilibrium of our current: we cannot remain passive, endlessly repeating ourselves to justify our actions. Nor can we, not for a second, believe in the prophets of immediate solutions, nor in the presentism that so characterizes neoliberalism. They are simply two sides of the same coin.
Of course, militant ethics, collective discipline, and other characteristics are acquired through training and examples in the struggle. Everything can be transmitted. The ability to have it more or less internalized depends on many factors, but that's why a cadre training program represents a path toward achieving the certainty of having acquired the keys to action. Individual and collective confidence. We must emphasize ideological and collective training as fundamental tools for knowing our place in the world we inhabit. This allows us to face daily life while being aware of our own limitations, as well as those of the other actors around us.
Today, we perceive a need for discipline, for clear guidelines, in the face of a rapidly changing world. This has been widely exploited by fascism and the reactionary wave in general, whether through religious fundamentalism or the culture of the coach , "alternative" therapies, and crypto-bros- entrepreneurs. They have created common ways of communicating and transmitting ideas across all these variations. These movements attempt to capitalize on this vital need. But this should not lead us to reject militant discipline, since we have understood that, historically, it has been what has propelled revolutionary movements forward. The moments when libertarian socialism has managed to seize opportunities were because they had prepared for them, they had trained themselves. Those who came before us were fully aware that willpower and spontaneous reaction were not enough . All of that is fine, but it is not sufficient. Like a plant, willpower must be nurtured with discipline and collective commitment; otherwise, it loses its roots and ends up being as volatile as the personal moods with which we wake up on any given day.
Therefore, we understand this "care" as a form that collective, specific, ideological, pragmatic, etc., training takes in the form of a school. It is not possible to care for oneself collectively without having internalized personal boundaries. For example, our personal frustration shouldn't drag others down in a meeting; if we are exhibiting attitudes harmful to the group, we should know how to stop and correct them. These are also micro-learnings that a leadership training program could provide.
This is a brief overview of what that training school could or should one day aim for. It's something a bit different from the short lecture and workshop tours that are being called schools. This isn't meant as a criticism of those schools, but rather a search for improvement, depth, and systematization that will allow us to move forward.
Tucum and Regue .
[1]The Strategy of Specifism available at: https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/La-Estrategia-del-Especifismo.pdf
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/01/04/una-escuela-de-cuadros-para-el-socialismo-libertario/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Spain, Regeneration: A Cadre School for Libertarian Socialism -- In Times of Digital Celebrities and Compulsive Consumerism By EMBAT (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten