"The time has come to take responsibility." - Ad Nauseam Manifesto: Notes Against the Political Ghetto --- Index --- * On Beefs, Ego Trips, and Cancellations in the Libertarian Movement * References --- Since identifying as an anarchist, I have always been an "idealist," or, to take it to a messianic level, a "believer" in The Idea. I was fascinated (and continue to be fascinated) by all the stories and experiences that Anarchism has contributed, fought for, and defended in the name of a conviction that a more dignified Humanity is possible. I have always liked texts with a discourse that appealed to "ignite a spark of consciousness that transforms the instinct for mutual aid into the architecture of a society without masters, where bread and freedom are universal and inalienable rights," or that spoke of "the end of the exploitation of Man by Man" and the "emancipation of the people by the people themselves." I believe that, from this interpretation, my logical development was that ego and personalism cannot have a place in a universal project.
Perhaps that's why I found certain dynamics within the libertarian movement so perplexing. I'm not talking about real political differences, which are necessary. I'm talking about endless beefs , ego wars, settling scores disguised as principles, social capital accumulated by pointing fingers at others, and personal conflicts artificially elevated to political issues. I've always seen the anarchist struggle as incompatible with ego. Not because we lack pride, wounds, or a desire for recognition. We have them all. But a militant ethic should serve precisely to put that in its place. If we claim to fight for something that transcends us, the collective project cannot be hijacked by anyone's narcissism.
It's no coincidence that I chose this title: "Os cães ladram ea caravana passa" (I understand it's used in Spain). The expression comes from an old Arabic saying: even if the dogs bark, the caravan continues on its way. In other words, there are provocations and unconstructive criticisms that cannot stop progress. There will always be noise. There will always be those who criticize, poison the atmosphere, or need every other project to fail in order to confirm their own superiority or maintain their comfort. We must listen to criticism when it's valid and acknowledge our own mistakes, but we cannot let every noise become a paralyzing fear.
In his text, Anarchism Against Anarchism - Less Complacency, More Self-Criticism, Rafael Viana da Silva points out a widespread misconception within the libertarian movement that has caused us much harm: equating anarchist freedom with "doing whatever one wants" and individual autonomy with ethical relativism. Freedom without collective responsibility does not produce libertarian activism; it produces capriciousness, informality, personalism, and a bourgeois caricature of the anarchist as someone incapable of maintaining agreements. Anarchist ethics are not demonstrated through daily consistency but by fulfilling one's commitments, not disappearing when it's time to carry out a task, not turning every criticism into a personal attack, not using the assembly as a stage for ego, and not confusing charisma with legitimacy.
And here lies one of our biggest problems within the movementthe lack of self-criticism (with some exceptions, of course) and the perpetuation of a self-serving movement. We are the first to detect and point out contradictions in others, but we struggle to examine our own. We know how to issue scathing statements against other organizations, but often we don't know how to say, "We failed here, we were unfair here, we acted out of pride here, we confused a personal wound with a political stance."
A libertarian (and also revolutionary) movement without self-criticism rots from within. It may have impeccable rhetoric and a combative, appealing aesthetic, but if it is unable to examine its practices, acknowledge its mistakes, and transform its dynamics, it ends up doing more branding than politics.
We have also too often confused horizontality with a lack of responsibility. As if organizing, evaluating, asking for explanations, fulfilling tasks, or upholding agreements were authoritarian practices. They are not! Why would it be authoritarian for an organization to remind you of what you collectively agreed upon? Collective responsibility is not punishment or blind obedience. It is understanding that the common good only exists if someone sustains it. That an assembly does nothing on its own. That an organization has no arms or head separate from its members. That each person is responsible for their own organization and for fighting for the things they disagree with. If no one takes responsibility, the Idea becomes mere rhetoric: many words, little force. It makes me wonder if the most common criticism within anarchismthat there is a lot of theory but little practiceis that perhaps our problem is not so much an excess of theory but rather poor internal and external practices...
On the other hand, in certain circles, a culture of fear has developedfear of making mistakes, fear of speaking out, fear of not using the perfect word, fear that disagreement will be interpreted as violence, fear that a blunder will become public condemnation. And when a political culture produces more fear than courage, more calculation than honesty, and more complacency than criticism, we have a problem centered on punitivism disguised as radicalism. And mind you, I'm not saying this to deny the real harm. There are aggressions, abuses, violence, and despicable behaviors within our spaces, and we must act relentlessly against them. There are serious issues that demand protection, boundaries, and consequences, but it's one thing to confront the harm and quite another to reproduce, on a smaller scale, the prison-like and punitive logic we claim to be fighting: good and bad, saints and monsters, expulsion as the only response, reputation as the tribunal, rumor as evidence, and lynching as a form of education.
In their text "How We Handle Harm," the Punch Up Collective, a small anarchist collective from Ottawa, Ontario, focused on building resilient radical movements, emphasizes a fundamental point: not all conflict is abuse, not all disagreement is violence, and not all discomfort is harm. If everything is labeled the same, we cease to understand what is happening. And if we don't understand what is happening, we cannot intervene effectively. If admitting a mistake means automatic social death, no one will truly take responsibility. People will learn to hide, justify themselves, lie, or perform remorse. A serious militant culture must make accountability possible without turning it into a punitive spectacle.
It must also be said that many problems between organizations are not political, even though they are presented as such. They are personal. Poorly managed wounds, emotional breakdowns, envy, competition for symbolic capital, old grudges, informal leadership, insecurities, resentments. Then all of that is dressed up as a line, ethics, strategy, and principles, but the sad reality is that it's a problem of ego. And let's be clear: mixing the personal and the political in this way is a mistake. Of course, the personal has political dimensions, but it's another thing entirely to turn my personal grievances into a universal political criterion and dictate the pace of my organization to move to the rhythm of my wounds.
And I also want to make it clear: using bourgeois or liberal institutions to resolve conflicts between comrades should make us reflect on the state of our movement. Not because we should demand heroics from anyone, nor adopt moralistic positions in the face of serious situations. If our only response to each conflict is to delegate it to the State, its courts, or its police, something is failing in our collective capacity to build a revolutionary alternative.
From my perspective, politics should be seen as a field of struggle, and we must be prepared to give, receive, fall, and rise again with our heads held high in any dispute. We have ethical codes, but others don't, and we can't forget that. That's why we must be intelligent, humble, and consistent, but we must also be bold, disruptive, and know how to hit hard when the time comes to a fight. As Bakunin said, "Destructive passion is also creative passion." It's about understanding that every revolutionary construction requires breaking with the old ways that bind us, such as ego trips , personal beefs , fear, complacency, the ghetto, and the inertia that reproduces the very things we claim to fight. Because if the libertarian movement remains trapped in self-destructive and sectarian dynamics, we will not only fail to escape the ghetto, but we will continue to drag anarchism toward marginalization. And then we're surprised and annoyed when people call us childish, useful idiots, or utopian. But what do we expect, if we waste more energy on internal squabbles than on thinking about how and what we can contribute to those we claim to defend and fight for?
Enough of pretending to be pure. Let's build a militant ethic capable of acknowledging mistakes without being consumed by them. Knowing when to apologize. Knowing when to recognize the truth when someone else is right. Knowing how to face the consequences. Knowing how to confront conflict head-on without turning it into a spectacle. Knowing how to speak clearly without destroying. Knowing how to criticize without humiliating. Knowing how to care without covering up. Knowing how to fight without losing your soul.
In the face of rumors, clarity.
In the face of beef , politics.
In the face of ego trips , a collective project.
In the face of fear, responsibility.
In the face of punitivism, reparation and limits.
In the face of complacency, criticism and self-criticism.
The anarchism that interests me is a demanding practice of freedom, responsibility, and organization, not a philosophy of moral superiority locked in its ghetto, devoid of transformative power. Because ultimately, the problem is that we want to destroy the state, capital, and all forms of domination, but we aren't even capable of destroying our own miserable systems.
A movement that cannot look at itself in the mirror is doomed to defeat. And I am tired of sustaining defeats disguised with good slogans. I want an anarchist practice that is on the front lines of social struggles and that dares to grow, to correct itself, to demand accountability, to acknowledge mistakes, but also to be rebellious, bold, and never lose the tenderness of its soul in the face of the world's harshness.
Don Diego de la Vega, a militant from Liza.
References
Ad Nauseam. Notes against the political ghetto . Reissue of the Ad Nauseam Manifesto. 2026.
Rafael Viana da Silva, Anarchism against or Anarchism: Less complacency, more self-criticism
Punch Up * Kick Down Distro, How We Handle Harm
Dicionário da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, «Os cães ladram ea caravan passa»
Mikhail Bakunin, The Reaction in Germany
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/06/14/os-caes-ladram-e-a-caravana-passa/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten