woensdag 2 september 2026
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE TURKEY - news journal UPDATE - (en) Turkey, Yeryuzu Postasi: The Misery of Apoliticism and the Leftist Origins of Anarchism - Rafael V. da Silva (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
" The problematic elements and shortcomings of anarchist theoretical practice cannot be resolved through a 'genetic mutation' based on the rejection of class struggle, or by taking a sharp position 'beyond right and left.'" - Pier Francesco Zarcone --- " However, it is important for those who define themselves as leftists to understand clearly that the use of the term 'left' requires the acceptance of the fundamental principles that fully define the meaning of the word and legitimize its use." - Murray Bookchin
Philosopher Norbert Bobbio, while discussing the validity of using the concepts of "left" and "right," states that "these are not absolute concepts. They are relative concepts. They are not essential or ontological concepts. They are not qualities inherent in the political universe[...]They represent a particular political topology" (BOBBIO, 2011, p. 91). In practice, this means that a person is always left-wing in relation to a right-winger, and vice versa. Given that being right-wing or left-wing means taking a stance in a concrete political universe, adopting (or not adopting) certain stances in a universe (e.g., in a political crisis in a country) means being committed to left-wing or right-wing stances. Therefore, there is no such thing as a person who is "neither right nor left" (even if they want to be), because topology is like a map. You can deny your spatial location, but that doesn't mean you aren't there.
Bobbio also points out that historically, the left-right dichotomy has arisen between those who believe that "many of the inequalities that anger them and that they wish to eliminate are social and therefore abolishable," and those who believe that "inequalities are natural and therefore cannot be eliminated" (BOBBIO, 2011, p. 105). Anarchism has clearly sided with the first group, and as researcher Lucien van der Walt puts it, "the broad anarchist tradition has had an enormous influence on the history of the workers' and peasants' movement, as well as on the history of the left in general" (VAN DER WALT, 2017, p. 83).
There is a certain consensus among historians and political scientists that the emergence of the left-right dichotomy is linked to the French Revolution and, albeit within very limited frameworks, to the pursuit of political and social equality. It is well known that the opposition between those advocating policies closer to the wishes of the people and those defending the interests of the aristocratic and bourgeois classes, who were rising to prominence on the French political scene, emerged within the French National Constituent Assembly.
At a meeting held in the Manège, a meeting hall behind the Tuileries Palace, the arrangement of the chairs had created Left, Right, and Center groups. To the left of the Assembly president sat those who championed the rights of the people; to his right were the conservatives who wanted an end to the revolution; and in the center sat those who advocated for a constitutional monarchy where the king's powers were limited by laws passed by the Assembly. It should be noted that political parties did not yet exist in France at that time, but soon distinct political factions would begin to emerge.
The First Class (clerical class) and the Second Class (nobility) were to the right of the Third Class (upper and lower bourgeoisie, peasants, and urban workers). The Third Class comprised over 80% of the population; this class was not a homogeneous block and its unity was fragmented by internal divisions and class differences. For example, the san-cullottes (barefoot people), the urban segment that made up the Third Class, provided important cadres for the Enragés, a social group to the left of the conservatives and Jacobins that advocated radical measures such as a program supporting the poor, confiscation of wheat, and taxation of the rich. As Daniel Guerín points out:
In fact, at the heart of the French Revolution were two very different types of revolution, or, if you prefer, two conflicting types of power: one formed by the left wing of the bourgeoisie, the other by the proto-proletariat (small artisans and wage earners). The first group was authoritarian, even dictatorial, centralist and repressive towards the underprivileged. The second was a democratic, federalist group; composed of the 48 assemblies of the city of Paris and the popular communities in the provincial towns, which today might be described as workers' councils, that is, with ties to the Paris Commune (7). I do not hesitate to say that this second power was essentially libertarian, to some extent a precursor to the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Russian soviets of 1917; in contrast, the first power, especially after the coup, was called Jacobin throughout the 19th century. (GUERÍN, 1973)
Therefore, the left-right divide not only originated in the Constituent Assembly (the embryo of the bourgeois state), but is also the result of debates that extended beyond this assembly and encompassed broad segments of French society. To consider right and left merely concepts serving internal court squabbles means approaching society and this historical process in France with a narrow perspective. While Guerín emphasized the existence of social segments with more libertarian political projects during the French Revolution, it is important to stress that the mere existence of these segments was not sufficient to create a foundation for the emergence of anarchism in the 18th century (CORRÊA, 2012, p. 63).
The period following the French Revolution, from the Congress of Vienna (1815) to the Spring of Nations (1848), is therefore a period of struggle between liberals and conservatives, and of workers increasingly distancing themselves from liberal influence. This period is a key turning point in consolidating the material and ideological foundations for the formation of anarchism. The Spring of Nations of 1848 spread across almost the entire European continent and changed the face of the ruling class's political game. Although workers were the driving force in this protest movement, which also brought together liberal and nationalist agendas, all the regimes overthrown by the uprising, with the exception of the French regime, were re-established 18 months after its outbreak. These processes were gradually directed in line with bourgeois interests, which seized control of the movement using nationalist rhetoric. Thus, a newly emerging workers' movement emerged, and with it, an anti-bourgeois and internationalist political discourse took shape, moving away from Jacobin patriotic rhetoric. Political stances are not impenetrable and do not remain static over time. Therefore, while the bourgeoisie, which already controlled many nation-states, shifted to the right because it was in their interest to maintain the new social order of the bourgeois states, the workers, who were to the left of the new rulers, wanted genuine social equality and advocated for a change in the existing situation.
Thus, workers and their organized movement began to take a stand against the governments in power and for the expansion of social rights; in this way, they positioned themselves to the left of the conservatives and capitalists. According to Guerín (1975), a general strike took place in Paris in 1840, and "there was an increase in workers' newspapers in the following years." With the founding of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA) in 1864, a political camp with its own identity emerged, transcending the boundaries of the political horizon of the French Revolution and proposing at its second congress (1867) to transform the IWA into "the center of action of the working class against capital" (SAMIS, 2015, p. 170). In short, this was a proletarian and socialist camp that brought together mutualist, collectivist, and communist traditions, but despite their differences, had minimal common agreements on achieving social equality and ending capitalism. In other words, the debate within the socialist camp was about the global reorganization of society along revolutionary principles. And anyone who talks about the reorganization of society, whether they like it or not, is talking about a political debate.
Whether we like it or not, "anarchism and Marxism, in their origins, drew from the same proletarian source, a leftist source. And under the pressure of the nascent working class, they took on the same ultimate task," which, according to the author, "is to abolish the capitalist state by placing the means of production in the hands of the workers" (GUERIN, 1975). Even in the field of language, common concepts have been adopted (some controversial, some not).
Contrary to Guerín's optimism and his later, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to synthesize Marxism and anarchism, this common ground did not arise without internal differences. Of course, there were differences, but everyone felt they belonged to the same common camp, the same socialist ground; because they were fighting on the ground of the working class. What we call anarchism today took shape within this political camp - socialist and working-class. Therefore, anarchism was born as a left-wing, socialist, and libertarian movement; or, as Kropotkin put it in his classic entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Regarding their economic views, anarchists, in common with all socialists of whom they form the left wing, argue that the existing system of private ownership of land and our profit-driven capitalist production constitutes a monopoly contrary to the principles of justice and utility. (KROPOTKIN, 1910)
An etymological analysis of the term "anarchy" and its derivatives might only point to a negation - the negation of government, the state, authority - that is, the "destructive" elements of social criticism; however, anarchism has always had constructive elements and goals and strategies for achieving them. These elements are historically determined and are not the invention of the "seven sages." ¹ Therefore, trying to understand anarchism solely through etymology (the meaning of the word) can lead to serious distortions. This is why we must always consider meanings within their historical and concrete contexts. Is it possible to understand Christianity or Marxism by only examining the meaning of the word?
No etymology can explain the origin and development of an ideology. We can only understand the meaning of these concepts through the concrete movements in which they were shaped and the subsequent course of those movements.
However, following this split and the founding of the Anti-Authoritarian International in 1872-a popular and workers' organization that brought together most anarchists in Europe-the term "anarchy" and its derivatives began to be used more regularly by anarchists. As Marianne Enckel (1991, p. 199, quoted from Corrêa; Silva, 2013) and René Berthier (2010, p. 127, quoted from Corrêa; Silva, 2013) point out, Mikhail Bakunin and James Guillaume were hesitant to use the term "anarchist" precisely because of the general perception that existed around it.
We emphatically stress that the emergence of anarchism is inextricably linked to the trajectory of socialism and workers' struggles. From a historically accurate perspective, anarchism cannot be discussed before the struggles that would culminate in the formation of revolutionary syndicalism and the International Workingmen's Association. Anarchism arose as a socialist, libertarian movement to the left of capitalists, conservatives, and aristocrats. Lucien van der Walt emphasizes that even authors who use highly vague definitions of anarchism acknowledge that it did not exist before 1860 (VAN DER WALT, 2013, p. 3).
Therefore, anarchism constitutes a type of socialism characterized by a specific set of political-ideological principles, including but not limited to opposition to the state (CORRÊA, SILVA, 2013). Anarchism emerged by rejecting various Marxist theses (such as the seizure of the state and parliamentary activity); however, it shares the same view on critique of capitalism, anti-capitalism, and the necessity of a violent social revolution to radically change society.
According to research, the emergence, spread, and full formation of anarchism occurred in a short period of less than 20 years, between 1868 and 1886. Therefore, anarchism is not an anti-authoritarian spirit existing in different historical contexts, nor is it a vague anti-state tendency stretching back to antiquity. This (general) definition is not only historically inaccurate, but it is certainly more fitting for those who believe that anarchism is expressed by rejecting existing authoritarianism in society, something akin to a personal philosophy of life.
The emergence of anarchism can be historically traceable not because historians would like it to be, but precisely because it was during this period that this phenomenon became established and more clearly identifiable.
During this period, anarchism gained a foothold not only in Western Europe but also in North America, Latin America, and North Africa. Its main strongholds included Cuba, Egypt, Spain, the United States, France, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, and Uruguay. Workers, organized within labor unions, increasingly opposed the increasingly organized bourgeoisie. It was in this context that the term anarchism began to acquire meaning and subsequently became the subject of its first academic study.² According to researcher Benedict Anderson, anarchism and syndicalism were not only "the dominant element of the internationalist and self-conscious radical left" but also "the principal instrument of global opposition to industrial capitalism, autocracy, large land ownership , and imperialism." In the early years of the 20th century, speaking of anarchism meant speaking of urban working-class movements and, to a lesser extent, peasant movements - not the personal lifestyle of liberal professionals. According to this historian, at least from the late 19th century to the First World War, talking about the revolutionary left meant talking about anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, and anarcho-syndicalism. Therefore, much of what we consider left-wing discourse emerged inextricably linked to concrete practice in which anarchists played a decisive, not marginal, role.
A significant change occurred in 1890 with the founding of the so-called Second International. This international, which had already excluded anarchists from its membership, despite its doctrinal pluralism, initiated a movement within socialist and workers' parties aimed at parliamentary struggle. Thus, socialism became a concept encompassing not only the struggle for equality and anti-capitalist struggle, but also, for some, the struggle for elections and so-called class representation. Therefore, the activities of the Second International led to a debate about the meaning of socialism.
In an article he wrote in 1896 (and in subsequent articles), Errico Malatesta addressed the confusion that arises when the words "socialism" and "anarchism" are used as opposing terms. According to the Italian anarchist, "socialism and anarchism are not opposing or equivalent terms, but closely related." Malatesta, who considered himself a socialist but an anarchist within that camp, also emphasized that (distinguishing himself from other variants of socialism) "state socialism seems impossible to us" (MALATESTA, 2014, p. 50). Therefore, the Italian revolutionary does not reject anarchism as a constitutive part of socialism (and thus of the left), but (to the horror of some naive thinkers) he opens this concept up for discussion and re-examines its old meanings shaped by the syndicalist and anarchist actions of previous years.
Among anarchists, there was a constant anxiety about distinguishing themselves from Marxists. This anxiety would deepen, especially after the Russian Revolution - or rather, as a result of the Bolsheviks' persecution of anarchists - as anarchists began to adopt a more cautious tone. It is no coincidence that anarchists began to use the words "socialism" and "communism" less frequently; this was always done with the aim of distancing themselves from Russian communism and required adding the adjective "libertarian" before both terms.
During the period of Stalinist hegemony in the workers' movement and the witch hunts in capitalist democracies fueled by anti-communism and the repression of Stalinist governments, anarchists sought to revive their ideology both practically and theoretically. They unequivocally rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat and authoritarian Stalinist governments, but they never ceased defending their own political program and fighting according to the conditions imposed upon them by reality.
We hypothesize that those who view anarchism as neither left nor right are compelled to either adopt an extremely superficial view of anarchist history or to ignore significant phases of anarchist militancy in order to obscure its broad class tradition. According to researcher Lucien van der Walt, "the movement certainly declined from the 1940s onwards, but it continued to maintain its importance in many other contexts, including post-war Bulgaria and Italy" (VAN DER WALT, 2017, p. 108). Anarchists participated in trade unions and trade union opposition movements in Cuba, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay, France, England, etc., during the 1940s and 1950s. In 1951, in Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, Cuba, Denmark, France, Germany, England, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, etc. With the participation of worker delegations from various countries, the Syndicalist International (formed since 1922) was re-established (CORRÊA, 2012, pp. 234-235). The situation of the unions was distinctly different from previous periods. Despite the process of bureaucratization, the anarchists did not succumb to sectarianism and acted everywhere and in every way they could. Avoiding the naiveté that is comfortable for those who lack concrete practice or who aspire to the title of "libertarian shaolinist," they formed a trade union movement in 1959 (in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo) together with independent socialists, and showed solidarity with immigrants of different political views in the 40s and 50s.
Less pronounced than the previous "wave," the fourth wave of anarchism, while not deviating from the class axis, was shaped by the participation of anarchists in armed struggles, guerrilla and/or insurrection experiences in Spain, Uruguay, Argentina, Germany, England, Italy, Greece, and France (CORRÊA, 2012, p. 235). During this period - despite the difficulties in accessing all historical experiences - revolutionary violence appears to have been encouraged through mass movements and institutional trade unions.
The May 1968 events in France - wrongly portrayed as a simple student uprising, but in reality uniting 10 million striking workers - and similar movements worldwide, were significant not just for anarchism, but for the left in general. This event revived revolutionary energies imprisoned by Stalinism and provided a significant (though problematic) renewal in theory.
Mass trade union experiences with significant anarchist participation, such as the Spanish National Confederation of Labour (CNT), which had 300,000 members between 1977 and 1978 and has since experienced numerous splits, are also important in this context.
Despite all these mass experiences rooted in the working class, the mythology about "old" and "new" anarchism was fostered (and welcomed by those who desired a "light" anarchism) by various intellectuals, many from the ranks of the May 1968 French uprising, who ignored the class-based and active presence of anarchists in the social and trade union movements of the 50s and 60s. At the time, class-struggle anarchism and its roots in trade union and mass struggles seemed to belong to the past. The portrayal of anarchists as merely memory keepers, newspaper editors, or bookworms ( though all of these also mattered) suited those who denied the fundamental aspect of anarchist history. The point is that this was not entirely true, at least for the period encompassing the 40s, 50s, and 60s. To avoid boring the reader, I will only mention two experiences that contradict this image: the year-long strike by the Shipbuilders' Federation (FOCN) in 1956, the longest strike in Argentine history, and armed anarchism in Bulgaria.
Some intellectuals who emerged during the May 68 period, ignoring the mass movements in which anarchists actively participated, focused on specific authors and intellectuals (some little-known) to confirm a disconnect between "old" and "new" (or post) anarchism. The scarcity or difficulty in disseminating historical works on anarchism from the 1940s to the 1970s contributed to the deepening of the idea that anarchism had become detached from class struggle and that a return was impossible, necessitating the abandonment of any class perspective. Not knowing their own history led some anarchists to voluntarily sever the ties connecting them to the previous generation. This would only lead to further problems, as effective political action requires a historical assessment to determine the limits and possibilities of collective political processes.
Chapter 2: Anarchism and the neoliberal assault: "post" anarchism?
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 led various researchers to question whether the categories of "left" and "right" were still useful for understanding reality. Neoliberal thinker Francis Fukuyama's book quite comfortably argued for the end of ideology and the "end of history" in the context of the universalization and homogenization of the capitalist economic system. In reality, Fukuyama defended an old right-wing thesis that society would not fundamentally change and that capitalism was the optimal economic and social system. Thus, Fukuyama attacked the idea ofrevolution and social transformation. He believed that capitalist market-oriented democracy was the best model for society and that economic liberalism would be the pinnacle of human societal evolution (KANAAN, 2005, p. 1).
The 1980s were a period of planned and premeditated undermining and liquidation of critical left-wing thought in Europe and other countries (ROCKHILL, 2017), accompanied by the privatization process in Eastern Europe and aggressive Thatcherite strategies on the ruins of "real" communism (MAZOWER, p. 377). In addition, the "old" parliamentary left, which emerged from the ruins of the Berlin Wall and grappled with the pragmatism of Eurocommunism, remained unequivocally committed to bourgeois democracy and its project of class compromise. It limited itself to proposing a humane management of the revitalized capitalist system of domination. The end of the Cold War polarization brought with it the bourgeois idea that the social class debate (long under the hegemony of Stalinism) was a thing of the "past." Anarchism faced significant challenges during this period. In some countries, it remained confined to small militant circles, while in others, it had to be completely reconstructed under the shadow of military dictatorships and political oppression, without any clear prior references. In many countries, the transmission of this rich class history was hampered by the severance of the historical link connecting generations (with a few exceptions) and the lack of a suitable arena for the transmission of concepts, meaning that many anarchists had to learn anarchism almost "from scratch."
There was a perfect environment for a small (but noisy) segment of anarchists to unconditionally adhere to the thesis that anarchism had to definitively break with its class-based past. In addition - although never hegemonic - there was also the individualist current surrounding the anarchist intellectual universe, operating within a distinctly neoliberal world that mass-produced an ideology proclaiming the individual cult as detached from social structures and responsible for themselves.
Communism, as an ideological deviation stemming from its irreversible integration into the capitalist system and bourgeois norms, embraced Eurocommunism, a pragmatism focused on the "humane" management of capitalism, while anarchism adopted "post-anarchism" or "lifestyle anarchism" as a remedy to appease those who considered revolution and organization in popular movements outdated. A few publishing houses that gave space to anarchism capitalized on this atmosphere and published works along these lines.
The first text reflecting the spirit of this period was written in 1985 (in England) by the relatively unknown individualist Hakim Bey under the title "Temporary Autonomous Zone" (TAZ), first published in Brazil in 1995, and, apart from being described as anarchist, had little to do with libertarian ideas. We do not intend to offer a comprehensive critique of the book here; we believe that Murray Bookchin, who needs no introduction, has done this more thoroughly and with greater quality in his book "Anarchism, Critique and Self-Criticism," published in Brazil. 4 We chose this text because of its capacity to promote and disseminate an apoliticism under the guise of libertarian theses. Although Bey claims that TAZ is "almost self-evident" (Bey, undated, p. 3) and that it is "not an end in itself, replacing other forms of organization, tactics, and goals" (Bey, undated, p. 31), the reality is that the effect of the adoption of TAZ (by some sections of anarchism) was the rejection of previous historical forms of organization (many of which were unknown or wrongly associated with Bolshevism). In the history of anarchism - considering its 150-year past - we find almost no historically significant stance advocating pacifism (Tolstoy had virtually no concrete involvement with anarchism) or, worse, abandoning the idea of revolution. Yet, according to Hakim Bey, "a realistic stance requires not only that we give up waiting for 'Revolution,' but also that we give up desiring it." Such a slogan could easily fit into a commercial advertisement, but it was propagated by a rebel who lacked a coherent political project. According to Bey, "in most cases the most radical tactic would be to refuse to engage in ostentatious violence, to withdraw from the playing field, to disappear" (Bey, undated, pp. 6-7). As a militant participating in popular struggles, who can accept that simply "choosing" to avoid confronting the dominant order is possible? The story of Lucy Parsons, the American anarchist who was arrested three times following the Haymarket events, alone demonstrates that this "option" is not available to those involved in revolutionary struggle when the system wants to attack them.
Hundreds of answers could be given to this absurdity based on the vast anarchist tradition (or the life stories of hundreds of militants), but I will content myself with a classic quote from Mikhail Bakunin, which is "gloomy" and not at all funny. Bakunin emphasizes that, in contrast to the idea of "retreating" from conflict, a real force capable of confronting the bourgeoisie and the state must be created.
It is true that a great spontaneous power exists[among the people], a power undoubtedly superior to the combined power of the government and the ruling classes. However, unorganized spontaneous power is not real power. The power of the state also rests on this undeniable superiority of organized power over the spontaneous power of the people. Therefore, the real question is not whether the people can rise up, but whether they can establish an organization that will provide them with the means to achieve victory. The aim is not an accidental or temporary victory, but a long-lasting and final victory. (Bakunin, Maximoff, 367, 70)
In his text "Post-Anarchist Anarchy," Hakim Bey, while assessing the limits of anarchism's social base (the identification of these limits is correct in itself; the problem lies in the solution he proposes), argues that the solution is to take over the struggle from where situationism left off in 1968 and autonomism in the 1970s, and carry it to a new stage. However, he mentions neither the factory committees of 1968 nor the organization of workers; nor does he mention the various anarchist organizations that spread to many parts of the world after the Second World War. The rich history of struggles seems to be reduced to an "antiquarian" that must be surpassed only by the "new."
Repeating old clichés about anarchism (for example, the claim that it is a supposedly anti-political ideology), Hakim Bey proposed a nine-point "program." In short, this program included: "creative engagement with other cultures," "abandoning ideological purity," embracing "anti-labor," "pornography and entertainment as tools of re-education," the creation of "new and crazy" music, "democratizing mystical anarchism and shamanism," "literally exalting the senses," "abandoning leftism and embracing poetic terrorism," and finally, a "mapping of autonomy." Thus, Hakim Bey made the same mistake that drove many disillusioned socialists to the right: instead of reviving certain aspects of their own ideology, he began to deny its fundamental elements in the name of a so-called "theoretical renewal" (which not only ignored but entirely rejected previous theoretical accumulation).
Although Hakim Bey had no significant social impact, his ideas found fertile ground within American anarchism, which was already strained and had a rather narrow social base (his ideas reached Brazil 10 years later).
According to these anarchists, class politics seemed like an outdated concept that anarchists needed to eliminate in order to be truly anarchist (whereas historically the opposite was true). Indeed, in 1995, anarchist Murray Bookchin noted that, within the context of North American anarchism at the time, "the social and revolutionary goals of anarchism had largely eroded, and the word 'anarchy' had become part of the elegant bourgeois lexicon of the 21st century - disobedient, rebellious[...]but[...]harmless ." (BOOKCHIN, 2011, p. 48)
One example of this erosion is the transformation of the meaning of certain key words from the anarchist tradition within specific individualistic, affinity group, or anti-organizational circles. For instance, the word "self-management," which emerged in the exuberant atmosphere of the 1960s, essentially referred to workers in a factory collectively controlling that point of production. "Direct action" has always meant workers taking collective, unionized, and class action without relying on bourgeois democracy. Another historical weapon, the boycott (dating back to the early 20th century), originally meant class action against specific employers. Autonomy, on the other hand, referred to the rules that workers collectively created within a union or anarchist organization, or more simply, the ways in which workers expressed their desire to set their own rules. Under the dominance of transience and the privatization of the individual-typical features of the neoliberal wave and its equivalent, the evasive theoretical froth-self-governance simply means "do it yourself" (always limited to the individual or a group of friends), boycotting becomes an individual choice, and autonomy becomes an excuse for not submitting to any collective discipline ("do what you want, because it's all law").
The world of meanings was prepared for individualists to "put the cherry on top of the cake": the claim that anarchism is neither left nor right, or that anarchism is opposed to all politics (we will explain this later). To reinforce this myth - as we have seen - it is necessary to deny the 150-year tradition of organized struggle in the countryside and in the city, and to conceal the historical roots that are explicitly socialist. An anti-capitalist and anti-state socialism, but still a libertarian socialism. On the ground, it faced its enemies honorably and fought relentlessly against its class enemies. This was also the case with the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), founded in 1956, which went through a period of constitutional dictatorship and was declared illegal in 1967. The FAU resisted the 1973 military dictatorship and, during its time in power, managed to establish an armed structure (OPR-33) responsible for expropriations and advanced direct action. He formed a political movement that brought together thousands of members and was one of the founders of the first trade union headquarters in Uruguay.
It should be noted that in the mid-1990s, this (class struggle) anarchist tradition, then called "anarchist especifismo," reached Brazil and initiated a long organizing process that had to confront some ideas popularized by writers outside the class struggle tradition of anarchism.
Anarchism: Neither right nor left?
In the preceding paragraphs, we have tried to show that anarchism has a distinct history and that arguments claiming it is neither left nor right resort to forced interpretations that ignore almost the entire history of this political tradition.
We believe there is no doubt that contemporary societies are significantly more complex than previous ones, that fundamental problems still persist and define social structure (class exploitation, racial/ethnic oppression, gender oppression, etc.), and that the use of diverse theoretical and analytical tools can make a tremendous contribution to social analysis. However, in our view, the topology between left and right should not be abandoned, but rather updated (like a compass) and enriched with other elements; thus, the coordinates (and their measuring tool) become more complex and precise (for example, discussing what distinguishes the revolutionary left from the reformist left). Incorporating new concepts or changing the meaning of specific concepts is also part of this process. Concepts do not have meanings "etched in stone." While we may have opened a historical parenthesis to counter this absurd idea of "neither left nor right," we must consider the meaning of some claiming that in the French Revolution, the duality of "left" and "right" meant "the seizure of the state." So, are we no longer able to use this term because the so-called "original sin" was committed? Shouldn't we consider what this term means today?
The inclusion of new terms, concepts, and tools is part of any ideology that aims to adapt to its own era and reality. And there will always be concepts that are agreed upon or debated; for the political arena is the typical venue for debate.
As various researchers have pointed out, anarchism's emphasis on the class question is observable throughout its 150-year history, but this did not mean a narrow, economy-focused perspective or economism. Anarchists (with rare exceptions) were never "pro-labor," never granting any privilege to the industrial worker as a revolutionary subject. Within the confines of each context (and approach), anarchism has attempted to take seriously the specific problems faced by working men and women, such as national, racial, and gender oppression. Of course, no revolutionary can claim that these problems have been completely solved by anarchism throughout history and that nothing remains to be discussed.
Another justification for claiming that anarchism is neither left nor right is based on the idea that this alone is sufficient to confirm that anarchism is a political current distinct from all others because it is opposed to power and politics and rejects the seizure of the state. Since all political groups on the left and right seek power and therefore pursue a specific policy to obtain it, anarchism remains outside this spectrum. As Felipe Corrêa rightly points out in his article "Power and Anarchism," "if power is conceptualized in the context of sovereignty and/or the state, it can be clearly stated that anarchists have historically been, and continue to be, opposed to power." According to Corrêa, "most anarchist classics have given the concept of power a limited content, such as the state and/or sovereignty; that is why they have said they are opposed to power." In short, when anarchists claim to be against power, they actually use the term 'power' to refer to 'a specific type of power relationship' such as domination (gender, race, ethnic-national) and class exploitation/dominance (capitalism) (CORRÊA, 2014). Building on anarchist Tomás Ibáñez, Corrêa systematizes three approaches to power: 1) power as capacity, 2) power as asymmetry of power relations, and 3) power as structures and mechanisms of regulation and control. Considering these three approaches, Corrêa argues that there is a libertarian understanding of power, and in our view, this understanding aims to empower the working class as an agent of radical social change, to intervene in the asymmetrical power relations in contemporary society, and ultimately to establish new structures and mechanisms of regulation (in the society of today and tomorrow).
The Spanish anarchist Julián Vadillo Múñoz (quoted from ZARCONE, 2015) states with great certainty that while anarchism rejects politics when the term "politics" is understood only as "the takeover of the state," this does not mean that anarchism rejects all forms of political action. When anarchists in the early 20th century said they were "against politics" or "apolitical," they were referring, within the context of electoral politics, to parties, not to all forms of politics; for these same anarchists developed various forms of political action in trade unions throughout the historical period under consideration. "The politics of anarchists is not limited to the struggle against existing institutions.[...]It also includes the struggle to build a different kind of society." (ZARCONE, 2005); this was accomplished in practice in at least four historical events: the Mexican Revolution (1911), the Ukrainian Revolution (1921), the Manchurian Revolution (1929), and the Spanish Revolution (1936). Despite the fears of those opposed to organization, revolutions are not role-playing games (RPGs) where you can imagine a perfect scenario (as in internet forums, for example) and stay away from the "plague of power." Anarchism must resort to concrete actions in concrete situations and consider how society should organize life, how it should reduce or eliminate power inequalities, and how it should establish itself as a significant social force. Choosing military commanders (like Nestor Makhno and Kim Jwa-Jin, controlled by the rank and file but still commanders), prosecuting war criminals, keeping a factory running, helping to organize strikes, and above all (this was Kropotkin's greatest concern) knowing how to guarantee bread, land, and freedom to thousands or millions of workers-these were among the concerns of those with a clear vision of politics and power.
The historical manifestations of anarchism did not arise as a spontaneous uprising of the masses, but rather were the result of work within mass organizations that possessed a political and populist program addressing the needs of the masses.
The notion that anarchism is merely an anti-authoritarian sentiment etched in time overlooks the complex political models and numerous organizational forms that anarchists have developed over time. The idea that anarchism is simply a struggle against authority seems broader and more generous as a concept, encompassing more of the differences within so-called anarchism. However, this excessive looseness and historical nature of the idea have the opposite effect: it highlights obscure figures like Stirner, Godwin, Tolstoy, and even Lao-Tse; it points to any intellectual who contributed to organizing workers, and ignores the hundreds of workers who concretely shaped anarchist ideology. This concept overlooks or relegates to the background the true creators of anarchism's red and black flag: the nameless workers who contributed far beyond intellectual texts or pamphlets, but who lived the consequences of their opposition to the state and capitalism in their bodies.
This is the essence of anarchism. Its anti-capitalist, anti-state, and libertarian left-wing origins have contributed to the development of revolutionary political and social processes with global impact. It is this anarchism that has militants in both rural and urban areas, and therefore rejects, or will reject, the absurd thesis that anarchism is neither right-wing nor left-wing.
Of course, no one who truly desires to fundamentally transform reality and has dedicated their time and energy to this cause would ever fall into the trap of believing that such an ideology is something that doesn't actually exist anywhere.
Source
BAKUNIN, Mikhail. The Necessity of Organization. Available at: https://anarquismorj.wordpress.com/necessidade-org-mikhail-bakunin/
BEY, Hakim. "Post-anarchism Anarchy". New York, 1987. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-post-anarchism-anarchy
BOOKCHIN, Murray. Anarchism: Critique and Self-Criticism. São Paulo: Hedra Publishing, 2011.
BOBBIO, Norbert. Right and Left: The Causes and Meanings of a Political Divide. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2011.
CORRÊA, Felipe. Power and anarchism. In Anarkismo.net, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.anarkismo.net/article/26913
Reconsidering Anarchism: A Theoretical Approach. Master's Thesis - Social Change and Political Participation Master's Program, Faculty of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2012
CORRÊA, Felipe; SILVA, Rafael Viana da. "Anarchism, Theory and History" in Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA), 2013.
DANTON, José Antonio Gutiérrez. Problems and Possibilities of Anarchism. São Paulo: Faísca, 2011.
GUERÍN, Daniel. Anarchism and Marxism. In Marxists.org, 1973. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/portugues/guerin/1973/11/06.htm
KANAAN, Hanen Sarkis. The End of History and the Last Man. Percursos Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2005.
KROPOTKIN, Piotr. Anarchism. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910. Source: Anarchy Archives. Retrieved from: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html
MALATESTA, Errico. Anarchists, Socialists, and Communists. São Paulo: Imaginário Publishing, 2014.
MAZOWER, Mark. The Dark Continent. Europe in the 20th Century. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2001. pp. 213-247
ROCKHILL, Gabriel. The CIA Reads French Theory: On the Intellectual Work Towards Eliminating the Cultural Left. In Passa Palavra, 2017. Available at: http://passapalavra.info/2017/03/110892
SAMIS, Alexandre. The International Workers' Association and the Formation of the Libertarian Tradition. In CORRÊA, Felipe; SILVA, Rafael Viana da; SILVA, Alessandro Soares da (eds.). The Theory and History of Anarchism. Paraná: Editora Prismas, 2015.
VAN DER WALT, Lucien. World Revolution: An Assessment of Worldwide Impacts, Popular Organization, Struggles and Anarchist and Syndicalist Theory. In: Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA), 2017. Available at: https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/lucien-van-der-walt-revolucaomundial-para-um-balanco-dos-impactos-da-organizacao-popular-das-lutas-e-da-teoriaanarquista-e-sindicalista-em-todo-o-mundo1/
ZARCONE, Pier F. "Anarchists and Politics". Anarkismo.net, 2005. Retrieved from: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/1071
Translated into English by the Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (IATH). Reviewed by Jonathan Payn. Published by the Institute for Anarchist Theory and History (IATH) on August 30, 2024.
1. The "Seven Sages" mentioned here are historical and semi-legendary figures from Ancient Greece who laid the foundations of philosophy, politics, and law, and were known for their practical intelligence.
According to Corrêa (2012), the first academic study on anarchism was conducted by Paul Eltzbacher in 1900.
3. In the original text, the phrase "library cleaners" refers to an anarchist figure who, far from pursuing claims of social transformation, has dedicated their time to preserving archives, books, and ideas, remaining confined to the theoretical world. (translator's note)
4. The book referred to in the text is Murray Bookchin's "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism?" (Kaos Publications, 1998). (translator's note)
Translation: Earth Post
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/07/25/apolitizmin-sefaleti-ve-anarsizmin-sol-kokenleri-rafael-v-da-silva/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE FRANCE - news journal UPDATE - (en) France, UCL AL #373 - International Contributions - In 1926... and 1956: Trajectories of Organized Anarchism (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
The Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (fAu) is celebrating the seventieth anniversary of its founding. From its inception, it has defined itself as belonging to the specificist current of organized anarchism. --- Specificism supports the need to build a specific anarchist political organization, endowed with theoretical, strategic, and tactical unity, capable of intervening permanently in popular struggles in order to contribute to the development of social force and processes of revolutionary transformation.
The Origins of SpecificismThe fAu's main theoretical reference since its founding has been Errico Malatesta, from whom it adopted the idea that anarchists must organize themselves politically in order to intervene coherently in social reality, avoiding both spontaneity and militant fragmentation. Contributions from Bakunin were also incorporated, particularly his concept of a revolutionary organization operating within popular processes without transforming itself into a new authority or replacing popular initiatives.
Specifism cannot be defined solely by an organizational doctrine. It is also expressed in a way of analyzing reality, developing a strategy, and engaging with popular struggles. Its distinctiveness lies not only in the existence of an anarchist organization, but also in the attempt to make this organization a tool capable of addressing the concrete problems of each situation.
One of the central characteristics of specificism is the rejection of the mechanical importation of political models developed for other contexts. From its earliest years, the fAU maintained that Latin America must be understood from its own historical, economic, and cultural perspective. This did not imply rejecting theoretical contributions from Europe or other regions, but rather avoiding their automatic application. Conceptual tools had to be tested in the concrete reality of our peoples and adapted to their specific circumstances.
Porto Alegre (1997) - Congress of the Federação Anarquista Gaúcha (FAG), bringing together activists from different regions of Brazil as well as the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU), at a pivotal moment in the development of an organized anarchism that would become deeply rooted in Brazilian social struggles.
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya
From this stems another fundamental element: a constant awareness of the current situation. For specificism, political organization does not exist to repeat formulas or administer doctrines, but to understand the transformations of capitalism, the changing forms of domination, and the concrete possibilities for popular organization that exist at each historical moment. Revolutionary strategy cannot be built outside of these conditions.
Links with Platformism
Unlike Leninist conceptions, specificism does not consider that political organization should lead the people or replace their decisions. Nor does it conceive that revolutionary construction consists of strengthening a party to conquer the state. On the contrary, anarchist organization exists to strengthen the self-organizing capacity of the dominated, exploited, and oppressed classes.
This is why we distinguish two complementary levels of organization: the anarchist political organization, which brings together activists on the basis of ideological, strategic, and programmatic agreements; and popular organizations and social movements, which must maintain their independence and develop according to their own dynamics. The task of anarchists is to act within these movements by promoting practices of direct democracy, federalism, direct action, solidarity, and self-management, without attempting to transform them into mere instruments of political organization.
The centenary of the Platform offers an opportunity to reflect on the points of convergence and differences between this experience and the specificism developed by the fAu. The Platform constituted one of the first systematic attempts to address a problem that would mark much of 20th-century anarchism: how to build an effective revolutionary organization without reproducing the authoritarian forms that were beginning to consolidate in the Soviet Union.
"Let us sing so as not to forget the working class and its struggle for survival." Specificism is a Uruguayan anarchist current that affirms the necessity of a specific anarchist organization. This organization must be rooted in popular struggles and act within them as an active minority to build popular power through direct action and self-organization.
During the formation of the fAu (Front d'Action pour la Révolutionnaire Uruguayan), the classic documents of platformism did not have a direct influence, although they were probably known to some of its activists. The organizational tradition that gave rise to Uruguayan specificism was primarily nourished by Malatesta, the experiences of Río de la Plata anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, and decades of debates led by generations of local activists.
This does not mean, however, that there was an open opposition between these two currents. Platformism and specificism both affirmed the need for an anarchist political organization capable of intervening in reality, developing a strategy, assuming collective responsibilities, and actively participating in popular struggles.
However, while some historical platformist currents emphasized the construction of a libertarian communist organization, specificism tended to stress the link between political organization and social integration, the building of popular power, and the need to develop strategies adapted to each specific reality.
In our view, the differences lie primarily in their historical trajectories and the specific problems they sought to solve. While the Platform was developed in the context of the defeat of the Russian Revolution and the rise of Bolshevism, specificism developed within a reality deeply marked by imperialism and the particularities of Latin American social formations.
Beyond these differences, the historical value of the Platform remains undeniable. Faced with the concentration of political power in the hands of a ruling elite, it asserted the need for coordinated organization, strategy, and intervention, without abandoning the principles of federalism, collective responsibility, and popular participation.
Therefore, on the centenary of its publication, we can affirm that both platformism and specificism are part of the same organizing tradition within revolutionary anarchism. This tradition, arising from different contexts, has sought to address a common challenge: to build political tools capable of bringing about profound transformations without replacing the initiative of the oppressed classes or reproducing new forms of domination.
Uruguayan Anarchist Federation
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?En-1926-et-1956-Trajectoires-de-l-anarchisme-organise
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE FRANCE - news journal Update - (en) France, Monde Libertaire - IDEAS AND STRUGGLES: From the Commune to Communalism followed by Inventing Desirable Lives (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Communalism, the word has resurfaced in the political debate. Recently, La France Insoumise (LFI) appropriated the concept during the municipal elections, diverting it from its original meaning, at the very least that of the Paris Commune championed by Gustave Lefrançais. Indeed, communalism opposes the State, rendering it unnecessary. Integrating this management of social life by individuals into a State that retains sovereign powers, including the legitimate use of force, is to establish an anti-democratic tutelage. This comes as no surprise to me from the proponents of this attack on local liberties.
Paula Cossart, in a stimulating short essay, From the Commune to Communalism: A Paradoxical Legacy, published by Éditions de la Lanterne, presents this project of political organization "from below." As its editor points out, the book revisits the democratic practices of the Commune to understand its paradoxical legacy and contemporary uses. "Within this constellation of experiences, both scattered and linked by shared concerns, communalism finds renewed relevance today: not as a unified model but as a pluralistic horizon, fraught with tensions, and carrying a renewed critique of state and representative forms of democracy." Certainly, the reference to the Commune, and therefore to the past, articulated with a conception of utopia as "thought of becoming," is characterized by a profound dynamism. The aim is not to obscure this past, nor to mythologize it, but to provide a guiding light at a specific moment in history. The ideas and measures implemented between March and May 1871 in Paris are perceived as an "example of the possibility of the people seizing power," a source of inspiration for revolutionaries worldwide. However, no exact reproduction is conceivable because circumstances change. Let's speak instead of analogy. Rojava, the ZAD of Notre-Dame-des-Landes, and the Yellow Vests are current echoes of this, and this reference should be seen as a "critical resource for thinking about and experimenting with present forms of political engagement." With or without the State? The principle of a federation of communes, contained in various declarations of the Commune, is also found in the assembly of assemblies initiated in Commercy. The author analyzes Bookchin's thought and his critique of the Paris Commune, including, among other things, the question of the State's role. Many anarchist authors and/or participants in the Commune, such as Élisée Reclus and Pierre Kropotkin, criticized the maintenance of a statist tradition. We find this confusion in certain texts, such as the decree of April 2, 1871, concerning the separation of Church and State. (Emphasis added). We could also consider the Paris Commune of 1792-1793, whose heirs the Communards considered themselves to be. Let us recall Proudhon's reflections, his vision of a commune as "by its very nature[...]a sovereign entity," and his work, *Du principe fédératif* (On the Federal Principle). In the years preceding the Paris Commune, authors such as Pecqueur, Renouvier, and Fauvety developed their conceptions of local direct democracy. The question of the imperative mandate can be considered to have been on people's minds (in clubs and sections of the International Workingmen's Association), if not explicitly stated in legal texts, as was that of revocation. Gustave Lefrançais wrote: "The Communalist movement aimed to eliminate the notion of authority and government, replacing it with that of law and the direct and inalienable sovereignty of citizens." Even if the whole is not pure and perfect-let us never forget the fire of the Versailles troops and the incessant attacks-debates take place in clubs, sections, and neighborhoods. Women speak out and position themselves as active participants in public life. Initiatives emerge. After the repression of 1871, the socialist movement split. The Guesdist wing aimed for control of the state apparatus, while others, more inclined towards self-management, identified with municipal socialism, which certainly managed the powers granted by the law of April 5, 1884, on municipal organization as best it could. "The municipal council regulates the affairs of the municipality through its deliberations," but within the framework of the laws of the Republic. From revolutionaries, these socialists became reformists. Initiatives are emerging in small municipalities today, but restrictive, sclerotic regulations, reduced budgets, and the legal "guardianship" established by the State, and in practice by other communities and inter-municipalities, are hindering the emergence of modern communalism.
* Paula Cossart, From Commune to Communalism: A Paradoxical Legacy, Éditions de la Lanterne, 2026. The commune of Saillans (population 1,500) in the Drôme region garnered attention when a social and political experiment there enabled a process of democratization in practice from 2014 to 2020. What self-governance structures and mechanisms ensured the voice of the majority? In the fall of 2015, academic Séverin Muller wrote to the municipal team: "I would like to recount your ongoing story, sharing my reflections as the project unfolds, taking the time to understand, share, and participate in the activities." In his book, Inventing Desirable Lives: From Democracy to Work in Saillans, published by Éditions du Croquant, he outlines the lessons learned from this rather exceptional term. It is a work of scholarship that skillfully explains its methods, listens attentively, and makes its points accessible to the reader. This is an excellent tool for reflecting on local initiatives for active citizen participation. The 2014 election was a success, even if not the entire population embraced the experience. This was due to a lack of availability, doubts about the process, and indifference. We are dealing with concrete realities. A series of initiatives are being led by residents in associations, cooperatives, and self-managed spaces where energy and means of production are shared. This experience highlights a classic reflection in the sociology of work: "How work creates society and how, through work, humans transform society." Séverin Muller emphasizes: "Politically, this will invite us to reflect more broadly on the present and future of these attempts to create desirable lives on the expanded margins of society." With him, we move forward step by step, with as many questions as observations. How do we organize a collegial municipality, how do we create a collective? It's not easy in a society and a legal framework based on delegation rather than participation. Hey, an interesting title: the ideal municipality is an inverted pyramid. Read on.
From ideals to reality, the field is vast. The essential example is obviously the local urban development plan, this foundational document for spatial planning policy that can constrain property owners, stifle projects, or promote others. The other crucial tool in a municipality: the budget. Here too, the debates are heated. What are the priorities? How can residents be involved?
A flagship project: Elisa's house, welcoming migrants, and always
this restrictive legal framework.
And there will be defeat in the 2020 elections. Séverin Muller quotes
Laure Godineau, speaking at the end of the Paris Commune, of the thirst for
the ordinary. I would say weariness, being fed up with meetings, the
confusion of debates. A classic. Is this dream pointless? No, it
has translated into reality; it allows us to analyze and understand. I
also believe that we must take into account the evolution of the town
and its environment. A sequel to this book would be interesting. I
reiterate this quote from the activists: "You will have neither our joy nor our determination."
* Séverin Muller
Inventing Desirable Lives,
From Democracy to Work in Saillans
Ed. du Croquant, 2026
https://monde-libertaire.net/?articlen=9120
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
WORLD WORLDWIDE US USA VS - news journal UPDATE - (en) US, BRRN: The Platform at 100: Voices of Organized Anarchists Around the Globe (Vol. 2) III. Die Platform - Germany (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
1. What is the history of Die Plattform? How, when, and under what circumstances was your organization formed? --- Die Plattform: Die Plattform was founded as an initiative in 2019 after long discussions between comrades who have been active in a broader anarchist organization and felt the need for an organization composed of more committed militants around a shared strategy.
The "Organizational Platform of Libertarian Communists" was just translated a few years earlier into German and had a great influence on what they perceived as an alternative form of organization. Originally and still today, the critique of the broader anarchist milieu and movement in Germany is something we think is needed. It took a lot of space in our first publication. But limiting the formation of Die Plattform to solely disagreements inside the anarchist movement would be shortsighted.Many socialists realized after the crisis of 2008/2009 that there is a need to get more rooted in the working and popular classes and build organizations that are actually able to build toward a social revolution while also having a practical impact in daily life. This is what we today call "power from below."
We also felt the need for a more coherent anarchist organization that connects us as revolutionaries and helps us stay true to our ideals and values. There have been many debates, congresses, organizations and initiatives that have influenced our organization and work today.
2. Historically speaking, what have been the most visible expressions of organized anarchism in Germany? Did there exist any groups inspired by Dielo Truda's Platform before the establishment of your organization?
Die Plattform: As far as we know, there hasn't been any organization in Germany inspired by Dielo Truda's Platform before us, but there had been similar experiments in the 1920s, with the Federation of Anarchist Communists of Germany and around some newspapers, but they never gained any real influence. At the same time, especially during the revolutionary phase between 1918 and 1923, we see the most visible expression of anarchism as a social revolutionary movement in Germany, composed around the Free Workers Union of Germany (FAUD), which grew out of a localist union culture in contrast to the central unions close to the social democrats. They adopted an anarcho-syndicalist programme and at one point had organized more than 150,000 revolutionary workers. After the fascist purges, the shoah and the second world war, the anarchist movement never really grew bigger or more influential again.
Still, anarchist ideas always came back, and they influenced the autonomous movement, social movements and other political groups after the revolt in 1968, but anarchists were not able to build a coherent revolutionary organization. But we do find some autonomous housing projects, publishers and newspapers connected to the anarchist movement, as well as the FAU anarchosyndicalist union, which has grown over the last 10 years.
3. The Platform document is now 100 years old, is it still relevant for the year 2026? How does platformism inform the practical activity of your organization?
Die Plattform: If we do understand the original document not as a finished programme for an anarchist organization, but as a self-critique, a reflection, an attempt to keep true to anarchism as an ideology rooted in the workers and peasant movements of their time after losing in a revolution, there is still relevance. First of all, we think that their reflection of their experiences, gains and losses are important tools and aspects of revolutionary organizing in general, which we admire. Secondly, we still agree with their conclusions about the need for a coherent anarchist organization based on a common theory and strategy, collective responsibility for our work, and a federalist structure.
From our own experiences in various social movements in the last ten years, we recognize the limits and boundaries inside them to form structures coherent enough to be both practically and ideologically strong. In our practical activities, this influences us in the separation of political organization with the discussion we have around a common programme, as well as our work in the social movements. But we are less about tying our strategy to a specific historical document: rather, it helps inform our historical and present experiences in broader social and libertarian movements. We have to try and figure out what strategy works best for our current times.
4. Your organization sometimes uses phrases and concepts borrowed from Especifismo, such as 'social insertion'. To what extent do you believe there is similarity or difference between Especifismo and Platformism?
Die Plattform: We consider both as parts of an older anarchist tradition, called organizational dualism. In this tradition, we find common ground in the specific anarchist organization and the work to be done within the working classes. As there are sadly not many translations from the especifist tradition into German, it is difficult to say where exactly we can find similarities or differences, but we are eager to find out more about it. While it is interesting to study the details, we think it is more important to be practical about it and not to make up unnecessary differences, which distance us more from each other than bring us closer together in political discourse.
5. What areas of social or mass organizing are members of Die Plattform engaged in?
Die Plattform: Since our foundation, our view of which movements our members should engage in has changed, which is why we gained experiences first in the climate justice movement and feminist organizing as well as in antifascist groups. Right now, we are mostly engaged in neighborhood and tenant organizing, while some members are also active in the union movement and feminist organizations.
6. What relationship do you have with other Platformist or Especifista anarchist organizations in Europe and beyond?
Die Plattform: Together with many other organizations of our tendency, we founded the International Coordination of Organized Anarchism (ICOA), in which we participate. In Europe, we do have close ties to the Swiss organisation Midada and the Union Communiste Libertaire in France. We try to keep in regular exchange and when possible participate in each other's events.
7. How has Die Plattform changed in its seven years of existence? What are the main obstacles you have faced and how have you overcome them?
Die Plattform: Die Plattform is constantly changing. From an initiative inside of a synthesist anarchist organization, we became a federation with local groups. In these seven years as a federation, we struggled with internal disagreements, patriarchal and racist behavior that required correcting, as well as with confusion about what terms like "social insertion" mean exactly to us in our reality in Germany, and how to adapt concepts from different places and put them into practice.
Beyond that, we gained a lot of experience organizing as anarchists. We are part of an ongoing process to find out what it means to be an anarchist organization and what our internal processes and structures should look like. Over the last two years, there has been increasing interest in our organization. We have also realized that for real unity, it takes more than just declaring it: it must be created through education, common practice, and long discussions to understand the conditions of our struggle.
https://www.blackrosefed.org/platform-interviews-vol-2/#die-plattform-germany
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)