At the time of the Congress, Dunois was a member of the French revolutionary syndicalist organization, the CGT, and a contributor to Jean Grave’s anarchist communist paper, Les Temps Nouveaux. A mere five years later, he was to renounce anarchism, joining the French Section of the Workers’ International (SFIO), the French socialist party affiliated with the Second International, which was dominated by the Marxist social democrats Dunois criticizes in his speech (the anarchists had been excluded from the Second International in 1896 because they refused to recognize “participation in legislative and parliamentary activity as a necessary means” for achieving socialism). Unlike the majority of the SFIO and the other political parties affiliated with the Second International, Dunois opposed the First World War. After the war, he helped found the French Communist Party (PCF), which he left in 1927 after it came under the control of Stalinists, rejoining the SFIO in 1930. He remained in France during the Second World War, where he worked in the Resistance. In 1944, he was captured by the Gestapo, eventually being sent to the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, where he perished in 1945, a few months before the war ended.

The translation is by Nestor McNab and is taken from Studies for a Libertarian Alternative: The International Anarchist Congress, Amsterdam, 1907, published by the Anarchist Communist Federation in Italy (Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici – FdCA); paperback edition available from AK Press.

Anarchism and Organization

It is not long since our comrades were almost unanimous in their clear hostility towards any idea of organization. The question we are dealing with today would, then, have raised endless protests from them, and its supporters would have been vehemently accused of a hidden agenda and authoritarianism.

They were times when anarchists, isolated from each other and even more so from the working class, seemed to have lost all social feeling; in which anarchists, with their unceasing appeals for the spiritual liberation of the individual, were seen as the supreme manifestation of the old individualism of the great bourgeois theoreticians of the past.

Individual actions and individual initiative were thought to suffice for everything; and they applauded [Ibsen’s play] “An Enemy of the People” when it declared that a man alone is the most powerful of all. But they did not think of one thing: that Ibsen’s concept was never that of a revolutionary, in the sense that we give this word, but of a moralist primarily concerned with establishing a new moral elite within the very breast of the old society.

In past years, generally speaking, little attention was paid to studying the concrete matters of economic life, of the various phenomena of production and exchange, and some of our people, whose race has not yet disappeared, went so far as to deny the existence of that basic phenomenon – the class struggle – to the point of no longer distinguishing in the present society, in the manner of the pure democrats, anything except differences of opinion, which anarchist propaganda had to prepare individuals for, as a way of training them for theoretical discussion.

In its origins, anarchism was nothing more than a concrete protest against opportunist tendencies and social democracy’s authoritarian way of acting; and in this regard it can be said to have carried out a useful function in the social movement of the past twenty-five years. If socialism as a whole, as a revolutionary idea, has survived the progressive bourgeoisification of social democracy, it is undoubtedly due to the anarchists.

Why have anarchists not been content to support the principle of socialism and federalism against the bare-faced deviations of the [social democratic] cavaliers of the conquest of political power? Why has time brought them to the ambition of re-building a whole new ideology all over again, faced with parliamentary and reformist socialism?

We cannot but recognize it: this ideological attempt was not always an easy one. More often than not we have limited ourselves to consigning to the flames that which social democracy worshipped, and to worshipping that which burned. That is how unwittingly and without even realizing it, so many anarchists were able to lose sight of the essentially practical and working class nature of socialism in general and anarchism in particular, neither of which have ever been anything other than the theoretical expression of the spontaneous resistance of the workers against the oppression by the bourgeois regime. It happened to the anarchists as it happened to German philosophical socialism before 1848 – as we can read in the [Marx & Engels’] Communist Manifesto – which prided itself on being able to remain “in contempt of all class struggles,” defending “not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy”.

Thus, many of our people came back curiously towards idealism on the one hand and individualism on the other. And there was renewed interest in the old 1848 themes of justice, liberty, brotherhood and the emancipatory omnipotence of the Idea of the world. At the same time the Individual was exalted, in the English manner, against the State and any form of organization came, more or less openly, to be viewed as a form of oppression and mental exploitation.

Certainly, this state of mind was never absolutely unanimous. But that does not take away from the fact that it is responsible, for the most part, for the absence of an organized, coherent anarchist movement. The exaggerated fear of alienating our own free wills at the hands of some new collective body stopped us above all from uniting.

It is true that there existed among us “social study groups”, but we know how ephemeral and precarious they were: born out of individual caprice, these groups were destined to disappear with it; those who made them up did not feel united enough, and the first difficulty they encountered caused them to split up. Furthermore, these groups do not seem to have ever had a clear notion of their goal. Now, the goal of an organization is at one and the same time thought and action. In my experience, however, those groups did not act at all: they disputed. And many reproached them for building all those little chapels, those talking shops.

What lies at the root of the fact that anarchist opinion now seems to be changing with regard to the question of organization?

There are two reasons for this:

The first is the example from abroad. There are small permanent organizations in England, Holland, Germany, Bohemia, Romandie and Italy which have been operating for several years now, without the anarchist idea having visibly suffered for this. It is true that in France we do not have a great deal of information on the constitution and life of these organizations; it would be desirable to investigate this.

The second cause is much more important. It consists of the decisive evolution that the minds and practical habits of anarchists have been undergoing more or less everywhere for the last seven years or so, which has led them to join the workers’ movement actively and participate in the people’s lives.

In a word, we have overcome the gap between the pure idea, which can so easily turn into dogma, and real life.

The basic result of this has been that we have become less and less interested in the sociological abstractions of yore and more and more interested in the practical movement, in action. Proof is the great importance that revolutionary syndicalism and anti-militarism, for example, have acquired for us in recent years.

Another result of our participation in the movement, also very important, has been that theoretical anarchism itself has gradually sharpened itself and become alive through contact with real life, that eternal fountain of thought. Anarchism in our eyes is no longer a general conception of the world, an ideal for existence, a rebellion of the spirit against everything that is foul, impure and beastly in life; it is also and above all a revolutionary theory, a concrete programme of destruction and social re-organization. Revolutionary anarchism – and I emphasize the word “revolutionary” – essentially seeks to participate in the spontaneous movement of the masses, working towards what Kropotkin so neatly called the “Conquest of Bread” [Volume One, Selection 33].

Now, it is only from the point of view of revolutionary anarchism that the question of anarchist organization can be dealt with.

The enemies of organization today are of two sorts.

Firstly, there are those who are obstinately and systematically hostile to any sort of organization. They are the individualists. There can be found among them the idea popularized by Rousseau that society is evil, that it is always a limitation on the independence of the individual. The smallest amount of society possible, or no society at all: that is their dream, an absurd dream, a romantic dream that brings us back to the strangest follies of Rousseau’s literature.

Do we need to say and to demonstrate that anarchism is not individualism, then? Historically speaking, anarchism was born, through the development of socialism, in the congresses of the International, in other words, from the workers’ movement itself [Volume One, Chapters 5 & 6]. And in fact, logically, anarchy means society organized without political authority. I said organized. On this point all the anarchists — Proudhon, Bakunin, those of the Jura Federation, Kropotkin — are in agreement. Far from treating organization and government as equal, Proudhon never ceased to emphasize their incompatibility: “The producer is incompatible with government,” he says in the General Idea of the Revolution in the 19^th Century, “organization is opposed to government” [Volume One, Selection 12].

Even Marx himself, whose disciples now seek to hide the anarchist side to his doctrine, defined anarchy thus: “All Socialists understand by Anarchy the following: that once the goal of the proletarian movement – the abolition of classes – is reached, the power of the State – which serves to maintain the large producing majority under the yoke of a small exploiting minority – disappears and the functions of government are transformed into simple administrative functions”. In other words, anarchy is not the negation of organization but only of the governing function of the power of the State.

No, anarchism is not individualist, but basically federalist. Federalism is essential to anarchism: it is in fact the very essence of anarchism. I would happily define anarchism as complete federalism, the universal extension of the idea of the free contract.

After all, I cannot see how an anarchist organization could damage the individual development of its members. No one would be forced to join, just as no one would be forced to leave once they had joined. So what is an anarchist federation? Several comrades from a particular region, Romandie for example, having established the impotence of isolated forces, of piecemeal action, agree one fine day to remain in continuing contact with each other, to unite their forces with the aim of working to spread communist, anarchist and revolutionary ideas and of participating in public events through their collective action. Do they thus create a new entity whose designated prey is the individual? By no means. They very simply, and for a precise goal, band together their ideas, their will and their forces, and from the resulting collective potentiality, each gains some advantage.

But we also have, as I said earlier, another sort of adversary. They are those who, despite being supporters of workers’ organizations founded on an identity of interests, prove to be hostile – or at least indifferent – to any organization based on an identity of aspirations, feelings and principles; they are, in a word, the [pure] syndicalists.

Let us examine their objections. The existence in France of a workers’ movement with a revolutionary and almost anarchist outlook is, in that country, currently the greatest obstacle that any attempt at anarchist organization risks foundering on – I do not wish to say being wrecked on. And this important historical fact imposes certain precautions on us, which do not affect, in my opinion, our comrades in other countries.

The workers’ movement today, the syndicalists observe, offers anarchists an almost unlimited field of action. Whereas idea-based groups, little sanctuaries into which only the initiated may enter, cannot hope to grow indefinitely, the workers’ organization, on the other hand, is a widely accessible association; it is not a temple whose doors are closed, but a public arena, a forum open to all workers without distinction of sex, race or ideology, and therefore perfectly adapted to encompassing the whole proletariat within its flexible and mobile ranks.

Now, the syndicalists continue, it is there in the workers’ unions that anarchists must be. The workers’ union is the living bud of the future society; it is the former which will pave the way for the latter. The error is made in staying within one’s own four walls, among the other initiates, chewing the same questions of doctrine over and over again, always moving within the same circle of ideas. We must not, under any pretext, separate ourselves form the people, for no matter how backward and limited the people may be, it is they, and not the ideologue, who are the indispensable driving force of every social revolution. Do we perhaps, like the social democrats, have any interests we wish to promote other than those of the great working mass? Party, sect or factional interests? Is it up to the people to come to us or is it we who must go to them, living their lives, earning their trust and stimulating them with both our words and our example into resistance, rebellion, revolution?

This is how the syndicalists talk. But I do not see how their objections have any value against our project to organize ourselves. On the contrary. I see clearly that if they had any value, it would also be against anarchism itself, as a doctrine that seeks to be distinct from syndicalism and refuses to allow itself to become absorbed into it.

Organized or not, anarchists (by which I mean those of our tendency, who do not arbitrarily separate anarchism from the proletariat) do not by any means expect that they are entitled to act in the role of ‘supreme saviours”, as the song goes. We willingly assign pride of place in the field of action to the workers’ movement, convinced as we have been for so long that the emancipation of the workers will be at the hands of those concerned or it will not be.

In other words, in our opinion the syndicate must not just have a purely corporative, trade function as the Guesdist socialists intend it, and with them some anarchists who cling to now outdated formulae. The time for pure corporativism is ended: this is a fact that could in principle be contrary to previous concepts, but which must be accepted with all its consequences. Yes, the corporative spirit is tending more and more towards becoming an anomaly, an anachronism, and is making room for the spirit of class. And this, mark my words, is not thanks to Griffuelhes, nor to Pouget – it is a result of action. In fact it is the needs of action that have obliged syndicalism to lift up its head and widen its conceptions. Nowadays the workers’ union is on the road to becoming for proletarians what the State is for the bourgeoisie: the political institution par excellence; an essential instrument in the struggle against capital, a weapon of defence or attack according to the situation.

Our task as anarchists, the most advanced, the boldest and the most uninhibited sector of the militant proletariat, is to stay constantly by its side, to fight the same battle among its ranks, to defend it against itself, not necessarily the least dangerous enemy. In other words, we want to provide this enormous moving mass that is the modern proletariat, I will not say with a philosophy and an ideal, something that could seem presumptuous, but with a goal and the means of action.

Far be it from us therefore the inept idea of wanting to isolate ourselves from the proletariat; that would be, we know only too well, to reduce ourselves to the impotence of proud ideologies, of abstractions empty of any ideal. Organized or not organized, then, the anarchists will remain true to their role of educators, stimulators and guides of the working masses. And if we are today of a mind to associate into groups in neighbourhoods, towns, regions or countries, and to federate these groups, it is above all in order to give our union action greater strength and continuity.

What is most often missing in those of us who fight within the world of labour, is the feeling of being supported. Social democratic syndicalists have behind them the constant organized power of the party from which they sometimes receive their watchwords and at all times their inspiration. Anarchist syndicalists on the other hand are abandoned unto themselves and, outside the union, do not have any real links between them or to their other comrades; they do not feel any support behind them and they receive no help. So, we wish to create this link, to provide this constant support; and I am personally convinced that our union activities cannot but benefit both in energy and in intelligence. And the stronger we are – and we will only become strong by organizing ourselves – the stronger will be the flow of ideas that we can send through the workers’ movement, which will thus become slowly impregnated with the anarchist spirit.

But will these groups of anarchist workers, which we would hope to see created in the near future, have no other role than to influence the great proletarian masses indirectly, by means of a militant elite, to drive them systematically into heroic resolutions, in a word to prepare the popular revolt? Will our groups have to limit themselves to perfecting the education of militants, to keep the revolutionary fever alive in them, to allow them to meet each other, to exchange ideas, to help each other at any time?

In other words, will they have their own action to carry out directly?

I believe so.

The social revolution, whether one imagines it in the guise of a general strike or an armed insurrection, can only be the work of the masses who must benefit from it. But every mass movement is accompanied by acts whose very nature – dare I say, whose technical nature – implies that they be carried out by a small number of people, the most perspicacious and daring sector of the mass movement. During the revolutionary period, in each neighbourhood, in each town, in each province, our anarchist groups will form many small fighting organizations, who will take those special, delicate measures which the large mass is almost always unable to do. It is clear that the groups should even now study and establish these insurrectional measures so as not to be, as has often happened, surprised by events.

Now for the principal, regular, continuous aim of our groups. It is (you will by now have guessed) anarchist propaganda. Yes, we will organize ourselves above all to spread our theoretical ideas, our methods of direct action and universal federalism.

Until today our propaganda has been made only or almost only on an individual basis. Individual propaganda has given notable results, above all in the heroic times when anarchists were compensating for the large number they needed with a fever of proselytism that recalled the primitive Christians. But is this continuing to happen? Experience obliges me to confess that it is not.

It seems that anarchism has been going through a sort of crisis in recent years, at least in France. The causes of this are clearly many and complex. It is not my task here to establish what they are, but I do wonder if the total lack of agreement and organization is not one of the causes of this crisis.

There are many anarchists in France. They are much divided on the question of theory, but even more so on practice. Everyone acts in his own way whenever he wants; in this way the individual efforts are dispersed and often exhausted, simply wasted. Anarchists can be found in more or less every sphere of action: in the workers’ unions, in the anti-militarist movement, among anti-clericalist free thinkers, in the popular universities, and so on, and so forth. What we are missing is a specifically anarchist movement, which can gather to it, on the economic and workers’ ground that is ours, all those forces that have been fighting in isolation up till now.

This specifically anarchist movement will spontaneously arise from our groups and from the federation of these groups. The might of joint action, of concerted action, will undoubtedly create it. I do not need to add that this organization will by no means expect to encompass all the picturesquely dispersed elements who describe themselves as followers of the anarchist ideal; there are, after all, those who would be totally inadmissible. It would be sufficient for the anarchist organization to group together, around a programme of concrete, practical action, all the comrades who accept our principles and who want to work with us, according to our methods.

Let me make it clear that I do not wish to go into specifics here. I am not dealing with the theoretical side of the organization. The name, form and programme of the organization to be created will be established separately and after reflection by the supporters of this organization.

Found at: http://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/amedee-dunois-anarchism-organization/

“Dual power is the idea that the embryo of the new world must be created while fighting the current one; ‘building the new in the shell of the old’. It means encouraging working class organs of self-management, where we can exercise our autonomy and restrict the power of boss and government until such time as we can confront and abolish both. A dual power strategy is one that directly challenges institutions of power and at the same time, in some way, prefigures the new institutions we envision. Therefore, it not only opposes the state, it also prepares for the difficult confrontations and questions that will arise in a revolutionary situation.”

At the recent anarchist bookfair in Los Angeles, Tom Wetzel of the Workers Solidarity Alliance went on to debunk some of the myths surrounding anarchist positions on power, and sums up nicely how we define Dual Power:

“One of the weaknesses of anarchism historically was there was a lot of confusion about power. People say we’re against power, but actually, the mass of people, the working class people, can’t liberate itself without actually creating new structures of power to run things. To run the society, that’s power. And I think the idea of popular power, power that’s based on ‘we’re all equals,’ self-managed kind of power, I mean, that’s how I think of the replacement for the state and the corporations, and so on. But in terms of developping power now, it might be useful to distinguish between social power that people build through movements that are engaged in confrontations, like shutting down workplaces. That means ordinary people are actually exercising power, some power. But it’s power that comes about through struggle, through confrontation with the people that have power in this system. But if you’re just running a collective, like of food distribution, that’s not really power, that’s collectively managing a resource. But I think that’s different from social power. And the point you said about transition to the new society, we have to have things there that can make that transition, historically, that was part of the whole reason for syndicalism–you develop a working-class movement where we have in all the various workplaces, we have workers organized in revolutionary, self-managed workplace organizations or unions, so that in a transitional situation, they can take over the running of those workplaces and guarantee that we still have food and transportation and public utilities and so on.”

Found at: http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/some-thoughts-on-dual-power/

Struggle to Organize!

“We repeat: without organization, free or imposed, there can be no society, no conscious and desired organization, there can be no freedom nor guarantee that the interests of those in society are respected. And whoever is not organized, whoever does not seek the cooperation of others and does not offer his own, in conditions of reciprocity and solidarity, puts themselves necessarily in a state of inferiority and remains an unconscious cog in the social mechanism that others establish in their own way, and to their advantage.”

Errico Malatesta

The question of organization is very old in the anarchist milieu. Over one hundred years ago Malatesta was already addressing the issue. However much it may seem to us to be a simple matter, there is still much confusion about it and many people who sincerely think that anarchism is against any form of organization, that organization would mean bureaucracy, authoritarianism, etc. This is understandable, after all, as the concrete examples of organization that people know (like authoritarian, centralized, electoral parties) do not encourage anyone to think about it. But it is necessary to break with this, to realize that this is just “a” form of organization and not “the” form.

Anarchism has always had other forms of organization, horizontal, participatory and federal, just consider Bakunin, Malatesta, Makhno, the Federación Anarquista Ibérica, the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, the syndicalist anarchists, etc.. It is time to organize ourselves in order to overcome the fear of bureaucratization. Discussing organization today is not just a matter of recovering the history of anarchism. It is a real need. Faced with an articulate, well-informed and operationally capable system, we cannot continue to be atomized.

“By remaining isolated, each acting or trying to act on his own without coming to agreement with others, without preparation, without bundling together the weak forces of the isolated, it means condemning ourselves to weakness, wasting our energy in small, ineffective acts, rapidly losing faith in our goal and starving ourselves completely”.

Malatesta,
1897

In addition, organization multiplies our forces. It gives us the ability to prevent and defend ourselves from repression (which continues to grow) and makes solidarity – often only written and spoken – real. We know there are many anarchists who are against the idea of organization, mostly individualist anarchists. They are not more or less anarchist than us for this reason, just a different sort of anarchist, anarchists with other ideas. Let them follow their path. We will follow ours, and we have every right to do so. Because we think that we need to be organized if we are to confront this capitalist system.

Organize to struggle! Social Insertion and Militancy

“(…) supporting popular organizations of all sorts is the logical consequence of our basic ideas and should thus be an integral part of our program.”

Errico Malatesta

Anarchism comprises a variety of currents, it is true. But it is also true that not all of them are willing to work together with our class, our people. Historically, we have had moments of very strong anarchist presence, in Ukraine with the Makhnovshchina, in the Spanish Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, in revolutionary syndicalism throughout Latin America, not to mention countless other experiences. In all these cases, which are a reference point – at least theoretically – for all anarchists, there were organized, class-struggle anarchists who worked as part of the social movements. It can be said that in every case where anarchism has had a significant influence, there was social insertion and militancy.

We live in a time when poverty is increasing, when the gulf between the classes is greater today than it was a hundred years ago. 85% of the world’s population is poor or miserable. In Brazil alone there are 40 million people living below the poverty line. The manifestations of this poverty are brutal and are there for all to see.

But we have not lost the ability to be angry about this, to revolt against these constant attacks, “we will not keep to ourselves” or “each keep to his or her own”, because we suffer directly from it all. We believe that anarchism has something to say about this situation. We believe that anarchism has ideas and that it exists within this situation, not locked away safely from the real world.

Anarchists have always adopted various methods of action. Many have relations with each other, publish newsletters, hold libertarian meetings, publish websites and books, create alternative channels of information, etc. All this is important and necessary. But have we given due attention to a kind of militancy that is fundamental: social work with the popular movements, in neighborhoods, schools, universities, workplaces, and so on? Fortunately there are anarchists who already do this in several ways, but we honestly believe that it is too little. And this criticism is not directed at the other anarchists – we count ourselves among those who need to improve and further their integration into the social movements and social activism. We believe that all the other activities, the contacts, publications, meetings and books, can be greatly enriched if they are combined with social action by anarchists. There are many groups and anarchist organizations that have been working as an integral part of the social movements for several years now. We can see many experiences of social work carried out over recent years, from the homeless people’s movement to the student movement, from work in the poverty-stricken neighbourhoods to union work and in the struggles against neo-liberalism. Anarchists have been present in these areas and this allows us to discuss the question further.

For this reason, we believe it is essential to discuss how anarchists can act socially, what relationships to establish between anarchists and the social movements, what kind of activity would be more or less interesting, etc. Above all, we believe that anarchists will not make the revolution alone, and that if we are not an integral part of the struggles of our class, we will have no chance.

The 2010 National Meeting and the qualitative leap

At the 2010 National Meeting held in Porto Alegre, the participating groups and organizations felt that it was time to increase our organizational unity and continue with the goals which were previously established.

Therefore after intense discussions, we decided to make a qualitative leap and go beyond the two previously-proposed axes: organization and social insertion. As these are already incorporated into our groups and organizations and as the question of organization and social insertion are no longer so controversial in anarchist circles – and the actions to date of FAO groups and organizations and the FAO itself have contributed significantly to this – we decided to take another step towards building a nationwide organization, which has always been one of our goals.

The next step is for us to increase our organizational unity, and so we decided to adopt especifismo as the anarchist organizational form for groups and organizations in the FAO, establishing political and ideological principles that define, in our view, both anarchism and this organizational method. With this objective, the National Meeting reformulated the definition of the FAO (though it remains a forum), established its principles and strategies, and revised its commitments. Below are the resolutions of the meeting on these issues.

What is the FAO?

The Forum of Organized Anarchism is a place of debate and elaboration for anarchist organizations, groups and individuals who work or intend to work using the principles and strategy of especifist anarchism as their basis.

The main objective of the FAO is to create the conditions for the construction of an anarchist organization in Brazil. We know this task will not be achieved in the short term, but it is important to begin now.

Our organizational conception of anarchism

All groups and organizations in the FAO, as well as those interested in becoming members, should agree to implement and defend this conception of anarchism, which we consider to be the minimum necessary in order to begin to work together. The anarchism advocated by the FAO can be understood from its ideological and political principles and from the general strategy it follows.

Political and ideological principles

The realization, defence and/or implementation of the following points:

a) Anarchism as an ideology and therefore as a system of ideas, motivations and aspirations that are necessarily connected with activities around social change and political practice.

b) Anarchism in permanent contact with the class struggle of the popular movements of our time and working as a tool of struggle and not as a pure philosophy or in small isolated, sectarian groups.

c) A concept of class which includes all sectors of the exploited, dominated and oppressed in our society.

d) The need for anarchism to regain its leading role in social affairs and to seek the best areas to work in.

e) The social revolution and libertarian socialism as the ultimate long-term goals.

f) Organization as something that is essential and contrary to individualism and spontaneism.

g) The specific anarchist organization as an essential factor for the various manifestations of the class struggle. That is to say, separation between the political level (the specific anarchist organization) and the social level (social movements, unions, etc.).

h) The anarchist organization as the organization of the active minority, which differs from the authoritarian vanguard as it does not consider itself above the organizations at the social level. The political level complements the social and vice versa.

i) The principal activity of the anarchist organization is social work/insertion, as part of the people’s struggles.

j) Ethics as a basic pillar of the anarchist organization, guiding all its action.

k) The need for propaganda and for it to be carried out in fertile areas.

l) The logic of concentric circles of operation, giving body to a form of organization in which ommitment is directly associated to decision-making power. This also allows an organization to provide efficient interaction with the popular movements.

m) That the organization must have clear criteria for membership and clearly-defined positions for all those who wish to help (supporter/collaborator levels of membership).

n) Self-management and federalism in decision making regarding work, using direct democracy.

o) The continuous search for consensus but, failing that, the adoption of voting as a decision-making method.

p) Working with theoretical, ideological and programmatic (strategic/action) unity. The organization collectively builds a theoretical and ideological line and, similarly, determines and strictly follows the defined paths, all rowing the boat in the same direction, toward the established goals.

q) Commitment from militants and collective responsibility. An organization with responsible members, which does not accept a lack of commitment and responsibility. Likewise, the defence of a model in which militants are responsible for the organization and the organization is responsible for the militants.

r) The militants who make up the organization must necessarily also be engaged in social work (social insertion) and in the internal activities of the organization (offices, etc.).

General Strategy

The general strategy of anarchism that we advocate is based in the popular movements, in their organization, their accumulation of power, and in the application of forms of advanced struggle in order to be able to reach the revolution and libertarian socialism. It is a process that occurs in conjunction with the specific anarchist organization that – operating as a fermentation agent or motor – works together with the popular movements in establishing the conditions for transformation. These two levels (the popular movements and the anarchist organization) can be further complemented by a third, the tendency, which gathers together similar sectors of the popular movements.

The objective of this strategy is therefore to create and participate in popular movements, advocating certain defined programmatic and methodological conceptions, so that they can indicate the way to the final goal, which is the building of the new society.

Commitments of the FAO

1. To stimulate and carry out debate on especifist anarchism in Brazil, pointing to the need to build a nationwide anarchist organization.
2. To support the formation of organized anarchist groups, encouraging unity within them.
3. To work so that these groups and organizations can come together, work together and eventually unite, initially on a state or regional level.
4. To the extent that the real possibilities allow, to work in the various levels of the anarchist revolutionary struggle: propaganda work, theoretical work and, most important of all, social work as part of fronts and in chosen areas.
5. To fight for the construction of a Brazilian anarchist organization with a single political project, having a certain social and political weight and with the widest possible national presence.
6. To establish relations of fraternity and solidarity with international anarchist organizations, particularly with those in Latin American, who find themselves in a similar situation to ours.

Building an Organized Anarchist Group (OAG)

Throughout Brazil, there are hundreds and maybe thousands of people who identify with and are sympathetic to anarchism. It is a potential force that is often not effective due to the dispersion anarchists find themselves in. We will not establish an anarchist organization in one magic step – first, it is necessary for there to be organized anarchist groups (OAGs) that are coordinated with each other. The OAG is the seed of the anarchist organization.

The FAO is willing to support those anarchist individuals who feel their blood boil in the face of injustice and who are tired of doing little or nothing, or of being alone. This is our suggestion for how to start an organized anarchist group (OAG):

Number of people. Identify the people you know who may feel an affinity with the project. Call a meeting to discuss the formation of a group, supported with reading material. The more people the better, but it is not necessary to wait to form a group. You can beging with three people, always striving for more people to join.

Identity of the OAG. If your project is thriving, the OAG can now adopt a name, flag and symbols, to enable it to be recognized by others.

Sharing basic tasks. The regular internal workings can be shared by the militants. This prevents some people becoming overloaded while others have few tasks, and makes participation more horizontal. We would suggest some roles for a group of at least five people (smaller or larger groups can adapt to their situation).

a) comrade responsible for organization: in charge of reporting agreements and decisions of meetings, distributing them to others, creating a schedule, convening meetings, organizing the group’s internal material;

b) comrade responsible for propaganda: in charge of planning and proposing policies for communication and the group’s propaganda material, for example a newsletter, website, pamphlets;

c) comrade responsible for finances: acts as the group’s treasurer, collects the militants’ dues, thinks of ways to raise money and better structure the group;

d) comrade responsible for relations: looks after correspondence, the PO Box, e-mail, contacts with other anarchist and leftist groups and/or popular movements;

e) comrade responsible for political education: responsible for the group’s internal debate and education, suggests themes for discussion, researches and organizes material, sets up courses and generally helps others in their political education, etc;

This division is not rigid. The comrade who is responsible for propaganda coordinates the newsletter, for example, but nothing prevents the others from giving their ideas, writing, helping out, etc. The same goes for the other functions.

Meetings. It is essential that the group meets regularly as it is the only way a group can debate and plan its activities collectively. Meetings can be weekly or fortnightly, preferably in a fixed location where the group can be at ease and not be disturbed.

Communications. Open a PO Box for correspondence, get an e-mail address and publish a newsletter, even if it is only a modest, single-sheet photocopied bulletin, it is a beginning and it allows the group to publicize its existence to others. Another important thing is a statement of the group’s principles.

Decision making. Consensus should always be sought, with all participants having an equal voice in the debate. When consensus cannot be reached and the question requires a decision, the point should be voted on and the whole group should accept the decision. The minority position and its arguments should be recorded for later evaluation.

Basic tasks of each militant. An internal function (organization, finances, propaganda, relations and political education); external, social work in a front (see below); participation in meetings and contributing to the group.

From the Group to the Organization

This qualitative leap can come about in two ways:

1. With the growth of the OAG

In states and regions where there are no other anarchist groups or where the other anarchist groups are averse to this proposal for organization and social action, the only way to form an organization is for the OAG (whose aim is always to develop) to grow.

There are some elements which can help to determine the level of maturity: numerical growth (about 20 regular militants), regularity, the affinity and trust which exists among the militants, expansion of the social fronts, improved political education, etc.

With all this, the OAG can make a qualitative leap, subdividing into nuclei, creating a council that brings together representatives of these smaller groups, and expanding its sphere of action. It is essential that the transition from OAG to organization reflects a real step forward and not just the desires of the militants. A de facto group calling itself an organization or federation is a form of trickery, an act of woshful thinking that easily falls into the ridiculous. The transition from group to anarchist organization is a process, on the other hand, the groups define themselves autonomously. The transition involves a qualitative difference in the construction process, but not a hierarchical one.

2. Bringing the OAGs closer, working together and working towards unification

In states and regions where there are two or more anarchist groups, we propose that contact be established with other anarchist individuals and groups who are interested in the proposal of the FAO. Here we mean regions which are a short distance from each other, but which need not necessarily be in the same state, just nearby – for example, Goiás and Distrito Federal, groups located on the border between two states, etc.

These contacts and discussions may differ in their success rates. Some may categorically reject our project, others may show interest while doubts and criticism remain. With these latter, discussion must continue and if possible a state or regional FAO be created to bring these groups together, to carry out joint practical tasks and to discuss the project and the tasks necessary for unification.

Getting involved in social activism

All OAG militants should be active within the social movements. The internal tasks mentioned above are important but not enough on their own and cannot be an excuse for militants “getting out” of social activism. We therefore want to avoid some militants dealing solely with internal matters or more “satisfying” matters, and others with social activism, something which can lead to “informal bureaucracies”.

It is important for the group to evaluate its forces and concentrate them in order for social work to bring results and avoid taking on more tasks of insertion than can be sustained. This makes it necessary to choose some area or areas as priorities for social insertion. When we say priority, we do not mean that one area or another is itself destined to achieve the social revolution, but rather that we concentrate our forces working in some area that we believe has more potential for change.

However, with growth and maturity we need to focus on bigger areas. The intention is that the OAG discusses the type of work to be done, what is more viable (in the neighborhood, in schools, university, factories, squats, etc.), according to the situation each group finds itself in. It is always advisable to begin insertion work in situations that militants are a natural part of, or where it is easier to fit in. Also, you should take into account the need for this work to be ongoing and in a fixed geographic location. It is important to be clear from the start, which front is more important and best fits the characteristics of those who make up the group.

Some examples of fronts and areas to work in

Fronts are areas of activity where our militant work is carried out. For example, the student movement, the trade union or workers’ movement, the homeless movement, community radio stations, poor neighborhoods associations, committees for various struggles, etc. On the community front, we can work with issues like housing, healthcare, food, water, electricity, basic sanitation, transport, social ecology, communications, culture, education, human rights, racism, gender, etc. Everything depends on the specific demands of each particular place and our political project.

In this paper, we have limited ourselves to discussing insertion and social activism in a general way, as it would be impossible to describe actual proposals for action in each area, even in general terms. A great deal of material has been produced by members of the FAO on these various fronts, there are experiences which can be shared and support for those who are starting to get involved. Materials and information on the experiences of each specific front can be obtained by contacting members of the FAO.

Want to know more? Want to participate?

If you have read this material and are interested, whether you are just an individual or belong to some group or organization, whether you are already a declared anarchist or someone who has only recently become interested in anarchism, please contact us.

You will certainly be important to the struggle and will have a lot to contribute!

For us, the anarchist project is above individual or personal issues. The FAO is already at work, but we have not finished, and we are never closed to those who might be interested. We know and are the first to admit that there are mistakes to be corrected and we must improve the project and incorporate new contributions and more people in the process.

If you have doubts, disagreements over part of what has been stated so far, we invite you to talk to us, to get to know us better. In short, the stance of the FAO is a constructive one, open to dialogue and against sectarianism. We believe that only in this way can we create the conditions for the construction of a true anarchist organization, which is not a mere symbol or a ghetto.

Fórum do Anarquismo Organizado,
2010

http://vermelhoenegrofao.wordpress.com/

This declaration is signed by the groups and organizations that are currently part of the Fórum do Anarquismo Organizado:

Coletivo Anarquista Zumbi dos Palmares (State of Alagoas)
http://cazp.wordpress.com
Caixa Postal 136
CEP: 57020-970
Maceió-AL

Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (State of Rio de Janeiro)
http://www.farj.org
Caixa Postal 14576
CEP: 22412-970
Rio de Janeiro-RJ

Federação Anarquista Gaúcha (State of Rio Grande do Sul)
http://www.vermelhoenegro.co.cc/

Rusga Libertária (State of Mato Grosso)
http://rusgalibertaria.blogspot.com

Vermelho e Negro (State of Bahia)
http://vermelhoenegrofao.wordpress.com
Caixa Postal 280
CEP 44001-970
Feira de Santana-BA

Other Brazilian anarchist organizations who support us
and with whom we maintain fraternal, solid relations:

Coletivo Para Além do Estado e do Mercado – PAEM (State of Mato Grosso do Sul)
http://www.coletivopaem.blogspot.com
Caixa Postal 17
CEP 79804-970
Dourados-MS

Federação Anarquista de São Paulo – FASP (State of São Paulo)
http://www.anarquismosp.org
Caixa Postal 52552
CEP 08010-971
São Paulo-SP

Organização Resistência Libertária – ORL (State of Ceará)
http://www.resistencialibertaria.org
Caixa Postal 12155
Fortaleza-CE

Pró Coletivo Anarquista Organizado de Joinville (State of Santa Catarina)
http://pro-cao.blogspot.com/

Coletivo Anarquista Luta de Classes (State of Paraná)
Caixa Postal 272
CEP 80010-010
Curitiba-PR

Contact address for the National Secretariat of the FAO: secfao (A) riseup (dot) net

Translation by FdCA – International Relations Office

Related Link: http://vermelhoenegrofao.wordpress.com/

At this level, it is not a question of a game or the object of an experiment. That is how, if we do not have a General Union of Anarchists, we cannot furnish common responses on all those vital questions.

At the start of his article, comrade Malatesta appears to salute the idea of the creation of a vast anarchist organisation, however, in categorically repudiating collective responsibility, he renders impossible the realisation of such an organisation. For that will not only not be possible if there exists no theoretical and organisational agreement, constituting a common platform where numerous militants can meet. In the measure to which they accept this platform, that must be obligatory for all. Those who do not recognise these basic principles, cannot become, and besides would themselves not want to, become a member of the organisation.

In this fashion, this organisation will be the union of those who will have a common conception of a theoretical, tactical and political line to be realised.

Consequently, the practical activity of a member of the organisation will be naturally in full harmony with the general activity, and inversely the activity of all the organisation will not know how to be in contradiction with the conscience and activity of each of its members, if they accept the programme on which the organisation is founded.

It is this that characterises collective responsibility: the entire Union is responsible for the activity of each member, knowing that they will accomplish their political and revolutionary work in the political spirit of the Union. At the same time, each member is fully responsible for the entire Union, seeing that his activity will not be contrary to that elaborated by all its members. This does not signify in the least any authoritarianism, as comrade Malatesta wrongly affirms, it is the expression of a conscientious and responsible understanding of militant work.

It is obvious that in calling on anarchists to organise on the basis of a definite programme, we are not taking away as such the right of anarchists of other tendencies to organise as they think fit. However, we are persuaded that, from the moment that anarchists create an important organisation, the hollowness and vanity of the traditional organisations will be revealed.

The principle of responsibility is understood by comrade Malatesta in the sense of a moral responsibility of individuals and of groups. This is why he only grants to conferences and their resolutions the role of a sort of conversation between friends, which in sum pronounce only platonic wishes.

This traditional manner of representing the role of conferences does not stand up to the test of life. In effect, what would be the value of a conference if it only had “opinions” and did not charge itself with realising them in life? None. In a vast movement, a uniquely moral and non-organisational responsibility loses all its value.

Let us come to the question concerning majority and minority. We think that all discussion on this subject is superfluous. In practice, it has been resolved a long time ago. Always and everywhere among us, practical problems have been resolved by a majority of votes. It is completely understandable, because there is no other way of resolving these problems inside an organisation that wants to act.

In all the objections raised against the Platform, there is lacking up to the moment the understanding of the most important thesis that it contains; the understanding of our approach to the organisational problem and to the method of its resolution. In effect, an understanding of these is extremely important and possesses a decisive significance with the idea of a precise appreciation of the Platform and all the organisational activity of the Delo Truda group.

The only way to move away from chaos and revive the anarchist movement is a theoretical and organisational clarification of our milieu, leading to a differentiation and to the selection of an active core of militants, on the basis of a homogeneous theoretical and practical programme. It is in this that resides one of the principle objectives of our text.

What does our clarification represent and what must it lead to? The absence of a homogeneous general programme has always been a very noticeable failing in the anarchist movement, and has contributed to making it very often very vulnerable, its propaganda not ever having been coherent and consistent in relation to the ideas professed and the practical principles defended. Very much to the contrary, it often happens that what is propagated by one group is elsewhere denigrated by another group. And that not solely in tactical applications, but also in fundamental theses.

Certain people defend such a state of play in saying that in such a way is explained the variety of anarchist ideas. Well, let us admit it, but what interest can this variety represent to the workers?

They struggle and suffer today and now and immediately need a precise conception of the revolution, which can lead them to their emancipation right away; they don’t need an abstract conception, but a living conception, real, elaborated and responding to their demands. Whilst the anarchists often proposed, in practice, numerous contradictory ideas, systems and programmes, where the most important was neighbour to the insignificant, or just as much again, contradicted each other. In such conditions, it is easily understandable that anarchism cannot and will not ever in the future, impregnate the masses and be one with them, so as to inspire its emancipatory movement.

For the masses sense the futility of contradictory notions and avoid them instinctively; in spite of this, in a revolutionary period, they act and live in a libertarian fashion.

To conclude, comrade Malatesta thinks that the success of the Bolsheviks in their country stops Russian anarchists who have edited the Platform from getting a good night’s sleep. The error of Malatesta is that he does not take account of the extremely important circumstances of which the Organisational Platform is the product, not solely of the Russian revolution but equally of the anarchist movement in this revolution. Now, it is impossible not to take account of this circumstance so that one can resolve the problem of anarchist organisation, of its form and its theoretical basis. It is indispensable to look at the place occupied by anarchism in the great social upheaval in 1917. What was the attitude of the insurgent masses with regard to anarchism and the anarchists? What did they appreciate in them? Why, despite this, did anarchism receive a setback in this revolution? What lessons are to be drawn? All these questions, and many others still, must inevitably put themselves to those who tackle the questions raised by the Platform. Comrade Malatesta has not done this. He has taken up the current problem of organisation in dogmatic abstraction. It is pretty incomprehensible for us, who have got used to seeing in him, not an ideologue but a practician of real and active anarchism. He is content to examine in what measure this or that thesis of the Platform is or is not in agreement with traditional points of view of anarchism, then he refutes them, in finding them opposed to those old conceptions. He cannot bring himself to thinking that this might be the opposite, that it is precisely these that could be erroneous, and that this has necessitated the appearance of the Platform. It is thus that can be explained all the series of errors and contradictions raised above.

Let us note in him a grave neglect; he does not deal at all with the theoretical basis, nor with the constructive section of the Platform, but uniquely with the project of organisation. Our text has not solely refuted the idea of the Synthesis, as well as that of anarcho-syndicalism as inapplicable and bankrupt, it has also advanced the project of a grouping of active militants of anarchism on the basis of a more or less homogeneous programme. Comrade Malatesta should have dwelt with precision on this method; however, he has passed over it in silence, as well as the constructive section, although his conclusions apparently apply to the entirety of the Platform. This gives his article a contradictory and unstable character.

Libertarian communism cannot linger in the impasse of the past; it must go beyond it, in combating and surmounting its faults. The original aspect of the Platform and of the Delo Truda group consists precisely in that they are strangers to out of date dogmas, to ready made ideas, and that, quite the contrary, they endeavour to carry on their activity starting from real and present facts. This approach constitutes the first attempt to fuse anarchism with real life and to create an anarchist activity on this basis. It is only thus that libertarian communism can tear itself free of a superannuated dogma and boost the living movement of the masses.

From: Delo Truda No. 30 May 1928, pages 4-11. Translated by Nick Heath.

Found at: http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/pk0q38

‘Reformist!’  What a dreaded word for any self-professed revolutionary to be attached to.  It is one of those accusatory labels that ends intelligent debate and is designed to intimidate one into silence.  Much like the labels of communist! or, more recently, terrorist! used by those in power and their propagandists.  These labels serve as ideological whips to force someone into the proper mindset; god forbid someone does not spout the proper theories or rhetoric.  It is amazing how much activity is considered reformist by some, leaving one to wonder exactly what can be done that is considered revolutionary besides running around with gun and bomb in hand, attending meetings with the necessary scowl, or dancing around a campfire.  Reformist vs. revolutionary.  The eternal debate.  And while we stand around fighting over which actions are which, we accomplish no action, and the world goes to hell.

The Zapatistas, while enjoying support from many people throughout the world, have also met with criticism.  When coming from the radical community, this criticism most often takes the form of, you guessed it, accusations of reformism.  What is the basis for these accusations?  Well, some do not like the fact that the Zapatistas did not try to march on Mexico City after their initial revolt, and that they have not tried to take power.  In fact, they state very plainly that they have no intention of doing so.  As for a march on Mexico City, I would very much like to see those who propose this course of action lead it.  The Mexican Army outnumbers and outguns the Zapatista forces, not to mention that it has the full support of the United States.  American officials have routinely intervened to stop insurrections in the farthest reaches of the globe, so it is safe to say that one in the U.S.’s southern neighbour would engender the harshest response possible.  This is not to say that revolution is impossible in Mexico, but some practicality is necessary.  A Zapatista march on Mexico City in 1994 would have been suicide, and it is unsettling to see certain individuals so willing to throw away lives, especially one’s not their own.  As for not wanting to take power, this is a philosophy and mindset to be commended, not derided.  To be unwilling to seize power and impose one’s ways on others is a trait that was sorely lacking in certain other revolutions in the twentieth century.

Criticism from anarchists, however, is most often directed at the Zapatistas because of their simple demands for food, housing, education, health care, land, democracy, liberty, and autonomy.  It may be easy for middle class rebels to haughtily shrug off these things as reforms to be mocked, but to the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, and many others throughout the Global South, these demands are anything but simple.  In many cases, the situation is dire, and these reforms may be the difference between survival and destruction, either literally or figuratively.  It’s pretty hard to have a revolution if there is no one to revolt anymore!  Sure, they are reforms in the sense that they are demands made to a government, and do not fundamentally change the economic or political system of Mexico, but they will fundamentally change the situation of the indigenous peoples of Chiapas.  And who can doubt that the Zapatistas reformist struggle has radicalised many in Mexico, and provided them with the inspiration to make their own stand against those in power?

The Black Panther Party for Self-Defence, formed in the 1960’s, was also criticized and continues to be criticized to this day as reformist for some of the same reasons as the Zapatistas.  The BPP’s Ten Point Program was indeed a, simple statement of desired reforms to strive towards.  But again, the situation of African-Americans then (and now) was extreme, with extraordinary levels of violence, police brutality, infant mortality, poor health, and poverty common.  As the Black Panthers conceived it, the Ten Point Program was a program for survival, to keep the community alive long enough to form some kind of revolutionary movement.  Perhaps some may scoff at demands such as affordable housing that is not squalid, crowded, decaying, and in horrible condition, or not having to be at the whim of capricious, uncaring, and greedy landlords, but to the poor, these things are essential.  It is difficult for any human being to pay attention to and fight against relatively nebulous concepts like militarism and the State when they are forced to fight concretely for the very necessities of life everyday.

I do not defend the Black Panthers with blinders on to their Marxist-Leninist leanings and hierarchal structure, nor by defending the Zapatistas do I necessarily agree with every single aspect of what they do or who they are.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is that people seem to have a misunderstanding of what reformism actually is, to the point where they fail to see that reforms, or more accurately the process of fighting for reforms, are a necessary step toward social revolution.  The transformation of anarchism into a counter-culture has led to a counter-culture mentality, where anarchists worry more about the lifestyle of rebellion and the appearance of rebellion than actually working towards it in any concrete fashion.  Anarchists can spout off until the end of time about the social revolution, but without serious discussion and implementation of a strategy to get there, we are nothing more than a joke.  It’s as simple as this: we are here at point A, the society we want is at point B, what steps do we need to take to get there?  Despite how elementary this question is, it is the most neglected in the anarchist discussions of today, at least in the way of any concrete, serious answers to it.  Therefore, this article is my attempt to bring the question to the forefront, and explain why reforms should form an integral part of our revolutionary strategy.

Reforms are vitally important for a whole host of reasons.  One is just to help people in need survive and have a better life in the present.  Both the BPP and Zapatistas, as I mentioned, adhered to this idea and advanced survival programs.  While many believe that this is actually an indictment of reforms because it takes the edge off revolutionary anger, not only is this a callous and classist argument, often coming from middle-class radicals who do not have to experience this deprivation, but it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the causes of revolution.  Revolutions do not spring from despair or deep deprivation, they actually occur when expectations are rising, there is a belief in a better world, and this belief chafes against the reality of government as a hindrance.

Another necessity if revolution is to occur is that people must be freed from having to fight daily battles for simple things, so that they can then become interested in and join bigger ones.  Reforms are useful for this purpose, such as the 4-hour day advocated by the IWW.  Reforms are also necessary to impart, for lack of a better phrase, ‘revolutionary consciousness’ in a community.  Many oppressed groups probably feel a bit irritated and annoyed that radicals spend so much time on certain subjects and so little time on others, like fighting for people of colour and the poor, in a concrete way.  It is one thing to spout off the necessary rhetoric about fighting for the oppressed masses, but it is quite another to join them in the battle for rent controls, an end to police brutality, decent housing, and the establishment of social programs.  By fighting with them, one can not only demonstrate that radical philosophies do pertain to issues that concern them, but also can explain how they do so, so that these reforms do not end as merely reforms, but become stepping stones to bigger and bigger battles.  Now, this is not to imply any kind of vanguardist attempt by radicals to come into a community and educate the ignorant population.  Notice I said join the battle, not lead the battle.  But a presence is necessary to establish contacts with communities, and solidify those connections over time.  These kinds of attempts at outreach have been ignored for far too long, when they are the real meat and bones of any attempt at a revolutionary movement.

Many seem to act under the assumption that a population can go from zero to revolutionary in a day.  This does not and will not happen.  It especially will not happen if we go on having protests, meetings, groups, and political discussions and expect people to come to us.  We have to go to them.  We must not force our priorities and pet battles onto them (though we can certainly mention them), but instead must fight for the things that are important and vital to them, even if they are reforms.  Our purpose will be to use these battles to show them their own power.  Many do not even believe that they can win a fight against their landlord, let alone capitalism, the military, and the entire state machinery of the United States of America!  But if they can start winning these smaller skirmishes, then a sense of their own power and ability to effect change will take hold and ferment.  However, as mentioned before, there has to be the constant reminder and push to make sure that reforms, once gained, never satisfy.  Reforms can be problematic, and though I have been hard on those who speak out against reformism, I can sympathize with where their viewpoint comes from.  Oftentimes, once a movement or group has won a reform, they are content and go back to their regular lives.  Indeed, governments and institutions grant reforms for this purpose to pacify.  And this is exactly why we have to be part of movements fighting for reforms.  To build a revolutionary presence in communities and movements striving towards reforms is the beginning of radicalising those communities and movements, and placing those reforms in the proper context.  Some scoff at the idea of trying to work within reformist struggles, and proclaim that the only way to achieve change is from the outside, by creating revolutionary organisations.  But there is a necessary news-flash for all the vast majority of the population will not join revolutionary organisations and does not have a revolutionary mindset.  It is absolutely absurd to expect them to make the effort, as I said, to come seek out these organisations, when they are busy with their own struggles.  Not to say that revolutionary groups do not have a place, they most definitely do, but it is time to go where the fight is.

The ghettoisation of anarchism and radical politics has by this point been lamented by many, and for good reason.  Relationship with communities is what makes or breaks a movement for change.  It is an irony that a revolution based on anarchism is the type that needs the broadest support by the most amount of people (otherwise it would be a vanguard group coercing the rest of the population to follow their way and therefore not anarchist), yet some (not all) of its adherents seem to abhor the idea of associating with regular people and rarely make attempts to establish a presence in anywhere but their own circles.  There is a woeful lack of outreach.  A lot of this has to do with not wanting to be reformist well let me put those fears to rest.  Fighting for reforms is not inherently reformist, and is indeed the basis and springboard for revolution.  If nothing else, fighting with others for needed reforms can inspire sympathy.  Say, Anarchist A fights with a community against the demolishing of housing to make way for condominiums.  From now on, even if Person A from that community hears bad things in the media about anarchists, maybe now he or she will say, ‘You know, I don’t think that’s true, Anarchist A was a good person and fought with us.’  The media and government paint anarchists and radicals as irrational fanatics, basically inhuman and unnatural, which makes it easy to suppress us without public outcry.  We only make this more effective by remaining aloof and being abnormal in most people s eyes, but we can dispel this misconception by simply being around.  Ideally, the reforms we fight for should actually be independent institutions outside the State that meet a community’s needs.  While supposedly fighting for reforms, in this case the community would actually be establishing self-sufficiency and embarking on the road to the transformation of society.  In working with communities, not only is our goal to demonstrate to people their own power, but also to give them a taste of the society that could be built with that power.  There is a wrong-headed notion going around that people are clueless about the ills of society and we need to just bombard them with enough logic and facts until they see the light.  Instead of focusing so much time on illustrating the various problems, which many people know about already, we should be focusing on convincing people that an alternative is possible and that they have the strength to make it a reality.  Most people are attached to the current system more out of a lack of faith in the possibility of an alternative than any love for it.  The key to revolutionary consciousness is sparking that fire in people s hearts that makes them believe in a new society, want it with all their soul, and feel that it is within their power.  Unfortunately, even in left and anarchist circles, there dominates the Western fetish of logic and rationality.  We need people who believe in revolution with their hearts and not just with their heads, and in fact, that’s the only way in which we can truly reach them.

The final point is just to say that there is a current in anarchism that views anarchists as some sort of enlightened, elite group separate from everyone else.  But the fact is that the people are not out there somewhere, we are the people.  Many anarchists have class and skin privilege and quite rightly assert that attempts by them to enter a community made up of people of colour would be ineffective to say the least and likely resented.  But this is not an excuse for inaction or maintaining the insulated cult of anarchism.  There is much work that anyone can do, it’s just a matter of seeing where one fits into the struggle.  There should be no place in anarchism for those who despise the masses as cattle.

Huey P. Newton said that revolution is a process, not a conclusion, and I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.  What it means is that revolution is happening everyday, and we can fight for it everyday.  Fighting for reforms is not preparing for a future revolution tomorrow; it is fighting the revolution now.  We must stress effective actions that accomplish concrete objectives instead of miring ourselves in alienating ideological debates, symbolic guilt-assuaging protests, or choosing battles that accomplish little in furthering the transformation of society.  Revolution is not a course of study where one must read the proper textbooks, it is not the basis for a new elitism and hierarchy of more and less revolutionary individuals, it is the cry of the human spirit for freedom and justice whose language is passion and action.

Reforms Part II – Anti-Electoralism

My first essay was an attempt to explain why it is integral to an anarchist revolutionary strategy for anarchists to work in broad-based reform movements.  This follow-up to that essay will further flesh out my argument in a more specific way, and also explain what might seem like a contradiction in my thinking when I advocate a position of anti-electoralism.

Anarchists should work in reform movements because that is where the battle for the people’s hearts and minds is and will be waged.  Unfortunately, by abstaining from participation in such organisations and movements, anarchists have unwittingly allowed reformist and sell-out elements to monopolise power in communities and be the only voices that people hear.  Anarchists should be present to argue against and counter the reformist elements in movements, which will clearly demonstrate the existence and legitimacy of revolutionary alternatives to reformism, as well as push the movement on so that concessions do not pacify and a revolutionary agenda is placed on the table.  I do not mean to imply that anarchists should take over these organisations, but rather that they should provide people with a choice.  Those who argue against anarchist participation in reform movements because such participation for some inexplicable reason would inevitably result in an anarchist takeover of such movements, ignore the fact that movements have already been taken over, albeit by reformist elements.  The fact is that removing our voice from these movements is to remove our voice and message from the people in general.  People will not just come to revolutionary organisations; rather, our presence in reform movements can serve as a bridge/conduit between revolutionary organisations and the people.  In addition, reform movements in the right situation can and have been pushed into being revolutionary movements in their own right, and our presence can serve to increase the likelihood of this occurring.

Given my arguments, many might think it contradictory that I espouse the traditional anarchist policy of anti-electoralism.  Surely a progressive anti-Bush campaign or Green campaign can be used in the same manner as a reform movement such as tenant’s rights, can’t it?  Well, no.  For one thing, the goal of electoral campaigns promotes the belief that the problem is in certain leaders, not in hierarchal authority itself, and thus legitimises what anarchism is fundamentally against.  While a movement pushing for rent controls, for example, can be said to be promoting false notions as well, namely that we should look to government to protect and provide for us, anarchists in the movement can push for an understanding that sees the movement’s goal as the extraction of demands from an enemy (until self-sufficiency is attained), not as asking gifts from government.  It is important to remember that the process of fighting for reforms is more valuable than the actual reforms themselves.  The fight for reforms gives people a sense of their own power to transform society, imparts dignity, and fosters the development of a revolutionary counter-culture (as opposed to a music-based counter-culture such as punk).  Through the battles they fight and their participation in organisations that are structured in empowering ways based on equality, justice, freedom, and co-operation (if anarchists are present in organisations to push for this type of structure), people can get a taste of the future society and thus begin to believe in and deeply desire an alternative.  It is important when anarchists participate in reform movements to push for direct action and more militant tactics, when appropriate of course, so that people power is built and not the power of movement leaders and government/co-opted institutions.  Though some may think that I am advocating the abandonment of anarchist principles and a reckless immersion into reformism, this couldn’t be more false.  What I am actually proposing, as can be seen, is a careful, tactical participation of anarchists in reform movements, where we judge our actions and fashion the agendas we push for based on what will advance the cause of freedom, equality, and justice, and what will build people power.

So why doesn’t participation in electoral campaigns work?  One reason, to put it in crass, capitalist terms of cost efficiency is that for the amount of time, money, and energy put into political campaigns, little if any gain in people power is made and social transformation is brought no closer (especially since electoral campaigns are a win-lose, all or nothing proposition).  Progressive politicians, even if elected, can be a hindrance to the furtherance of revolution.  People may come to depend on the granting of reforms from above, and cease the building up of alternative community institutions from below.  The amount or intensity of the fight for reforms may be less than during the reign of a conservative administration, which is harmful because the fight is what is productive.  This is not always true, though, as strikes, demands, and militancy have often increased under progressive governments because people become frustrated by the lack of response from officials supposedly on their side.  This too can be constructive and instructive.  So often the outcome of an electoral campaign is not what is important, rather what we make of that outcome is, since both conservative and progressive administrations can be made to serve as important lessons.  Ideally, we should pursue our revolutionary strategy with a single-minded intensity that seems to put little stock in the outcome of elections.  It is undoubtedly confusing if anarchists constantly claim that the problem is authority itself and all politicians are pretty much the same, yet during election time we push for a certain politician or party!  The final point against participation in electoral campaigns is that even if progressive politicians gain power, their ability to effect reforms is limited by the structure of the capitalist system itself, especially in this era of neo-liberalism.  Even if a politician wants to do some good, he or she is forced to work within the confines of the system and the realities of power and wealth that dominate it.  I actually do call for anarchist participation in the field of electoralism, but as an active voice for anti-electoralism.  Unfortunately, anarchists have been content to abstain from the political arena completely instead of using the opportunity to explain and articulate an anti-electoralist position to the wider population.  Most people in this country are amenable to our arguments to some degree as can be seen by the lack of voter turnout, yet we have largely forfeited this opening through which we can provide a context and justification for people s ambiguous feelings of disillusionment and advance the idea that there are possibilities beyond voting.  Such possibilities of social and political participation beyond voting are omitted and smothered by those in power to insure adherence to safe channels of electoral politics.  In a way, my approach to electoral politics is similar to my approach to reformist movements, in that in both cases I advocate the presence of anarchists on the main roads of political participation so that our voice can be heard.  Presence does not necessarily mean that we are headed where these main roads lead to, but rather that we are around to inform people of the existence of alternative paths.  Staying on our back roads and surrendering our voice in everyday life will insure our irrelevance.  When it comes to electoral politics, our presence should be as an anti-electoralist voice.  This is a more productive course than participating in progressive electoral campaigns.

The goal, ideally, should be to implement a process of community liberation, which would entail the build up of independent, non-hierarchal programs/institutions to meet all of the community’s needs and establish self-sufficiency and autonomy from the State.  Of course self-sufficiency should not mean isolation, and federation of such liberated communities would be both necessary and desirable for defence, mutual aid, and co-operation.  Yet anarchists cannot move into a community and set up these institutions and get the ball rolling tomorrow, at least not completely.  This is why participation in reform movements is necessary, so that such a revolutionary program and orientation can enter the discourse and people can ultimately choose to pursue it if they so desire.  Right now, that choice is absent.

The course and strategy I advocate is not easy, and I am not blind to the difficulties.  Many reform movements are highly hierarchical with reformism deeply ingrained.  Many also are willing to resort to under-handed and repressive measures to stifle radical voices, which we obviously would be.  Yet the difficulty of a proposition should not necessarily be the determining factor in whether anarchists should pursue it or not.  Whoever said that achieving social revolution was easy?  Whoever said that anarchists should run from difficulty?  Following the path of least resistance is not usually the best choice.  There is a reason why a path has little resistance, and almost always it’s because that path doesn’t lead to real change.  It’s time to step up to the plate and turn words into deeds.  We cannot sit back and trust with religious intensity that the revolution will make itself or that the State, capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy will kindly disappear themselves.

Ian Martin is a broke student/wage slave, a member of Students For Justice, a Wobbly and a cool Panamenian dude.
Barcelona F.C. forever!!!

The Furious Five Revolutionary Collective
San Jose, CA
raven1O15@yahoo.com

What’s the difference between an activist and an organizer? The distinction is quite important. An activist is committed and responsible to an issue; they are what I call ‘issue-centered’. The issue can be anything from war to globalization to anarchism itself. Activists then attempt to rally people around this issue based on individuals’ moral commitments and beliefs. For activists, an organization is simply a means to effect change and win some victories regarding the given issue.

What needs to be done to create a successful, truly liberatory, revolutionary movement? What should an anarchist be doing to help in the creation and construction of such a movement? These are, or at least should be, central questions that anarchists need to be addressing. While they are by no means the only relevant issues, the fact that some anarchists spend so much time on intellectual masturbation instead of tackling these concrete problems of liberation is symptomatic of their distance from real grassroots struggle. For some, anarchism may be an intellectual game, a lifestyle, or simply something to do to pass the time. But for anyone who is truly interested in liberation, in building a free, equal and just society made up of vibrant communities, its time to get our hands dirty. There s no substitute or quick easy fix for organizing and movement building. Behind every spontaneous uprising or revolution, there was years of organizing work that paved the way and laid the foundations. Such work has been ignored for far too long by those calling themselves anarchists. This distance from grassroots struggle must be eliminated, and anarchists must assume their proper role as revolutionary organizers if they wish to be at all successful in seeing their dreams realized. The reason why anarchists are so cut off and isolated from the people and find themselves sharing in so many of the other flaws of the Left, is because like the Left, anarchists have mostly (in modern times) been activists.

Activists and Organizers

What s the difference between an activist and an organizer? The distinction is quite important. An activist Is committed and responsible to an issue, they are what I call issue-centered. The issue can be anything from war to globalization to anarchism itself. Activists then attempt to rally people around this issue based on individuals’ moral commitments and beliefs. For activists, an organization is simply a means to effect change and win some victories regarding the given issue.

An organizer, by contrast, is committed and responsible to a defined constituency. Or in other words, is responsible to a group of people (students, workers at a workplace, etc.) or a community. Organizers are what I call people-centered. Rather than rally people around some issue, an organizer believes that the important thing is to build relationships between people and transform power dynamics, letting issues be defined by the people themselves. For an organizer, building people s collective power to create change is ultimately more important than victory on an issue. Issues are important insofar as they are a means of building this collective power, radicalizing people, and constructing a movement and organizations.

Activism Isolated and Impotent

It can quickly be seen why activism leads to alienation and isolation from ordinary people, and ineffectiveness in bringing about real, revolutionary change. Activists spend their time producing analysis concerning different issues, and then expect people to come flocking to that analysis that was produced by activists in isolation. This process does not let people craft their own analysis or select their own issues. Activism is based around a deep lack of trust in people, and an unwillingness to give control to the masses, who are valuable as bodies in a march but not as participants in theory or guiding a movement. Given this fact, it then becomes a bit absurd when activists start asking, ‘Where are the people of color?’ or ‘How come only white lefties ever participate?’. Should they be surprised when their lack of trust is returned by those they disdain? No genuine revolution can be built from a strategic model that values an issue above people, and utilizes people as simply a means to an end (shouldn’t anarchism be about putting people as the end)). Anarchists have become activists by default over the years, due to a lack of clear organization and concrete goals, and this needs to change.

Organizers have a fundamental faith and trust in people and their potential, and thus allow them to take part in and guide analysis and issue-selection. Many so-called radicals (and anarchists) seem to fear that ordinary people will make mistakes if given this control. But what is anarchism if not the belief that people are fully able to govern themselves and make the decisions that affect their lives? Certainly our ability to do so is stunted by living in a hierarchal, authoritarian society, but how else will this capacity develop and how else will people learn but through mistakes? Vanguardism is not just a strategy but also a state of mind that thinks that there is a group of enlightened radicals, and everyone else isn’t quite at their level yet, so the ordinary folk can’t be given control. This mindset must be wiped out, especially from the brains of those who claim to be anarchists.

Letting people define their own issues is key to an organizer. People will obviously be far more committed to fighting for an issue and goal that they have selected through a collective, organic process than one that was chosen for them and they are expected to run to, shouting ‘Hallelujah, I’ve seen the light!’. An organizer should work to build people s skills and experience in analysis, not control the analysis itself. Organizers should facilitate analysis by making sure that a process of dialogue, where people talk out their feelings and insights about an issue, and research takes place, with ultimately a solid position and strategy being formulated. As sure as the sun will shine, people will at times choose to work for the reforms, which sets off the vanguardist tendency in many radicals. But an organizer knows that its not the end of the world, and in fact is quite natural. The best way for someone to learn the futility of reformism is often not by being lectured, but by experiencing it for him or herself in the course of struggle. Radicalization is rarely a divine revelation; rather reform struggles can often be key elements in the process. Organizers facilitate and encourage the action people have chosen, knowing that any action is useful as long as there is reflection. Truly useful and radical theory develops from such action and reflection, not clever thoughts in an ivory tower. An organizer is ultimately concerned with transforming power dynamics, and this can often be accomplished just as well in working towards a reform as a more radical goal.

It is also important to remember that historically the people have been the most radical element in revolutionary moments. It is the activists, intellectuals, and party leaders, who are always claiming to have the monopoly on militancy and advanced ideas, who end up exerting a conservative influence when it most matters. A true anarchist and revolutionary organizer wants to develop and unleash the revolutionary potency in people, and when its day has come will let it wash away the old order without straining to put a leash on it in the name of party, ideology, or personal power.

Power Dynamics

Organizers are primarily concerned with transforming power dynamics but in what way? Currently, much of society is based on an unequal power dynamic of hierarchy and top-down rule. Anarchists and revolutionary organizers should be focused on changing this power dynamic wherever it occurs. Power is not necessarily a bad thing it is simply the ability to effect change and have a say in decision-making. What is bad is when power is distributed unequally, when it is given to some and not to others. But fortunately power, unlike money, does row on trees, or more precisely is present within each of us as human beings. How power is distributed in society is a social relationship, and like any social relationship, can be transformed once the people involved commit themselves to changing it.

While power is currently concentrated in the hands of a few, organizers work to change the situation into one in which power is distributed evenly. What this means in concrete terms is that right now only a minority in society get to make the decisions about how society will operate, and also monopolize the means to enforce those decisions. Instead, anarchists wish to see everyone have an equal say in the decisions that affect their communities. Decisions will be made reality by the people themselves, not imposed on them by coercive methods.

Organizers are not only concerned with developing people s power, but also their creativity and initiative. In other words, while all revolutions and movements depend on some degree of popular empowerment, oftentimes this is only so that it can be directed into the channels which leaders and would-be leaders have devised. Anarchist organizers rightly view this as manipulation and inimical to freedom. With equal and collective power for all should come the equal opportunity of all to decide how their power will be exercised.

It should be understood that there are generally two types of power positive power and negative power. Positive power is the ability to create and construct in terms of freedom, it can be described as the freedom to. Negative power is the ability to restrict someone else s actions or prevent an undesired event from taking place. In terms of freedom, this is known as freedom from. The terms positive and negative do not necessarily connote that one type is desirable and the other is not. True power is the sum of both positive and negative power. The desirability of a form of power can be found in whether it is collectively wielded or monopolized by only a few.

Negative power is the destructive and limiting force. When wielded by the few, it manifests itself as war, prisons, police, bombs, oppression, etc. But as a collective force, which is what revolutionary organizers are concerned with, negative power is the important ability of people to stand up to injustice in the streets, destroy oppressive institutions, and defend their freedom, rights, communities and organizations against encroachment by rulers. Obviously negative power is vital in pursuing a social revolution and radically transforming society, since those in authority and blessed with privilege will not give up their ill-gotten gains without struggle. The most important elements in cultivating negative power are courage, confidence, and willpower. Once the people have resolved upon a course of action and believe in it in their hearts, the power they can wield is without equal. Governments and institutions that seem invincible and eternal have crumbled with breathtaking speed once the masses have made up their mind to destroy them. Given this fact, those in power by necessity must convince people through various means (education, the media, etc.) that they are helpless to change anything and powerless in the face of the might of the system. Thus, the most common reason that people give for not participating in political or revolutionary activity is that it is useless and they can t make a difference. In order to cultivate negative power then, this socialization must be counteracted. By participating in campaigns and actions, people can begin to get a sense of what they can achieve collectively and become habituated to using that power. People must develop the courage to use their power, confidence in its efficacy, and the willingness to use it. While negative power is often heavily or exclusively focused upon, because we are in the midst of a system which we must dismantle and destroy, it is vitally important not to ignore the other type of power.

Positive power is the constructive and creative force. It can be used by the few to create complex systems of exploitation and oppression, such as the global system of neo-liberal capitalism or the million and one laws that only serve to damn us. In the hands of the people, however, positive power can be used to create new institutions to meet the needs and desires of a society based upon a new vision. Such creative work is as vital to revolution as the destructive work of negative power. Obviously the goal is not just to tear down the current society but also to build a better one in its place. Just as people need to participate in smaller expressions of negative power to build their confidence before they jump into the big leagues, so too are small steps often helpful with positive power. Limited programs of mutual aid to meet community needs, such as breakfast programs, tenant or worker cooperatives, etc., are important ways to build people s confidence in their ability to construct without direction from above, to provide practice in exercising that creativity which has atrophied in the suffocating atmosphere of capitalism and hierarchal society, and to give people a taste of a different world, a taste which will hopefully bloom into a burning thirst. Just as people have been convinced that they can t stand up to the system and make a change, they have also been convinced that this way of life is as good as humanity gets and there is no alternative. We have been bred to believe the worst about each other and humankind in general, and experiments in positive power can show people that cooperation, justice, equality, and solidarity can come as naturally and easily to us as competition, selfishness and brutality to us under the current system. Once confidence, experience, and belief/desire in a better world have been developed, people can wield positive power to move beyond limited programs to the complete collective management of social, political, and economic life.

The aim of organizers is to help develop both the positive and negative power of the people. A revolutionary anarchist organizer does not control people power; rather he or she merely tries to work for situations and structures that develop it. How that power is used is up to the people themselves.

Towards the Social Revolution

Dual power is an important concept for organizers and anarchists to understand. It refers to a state of affairs in which popular power, in both its positive and negative forms, poses a direct challenge to the State and threatens to replace it as the accepted power in society. When free, cooperative institutions are created by the people to take over the political, economic, and/or social organization of life, the new society is being created within the shell of the old. However, while this positive construction is absolutely integral to revolution, it cannot be successful without tactics based on negative power. The State will not just peacefully relinquish power to the free institutions of the people. Rather, those in power will try their best to destroy them using whatever coercion and force is necessary. This is because institutions of dual power are direct challenges to the legitimacy of the State. A situation where two social forms compete for legitimacy is inherently unstable, one or the other must prevail eventually. Negative power is thus essential to defend the people s institutions against State attacks, as well as to take the offensive and dismantle the State.

Some see social revolution as an outdated concept that is rendered impossible and unrealistic in this modern world of high-tech weaponry and a U.S. military that is the most powerful war-making machine the world has ever known. This, however, demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what social revolution really is. It is not a political revolution where leaders and factions compete for authority or a guerilla struggle with a small band fighting against Goliath. Rather, it is the people as a whole rising up to create new societal forms and to destroy the old ones. It can be seen as a zero-sum game where an increase in people power leads to a decrease in State and elite power. Once a certain point has been reached, people power is at such a high level that State and elite power is reduced to a weak semblance of its old self. This is because it must always be remembered, and it seems that some have forgot, that the economic, political, and social power of the ruling class is based on controlling and commanding people s power. When people begin to seize control of their own power and use it for their own purposes, not only does this become fuel for the fire of revolution, but it also means that this power is lost to the ruling class and means a reduction in their power. The case for social revolution in modern society is thus not as hopeless as it first seems, for the withdrawal of people s power from the system does more damage to State and capitalist power than any street fighting could ever do. There will of course be some fighting and violence, but the more organized the people are and the more people seize control of their own power, the weaker the ruling class will be without firing a single bullet.

Organizing Theory

Organizations at heart are a network of relationships between people. It is important never to forget this, and that organizations are created to serve the needs of people, not vice versa. That being said, organizations are necessary and important. They are the means by which people can wield collective power. Power must be wielded collectively, not only because it is otherwise impossible to achieve social change, but also because collective power will be the basis of the new society. One key thing must be said and I cannot stress this enough the ultimate goal of an organizer is to make everyone into an organizer. One s skills, insights, and knowledge should not be jealously guarded but rather shared as widely as possible.

That being said, what are the main tasks facing an organizer when helping in the construction of an organization?

1. Build Relationships

Relationships between the people inside them are what make or break effective revolutionary organizations. Ultimately, a network of relationships or collection of people forms the initial foundation of an organization. Sometimes this group comes together organically on its own, and at other times it is the work of active outreach by organizers. Such outreach can be in the form of one-on-one conversations, group forums, or other means. Oftentimes organizations also come about as the result of a single-issue campaign when a core group of people working on such a campaign come together to create something more broad and lasting.

Whatever the case may be, it is the responsibility of organizers and everyone in an organization to make sure that all relationships are healthy and based on principles of equality and solidarity. Feelings of camaraderie and cooperation often develop naturally as a result of shared work, but it also is important to create a culture of friendship. This culture can come about if people have fun together and share in social activities that are not necessarily even related to what the organization does. When new people enter the organization, the utmost effort must be made to integrate them into the network of relationships, so that cliques of old experienced members, separate from new members do not develop. If people are not engaged and feel disconnected from everyone else, they will likely not stay around for long.

2. Organize Relationships into a Structured Form

Structure is vitally important for all organizations. While a good organization may be made up of people who feel a kinship to each other and even people who are all committed to lofty revolutionary principles, informal hierarchies still can and will develop without structure. It is easy to be turned off to the concept of structure when we live in a society based on authoritarian, hierarchal structures that strangle freedom and participation, and when endless, frustrating bureaucracy is everywhere. But just because structure takes on such vile forms in our current society does not mean we should throw out the baby with the bath water. If used in the right way, structure can actually be a means of insuring democracy and equal power and participation.

The absence of structure and order does not necessarily lead to freedom or equality. Certain members of our society possess privileges based on race, class, gender, or personality. Without any structure, these privileges manifest themselves and an informal, ranked hierarchy based upon them emerges. Those with privilege dominate discussion and decision-making, while those without it feel disenfranchised and intimidated. Democracy is not just about everyone having a vote, but about everyone having an equal part in the discussion leading up to a vote, the information needed to make it, and the opportunity and ability to voice their opinion on the issue. Those who argue against structure ignore the fact that the process upon which structureless groups operate is the organizational equivalent of the theory of laissez-faire capitalism everyone in capitalism has the opportunity to get rich, so if they don t then its their own fault. Of course we all know that this is complete nonsense and that success in capitalism is almost always determined by privilege (whether based on class, race, gender, etc.). Similarly, some argue that groups without structure are also level playing fields and that if people do not speak up or participate it is their own fault (personal responsibility).

Anarchists and revolutionaries should know better. The group is collectively responsible for insuring the equal participation of all its members, while personal responsibility is a concept that we should discard, as it has always been the justification for iniquity.

Organizers should help in building a non-hierarchal, democratic structure that defends against the emergence of any type of hierarchy or elite, whether formal or informal. Such a structure should accomplish the following things:

1. Create Accountability

It is vitally important that tasks are formally assigned and divided up. If they are not, tasks will end up falling to the same people over and over again, which is unhealthy because not only will those people end up monopolizing experience and skills, but the work of the organization ends up being performed by only a few, which is a recipe for elitism. Additionally, assigning tasks has the benefit of creating accountability. If no in task, one is really responsible for a certain task, then there is no way of insuring that it gets done. But if there is someone responsible, then there is a definite sense of accountability which will insure that most things do get done, and at the least that there is someone to question if he or she does not follow through on the assigned task. Accountability is not a trespass against individual freedom. Tasks should be assigned on a volunteer basis, so that one freely chooses to be accountable when taking something on. While individual freedom is a high priority for anarchists, so is the collective responsibility that goes with it. In other words, there is a responsibility to the people that you work with when participating in an organization. You are fully free to shirk a task, but your comrades are equally free to not trust you with tasks anymore, at least until you can prove otherwise. The person who is accountable does not necessarily have to perform the task alone, but can simply be the point person who makes sure that what they are assigned to do gets done in general.

2. Build Leadership and Empower People

It is important that organizations empower and develop the leadership abilities of each of their members. While anarchists are against permanent leaders with vested authority over others, it is important for us in our organizing to acknowledge the fact that leaders and leadership of a different type do exist in organizations and revolutionary movements, and that this is a natural and not necessarily negative phenomena Leadership is not harmful as long as the right structure is in place to insure that the leadership skills of everyone are developed, and that everyone is a leader at some point and in some capacity. When everyone is a leader, has power, and is an agent of change, then anarchism is realized. Part of an organizer s work in changing power dynamics is to change them within the organization, by making sure a structure place that insures power is equally distributed, and that those with privilege, be it based on gender, race, class, education, or experience do not hold an unfair advantage. Shaping theory, leadership, decision-making, and/or importance. If an organizer achieves nothing else besides empowering people, then he or she has done a lot. Power is is something that everyone has, it just needs to be tapped and drawn out.

3. Move Towards Collective Action

Ultimately an organization must act. It is no use having empowered people or a great structure if people s power is not used to make things happen and create change. There s a reason that the word movement is used after all, because it is based on action. it is also important to remember that the process of empowerment and radicalization is primarily driven by personal and collective experience in action (and reflection upon it afterwards).

The three steps I have outlined are not really steps at all, but rather three components of a complementary and simultaneous process. Action is made up of strategy and tactics. Strategy is in essence the overall plan of action to accomplish a larger goal. A campaign, itself with its own strategy, might be part of a larger strategy (towards revolution for example). Tactics are the individual actions which make up a strategy.

The role of an organizer is to facilitate whatever course of action or campaign people have decided upon. He or she does this by sharing whatever experiences or skills might be helpful, by asking the right questions that will get people to think in constructive and positive ways (i.e. getting people to think strategically, encouraging creativity and thoughtful choice of tactics, etc.), and making sure that tasks are coordinated and followed through with. The test of a group s structure comes through action, and its weaknesses will often only be revealed at this time. An organizer should always be assessing what is going wrong or right and bringing these observations up to the group for discussion and possible solutions. An organization s structure should always be seen as a work in progress and never beyond question. It is important to be fluid enough to adapt to changing conditions and situations as well as to compensate for unforeseen flaws.

While organizers should be a motivating force in an organization, true motivation for action can only come from within each person. Passion can definitely be a collective process, however, in that people undoubtedly inspire each other. Enthusiasm is often contagious. That being said, one of the key roles for organizers comes after action when they should be encouraging analysis and assessment, for action without reflection is fruitless. Just as people grow from lessons learned from experience, organizations and movements become more effective and powerful only by assessing past actions and shaping future tactics and strategy based upon such reflection. It is also important that such lessons are institutionalized or made permanent in some way so that people don t have to keep reinventing the wheel. This is why solid organizations are necessary that just don t evaporate after time, because we need to be launching from a higher and higher point of experience and awareness each time we act. If lessons are lost when a movement dissipates, then the next generation has to start from the bottom of the ladder once again. This is one of the reasons why a social revolution has yet to be achieved.

Unconscious and Conscious Rebellion

Anarchists maintain that the current system we live under is irrational, unnatural, and deeply antihuman. Contrary to what many think, the tendency of humanity is actually towards cooperation, freedom, and creativity (in other words, anarchism), so that the social environment we must survive in goes against our natural instincts and inclinations. Given such a context, it is common for people to manifest unconscious feelings of rebellion towards everyday situations that go against their dignity and humanity. To put it in another way, no one feels comfortable being a slave because it is an inhuman condition. Acts of absenteeism, sabotage, or slowing down on the job are unconscious acts of rebellion against the conditions of work under capitalism. Often, people may be nationalistic or conservative on a conscious level, yet possess unconscious subversive instincts just by virtue of being human. People can only be persuaded to go against their own best interests (which is the purpose of the propaganda of those in power) to a certain point and a certain depth of consciousness.

This concept is an important one for organizers to be aware of and fully understand because it should be central to organizing strategy. It is all too common for those wanting change, especially isolated activists, to develop a view of ordinary people as ignorant, reactionary masses who are the problem. This view is problematic for two reasons. One, because it establishes a false division in our minds between activists or revolutionaries and the people. The people are not some abstract mass over there, we are the people. The fact that this way of thinking has become so prevalent demonstrates the isolation that the activist approach has created and its inherent elitism. Secondly, this view ignores the fact that everyone is a potential revolutionary because, as I mentioned, we all unconsciously chafe against this system, from messing up at work to vague hatred of the police to complaints about corporate omnipresence. The process of organizing is thus the process of tapping this unconscious rebellion in people, bringing it out into the open, and helping them to fashion it into a conscious awareness. This can effectively be done using the processes I have mentioned action and reflection, asking the right questions to transform the unconscious into the conscious, etc.

Working in Reform Movements

Though it may seem distasteful and pointless to anarchists, it is often necessary and important for revolutionary organizers to work within reform movements. This serves four purposes to build skills, work directly with the oppressed, to understand radicalization, and to be transformed as one transforms others. The fact is that most people, especially anarchists unfortunately, don t have much experience in organizing. Participating in reform movements is a good way to build up solid organizing skills. Experience is the best teacher, and simply reading about organizing is often a poor substitute (which is not to say that one should not read or that skills cannot be shared, they certainly must and should be, but direct experience should not be ignored). The other reality is that most movements consisting of oppressed people will be generally reformist, especially organizations that people join w I hen first becoming conscious or deciding to take action. This is largely because anarchists and other revolutionaries have declined to participate in movements of oppressed people, as organizers or even as participants. Abdicating this role has left t the stage clear for reformists to run the show and monopolize the attention of oppressed people. Anarchists must work directly with the oppressed if we are serious about having any part in a social revolution and contributing to it. And to work directly with the oppressed, we must often work in reform movements. This is not wasted effort on our part despite what we may think of the goals of a movement, because it is vital for an organizer to understand the process of radicalization, and the best school maybe in such a movement. It is important for organizers to understand the different ways in which people are radicalized, and how this knowledge can be used to help radicalize others.

Finally, while activists, organizers, and revolutionaries often have a sense of unjustified superiority and ego due to being part of the few who have advanced ideas, working in reform movements may help bring one down to size. Organizers must always be open and receptive to learning from others. We must never assume that just because we are revolutionary and others are reformist or ordinary that they have no thing to teach us. Hopefully, an organizer will be transformed as he or she helps to transform others. In other words, revolutionary organizing is not a one-way process but rather an interchange and back and forth of knowledge, experience, ideas, and skills. Despite being useful and important, this process is also necessary to break down any barriers between an organizer and those he or she is working with, though it should be said that the best organizer is one who is already rooted in the struggle he or she is engaged in. Forming revolutionary movements is of course necessary at some point, but such a movement would highly benefit from organizers with skills and experience built up in other, more reformist movements.

Movement of Anarchists or Anarchistic Movement?

Anarchism developed out of the struggles of people for Justice, equality, freedom, and community, not as an armchair ideology. It is thus sad to see how much of what passes for anarchist theory and action today is divorced from ordinary people, their movements, and their everyday lives. For those who embrace anarchism as an intellectual game or hobby, they are quite free to pass their lives scribbling away into eternity. But for those who want to see a new society brought about, it is time to get back to the roots, back to the struggle. We cannot impose our ideas on others without violating the spirit of anarchism. But that is not the goal of organizing, nor is it to manipulate or subvert people. It is not possible or necessary to convert every person into a conscious anarchist, and then launch a movement and revolution from that point. Rather, we should be working together with others to build a movement that is anarchistic in orientation, strategy, and goals. If such a movement can be built, it matters little whether people call themselves anarchists or not.

* Much debt is owed to James Mumm s article, Active Revolution , and to my comrades in Students For justice.

Ian Martin is a broke student/wage slave, a member of Students For Justice, a Wobbly and a cool Panamenian dude. Barcelona F.C. forever!!!

The Furious Five Revolutionary Collective
San Jose, CA
raven1O15[at]yahoo[dot]com

Part I: Anarchist, Grassroots Dual Power

Dual Power Defined

The term “Dual Power” has been used in several ways since it was first coined. The following definition builds on the previous meanings of Dual Power, most importantly by articulating the equal and necessary relationship between counter-power and counter-institutions. In the original definition, dual power referred to the creation of an alternative, liberatory power to exist alongside and eventually overcome state/capitalist power.

Dual power theorizes a distinct and oppositional relationship between the forces of the state/capitalism and the revolutionary forces of oppressed people. The two can never be peacefully reconciled.

With the theory of dual power is a dual strategy of public resistance to oppression (counter-power) and building cooperative alternatives (counter-institutions). Public resistance to oppression encompasses all of the direct action and protest movements that fight authoritarianism, capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and the other institutionalized oppressions. Building cooperative alternatives recreates the social and economic relationships of society to replace competitive with cooperative structures.

It is critical that these two general modes of action do not become isolated within a given movement. Counter-power and counter-institutional organizations must be in relationship to each other. The value of reconnecting counter-institutional organizations with explicitly oppositional counter-power organizations is a safeguard against the former’s tendency to become less radical over time. As counter-power organizations are reconnected to their base, they ground their political analysis in the concrete experience of counter-institutions – mitigating against the potential political “distance” between their rhetoric and the consciousness of their families, fellow workers and neighbors.

Dual power does not imply a dual set of principles, and therefore processes – one for public resistance and other for building cooperative alternatives. The process used for both strategic directions has the same set of principles at its root. The anarchist principles of direct democracy, cooperation and mutual aid have practical implications which inform the dual power strategies for revolution.

Direct democracy means that people accept the right and responsibility to participate in the decisions which affect their lives.

Cooperation means that our social and economic structure is egalitarian, that we cooperate instead of compete to fulfill our needs and desires.

Mutual aid means that we share our resources between individuals and groups toward universal need and desire fulfillment.

These principles lend us the foundation for creating inclusive, anti-authoritarian relationships as we work in grassroots organizations. Regardless of the strategic direction within dual power that is being pursued, we will follow the same process – building relationships, organizing these relationships into groups, and moving these groups toward collective action.

We organize in order to build power with others – power that gives us the opportunity to participate in the decisions which affect our lives. It is in the conscious construction and use of this power that we find true democracy.

Part II: Defining a Process for Revolutionary Social Change

Liberation is the struggle to be fully present, to have the ability to act – to become powerful, relevant and therefore historical. Liberation through action is one of the ways in which people experience such self-actualizing transformation. Of course, liberation can also take place through other means – chief among these are popular education, cultural work and identity-based activity.

But, in our complex and oppressive society, a holistic strategy for liberation must be multi-faceted and geared toward some measure of action.

Once we get beyond this general agreement on the centrality of action to liberation, the debate on the specifics of action begins. There is a clear distinction between the three most common forms of action in the United States – activism, advocacy and organizing. Their effectiveness as strategies for change is at the heart of this essay. First, a summary of each strategy.

Activism – An activist is a person who is responsible to a defined issue and who helps address that issue through mobilizing a base of people to take collective action. Activists are accountable to themselves as moral actors on a specific issue. Democratic structures are a utilitarian consequence of activities designed to win on the defined issue (my definition).

Advocacy – An advocate is a person who is responsible to a defined issue and who helps address that issue through collective action that uses the instruments of democracy to establish and implement laws and policies that will create a just and equitable society (Advocacy Institute).

Organizing – An organizer is a person who is responsible to a defined constituency and who helps build that constituency through leadership development, collective action and the development of democratic structures (National Organizers Alliance).

To clarify, power is simply the ability to act – and it can be used over or with others. As anarchists, power with others forms the core of our belief system. In each of the above strategies, power is gained through collective action – how each uses that power begins to illuminate considerable differences. The democratic structures created to focus that power also shed light on these differences.

Relationships form the foundation of all collective action. The intentionality of those relationships determines if your primary commitment is to your constituency or to the issue around which a constituency is built.

People participate in collective action because they have a self-interest in doing so. Self-interest is a middle ground between selfishness and self-sacrifice, determined most practically by the activities in which people spend their time, energy and money. Self-interest is the activity of the individual in relation to others. It is in the self-interest of people to participate in social change because such activities resonate with a need or desire within themselves. Thus, people choose issues or organizations because something about them is in their self-interest.

In addition to a shared commitment to collective action – power, relationships and self-interest are all critical elements that the three strategies of action have in common. The differences emerge in the use of power, the degree of intentionality placed on relationship-building, and the emphasis on issue or organization as the point of connection between people.

1. Use of Power

Activists and advocates use power primarily to win on issues. Given that power is currently derived from two sources – people and money – activists and advocates try to mobilize a quantity of each to affect change. More often than not this means mobilizing a lot of people, and a little bit of money. These two strategies differ in that advocacy is explicitly about altering the relations of power in the established institutions of society, while activism doesn’t necessarily place its faith in the perfectibility of American democratic institutions.

Advocates make a serious error in not differentiating power over others and power with others. They try to negotiate for a change in the relations of power between oppressor and oppressed, failing to understand that these two conceptions of power cannot be peacefully reconciled. Advocates end up negotiating to share power over others, and in doing so find themselves transformed.

No longer are they building power with others, but power for others – which is just a lighter shade of power over others. The struggle between these two types of power is a zero sum game – as one wins, the other loses. Only power with others is limitless; power over others always implies a finite amount of power.

Activism’s power is derived first from its ability to affect change on issues and secondly on the potential force for change embodied in organized people. Organizing uses power differently – by first building an organization. For organizers, issues are a means to an end (the development of peoples’ capacity to affect change). Organizers’ use of power with others to alter the relations of power over others inherent in government or capitalist corporations forces such authoritarian groups into a debilitating contradiction. Opening such contradictions creates room for change. Authoritarian institutions may well react with violence to preserve power over others, or these contradictions may result in real social change. Liberation and revolution take place as relationships change from authoritarian to egalitarian.

Too often organizers and their organizations fall prey to the same negative transformation as advocates – in negotiation to alter the relations of power they begin to build power for others rather than power with others. The authoritarian government and capitalist system are frighteningly seductive. They promise to change incrementally, and then slowly lull organizers, advocates and activists into a reformist sleep. However, the strength of organizing lies in the deliberate construction of a constituency that holds itself, its organization and its organizers publicly accountable. A commitment to relationships rather than issues is key to public accountability, and to insuring a lasting dedication to building power with others.

2. Relationship-Building

All action has the potential to be liberatory. However, it is the degree of intentionality placed on relationship-building that determines the quality of the learning that takes place. Organizers differentiate between public and private relationships. Public relationships are those in which there is an agreement between people to act and reflect together in the process of social change. Organizers cultivate deliberate public relationships and bring people together in situations that foster relationship-building among those taking action. Intentional reflection upon action is key to maximizing learning. In organizing, people recognize relationships – not issues – as the foundation of their organizations.

Activism and advocacy use relationships as a means to an end – victory on an issue. Relationships are an end in themselves for organizers. This element of the debate centers on the question of constituency. The constituency of activism is other activists and potential activists, motivated through their individual moral commitments to a given issue. Advocates have no primary constituency. The constituency of an organizer is the universe of people who are potential members of a given organization with a defined geographical area or non-geographical base (through affinity or identity).

3. Issue vs. Organization

Relationships are built between people; only through abstraction can we say that people have relationships with institutions or issues. There is an inherent contradiction in activism’s attempts to mobilize people around an issue, given that issues are conceptual while people actually exist. People are not in relationship with issues – they can only be in relationship with other people.

Organizations provide the context for public relationships. As anarchists we build organizations based on the ‘power with others’, non-hierarchical model. We believe in organization – how much and in what form are the debatable points. But, as anarchists, we know that organization is necessary as a vehicle for collective action.

Multiple dynamic relationships (organizations) are the product of an organizer’s work. For activists, organizations are a utilitarian consequence of their work on a given issue. And for advocates they are a utilitarian tool used to negotiate for power. Organizers trust in the ability of people to define their own issues, a faith that rests in the knowledge that maximizing the quantity and quality of relationships produces dynamic organizations and therefore dynamic change. Advocates synthesize issues from a dialogue between people and dominant institutions, and they struggle for practical changes to the “system.” Activists engage in continuous analysis of issues, producing clear and poignant agendas for social change – and then rally people around those agendas.

The problem of “distance” is primarily one of both activism and advocacy. People who spend a great deal of time developing an issue have a tendency to create an analysis that is significantly different than that of most other people. As the distance increases between the depth of understanding between an activist or advocate and that of other people, we find increasing polarization. Such distance can breed a vicious cycle of isolation.

4. Revolutionary Social Change

Perhaps the greatest difference between these three strategies of action is in their ability over to time to create revolutionary change. In the final analysis – primary commitment to an issue is in contradiction to a primary commitment to power with others. The faith of anarchists lies in the ability of people to govern themselves – on holding power with others. This faith implies a staggering level of trust in others, and a monumental commitment on a personal level to participate publicly in social change. Activism and advocacy have no such trust in others – their faith is in their analysis of, and moral commitment to, an issue. By putting their faith in an issue they are removing their faith from people. Relationships do not form the basis for their action, and therefore they cannot be said to have a primary commitment to power with others. Of the three strategies of action, only organizing has a primary commitment to people – to power with others – and to anarchism.

The modern anarchist conception of dual power encourages us to build liberatory institutions while we fight the oppression of the dominant system. Activism and organizing exist in both arenas, while advocacy exists only in the latter.

There is room to construct and practice a fresh revolutionary organizing process that is relevant to our current historical context. Aspects of such a revolutionary program would certainly incorporate radical social service, counter-institutional economic development, counter-power, educational and cultural dimensions. To maximize our effectiveness, it is important to define our strategy for action clearly across the range of possible activities and organizations.

As a model approach, organizing offers a starting point for a strategic social change process. Advocacy, as a contradictory and liberal strategy, may be necessary in order to keep the system from degenerating at a faster pace but it is insufficient for anarchists interested in revolutionary change. Activism is flawed by its insistence on elevating issues over relationships and its tendency to use organization and people as means to an end.

Organizing begins when we make a commitment to develop the capacity of ourselves and those people with whom we work to affect change. The intensity of conscious action and reflection is the engine that drives organizers to build relationships, construct dynamic organizations, and move those relationships into collective action. As anarchists we must learn the theory and practice of organizing if we are truly committed to revolutionary change.

5. Organizing Theory/Organizing Skills

A holistic framework of effective organizing (through community, labor or issue-based organizations) must include some conception of relationships, self-interest, power, and organization. Again, relationships are the means with which we communicate and regulate our social existence. Relationships are always political, and as such are the foundation of all conceptions of power. Self-interest is the self in relationship to others, and signifies our political bonds and individual priorities for how we spend our time, energy and money. Power is simply the ability to act, and can be used as either power with others or power over others. Organizations are social constructs with which power is exercised.

The skills of effective organizing are all geared toward building relationships, organizing those relationships into groups and moving those groups into collective action. One-on-one meetings are structured conversations that allow each person to share their experiences toward identifying their individual and mutual self-interests. These meetings may be scheduled, or they may take place going door-to-door, house-to-house, or over the phone. A network of one-on-one relationships can be increased exponentially by asking people to hold “house meetings” where people invite their own networks (family, friends, neighbors or co-workers). Through this process we can identify people who are potential leaders – people with a sense of humor, a vision of a better world, a willingness to work with others, and a desire to learn and grow in the context of action. As relationships are built between leaders, organizations are formed which can move into action on collectively defined issues.

This is the critical point – it doesn’t matter what issue people choose to work on. And we shouldn’t steer people in a direction that we think is better or more radical. Organizing is not about identifying an issue and rallying or mobilizing people around it. Organizing is about building organizations that can wield collective power. Action may begin as reform to the existing system, and that is OK. We cannot expect people to take radical action if they have not yet given up on the “system.” It is our job to encourage action in many forms, and to reflect upon that action in order to learn from it. We must trust that such action and reflection will radicalize people over time.

Finally, how do we organize non-anarchists, or more seriously, people with different class, race, cultural backgrounds from ourselves, or do we? We must begin by locating ourselves in the complex matrix of oppression. What is your identity, in what ways do you experience oppression? In this way we can identify the social networks in which we either have relationships, or because of our identity could readily form relationships.

Then we must ask ourselves – where do we want to have an impact? In what communities can we identify a constituency for our organizing efforts? Do we have a common identity with these identified communities? If not, why do we consider them a possible constituency?

It is very important to identify the constituency in which we want to have an impact before we identify issues that we will work on. To do otherwise takes us backward, and initiates an authoritarian process in which we are dictating issues to a constituency.

Getting back to the question – is it wrong for an organizer to define a constituency that is not a part of their history or identity? Should we concentrate on organizing within our own communities? I cannot answer these questions for you – I simply don’t have the answers. But, I do know that they are critical and must be resolved before an organizing or popular education project may begin.

6. Active Participation by Anarchists in Community, Education, Labor and Issue-based Organizations

It is not a concession to liberalism, nor a descent into reformism, for revolutionaries to participate actively in organizations that are not explicitly radical. Neither are we their vanguard. The only realistic way to build a mass movement is to work directly with oppressed people – in essence, we are transformed as we transform others.

We join existing organizations to build our skills in the realm of political action. Through immersion in grassroots struggles we develop an understanding of the process of radicalization – beginning where people are at, using dialogue and research to build our collective analysis, taking action, and reflecting upon that action in an ongoing circular process.

There are some hard learned truths in these ideas. First, your vision of a better world is incomplete and impotent without the participation of grassroots people in its construction.

Second, you cannot impose your ideas, however radical you think they are and however backward you think others’ beliefs are, without compromising anarchist principles. So then, how do we move forward?

Participation in existing organizations allows us to gain experience in political action. We can then use this experience to create new organizations that are based more closely on anarchist principles, but which are still dedicated to a grassroots base. But, you should not presume that you are ready to start a grassroots organization without having a clear idea on how to build and sustain such a group. That is why I encourage you to learn from the many models of organizing and education that are currently operating in the world before you strike out on your own.

Part III: Concrete Directions for Dual Power

1. Current Anarchist Forms of Organization

Anarchists have used a wide array of organizational forms and strategies of action in the past one hundred and fifty years.

Collectives: Cadre organizations (or closed collectives) and open collectives closely resonate with an activist strategy. Infoshops, for example, operate as open collectives. As activist groups, they tend to coalesce around an issue – in this case anarchism itself. Most infoshops of the 1990s who attempted to move beyond the limitations of activism were hampered by theoretical and practical barriers. The Beehive (Washington, DC), Emma Center (Minneapolis, MN)and the A-Zone’s (Chicago, IL) attempts at anti-gentrification organizing have been intermittent and rarely effective. Issues and analysis must be developed in conjunction with the people affected by those given issues, or the separation between people and analysis leads to vanguardist distance. You cannot be an ally without first choosing the method of alliance – what is your relationship to the people affected by an issue, and how will your organizational form contribute to effective work on that issue? These are central questions for anarchists operating on a local level and who are interested in grassroots struggle.

Worker/Consumer Cooperatives: Worker cooperatives are a special category of closed collectives – as consumer cooperatives are of open collectives. As needs-based organizations, they combine elements of activist and organizing strategies. It is critical for grassroots cooperatives to commit themselves to organizing’s participatory model of action, but it is also vital that they are allowed the space to try out new ideas. With a careful eye to the issue of distance, cooperatives are an effective means of organization.

Mass-based Organizations: Mass-based organizations, like the IWW, have the potential to be influential elements of a popular revolutionary movement. There is no effective way to build a mass-based organization except through organizing. A cursory reading of history shows mass-based organizations growing as movements spring up in response to injustice — and then they fade away when justice is met. This conception of history ignores the countless years of work that go into every “spontaneous” movement. Spain had a revolutionary anarchist movement in 1936 because of the incredible organizing that began there in the 1860s.

Intermediary Organizations: Organizations that directly encourage the creation and development of the above forms of organization are necessary adjuncts to a holistic conception of revolutionary organizing. In an anarchist model, intermediary organizations are most effective in the form of a confederation. Intermediaries can provide:

Dialogue and Action – as a political formation, counter-institutional and counter-power organizations would come together to engage in revolutionary praxis (action and reflection).

Training – on the basics of organizing, facilitation, issue analysis, direct action techniques, organizational, issue and membership development, etc.

Technical Assistance – participatory research on issues, access to technology, technical knowledge on the “how-tos” of things like forming economic or housing cooperatives (where to get money, how to get started, etc.).

Financial Assistance – grassroots fundraising, grant writing, and the investigation and implementation of resource pools.

The point is that anarchists must think strategically about their forms of organization and strategies of action within a particular historical context. We must make conscious and informed decisions about the prospects for effective revolutionary social change that are either enhanced or limited by our choices of organization and action.

2. Becoming More Radical and More Grassroots

More than fifteen years of modern anarchist gatherings, conferences and events haven’t led to a coherent anarchist movement – on a continental, regional or local level. This is significant because other groups of people, similarly collected together on the basis of political or issue affinity have developed a higher degree of movement organization. Why? First, anarchists have tended to form organizations that are not integrated with a grassroots base and, second, anarchists have not built effective intermediary organizations.

The lack of a grassroots base is the result of an anti-mass conception of organization among anarchists. Favoring collectives, anarchists have constructed insular groups that are simply not relevant to the lives of their families, neighbors and co-workers. While collective organization is useful under certain conditions, it is not conducive to building a movement, which implies a much higher level of mass participation. Learning organizing and popular education theories and skills is the answer for anarchists interested in building a broad-based and diverse movement.

Additionally, North American anarchists have not developed intermediary organizations to connect locally organized radical groups with each other, and then to regional/national/continental networks. Anarchists seem hellbent on remaining a collection of individual people and their individual groups due to a reluctance to be accountable to a wider constituency through engaging in the process of strategic organizing and popular education. Simply arguing for a network (locally or continentally), presumably for communication and mutual aid, also hasn’t taken off despite numerous tries. And in the case of the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, it did work for almost a decade, but at the expense of losing the local organizations. This does not have to be the case.

We need to develop massive resources of our own – social and economic – if we want to make similarly massive changes in society. Our forms of organization must infect and transform society away from competition, capitalism and oppression.

The challenge is to initiate broad-based organizing and popular education to build both counter-power and counter-institutional organizations and to construct intermediary confederations to connect them. We must stop trying to build a movement of anarchists and instead fight for an anarchistic movement.

NEFAC Editor’s Note

Although we welcome James Mumm’s insights and analysis around dual power and grassroots organizing, we reject his final conclusion which claims that anarchists must “stop trying to build a movement of anarchists, and instead fight for an anarchistic movement.” Those of us from NEFAC would argue that both are equally necessary.

We do not believe that an activist strategy based solely on anarchist methods of organizing (self-organization, mutual aid, solidarity and direct action) will inevitably lead us any closer towards anarchism. Such a strategy, on its own, only serves to provide a radical veneer and egalitarian legitimacy for liberal-reformist or authoritarian activist trends.

A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the leading ideas within the social movements and popular struggles of the working class. This will not happen spontaneously. We believe that, if only to wage the battle of ideas, anarchist organizations are necessary. The purpose of such organizations, for us, is to connect local grassroots activism to a larger strategy of social revolution; to create an organizational pole for anarchists to develop theory and practice, share skills and experiences, and agitate for explicitly anarchist demands (in opposition to liberal-reformist or authoritarian trends) within our activism.

From: From The Northeastern Anarchist, Issue #4, Spring/Summer 2002
Found at: Nefac.Net

The ‘Friends of Durruti’ appear in just about every book on the Spanish Civil War, especially in relation to the 1937 May Days in Barcelona. They get mentioned but we are told very little about their politics or activities. Some organisations, like the Workers Solidarity Movement, see their political stance as important to the tradition of revolutionary anarchism. Other anarchists, most notably sections of the syndicalist movement, condemn them for ‘flirting with Bolshevism/Leninism/Trotskyism’ or for ‘advocating an anarchist dictatorship’. So who were they, where did they come from, what did they say, and what did they do?

This book is probably the most detailed work about them in the English language. Unfortunately, it takes as its starting point that readers will be extremely knowledgeable about both anarchist ideas and the role of the anarchist movement in Spain. Without such knowledge the reader will find it impossible to understand what the author is writing about. Guillamón’s book reads as if it is a specialised academic paper, or a chapter which has been extracted from a much bigger work about Spain.

To make matters worse, the author seems unable – despite a familiarity with the historical details – to understand the ideas of anarchism. He criticises the Friends on each occasion when they don’t issue “instructions” or “seize power”. His own bias is made clear when he proclaims “anarchism’s inadequacy as a revolutionary theory of the proletariat” (p.93).

His own views appear to be of the Marxist ‘council communism’ type which enjoyed a brief popularity, particularly in Germany and the Netherlands, in the 1920s. Like all ‘councilists’ Guillamon sees unions as “capitalist State machinery” (page 83). Because of this he sees the entry of CNT members into the government as inevitable. Therefore his biggest criticism of the Friends is that they did not split from the CNT, renounce anarchism and transform themselves into a revolutionary party.

Spain in the 1930s had the biggest anarchist movement in Europe, with almost two million people in its National Confederation of Workers (CNT), it truly was a mass organisation with very deep roots in the working class. The Communist Party, prior to 1936, was a small outfit, the anti-Stalinist POUM probably had no more than a few thousand members and the Trotskyists could be counted on the fingers of a couple of hands.

Because of this the syndicalist notion that the political battle of ideas was not of the utmost importance was widespread. While there were activists and tendencies with varying ideas and strategies within the movement, there was no large and clear-cut opposition when a section of the CNT ‘leadership’ proposed ‘postponing’ the revolution and collaborating with the government to win the war against Franco. The ‘Friends of Durruti’ group had no existence prior to the outbreak of the Civil War in July 1936.

On July 19th 1936 workers across most of Spain took to the streets when the military rose up against the centre left Popular Front government. Arms were seized and the military rising defeated in over half of the country. For many this was the chance to get rid of the capitalist system. Workplaces were seized and put under the control of their workers. In rural areas tens of thousands of peasants collectivised their land. Trade union militias were formed to attack the military rebels. Power was shifted from the government and the rich to local delegate committees.

Although the government still existed it had no real power. The military, economic and political struggle was proceeding independently of the government, and, indeed, in spite of it. The councils and collectives which had emerged were the structures upon which the revolution could have been built and consolidated. They needed to be brought together on a regional and national level so that the power of the workers and peasants could have swept the government aside. This would have meant refusing to share power with the remnants of the ruling class; it would have been a big step in making the social revolution complete.

The CNT’s leading committees refused to do this. After July 19th Prime Minister Companys of Catalonia called them to his office and told them that the CNT had the mass support, they controlled the region, and he would be their faithful servant if they took over. They refused. Instead the CNT joined the Catalan government, and later the national government in Madrid.

This collaboration was in direct opposition to all anarchism holds dear about ending the division of people into rulers and ruled. Their reasoning was that the Western democracies would not supply arms to beat Franco’s rebels if there was a social revolution. (No arms ever came anyway!). They had decided that winning the war and making the revolution were two different things, and that winning the war came first. This meant collaborating with all the anti-Franco forces.

Over the next year the capitalist state, aided by Stalin’s loyal servants in the Communist Party, set about rebuilding itself. All states demand a monopoly of armed force and October 10th 1936 saw a “militarisation” decree making provision for putting the workers’ militias under government control.

Five days later Jaime Balius wrote in Solidaridad Obrera, a CNT daily paper, that the working class should push on and he warned against applying a brake to the revolution. He was a journalist with a record as a hard-line anarchist, which earned him several spells of imprisonment by the Popular Front governments during the 1936-38 period. Balius was later to become secretary of the Friends.

In November, the legendary anarchist militant Buenaventura Durruti told the magazine Anti-Fascist Spain:

“This decision by the government has had a deplorable effect. It is absolutely devoid of any sense of reality. There is an irreconcilable contrast between that mentality and that of the militias. We know that one of these attitudes has to vanish in the face of the other one”.

On November 20th Durruti was killed on the Madrid front. Over 500,000 attended his funeral in Barcelona. In December the German volunteers in the Durruti Column’s International Group expressed their opposition to militarisation and listed a number of items they wanted incorporated in any new military code: they wanted the delegate system retained along with egalitarian features; they wanted soldiers’ councils to represent the army as a whole.

The beginning of 1937 saw the government issue an order that no pay and no equipment would be issued to non-militarised combat units. The anarchists and other revolutionaries were viewed by the government as a bigger threat than Franco’s military rebels. The state authorities were even prepared to weaken the front if that was the cost of preserving capitalism.

March 5th, Solidaridad Obrera announced the formation of a new grouping: “The Friends of Durruti” is not just another club. We aim to see the Spanish Revolution pervaded by the revolutionary acumen of our Durruti. The FoD remain faithful to the last words uttered by our comrade in the heart of Barcelona in denunciation of the work of the counter-revolution. To enroll in our association it is vital that one belong to the CNT and show evidence of a record of struggle, a love of ideas and the revolution.” Applications for membership could be made at the office of the CNT journalists union.

April 1st saw, Ruta, the paper of the Libertarian Youth in Catalonia, print an article by the Friends which says

“We point the finger at no one. We feel a burning love for our precepts and our organisations. But as militants of them, we have an indisputable right to speak out. There is still time for us to rescue the revolution and revitalise our precepts but we must press on with the revolution”.

On May 2nd the Friends held a public meeting in the Goya Theatre in Barcelona at which they warned that an attack upon the workers was imminent. The following day the Stalinists seized the Telephone Exchange. This signaled the start of the May Events which saw the CNT, Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI), Iberian Libertarian Youth Federation (FIJL) and the POUM fighting against the Stalinists, republicans and Catalan nationalists, and the official security forces.

The revolutionary forces soon controlled most of the city. The next day, just as the CNT-FAI Defence Committee had resolved to make a final assault on the government building, the police HQ and the Hotel Colon, there came the radio appeals by CNT leaders Garcia Oliver and Marano Vazquez for a ceasefire. The state forces availed of this chance to renew their attacks. The conflict ignited again.

The FoD proclaimed:

“we anarchists have arrived at the limit of our concessions… not another step backwards. It is the hour of action. Save the revolution. If we continue to give up our position there is no doubt that in a short time we shall be overwhelmed. It is for this fundamental reason that it is necessary to develop a new orientation for our movement”.

“To beat Franco we need to crush the bourgeoisie and its Stalinist and Socialist allies. The capitalist state must be destroyed totally and there must be installed workers’ power depending on rank & file committees. A-political anarchism has failed.”

They called for the formation of a revolutionary Junta, the disarming of the police, socialisation of the economy, and the dissolution of parties which had turned against the working class. In effect they called for working class power.

The confusion caused by CNT ministers appealing for the barricades to be taken down demoralised the fighters. CNT and POUM militia columns preparing to march on Barcelona were turned back after pleas from their leaders, but thousands of pro-government troops did arrive. The workers were defeated and the repression that followed was severe.

The regional committee of the CNT issued a statement denouncing the Friends as “agents provocateurs” and saying they were expelled from the CNT. The Friends replied that only the local unions had that power, and, interestingly, not a single CNT union was prepared to expel a single member for being in the FoD. But the struggle had been lost; their offices were taken over by the police. The revolution was finished and it was only a matter of time before Franco’s forces won the war.

It sounds disturbing to hear anarchists talking about the need for a “junta”. To most of us in the English speaking world it conjures up an image of Generals in dark glasses running a dictatorship. However, in Spanish, it means no more than a committee or council. CNT unions each had a junta, as did the Mexican Liberal Party (an anarchist organisation – which shows that labels can be deceptive!).

In their pamphlet Towards A Fresh Revolution the Friends spelled out what they meant

“The body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary Junta will be elected by democratic vote in the union organisations. Account is to be taken of the number of comrades away at the front. These comrades must have a right to representation. Posts are to come up regularly for re-election so as to prevent anyone growing attached to them. And the trade union assembles will exercise control over the junta’s activities”.

The task of this junta was to be that of a National Defence Council: to oversee the war, control public order, and deal with international relations. Alongside it the unions were to take control of the economy and the free locality was to be the basic decision-making level of territorial organisation.

The Friends – despite the claims of their detractors – represented no break with anarchism. Their break was with the traditional a-politicism of the CNT. They knew that state power would not disappear just because that was the wish of the majority; it would have to be smashed and replaced with the power of workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ councils.

They saw the defects of syndicalism. Nothing and nobody can take away from the militancy of the CNT. As Eddie Conlon remarked in Anarchism in Action:

“The rank and file literally tore down capitalism and put workers’ and peasants’ collectives in its place. They fought heroically in the militias and the members of the CNT surpassed all others with their bravery.”

The problem for the CNT was that after the workplaces and lands had been seized the state should have died. It didn’t. The CNT had great ideas about what the anarchist future would look like, it knew that the working class would have to make a revolution, but it could not make a connection between the existing revolutionary situation and the anarchist objective. The majority ended up behaving like a minority.

The Friends put it this way:

“We (CNT) did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty but when all is said and done we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give effect to the popular effusion.” The anarchists should have “leapt into the drivers’ seat in the country, delivering a severe coup de grace to all that is outmoded and archaic”.

The CNT did not see things this way. Garcia Oliver, one of the CNT representatives in the government, said “The CNT and FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, renouncing revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to the strangulation of the revolution by the anarchist …dictatorship”. But nobody was suggesting an anarchist dictatorship or the CNT becoming a new government.

The question was whether or not new bodies would be created and co-ordinated through which the working class could assert their power. Syndicalism did not see this, because it holds that the unions are structures upon which the new society is to be built.

When the state did not simply pack its bags and vanish, they felt they had to participate in order to have some control. The Friends were an expression of opposition to this thinking. In their paper, the Friend of the People, and in numerous local publications of the CNT, the Libertarian Youth – and, indeed, the UGT and POUM you found the same sentiments.

However this was only given a clear expression when it was too late. The Friends did not have enough time to win over the majority to their position. What they have left in their wake are the lessons they had drawn from their experiences in a living revolution. By understanding what went wrong in the past we can prepare ourselves for the future. The lessons they left us were a re-affirmation of the need for political anarchism, for anarchist political organisations which can become a “leadership of ideas” (and certainly not a leadership of personalities or would-be-dictators like the Russian Bolsheviks). The state and political power does not “die” or “wither away”; it has to be smashed.

Originally published in Red & Black Revolution, magazine of the Workers Solidarity Movement

One of the deep insights of anarchist theory is that means and ends are inseparable. The method of struggle will have important repercussions on the realisable ends. The development of Anarchist theory and practice has been a search for liberatory methods that are likely to create the society that we hope to see. The role of the organisation then has to fall in line with those tactics and strategies that are liable to bring about a libertarian society.

“The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists” [1] (Abbreviated: The Platform) was first written after the failure of the revolution in Russia and the Ukraine. An attempt was made to give solutions to those factors in the struggle which had lead to failure.

In 1936, a syndicalist revolution was attempted in Spain. This attempt also failed. The Friends of Durutti Group [3] formed in 1937 in an attempt to guard the ideological purity of anarchism, and to advocate against the regimentation of the military. This initiative however, came too late, after the argument had already been lost.

Again, starting in 1956, we see the emergence of the FAU [6], also in rough agreement with the guidelines given by the Platform though likely developed quite independently. Later we see the FARJ [5] express a slightly more nuanced understanding of how the anarchist organisation should function in relation to the mass movement. This understanding was born out of the practice in working with various social groups, including the unions and students.

None of these initiatives were ultimately successful. However, the notion of Platformism, the Anarchist Vanguard group [2] [3] and Especifismo [4] have seen growing interest in recent years. This interest grows out of repeated failure by anarchists to gain traction since the failed revolution of ’36 and a look at the (qualified) successes of the Especifismo approach.

In order to have a libertarian revolution, the manner in which the power of the state is dispensed with is essential. The “seizure of the state”, as Leninist groups approach the problem, simply replaces one form of rule with another. In order to change the structures of power fundamentally, from the base, it is necessary to have a social revolution.

Specifism

Specifism is a hypothesis. One which has not fully been tested or seen unqualified success. This hypothesis however is rooted in experience, of both success and failure, gained in real struggles. Since the working class is at such a disadvantage, we have not seen any unqualified successes, and therefore those techniques that look promising must be evaluated with a combination of theoretical probing and active attempts at implementation.

The hypothesis is that anarchists should organise into specific political organisations with the intention of promoting the development and radicalisation of elements in those sectors of society which can represent the interests of the working class. These sectors might include the unions, students, unemployed, community groups or anywhere else that strategic and tactical analysis would point towards as a promising sector.

This interaction with particular sectors, which we will call social engagement * involves the active participation of militants in these mass organisations and sectors in ways that will advance the class. The basic rule of thumb for determining advancement is summed up in the following maxim “anarchists should actively promote the increasing participation and power of the working class”. That is, we would like to see self-actualisation, self-organisation and the building of prefigurative libertarian structures. This rule of thumb, however, is insufficient. We must attempt to express the libertarian worldview simultaneously. This can happen in the ideological vacuum that is a consequence of struggle, when the illegitimacy of the common sense notions that we inherit from capitalist society are exposed.

We need to be bold in widening the division in thinking as the working class begin to see the bankruptcy of ruling class ideas.

Towards Non-Substitutive Engagement

Political revolution is the revolution of heroes, the revolution of a minority. Social revolution is the revolution of the common people, a revolution of the great masses. - Liu Shifu

Social engagement is an alternative to both the substitutionism of Lenin and Guevara, and its tacit rejection so often characterised by those who define themselves in opposition to Leninism in the anarchist milieu and the ultra-left. While not all Leninist or Guevarist tactics are substitutive, they tend to have no critique of the practice. If the revolutionary vanguard, the active or militant classes or the guerrilla armies substitute themselves for the working class then there is no libertarian revolution.

This is true because the elements who substitute can not know the aims of the working class. In the subjective sense, this class can’t even be said to exist in the absence of the realisation of their own position in society. In the absence of their own consciousness of existence, they can’t have any collective sense of needs. Their needs would then have to be assessed by a group that did not include them, but was outside them. Liberty is about the capacity to make choices. Any revolution in which decisions are made in ones stead, or on ones behalf, is not libertarian.

Neither can this substitutive element increase working class participation by acting in its stead. This participation is a crucial ingredient towards the creation of a new society run by the working class, for the working class. A substitutive group will eventually develop its own class interests.

History has born out this lesson with impressive regularity including the great “communist” revolutions of Russia and China. In the end, both Russia and China devolved into oligarchic capitalism as the substituted revolutionaries relaxed naturally into their position as the new ruling class.

The negation of the Leninist programme, which was embraced by the ultra-left and later by many groups including the Forest-Johnson tendency, and various anarchist and other libertarian communist groups, is now widely accepted in the libertarian left. This negation views Leninism’s direct active participation in struggle as so dangerous that any sort of activity is in danger of being substitutive. Interaction bears a threat of infection. In this atmosphere most libertarian groups have become either closed or interact only through propaganda, attempting to enlighten the class, but not to guide them.

Social engagement however asks for a third path; interaction for the realisable gain of libertarian advantage. This means that anarchists would actively take part in organisations and communities attempting to build class power. They would argue in their unions for progressive politics and revolutionary goals. Pushing beyond arguments for improved conditions towards the complete removal of capitalism. They would argue in their schools for open access to education. They would argue in their communities to for common ownership of resources and services. All of this would be done by including and assisting cooperatively with the class.

* This has sometimes been called Social Insertion by South American comrades

Footnotes:

1. The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, Dielo Truda (Workers’ Cause)

2. The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism, Georges Fontenis

3. The Friends of Durutti Group: 1937-1939, Agustin Guillamón

4. Especifismo, NEFAC

5. Interview with the Rio de Janeiro Anarchist Federation (FARJ)

6. The FAU’s Huerta Grande

Found at: Anarchist Writers

“We need more people!”

“If only there were more anarchists…”

These phrases and others like them are all too common amongst our anarchist communities across Aotearoa (and no doubt the rest of the world). But in themselves, they betray a fatal mistake in our goals, in how we see our role in moving towards a revolutionary situation.

An anarchist revolution will not come if we simply seek to convert more people to anarchism. Rather, more people adopting anarchist theory will be a by-product of successful anarchist organising and solidarity. There are a few issues we need to examine in order to best understand the role of anarchists in capitalist society. Who will make a revolution?

An anarchist revolution cannot be made by a vanguard, by an elite group of activists, politicos or anarchists. A truly libertarian revolution, which all anarchists seek, can only be made by the great mass of the working class, in a broad sense of the term. This revolution will not magically appear the day we manage to get 51% of the population to call themselves anarchists, but rather by constantly seeking to expand upon the consciousness and militancy of the working class.

Genuine revolution will not be created by a specialist group of “professional revolutionaries.” While many anarchists have a sound critique of groups such as Greenpeace, SAFE or Amnesty International in that they posit themselves as the experts on activism, who the majority of people can pay to do political work, anarchists frequently fail to see that much of what they are doing is exactly the same, except they’re silly enough to do it for free! A large chunk of activism done by anarchists in Aotearoa in the last few years has been of this bent – we call the marches, we show up (perhaps with a few others, but rarely from outside of the wider activist circles), we hand out leaflets to bemused onlookers (who either ignore us or laugh at us, but certainly wouldn’t join in), then we go home. Ongoing organising be damned, we’re making a stand!

What are we doing?

Almost all anarchist activity in Aotearoa falls into two broad categories – activism (covering protests, single-issue groups etc.) and propaganda (infoshops and publishing). It is activism that I will deal with here.

Activism deals primarily with issues far removed from the everyday lives of most people in Aotearoa – NZ troop involvement in overseas invasions, coal mines on the West Coast, a meeting of rich countries on the other side of the planet. In focusing on this type of issue, we ensure that we remain invisible to the vast majority of the working class, and out of touch with the very forces that can create the revolutionary situation we so desire.

In activism, we separate ourselves from the majority of the populace – protesting, marching, direct action etc. are activities undertaken by “activists,” a specialist cadre of experts on social change.

Of course, there is no continuity in our activism, no real ongoing organising. Just jumping from protest to protest, deluding ourselves that we are having any effect whatsoever. Even our ongoing campaigns (for instance anti-war, or Save Happy Valley) are generally little more than semi-regular protests, with the odd press release in between. Almost nowhere is there any long term, strategic, grassroots organising taking place. Almost nowhere do we seem to acknowledge that things do take time to come to fruition. Instead, we bang our heads against a brick wall for a while, then move round the corner to the wall made of concrete, deceiving ourselves into thinking that we’re making progress.

Our activities are primarily oriented to other radicals, both in Aotearoa and overseas. We go to protests with each other, then head to a computer and post reports and photos on Indymedia, so our activist friends around the country can see what we did. If the demo was especially interesting, we might even all go together to a flat so we can see ourselves on the evening news! We are an insular collection of people, and even when we have the appearance of interacting with the public (for instance, on a march), we still ensure that we are separate from them, the “normals.” We don’t engage in conversation, just hand them a flier then move on, and after a while retreat back to the other radicals, safe behind a line of banners.

Against a Sub-Cultural Orientation

The anarchist community in Aotearoa is thoroughly mired in sub-cultural politics. The punk and hippy subcultures between them supply the bulk of self-identified anarchists, with most of the remainder coming through the “alternative” liberal (i.e. Green Party, fair trade, organics etc.) community. That’s not to say that none of those people are working class, but rather that they are getting involved because of their sub-cultural identity.

There is a huge difference between a working class movement that is oriented to working class struggles and therefore attracts working class people, and a sub-cultural community that is oriented to specific subcultures and therefore attracts people from those subcultures. One of the above options could lead to a revolutionary situation. The other keeps us in our self-built ghetto.

For Struggles of everyday life

If we are seeking to expand the consciousness and militancy of the working class, we need to stop focusing on battles which for most people appear to have little relevance, and are totally unwinnable for us few anarchists in Aotearoa, anyway. We need to move away from the WTO and towards the workplace, away from the coal-mine and towards the community, away from the spectacular summit demo and towards the struggles of everyday life.

We need to stand in solidarity with workplace struggles that are taking place – standing on the picket lines and engaging with the workers taking part. We also need to be agitating with our workmates in our own workplaces. There are always grievances, it is our task to do all we can to promote collective action to fight for better wages and conditions, of course without any illusions that this will ever be enough in and of itself.

We need to be engaging with our own communities, whether they be geographical, ethnic or otherwise. In our geographical communities, we need to agitate with those around us and build a sense of purposeful connection now, so that when attacks come, we already have a base from which to struggle. When city councils attempt to impose extra charges (such as bin taxes or water metering), destroy community facilities such as libraries or swimming pools, or raise rents on council flats, we need to stand with our communities in opposition and fight.

This type of organising around the struggles of everyday life isn’t easy, it isn’t quick, and it isn’t sexy, but it is vital if we are to build a revolutionary movement against capital and state. The more we struggle, the more we build our bases in our workplaces and communities, the better chance we have of winning, and the broader and more interlinked our struggles will become.

For the Broadening and Intensification of Struggle

“I am an anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because I believe there is no such thing as a final goal. Freedom will lead us to continually wider and expanding understanding and to new social forms of life.” – Rudolf Rocker, a German anarcho-syndicalist

It is the task of anarchists to always be broadening the terms of any given struggle, and to fight against its recuperation. In workplace struggles, we should be wary of union attempts to sell out workers. In community struggles, we should be wary of NGOs and community groups who may seek a swift resolution without the meeting of all demands.

We must always seek to bring to light the systemic roots of what we are fighting against, and to link our struggles with others happening within our communities and around the world.

We must also realise that the odds are stacked against us, and, for a long time, we will likely lose more than we win. This doesn’t mean that we should stop fighting, or retreat into our activist ghettos. For if we fight, we have a chance at creating a better society, but in giving up or retreating, we lose any chance we ever had.

Article from the anarchist journal Imminent Rebellion, #9, from Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Found at: Anarkismo.Net