NEFAC Interviews the Congreso de Unificacion Anarco-Comunista (CUAC)
Anarchism has had a tremendous resurgence in post-Pinochet Chile. One of the most active groups today is the Congreso de Unificacion Anarco-Comunista (CUAC), a relatively young organization with strong platformist influence. The CUAC formed around the same time as NEFAC. Our respective organizations have shared a similar path of growth and development over the past three years, and comradely relations continue to exist between us. Below is an interview with Jose Antonio Gutierrez, the CUAC’s internal secretary, and Juan, the group’s general secretary.
Interview by MaRK, Class Against Class (NEFAC-Boston)
NEFAC: Could you begin with a short history of anarchism in Chile?
CUAC: Anarchism in Chile has a long tradition. By the early 1890s, there was a great number of workers’ organizations being formed. In some cases the organizations held strong links with the former artisans movement, but in others there was a sharp opposition between the new class struggle organizations and the mutualist ideology of the artisans. It is in this context that the first anarchist articles and ideas start to appear, towards 1897, when in the workers press you could read articles of Kropotkin. That year, the Socialist Union was formed, and though it was not explicitly anarchist, it is here that the nucleus of anarchism starts to gather. In 1898 the first declared anarchist paper appears, called El Rebelde, and that year the anarchists start organizing new kinds of workers unions for the class struggle; they called them Sociedades de Resistencia.
So anarchism in Chile had a strictly working class origin, involved since its very beginning in the mass movement and the workers organizations, to such a point, that even the official history has to admit that the parents of the workers movement in Chile are the anarchists, because it was their societies for resistance that evolved into the unions. Another important aspect of the anarchism here is that it was a local movement. In Argentina, for instance, the core of the movement on its early years were Italian and Spanish immigrants, but in Chile the immigration was little and had a small impact over the newborn socialist movement. It is true that anarchism arrived through Argentine influence but the militants here who got the message, were Chilean born.
By the turn of the century the societies for resistance were multiplying, among dockworkers, coal miners, nitrate miners, carpenters, shoemakers, printers, and construction workers. By 1903, the first important strike of the century, of the dockworkers in Valparaiso, was led by the anarchists and their organizations. Another important movement was to occur in 1905, that was a general protest and strike in Santiago, against the rising cost of living, and particularly on the cost of the meat; also this year, a first attempt to federate the revolutionary unions was made, and the FTCh (Chilean Workers Federation) was born, however it was short-lived because of the harsh repression. In 1906, in the north, another general strike erupted. All of these movements and all of the minor strikes as well, to constantly face the most brutal repression of the armed forces, and the number of dead are counted by hundreds.
But the worst of the crimes against the people in those years, and a hard beat against anarchism was the Santa Maria School slaughter. This took place in the north, in Iquique; December 21, 1907. The nitrate workers, led by known anarchists, went on a strike from their mines in the pampa (a grasslands region in South America), to the nearest city of Iquique, were they were all shot with artillery, leaving an uncertain number of dead workers, somewhere between 2000 and 3600. Their crime was to ask for better wages, and to be paid in cash, and not with fichas (a type of private currency, not legal tender) that were exchanged for products in the warehouses of the patron (boss).
After this, the anarchist movement had ups and downs, and by 1914 the FORCh was formed, that lasted for a short amount of time, but set the foundations for the important Chilean section of the IWW, in 1919, that had around 20,000 members. Also, in those years the anarchist had formed the League of the Rent, that gather the people from poor neighborhoods (conventillos) demanding better housing, laying the foundations for the important community movements to come. As well, they were involved in founding the Students Federation, FECh, having an important presence by the end of that decade. Both the FECh and the IWW, as well as the whole anarchist movement were fiercely punished for their revolutionary courage in 1920, with new imprisonments, slaughter, raids and destruction of workers halls.
In Punta Arenas, the extreme south of our country, the FOM, of a strong anarchist influence was punished as well, the same year that in the Argentine Patagonia the FORA workers were massacred. But the movement was too strong to be beaten down just by repression. So they used a more subtle tactic: in 1925 the unions became legal, and the anarchists didn’t know what to do, while the authoritarian communists entered the legalized unions and started getting the influence they were formerly denied by the resistance unions. For long the anarchist movement was handicapped by a dogmatic approach and was progressively losing influence.
Another important problem in the decline of Chilean anarchism, was the Ibañez coup in 1927: by then, all the revolutionary movement was pursued and smashed, and the anarchist movement was dismantled through a program of “union cleansing”. Though unions were illegal before 1925, anarchists never had to face a long time of clandestinity: and political organizations can survive clandestinity, but that is much harder to unions. Despite this, some groups like “Siempre!” were active in clandestinity and some clandestine issues of the construction workers paper could appear. In 1931 Ibañez was overthrown through mass action, and the new CGT was formed to bring together what was left of the anarchist movement. The IWW continued to exist as well. Some loose propaganda groups were formed and an Anarchist Federation was established. But many leading anarchists, seeing the need of a revolutionary political organization besides the unions. They were unable to solve this problem within anarchism, so they joined forces with some leftists and revolutionary Marxists to form the Chilean Socialist Party, that rejected bitterly both the Third International and the second one.
Since then, the anarchist movement kept losing influence, except for the shoemakers, beakers, some construction trades, brick makers, and printers, until the end of 1940s, when a new generation of anarcho-syndicalists started working directly in the legal unions, and thus broke their long isolation. This way, 1949 saw the first popular strike in so long with a strong anarchist influence. Then in 1950, the Movement for the Unity of the Workers (MUNT) was formed, an anarcho-syndicalist organization with this new approach. This was fundamental to form a single workers federation for 1953, that was called CUT (Unique Workers Central), whose declaration of principles was partly redacted by anarchists, and which had some anarchists in the national secretary.
The break came in 1955, when a two day general strike put the anarchists and communists face to face: the president was about to give up his government, and the anarchists were demanding the CUT to take control of the economic situation; on the other hand, the communists said that it was necessary to establish dialogue with the authorities. In the end, the division led the strike to nothing, and the anarchists left. By the end of the decade the Libertarian Movement July 7th (ML7J) was formed, and they started for the first time, giving a serious thought to anarchist organization. Then the Movement of Revolutionary Force (MFR) was formed in the early sixties to gather revolutionary tendencies, with a strong presence of the anarchists. Unable to organize before, and in a time of really big leftist parties, anarchism soon was forgotten, but not its practice, that was present in the beginning of the movement and survived through its life.
Thus, we can see a strong movement for popular power with a strong libertarian influence, during the Popular Unity government (1970-1973) some experiences were made from the rank and file, like Industrial Networks and Committees for Consumption, that were rudimentary forms of self-management, that were both the product of the spontaneous libertarian tendencies in the people, but were better understood also as the expression of a libertarian tradition and practices that survived the very anarchist movement.
NEFAC: With the systematic suppression of leftwing movements during the era of Pinochet’s dictatorship (1973-1990), was the anarchist movement able to survive and directly influence the newer generations of militants, or were anarchist ideas “rediscovered” once this period of reaction ended?
CUAC: During the dictatorship, there was some anarchist activity, as well as some activity of anarchists in various movements and groups. However, this activity was very limited and obscured by the huge traditional parties of the left and by the fact that we couldn’t be more than a bunch of comrades in a really massive movement. In the middle seventies, some anarchists took part in what was called the early Resistencia, around the MRP (Movement of Popular Resistance), that was organized by the MIR, and it was in this wave of activity, that by the late seventies a resistance group with some anarchist influence was created. This was called Brigadas Populares (Popular Brigades). This activity wasn’t ideological, and we couldn’t tell the presence of anarchists there if we didn’t know the comrades that were actually involved there.
By the early 1980s, as the movement against the dictatorship started to push forward, the anarchist propaganda started to see the light again. We should remember the role that many of our old comrades played in this. Comrades long time gone, like Aliste. But we should like to mention a comrade that was crucial for the revival of the libertarian practices in our country: comrade Jose Ego Aguirre, whose recent death, on December 15th of the last year struck us all with a deep sorrow. This comrade alone used to stand outside schools, factories and universities, to give anarchist propaganda to the workers or students that were coming out. Thus, he formed an anarchist group of students in the early ’80s to start printing out some propaganda and to help the struggle in the schools, a very active segment of society against the dictator. This group, of about seventeen students was founded in 1981 by the CNI, the political police, during a meeting and they were all imprisoned to be interrogated, by Guaton Romo, a famous hangman of Pinochet, in charge of the tortures. One of the students that was there, told us that, as the Pinochet regime declared a war against “Marxism”, they didn’t know what to do when they started talking about anarchism, ecology and other things they haven’t heard in their lives. So after a while they released them, after giving them a good battering, having used electricity on them, and having tortured viciously Ego Aguirre, then already an old man, in order they “learnt” they shouldn’t get in trouble. But they didn’t. So the anarchist propaganda kept on going and was specifically welcomed among the youth; many young anarchists started participating actively in the human rights movement, anti-militarist movement and in the movements against torture.
Also, in the communities (poblaciones), where the movement of resistance was strong, you find some anarchists in the MIR and even later in the FPMR (Patriotic Front “Manuel Rodriguez”, that started as the armed branch of the Chilean CP and then, in 1987, split), involved in the struggle of resistance. Among university students, you find that the first anarchist collectives start to emerge: the group Jose Domingo Gomez Rojas (named after a Chilean anarchist student who died in 1920 in a madhouse as a product of three weeks of non-stop brutal torture) was formed in Universidad de Chile in 1983, the year that the massive national protest against the dictatorship started to occur.
The RIA, an anarchist group in the Catholic University, won the elections of the federation of students in 1984. Even before, in 1980, when the student federation in the Universidad de Chile took its first steps to organize clandestinely, the paper of the students ‘Despertar’ (Awakening), reproduced articles on the anarchist students of the 20s, which shows a renewed interest in libertarian ideas. This serves to demonstrate that the growing of the anarchist movement then, in the nineties, has deep roots in the struggle against the dictatorship, and that the emergence of the first collectives can be traced to the development of a vast mass movement of direct action between 1983 and 1986.
The first anarchist paper to appear during dictatorship was ‘HOMBRE Y SOCIEDAD’, in Santiago, 1985, that continued to be published until 1988, with the international help of Latin American anarchist exiles in France linked to the FA. It was useful to bring together the survivors of the old generation of anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists from the past decades, and it had really good analysis on the course of the struggles in Chile.
Unfortunately, the resources were scarce, the conditions to produce it difficult, and the number of issues limited so it had little impact outside the very anarchist movement. By 1988 other papers started to appear: in Concepcion, appeared El Acrata, linked to the TASYS, a social centre of great importance in that city, that brought together unions and community organizations; a year later, in 1989, in Santiago, started to appear ‘Accion Directa’, produced by people that participated in ‘HOMBRE Y SOCIEDAD’, plus a good number of young comrades that were getting close to the movement in the last time. So then you can see that the old movement was merging with the new one, of young people that was disappointed with the old political methods, and with the traditional parties and how they allied the so-called “transition to democracy” with the dictator.
What happened in the early 1990s was a virtual “boom” of anarchist ideas and practices, that make it seem like a rediscovery, but it is actually well linked to what happened in the 1980s. This “boom” was produced by an interest in new methods of organization by many young people, by new perspectives of how society should be after revolution (these two factors could be attributed to the previous anarchist propaganda) and by the very failures and mistakes of the leftist parties to bring about the so much promised changes in society, what many of their old social basis of support regarded as “treason”. But also, there is something else that makes the movement seems to appear in the nineties from nowhere, and is the sharp contrast between the context in the eighties and nineties: previously the anarchist movement was immersed in a huge mass movement, when in the ’90s, the mass movement was drastically reduced by the democratic mirage.
So the anarchist seemed to be more in the whole popular movement, in relative terms, even though their numbers could be similar. Also, the anarchist represented an exception to the general “rule” of the moment: while all of the leftist parties were losing militants in numbers of thousands and entering a phase of crisis, anarchism was healthy and getting new militants everywhere. So that phenomenon also helps to give the impression that the movement appeared from nowhere in the nineties, and gives a certain credit to the “rediscovery” idea on Chilean anarchism. But the truth is that it was part of a whole and single process that started in the early ’80s.
NEFAC: When did the CUAC form? What was the political background of the founding members?
CUAC: Though the CUAC was officially formed November 29, 1999, at the end of the First Chilean Anarcho-Communist Congress, the process that lead to its birth started a couple of years before. In the beginning of the 1990s, when the mirage of the new democratically elected government had vanished, a good lot of the youth came to anarchism disappointed by the traditional parties and their authoritarian structures, by the democracy that didn’t really look like they promised years ago, but it seemed more like the right of the people to elect a new dictator every six years, and by the way everything remained the same, and most of the dictatorship institutions remained untouched.
Many in this new generation of anarchists came from some of the strongest parties in the left: communists, socialists (that used to be more radical than the CP, and didn’t join the international social democracy until the early nineties), and from the MIR (Movement of Revolutionary Left). With the time, and with the deepening of the crisis of the leftist parties in the early ’90s, more and more young with no previous political militancy started to join the anarchist milieu. By the mid ’90s, many started to think in a more serious manner about the issue of the organization, about the need to start organizing anarchists in such a way to make our activity in the popular ranks a fruitful one. By that time (1994), many attempts to organize anarchists were made, but all of them failed. The year 1997, for instance, there was held an anarchist conference in Santiago, organized by comrades from Temuco which tried to form the “National Anarchist Movement”, but it resulted to be a complete disaster because of the inability of those who attended the conference to come to an agreement about the most basic issues. Since then we knew that it was impossible to bring all those claiming to be “anarchists”, just because of that fact, into one organization. So we started to reflect about our failed organizational attempts and started to draw conclusions from our own experience.
Some groups were formed that tried to be an answer to that organizational problem we were facing; with time, by the beginning of 1999, people from these groups started talking and thinking about the possibility of coming together in one organization, that was more than merely “one-organization-plus-another”, but which meant a decisive step forward in our very understanding of the anarchist movement until then, to start thinking of it as a mature political force to be immersed in the popular struggles and that saw itself as a real tool in the struggle of the exploited. For that it was necessary to lose fear to the supposed “corruption” inherent to organization; it was necessary to fight for building an organization able to have a concrete intervention in the mass movement.
The comrades from a group called COMUNITANCIA (made of a mixture of the words “communism” and “militancy”) started making reflections about the need of a specific anarchist organization in the country that could think anarchism for our current reality. That was also an interest for the people of the paper HOMBRE Y SOCIEDAD, that was working about the basic ideas for the revolutionary organization, and also for comrades that were organized in their communities (poblaciones), in both Villa Francia and Pudahuel, two popular areas of Santiago, with a long leftist and revolutionary tradition. So as we were coming to agreements, we decided to merge into one organization; but for that purpose to be successful, we thought of not making the same mistakes from the past. We decided to organize a Congress (conference) to join efforts and organizations. So we started preparing documents for discussion to be available some weeks before the Congress (about propaganda, unions, organization, immediate history of our movement, etc.), we published both the ‘Manifesto of the Libertarian Communists’ of Georges Fontenis and ‘The Platform’ of the Delo Truda group. As we knew it was impossible to organize the whole lot claiming to be anarchists, we decided to put some “conditions” to those to participate, as it was to involve more people than those in the organizing groups. Those conditions were: having the will to get organized, to understand anarchism as a product of class struggle, to have actual involvement in the popular movement, and to understand the need for social revolution (with all the implications of it). Also, the very name given to the Conference “Congreso Anarco-Comunista” was to serve as a filter. So the day of the Conference came, it lasted for two days (28th and 29th) and in the end, we had our brand new organization. Our analysis of our previous failures and our solutions to succeed this time proved to be successful.
About the political background of our militants, as we’ve said, a good number of them come from previous militancy in traditional parties of the Chilean left, like the MIR, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party of the eighties. Others come from the new movement of the mid nineties and others come from actual work of the organization, like students or community work.
NEFAC: How is the group organized? Are there active chapters in different cities?
CUAC: The CUAC is organized under federative principles; however, it is only one single organization. The basis of our organization is the work in fronts, and currently we are active on the Students’ Front and Poblaciones’ Front; the Union Front is about to become active again. It is in the front were the militants have more of their organizational life, because this is where they develop and carry the actual policies of the organization. There they have the assemblies for the discussion of the general problems and resolutions and tasks for the CUAC. Every front has delegates that represent their discussion to the meeting of the Council (concejo), that is assisted by the delegates and the secretariat.
In the cities apart from Santiago, the only active branch is Valparaiso, a town near Santiago. But there are close links to some groups in Concepcion (Asamblea de Convergencia Libertaria), Chillan and Temuco (Movimiento Libertario Joaquin Murieta) and we hope for the future to establish more formal links with those groups, in order to build a national libertarian front.
NEFAC: The CUAC is an anarcho-communist group, with strong platformist influence. How did members of your organization first become interested in platformist ideas and methods of organization? What led to this theoretical development?
CUAC: As we already mentioned, we evolved close to the platformist tradition because of our own experience, and the difficulties and failures we previously faced in giving an organizational shape to the movement. We started thinking of our need to get organized in a serious way and we arrived to very similar conclusions to those in the platform, without having any knowledge of its existence, for it was virtually unknown in the Spanish speaking movement. But hand in hand with our reflections on organization, that arose from our own experience and were surprisingly “platformist.” Though we ignored this, we also understood fully the need to distance ourselves from those who weren’t clear about the revolutionary tradition of anarchism: thus, we saw the need to understand anarchism as a class struggle revolutionary theory, that needs to be absolutely involved in the mass movement, and not to be isolated only among a bunch of “owners of the truth”. This is important to mention, because all too often platformism is reduced to a “recipe” for organization, when, in reality, is more than that.
As Arshinov points out in his article “The old and new in anarchism”, the organizational part is only ONE aspect of ‘The Platform’. ‘The Platform’ is more than a document on organization: it is a summary of the most basic and general aspects of class struggle and revolutionary anarchism, and its organizational part is derived naturally from this understanding of anarchism. One cannot accept wholeheartedly its organizational method and reject bitterly its other aspects, because one explains the other.
So we arrived at “platformist” opinions through our own practice and without knowing the existence of such a document. So it wasn’t really a surprise that we assumed it as soon as we had notice of it, and that the organization, as soon as it formed, familiarized itself to it and had a wide acceptance of platformism as our anarchist tradition. But it might be interesting how we got to know a text that was not available in any Spanish translation and was absolutely unknown for us. It was only thanks to a mistake that we knew about it: comrades in ‘HOMBRE Y SOCIEDAD’ paper, ordered a pamphlet to England, the one was not available by the moment. So instead of the one we had ordered, we received the ‘Manifesto of the Libertarian Communists’ of Georges Fontenis, and we were really delighted to see that our reflections weren’t so “original” and that there were other comrades who drew, from their own experience, conclusions similar to us. We translated this text immediately into Spanish, sent it to the printshop and started its distribution. And because of Fontenis’ text, we got a notion that it was an anarchist tradition, and that there existed ‘The Platform’.
Thanks to a comrade from the ‘Black Flag’ magazine (UK) and from the people of the WSM, we got a copy of ‘The Platform’, the one we translated as well into Spanish (presumably for the first time) and published in ‘HOMBRE Y SOCIEDAD’ paper. This is how we realized of the existence of the platformist tradition. Although in Spanish we almost never have used this expression; fortunately, there is a strong association in Chile by the libertarian movement of the word “anarcho-communist” with our methods and principles, that are platformist, so instead of platformist, it is said plainly anarcho-communists.
The platformist positions have been of a paramount importance in the movement, even beyond the very CUAC, and are started to get accepted more and more by others in the movement. Since the CUAC was formed, the anarchist movement in Chile has grown and has got definitely more mature. We believe that is no coincidence, and that is because of the serious work inside of the popular movement what is a positive effect of new libertarian methods. Probably there was no other way for anarchism to grow and to succeed in organizing, platformism as a needed development in the local movement. But what is certainly undeniable is that our organization, thanks to our positive aspects, and despite some mistakes, has made a great deal in showing the anarchist organization for the struggle as a real possibility, although we are far from satisfied and believe that there is still much more to be done. Our organizational state is still weak, we are still not enough as we’d like, and we would like to have more presence in different social struggles.
NEFAC: What areas of struggle is the CUAC active? Do you feel that having an organized anarchist group has helped you be more effective in gaining anarchist influence within these struggles?
CUAC: Our organization is active at different levels: it is active on university students problems, participating in students unions and in campaigns against the privatization of universities that has led to some strikes and occupations; it is active in the popular neighborhoods, participating in educational activity and popular radio programs, in community organization and in different local problems; and has some activity in unions, that faced some problems and currently we are doing our efforts to start that work again in an organized way.
Of course the organization has been of great importance, and thanks to that we have been able to multiply the anarchist influence, to give it some coherence and to have a concrete presence with proposals and practical policies. Also, the organization brings more maturity and makes your opinion one you can give some credit to. And not only the organization has been of use or help to the very anarchists, also we believe, it has been of use to the people who we are working with, because a serious anarchist movement is needed in the struggle, and in society.
When we are discussing getting organized, and some so-called anarchists make a big deal because they are afraid of organizations, and you see them so reluctant to organize, so messed up with abstract philosophy, so scared of changing society, it is a bit disheartening. We need a movement to change society, that’s the important task and we should never lose sight of that. And to change society we need organization, and thus we have to learn to work with other people and lose the complex of being the centre of the universe. These “comrades” are the ones who give merit to the authoritarian’s claims that one cannot supposedly get organized in a libertarian way. And if we have fear to organize, in the end we will be helping capitalism in not playing a mature role in the struggle, and the authoritarians, will once again be the only option left.
NEFAC: What are some future plans for the CUAC?
CUAC: This year, in fact, our organization has made many plans. But as the most important thing, we hope to expand and strengthen our current struggles, and to become active in new social realities, rallying the inactive anarcho-communists, to open new fronts for our struggle. On the other hand, we need to keep on working on the activity and organizational structure of the CUAC, for the growing process we are going through, and to continue adapting our tool, that is, our political organization, in the face of the challenges of the agitation and the popular movement, that we will have to deal with due to this ongoing crisis. We are not going to wait to be caught by surprise, but we should rather be well organized and on guard.
We are also going to help, with all of our efforts, in the unity of the Chilean anarchist movement, thanks to the positive signals given by most of the anarchist organizations to develop the links of solidarity, based mainly upon a common class-struggle practice, springing out from the concrete fights. Thus, we hope to be paving the road for an Anarcho-Communist Federation in Chile. And we can’t be blind. We know that strengthening our local work, together with the growth of other organizations in Latin America and the rest of the world, are striving to the same goal: a red and black international!!
NEFAC: Repression is still a strong reality in Chile, with street demonstrations routinely attacked by police. Given this political climate, what sort of future do you see for anarchism in Chile?
CUAC: It is the truth that repression over the last while unveils, once again, the role played by the military dictatorship in the neo-liberal adjustment that is now strangling us. Because, even though the terror yesterday was complete and persistent, today under the Concertacion (coalition of government), we have seen nothing but a masked dictatorship, manipulating the news, with censorship, political persecution and murder, under a progressive and even leftist aesthetic of our president Ricardo Lagos. That is a threat, because every fair protest of our people against their plans, they call terrorism, we suffer from the legal repression from the Consitution made under Pinochet’s regime. This way, we see that neo-liberalism in Chile has had different stages, and we understand Pinochet’s regime as one more of the puppet governments settled by the yankee imperialism, and that the current one is not going to change the repressive apparatus, but instead, will make it more and more perfect. As an example, let’s cite the case of the murder of a young Mapuche fighter, called Alex Lemun, in November 2002. Alex perished under police guns while participating in the occupation of the lands of his ancestors. Cynically, the Home Secretary expressed his “regret for what happened”, but at the same time threatened saying that no action outside our current norms and constitution will be tolerated, and if necessary, they will use all their force. One week later, without any serious information in the news, we were visited by USA Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, because of the Fifth Conference of Defense Secretaries of the Americas, in which, despite all their platitudes about defense, it was agreed the coordination of the hemispheric repression to suffocate the popular struggles in America. Then, what happened to Lemun, wasn’t it a signal of obedience to the plans of the Pentagon, represented by Rumsfeld?
Well, this is only a glimpse of the repressive situation nowadays in Chile, and the answers should not be found somewhere else than in the collective action of the very affected, the people. Because, in spite of the insecurity, of the constant siege, of the fear to the reaction, we know that if we isolate ourselves from the masses, if we behave like a gang, we are going to be giving the chance to those in power to dismantle our organization. And specially because our principal aim is the generation of the popular power, through all the activity we do in opening solidarity networks, for the people to organize and come together, we should stay there, obviously not leaving the problems of the resistance, of security, of the revolutionary violence to the “metaphysics”; but knowing, at the same time that the answers will come from the heart of our activity. The future of the CUAC is determined by its own principles, and in the end, by the maturity of anarchism as such.
Congreso de Unificacion Anarco-Comunista
This interview is from the “The Global Influence of Platformism Today” series in The Northeastern Anarchist #6 (Winter/Spring 2003). Further interviews include platformist-influenced anarchist groups from Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Czech Republic, South Africa, and Brazil. The NEA is the English-language magazine of the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists (NEFAC), covering class struggle anarchist theory, history, strategy, debate and analysis in an effort to further develop anarchist-communist ideas and practice.