his article discusses the complicated questions of commitment, responsibility and
self-discipline from the point of view of the Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro. ----
?A subject who has a Libertarian Ethic knows why they are struggling and can explain the
ideological reasons for the struggle, having the commitment and self-discipline
to carry out the tasks assumed? -- Ideal Peres ---- One of the important characteristics
of the organisation of the FARJ is its members? militant commitment. We believe that in
order for our struggle to bear promising fruit it is essential that each one of the
organisation?s militants has a high level of commitment, responsibility and
self-discipline. ---- When our dear Ideal Peres spoke the words above he expressed, in a
single sentence, a series of opinions of paramounts importance to our organisation.
He emphasised, above all, the importance of the militant?s consciousness with regards to
the motives for struggle. This means that the anarchist militant should not simply obey
those who determine a direction detached from the base or serve as ?pawns? for an elite
with personal interests in the domination of people and/or for other unethical interests,
in our point of view. The anarchist militant is a subject that participates actively in
all the discussions that take place within the Federation. They are expected to get
involved in the discussions that take place, positioning themselves, discussing the best
options for the questions posed and contributing to the tactical and strategic direction
adopted by the organisation.
This is why all militants must be clear about why they struggle, against what they
struggle and for what they struggle. Each one?s commitment in relation to their
self-education, independent of the political education tasks being performed by the
organisation, is fundamental to this. It is the militant?s obligation to seek to inform
themselves, constantly, to educate themselves politically in order to be able to be fully
conscious of the organisation?s objectives, of the discussions that take place and of the
activities that are being developed. In this way the militant gets to understand the
direction of the organisation (in practical and theoretical terms) and is ready to talk,
discuss and debate with others, or even put themselves in an assembly or speak publicly in
some circumstances, thus removing from the hands of a few the execution of such tasks. It
is also expected that the organisation support the militants, helping those who may have
some difficulty.
The anarchist militant is not alienated. They don?t follow orders that come from above and
are not the ?base? for vanguards? (or elites?) interests, as happens in political parties
and other hierarchical organisations.
The anarchist militant?s opinion within the organisation is not only consultative, but
also deliberative. That is, it is the militants of the organisation that decide its
direction and there are no vanguards (elites) whose opinions are worth more than that of
the others. For us, the opinions of all of the organisation?s full members have the same
weight in any discussion.
When Ideal Peres spoke about commitment and self-discipline, he was speaking fundamentally
about an individual commitment to collective decisions. But how does this work?
A large lack of commitment with respect to the issue of commitment and self-discipline is
very common in organisations that claim to be horizontal and nonpartisan. An example of
this is the large quantity of people that go to meetings (of groups that are relatively
open), giving opinions on matters they don?t know about or assuming responsibilities
knowing that they will not be able to fulfil them. It is very common that these people
don?t come to the next meetings nor comply with what they promised, claiming that they
could not, for one reason or another, nor satisfy the collective. Worst of all is that a
lot of these people, on being called to order, feel themselves victims of some sort of
authoritarianism.
There is a very illustrative example of the situation posed above: in a ?free radio? in
the south of Brazil (we?d prefer not to mention the name) that said it functioned under
self-management, people that wanted to have their programmes would go to the radio?s
meetings and mark their programmes down on the grid, in collective agreement. After this,
a lot of the people that had marked their programmes simply didn?t pitch up, leaving the
radio without working and taking the opportunity away from other people who could have
used that time slot. On being called to order by other members of the radio collective the
absentees would say that this was authoritarianism because they were within their rights,
exercising their ?freedom? not to pitch up to do the programme even though they had
committed themselves to it from the beginning.
This is an isolated example but unfortunately situations like this are very common in the
so-called libertarian milieu. For us, what happens is that there is an inversion of values
in judging a certain type of behaviour authoritarian, i.e. they who committed to something
before the collective and fail to fulfil it consider themselves the victim of
authoritarianism.
The ?commitment and self-discipline to carry out the tasks assumed? emphasised by Ideal
Peres breaks radically with the model presented above. In this type of attitude of
commitment and self-discipline we agree with Ideal that, within the organisation, there
must be ample space for all the discussions and all points of view should be analysed
carefully and, as we said above, have the same ?weight? in the decision-making of the
organisation. All the activities that the organisation is going to do, which means to say
that its members will carry out, are deliberated at the meetings. After all, the
organisation doesn?t do anything by itself. It doesn?t have a brain, arms or legs to be
able to perform the activities that are deliberated inside it. That is why all the
activities that are decided on and that are the organisation?s responsibility will have,
in one way or another, to be carried out by its members. It was on this that Bakunin
positioned himself, already in the 19th century, in discussing the question of discipline:
?By what they call an enemy in France, discipline, I recognise, however, that a certain
discipline, not automatic, but voluntary and reflected, being perfectly in accordance with
the freedom of individuals, was and will be necessary whenever many individuals, freely
united, undertake any collective job or action. This discipline is nothing more than the
voluntary and reflected agreement of all the individual efforts toward a common end. At
the moment of action, in the midst of the struggle, roles are assumed naturally according
to the skills of each, considered and judged by the whole collective: some direct and
order, others carry out orders. But no function petrifies, nor is it fixed and it does not
remain irrevocably linked to any one person. Levels and hierarchical promotion do not
exist, such that the commander of yesterday may be the subordinate of today. Nobody rises
above the rest, or if they rise it is only to fall the next instant like the waves of the
sea, always returning to a healthy level of equality. In this system, in fact, there is no
power. The power is fused in the collective and results in the sincere expression of the
freedom of each individual in the faithful and serious realisation of the will of all
[...]? (Mikhail Bakunin. The Knouto-Germanic Empire. Taken from Frank Mintz. Bakunin:
cr?tica y acci?n. Buenos Aires: Colecci?n Utopia Libertaria pp. 74-75.)
It is appropriate to insert a parenthesis here to say that, in the same way as a ?spirit
of the organisation? that resolves problems and carries out the tasks does not exist, it
is fundamental, at the time decisions are made, to divide the responsibilities; the
members being formally responsible for their execution. This is important because another
common problem in horizontal organisations is deciding to do one thing or another and then
everyone going home without resolving who is going to be responsible for what activity. In
this model one of two things happens: either nobody carries out the activities, or the
activities fall on the shoulders of the organisation?s most active members. Therefore, we
believe in the need to share the activities between the militants, always seeking a model
that distributes these activities well and avoids the concentration of tasks on the most
active and capable members.
From the moment in which a militant takes on one or more tasks for the organisation they
have an obligation to carry them out and a big responsibility to the group in relation to
these tasks. It is the committed relationship that the militants assumes with the
organisation. As discussions within the organisation are amply democratic and nobody takes
on tasks because they are required to, each commitment is a commitment undertaken by the
initiative of the militant themselves, being their complete responsibility. If there is an
unforeseen event and the militant notices that they may not be able to do that to which
they committed themselves it is there responsibility to inform the organisation in advance
and transfer their responsibility to another member.
We do not believe that the checking up, on the part of the organisation, on the
responsibilities assumed by the militant is anything authoritarian. It has to exist, and
if it happens that this responsibility or lack of commitment is constant the other
militants should have a frank conversation with them in order to resolve the problem and
not harm the organisation's work.
Self-management is the engine of the self-managed organisation. As in an organisation of
this type as is our case in the FARJ there are no leaders that ?charge? the functionaries
or base with the execution of tasks, each one that takes on a responsibility must have
enough discipline to execute it. Likewise, when the organisation determines a line to
follow or something to carry out, it is individual discipline that will make what was
decided collectively be carried out. There should be no need for checking up, as it is
expected that each one of the group charges themselves with the realisation of the tasks
decided on in the organisation, but the individual has to satisfy the organisation, having
to inform it of the progress of the activities under their responsibility and when they
are not carried out, explain to the collective the reason, possibly being sanctioned for
it. When there are problems with the progress of one or other member?s activities the
organisation can ?charge? those responsible for the activities? progress, also in order
not to hinder the work and struggle. Obviously the form of checking up must be within the
criteria of mutual respect and anarchist ethic.
In 1920, on discussing the question of discipline Errico Malatesta treated it in the
following way:
?Discipline: this is the grand word of which serves to paralyse the conscious workers?
will. We also ask for discipline, because, without understanding, without the coordination
of each one?s efforts for common and simultaneous action, victory is not materially
possible. But discipline should not be a servile discipline, a blind devotion to leaders,
an obedience to those who give the orders not to move. Revolutionary discipline is
consistency with the ideas accepted, fidelity to commitments undertaken, it is to feel
oneself obliged to share the work and risks with comrades of the struggle.? (Errico
Malatesta. Anarquistas, Socialistas e Comunistas. Sao Paulo: Cortes p. 24.) (our emphasis)
It is relevant for us to take note of Malatesta?s comments, agreeing that this discipline
and this checking up should not follow an authoritarian model, both in the oppression of
the group?s members and in the form of these penalties, which, as mentioned should also
take respect and ethics between the members of the group into account. It is of great
concern for us to differentiate the self-discipline that we preach here from military
discipline, exploitative and oppressive in its essence and which, from our point of view,
does not follow different paths to other well known authoritarianisms.
On the question of discipline in the libertarian milieu, it is worth carefully observing
the debate that took place around the Organisation Platform of the Libertarian Communists,
published by the Dielo Trudo group when exiled in France. After its publication in 1926
different responses and a very rich debate arose, primarily on anarchism?s organisational
aspects and also on other important questions, among them the question of discipline, on
which we will now focus.
Both the Platform itself, as well as the responses and discussions that took place later
like the 1927 Synthesis and ?Response? to the Platform written by Volin and other members
of NABAT (Anarchist Confederation of the Ukraine), the more detailed critique of the
Platform made by G.P. Maximov called Constructive Anarchism, the debate between Nestor
Makhnow and Errico Malatesta, an extremely rich exchange of letters from 1927 to 1929,
Piotr Arshinov?s reply to Malatesta, called The Old and the New in Anarchism, besides
various other articles from this period are all important sources for this debate.We could
cite important texts like La Response aux Confusionistes de l?Anarchism (Response to the
Confusionists of Anarchists) by Piotr Arshinov, the series of articles published in
Solidariedad Obrera by Alexandre Schapiro in 1932, other articles by Volin, as well as by
thinkers like Sebastien Faure, Luigi Fabbri and Camilo Berneri. There are central articles
by Makhno (On the Defence of the Revolution and On Revolutionary Discipline) and Malatesta
(On Collective Responsibility) that also raise arguments relevant to the discussion on the
Platform.
For the subject that we are discussing here, we believe that the richest source is the
debate between Nestor Makhno and Errico Malatesta. It is not the case here for us to take
up the defence of one side or the other, but to observe the pertinent contributions both
on one side and the other, since we have great appreciation for both militants in question
and believe there to be correct arguments on both sides.
We agree with what the Russian exiles pose in the Platform when they affirm that ?the
miserable state in which the anarchist movement vegetates, has its explanation in a number
of causes, of which the most important, the principal, is the absence of organisational
principles and practices in the anarchist movement?. The Russians stressed that there is
?a false interpretation of the principle of individuality in anarchism: this theory being
too often confused with the absence of all responsibility?. We know that one of the big
problems of the libertarian world is that the principles of freedom and of
anti-authoritarianism are often understood as the lack of commitment, such a ?lack of
responsibility? pointed out by the Russian comrades. We must also agree that, as they
said, ?the individualist and chaotic elements understand by the title 'anarchist
principles' political indifference, negligence and absence of all responsibility?.
We know that the critique of the individualist principle within anarchism makes sense and
it is because of this that we also agree that ?the federalist principle has been deformed
in anarchist ranks: it has too often been understood as the right, above all, to manifest
one's "ego", without obligation to account for duties as regards the organisation?. We
believe the Russians correct when they claim that ? all the participants in the agreement
and the Union fulfil most completely the duties undertaken, and conform to communal
decisions.? and that ? the federalist type of anarchist organisation, while recognising
each member's rights to independence, free opinion, individual liberty and initiative,
requires each member to undertake fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of
communal decisions?.
We should also pay attention to Malatesta?s contributions in his response, titled A
Project of Anarchist Organisation, in which he emphasised:
?Rather than arousing a greater desire for organisation in the anarchists, (the Platform)
seems deliberately to reinforce the prejudice of a lot of comrades who believe that to
organise oneself means to submit to leaders, adhere to an authoritarian and centralised
organisation, that suffocates all free initiative?.
It is worth then reflecting on those issues that are not so clearly exposed in the
Platform. Malatesta exaggerated, but it is worth noting his comments and taking care such
that the need for responsibility that we defend does not mean hierarchy and
authoritarianism. Malatesta?s comments imply exactly the means that we use to reach our
objectives; so, he emphasised that ?it is inconceivable that the same people who profess
anarchist ideas and want to achieve anarchy, or at least prepare for its realisation today
instead of tomorrow, renege on the basic principles of anarchism in the organisation with
which they propose to fight for its victory?. Still on the subject, he emphasises that his
project of anarchist organisation must have ?full autonomy, full independence and,
therefore, full individual and collective responsibility; free agreement between those
that believe it useful to unite to cooperate in common work; moral obligation to keep
commitments assumed and not to do anything contrary to the accepted programme?. Finally,
and returning to the discussion on means, he states that ?to live and to win, we must not
abandon the reasons for our life and deform the character of eventual victory. We want to
struggle and to win; but like anarchists and for anarchy? (our emphasis). Here too we
agree with Malatesta because if we want to achieve our objectives with the utmost urgency,
we mustn?t leave aside the principles involved in how we do this.
In his ?Reply?, Makhno correctly states: ?You yourself, dear Malatesta, admit to the
anarchist revolutionary?s individual responsibility. Moreover, you have supported it
throughout your life as a militant?. Something that is confirmed if you look at
Malatesta?s quote about discipline presented further above , which dates from 1920 and
maintains the same arguments as Makhno. Quite rightly, and agreeing with Malatesta?s
statements, Makhno says that ?None of us has the right to avoid such responsibility. On
the contrary, if it has until now been ignored in anarchist ranks it needs now to become,
for us, anarchist communists, an element of our theoretical and practical programme?;
moreover, ?just the collective spirit and collective responsibility of its militants will
enable modern anarchism to remove from its circles the idea, historically false, that
anarchism can not be a guide, be it ideologically or in practice, for the working masses
in a revolutionary period, and therefore could not demand total responsibility?.
Malatesta responded again, already approaching a certain agreement with Makhno, when he
wrote: ?certainly, I accept and support the vision that anyone who associates and
cooperates with others for a common cause must coordinate their actions with that of their
comrades and not do anything that would undermine the others? action and, therefore, the
common cause; to respect the agreements made except when they intend to leave the
association for differences of opinion, change of circumstance or conflict about the
methods chosen makes cooperation impossible and inappropriate. Thus, I argue that those
who do not feel or practice such duties must be expelled from the association. Perhaps,
speaking of collective responsibility, you refer precisely to the agreement and solidarity
that should exist between the members of an association. If so, your expression signifies,
in my view, an incorrect use of language, but this would be but an irrelevant question of
phraseology and soon we would reach agreement?.
We believe it still to be important to quote from a 1926 article by Makhno called On
Revolutionary Discipline, when he says: ?I take revolutionary discipline to mean the
self-discipline of the individual, set in the context of a strictly-prescribed collective
activity equally incumbent upon all, the responsible policy line of the members of that
collective, leading to strict congruence between their practice and their theory?. Makhno
closes the article with a very important phrase: ?Responsibility and discipline must not
frighten the revolutionary. They are the travelling companions of the practice of social
anarchism?.
Malatesta, a year after the debate with Makhno, published an article called On Collective
Responsibility in which he affirms: ?Moral responsibility (and in our case we can talk of
nothing but moral responsibility) is individual by its very nature?. He states then that
?If a number of men agree to do something and one of them allows the initiative to fail
through not carrying out what he had promised, everyone will say that it was his fault and
that therefore it is he who is responsible, not those who did what they were supposed to
right up to the last?.
We believe that all the passages quoted bring teachings to libertarians with regards to
the questions discussed. The objective of our organisation is exactly to be conceived in a
way to exalt the elements of commitment, responsibility and self-discipline, without this
giving rise to authoritarian postures, which cross ethically accepted limits, as we have
already said. Ethics is defined by us as one of the central axes of our organisation.
These elements, today and always, are fundamental to the realisation of the activities of
any organisation that claims to be serious and has goals of social transformation.
Let?s look at the question using practical examples from our organisation. The FARJ, as
you well know, works in two main fronts: the community front and the occupations front. In
the one as in the other commitment, responsibility and self-discipline are indispensable.
For example, for the activities of the community front: the management of the Centro de
Cultura Social do Rio de Janeiro (CCS-RJ, Social Cultural Centre) implies having a
rotation so that there are people from the organisation in the CCS on the agreed days,
with the goal that the programmed activities take place and that the space doesn?t become
?dead?. This management is about developing activities that point toward paths pursued by
the organisation, ensure that the water, electricity bills etc. are paid on time (it?s
worth adding another parenthesis here to paraphrase a comrade from our organisation that
used to remind us, saying that it is useless arriving at the end of the month to pay the
supermarket bill and saying to the cashier, ?but I?m an anarchist, I?m against
capitalism?; this doesn?t solve the problems of who still lives within capitalism).
Anyway, there is a whole demand of tasks that the organisation has to do and which, if it
doesn?t do, damages the path which it is intended to be achieved when programming these
tasks. The commitment of a militant with a front functions the same way: if the front
gives to one of the militants the task of opening the CCS, for example, it is expected
that this militant will go to the location on the date and time planned and perform the
task. The same applies to all the other projects that are carried out by the community
front: so that the F?bio Luz Library opens on the planned days and times, that the books
are catalogued, so that theory is produced in the Marques da Costa Research Group etc.
In the occupations front things work in the same way. There is an immense need for
militants to go to the occupations? assemblies and that, for this, they are aware of the
hours, days and topics to be addressed in the assemblies. After that, it is important that
the militants participate in the assemblies in the way that was agreed with the front,
respecting the due rotation and the objectives to be achieved. Militants must also work so
that the occupations link themselves with others, in the forum that we today call the
Internationalist Homeless Front (Frente Internacionalista dos Sem-Teto, FIST). Commitment
in the case of the occupations is even more critical than in the community front, seeing
as though in the community front, a large part of the time, you act among comrades who
have similar ethical values to ours, which allows for the degree of organisation and
commitment to be a little more flexible. In the environment of the urban occupations, as
in that of other social movements, there are a lot of disputes and, at various times, we
have to deal with enemies such as institutes of crime, of the church, political parties,
exploitative left organisations, among others. In this context, we have to highlight the
importance of organisation, of commitment and of discipline because there is a strong
dispute over political space (power), which means that if the anarchists open space, or
have commitment problems , etc., they will generate space so that the other organisations
that are in the social movement gain hegemony. There is no vacuum of political space (or
power), therefore, a lack of commitment and responsibility in the realisation of
activities means that we are generating space for others to take. If we want libertarians
to have a dominant position and that they can influence a social movement more than the
other forces involved it is essential to know that we must work with the utmost
responsibility.
We conclude by stressing that our work can not be something that takes place occasionally
and that we can do some times, when we feel like it. The commitment that we establish, as
an organisation, demands that we are responsible for the consistency of our actions. This
is often hard because the battles are often lost. It is militant will and commitment that
will make us walk day after day, for the development of the organisation?s activities and
so that we can overcome the obstacles and prepare the ground for our long-term objectives.
This is how we understand it possible to walk toward freedom.
Translation: Jonathan Payn
Home »
» (en) Brazil, Thoughts on Commitment, Responsibility and Self-discipline by Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro (ca, pt)