(en) Anarkismo.net: A bit of self-criticism by Esteban Vieira - Libertarian League (pt)

It is always necessary to remember them with honesty the Anarchism derives from the 
historical tradition (or as they call the older, revolutionary tradition), and as a set of 
ideas, proposals, criticisms and solutions that run counter to the Marxists advocate 
scientific method - setting mere "fable", as they claim in bad faith his political 
opponents - prioritizes above all the practical guidance of ideas, aiming solely to social 
revolution, especially by achieving your goal finalist reorganization of society. This 
paper proposes a reflection on our responsibility as propagators and supporters of the 
movement. ---- It is always necessary to remember them with honesty the Anarchism derives 
from the historical tradition (or as they call the older, revolutionary tradition), and as 
a set of ideas, proposals, criticisms and solutions that run counter to the Marxists 
advocate scientific method - setting mere "fable", as they claim in bad faith his 
political opponents - prioritizes above all the practical guidance of ideas, aiming solely 
to social revolution, especially by achieving your goal finalist reorganization of society ?.

Anarchism historically took shape and own identity through internecine debate promoted by 
the working class and peasant still in the mid-nineteenth century, and sought an outlet in 
the political field to their dilemmas, conflicts and struggles. During this period 
(Industrial Revolution, 2nd phase of the French Revolution, the Paris Commune, etc..), 
Workers and their movements, leagues and unions still incipient ripening their fighting 
positions. Socialism idea presented itself as representative of the desires of employees, 
and such a discussion within the AIT revealed a clear dissatisfaction with the other 
socialist currents - the reformist, statist and legalistic. Ie anarchism consolidates, 
defines and builds within the socialist trunk, but featuring his libertarian sector, which 
lays the foundations of theoretical orientation and practical application through the 
anti-authoritarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-statism and popular protagonism.

We can see there, investigating its historical references, that Anarchism is not nearly as 
presents individualist ideology, or, as is common to hear nowadays, as a negation of the 
class struggle. Such deformations are absurd: Anarchism, from the cradle, is social.

It is certain, however, that anarchism presents trends - and disagreements - diverse and 
profound generated from its debates, which is common to any ideology / political theory. 
Even more certain is that anarchism is not dogmatic, is not a free school policy 
interpretations. As a political movement, it adapts to your time, looking fit and insert 
their aspirations to contingent reality, giving them practical flow. Incidentally, this 
has always been the subject of extensive discussion among anarchists: Get Organized? And 
how? - We will not discuss here the principle or methods of organization - because they 
rest on the internal conflicts that cause the creation of trends and dissent known by 
everyone.

However, it is important to draw attention to the erroneous approach that makes Anarchism, 
whether by design flaws (of their own supporters), or evil intentions (his political 
opponents). For lack of space and not to dwell so much, do not analyze here the second 
case of misrepresentation anticonceitual coming "pseudomarxistas" (exclude the minority 
and there n?o-bolchevique/socialdemocrata sector, which cares for the social ownership, 
worker and peasant organization by bases away from political parties), but the first, in 
my view more urgent. The grossest distortions derived from ahistorical perspective: one 
that does not take into account political and ideological concepts historically 
constructed, reducing anarchism to an empty caricature, only taking into account the 
etymology of the term "anarchy / anarchism" and through this analysis simplistic, only 
reinforcing the idea of denial, as if there is concern of anarchists to build something in 
place of what is intended to destroy. Ignores their principles and theoretical load (class 
struggle, economic equality, popular power, socialism, anti-capitalism, etc..), And the 
revolutionary practices in countries or regions where it was predominant (Ukraine, Russia, 
Brazil, Bulgaria, Manchuria, Spain, to name a few).

This approach - especially taken by his Bolsheviks, Liberals, 
p?s-estruturalistas/p?s-modernos political opponents - gave rise to the creation of 
various ideological assumptions, schools and movements that call themselves 
"libertarians", born there a constellation of anarchism, each obedient to an adaptation / 
strain / own review, but marked by a characteristic common to all, that is the clear 
ideological emptiness, then becoming anarchism an abstract concept, an individualist 
philosophy with mystical, idealistic aspirations, imprisoned in subjectivity, ethical 
relativism and individuality of the subject; uncompromising political projects with large 
and serious revolutionary organizations.

Anarchism is then no longer functioning as an instrument of struggle of the working class 
and oppressed for his defense and emancipation, but as a mere hobby, exquisite object of 
scholarly debate, the affirmation of personal and intelligentsia mostly inserted in the 
set of phenomena counter cultural; in punk music, rock aggressive, clubby and critic. This 
interpretation of harmful way, stripping Anarchism his revolutionary sense.

But why the phenomenon? In troubled times between the great wars of the twentieth century 
and in the midst of dictatorial action, anarchism lost its social vector (the union). Came 
the need to find a new identity for the movement and its militancy, and, inevitably, not 
new social vector, unsuited for this troubled period, there was found the workers 
themselves fed practices and misunderstandings about Anarchism. For many former militants 
and sectors engaged in the struggle, the loss of future prospects announced large losses, 
which led gradually to nihilism and the puzzling inaction. What is left of all the 
theoretical arsenal created by Malatesta, Bakunin, Makhno, Kropotkin, etc.., And it offers 
a serious militancy, is merely the negation of the state, while many subjects begin to 
flirt with trends post modern. Then it creates and prioritizes it a "lifestyle anarchism", 
unaccustomed to militancy and without commitment to social revolution, which has always 
been led by him since its origin. Added to this the gap of the lack of organizational 
structure, going to be valued much more affective and personal relationships instead of 
collective action and the cultivation of political responsibilities.

Jo Freeman, a feminist activist, tells us: "To all people have the opportunity to engage 
in a given group and participate in its activities, it is necessary that its structure is 
explicit, rather than implicit. The rules of deliberation must be open and available to 
everyone, and this can only happen if they are formalized. This does not mean that the 
normalization of a group structure will destroy the informal structure. She usually does 
not destroy, but it prevents the informal structure from having predominant control and 
makes available some means of attacking it. The lack of structure is organizationally 
impossible. "?

Urge then we, social activists, trade unionists and other revolutionary comrades committed 
to the revolutionary cause with the oppressed sectors, resgatemos serious activism, we 
work by libertarian ethics and revolutionary discipline, demystifying stereotypes, harmful 
addictions, caricatures to anarchism by our political opponents and enemies from their 
theoretical frameworks.

It is not today that within the anarchist movement such deformations have been criticized 
by many militants From the classics, Bakunin is opposite the bourgeois conception of 
freedom, noting its own concept of essentially collective character; Malatesta also rivals 
the antiorganizacionistas and individualistic that were contrary to the principle of 
organization in his time (seconds, considered a marginal phenomenon, a 'petty-bourgeois 
exoticism "within anarchism, completely harmless to capitalism and the state were 
restricted to artists, bohemians, writers and other figures who decided to depart from the 
purposes of the working class). Nestor Makhno and the Delo Truda in controversy in its 
Organisational Platform and the Notion of Synthesis, make clear the incompatibility of 
such deformations with the militant and revolutionary anarchism; Luigi Fabbri, weaving 
severe as what he himself called "bourgeois influences in anarchism" criticism; Camilo 
Berneri in "cretinism Anarchist" and until recently Murray Bookchin on "Criticism and 
self-criticism", "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism". Why not highlight the struggle 
and effort of libertarian and revolutionary political groups through the redemption of 
serious and committed militancy among the people? All this just to cite the most notable 
examples.

Finally, did not propose here an article prepared and academic, can even be mistaken on 
some propositions. In any way intend to create a separation, or qualify an anarchism "X" 
or "Y" as superior to other proposals and schools, but I do want to somehow propose to the 
comrades who are concerned with the direction that the cause is taking, reflection and 
self-criticism about the same, reaffirming the quest for redemption ethics, commitment and 
discipline libertarian (concepts so forgotten nowadays), based on experience and the 
accumulation of years of militancy left to us by previous generations. And of course, most 
importantly, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

----

Notes and references:

? MALATESTA, Errico - Revolutionary Writings, 2008.
? FREEMAN, Joe - The Tyranny of Organizations Without Structure, 1970.
MINTZ, Frank - Social Anarchism, 2006.
Bookchin, Murray - Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism, 2001.
FARJ / DA SILVA, Rafael - Against Anarchism Anarchism, 2011.

Related Link:http://www.ligalibertaria.org/2013/12/um-pouco-de-autocritica.html