(en) Collectif Alternative Libertaire Bruxelles - "Giving back to the ideas and practices anarchists visibility" (fr, pt)

[machine translation]

Founded in Brussels in March 2013 Collective Libertarian Alternative Brussels is one of 
the latest revolutionary organizations in Belgium. Libertarian Communist Organization, its 
members are present yet in the social struggles for several years. For the blog LA 
Brussels we interviewed one of the activists at the base of the creation of the 
collective. For us, it is up to the launch of such an organization, marking the moments in 
the history of collective and future projects. ---- Why launch a collective Libertarian 
Alternative? ---- First, let me say that this is a collective experience, a meeting 
between activists and libertarian anarcho-syndicalists. We struggle with where we are as 
union activists, workers, Artists, students, women, the unemployed, Artists, insecure, 
etc. both against capitalism, exploitation and destruction of social gains as well as 
trade unionists libertarians, we are fighting for democracy in our unions for workers' 
control against bureaucracy and reformism. This is what the base brings us all and all, a 
certain conception of struggle trade unionism, democratic and self-management that we try 
to apply and share in our union branches.

Why launch an anarchist organization?

Because even though our union activity was the basis of our political action, we do not 
were considering in isolation. Fortunately, there are many forms of struggle outside the 
unions. Including a proliferation of anarchist experiences with which we have a lot of 
links. At the same time, as a libertarian and even if we have infinite respect for those 
who fight, we do not end up in their design both practical and theoretical anarchism.

What annoyed us was some form of elitism and purism. For example, the failure to organize 
themselves so that affinity. So at Brussels, for someone who feels anarchist it is very 
difficult to get involved in this medium. We on the contrary, what we wanted to create our 
collective is giving back to the ideas and practice of anarchism visibility. We wanted to 
get out of the inter-se and some form of convenience for illegality and struggles on the 
margins of social movements. We wanted to fully register the libertarian practices in 
social struggles on the workplace, neighborhoods, etc. We believe this is out of the 
isolation that can be in better information on anarchist ideas and practices that are too 
often reduced to stereotypes and minority share while when viewing rich history of 
movements Anarchists mass action anarchists is the norm and not the exception. We just 
think the CNT in Spain in the 30s, that's 1.5 million workers. Or even the French CGT to 
19 th and 20 th century when the anarchists helped to make clear the general strike.

What does "give a public face"?

Is to show that as anarchists we can work in social struggles, we can be initiated or 
simply share our practices to make them more democratic struggles, and also at the same 
time counter the influence of those who seek to infiltrate or slow them down. We have no 
electoral ambitions, we believe in the class struggle and self-organization. This is a 
very strong belief among anarchists. People are not stupid, they are quite aware of the 
exploitation and oppression they suffer and they can organize to fight against capitalism 
and other forms of oppression. No need for a party or a vanguard for the order.

But you can not both believe in the ability of human action and stay between oneself and 
cursing operated es-es deemed too reformist. On the contrary, we must fight openly against 
resignation and against the dominant ideology that others choose for us, either 
representatives or parties. We believe that it is in and through the struggle that people 
become revolutionary and social movements can be heard and become a force for political 
and social change. But to do that you have to have a storefront.

?The invisibility of anarchists in Belgium can not be explained by their small numbers 
(and there are actually many) but the lack of organization and individualistic designs. 
Any form of structured organization is perceived as a sign of authoritarianism. There are 
many taboos (organization, program, shows, etc), words proscribed dogmatically without 
anyone really asking the question of the validity of these taboos. What we are saying is 
that if the anarchists want to become a force for social change, we must organize to fight 
"with the people" to take up the idea of anarchist Fernand Pelloutier. Organize, not in a 
party, but as did many anarchists for centuries in a flat organization and applying direct 
democracy. It is north of the country that anarchists comrades best understood in recent 
years since it saw the flowering of the anarchist group in Leuven or Ghent for example.

You were talking about class struggle anarchists they recognize in this design?

While it is true that we often see in Karl Marx's leading theorist of class struggle (the 
fact that in capitalist societies they are a class, the bourgeoisie - the patrons- 
exploiting another class workers - those who have nothing except their labor power) yet 
anarchism has a long tradition of class struggle. We often forget that anarchists like 
Bakunin premier Carlo Cafiero or is it an important interpretation of the writings of Marx 
work. They reproached Marx it is authoritarian, but it does not delegitimize its economic 
analysis. Besides anarchists called themselves anarchist-communists in opposition to what 
they called authoritarian communists. Like Marx, they agreed on the fact that the goal was 
the revolution that would destroy the capitalist economy and wage labor to achieve a 
society without exploitation. But anarchists do not agree on the methods and political 
practices, particularly in the idea of the absolute necessity of a party with an 
enlightened vanguard or the break between the economic struggle and political struggle .

?Our conception of the class struggle thus requires social struggle. It is through this 
approach that we develop our political action unlike some parties whose entire strategy is 
based on electoral calculations and not on the construction of social movements. For them, 
elections are the goal of which will depend on political action. We envisage the left as a 
social force that is to rebuild after decades of neo-liberalism. This involves the 
construction of anti-capitalist fronts, autonomous social struggles, union independence 
... For them, only the electoral result counts. Now we ask the question in other words, 
"how to fight effectively against all policies that worsen our lives? "

What-are your influences?

?What makes or breaks the anarchist tradition is its diversity. When I said that we do not 
find ourselves in the current anarchist milieu, it does not mean for example that we 
reject the contrary. There are a lot of practices that simply deserve to be better known. 
Similarly, in our collective we try to argue that diversity. We are influenced by many 
streams, including the anti-Leninist communism, communism German and Dutch councils, the 
beginning of the Russian revolution libertarian inspiration in 1917, the Kronstadt 
uprising, the Maknovchina Ukraine, self Spanish in 1936, etc. all of which opposed the 
authoritarianism of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and generally authoritarian communists.

In the anarchist tradition, libertarian communism is one of the possible votes, anarchism 
and social worker, and it is in this that we fully recognize.

Do we lose too much in the historical and abstract considerations. What are your modes of 
action?

?Everything we do goes to show that here and now we can fight effectively. We can both be 
immersed in concrete struggles, our workplaces, our neighborhoods, or more generally in 
society and at the same time have a revolutionary discourse and have mass actions while 
applying the principle of self-management. We apply the slogans of social anarchists, the 
struggle for the immediate improvement of living conditions and social and libertarian 
revolution.

In this reality, experienced by millions of us, we want to create a new utopia and another 
world. We bring a revolutionary political project. We try to divest ourselves of this 
false image of the anarchist and anti-social breaker to the contrary, to show that we want 
to build another horizon. An anti-capitalist project but also on well-feminist, 
anti-racist, anti-colonial and internationalist.

You spoke earlier to break the shots are dressed anarchists, what does this mean?

It is often characterized anarchism dreamers detached from the real world or even "petty 
bourgeois" in a condescending manner by other currents. But we do not recognize ourselves 
in this caricature. Instead, we have the feeling of being pragmatic and being well aware 
of the violence experienced by the working classes in Belgium. Many of our activists are 
themselves from the so-called working class, the working class neighborhoods of Brussels 
and labor migration. We are mostly son and daughters of workers. And so the same evidence 
that social anarchism still exists.

?Similarly, it was too long locked in a moral anarchism or simple philosophy, naive and 
individual. If we do not deny the important contribution of ethical anarchism, we consider 
primarily that anarchism is a political practice that follows from the analysis of 
material realities of modern society. So it is a practice of social struggle and that 
makes sense collectively.

What is the Libertarian Alternative Brussels political line?

These are slogans relatively traditional libertarian communists because they have not 
aged. It is primarily self -Decide together when and how to act for both the means for 
form - get involved in concrete struggles - whether our workplaces, in our neighborhoods, 
fight As women, as persons of immigrant and experiencing racism. This also involves 
practices such as self-organization, direct democracy, general assembly and generally does 
decide together the manner and form which should take the social struggle. This is also 
the first meaning of the Direct Action developed by Emile Pouget (a large French 
anarchist), self-management and the exploited.

?For example we highlight that racism was not only the fact of the right or the far right. 
We live in a society that inherited directories of thought and institutional structures 
from colonization and labor migration. This is called the structural racism and fantasy 
essentializes populations of immigrant. Racism is structural and is also reproduced by the 
left and unfortunately by the revolutionary left in particular through paternalism or 
anthropocentristes universalist vis-?-vis particular Muslim-es.

There are situations triple oppressions -de class, race and gender - as shown by the 
"black feminism" in the United States. The experiences of oppression are many and must be 
able to think in articulating these three principalities. And that is the intersection of 
these three principalities that we believe our anti-capitalist project. We reject the 
racist mistakes of the Left itself. We do not advocate a dogmatic anarchism, anarchist but 
a practice that is meant to be the revolutionary experience of direct democracy and 
self-management.

So this is a battle on all fronts?

Indeed, there is a complete control. Anti-capitalism is anti-racist, feminist, 
anti-colonial and internationalist.

?Similarly, as the Libertarian Communists are anti-authoritarian it is our policy to 
conduct an anti-fascist fight tradition. And fascism is just a way of authoritarian 
management of the capitalist system, it is a reaction of the dominant face of the 
destruction of his own particular system in times of crisis with dwindling sources of 
profit classes. Fascism is the defense of national capitalism against international 
capitalism. The fascists tell us that a good boss is a boss of the same nationality. We 
answer that there is no good boss, the role of the boss is to exploit workers-Artists.

This is the thesis of Daniel Gu?rin, great theorist of libertarian communism?

?Daniel Gu?rin has done a remarkable work of synthesis between anarchism and communism. It 
is also known for his study of fascism. In the 30s, he went to Germany to see what 
fascism. He came back with a very important deduction for us. This is to say that the 
victory of fascism is primarily due to the defeat of the left. This is because the left 
has not been in a crisis of capitalism itself up as a credible alternative to capitalism 
and fascism won in Germany. Because of such social democracy that purports to workers 
Artists-it is a response to capitalism, we can reform the capitalist system, make it less 
unequal. What is wrong, we can not reform capitalism and this is not desirable. The 
essence of capitalism is the exploitation of the majority of workers, Artists, so we can 
not be reformed. One can only destroy it.

One reason for the failure of the revolutionary left is because it has taken the path of 
social democratic reformism. We see quite well in Belgium today where supposedly 
revolutionary parties become reformists. They criticize banking, finance, etc. and 
consider that the reform may lead to communism. History proves that this path leads 
nowhere except treason.

How the revolutionary left can it become a credible alternative to the anti-capitalist now?

Often when talking with people, it contends that our ideas are nice, but impractical. 
Unfortunately, this is true, people are right to be skeptical. How can we believe in the 
people that we are a credible alternative if the revolutionary left is incapable of 
actually being here and now an alternative? A new history proves interesting. Indeed, a 
strength of the labor movement in history is that it was more than just a movement or 
party, but to propose a model against-society here and now to build a concrete idea of 
what could be a communist society. This requires the implementation of concrete solidarity 
as were mutual societies and cooperatives, places of political experimentation, artistic 
and journalistic against-culture, etc.

It is therefore to lead a fight to the political and cultural practices that puts the 
communist and anarchist ideals. Unfortunately no revolutionary party did not bother to do 
so. These supposedly revolutionary parties (with some exceptions) are nothing more than 
bourgeois parties contesting the elections. We therefore believe that we must be able to 
articulate the defensive struggles and offensive struggles or constructive in order to 
undermine the representations and organization of capitalist society. For us, the only 
mode of representation is the power of workers, Artists, people, and this requires 
self-organization and presence in the heart of the social struggles.

What makes you particularly impressed as activists in recent months?

?First the fight against the free trade agreements between the United States and Europe 
that aims to further liberalize the economy and precarious workers-Artists. This is an 
important fight in several respects. First, it converges many struggles. Artists-workers, 
agrictulteurs-trainers, youth, unemployed, etc. It is very important for us to unite our 
struggles. Despite the union bureaucrats, the attempt to block the EU summit in December 
2013 was a relative success both in terms of number and in terms of methods. Now we need 
to unify the European social movements in this fight.

Another milestone was the antifascist mobilizations in May where we could combine radical 
anti-fascism with blocking the meeting of Vlaams Belang (or was repelled an attack by a 
fascist group) and a few weeks after a protest gathering more than 3,000 people against 
the presence of Marine Lepen in Brussels.

Both times we have proved that we could combine mass movement and radical actions.

How you're thinking struggles for the coming months?

?It was not seen as a federal government right from Martens-Gol in the 80s and again, the 
government is probably more right with the presence of the NV-A and ministers close to the 
extreme right. We know that this neoliberal government will tackle hard social gains of 
the workers-Artists. Pensions, allowances insertion, criminalization of workers-Artists 
undocumented, etc. The coalition agreement makes clear that the government will take 
action entirely favors the interests of employers and workers increasingly 
impoverish-Artists. With a neo-conservative and safe government, criminalization of social 
resistance may be cured as in other countries. It will be important to participate in the 
development of anti-capitalist fronts but also support union initiatives in opposition to 
the union leadership.

Taking advantage of the volatile situation, the PS will probably try to rebuild their 
electoral popularity. The PS will try to position itself as the only left-wing opposition. 
But social movements do not fall into this trap that would benefit the PS. PS carries a 
huge responsibility in the victory of the right. In recent decades, the PS was involved, 
whether or federal regions, the destruction of social gains while pursuing policies 
favoring capitalists, not the workers-Artists. In this way, he opened an avenue to the 
right. This is something that should not be forgotten in future social struggles, the PS 
even in opposition, is no longer on the side of workers-Artists.

In unions, we thought this time the strategy to be adopted towards the right-wing 
government. The temptation will be great to make an alliance with the PS. Or whatever the 
government in power that is needed is that the unions once again become an independent 
social power capable of imposing the balance of power by an assertive political and 
economic agenda.

Among the base unionists and delegates, many of those who are dissatisfied with the 
political line adopted by the union leadership, but it must be heard, break the silence 
and organize to fight within the unions. That's what some already trying to do. But do not 
forget, the PS is in no way an ally, or the unions, or for social movements.

To close this long interview, would you have some books to recommend for people is 
reflected in what you just said?

A good introductory book Libertarian Communism remains "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerin. I can 
also cite "The revolution was a great adventure" Paul Mattick, the "Abstract of Capital" 
by Carlo Cafiero, "Direct Action" and other writings of Emile Pouget. On the relationship 
between racism and feminism, "Sort dominate, Who are the" others "? "Christine Delphy and" 
Black feminism. Anthology of African American feminism "Elsa Dorlin. And finally "Homage 
to Catalonia" story of the Spanish Civil War by George Orwell.