World Bridges between anarchism and democratic confederalism – 2 by BrunoL (pt)

In this part I will expose some basic historical information about the anarchist political 
organization model and in the end, make a comparison between these experiences and the 
nowadays mission of the political organization that intends to be the catalyst of a 
Democratic Confederalist social change. ---- Abdullah Ocalan was responsible for new read 
of Bookchin’s original work that tried to adapt anarchism to a community based society. 
Ocalan’s work nowadays is feeding left-libertarian thought worldwide. ---- The ancestry of 
the anarchist organizational model: three important experiences ---- International 
Alliance of Social Democracy: As I mentioned in the first part of the essay, the 
federalist organizational model is not new. In 1868, within the International Workers' 
Association (IWA, also known in Latin languages as AIT) the so-called federalist wing 
included an organized political force called the International Alliance of Social 
Democracy (known as a Bakuninian type of Alliance), whose best known public reference was 
the Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin (1814/1876).

The Alliance worked according to an organisation of cadres, of a "Carbonarian" type and 
with most of its militants acting in secrecy. Some public references were made to 
well-known leaders within the IWA and this association did not act only in a specific 
country or territory. It was usual to send delegates and operators (agents with militant 
commitment) to distant countries or regional divisions to promote social organization, to 
form a cell of the Alliance or to support occasional episodes of rebellion. We can observe 
the role of experienced militants inside the Alliance, acting as social activists, 
political organizers and ideological propagandists. Also, sometimes, those who would be in 
the first line for a higher level of social struggle — like that which occurred during the 
Paris uprising and the Commune — Alliance militants were part of the political forces 
organizing the first worker’s self-government in modern times (from March to May, 1871)

Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party:Another mentionable experience for this party 
model was founded in 1891, the Socialist Revolutionary Anarchist Party (SRAP, PRSA in 
Latin languages, known as Malatestian Party) and its most famous reference was the 
Neapolitan anarchist Errico Malatesta (1853/1932). Although the SRAP had a clandestine 
wing, it had a party structure most similar to the usual type of organization. Its 
militants were references for the mass level (social) and intermediary level (political 
and social), as well as distributors and producers of political propaganda. The members 
were more of the multiple role type (multifunctional cadres), including types of direct 
action carried out in Italy at the time (from the foundation of the party until the 
fascist coup of 1922).

Ukrainian Insurgent Peasant’s Army: From the Russian Revolution, specifically in Ukraine, 
came the acquisition of experience in terms of mass political organization during the 
civil war (1918-1921). The Ukrainian Insurgent Peasant’s Army (Black Army, also known as 
Makhnovichnian or Makhnovist), whose militant reference was Nestor Ivanovich Makhnó 
(1888/1934), had the political, military and administrative hegemony of large regions of 
Ukraine and developed a modus operandi based on collectivized production and its military 
section was an army based on mobile cavalry and whose command posts were all elected. Then 
there was the political/militia merger of the organization, which promoted at the same 
time a higher level of conflict against the White Army (right-wing and tsarist) and also 
against the Red Army (the Bolshevik Party armed force). The military wing was the 
self-defense institution to guarantee a political federalist form of self-government and 
socioeconomic self-management. With the defeat to the Red Army in 1921, some survivors of 
the General Staff of the Black Army got together in Paris, France, and wrote a political 
manifesto, known as a piece of anarchist political theory called the Organizational 
Platform of the Libertarian Communists. This document, which was widespread in the 1920s 
and 1930s, contained four basic theoretical guidelines for the model that is still valid 
today: Tactical Unity, Theoretical Unity, Collective Responsibility and Federalism.

Common aspects between the three experiences and similarities to the PKK’s actual mission

The exhibition of historical experiences and the accumulation among and from these 
organizations could result in an entire thesis solely discussing the concepts of the 
anarchist party. However, I want to emphasize in this series the common aspects between 
these organizational models: the selection of membership (party of cadres); 
non-participation in state elections (anti-electioneering); active minority action-type 
(against the conception of class vanguard); internal federative structure considered as a 
form of social organization (political federalism); systematic use of force in collective 
and mass conflicts (direct action as a priority means of generating political events); 
projection of social structures organized as a priority (building a strong people), 
eliminating the professional intermediation (popular direct democracy); and existence of 
possible criticism and internal promotion, increasing the political responsibilities 
according to the militant's degree of commitment (internal democracy and renewal).

The similarities between the anarchist organization model and the role of the Kurdistan 
freedom movement’s political instrument is so impressive and clear that it is easily 
proved through a simple reading of this paragraph written by comrade Mustafa Karasu and 
published in the PKK’s English website:

“The PKK has restructured itself as a result of extensive self-criticism and a thorough 
criticism of classical socialism and its practiced forms. It sees classical socialist 
theory as insufficient. The PKK believes that classical socialism is not anti-capitalist 
enough and is too involved with the state; whereas the state is a tool of suppression. To 
topple a state in order to create a new one is not revolutionary practice, rather, to 
surpass, topple or minimize the hegemonic system and replace it with a socialist system by 
implicating socialism in the moment is the PKK’s adopted method. To topple a state is not 
the same as toppling the system. To liken these two things together is a sign of deviation 
from socialism.”

When we study socialist history and workers movements in several societies, Western or 
not, we can observe that this kind of criticism against state and state oriented so-called 
socialist parties were exactly the same criticism made by thousands of totally committed 
anarchist militants since, at least, 1864! After reading a sentence that starts by saying 
“PKK has structured itself through self-criticism” we can easily observe almost the exact 
same method of the anarchist political organization, a constant inner struggle to avoid 
internally reproducing the political sphere and ideological thoughts that belong to 
authoritarians and capitalist (liberal or not) traditions. As I said in the first part of 
this essay, the PKK’s actual praxis can feed anarchists worldwide and vice-versa. The 
first step is a common recognition and approach between both traditions. To contribute to 
this common effort is the reason for this series.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28054