" libertarian "... to the specificity Anarchist From "Harlequin anarchist or Virtue Rewarded 3 January 2004" course there is a short step to extrapolate on the far left especially in the sociological analysis.
3. Anarchism in the class struggle
3.1. The social composition of the libertarian movement French
To understand the evolution of anarchism today by adopting a materialistic point of view [21] It is interesting to study its sociology. Sociologist and libertarian Mimmo Pucciarelli was synthesized in an article published in Alternative Libertarian (B), the main data on the social composition of the libertarian movement French (and French-speaking Belgium) [22]. They clearly show a majority of men (80%), young (about 50% under 35 years) from the "middle" (about 40% of employees, managers and technicians, and 20% of students, cons 8% and 7% of workers unemployed and precarious) [23]. Among the workers, the trades seem to dominate the book (the CGT union of correcting printing is an anarchist stronghold, for example [24]). These data are from the mid-1990s. Should check the progress of the CNT, which unionized workers out of the libertarian milieu, change this configuration.
addition to the requirements of the survey (partly a result of questionnaires newspapers), we may regret a few things:
a) The definition of libertarian milieu was restricted to "non-Marxist 'in groups and journals cited one sees neither advice nor situationist. It is true that the small numbers tends to make them disappear from the statistics, but one wonders if this exclusion is linked to an implicit choice.
b) Data resume, more or less empirically, the occupational categories of the INSEE, which does not allow an analysis in terms of class. This creates a vagueness in policy analysis.
c) The share of civil servants and employees of the voluntary sector does not appear, although in the examples cited throughout the article, it has appeared to be quite important. This poses another problem: What is the ratio of libertarians to the state (or local)?
d) There are no data organization, which would have been interesting to see if the positions of the organizations were linked to their social composition.
In all cases, the libertarian movement seems to be a form of political expression of the middle. The social composition is probably not very different from the far left Trotskyist example, but it would require to be verified. So there is a disproportion between social groups targeted by the speech anarchist (the unemployed and precarious, women [25]) and those actually represented. Ultimately, we can talk about substitutionism: the struggles, we replace, at least verbally, to those they claim to defend.
We're talking about middle class, not middle class. The distinction is important because "middle class" is generally synonymous with petty bourgeoisie, a term used both tote and political invective, but is generally poorly understood. Mimmo Pucciarelli statistics leave no doubt that anarchists Francophones In no case of petty bourgeois [26]: no artisans, no traders, no professionals. The middle classes are "proletarians", that is to say the employees, but is now distinguished by essentially in their mode of life and work (but not always by their standard of living, because a growing insecurity). This partly reflects that of Western society, with the growth of service sector employees, but this explanation is not sufficient.
3.2. Coaching capitalist
can also arise the question what is the importance of professional managerial office (teachers, social workers, managers) in the militant groups? These professions have a very ambiguous status, since there is a permanent contradiction between their work - which is to maintain social peace, to mentor people and passing on values - and their activist investment. This issue was raised in the debate between CNT and CNT-AIT Vignolles. The first criticized the English CNT on the fact that it receives state subsidies, while the latter criticized the English CGT because unionized police officers and of prison guards. In all cases, the first article of association of the CNT-Vignoles proposes to combine all employees' with the exception of the repressive forces of the State, regarded as enemies of workers ". But one wonders, by the same logic, if not dangerous to allow people whose main activity is the regulation of the capitalist system, to parts of anarchist groups, and more of sometimes be the majority?
Presumably, as suggested by Anton Pannekoek about "intellectuals" and which, in its definition, correspond to this "capitalist framework, it is a class of its own [27]. Marked by the experience of the Russian revolution, Pannekoek considers that these intellectuals are in a unique position in capitalism, since they provide practical direction without perceiving profits. They see as a capitalist parasitic layer, unnecessary to the operation of the system, the "intellectuals" could only assume. They find themselves willingly in the anti-capitalist - in which they are responsible same management functions as in capitalism. But their ideal, more or less acknowledged, is not a classless society but society "better managed", that is to say, bureaucratic or technocratic. Their opposition to the state is never complete, since they do not oppose the principle of the state, but only to its current manifestations.
Indeed, people involved in the management of the system are constantly faced with the antagonism between on the one hand their fate of women workers employees, sometimes severely exploited (executives of private victims of infernal hours) and on the other hand, their work is ultimately to maintain the existing system and enable it to reproduce. This ambiguity is reflected in the teachers' demands, which call most often "means to work" and not a means for themselves. The problem is increased when these people actually believe in the usefulness of their work (for example, community work, social, education, etc..), Because it blurs the boundary between the state and anarchist.
course, this belief in the utility may have positive aspects, including the assertion of free public service, a form of protest or revolt against work activity. But we must not delude ourselves on these two aspects. The free public service is not really because it has a real cost (salaries, equipment, operation). It can be a political choice, but will in this case financed by public money, that is to say ultimately about taxes. Where are these taxes? Workers, the value they produce. That those taxes are levied directly or indirectly, whether "income" or companies does not change anything. This is not, as is the current opinion of the left, a product socialized, nationalized but a product, that is to say, the circulating capital of the state, which is levied on income bureaucrats and politicians. When there is a problem, the left - which is nothing other than the ideology of the bureaucracy - answers: taxes, fees. Speaking of free public services is therefore based on a contradiction: generalized free goods and services / strengthening of the state in its duties and income.
Similarly, one can see the demand for utilitésociale as a struggle between free activity and alienated labor. This is true only when the activity can actually claim a certain social utility beyond its role in capitalism, it can claim to have a role in a society free of money. But this idea can become a particular form of alienation, in which the worker justifies its use by the utility she attributes to her job. Many warrant officers and many non-paid overtime they make on behalf of the interests of the community.
Apparently, a teacher or social worker is not a policeman or a soldier. But his club is moral, his gun is ideological. But, it will be said, the teacher is useful to society, because it provides access to knowledge. Well, after all, the police officer is it not useful when it regulates the traffic? And global capitalism, the military is not he a "soldier of peace "whose mission was primarily humanitarian? We say again: a teacher can not make it to his students a different message from that state? Perhaps, as a police officer may overlook an offense contrary to his job with the role he is supposed to play, and above all, never cease to incarnate in the eyes of students or citizens role of State Representative, which removes any subversion for his action.
In a revolutionary strategy, it is important to have propaganda activity towards the military, police, prison guards. It is even an essential task, because it can weaken the cons-revolution by denying the state's repressive apparatus. But by nature, this activity should be illegal and get involved to Self radical break with the identification between their being and activity, that is to say, refuse to participate in repression.
3.3. What explains these changes?
Explaining the social and political change within the libertarian movement? According what we understand, the anarchist presence in the labor movement in French-speaking Europe has almost erased after the 1914-18 war, against repression and the influence of Bolshevism, by the absorption or elimination of existing structures (unions, labor exchanges, people's houses, etc..) and an intense anti-anarchist propaganda. Anarchism from the Ukrainian experience (Makhno, Arshinov) does not seem to have permanently installed outside of Ukrainian immigrants, nor does the arrival of many English revolutionaries has actually served as home to a revival of anarchism worker. While the "old" anarchist workers were trained or influenced "young", but the social composition of the movement has nevertheless gradually evolved into the "middle classes". Obviously, change is in part linked to the social recomposition, the rise of certain social groups. But anarchism has become a minority within the labor movement in Europe speaking well before that, and the working class is far from having disappeared. The historical reasons must be explored elsewhere. For now, we can not that draw on observation.
It brings us (or endure) in the anarchist movement claims of middle and even coaching the capital. The lower layers of the proletariat or the "sub-proletariat," have more critical to get emergency: eat all day, sleep at the shelter, heal, defend itself against the government. These aspects are not absent from the libertarian struggles (undocumented, guaranteed income, squats, etc..). But what their real impact of these struggles on those directly involved? What is their relationship to "movement worker? We will not solve these questions in this booklet, because these are problems that can not be solved only in the practice of anarchists, but we can not avoid asking them.
4. The collective self
4.1. Weaknesses in analysis
In its current manifestations, anarchism sins by his lack of overall analysis. Found side by side in the recent production record important developments on the critique of patriarchy [28] or the release of a radical anti-fascism [29], but also notable absences [30].
While the old anarchist had clear philosophical basis, materialism and evolutionism, the philosophical foundations of most thinkers of anarchism. Today, these bases no longer exist only in the state of vague. The vast majority of French anarchists are irreligious, but wallow in cliches anticlerical nineteenth century without ever actually analyze the current role of religious ideologies - far more complex than the superficial denunciation of shocking statements of John Paul II. The most common deviation is to identify and defend atheism secularism [31] with his defense of public schools against private schools and other absurdities [32].
is in the field of economics that this observation is the most verifiable. The substantive contributions to the analysis of the current economic system are very rare, and rarely exceed the level of the pamphlet or brochure. At most, the influence of Marxism is devitalized she felt every time we approach the economic subject. Participation in struggles Anarchist "anti-globalization" was made in the context of the Keynesian analysis and néoréformiste globalization, and not an independent analysis of this phenomenon. Of course, the fundamental divergence over the role of the state, or criticism of the "Tobin tax" has been regularly reminded of the libertarian press. But the analysis of global governance, the role of international institutions or néoréformisme itself is in its infancy, even among the more analytical libertarians.
Generally speaking, libertarians readily relate to the "left" even if the critics. This results in a misinterpretation of the role of néoréformisme globally: we do so as if the néoréformisme was still a tactical error in the socialist movement, a divergence substantive political course, but nothing more. However, the néoréformisme is nothing wrong. It is not only an ideology, but one of the real engines of capitalism.
Summarizing roughly, one could say that neoliberalism is consistent with the immediate interests of every capitalist and is the ideological spearhead of the destruction the old structure of global capitalism (United Nations, East-West bipolarity) and the creation of unified global market. From this point of view, the néoréformisme is, however, consistent with long-term interests of capitalism, the global capitalist class as a whole. It supports the establishment of global governance, that is to say institutional stabilization and harmonization of the overall system. There are of course a real antagonism between the two, a conflict between immediate interests and long-term interests, which crystallizes around issues such as child labor or debt in the Third World, that is to say, social flashpoints. Neoliberalism and néoréformisme are both complementary and antagonistic, like USA and former USSR were antagonistic and complementary models of capitalism. If this pattern is correct, will make néoréformisme a "mistake" policy is purely illusory.
4.2. The importance of training
This recurring problem in the analysis is found - no coincidence - at the political and philosophical. The discovery of anarchism is - usually - a personal quest, self, with all the hazards involved, since it is a hidden memory, ostracized, poorly known. The self is conceived by most libertarians as positive, since it relies on self-will of the individual. But this view is extremely optimistic that mask the real difficulties and the uneven aspect of this quest.
request access to the texts of important cultural prerequisites. First, know the language: it is a problem raised by the South African anarchist militants, who want to disseminate anarchist ideas in Zulu language, or libertarians in the Middle East, which have no basic text in Arabic (nor indeed, that the immigrant workers speaking Europe). More generally, it means to be literate enough to read texts that are often complex. It is a problem everywhere, to varying degrees. Lack of physical access to the texts is also problematic: lack of libraries, lack of libraries, places of readings, despite many recent initiatives in this direction, either locally or on the Web. These experiments show that when one takes the trouble to spread anarchist ideas, we find some resonance. The absence of a basic book, like the old ABC of anarchism or the latest FAQ on the Internet, which poses a clear basic principles of anarchism, is acute.
can evoke such ignorance of history and philosophy of libertarian or anarchist currents, which translates into a mythology of the movement (Municipality, Ukraine, Spain, etc..) Or a hagiography of the founding fathers and founding mothers view so completely detached from the labor movement in whole. This can lead many disappointments when we dig a little. Why learn about the past? To critique! To understand the link with today's struggles without falling into hagiography. We must learn to accept a story loaded with errors, dead ends, failures. Wanted too often in the past recipes for "win", examples to follow, not wanting to admit that our predecessors have never done anything but lose ... alas! Examine the causes of their failures we will be a thousand times more profitable than trying to imitate them. It's also reflect on the weaknesses of our analysis and our theories, so refresh our minds, learn and reflect on current developments within and outside the anarchist movement in all parts of the universe, to better understand how it stands, its principles and its intransigence.
The error would be to believe that training is only a matter of theory. First, the theory makes sense only in the action. The most spontaneous gesture is really based on a conscience. Second, and Essentially, the training also applies to the practice. Know how to print a flyer, start a public meeting, conduct a direct action to defend themselves against the police or the fascists, making false papers [33] are practical actions that can not be learned alone, which are the fruit of knowledge handed down from activist to militant.
Indeed, we saw that the current movements are related to past movements which holds only a few old campaigners. We know the role of English refugees in the French anarchism, for example. But the transmission of the memory of the movement, its practice and in fact, spends more often through books, through indirect knowledge. This is even truer for the continents where anarchism has existed only marginally (Africa), was completely broken by repression (USSR, China, etc..).
Another common criticism expressed some mistrust vis-à-vis the idea of training, whereas it amounts to influence a person with his own ideas, which would be the opposite of individual autonomy. It is feared to influence or manipulate the other. Basically it is a form of contempt, since we consider the other as unable to resist, to have his own reflection. This is not an issue to ignore, but should instead encourage us to seek forms of a genuine exchange of knowledge and techniques.
latter usually a critical match for refusal of "proselytizing," considered a form of manipulation and authoritarianism. This translates into a mode of "recruitment" based on the wait: it takes action to show we exist, it broadcasts the texts, and we expect that people Interested occur. In other words, we shall refrain from any systematic and rational settlement in a workplace or a city of any substantive work. In a way, anti-proselytizing is a mask for lack of will or courage to undertake the substantive work, although everyone agrees more or less to deplore the lack of implementation of anarchist [34]. This problem
training does not stop at the history and ideas of the movement, but arises more widely, as we have seen, knowledge of the world, politics, economics, etc.. He must learn to move beyond the self, even though it may seem paradoxical. You can not possess an encyclopedic knowledge. Indeed, there is a tendency within the self, to leave out areas which are less sensitive (the economy, for example) or to postpone them until tomorrow. Full training is the courage and the will of the individual but also group work, each bringing its share of effort. This does not only debate, but a real work of collective self-study group.
5. And critical need of the organization
The debate on anarchism and organization has a long history, which finds its parallel in the debate between spontaneity and organization among Marxists. Needless to repeat here the history of these various discussions, whatever their interest. It is especially important to note that there is a tendency to cluster around an idea, even if this idea is the refusal of the organization and the affirmation of the strict individualism. The strike most spontaneous, most acratique and most ephemeral carries the germ of the organization, since it involves several people around a common project.
Initially, the question is not whether the organization is necessary or not, but the fact that it exists in the form of collectives, groups, associations currently existing in the environment or libertarian more generally from the far left. Their existence is a reflection of this trend toward consolidation around common ideas. One might think that organizations are alienating, they tend to reproduce the hierarchies and authoritarian methods or represent a danger for the revolution to come, because they may substitute for the Individual themselves. These criticisms are largely justified, but does not solve the problem: organizations exist, and they can be dissolved, they recreate in another form. It is therefore important to move towards a form of organization that is tailored to the needs of the revolutionary movement.
5.1. Brief review of the organization's critical
First review: the organization reproduces hierarchies and authoritarian methods [35]. It is a fact known to all. The hierarchy in the middle is not necessarily revolutionary is a form of hierarchical organization, but a manifestation of "voluntary servitude." Apart from more or less deliberate strategies of power, these hierarchies and authoritarian methods are manifested by the difference in investment of one another, their place in the speaking, their ability to intervene with different relevance in the debates. Again, training is essential to allow each to take the same share in the organization practice in speaking and in the analysis.
Second criticism: the organization is alienating. Whatever the mode of organization adopted the collective work still rests ultimately on a relationship of trust between members of the group and requires the rules of collective functioning. Every Individual is required to prove himself worthy of that trust and respect the rules. These are discussed and settled by mutual agreement, but that debate does not occur until the establishment of the group. Any newcomer is therefore more or less bound by rules of the institution which it has not helped. So there, in time, a contradiction between the group as a structure that endures and each individual who is a part at some point. To the extent that group membership is not mandatory and that each is free to leave whenever she wants, this does not pose any unsolvable problem (besides the specific case of covert action). It is nevertheless a given to be reckoned with: the organization, when it is coherent, it multiplies the forces, but at the cost of some form of voluntary transfer. This is one reason that makes training policy if necessary: it lets you know why we accept this particular form of alienation.
Third criticism: the organization is a danger to the revolution. The spontaneity, which considers in its absolute form, the revolution is not born a revolutionary labor groups and even less of a revolutionary party, but the spontaneous activity of workers. This criticism is probably valid, at least right now: most of the struggles the most radical arising out of any revolutionary activity [36]. The question therefore focuses on whether this activity would allow them to expand and become even more radical. But it is far from impossible that organizations currently existing in a revolutionary movement broke out, and that attachment to the old organization is a factor of danger to the revolution [37].
Regardless of the unique qualities of each organization, this brings us back to the original proposal: since the organizations are both necessary and problematic, that their very existence depends on this contradiction, we must try to resolve it by finding the least bad form of organization, one that combines the best "individual autonomy and collective force" in a strategy revolutionary.
5.2. Drama of political consciousness
when an individual becomes aware of the daily horror in which she lives, she lifts the veil of show and determinations, dispositions that weighs upon her, the imperative to something to change this state of things is to say to change his own life, to become subject and not object, this individual is faced with the difficult question: do something, yes, but what ;? And this awareness is more acute over the horror is deeper, the greater the drama of political consciousness.
The need of the organization is based in large part on the drama: the combination is first, even before being a force for action, the reassuring feeling of not being alone, alone to collect the horror, only not to resign, want to fight with the old world. The rest is just tactics.
many choices available to such Person (reform or revolution, or spontaneous organization, platform, or synthesis, anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary unionism, violence or nonviolence, and tutti quanti) are all attempts find the best route, the quickest or most secure, to social change. But the sole arbitrator, ultimately, it is social change itself. In other words, we can not know what was the best route that will come when ... Let
way to a long quotation from Paul Mattick. This German council communist, fled to the United States and militant Industrial Workers of the World, had the bitter experience of a failed revolution and lived twice the conversion of a large organization in a small group living in his glory Past
Here is the dilemma as radical groups inspired inevitably face: to have adequately reflected the level of global society, the shares must be held but the organized actions are transformed into means of integration with capitalism. Now it is as if in order to do something, it should do the opposite of what we wanted, and as if not to make mistakes, it should do nothing at all. Is it fate more terrible than that of the radical activist who knows utopian and goes from failure to failure? Also, in self-defense, the radical, unless it is a mystical place spontaneity always in the foreground, while remaining more or less convinced in his heart that this is nonsense as that. But his insistence suggests he never ceases to perceive some hidden meaning in this nonsense.
to hide the fact and the idea of spontaneity denotes real or imagined inability to form effective organizations and a refusal to oppose in "realistic" to existing organizations. Indeed, to successfully combat these, it would create cons-organizations whose existence in itself, would defeat their purpose. Choose the "spontaneity" is therefore a negative way to approach the problem of social transformation, but only in an ideological sense, this attitude has its positive aspects, since it implies divorce of mind with the type of activities that tend to reinforce the established order. Sharpening the faculty of criticism, it leads to neglect of futile enterprises and organizations which we can expect nothing more. It distinguishes the appearance from reality, in short, it is linked to the revolutionary orientation. As evidence some forces, organizations and social relations are doomed to disappear and others tend to replace those that build on the future, the forces in the making, focus on spontaneity in contrast Those who are closely related to the forces of the old world insist on the need of the organization.
6. Struggles sectoral and aggregate analysis
Paste posters, distributing leaflets, selling ducks, paste stickers, sell T-Shirts or lighters [38], demonstrate, boycott, petition, any militant actions that considers political gesture. The funniest - or most depressing - is to realize that the press rarely sold is read by the militants themselves. Beyond slogans, there's nothing left. Can we consider this activism as sufficient? In fact, what's the point? To wait until something really happens, but what? A hollow fill time? To do good works?
activism becomes a way of keeping groups, which continue to exist, must motivate periodically offering them their militant actions to take or demonstrations to follow. A group that does not "do anything" quickly collapses. So begins the race against the clock.
course, we can argue that it is activated not to resign is to live. If indeed we must not fall into contemplation, should then become clear the brain? Because often this activism is limited to fast action slogans and often totally detached from the existential questions that are necessary to redefine the real world and find new appropriate forms of action. By dint activism becomes a lifestyle, a way of domination [39]. This is not to denounce any form of action, but to ask the question before each action: what for? what's the point? who benefits?
6.1. Activism and substitutionism
Anarchists defend the undocumented, but among them, no or few immigrants, let alone undocumented [40]. Anarchists are pro-feminist, but women are a minority. Anarchists are sometimes workerists, but the workers are not anarchists. And so on ... This is the sociological fact that we did in the first part of this text. This takes nothing away from the courage of the activists involved, sometimes in very difficult conditions, these struggles, but it's still a fact that can not be overlooked. It is therefore a separation between social reality and his political activist.
We find this separation as geographical scale growing today. Specifically: activist investing places he considered favorable to the expression of his message. These places are not always chosen for their consistency with the message, but according to usual criteria, or even willingness prefecture: the golf demonstrations, which always take the same endless streets, often without the slightest echo any sympathy their way. It manifests because ... it's like that. It shows there because ... we have always done it. This separation increases with the national event is very popular in France. The major calls inter-organizational, usually issued by the Reformers (but that radicals do not sign it supports ... "Critically"), always end with a rally on the routes of Parisian boulevards [41]. So it culminates in the continental event, response to new global capitalism. Large gatherings of Nice, Prague, Quebec, have the merit of proposing goals, break boundaries, to allow a form of self-organization, but they abut on the separation between the place of alienation and that of challenge. From
problem of activism, we move to that of sustitutionnisme "activist, as an expert in social change, assumes that other people do nothing to change their lives and so feels a duty or responsibility to do it for them. Activists believe they compensate the lack of activity of others "[42]. In other words, at some point of separation, the activist is no longer involved in the struggle to goad it, pull in the direction of radicalism and put his experience and expertise to the action and collective thinking, but to put in place thereof.
This separation can be transformed in the transformation of activism lifestyle. Of course, the adequacy between ideas and defended the choices of daily life is necessary. But in this case, activism becomes the main activity of the person, became a kind of revolutionary work. This is quite visible in the movement of Squats, although the most advanced activists are well aware of this danger: transforming the idea of tenure empty by the homeless - which is an essential practice - in lifestyle choices made by individuals who could do otherwise. The latter, understandably, a very negative perception of this movement.
6.2. Political Organization and the union
One of the more obvious forms taken by the "separation between social reality and his political activist" is the distinction between the political organization on one side and the union of another. Beyond the classic distinction between the fight "political" and "economic" [43], there are mainly a distinction between the political organization, which is practiced primarily the fight "solidarity , "where we defend others, and trade unionism (Anarchist or not), where we fight for ourselves, as a worker or unemployed.
This division is maintained and reinforced by the state system integration, which distinguishes carefully unions (integration of workers) and political parties in the electoral sense (integration of citizens). But the anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists who refuse normally this integration, have no particular reason to defend this division. It is, in our view, that as a manifestation of separation.
It is not therefore to enhance the superiority of either form of struggle, to say the least we should be in solidarity with others and more cohesive self, but to criticize the separation itself, to seek reunification between the two forms. It is not, at least initially, the question of reunification of the organizations concerned, although this may be the consequence, but first, for each activist, self-criticism of its own affairs.
The FA has outlined a step in that direction, offering the CNT-Vignolles distribution fields of activity, leaving the field office at the union. This solution, however, is a half measure, since does nothing to break with the separation. Similarly, Jean-Marc Raynaud sketch the idea of unification of the libertarian movement within the CNT, but seems to regard this as improbable. Yet it is a question that will arise.
6.3. Struggles "sectoral"
Another form of separation is that which distinguishes sectoral struggles and global analysis. By definition, there is overall control in the revolution, that is to say the overall transformation of all social relations. The current struggles, they are on the scene of the operation or outside, are necessarily partial, even when they tend to connect to a common denominator. The term partial or sector is also very unevenly applied. How about sector in the fight against patriarchy?
One consequence is that the analysis proposed by groups invested in the struggle "sector" is often much finer (eg, anti-patriarchy, anti-fascism, anti-eviction, Anti-nuclear, etc..), much better informed than the organizations 'generalists'. These can potentially tap into the analysis of these groups, or seek to establish them within their own form specialized committees on a theme. But it is rare that these particular tests clearly fit into an overall analysis, in theory, even if they result in more or less.
In the other direction, many activists are a culmination clearer, if not always more immediate, in the struggles "sectoral". It can be an anarchist at heart, not militate in an anarchist group, and use its energy to Greenpeace or right to housing. The classic debate between then the purity of libertarian principles to the effectiveness of non-libertarian groups. As mentioned, existing organizations such associations tend to recreate in their own backyard in the form of commissions. But it creates friction between the committees and local groups. This, again, a contradiction inevitable, since it can be solved only in solving problems that are causing these struggles in the global social change.
Another possible form of organization is therefore to overcome this contradiction, that is to say, to unite, not local groups, but groups "sectoral" leading to both their analysis and actions. They provide practical preparation, involving activists and other "sectors" in their present range. It also means that everyone is committed to both fight at his place of work (or not work ...) and outside. But the cement of this type of organization is the coherence of the overall analysis. This is not to juxtapose the analysis, but to extract a synthetic a round trip between the permanent analysis and theory, between the partial and the global.
7. Renew revolutionary anarchism
can subscribe to formally express refusal by Jean-Marc Raynaud revolution and to identify "big night", if one considers that this view is simplistic and romantic. But this refusal, as with other anarchists today, especially expresses skepticism about the possibility of revolution itself. We have sketched in the first part of this text, criticism of libertarian reformism. The current difficulty is that the divide between revolutionary anarchists and radical reformers do not pass between the organizations, but within them. These are two different strategies. Maybe they are not really opposing, perhaps they represent two aspects of one reality, even a global movement? But as a strategy recognizable, readable, and they object can not be met simultaneously by the same individual, by the same group of individuals. We can choose one or the other, the moment the fact that consciously. But an organization must, if it is to be consistent, choose one or the other strategy.
In the present situation of French anarchism in Western Europe, the issue is less the unity of all the currents as the "generalized patch 'which will group around poles clearly marked and identifiable. For us, it is obvious that we choose the revolutionary anarchism. By
revolutionary anarchism, we intend to self-class in the struggle for the destruction of the state, capitalism and patriarchy, through a revolution, that is to say a transformation of all social relations. This definition - imperfect and provisional - sees anarchism as historical opposition to the state, without involving an exclusive identification with anarchism history. In other words, it includes contributions from the current anti-statist Marxists, but also revolutionary movements that were formed without any reference to the political history of the Western world. This revolutionary anarchist position is linked to both the definition of a "revolutionary new synthesis" in theoretical, and a revolutionary strategy in practice. The substantive analysis of social relations and ideologies of global capitalism must lead to the development of an appropriate response to new conditions of global struggle, a revolutionary world.
If we take the main points that emerged from our analysis can be summarized as our starting position in the unity debate libertarians.
· The important in the current process of unity of the libertarians in the French-speaking Europe is less the objective of unifying the emergence an extensive policy debate. This debate should allow the grouping around one or several clusters of consistency. The revolutionary anarchism must be one of these poles of consistency.
Highlights of this debate, we must not fail to be attentive to issues of social composition of the movement, and particularly the problem of the capitalist framework. That is to say, consider how to align the anarchist thought and social reality, a genuine approach to social roots.
· It will also consider how create groups of collective self. Based on this awareness of individual and collective attempt to achieve a revolutionary new synthesis.
• Finally, it is possible to move towards a new mode of organization that unites the struggles consistently called "sectoral" in a global analysis, in which each activist, both politically and formed a producer of analysis and new practices, is really an actress of the organization.
· This organization will also bind consistently fight "association" and control "policy" that is to say that every militant struggle against both its own operations in its activity and against all forms of alienation, thus exceeding the artificial division political organization / union for a true union workers.
Social Circle (April 21, 2001)
[1] Jean-Marc Raynaud and Roger Christmas Unit libertarian, Libertarian Alternative, 2000.
[2] Normally, it should be followed by a new blurb Social Circle, more in tune with our current developments.
[3] National Confederation of Workers union revolutionary, well known for its local Vignolles street in Paris.
[4] Note on the question of genres in earlier drafts of this paper, we put in accordance with our usual, all the words to both feminine and masculine. It turned out that it sometimes made reading very difficult. Finally, we chose another solution: we have randomly placed the words in question is the feminine or masculine. In a few instances, the kind of real importance, but the context makes it easy to decide. This creates a beneficial effect for male readers will understand better why probably do not feel that women rarely concerned with texts that, by the insidious using the grammar, speaking only of men.
[5] These three organizations have already established contacts to reflect on a unit of action without a priori unification.
[6] In the text, we speak repeatedly of "old militant." this is in no way pejorative, but it refers to their long presence in the movement.
[7] Anti-globalization is a term much a misnomer, since it is fast, under the pens of journalists, anti-globalism, as if the enemy was the world and not capitalism. Note that the anti-globalization comes from a term of the extreme right, which means under the word globalism felted she once called cosmopolitanism, understood Judaism. We do not denounce them enough innuendo chauvinist and anti-Semitic word of anti-globalization. The English also speaks of globalization, which is fairer, because capitalism has not become global - it has always been - But overall, in the sense that it covers all aspects of life and society.
[8] Alexandre Skirda (1987), individual autonomy and collective force. The anarchists Proudhon and organization to the present, self-publishing; Volin, The Revolution unknown.
[9] If there are, according to figures given by Mimmo Pucciarelli, a thousand anarchists active in France, a quarter of them have already responded to the call.
[10] This particular point of friction between the FA on the one hand, the OCL and the No Pasaran another.
[11] For our part, we participate in an international network discussion with "ultraleft", in which the debate over fascism is a subject of considerable controversy.
[12] At least in the French-speaking Europe. These include the review Irato Ab, and some Web sites, including chat Quiet! and our all to please! among the representatives of this current erratic.
[13] Marxist Current, derived from the German Revolution of 1919-21, the main theorists Anton Pannekoek, Otto Ruhle, Paul Mattick, Cajo Brendel and more recently Henry Simon. Council communism was originally a revolutionary opposition to the authoritarian and anti-Bolshevism. He defended the revolutionary organization of society by the workers' councils, against the power of a party. The Council, which is evolution, is hostile to the very principle of permanent organization.
[14] No Pasaran Collective, The work in question, Reflex, nd
[15] Claude Guillon, Economics of Poverty, The Digital 1999. Quiet cat also spent an interesting case on this issue.
[16] For a refutation of libertarian communalism, cf. "The illusion of a libertarian municipalism" in Alternating Current in January 2001.
[17] We have unfortunately not been able to obtain the brochure "From a libertarian reformism" published by the group Direct Swiss section of the International Workers Association.
[18] "The CNT? Some answers to questions asked of new members, and also some tweaks to the use of those who believe we know ", published by the Friends of Black Cat turbulent May 2001
[19] See in Tomorrow's World No. 5, our exchange with militants Alternative libertarian. Some activists have expressed their disagreement, but it caused no disruption in the organization. Apart from these minority positions, AL defended "self-determination" of Kosovo, like the Trotskyists. [20] Claude Guillon, War Damage, (Paris, Pristina, Belgrade 1999), insomniac 2000.
[21] "Who today, even among last donkeys of Marxism, still dare to claim the historical materialism?" asks Jean-Marc Raynaud. Strong friendly donkeys and holy asinité (Giordano Bruno), we assume this role willingly.
[22] Mimmo Pucciarelli, "Who are the anarchists?" Libertarian Alternative. [23] One must add 10% of retirees. There are 15% of which the author does not tell us who they are ...
[24] Thanks to Marc for his clarification on correcting printing.
[25] The place of women is highlighted by the speech libertarian, but the behavior of activists in meetings, in public speaking, etc.. is not always consistent with this assertion. There exists among the militants a form of competition, even if it only goes through the rhetoric, in which activists do not return. Queries related to gender issues and the fight against patriarchy is almost always the result of women, some gay. The reports of seduction and machismo are not absent from the libertarian milieu. Women aware of the patriarchal system feel it very hard, a problem that few men have to ask. Single-sex education does allow women to express themselves more freely, but does not affect the behavior of men or even women in the chat room.
[26] This is important because some 'Marxists' self-appointed - who analyze the problems not in terms of concrete classroom situations, but polemics against Proudhon Marx 150 years ago - still believe Anarchists are mostly "small backward-looking craft."
[27] Anton Pannekoek, Workers' councils, Bélibaste 1974.
[28] Work carried out including the Libertarian Communist Organization. It speaks of patriarchy to describe the reporting system social gender that keeps the domination of women (and the alienation of men trapped in their role as men). Patriarchy is itself, as an ideology based on the domestic mode of production. See Christine Delphy, The Main Enemy, Syllepse 1998.
[29] formulated among others by the magazine Reflex and No Pasaran network. Rejecting the idea of an antifascist front with the governing parties (PS, PC), the radical anti-fascism binds struggles against right-wing organized in all its forms, against institutional racism and the police state and cons capitalism ultimately responsible for the fascist danger.
[30] A striking example is to see that in the Francophone world, the necessary critique of antispécisme trendy Peter Singer has not led to the formulation of an anarchist critique of alienation animals, but at most on the more sinister display of cliches speciesist. See the debate tasteless, but violent, between the FAF and Reflex on one side, Cahiers antispécistes other. In this period of generalized crisis of livestock, it is a regrettable lack.
[31] By definition, secularism is the separation of church and state. An anarchist can not be secular. [32] Bonaventure School is recalled, a private school, and is even threatened by the anti-cult laws ...
[33] Maurice Joyeux, Montluc Mutiny at La Rue, 1971.
[34] Remember, as we said in the introduction, he is a self-criticism more than a criticism. We have to give lessons to anyone ... [35] This is particularly critical of Philippe Coutant to call for unity among libertarians. It is also one of the most discussed so far on the discussion list devoted to this call.
[36] Note that, according to INSEE, 20% of strikes in France are born without any union activity. The statisticians also consider that half of all strikes are beyond enumeration, not counting other forms of struggle. It also notes that Curtis Price in the USA. See Curtis Price, prosperity Fragile, fragile social peace, says the United States, Trade Flows and 2000.
[37] Critics classic anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary unionism, who claim that unions today are the basis of future society, what the opponents of this position see as an alternative to Bolshevism. See anarcho-syndicalism is it soluble in the Revolutionary Syndicalism? published by the Group anarchist-communist Errico Malatesta FA.
[38] The next "merchandising" of No Pasaran, for example, has often been criticized. This network, which is struggling to fix its activists and more to get them to pay premiums, is forced to resort to selling products to continue to survive financially. The difficulty is exacerbated when, for some activists, this activity becomes an end in itself ...
[39] See the denunciation of the role of activist: "Give up activism 'by Andrew X, published in French I know everything in and Trade No. 93 under the title "abandon activism", as well as the response to this text by J. Kellstadt, "Impossibility and Necessity of anti-activism," published by The Bad Days Will End.
[40] It is a common problem in the struggles of undocumented migrants. Not only is there no anarchists, which is not serious in itself, but there are committees in undocumented Stalinists (strictly) and even fascism (militant Turkish Grey Wolf by example). This question, sometimes mentioned in conversations, to our knowledge has never been a review and a specific action. Of course, we must stand on principle all undocumented migrants, whatever their political affiliation, but this is not a reason not to clearly this problem.
[41] "Those who parade Bastille-Nation / When my brothers are dying in prison / it gives a good conscience to the idiots," as a singer once wrote today recovered.
[42] See the article cited: "abandon activism!"
[43] Whether in the anarchist version (cons anarchism anarcho-syndicalism) or Marxism (Leninism cons ultraleftism ).
