A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Trk�_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Trk�
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Federación Anarquista Uruguaya: FAU's "Huerta Grande" I.

Date Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:49:18 +0200



"Huerta Grande" is a seminal text of South American Especifismo. It was written in 1972 as
an internal discussion document of the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, right before the
brutal military coup was installed in 1973. ---- Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, commonly
known as FAU or Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, is an Uruguayan anarchist organization
founded in 1956. The FAU was created by anarchist militants to be a specifically anarchist
organization. The FAU was the first organization to promote the organizational concept of
Especifismo. The FAU has aided in the creation of several similar anarchist organizations
including the Federação Anarquista Gaúcha (FAG). ---- Pedro Ribeiro Amanecer ---- “Huerta
Grande” ---- Material for internal distribution about the theme of theory of 1972 To
understand what is happening (the juncture), it is necessary to be able to think
correctly. To think correctly is to be able to organize and treat accordingly the facts
that are gathered in bulk from reality.

Without a theory one runs the risk of examining every problem individually, in isolation,
starting from points of views that can be different in each case or examine them based on
subjectivity, guesses or presentation, etc..

The party was able to avoid serious mistakes because we have been able to think based on
concepts that have a important level of coherence. It has also made serious mistakes due
to insufficient development of our theoretical thinking as an organization.

To propose a program we must know the economic, political and ideological reality of our
country. The same is necessary in order to create a political line that is sufficiently
clear and concrete. If we know badly or little, we will not have a program but only a very
general line, very difficult to be made concrete in the different places we work at. If
there is no clear line there is no efficient political practice. The political will of the
party then runs the risk of getting diluted, “Voluntarism” in action ends up becoming just
doing whatever comes up out of sheer good will. But we become incapable of acting in a
pre-determined way on occurring events, based on an approximated prognosis. We are
determined by the events and act on them spontaneously, without a plan.

Without a line for the theoretical work, an organization, no matter how big it is, will be
bewildered by circumstances that it cannot condition nor comprehend. The political line
presumes a program, which means goals to be achieve at each step. The program indicates
which forces are favorable, which ones are the enemy and which ones are only temporary
allies. But in order to know that we must know profoundly the reality of our country.
Therefore to acquire that knowledge now is a task of the highest priority. And in order to
know we need a theory.

The party needs a clear scheme in order to be able to think coherently about the country
and the region and the struggles of the international proletariat throughout its history.
We must have a efficient framework to organize and prioritize the growing mass of data
regarding our economic, political and ideological reality. We must have a method to
analyze these data, to see which ones are more important, which ones must come first and
which ones only later, in order to corretly administrate our forces in this front of our
work. A conceptual scheme that allows us to connect one thing to another in a systematic
and coherent order and to do what we want with the militancy of our party. A scheme that
bring close to us examples of how to work with these concepts to others that work in other
realities.

But this work of knowing our country we must do it ourselves, because nobody is going to
do it for us.

We are not proposing inventing theoretical schemes from scratch. We are not going to
create a new theory and all its ramifications. The reason for that is the general
backwardness of the movement and its specialized institutions, and our lack of
availability to take on this task.

Therefore we must take an already made theory and start elaborating on it, analyzing it
critically. We cannot just accept any theory with blind eyes, without criticism, as if it
was a dogma.

We want to realize a complete transformation in our country and will not adopt as a way of
thinking the theories created by the bourgeoisie. With bourgeois conceptions, we will
think as the bourgeoisie wants us to think.

We want to study and think about Uruguay and the region as revolutionaries. Therefore,
amongst the elements that are part of the different socialist currents, we will adopt
always those elements that aid us in doing exactly that: to think and analyze as
revolutionaries the country, the region and other regions and experiences.

We will not adopt a theory just because it is fashionable. To live repeating “quotes” that
others said in other places, in another time, in relationship to other situations and
problems. The theory is not for that. Only charlatans use it for that.

Theory is an instrument, a tool, it’s used to serve a purpose. It exists to produce the
knowledge that we need to produce. The first thing that we care about is to know our
country. If it does not serves the purpose of producing new useful knowledge for our
political practice, theory is absolutely useless, it is only a theme for idle babble, for
sterile ideological polemics.

Someone that buys a big modern mechanized tool and instead of working it, spends all day
talking about the tool, is acts badly, is a charlatan. Just like the one that, being able
to have the tool, it rather do it by hand, because “that’s how it was done before…”
Some differences between Theory and Ideology
It is important to point out a few differences between was commonly called theory and
ideology.

Theory points towards the elaboration of conceptual instruments used to rigorously and
profoundly get to know the concrete reality. It is in this sense that we can refer to
theory as an equivalent to a science.

Ideology, on the other hand, is made up of elements of a non-scientific nature, which
contribute to give dynamism to action based on circumstance that, although having
something to do with the objective conditions, do not strictly flow from them. Ideology is
conditioned by the objective conditions although not mechanically determined by them.

The profound and rigorous analysis of the concrete situation, in its real, objective terms
– this is a theoretical analysis with the most scientific possible character. The
expression of motivations, the proposal of objective, of aspirations, of ideal goals –
that belongs to the field of ideology

Between theory and ideology there is a very tight connection, since the proposals of the
second are founded and supported by the conclusions of the theoretical analysis. An
ideology would be as efficient as a motor for political action inasmuch as it’s based
firmly in the conclusions of theory.
The reaches of the theoretical work.
Theoretical work is always a work that is based and supported in the real processes, in
what goes on in the historical reality, in what happens. Nevertheless, since it is work
that is located completely in the real of thought, there are no concepts there are more
real that others.

It is important to point out some basic propositions on the issue:

1) The distinction between the existing, concrete reality, between the real, historical
processes and on the other hand the processes acquired from knowledge and understanding of
that reality. On other words, it is necessary to affirm the difference between the being
and the thought, from reality as it is and we can know about it.
2) The priority of the being over the thought, of reality over the knowledge. In another
words, it is more important, it weights more as a determinant to the sequence of events
what actually happens in reality than what we can think or know about that reality.

Starting from these basic affirmations, it is important to understand the precise reaches
of theoretical work, that is, the effort of knowledge guided by the purpose of acquiring
rigorous, scientific knowledge,

Theoretical works is always realized based in a pre-determined raw material, It doesn’t
comes out of the real concrete, of reality as such, but comes out of information, data and
notion of that reality, This primary material is treated, in the process of the
theoretical work, by certain useful conceptual means, certain instruments of thought. The
product of this treatment if the knowledge.

On other words, there are only real, concrete and singular objects proper (determined
historical situations, in determined societies, in determined times). The process of
theoretical knowledge seeks to know them.

Sometimes the work of knowledge points towards abstract objects that don’t exist in
reality, that only exist in the thought but that are however indispensable instruments a
pre-condition in order to know real objects (for example the concept of social classes,
etc.) Therefore, in the process of production of knowledge, one transforms the raw
material (a superficial perception of reality) into a product ( a rigorous scientific
knowledge about it).

The term scientific knowledge” must be defined in its relationship with the social
reality. Applied to that reality, it’s comprehension alludes in exact terms, to the best
approximation of reality as it is.

It must be said that this process of learning about the social reality, as with any other
study of any real object, is susceptible to an infinite theoretical deepening. Like
physics. chemistry and other sciences can deepen their knowledge infinitely about the
realities that constitute their respective subjects of study, in the same manner the
social science can deepen indefinitely the knowledge about the social reality. Therefore
it is inadequate to expect a “finished” knowledge of the social reality in order to start
acting on it in order to change it. No less inadequate is try to change it without knowing
it profoundly.

The rigorous scientific knowledge of the social reality, of our social transformation, is
only achieved through working over information, statistics data, etc, through the means of
more abstract conceptual instruments which are given and help constitute a theory. Through
the practice of theory we seek the production of these conceptual instruments, each time
more precise and more concrete, conducing to the knowledge of the specific reality we are
part of.

Only through a adequate theoretical comprehension, that is, profound and scientific, can
be developed ideological elements (aspirations, values, ideals, etc,) that constitute
adequate means for the transformation of said social reality with coherence of principles
and efficiency in the political practice.

An efficient political practice demands, therefore, the knowledge of reality (theory), the
harmonious postulation of it with the objective values of transformation (ideology) and
concrete political means for attaining such transformation (political practice). The three
elements are fused in a dialectical unit that constitutes the effort for transformation
that the party aims at.

One may ask: Should we wait for a finished theoretical development in order to start
acting? No. Theoretical development is not a academic problem, it doesn’t start from zero.
Its foundations, its motivations and its development are premised by the existence of
ideological values, of a political practice, More or less correct, more or less incorrect,
these elements exist historically before theory and motivate its development.

Class war had existed way before its theoretical conceptualization. The struggle of the
exploited did not wait for the elaboration of a theoretical work that justified its
realization. Its being, its existence precedes knowledge about it, the theoretical
analysis of its existence.

Therefore starting from this basic assumption, it becomes fundamental and a priority to
act, to have a political practice. Only through it, through its concrete existence, in the
tested conditions of its development can we elaborate a useful theoretical frame. One that
is not a gratuitous accumulation of abstract postulations with some coherence in its
internal logic, but without any coherence with the development of the real processes, To
create theory with efficiency in necessary to act.

Can we do away with theory with the excuse of practical urgency? No. There may exist,
shall we say, a political practice founded solely in ideological criteria, that is,
unfounded or founded insufficiently in adequate theoretical analysis. That is common in
our environment.

Nobody can argue that, in our reality or the reality of our region of America, an adequate
theoretical analysis, a sufficient conceptual comprehension, not even close. This is also
applicable to the rest of our reality also. However, for decades and decades there has
been a combat, a struggle. This understanding should not lead us to disdain the
fundamental importance of the theoretical work.

To the question previously asked we must then answer: What has priority is the practice,
but how effective this practice will be depends on the most rigorous knowledge of reality.

In a reality like ours, in the social formation of our country, theoretical development
must start, as in everywhere, from a group of efficient theoretical concepts, working over
an as ample as possible mass of data, that will constitute the raw material for the
theoretical practice.

Data on its own, examined in isolation, without a adequate theoretical conceptual
treatment, do not shed light on reality. They simply decorate and dissimulate the
ideologies in which service these data are implemented.

The abstract concepts, in and of themselves, without cross-checking with a adequate
information, do not give further knowledge of reality either.

The work on the theoretical field that exist in our country normally fluctuates between
these two incorrect extremes.
Related Link: http://theleftwinger.wordpress.com/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en


A-Infos Information Center