A-Infos (en) Brazil, Chilean elections and degeneration in the theory and practice of anarcho-communism by Union Anarchist - UNIPA (pt)[machine translation]

Communiquà No. 37 of the People's Union Anarchist - UNIPA - Brazil, November 2013. ---- 
"(...) What's right for me is that today there is no longer the worst enemies of the 
people than those who seek to divert him from the social revolution, which alone can give 
you true freedom, justice and well being for drag again to the experiences of these 
misleading those reforms or revolutions solely political, of which he was always the 
instrument, the victim and the simpleton. " ---- Mikhail Bakunin ---- Chile live next Nov. 
17 its presidential election, marked by competition from eight candidates and the 
polarization between the openly right-wing coalition "Alianza" (UDI, RN) and the 
opportunistic left-center "MayorÃa Nueva" (DC, PRSD, PPD, PS, PC). Faced with this 
situation a number of intellectuals linked organizations anarcho-communist self-styled 
"Especifists" started a debate about its relationship with the state and the Chilean left.

Lacking a revolutionary theory the result could not have been more disastrous: the 
organization declared support Red Libertarian candidate Marcel Claude (Humanist Party) 
coalition All a la Moneda [1] , and the organization Libertarian Students Front (FEL) also 
did not take long in supporting the political line of Libertarian Red [2] .

However, we must not understand this position as a mere treachery or misconduct but rather 
as an expression of a process of profound historical revisionism in our current 
proletarian anarchist, and a few years (while class conflict is sharpened) are again 
demonstrating its main weaknesses. Also the paper "mass democracy: a bet libertarian for 
the current period" of Libertarian Studies Center [3] , released mid-year 2013, is adamant 
to prove that, on the one hand Especifismo Chilean managed to expand their in the presence 
mass movement, on the other hand, this inconsistency theoretical strategy already 
developed a clear degeneration in a reformer.

Also the recent documents of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and the 
Revolutionary Anarchist Federation of Venezuela (APVR) in support of national-populist 
Hugo ChÃvez and bolivarianismo well as the electoral support APVR Bolivarian candidates, 
are just some of the examples that show us that the overall process of degeneration of 
especifismo is not new. It is for this reason that the recent support of the Red 
Libertarian candidate Marcel Claude Bakuninists no surprises, only reinforces the need to 
break with historical revisionism. The current development of the class struggle demands 
of our current standing firmly and increasingly committed to the cause of revolution and 
the rejection of new renditions, political and ideological.

Moreover, what also surprises in electoral support of Libertarian Red FEL and the 
coalition "All a la Moneda" is the advanced degree of collaborating class. Although the 
Especifists claim rhetorically in their documents that "the electoral dispute is not a 
priority", and that the key is to provide a "big block" class , the coalition "All a la 
Moneda" definitely does not match with those intentions (and we materialistic facts worth 
a thousand words!). As the document states "8 Axes Cross" Campaign Marcel Claude:

We propose a mixed economy system to put maximum value as human beings and not the 
self-regulating market, which equate the relationship between labor and capital , giving 
guarantees for decent living conditions for all citizens living in the country, which 
allows for adequate income distribution that leverages the development of national 
industry and small and medium enterprises , which defines the role of the state as 
guarantor of equal opportunities for productive workers and businesses against large 
speculative capital. [4]

The election statement leaves no doubt about the defense of a national development policy, 
in defense of the alliance with the bourgeoisie and hence the "harmony between capital and 
labor." In the same program electoral economic issue appears as follows: "If this is un 
economic model that promueva el baboon them for all inhabitants del country, it 
solidaridad y la cooperaciÃn and exchange between trabajadores, entrepreneurs y el State " 
. The class conflict as the basis determining Revolution (historically defended by 
Bakuninists and the revolutionary syndicalism) was abandoned in favor of coalition with 
the nationalist and reformist left, reproducing the myth of the protector and provider 
rights (interventionism), falling in the false antagonism between "large speculative 
capital" for the development of the bourgeoisie "productive" and "national". Oh, but this 
is not autonomous organization of the working class! That's putting the proletariat 
hostage again a historical project of the bourgeoisie, strengthening the state apparatus 
and the worst reformist illusions.

The FEL has said that the coalition All a la Moneda: "opens the possibility to build a 
broad social and political movement after the presidential elections" , ie, in addition to 
seeing the work in this electoral coalition as a possible tactic, rise in the strategic 
policy of "Broad Front". We will return to this point later on.

But what is important this issue from a viewpoint revolutionary? The issue is that there 
is a big difference between an anti-hegemonic and anti-systemic. We have already answered 
this question when debating because "Chavismo" could not be an alternative to the 
proletarian revolution. As we have defined:

"The first [anti-hegemonic] relates to models of capitalist development that did not meet 
goals of states and hegemonic imperialist powers, but they do not question the economic 
foundations of imperialism (basically oscillate between interventionism and economic 
liberalism). The second policy, anti-systemic, undermines not only the interests of the 
hegemonic powers, but the economic bases of imperialism and the capitalist economy and 
soon the entire interstate system. Accordingly, the anti-hegemonic policy is a policy that 
expresses the system interstate conflicts intraclass the bourgeoisie. Historical examples 
were nationalist governments and nationalist policies in Latin America "developmental" who 
were anti-hegemonic because they tried to change the foundations of "underdevelopment" 
that catered to U.S. interests. " [5]

Therein lies the crux of our criticism of revisionism Chile: exactly these junctures world 
in which the bourgeoisie seeks to recreate from the advancing crisis of capitalism and the 
deepening of class conflict, the revisionists (and other organizations reformist and 
opportunist) once again present themselves as a force to support the "new" bourgeois 
alternatives. Despite the low probability of victory of "All a la Modena," the policy of 
the Chilean Especifists does a disservice to the development of consciousness and 
autonomous organization of the working class. Moreover, the position of Libertarian Red 
and FEL-Chile Reissue advance the worst defeats that anarchism has suffered in the 
twentieth century, a victim of revisionism in our ranks. History repeats itself as farce.

The bolivarianismo dispute and of the bourgeois state: the "Democratic Break"

As we said, this positioning of the Chilean revisionism is not something casual. The 
theoretical and practical bases were already developed and some time, it is worth 
mentioning, in the silence of much of the "libertarian movement". In this sense, an 
important document was "A mass democracy: a bet libertarian for the current period" of 
Libertarian Studies Center, which is expressed clearer theoretical development in order to 
break with anarchism and defense of revisionism and reformism.

The paper begins by citing Chavismo as an example of the revolutionary process, citing for 
such a statement of former Minister of the Venezuelan government, Roland Denis, which we 
reproduce an excerpt: "The process of cooptation was never an overall process (...). Where 
are remnants within that reality from which one can get an experience of developing 
autonomy, self-management, self-government. (...) Of course it will not be easy for itself 
is that the organic composition of our society, ie a society that needs permanent 
patronage of the State. " To the minister (and the Red Libertaria) the difficulties of the 
Bolivarian revolution are in Venezuelan society that is patronage from the state, not the 
class nature of the state and its intrinsic characteristic of protection and repression 
against the working masses.

It is essential to point out here the similarity of this defense internal democratization 
of the state-capitalist structure with the analysis made ââby anarcho-communist renegade 
SantilÃn Diego Abad (1897-1983) when he states that "First: [...] capitalism is no longer 
a uniform mass and petrified, is a set of attitudes and categories that do not always show 
solidarity even against common opponents, (...) Third: In short, we think now imports much 
more to fight against the totalitarian state that the system capitalist who already shows 
cracks enough that the spirit of initiative and creative desire can practice forms of 
non-capitalist economic life ". SantilÃn this text expresses the final result of his 
reformist policies in CNT composite bourgeois ministries during the Spanish Civil War. 
Demonstrates well the two elements of the historical anarchist communist reformism: a) The 
idea of revolution is moral and cultural (combat patronage society is the biggest problem 
and not destroy itself and the Venezuelan State to expropriate the bourgeoisie) b) Both 
envision the construction of "spaces libertarians" of "peaceful coexistence" with 
capitalism or the state (in the case of Venezuela and Chile).

In this sense, the slogan that has mobilized Chilean libertarian reformism is "Democratic 
Break," which runs through the process of struggle for integration of popular movements to 
the state via the strategy of democratization and reform its internal spaces in a 
continuous process that would advance to the People Power. The concept of Democratic Break 
not for nothing appears clearly in opposition to the Revolutionary Break , and is not a 
modification merely formal, but mostly content. The document seeks at all times to express 
a critical position "sectarian", "leftists" (especially those who advocated the path of 
armed struggle) and defend a policy of "broad alliances" and "flexible tactics" as marks 
of "new" proposal. The paper aims to emphasize that the course is the possibility that, 
even within the bourgeois state and its institutions, it is possible to go gradually 
changing ("democratic") reality through "experience" of autonomy, self-management, etc.. 
within and outside the state, as the central problem of the revolution were cultural and 
educational. At one point the text makes clearer his claims:

(...) It is necessary that this political position is lifted from a continuing practical 
experience, focusing on dispute the State with all the power possible as the popular 
organizations are strengthened; economic transformation can not take place without change 
of form radically the way in which decisions are made, and that the masses should educate 
themselves politically, with both the theory and the practice.

Here are expressed two fundamental elements of revisionism Chile: 1) The political change 
through reforms aimed at democratizing the state, must precede economic changes, being a 
condition to do so. course the destruction of capitalist economic relations are only 
effect at the general through the destruction of the State (as an organ of class 
domination) and construction of People's Power, though, dialectically, working people only 
effectively exercise their self-government with the destruction of economic and social 
inequalities, otherwise the people will remain victims of oppression / day operation while 
the political parties and the trade union bureaucracies traffic on behalf of their 
interests. Ie, the premise above revisionist denies Bakuninist program of integral 
revolution (economic, political and cultural) as a condition for the emancipation of the 
workers and as a theoretical framework for understanding the dialectical revolutionary 
tasks. It adopts one unabashedly reformist program and stageist, who walks necessarily for 
class collaboration within the spheres of the state, through governments and "broad fronts";

2) In turn, the transformation in the ways of political decision appear as a task 
centrally changing consciousness, culture and education. A "revolution" is not seen as a 
result of direct conflict and no truce between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in the latter 
accumulates forces towards economic expropriation and destruction of state political 
institutions for construction of socialism and self-government. The "revolution" is seen 
by an idealistic bias (educationalist and culturalist) where libertarians fit to 
propagandize their ideas and change the culture of participation of "civil society".

Thus we see that the Break bolivarianismo Democratic social democracy and national 
development are often reissued under other names (and with a language and appearance 
"libertarian"). The anarchist revolutionary strategy permeates the contrary, the struggle 
vindictive yes, but a continuous process of coping to the state and the bourgeoisie in 
order to constitute a situation of dual power and armed struggle of the masses, and not 
integration "democratic" and class alliances. The strategic importance of the general 
strike and mass violence (gymnastics insurrectionary), an integral part of anarchist 
politics, are not considered as defining elements in the analyzes of the situation and 
tactical choices of "libertarians" Chileans.

The reformist and revolutionary way: the debate on the Spanish civil war and the politics 
of the Popular Front

"Revolutions are not child's play, not an academic debate on the vanities is kill each 
other nor a literary tournament where only pours paint. The revolution is war, and who 
says War is destruction of men and things. No doubt it is a shame that humanity has not 
invented a more peaceful progress, but so far no new step in the history was only realized 
in reality after receiving the baptism of blood. "

Mikhail Bakunin

The next step of the document "The mass democracy ..." reveals its most sinister. The 
authors present a defense without reservation policy of the Popular Front of the Soviet 
Union in the 30s, this time pointing the guidelines of the Communist International as a 
great example of political alliances, defending be necessary to gather the program under 
broad sectors of workers, including bourgeois, to combat right. The policy of the Popular 
Front in Spain expressed the exact rendition of the CNT against the bourgeois Republican 
government, regarded by progressive ministerialistas in 1936. AquestÃo is that, given the 
theoretical eclecticism own proposal "especifista", positions on the capitulation of the 
leaders of the CNT during the Spanish civil war is symptomatic since not only was hailed 
by the revisionists Chileans and Argentines as an example of "political maturity" as was 
also used by APVR as arguments for their participation in Venezuelan elections [6] .

Such revisionist analysis of the possibility of supporting "Governments Progressives" 
produces the following response to the situation: "But what makes us think we can 
accomplish in the use of the relative magnification available in the future 
concertacionista government in the country. Government, unlike the period ending rightist, 
may allow us to take advantage of a thoughtless way before the spaces and democratic 
struggles. " the gap to the policy of collaboration is open. The CNT took thousands of 
prisoners and a pre-revolutionary situation to capitulate, the "libertarian" Chileans are 
indicating vices reformers long before. Moreover, the election is posed as a fact that the 
struggle to raise levels "thoughtless". Further down in the same paragraph, salute as a 
positive input of the PC party in the coalition Nueva MayorÃa (former ConcertaciÃn), which 
for them will increase the degree of disagreement among the masses about the Government. 
Soon to Red Libertarian reach the conclusion that the creation of a libertarian party 
election is more effective than waiting for the PC to defend the masses within the Government.

Two challenges for the next period indicated by the text are symptomatic: a) Vanguard 
shared , b) United Front Left . The two points are closely related. In the first, wanting 
to differentiate themselves from the proposed one-party Leninist (but not of the Popular 
Front for Stalin!) Fall into one policy and recessed domes, in which the future can be 
shared between different parties of the left, without, however, the text makes no 
differentiation of political content (reformist, revolutionary) or class (bourgeois, petty 
bourgeois, proletarian) that future "shared forefront." To justify this position, 
criticizing both the Leninist conception of the party as only retake the myth of the 
Spanish Civil War about a possible "anarchist dictatorship": "We must put aside dreams of 
revolutions with a completely anarchist, in which the State is dissolved and there is a 
single dominant force . "

It is clear to revolutionary anarchists such revisionist myth of "anarchist dictatorship" 
is nothing more than a deviation cowardly and petty bourgeois against the class nature of 
the revolutionary process. In our view the revolutionary power must not be based on a 
coalition of left parties but in the power of grassroots organizations of workers in 
councils, unions, committees etc. The vanguard of the revolutionary organizations that 
will have support in the masses, are as many as one or December Furthermore, recurrent 
coalitions between left or "progressive sectors" (as in the Popular Front) were 
responsible for the rendition and not by the advance of the revolutionary struggle. The 
revolution represented in most cases break with these coalitions, as in the case Russian. 
The October Revolution was a break with the Provisional Government, the space of coalition 
between the left and the republican bourgeoisie.

To support its proposed policy flexible alliances with different classes and sectors the 
text states that the policy of "class against class" of the early years of the Soviet 
Union would be responsible for the victory of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Italy. We 
disagree with this analysis strictly! The victory of fascism was not the result of a 
political "class against class", but the inability of social democratic and communist 
parties could respond in front of the deepening of the international class struggle, given 
their burocratizaÃÃes-legalistic and reformist traditions. Despite all our differences, 
Trotsky makes an important analysis of the role of social democracy in the advance of 
fascism: "The situation was completely different in Germany, where the direction belonged 
to powerful parties, telling one of them 70 years old and the other with about 15. these 
two parties, which had millions of voters found themselves morally paralyzed before the 
fight and surrendered without a fight. Never has there been such a disaster in history. 
The German proletariat was not defeated by the enemy in combat: was killed by cowardice, 
baseness and betrayal of their own parties. It is no wonder that they have lost faith in 
everything I was accustomed to believing almost three generations. The victory of Hitler, 
in turn, reinforced Mussoline ". [7]


Anarchists should work with masses to deepen the class struggle! (Photo: Chile)

It is important to explore the debate as not just conjectural analysis or "tactical" (as 
some would have you understand) for the design of "libertarians" Chileans do a complete 
reversal of the factors of class struggle, raising the factor of Reconciliation on 
Conflict , and this represents a major revision in the theory of anarchist Bakunin, 
Makhno, Archinov, Jaime Balius and many others. It would be like saying that the defeat of 
the French proletariat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) was derived line break with 
republicanism, while on the contrary, the defeat had its causes in the late rupture of the 
workers and peasants with the republican bourgeoisie "progressive," not interested in 
paying for the challenges of arming the people against foreign invasion and to see the 
face of their own social revolution in motion. That's how Bakunin pointed this period that 
the only way for the French proletariat was to accomplish the social revolution together 
with the war against the Prussian invasion, ie turn the imperialist war into a civil war 
revolutionary. The same was proposed by the group Friends of Durruti in 1936 when they 
argued that the war against fascism should not be separated from the Spanish revolution. 
Make the revolution in Spain at that time meant breaking with the antifascist committees, 
which met spaces sectors of republican bourgeoisie and Spanish left, who opposed 
collectivization and boycotted the general arming of the workers.

In Spain, the CNT wrote and supported the "Provisional Government" instead of destroying 
it under the power of the masses. Ie, the CNT decided to make war against fascism and not 
the social revolution, all in the name of "unity of the left" against the enemy right. But 
it was precisely this policy of separation between War and Revolution (having as 
consequence collaborationism), added bourgeois and Stalinist sabotage (which were not 
fought to maintain "unity"), which led to historic defeat of Spanish workers. War and 
revolution were defeated by class collaboration.

Another example is the Russian Revolution . In 1917 the Mensheviks and SR's clamoring for 
unity in the first place to win the first world war and then make the socialist 
revolution, which led the October Revolution be accused of splitting Russia "progressive" 
against German Imperialism. However, supported by the revolutionary power of the Soviets, 
the people not only won the domestic bourgeoisie and imperialism itself. Contrary to what 
one might think, when the Bolsheviks broke with the "Coalition of the Left" were not being 
sectarian, were relying on the strength of the masses, the influence they had in the 
soviets, allying themselves with the people against the other parties that opposed to the 
power of the revolutionary masses. This policy was the result of a mass movement that 
radicalized and anti-social democracy operated by Lenin [8] , which partially criticized 
(in 1917) the stageism Mensheviks who wanted just a bourgeois republic. After the October 
Revolution the stageism is taken as the center of the policy of the Soviet Union with its 
front the same Lenin coming out in defense of building a socialist state modeled on the 
state Junker-bourgeois German [9] , a policy that "killed" the Soviets and rebuilt a 
privileged caste in the country.

Rebuilding the Revolutionary Anarchism!

 "More than any other concept, anarchism should become the leading concept of revolution, 
it is only within the theoretical basis that the anarchist social revolution can succeed 
in the complete emancipation of the workers"

Delo Truda, 1926

The critical positioning "tactical" Red Libertaria organizations and FEL must be done by 
the resumption of the theoretical-strategic revolutionary anarchism (which is what defines 
the tactics), and not by moralistic criticism regarding the elections "generally". 
Anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin formulated and developed by Makhno, Arshinov, Durruti, Jaime 
Balius and so many other fighters of the people, is a revolutionary theory that has 
specific ideas about the modern capitalist state, the dialectic War and Revolution (and 
the strategic necessity of mass violence), the contradiction x Reform Revolution, the 
collective experience of the class struggle as the real "school" of the proletariat, the 
role of anarchists in the revolution, as well as for Direct Action and Independence class 
as opposed to collaborating. These theoretical-strategic tactics are defining the popular 
struggle, which is no different in the case of the boycott the bourgeois elections.

It should be understood so that the tactics are not defined or discussed "out of nothing" 
or as mere circumstantial requirements (as they believe in the case of the Spanish Civil 
War, Venezuela and Chile), there are broader concepts and principles that determine them. 
In this sense, the boycott of bourgeois elections advocated by anarchists has a completely 
different role than for a possible "tactic" of the Communist or conservative. For 
anarchists are contained in this "tactical" elements separation (independence) of the 
proletariat against bourgeois institutions and spaces, the denial of the State's assertion 
of the political capacity of workers through direct action. There is a "tactic" that can 
be applied or not without major consequences for theoretical consistency and general 
ideological anarchism. In fact, we could say that the denial of democracy anarchist 
state-bourgeois reformism and assumes boycott the elections.

The problem is that the wrong especifismo hide their positions behind a handful of 
organizations and groups around the world without any serious unity among themselves 
(without any international organization), which takes the responsibility (aparente!) these 
distinct groups on the positions and other renditions. It is necessary that this silence, 
this muffling of the concepts and practices have mistaken order, on behalf of the very 
triumph of the cause of workers and social revolution. The Bakuninists were already 
arguing for some time the need to break with revisionism, but this task had been 
systematically denied by most anarchist groups and "libertarians". It is now clearer than 
ever the need to recognize the existence of revisionism and the duty to fight him (as part 
of their own struggle against the bourgeoisie).

Comrades, what does not go backward. Anarchist organizations must position themselves 
theoretically about our history, as well as analyze and debug each step is given by our 
comrades and ourselves. Today it is evident that the interpretations of the Spanish Civil 
War and the Russian Revolution are essential, not only under a bias historicist or 
academic, but directed by a revolutionary theory that is able to look at historical events 
and draw lessons for our struggle everyday .

We live in a time where the capitalist crisis is deepening social contradictions and 
rising class struggle to a new level. We can not afford to make the same mistakes of the 
past, the fruits of revisionism and class collaboration. Therefore, it is crucial that 
activists and anarchist organizations from around the world to put themselves in the 
historical responsibility of pointing a direction for autonomous and revolutionary 
movement of the workers, ever abandoned the concepts educationalists and petty-bourgeois 
anarcho-communism and the apparent limitation on especifismo (proposing the "anarchist 
organization" in the abstract). Likewise it is necessary to bury once and for all the 
false dichotomy mass movement and movement insurrectional! As has defended the 
FAU-historical: "There is no political revolutionary without a revolutionary theory. There 
is no revolutionary political line military revolutionary " (FAU, 1972). We are certain 
that the correction of these errors and deviations historical largely depends on the 
advancement of anarchism as a revolutionary force of the working masses. Let us go forward 
in the relentless struggle for socialism and freedom.

Anarchism is FIGHT!

LIVING SOCIAL REVOLUTION PROLETARIAN!

DEATH AND THE STATE CAPITAL!

BUILD A NETWORK INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST!

IN A TREND AND classist INTERNACIONALISTA!



[1]  "DeclaraciÃn public Libertaria la Red." Can be viewed by site: 
http://www.elciudadano.cl/2013/07/01/72475/declaracion-publica-de-la-red-libertaria/

[2]  "DeclaraciÃn publishes FEL chile frente a la conyuntura eleccionaria 2013". Can be 
viewed by site: 
http://fel-chile.org/declaracion-publica-fel-chile-frente-a-la-coyuntura-eleccionaria-2013/

[3] can be viewed by

[4] Available

[5] Text UNIPA: "Chavismo and Bolivarianism: the limits of anti-hegemonic developmental 
role and popular." Available at: http://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/chavismo/

[6] Available at: http://farvespecifistas.blogspot.com.br/

[7] "Transition Program", Leon Trotsky.

[8] Reference: "April Theses".

[9] Reference: "infantilism Left and petty bourgeois mentality"
_________________________________________
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