A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 30 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours

Links to indexes of first few lines of all posts of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Anarkismo.net: Brazil, A Debate on Political Alliances - Paths militant project (pt) [machine translation]

Date Sat, 15 Sep 2012 11:56:12 +0300

Introduction ---- The policy of an anarchist organization Alliances, a trend, or a social movement answer two basic questions: who and how we come together to reach a certain goal, whether short-term (tactical objective), medium or long term ( strategic line). The Politics of Alliances can only be effective when it responds to a very well established program (comprised of militants), they can be applied. The discussion of the program precedes the discussion of alliances. To know who and how we come together to form transient or permanent, we must know that we will do so, and this is only possible if we know for sure, what we concretely. Knowing what you want is basically to draw plans of medium and long term. If you do not know what we want, we will be guided by the demands and urgencies of the agendas of the rulers rather than our agendas and build.

Therefore, guided the compass of struggles. The program is the formalization of the strategic line (set of objectives, strategies and tactics) of a particular organization, which serves as the basis for all its members and directs all its actions. The program defines the militants of the particular organization "paths" that will reach certain goals and what "tools" militants "will use" they are to be achieved.

Apply a policy that requires effective alliances strengthen the organization more intensely certain political relations over others and prioritize certain activities in its militancy. For as Bakunin would say, "who embraces very little press." Not clearly define a policy of alliances, joint means politically haphazardly; flavor of the weak and unstable alliances that, far from contributing to the goals of the organization, subordinated others in the program or make your action impotent. As our energies militants are scarce, define who we relate politically and how these relationships will give is crucial, not only to prevent excess strain on militants (indeed commonplace in social movements), but also to do with the organization proceed according to its strategic objectives.

The unity with other political sectors - be they organizations or ideological movement popular - must not be pursued at any cost, since the unity of action can not mean submit or delay our own program, much less our principles. An organization that has programmatic clarity and to continue its own work social get cement alliances correct without being hostage to situations, walking thus toward the goals that decided achieve.
Alliances between policy and Informal Networks

The politics of alliances is different than many social movements, autonomous and other currents of anarchism call for strengthening the "networks". We can not forget that, within social movements, unions and communities we work with, there are informal networks, no "structure" (ie, are not structured for some kind of regulation "institutional" that set), that shape and build emotional relationships , between its social and political subjects. Ignoring the existence of these networks is to reduce labor activist certain political myopia, unable to perceive the different relationships that subjects will establish peripherally, or in its interior. This can be disastrous in practice the desired political "immediate", trampling relationships that deserve sensitivity on the part of our membership.

However, an anarchist political organization matrix especifista should always work towards moving beyond these informal networks. This does not mean believing that these networks will cease to exist, but simply that the organization works to formalize their structures, preventing these informal networks "take" control of decision making in social movements that is. Important task in this regard is, for example, formalizing the processes of decision and entry of militant social movements in which we operate, instead of letting the political relations be established by mere informal. The problem of rigging of social movements by political parties is largely determined by lack of clear decision-making structures which enable all participants to understand the dynamics of its operation. Interest groups more organized (or leaders 'charismatic') keep social movements internally unstructured or poorly structured, to continue to hold sway over its members and internal power relations "intact" (not always conscious).

Another important point is to work to overcome the mentality that believes that every work isolated, decentralized and (un) structured informal networks and formal relationship, contributes decisively to a radical transformation of society. Unlike many Marxists, we know that a revolution is also made of spontaneous aspects that are difficult to predict or analyze properly. But in no time, as organized anarchists, we believe that revolutionary projects happen spontaneously, as accuse us "forever" like a broken record, our adversaries. A revolution will only happen with a lot of organization. At least, that's revolutionary reading of historical processes, that only occurred because they were preceded by a militant work of many years or decades. The broader insurrectionary or revolutionary processes also occur when a policy of broad alliances of the oppressed is effectively performed. We saw this in the Russian Revolution, in which peasants and workers participated in the soviets in hand: in the Spanish Revolution, where workers from the countryside and the city's stable and formalized alliances also have seen the limits of political alliances, when, for example, French students tried unsuccessfully to establish a policy of alliances with his fellow workers, resulting in the inability of the movement to transform itself into a true revolution.

More recently, the success of a policy of stable alliances, was the formation of the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca in 2006, bringing together grassroots organizations all in one color coordination. The Oaxaca Uprising happened just as effective a policy of alliances was conducted among teachers, students and housewives, moving toward a broad insurrectionary process. If a political organization or social movement not know who will ally themselves probably do not know too, that targets medium and long term wants to fulfill. This is because, perhaps many of its members are averse to bureaucracy, when in fact, organize, paraphrasing Errico Malatesta is the only effective guarantee against bureaucratization, and not vice versa. Some of these militants may also believe that in militancy, things will occur "spontaneously", until one day, in which a critical point in the relationship between the classes "explode" in the form of a revolution. Loosely speaking, this idea is similar to the Marxist myth, the contradiction caused by the critical development of the productive forces. The common background of these ideas is always possible to decrease the dimension of human action and therefore exempt militants themselves the responsibility of inefficient tactic chosen by their movements and organizations.

An organization and a social movement that is being structured in accordance with the progress of their work will be confronted at some point, with the limits of their demands. Today, in Brazil, we see a series of social movements and grassroots initiatives and worst completely dispersed, divided by demadas extremely specific. There are cultural collectives, cooperatives of consumption and production, feminist collectives, education, art or agroecology, in many cases, restricted to meet its own demands. This compartmentalization of social movements is seen by some as a result of the new configuration assume that movements in a world increasingly advanced: what some authors call of liquid modernity or postmodernity. It is the myth of the story that unfolds patiently in the eyes of the actors. From this perspective, it remains to us, "surfarmos the wave" of history and accept the fate that some hidden force secretly established. But make no mistake with this self-deception. The story does not unfold itself and is not the product of a secret force (or the productive forces, the Hegelian-Marxist myth described above). While we recognize that there are changes we can not control, human action and works created by individuals is decisive.

NGOs were able to take advantage (and reinforced) this movement. Setorizaram the demands of the working class and hitched the resolution of their demands to the agreements with the state. The result of this movement is the inability of the working class and the oppressed in forging effective instruments to counter state and the bourgeoisie.

That does not mean, as anarchist political organization, we disrespect the vocations of social movements which we operate. This is the practice of Leninism, which we condemn and move away while libertarians. But it takes work to overcome the compartmentalization is not always reinforce it by appealing to a supposed "uniqueness" of the fights. A movement that has a specific demand (eg, culture) can, in advance of its work effectively integrate with other forms of struggle to establish an effective political alliances, which can overcome the sectorization.

The struggles and their expansion conditions are obviously always natural, historical contexts they emerge as well. But if we can not draw any "rule" of the general processes of social movements or revolutionary in its organizational dynamics, it does not mean to say that no form of knowledge and analysis are possible. Therefore, an analysis of real processes implies sincerely look for successes and failures, trying to incorporate critical elements that can make a political organization and social movements that campaigned effective.

An interesting perspective is to aggregate different demands work in the same social movement, rather than enter into the various social movements sectored. The Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST), despite having as central flag the issue of land, known as culture, education and other elements, are critical in the formation of the movement. Other movements that have contact and about working to resolve different demands within the same movement: economic, cultural, educational and professional. If its militants had chosen to create a group, or collective movement for each demand (an economic cooperative, a collective culture, an art group, etc.). Would not have the success we have today in many cases.

It's central reinforce the class aspect of our proposal. A proposed class must be the "glue" that binds the different demands of the workers. What the ruling class fears is precisely when these movements outweigh their specificity and are part of a broad and popular design class, which articulates, the bases of what we learned with Bakunin and Malatesta, a true arc oppressed. The task of the anarchist political organization is just as active minority enhance the structure of social movements that are inserted. A social movement organized and well structured beats the mentality of networks and formalizes its objectives, methods and strategies. And especially, can effectively formalize its policy of alliances. To formalize a policy of alliances, the historical actors, ie the militants, flesh and blood, should assume that they are responsible for making that policy. Today, there is no anarchist organization (or left) that could participate in all fights. An organization that chooses to engage "in every fight" probably does not have a well defined strategic program, or this is not understood by its members. It may happen that this superficially join the varied struggles over his foundation work, which will have dire consequences in the long term for the organization.

A well-defined political program involves prioritizing certain activities and thus participate in what contributes to the strategic plan of the organization. If there is no understanding of what contributes to this project or not, the organization will probably not internalized its program. Having a strategic horizon involves some say "no" to certain activities and participate in other more intensely. The opposite of this is the random part of what "appears", without thinking, even briefly, about what and why we are engaging in a certain activity. I reiterate that this work is not a reflection of work "highlighted" the reality in many cases it happens within the process, the "eye" of the hurricane, between rights and wrongs of political organization.

A political program and a well-defined strategic horizon, therefore, make no subordinemos to our membership that gives more visibility at the time, or what the bourgeois media news more closely. This is the case of many parties Trotskyists, which are guided according to the expediency of time. The role of vanguard is deeply dependent on the image of "being in all fights" (even though in many cases is superficially). This image consists serves as a magnet for new members. Still, we must not fall into the other extreme. There are struggles and activities that even the distant tactical plan that established political organization, can be interesting activities for the propaganda of the organization or of a particular social movement. An organization with a base of relevant work, but that does not "appear", runs the risk of transmitting an image asymmetric policy. I believe there is a rule to follow, but the militants of "flesh and blood" between correcting mistakes and successes will line the organization and its strategic alliance policy in its own dynamics. Do not discuss it can bring harm to the entire organization and profoundly limit the scope of its policy.

The bottom line is that / the militants are aware that the anarchist political organization ever and is ready to discuss a policy of alliances effectively is to know who we can count on for the next steps in a contract that can only be collective.

Rafael V. da Silva

DANTON, José Gutiérrez. Problems and Possibilities of Anarchism. São Paulo, Spark Publishing, 2011.
FREEMAN, John. The Tyranny of Organizations Without Structure, 1970. Available in http://www.nodo50.org/insurgentes/textos/autonomia/21tirania.htm. Accessed 03/08/11.
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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en

A-Infos Information Center