espero 7 – Die neue Sommerausgabe 2023 16:58 Jun 25 7 comments Hier ist sie: Die espero-Sommerausgabe 2021! 18:20 Jun 16 15 comments David Graeber, anthropologist and author of Bullshit Jobs, dies aged 59 00:24 Sep 06 7 comments Poder e Governação 02:58 May 17 2 comments Against Anarcho-Liberalism and the curse of identity politics 18:34 Jan 14 4 comments more >> |
Recent articles by Jonathan
Experiencias del Anarquismo Organizado en Sudafrica 0 comments África do Sul 2010: uma Perspectiva Libertária 0 comments África do Sul 2010: uma Perspectiva Libertária 0 comments Recent Articles about International Anarchist movementAnarchists in Rojava: Revolution is a struggle in itself Oct 04 23 An Attempted Marxist-Anarchist Dialogue Oct 03 23 A Guide to Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism Aug 03 23 Some thoughts on Theoretical Unity and Collective Responsibility
international |
anarchist movement |
debate
Tuesday September 04, 2007 20:53 by Jonathan - ZACF (personal capacity)
This article aims to examine, briefly, the relationship between theoretical unity and collective responsibility, and their mutual dependence within an anarchist-communist organisation. It also poses some questions regarding the problems that may arise within an organisation, surrounding these notions, and the challenges that these may present to the growth and endurance of the organisation, and the movement. We agree that in order to maximize efficiency and potential, theoretical unity is the desired tenet of an anarchist-communist collective or organisation; in order for us to develop an effective tactical orientation towards an oppression it needs to be informed by a collectively deliberated and agreed upon strategy, reflecting said organisations collective theoretical understanding thereof. |
Front pageSupport Sudanese anarchists in exile Joint Statement of European Anarchist Organizations International anarchist call for solidarity: Earthquake in Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy 19 de Julio: Cuando el pueblo se levanta, escribe la historia International anarchist solidarity against Turkish state repression Declaración Anarquista Internacional por el Primero de Mayo, 2022 Le vieux monde opprime les femmes et les minorités de genre. Leur force le détruira ! Against Militarism and War: For self-organised struggle and social revolution Declaração anarquista internacional sobre a pandemia da Covid-19 Anarchist Theory and History in Global Perspective Capitalism, Anti-Capitalism and Popular Organisation [Booklet] Reflexiones sobre la situación de Afganistán South Africa: Historic rupture or warring brothers again? Death or Renewal: Is the Climate Crisis the Final Crisis? Gleichheit und Freiheit stehen nicht zur Debatte! Contre la guerre au Kurdistan irakien, contre la traîtrise du PDK Meurtre de Clément Méric : l’enjeu politique du procès en appel |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5Thanks for your article. It illuminated me about some points I only confusedly thought about before.
Namely, I agree we have to build our organisations from bottom up, so it is necessary to strive permanently to reach for those goals of unity and responsability.
It is, in my view, quite different to have a principled mind and a sectarian one:
For instance, a principled mind, will feel as normal that some people are not totally in agreement on some subject. A principled mind won't ask these people to renounce whatsoever to their opinions, but rather to accept provisionally the majority vote and to defend it, at least in public. A principled mind accepts different points of view in our organisation discussions.
So, we should both be as close as possible to our principles and, at the same time, respectful and accepting naturally different view points inside our collectives.
It is much worse to avoid internal debate, this would insall a rotten «peace», but it doesn't let us make any progress in our theoretical and practical approaches.
Θεωρητική ενότητα - συλλογική υπευθυνότητα
The final version of this article is available here:
Let me add to the discussion that there are some topics on which a revolutionary anarchist organization should not have an official position. This is one way in which we differ from Leninist conceptions of the democratic centralist party. As I have recently argued on Anarkismo, I think this includes religion (but not related political issues such as homophobia or abortion rights). I also think that the organization should not have an official view on philosophy which everyone is expected to agree with (dialectical materialism or postmodernism or whatever). And I am against having an offical opinion on animal liberation. If we did, in the U.S., it would tear the organization apart. Of course, individuals can (and should) have opinions on these topics and are free, if they want, to join other organizations to promote their views.
I agree with Wayne that disagreements on some topics are okay, provided they will not affect the overall strategy and tactics of the organisation. We don't have an official position on a number of issues (animal liberation, religion etc.), but these do not affect the activities of the organisation. They are more personal choices, albeit politically influenced for many.