Some thoughts on Theoretical Unity and Collective Responsibility

international | anarchist movement | debate Tuesday September 04, 2007 19:53 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.

An organisation might form on the basis that all its members are brought together by a common ideological vision; but what happens if, in the course of the life and development of an organisation or collective, it emerges that militants’ opinions on a particular issue differ from one another? Perhaps because the issue in question was not considered at the outset, or due to the uneven growth of each member. With regards to the latter, this can be avoided by paying special attention to the internal education of the group, so that militants are able to advance theoretically simultaneously and to prevent them from developing their ideas in different directions, in contrast to the collective, because there is no common platform for open discussion.

Theoretically, and in practice in a directly democratic group, every person should have an opportunity to present and argue for their idea, and try to win the others over to their position. Perhaps in the process of debate new ideas come to light, and the organisation is able to develop its own position, which is guided by and acceptable to all its members, resulting therefore in the growth of both the individuals and the collective.

This ties in with the idea of collective responsibility; everyone in an anarchist communist organisation or collective is responsible for its ideological character and its members have the duty to argue for and promote their positions as a means of refining the ideological and theoretical understanding of the collective as a whole, and not just leaving it up to the intellectuals and so-called experts to develop the politics of a group. This is why, no matter how seemingly trivial and unimportant a specific issue might appear to some, all the members of a collective have the responsibility to participate in that dialogue in order to ensure that the outcome is informed by and satisfactory to all. In so doing, it could help to prevent bigger differences from arising later on, because the ideological and theoretical character of the collective will develop in tandem with its members, serving to keep them in constant theoretical closeness.

But what if irreconcilable theoretical differences emerge in the development of an organisation? If it is a minority of people who hold an opposing view, should they be expected to compromise to the will of the majority? If they do so, how will it affect the collective responsibility shared by all, knowing that some might be engaged in something in which they do not fully agree? If it is a minor difference, yet unlikely to be overcome, should the organisation proceed as before? And if it does so, and more differences arise, where do you draw the line between a platform inspired group, with theoretical unity, and one more resembling a synthesist organisation? How is an organisation to prioritise which are minor, and which are major differences? When a major issue to one, non-class oppressions for example, may be of lesser concern to another.

Of course, we want our organisations and movement to grow, but we are also convinced of the necessity for theoretical unity and collective responsibility for them to be effective and, in trying to maintain this character, our organisations will grow more slowly than others, and we might give the impression of sectarianism. This can also lead to frustration within our organisations, as some people might become disillusioned and modify their views to make them accessible to more people. The question that faces us, then, is how can we build our organisations and movement by being non-sectarian and open to a diversity of ideas, whilst retaining our specific anarchist-communist orientation and without compromising our principles of theoretical unity and collective responsibility?