A review of the writings and speeches of Errico Malatesta, the great Italian anarchist and comrade of Bakunin and Kropotkin. Material is taken from the 13 years he spent in London exile. His views remain relevant--and controversial among anarchists.

The Italian Errico Malatesta (1853—1932) was a comrade and friend of Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Calling himself an anarchist-socialist, he was respected and loved by large numbers of anarchists and workers, in Italy and other countries. He was closely watched by the police forces of several nations. He had escaped imprisonment in Italy and lived in various countries in Europe, the Middle East, the U.S.A., and Latin America. Four times he spent time in Britain. This volume has collected works from his longest stay there, from 1900 to 1913, from when he was 48 to 61.

Britain, secure in its wealth and imperial power, was the most open European country in providing asylum to political refugees—so long as they obeyed local laws. As a result, the UK had communities of anarchists and other socialists from all over Europe. There was also an overlapping colony of Italians. Malatesta lived in London, supporting himself by running a small electrician’s shop. Only at one point, in 1912, did the police and courts make a serious effort to expel him. This set off massive demonstrations of British and immigrant workers and outcries from liberal newspapers and politicians. The attempt at expulsion was dropped.

However, Malatesta was frustrated by being penned up in Britain. He made several efforts to produce an anarchist-socialist paper which would circulate in Italy, but with limited success. He participated in anarchist activities in Britain, but his English, while apparently serviceable, was not fluent (when not speaking Italian, he preferred French). This volume includes his translated articles, pamphlets, and written speeches, as well as interviews of him by both bourgeois and radical newspapers. There are also reports by police spies (at least one of whom passed as a close comrade). They faithfully recorded his speeches and private comments and passed them on to their superiors.

In the course of Malatesta’s lengthy sojourn in London, he discussed a number of topics which were important to anarchists then and are still important. He was not an major theorist of political economy or history, but he was brilliant about strategic and tactical issues of the anarchist movement. This makes the study of Malatesta’s collected work valuable even today.

Terrorism

Around the time the book begins, in 1900, an Italian anarchist who had been living in the U.S., went back to Europe and assassinated Humbert, the Italian king. Apparently Malatesta had met the assassin, Bresci, briefly while in Patterson NJ. Otherwise he knew nothing about the affair. However the press continually tried to interview him about it, seeking to tie anarchism to assassination.

Malatesta always opposed indiscriminate mass terrorism (such as throwing bombs into restaurants). Nor did he call for assassination of prominent individuals, whether kings, presidents, or big businesspeople. In general, it did not advance the cause. His approach had become one of building revolutionary anarchist organizations, to participate in mass struggles. However, he was understanding of the motives of individual anarchists driven to assassination—and not sympathetic at all to the rulers and exploiters whom they killed. The Italian king, he noted, had previously ordered soldiers to massacre peasants and workers.

When US President William McKinley was shot dead by Czolgosz, who claimed to be anarchist, Malatesta called the president, “the head of [the] North American oligarchy, the instrument and defender of the great capitalists, the traitor of the Cubans and Filipinos, the man who authorized the massacre of the Hazelton strikers, the tortures of the Idaho miners and the thousand disgraces being committed in the ‘model republic.’” (Malatesta 2023; p. 75) He felt no sorrow for the death of this man, only compassion for the assassin, who “with good or bad strategy,” sacrificed himself for “the cause of freedom and equality.” (p. 75)

However, he did not advocate this as a political strategy. It was more important to win workers to reliance upon themselves rather than kings, bosses, and official leaders. “…Overthrowing monarchy…cannot be accomplished by murder. The Sovereigns who die would only be succeeded by other Sovereigns. We must kill kings in the hearts of the people; we must assassinate toleration of kings in the public conscience; we must shoot loyalty and stab allegiance to tyranny of whatever form wherever it exists.” (p. 59)

In another incident in London, a small group of Russian anarchist exiles was interrupted in the process of robbing a jewelry store. There was a shoot-out with the police (led by Home Secretary Winston Churchill) which ended in the death of some officers and all the robbers. As it happened, one of the thieves had met Malatesta at an anarchist club, and ended up buying a gas tank from him, claiming a benevolent use for it. In fact it was used to break open the jewelry safe.

Malatesta patiently explained to the police and the newspapers that he had no foreknowledge of the robbery. However he wrote that it was unfair to link the robbers’ actions with their anarchist politics. Was a murder in the U.S. blamed on the murderer being a Democrat or Republican? Were thieves’ thievery usually ascribed to their opinions on Free Trade versus Tariffs? Or perhaps their belief in vegetarianism? No, they were essentially regarded as thieves, regardless of their beliefs on politics, economics, or religion. The same should be true for these jewelry thieves, whatever their views on anarchism.

Syndicalism/Trade Unionism

By the last decades of the 19th century, many anarchists had given up on only actions and propaganda by individuals and small groups. These tactics had mainly resulted in isolation and futility. Instead many turned toward mass organizing and the trade unions. Anarchists joined, and worked to organize, labor unions in several countries. (Often these efforts were called “syndicalism,” which is the French for “unionism.”)

There remained anarchists who opposed unions: individualists and anti-organizational communists. But most turned in the pro-union direction. This gave a big boost to the anarchist movement at the time.

Errico Malatesta had long been an advocate of unions. He had contacts with militant unionists throughout Britain and other countries. In London in this period, he directly participated in unionizing waiters and catering staff. He gave support to the struggles of tailors to form a union, which led to a large strike.

“Syndicalism, or more precisely the labor movement…has always found me a resolute, but not blind, advocate.…I see it as a particularly propitious terrain for our revolutionary propaganda and…a point of contact between the masses and ourselves.” (p. 240)

But once it was decided that anarchists should participate in the labor movement, the next question was how should they participate? What should be the relation between anarchist activists and the trade unions? On this question, differences among anarchists were made explicit at the 1907 anarchist conference held in Amsterdam.

At the conference, Malatesta took issue with the views of Pierre Monatte, who spoke for the French syndicalist movement. Malatesta argued, “The conclusion Monatte reached is that syndicalism is a necessary and sufficient means of social revolution. In other words, Monatte declares that syndicalism is sufficient unto itself. And this, in my opinion, is a radically false doctrine.” (p. 240)

The unions had great advantages, as they brought together working people in enterprises, industries, cities, and regions. They included only workers, and not capitalists or management. They had the potential of stopping businesses and whole economies, in the pursuit of working class demands. They were schools of cooperation and joint struggle.

Yet, the unions’ very strengths also pointed to certain weaknesses. They are institutions within capitalist society. They exist (at least in the short term) to win a better deal for the workers under capitalism. Therefore they must compromise with the bosses and the state. Further, they need as many members as possible, to counter the power of the bosses. They cannot just recruit revolutionary anarchists and socialists. They must take in workers of every political, economic, and religious persuasion. (A union which only accepted anarchists would not be much of a threat to the bourgeoisie.)

These and other factors brought constant pressure on unions to be more conservative, corrupt, and bureaucratic. All anarchists recognized these tendencies among officials of political parties, even among liberals or socialists. But the same tendencies existed for union officials.

Malatesta drew certain conclusions. Anarchist-socialists should not dissolve themselves into the unions, becoming good union militants (as he understood Monatte to be saying). Instead, they should build revolutionary anarchist groups to operate inside and outside union structures. Nor should they take union offices which gave them power over people. But they could take positions which were clearly carrying out tasks agreed to by the membership—but with no wages higher than the other workers. They should be the best union militants, always advocating more democratic, less bureaucratic, and more militant policies, while still raising their revolutionary libertarian politics.

“In the union, we must remain anarchists, in the full strength and full breadth of the term. The labor movement for me is only a means—evidently the best among all means that are available to us.” (p. 241)

A central concept of the syndicalists was the goal of a general strike. Malatesta had certain criticisms. Not that he opposed the idea of getting all the workers of a city or country to go on strike at the same time. This could show the enormous power of the working class, if it would use it—much more powerful than electing politicians. But there is no magic in a general strike. The capitalist class has supplies stored away with which they could outlast the workers—starve them out. The state has its police and armed forces to break up the strike organization, arrest the organizers, and forcibly drive the workers back to their jobs.

In brief, Malatesta did not believe in the possibility of a successful nonviolent general strike (this is not considering a one-day “general strike” set by the union bureaucrats for show). He felt that a serious general strike would require occupation of factories and workplaces, arming of the workers, and plans for their military self-defense. It would have to be the beginning of a revolution. (Hence the book’s title.)

However much he criticized aspects of syndicalism, Malatesta was completely opposed to “…the anti-organizationalist anarchists, those who are against participation in the labor struggle, establishment of a party, etc. [By ‘party,’ he means here an organization of anarchists—WP] ….The secret of our success lies in knowing how to reconcile revolutionary action and spirit with everyday practical action; in knowing how to participate in small struggles without losing sight of the great and definitive struggle.” (p. 78)

War and National Self-Determination

This collection of writings by and about Malatesta ends in 1913. Therefore it does not cover his response to World War I which began the next year—nor his break with Kropotkin for supporting the imperialist Allies in the war.

However, in the period covered here, he could see the increase in wars, both between imperialist powers and between imperial states and oppressed peoples. “…Weaker nations are robbed of their independence. The kaiser of Germany urges his troops to give the Chinese no quarter; the British government treats the Boers…as rebels, and burns their farms, hunts down housewives…and re-enacts Spain’s ghastly feats in Cuba; the Sultan [of Turkey] has the Armenians slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands; and the American government massacres the Filipinos, having first cravenly betrayed them.” (p. 33)

He opposed all sides in wars among imperialist governments—as he was to do during World War I. The only solution to such wars was the social revolution.

But Malatesta supported oppressed nations which rebelled against imperial domination. (Some ignorant people believe that it is un-anarchist to support such wars. Yet Malatesta did, as did Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, and many other anarchists—even though they rarely used the term “national self-determination”.) Malatesta wrote, “…True socialism consists of hoping for and provoking, when possible, the subjected people to drive away the invaders, whoever they are.” (p. 58)

This does not mean that anarchist-socialists have to agree with the politics of the rebelling people. Speaking of the Boers, who were fighting the British empire, he wrote without illusions, “The regime they will probably establish will certainly not have our sympathies; their social, political, religious ideas are the antipodes of our own.” (p. 59) Nevertheless, it would be better if they win and British imperialists are defeated. For the people of the imperialist country, “It is not the victory but the defeat of England that will be of use to the English people, that will prepare them for socialism.” (p. 58) (The British won.)

The Italian and Turkish states went to war over north Africa around 1912. Malatesta condemned both sides, but supported the struggle of the Arab population. “I hope that the Arabs rise up and throw both the Turks and the Italians into the sea.” (p. 321)

He understood that “love of birthplace” (p. 328) was typically felt by people, including their roots in the community, their childhood language, their love of local nature, and perhaps their pride in the contributions their people have made to world culture. But this natural sentiment is then misused by the rulers to develop a patriotism which masks class division and exploitation.

The rulers “…turned gentle love of homeland into that feeling of antipathy…toward other peoples which usually goes by the name of patriotism, and which the domestic oppressors in various countries exploit to their advantage. ….We are internationalists…We extend our homeland to the whole world, feel ourselves to be brothers to all human beings, and seek well-being, freedom, and autonomy for every individual and group…..We abhor war…and we champion the fight against the ruling classes.” (p. 329)

As can be seen, to Malatesta, internationalism did not conflict with support for “autonomy for every…group.” This included groups of people who held a common identity as a nation. Anarchists are internationalist, but
unlike the centralism of Lenin, anarchists do not want a homogenous world state. They advocate regionalism, pluralism, and decentralized federations. This particular passage went on to support the Arabs against Italian imperialism. “…It is the Arabs’ revolt against the Italian tyrant that is noble and holy.” (p. 329)

Yet Malatesta may be faulted for his lack of concern about racism. In supporting the Boers, and even when listing their extreme (antipodal) differences with anarchists, he does not mention their exploitation of the indigenous Africans. Nor does he make other references to racial oppression (such as in U.S. segregation). This must be put beside his fervent anti- colonialism and support for the rebellion of oppressed peoples.

Similarly, he does not mention the oppression of women or its intersection with class and national exploitation. It is not at all that he was misogynist (like Proudhon). I am sure he treated Emma Goldman as an equal at the 1907 international anarchist conference. But, like most male radicals of his time, he had a “blind spot” in thinking about this major aspect of overall oppression.

Imperialism, war, national oppression, and national revolt are issues which are still with us. Look at Palestine or Ukraine or the Kurds, among other peoples. These issues will be with us as long as capitalism survives, as Malatesta knew.

Other Topics

Besides terrorism, syndicalism, and national wars, Malatesta covered quite a lot of topics in the course of these thirteen years, as we would expect.

He condemned a French anti-clerical town council which outlawed the wearing by priests of their cassocks within the municipal borders. Malatesta was an opponent of religion and certainly of the Catholic Church. But he did not believe that people would be won from it by means of police coercion. That would only provoke resistance. At most, it would replace the religious priests with secularist ones, “which would all the same preach subjugation to masters….” (p. 68)

Today, the French government forbids Muslim girls and women from wearing headscarfs in schools and other public buildings—in the name of “secular” government. The left and feminists are divided on how to respond. “Oh, when will those who call themselves friends of freedom, decide to desire truly freedom for all!” (p.68)

Unlike Kropotkin, Elisee Reclus or (more recently) Murray Bookchin, there was not much of an ecological dimension to Malatesta. However he was concerned with the way landlords and capitalists had kept Italian agriculture backward. He believed that under anarchy, the peasants would be able to make the barren lands bloom.

By 1913, his experience with state socialists was mainly with the reformist Marxist “democratic socialists” (social democrats). This was four years before the Russian Revolution, which ended in the dictatorship of Lenin’s Bolsheviks and the rise of authoritarian state capitalism.

Yet he was prescient enough to write: “…Depending on the direction in which competing and opposite efforts of men and parties succeed in driving the movement, the coming social revolution could open to humanity the main road to full emancipation, or simply serve to elevate a new layer of the privileged above the masses, leaving unscathed the principle of authority and privilege.” (p. 102) The validity of this anarchist insight (which goes back to Proudhon and Bakunin) has been repeatedly demonstrated.

All the subjects Errico Malatesta discussed in this period had one guiding social philosophy. Quoting the famous lines written by, but not created by, Marx: “…The emancipation of the workers must be conquered by the workers themselves.…Throughout history the oppressed have never achieved anything beyond what they were able to take, push away pimps and philanthropists and politicos, take their own fate in their own hands, and decide to act directly.” (p. 220) This was the principle of Malatesta’s revolutionary anarchist-socialism and remains true today.

References
Malatesta, Errico (2023).  The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900—13.  The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta.  Vol. V.  (Ed.: Davide Turcato; Trans.: Andrea Asali).  Chico CA:  AK Press.

 

Trotsky's "Transitional Program" has both strengths and weaknesses from the viewpoint of revolutionary anarchist-socialism. It is an important document of historical socialism, although deeply flawed.

This is a discussion, from the viewpoint of revolutionary anarchism, of Leon Trotsky’s Transitional Program, perhaps the central text of Trotskyism. (Trotsky 1977)

There are huge differences between anarchism and Trotskyism, centered on the state. Yet there is also a significant overlap. Both are on the far-left, opposed to Stalinism, in all its hideous varieties, as well as to social-democracy (“democratic socialism”). Both propose the overturn of the existing state and capitalism, by the working class and all oppressed, to be replaced by alternate institutions. There are many varieties of Trotskyism as of anarchism, some more in agreement than others.

Given this overlap, there have been quite a few Trotskyists who have become anarchists, of one sort or another—and anarchists who have become Trotskyists. Personally, I have done both. In high school I became an anarchist-pacifist, and then in college turned to an unorthodox version of Trotskyism. Eventually I became a revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialist. However, I still remain influenced by aspects of unorthodox-dissident Trotskyism (also by libertarian—“ultra left”—Marxism, and other influences.)

This is not a discussion of Trotsky’s earlier years in politics, when he opposed V.I. Lenin’s authoritarian approach (similar to Rosa Luxemburg’s views). Nor of Trotsky’s collaboration with Lenin in leading the Russian Revolution. Following which they created a one-party police state, the foundation for Stalinism. The Transitional Program is from the last period of Trotsky’s life, when he fought against the totalitarian bureaucracy. This was until he was murdered by a Stalinist agent—about a year after the document was written. (For a critical overview of Trotskyism, from a libertarian socialist perspective, see Hobson & Tabor 1988.)

Anarchism and Trotskyism have certain things in common as well as major distinctions. It may be useful to explore these similarities and differences, from the perspective of analyzing Trotsky’s Transitional Program. In my opinion, it is an important historical document of socialism, but remains deeply flawed.

The Program’s Expectations

This document was adopted in 1938, as the founding program of the new “Fourth International” of Trotsky’s followers. Its official title was “The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International.” It became known as the Transitional Program. Mostly written by Trotsky, he held extensive discussions about it beforehand. (Trotsky 1977)

Of course, a work written this long ago, before the upheavals of World War II, must be out of date in various ways. There is a section on the “fascist countries,” although the explicitly fascist regimes are now gone. Another section is on the USSR, a country which no longer exists. One is on “colonial” countries, but the colonial empires of Britain, France, and so on have been mostly destroyed. Yet fascism, Stalinism, and imperialism are still with us.

We can judge the Transitional Program by comparing what it predicted to what actually happened. Trotsky’s program is based on a belief that the world was going through “the death agony of capitalism.” Aside from the Marxist analysis of capitalist decline, empirically there had been the First World War, the Great Depression, a series of revolutions (mostly defeated), the rise of Stalinism, and the rise of fascism. It was widely expected that a Second World War would break out soon—as it did within a year. The state of world capitalism looked pretty dismal.

Trotsky had expected the war to be followed by a return to Depression conditions. So did most bourgeois economists as well as most Marxist theorists. Under such conditions, he believed, there would be continuing revolutionary upheavals throughout the world. The Soviet Union would either be overthrown in a workers’ revolution or would collapse back into capitalism. These developments would give the Trotskyists, although few at first, a chance to out-organize the Stalinists, social democrats, and colonial nationalists, and lead successful socialist revolutions.

In fact, there were upheavals and revolutions following the world war—from the huge wave of union strikes in the United States, to the election of the Labour Party in the U.K., to the big growth of Communist Parties in Italy and France, to the Communist-led revolutions in eastern Europe (Yugoslavia, Albania, and Greece—the last failed) to the independence won by India and the great Chinese revolution, among other Asian revolutions. These were followed by decades of revolutionary struggles throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Despite the Trotskyists’ best intentions, almost all the upheavals and attempted revolutions were led by liberals, social democrats, and“Third World” nationalists—but worst of all was the disastrous misleadership of the Communists. In places where they had a working class base, such as France and Italy, they followed reformist programs. In other countries they channeled popular revolutions into one-party, authoritarian, state-capitalisms (as in Yugoslavia and China, and later Cuba).

This could happen because the “developed” countries did not collapse into a further Depression. Instead they blossomed in a period of prosperity, often referred to as “Capitalism’s Golden Age.” The world war had reorganized international imperialism, with the U.S. now at its center. There had been an expanded arms economy, a concentration of international capital, and a major looting of the environment.

This period of high prosperity (at least for white people in the imperialist countries) lasted until about 1970. The Soviet Union had difficulties after this too, but lasted until about 1990. Then it finally fell back into a traditional capitalist economy.

In discussions before the international conference, Trotsky considered the possibility of a temporary period of prosperity. “The first question is if a conjunctural improvement is probable in the near future….We can theoretically suppose that [a] new upturn…can give a greater, a more solid upturn….It is absolutely not contradictory to our general analysis of a sick, declining capitalism….This theoretical possibility is to a certain degree supported by the military investment….A new upturn will signify that the definite crisis, the definite conflicts, are postponed for some years.” (Trotsky 1977; Pp. 186-7, 189) At one point he even speculated that the U.S. might have “a period of prosperity before its own decline …[for] ten to thirty years.” (p. 164)

In other words, there might be a period of apparent prosperity within the general epoch “of a sick, declining capitalism.” This possibility does not seem to have been taken very seriously by the Trotskyists. In any case, the prosperous period was not brief or brittle, as the Trotskyists expected, but lasted for decades.

In my opinion, Trotsky (and other Marxists and anarchists) were correct to conclude that we are living in the general epoch of capitalist decline. Developments since the 1970s have supported this belief. But he downplayed the probability of the results of the world war creating an extensive period of prosperity within the overall epoch of decline.

In particular, he overlooked the possible effects of the technological and ecological effects of the war and its aftermath. Of course, he could not foresee the nuclear bomb and nuclear power. Also, he did not realize that the massive use of “cheap” petroleum would provide a boost to the capitalist economy. And then its aftereffects would create the ecological disasters of global warming, international pollution, species extinction, and pandemics. These are all signs “of a sick, declining capitalism.”

Few radicals of Trotsky’s generation focused on ecology. This is even though Marx and Engels had considered the negative effects of capitalism on the natural world (as has been examined by John Bellamy Foster and other ecological Marxists). Among anarchists, Kropotkin and Reclus had explored ecological issues. More recently, so has Murray Bookchin, even before the eco-Marxists.

In the current period, conditions of crisis and pre-revolutionary situations may be recurring—economically, politically, and ecologically. These conclusions imply that at least some of Trotsky’s proposals for a revolutionary program may still be useful for anarchists to consider, even as other aspects are rejected.

The Most Oppressed

Perhaps the most libertarian part of the Transitional Program is its insistence on revolutionaries reaching out to the most oppressed and super-exploited layers of the working class. Trotsky is not against better-off unionists, not to mention intellectuals, but he most wants to win the worse-off workers.

During militant struggles, he writes, factory committees may stir workers whom the unions do not reach. “…Such working class layers as the trade union is usually incapable of moving to action. It is precisely from these more oppressed layers that the most self-sacrificing battalions of the revolution will come.” (p. 119) “The Fourth International should seek bases of support among the most exploited layers of the working class, consequently among the women workers.” (p. 151) “The unemployed…the agricultural workers, the ruined and semi-ruined farmers, the oppressed of the cities, women workers, housewives, proletarianized layers of the intelligentsia—all of these will seek unity and leadership.” (P. 136) “Open the road to the youth!” (p. 151) (Elsewhere, in his discussions with U.S. Trotskyists, he criticized them for not reaching Black workers.) Bakunin, who always looked to the most oppressed, could agree!

Councils and Committees

When the working class was in a militant and rebellious temper, Trotsky advocated that revolutionaries advocate the formation of councils and committees—not instead of existing unions but in addition to them. In particular, he called for “factory committees” which would be “elected by all the factory employees.” (p. 118) These would begin to oversee the activities of the bosses and their managers. They would organize regular meetings with each other, regionally, industrially, and nationally—laying the basis for a democratic planned economy. He also writes of “committees elected by small farmers” as well as “committees on prices.” (pp. 126-7)

This focus on democratic committees of workers and others does not (to Trotsky) necessarily contradict a belief in governmental economic action. He is all for “a broad and bold organization of public works.” But this should be done under “direct workers’ management.” (p. 121) Further, “Where military industry is ‘nationalized,’ as in France, the slogan of workers’ control preserves its full strength. The proletariat has as little confidence in the government of the bourgeoisie as in an individual capitalist.” (p. 131) This last sentence is certainly one with which an anarchist would agree!

The Transitional Program considered how a new workers’ revolution in the Soviet Union would change the economy. It would have a “planned economy” but in a democratic form—managed by committees. “[To] factory committees should be returned the right to control production. A democratically organized consumers’ cooperative should control the quality and price of products.” (p. 146)

Anarchists might agree that society should be organized through radically democratic committees. But anarchists would disagree with the notion that all committees should be representative. The Transitional Program does not mention face-to-face direct democracy. Perhaps, in Trotsky’s concept, the workers will gather together in order to elect the factory committee, and then go back to their work stations, waiting for orders from the committee? Anarchists are not against choosing delegates to go to meetings with other committees or to do special jobs. But an association of committees must be based in directly-democratic participatory assemblies, if people are really to control their lives.

A society of democratic committees should culminate in an association of overall councils or “soviets” (Russian word for “council”). “The slogan of soviets, therefore, crowns the program of transitional demands.” (p. 136) Under capitalism, these soviets would be a center of power which would be an alternative to the state—a “dual power.” In the course of a revolution, the soviets would replace the bourgeois state as the center of society. To Trotsky, this would make it the basis of a “workers’ state”—“the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Instead, anarchists work towards the federation of councils and committees, of the workers and all oppressed, federated with all voluntary associations. They would form overall councils (although we probably would not use the term “soviet”!). This federation would be the alternate to capitalism and the state.

The Transitional Program states that the soviets must be pluralistic. “All political currents of the proletariat can struggle for leadership of the soviets on the basis of the widest democracy.” (p. 136) Democracy would include “the struggle of various tendencies and parties within the soviets.” (p. 185) Presumably this would include anarchists as a “political current”or “tendency.”

Trotsky proposed the competition of various parties and tendencies within the soviets, implying that one would eventually win the “struggle for leadership.” He does not mention the possibility of mergers, alliances, and united fronts—as if one tendency could have all the best militants and all the right answers. Yet the October Russian Revolution was carried out by a coalition of Lenin’s Communists, Left Social Revolutionaries (peasant-populists), and anarchists. The first Soviet government was an alliance of the Communists and the Left SRs, supported by the anarchists. It was the Leninists whose policies created the one-party state, and made it a matter of principle.

In the Transitional Program, Trotsky never explains why Lenin and himself established the Soviet Union as a one-party state. In all his writings, he never explained why they made a principle out of it. Within the USSR, the Trotskyists opposed Stalin, bravely going to their deaths, but still advocating a one-party state. It was only in the mid-thirties that Trotsky came out for multi-party soviets.

A federation of soviets and of committees in workplaces and neighborhoods would be able to take care of overall problems, including economic coordination, collective decision-making, settling of disputes, setting up a popular militia to replace the police and army (managed through committees), and so on. But anarchists insist that it would not be a state. A “state” is a bureaucratic, centralized, institution, over the rest of society. Inevitably it would serve a ruling minority. The Trotskyists regard a soviet-council system as the basis of a new (“workers’”) state, once it is led by (their) truly revolutionary party.

This might seem like an argument over phrases. But once accepting that your goal is a “state,” then you are not limited to a radically-democratic council system. Trotsky continued to call the Soviet Union under Stalin a “workers’ state”—if a “degenerated workers’ state.” He fully recognized that the Russian working class (not to speak of the peasant majority) had absolutely no power under Stalin’s bureaucratic dictatorship. Nevertheless, Russia kept “nationalization, collectivization, and monopoly of foreign trade.” (p. 143) That, to Trotsky, is what made Russia still a “workers’ state”—however much “degenerated.” Trotsky advocated the revolutionary overthrow of the Stalinist bureaucracy, but meanwhile it had to be defended from capitalism.

To Trotsky then, the key criteria for a state of the working class was not that the “state” was the self-organization of the workers, but that property was nationalized, etc.

Following this logic, the “orthodox” Trotskyist majority regarded the new Communist states after World War II as “deformed workers’ states.” The countries of eastern Europe, China, etc., all had nationalized property and monopolies of foreign trade. So they too were “workers’ states” —just “deformed.” And Cuba and maybe Vietnam were “healthy workers’ states.”

A minority dissented. They regarded the Soviet Union (like its imitations) as a class-divided society, ruled by a collectivized bureaucratic class, which exploited the workers and peasants. Some called it “state capitalism,” others a “new class” system. Anarchists agree overall with this view—but believe the system’s roots lay in Lenin and Trotsky’s policies.

The key question is not so much the analysis of the Soviet Union, a country which no longer exists (replaced by Putin’s Russia). It is: What is meant by socialism (or a “workers’ state” or a society moving toward socialism)? Is socialism defined by nationalization of industry, or by the freedom and self-management of the working people—the anarchist view?

National Self-Determination

Most of the world was (and is) the victims of imperialism. Therefore the Transitional Program expected “colonial or semicolonial countries to use the war in order to cast off the yoke of slavery. Their war will be not imperialist but liberating. It will be the duty of the international proletariat to aid the oppressed nations in their war against the oppressors.” (p. 131)

Historically many anarchists similarly supported wars of oppressed peoples “against the oppressors”: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and many others. (See Price 2022; 2023) But today quite a number do not. They do not accept that imperialism divides the world between imperialist and exploited nations. They reject all wars between states without distinguishing between oppressor and oppressed countries.

This issue has divided anarchists over the Ukrainian-Russian war. Yet to many of us, the situation seems clear: the Ukrainian people are waging a defensive war of national self-determination, while the Russian state is engaged in imperialist aggression. Anarchist-socialists must be on the side of the oppressed, especially when they fight back.

It is possible that another imperialist government—in competition with the one oppressing the rebellious country—might give aid to that country (as the USA is aiding Ukraine). The Transitional Program says that revolutionaries should not give support to that “helpful” imperialist state. “The workers of imperialist countries, however, cannot help an anti-imperialist country through their own government….The proletariat of the imperialist country continues to remain in class opposition to its own government and supports the non-imperialist ‘ally’ through its own methods….” (p. 132)

At the same time, “…the proletariat does not in the slightest degree solidarize…with the bourgeois government of the colonial country….It maintains full political independence….Giving aid in a just and progressive war, the revolutionary proletariat wins the sympathy of the workers in the colonies…and increases its ability to help overthrow the bourgeois government in the colonial country.” (p. 132) This is not nationalism but internationalism. “Our basic slogan remains: Workers of the World Unite!” (p. 133)

In contemporary terms, revolutionaries should be in solidarity with the Ukrainian workers and oppressed people in their military struggle—“giving aid in a just and progressive war.” (Interestingly, several current Trotskyist groupings do not support Ukraine against Russian imperialism, despite their formal belief in “national self-determination.” This says something about the present state of Trotskyism.) Yet revolutionary socialists do not give political support to Biden’s US government nor to the Zelensky Ukrainian government. Our goals are the eventual revolutionary overturn of these states, as well as that of Putin’s Russia. The same approach goes for other anti-imperialist national struggles around the world, most of which are directed against the U.S. and its allies.

[This was written before the latest irruption of the Israeli-Palestinian War. Following the above approach, revolutionary anarchist-socialists should be on the side of the Palestinian people struggling for national self-determination against the Israeli state, while opposing the reactionary politics of Hamas as well as its reactionary and criminal tactics. Again, many Trotskyist groups of today do not follow this approach.]

An anarchist perspective on national self-determination would be in agreement with that of the Transitional Program—with one important difference. Like Trotsky, the anarchists’ ultimate goal of supporting a nation’s struggles is to “overthrow the bourgeois government,” in both the imperialist and oppressed countries. For Trotsky, this is to be followed by establishing “workers’ states.” But anarchists want to replace all bourgeois governments with non-state associations of councils, committees, assemblies, and self-managed organizations.

The Transitional Method

Trotsky objects to the traditional Marxist approach to program, as developed by the social democratic parties (especially in pre-World War I Germany). That approach had two parts: a “maximal” and a “minimal” program. The maximal program was the ultimate goal of socialism. It was raised in speeches at yearly May Day parades. Like the Christian’s hope of heaven, it had little to do with day-to-day living. The minimal program was one of union recognition, better wages and conditions, public services, and democratic rights. These demands were limited to what could be achieved under capitalism.

Trotsky was concerned with the wide gap between the objective crises of capitalism in decay and the consciousness of most workers and oppressed people. He proposed a “bridge” between the crises and workers’ thinking. These demands would offer a “transition” from the old minimal, partial, and democratic demands to socialist revolution.

“This bridge should include a system of transitional demands, stemming from today’s conditions and from today’s consciousness of wide layers of the working class and unalterably leading to one final conclusion: the conquest of power by the proletariat.” (p. 114)

For example, to deal with the effects of inflation on wages, he proposed “a sliding scale of wages.” All wages, salaries, and public benefits should be attached to the level of prices. Wages would automatically rise when prices rose (judged by committees of working class consumers).

Unemployment should be dealt with through a “sliding scale of hours.” The more unemployment, the shorter hours should be overall, without losses in pay—as in “Thirty Hours Work for Forty Hours Pay.” These are essentially socialist principles: the total amount of wealth produced should be divided among those working and dependents; the total amount of work that needed to be done should be divided among those able to work. The title of one section in the Transitional Program pretty much summarizes the method: “The picket line/defense guards/workers’ militia/the arming of the proletariat”.

Unlike the minimal program of liberal union bureaucrats or of social democratic politicians, transitional demands are not limited to what the capitalists can afford—or say they can afford. The transitional demands start with what people need. If the capitalists are able to pay this (in wages or public services), then they must be forced to do so. If they cannot pay what people need, then they should no longer be allowed to run society for their private benefit. Let the working people take over and run the economy to satisfy everyone’s needs. “‘Realizability’ or ‘unrealizability’ is in the given instance a question of the relationship of forces, which can be decided only by the struggle.” (p. 116)

The revolutionary implications of this method were clearer in a period of severe economic crisis, when basic needs could not be met for most working people. This was the case in the depths of the Great Depression. But in a period such as the 1950s post-war boom, there was an even greater gap between immediate, limited, demands and the need for revolution. A large proportion of white workers and newly middle class people were living better than ever before (in the U.S., and then in other imperialist countries). The underlying threats (of nuclear extermination or ecological destruction) could be downplayed. The transitional method had less usefulness.

Now the post-war prosperity is over. With periodic ups and downs, world capitalism has overall been stagnating and declining. Wars are continuing and ownership of nuclear bombs is spreading. Despite efforts by climate reformists to find ways of limiting the damage, global warming is crashing through the veneer of capitalist stability. Something like the Transitional Program—or at least the method of transitional demands—is needed more than ever.

Along with Trotsky’s demands, there needs to be a program of ecological transitional demands: democratic ecological-economic planning; worker’s control/management of industry to transition to non-polluting, green, useful production; expropriation of the oil-gas-coal corporations; socialization of the energy industry under workers’ and community control; public subsidizing of ecologically-balanced consumer coops and producer coops; support for organic farms in the country and in towns and cities; etc., etc.

Revolutionary Organizations

The “Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International” was written as a program for a specific organization, intended to be an international revolutionary party. It was hoped that this body, beginning small, would replace the Second (Socialist) International and the Third (Communist) International (or “Comintern”). And thereby save the world.

It begins: “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterized by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat.” (pp. 111)

The fundamental crisis of decaying capitalism periodically inspires the mass of the working class to rebel. This shows the possibility of successful revolutions. But, during the preceding non-revolutionary periods, the leaderships of the main workers’ parties and unions have “developed powerful tendencies toward compromise with the bourgeois-democratic regime.” (p. 117-8) The anarcho-syndicalist unions were included in this. As a result, the unions and parties (which the workers had previously come to trust) hold back the revolution. They lead the people to defeat.

“In all countries…the multimillioned masses again and again enter the road of revolution. But each time they are blocked by their own conservative bureaucratic machines.” (p. 112)

This generalization was most observable during the revolutionary years after World War I, up to the rebellions following World War II. During the post-war prosperity, there was less likelihood of the “multimillioned masses” becoming revolutionary. Therefore, even the best revolutionary party (or federation) would have had difficulty overcoming bureaucratic “tendencies toward compromise.”

Yet there were revolutions and almost-revolutions. As mentioned, there were upheavals in poorer Southern countries, including the Vietnam war of national liberation, the Cuban revolution, and the South African struggle against apartheid. In eastern Europe there were attempted revolutions, such as the 1953 East Berlin workers’ revolt and the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Western Europe had the almost-revolution of France’s May-June 1968, among others. In all these cases, a revolutionary leadership might have made a difference (perhaps preventing the victory of Stalinism in Vietnam and Cuba).

Among anarchists, many have also advocated revolutionary organization. This includes Bakunin’s Brotherhood, the St. Imier anarchist continuation of the First International, the syndicalists’ “militant minority,” the views of Errico Malatesta, the Platform of Makhno, Arshinov, and others, the Spanish FAI, and Latin American especifismo.

These conceptions agree only somewhat with Trotsky’s perspective of a political organization, composed of revolutionaries who are in general agreement. An anarchist grouping does seek to coordinate activity, to develop theories and practice, and to influence bigger organizations and movements (such as unions, community associations, anti-war movements, etc.). They try to win the workers and others from the influence of their political opponents, including reformists and Stalinists.

Trotsky sought to build a centralized (“democratic centralist”) Leninist party internationally. While supposedly democratic, the International and the national parties would be managed from the top down. Anarchists have proposed organizations which are internally democratic and organized in a federal fashion. And, unlike political parties, no matter how radical, their aim would not be to take power, to rule over the councils and committees. They want to inspire, organize, and urge the oppressed and exploited to free themselves.

Anarchism and Trotskyism

In the Transitional Program, Trotsky mentions anarchism (or anarcho-syndicalism) only a few times. In France, he points out that the union federation once organized by anarcho-syndicalists had turned into a business union (and had supported World War I). During the 1936-9 Spanish Civil War, the leaders of the anarchist federation—and the union federation they led—had betrayed the revolution by joining the capitalist government. From the viewpoint of revolutionary anarchism, his criticisms in these situations are legitimate.

Trotsky lumps the anarchists overall with the social democrats and Stalinists as “parties of petty-bourgeois democracy…incapable of creating a government of workers and farmers, that is, a government independent of the bourgeoisie.” (p. 134)

If the term “government” is used as a synonym for “state,” then anarchists have had no interest in creating any kind of “government.” However, the word could be used to mean democratic coordination of popular councils and workers’ organizations. This is what the Friends of Durruti Group advocated during the Spanish Civil War. In that sense, the question is whether anarchists can lead in organizing society “independent[ly] of the bourgeoisie.”

Trotsky ignores the revolutionary anarchists who denounced the French and Spanish union officials for betraying the program and principles of libertarian socialism. It is such anarchists, eco-socialists, syndicalists, internationalists, anti-state communists, and true revolutionaries on whom an up-to-date revolutionary program depends.

The Transitional Program has virtues and insights, which have been pointed out here. The “method of transitional demands” remains valuable—even more valuable now than in the recent past. The vision of a federation of councils, committees, and assemblies is important, if we leave out Trotsky’s conception of a centralized “workers’ state.” To anarchists, the Transitional Program remains as an important document in the history of socialism, but one which still has serious flaws.

References

Hobson, Christopher Z., & Tabor, Ronald D. (1988). Trotskyism and the Dilemma of Socialism. NY: Greenwood Press.
Price, Wayne (2022). “Malatesta on War and National Self-Determination” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32666 search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2023). “Anarchists Support Self-Determination for Ukraine; What Did Bakunin Say?” https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32774
Trotsky, Leon (1977). The Transitional Program for Socialist Revolution. (Eds.: George Breitman & Fred Stanton.) NY: Pathfinder Press.
Includes: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International. Pp. 109—152.
Discussions with Trotsky. Pp. 73—108.
Preconference Discussions. Pp. 153—199.

*written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review (UK virtual journal)

In many ways Comfort reminds me of another anarchist-pacifist, as well as poet and novelist, Paul Goodman (although Goodman seems to have been one of the few influential anarchists whose path did not cross with Comfort). Goodman wrote that he had been criticized for “spread[ing] himself thin on a wide variety of subjects, on sociology and psychology, urbanism and technology, education, literature, esthetics, and ethics….It is false that I write about many subjects. I have only one, the human beings I know in their [human]-made scene.” (1962; p. xiii) As this book shows, the same could be said of Alex Comfort.

The Joy of Alex Comfort: A Review of Eric Laursen’s Polymath; the Life and Professions of Dr. Alex Comfort Author of The Joy of Sex.

Wayne Price

Alex Comfort (1920—2000) is best remembered as the author of the bestselling The Joy of Sex. Not as many recall him as an anarchist and pacifist, who was also a significant poet and novelist, a medical doctor, an authority on mollusks, a founding figure in gerontology (the study of aging) as well as sexology, and a writer on humanistic views of religion. Even one of these activities would have been enough to mark a significant life. All together, they do indeed make him a “polymath,” as his biographer labels him. To Comfort himself, he regarded these “professions” as aspects of his overall process of living. They reflected his anarchist philosophy of individual responsibility and communal sharing.

To cover each of Comfort’s life-activities requires a lot of space which accounts for the size of this book. The book might have been better trimmed by an editor; for example, there is really too much about the ins and outs of British book publishing. And readers will have varying interests in Comfort’s activities. A good deal is properly taken up about Comfort’s place in British poetry, but personally it is a topic I am not concerned about. I was most interested in Comfort’s radical politics and in The Joy of Sex as a cultural phenomenon, as well as his personal life story. But that’s me.

Comfort called himself a pacifist. “Sometimes, however, he found that the pacifist community was more committed than he to absolute nonviolence.” (p. 148) He admired the guerrilla methods of the French resistance and of Michael Collins’ IRA. It was mass regular armies to which he objected. During World War II, he was not draftable due to a crippled hand. He was part of a campaign against Allied bombings of civilian areas. The campaign was ineffective, but some who supported the war, such as the U.S. bioregionalist Lewis Mumford, also condemned the British and U.S. civilian bombings. These culminated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After World War II, Comfort became more active in the British anarchist movement, including writing pamphlets and books. The movement tended to be divided into two factions. One was mostly anarcho-syndicalists, who focused on union and working class organizing. Their goal was a working class revolution. The other did not deny that the class struggle remained real, but focused on apparently cross-class issues such as disarmament, civil liberties, and culture. They tended to see social conflicts as not so much between classes as between the individual and a repressive society. (These perspectives are not necessarily exclusive.) Rather than an eventual revolution, they looked toward a gradualist, reformist, series of changes. (See Price 2015.)

The slant away from the more traditional working class orientation reflected post-war conditions. While strikes and union struggles continued, overall Britain followed the U.S. into the post-war prosperity (which lasted until about 1970). Meanwhile the Soviet Union solidified into Stalinist totalitarianism. Many interpreted this as disproving the value of revolution.

The advantage of this turn was its relevance to a non-revolutionary situation. It led to exploration of issues, such as sexuality and aging, which overlapped with class but were not based in it. Nor did this have to lead to isolated individualism. The anarchists and radical pacifists became leaders of major anti-war and disarmament movements, which shook British politics. (In the U.S., radical pacifists played important roles in the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, even after most leftists had been driven out of the unions.) Comfort was one of the prominent leaders of the UK disarmament movement. With other activists, he went to jail for civil disobedience.

There were also disadvantages in this turn away from class struggle. It meant losing contact with workers when class-based mass strike waves did break out. It meant a lack of strategic power and perspective. Only the working class, due to its role in production and the economy, has the potential power to shut down society and to start it up in a different way. Even the large nuclear disarmament demonstrations did not have the power to force a change in government policies. Rejecting revolution, they underestimated the danger that the capitalist class and its state would violently resist peaceful and democratic attempts at fundamental change.

We are in a much more crisis-ridden situation then in Comfort’s time. The catastrophe of climate change (and other ecological disasters), economic stagnation, the spread of wars (with the danger of nuclear war), as well as other difficulties, are increasing even while governments are stalled and incompetent. In this period, anarchist reformism has less use.

In his personal life, Alex Comfort was fairly conventional, leaving aside his having two wives in two households for some years. The author does not think that this worked out to anyone’s satisfaction. Eventually Comfort divorced wife number one and married wife number two.

His biggest success was The Joy of Sex, which was a runaway international bestseller. Comfort, his publisher, and the illustrators, had worked to create a book which was clearly not pornographic yet not an academic-medical tome. Artfully done, with Comfort’s friendly commentary, the book struck at just the right moment. The idea of sex as a mutually cooperative and respectful pleasurable activity became widely accepted. The book was such a success that Comfort eventually came to describe it as an “albatross” around his neck; attempts to become known for his championing of issues related to aging were overwhelmed by his reputation as the “sex guru.”

In later years Comfort focused most on problems of aging. While in the U.S., he collaborated with Maggie Kuhn of the “Gray Panthers,” to build a movement of militant elders. Somewhat to my surprise, he is not reported to have been involved in the movement to end the U.S.-Vietnam war, either in the U.S. or Britain (although when living in the U.S. he was a resident and had to be careful in opposing the government).

In many ways Comfort reminds me of another anarchist-pacifist, as well as poet and novelist, Paul Goodman (although Goodman seems to have been one of the few influential anarchists whose path did not cross with Comfort). Goodman wrote that he had been criticized for “spread[ing] himself thin on a wide variety of subjects, on sociology and psychology, urbanism and technology, education, literature, esthetics, and ethics….It is false that I write about many subjects. I have only one, the human beings I know in their [human]-made scene.” (1962; p. xiii) As this book shows, the same could be said of Alex Comfort.

References

Goodman, Paul (1962). Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals. NY: Random House.
Laursen, Eric (2023). Polymath: The Life and Professions of Dr. Alex Comfort Author of The Joy of Sex. Chico CA: AK Press.
Price, Wayne (2015). “Colin Ward’s Anarchism.”
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-colin-ward-s-anarchism

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

Επιπλέον, οι κοοπερατίβες δε θα πρέπει να στοχεύουν στο κράτος να ενσωματώσει τους εργαζόμενους στη διοίκηση. Οι ουσιαστικές κατακτήσεις των εργατών θα είναι το αποτέλεσμα του αγώνα που δίνουν στους χώρους εργασίας, μέσα από μορφές άμεσης δράσης που έρχονται σε ευθεία αντιπαράθεση με το κεφάλαιο. Οι σοσιαλιστές που στρέφονται στην εργασία σε συνεταιρισμούς μπορεί κάλλιστα να είναι σοσιαλιστές στην καρδιά και την πρόθεση, αλλά δεν ακολουθούν επαναστατική στρατηγική.

Κάθε τόσο το ζήτημα των κοοπερατίβων εγείρεται στο επαναστατικό σοσιαλιστικό κίνημα. Αισιόδοξες θέσεις υποστηρίζουν ότι οι συνεταιρισμοί μπορούν να αποτελέσουν τη βάση για την αντικατάσταση του καπιταλισμού με μια νέα οικονομία που θα βασίζεται στην αλληλεγγύη και την εργασία, όπου οι εργαζόμενοι θα έχουν τον «έλεγχο». Μάλιστα, αυτές οι απόψεις υποστηρίζουν ότι οι κοοπερατίβες αποτελούν ζωτικό μέρος της επαναστατικής στρατηγικής. Αυτές οι θέσεις έχουν διατυπωθεί ήδη στο παρελθόν, υπάρχουν στο παρόν και θα αναπαράγονται και στο μέλλον. Ωστόσο, τα θετικά χαρακτηριστικά των συνεταιρισμών δεν μπορούν να αντικαταστήσουν την επαναστατική στρατηγική και την οικοδόμηση της δύναμης της εργατικής τάξης ενάντια στον καπιταλισμό.

Οι συζητήσεις σχετικά με τον ρόλο των συνεταιρισμών στην επαναστατική στρατηγική μπορούν να ανιχνευθούν πίσω στη δεκαετία του 1850 και στην Α’ Διεθνή, όταν οι μουτουαλιστές όπως ο Πιέρ Ζοζέφ Προυντόν και ο κομμουνιστής Τσαρλ Μπίσλεϊ υποστήριζαν τις συνεταιριστικές οικονομίες. Πίστευαν ότι καθώς οι εργάτες συγκέντρωναν τα δικά τους κεφάλαια και τα επένδυαν από κοινού, οι συνεταιρισμοί θα μπορούσαν σιγά-σιγά να αντικαταστήσουν τις ατομικές καπιταλιστικές επιχειρήσεις. Ενώ πρότειναν μια ποικιλία σχεδίων, για να κάνουν αυτό το σχέδιο να καρποφορήσει, η πραγματικότητα ήταν ότι το κεφάλαιο δεν μπορούσε να προσαρμοστεί, για να εξυπηρετήσει την εργατική τάξη. Οι ρεφορμιστικές θέσεις των μουτουαλιστών αμφισβητήθηκαν από ανθρώπους όπως ο Ζοζέφ Ντεζάκ και ο Ευγένιος Βαρλέν, οι οποίοι κατανοούσαν ότι το κεφάλαιο πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί και να ανατραπεί με μαχητικό, ένοπλο αγώνα της εργατικής τάξης.

Σήμερα στην Αυστραλία οι θιασώτες της συνεταιριστικής οικονομίας αναφέρονται στην Earthworker. Η Earthworker κατασκευάζει «συσκευές και εξαρτήματα ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας» και βλέπει τον εαυτό της ως «μέρος της διασφάλισης μιας δίκαιης μετάβασης για τις κοινότητες που επηρεάζονται από τη μετάβαση από τα ορυκτά καύσιμα στις ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας…» Αυτό ισχύει τουλάχιστον για το αρχικό εγχείρημα της Earthworker, η οποία ανέλαβε ένα εργοστάσιο που έκλεισε μετά το τέλος της βιομηχανίας ηλεκτροπαραγωγής από άνθρακα στην κοιλάδα Λα Τρόουμπ, στη Βικτώρια. Η Earthworker έχει έκτοτε επεκταθεί σε υπηρεσίες καθαρισμού και είναι ανοιχτή στην επέκταση σε νέα έργα.

Η Earthworker σημειώνει ότι «πιστεύει ότι η κοινωνική και η περιβαλλοντική εκμετάλλευση είναι αλληλένδετες και ότι τα προβλήματα της κλιματικής αλλαγής, της εργασιακής ανασφάλειας και της αυξανόμενης ανισότητας πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστούν ταυτόχρονα, μέσω μεγαλύτερης από τα κάτω οικονομικής ιδιοκτησίας». Ωστόσο, πρέπει να τεθεί το ερώτημα πόσο μακριά φτάνει η «μεγαλύτερη από τα κάτω οικονομική ιδιοκτησία» απέναντι στη γιγαντιαία δύναμη της βιομηχανίας ορυκτών καυσίμων και των διεθνών εταιρειών. Η δύναμη μερικών εργαζομένων που είναι ενωμένοι σε μια μικρή επιχείρηση ωχριά απέναντι στο οργανωμένο εργατικό κίνημα, δηλαδή τη μοναδική δύναμη που μπορεί να αντιμετωπίσει το κεφάλαιο. Ιστορικά, ακόμη και όταν οι εργαζόμενοι ενώνουν τους πόρους τους και προσπαθούν να δημιουργήσουν «εναλλακτικές» οικονομίες, αυτές καταλήγουν είτε να αποτυγχάνουν είτε να αναγκάζονται να προσαρμοστούν στις παραδοσιακές επιχειρηματικές πρακτικές, προκειμένου να είναι ανταγωνιστικές.

Όλα αυτά δεν έχουν σκοπό να υποτιμήσουν τις προσπάθειες ούτε τους ανθρώπους που συμμετέχουν σε μια συνεταιριστική επιχείρηση όπως η Earthworker. Η γέννηση της Earthworker ήταν μια οργανική απάντηση στην απώλεια θέσεων εργασίας και στην κάλυψη μιας κενής θέσης στην αγορά. Εντούτοις, τμήματα της ριζοσπαστικής αριστεράς στην Αυστραλία και η υποστήριξή της στις κοοπερατίβες πρέπει πάραυτα να επικριθούν. Στο τελευταίο πρόγραμμα των Σοσιαλιστών της Βικτώριας, στη θεματική ενότητα «Εργαζόμενοι και συνδικάτα» παρουσιάζεται μια πολιτική που στοχεύει στην «εισαγωγή μέτρων που ενθαρρύνουν τον εργατικό έλεγχο και τη συμμετοχή των εργαζομένων στη λήψη αποφάσεων στον χώρο εργασίας…» μέσω νομικών μεταρρυθμίσεων που διασφαλίζουν ότι οι εργαζόμενοι λαμβάνουν δικαιώματα διοίκησης, μερίδιο στα κέρδη και το πρόσθετο μέτρο της επιβολής υψηλότερων φόρων μισθοδοσίας στις μη συνεργατικές επιχειρήσεις. Θα προσφέρουν, επίσης, φορολογικές ελαφρύνσεις στους συνεταιρισμούς ενθαρρύνοντάς τους ως «κανονική μορφή ιδιωτικής επιχείρησης». Λες και η εργατική τάξη επωφελείται από την ιδιωτική επιχειρηματικότητα και τον περισσότερο ανταγωνισμό!1 Ο σοσιαλισμός της αγοράς μπορεί να προκύψει από μια ατελή ή αποτυχημένη προσπάθεια επανάστασης, αλλά δεν είναι κάτι για το οποίο πρέπει να αγωνιστούμε ενεργά.

Τέτοιες ιδέες είναι πραγματικά άσχετες με το σημερινό πλαίσιο της οικονομίας και της ταξικής πάλης. Ο καπιταλισμός έχει ήδη αναπτύξει τόσο τεράστιες παραγωγικές δυνάμεις, ώστε μια μελλοντική επανάσταση θα πρέπει να λάβει σοβαρά υπόψη της το καθήκον της κατάργησης της παραγωγής για ανταλλακτική αξία. Τα εμπορεύματα που παράγονται για μια αγορά εξακολουθούν να απαιτούν από τον εργάτη να υπόκειται στην έλλειψη ορθολογικού σχεδιασμού. Ως αποτέλεσμα, πρέπει να «πειθαρχήσουν» τον εαυτό τους αποδεχόμενοι μειώσεις μισθών και αυξήσεις στην ένταση της εργασίας, προκειμένου να διατηρήσουν ένα ανταγωνιστικό καθεστώς στην αγορά. Ακόμη και αν αυτές οι αποφάσεις λαμβάνονται δημοκρατικά, δεν υπάρχει πραγματική ανατροπή των καπιταλιστικών σχέσεων.

Όπως σημείωσε ο Καρλ Μαρξ στην Κριτική του Προγράμματος της Γκότα, οι κοοπερατίβες, που ιδρύθηκαν στον αγώνα με την κατάληψη των καπιταλιστικών επιχειρήσεων, έχουν «αξία μόνο στον βαθμό που είναι ανεξάρτητο δημιούργημα των εργατών και όχι προστατευόμενοι είτε της κυβέρνησης είτε των αστών». Έτσι, το μεταβατικό πρόγραμμα ενός πολιτικού κόμματος που θέλει να εντάξει τους εργαζόμενους στη διαχείριση του κράτους και της καπιταλιστικής οικονομίας δεν είναι επαναστατικό. Σε ένα άρθρο του 1897 στην εφημερίδα L’Agitazione, με τίτλο «Οι πειραματικές αναρχικές αποικίες», ο Ερρίκο Μαλατέστα σημείωνε, επίσης, την αντίφαση πως όσοι ζουν ή εργάζονται σε συνεταιριστικές σχέσεις πρέπει αναγκαστικά να πειθαρχήσουν, προκειμένου να διατηρήσουν το κέρδος, παρέχοντας έτσι φτηνή εργασία στην αγορά, η οποία υποτιμά το υπόλοιπο προλεταριάτο.

Επομένως, το ζήτημα των θετικών ή αρνητικών πτυχών των συνεταιρισμών είναι αμφισβητήσιμο. Ακόμα και αν η εργασία των ατόμων μπορεί να μετασχηματιστεί ελαφρώς με το να έχουν δικαίωμα ψήφου για τις μεθόδους και τους στόχους της παραγωγής, η ίδια η φύση των συνεταιρισμών ως θεσμών για την παραγωγή εμπορευμάτων τούς καθιστά ένα επαναστατικό αδιέξοδο. Ακόμα και οι επιχειρήσεις που καταλαμβάνονται από τους εργάτες κατά τη διάρκεια του αγώνα και μετατρέπονται σε συνεταιριστική παραγωγή αντιμετωπίζουν αδιέξοδο, αν ο ευρύτερος αγώνας σε ολόκληρη την κοινωνία δε συνεχίσει να προχωράει μπροστά. Έτσι, αν και αλληλένδετες, οι υποκειμενικές και αντικειμενικές συνθήκες της καπιταλιστικής κρίσης και της σοσιαλιστικής συνείδησης αναδεικνύονται περισσότερο από τη συνεχιζόμενη σύγκρουση και την ταξική πάλη ενάντια στις υπάρχουσες συνθήκες παρά από τη συνεταιριστική παραγωγή.

Δύο μικρά παραδείγματα μπορούν να καταδείξουν την επαναστατική θέση. Κατά τη διάρκεια του Biennio Rosso (Κόκκινη Διετία) της Ιταλίας, εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες εργάτες κατέλαβαν τα εργοστάσια στη βόρεια Ιταλία. Οι επαναστάτες αναρχικοί της Ιταλικής Αναρχικής Ένωσης (UAI) και της Ιταλικής Συνδικαλιστικής Ένωσης (USI) σημείωσαν ότι τα κατειλημμένα εργοστάσια στα χέρια των ίδιων των εργατών δεν αποτελούσαν από τη φύση τους μια επαναστατική κατάσταση. Το καπιταλιστικό κράτος πρέπει να αμφισβητηθεί και να ανατραπεί. Υποστήριξαν ότι οι εργάτες πρέπει να ξαναρχίσουν την παραγωγή, προκειμένου να τραφούν όλοι. Άλλωστε, η επανάσταση δε γίνεται από τη μια μέρα στην άλλη. Όμως, οι Ιταλοί εργάτες χρειάζονταν όπλα και οργάνωση, για να προωθήσουν περαιτέρω τον αγώνα. Δυστυχώς τους απογοήτευσαν άλλες αριστερές οργανώσεις, οι οποίες αρνήθηκαν να προχωρήσουν τις απεργίες περαιτέρω ή να οργανωθούν, για να οπλίσουν τους εργάτες, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της πλειοψηφίας των μαρξιστών.

Το 1969 η κατασταλτική κυβέρνηση της Ουρουγουάης θέσπισε εργατικούς νόμους με στόχο την κατάρριψη της μαχητικής συνδικαλιστικής οργάνωσης σε όλη τη βιομηχανία επεξεργασίας κρέατος. Ο μεγάλος συνεταιρισμός El Cerro Refrigeration Establishment υποστήριξε τις μεταρρυθμίσεις, επιχειρώντας παράλληλα να διαλύσει τα συνδικάτα. Ως απάντηση, τα συνδικάτα που επηρεάστηκαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό από την Αναρχική Ομοσπονδία της Ουρουγουάης (FAU) δημιούργησαν ένα καμπ έξω από τον συνεταιρισμό, ξεκίνησαν απεργίες σε όλη τη βιομηχανία και κατέλαβαν τους χώρους εργασίας τους. Οι συνεταιρισμοί παρουσιάζονται συχνά ως ένα πιθανό «συμπλήρωμα» στον αγώνα των εργαζομένων. Όμως, το 1969 στην Ουρουγουάη υπονόμευσαν ανοιχτά το εργατικό κίνημα. Έτσι, ενώ η El Cerro Refrigeration υπονόμευε την εργατική αλληλεγγύη, η FAU απάντησε μέσω της Οργάνωσης Εργαζομένων-Σπουδαστών (ROE), για να συγκεντρώσει κεφάλαια, να δημιουργήσει οδοφράγματα και να πολεμήσει την αστυνομία. Η ROE ήταν μια στρατηγική μαζική οργάνωση που χρησιμοποιήθηκε ως πραγματικό συμπλήρωμα της ταξικής πάλης, κινητοποίησε κοινωνικούς τομείς εκτός των συνδικάτων, για να βοηθήσει στην κλιμάκωση της ταξικής πάλης. Αυτές οι τακτικές ήταν μέρος μιας μακροπρόθεσμης στρατηγικής για την ανάπτυξη της ταξικής συνείδησης και την οικοδόμηση της αντιπαράθεσης με το κράτος και την προετοιμασία για την ανατροπή του καπιταλισμού.

Η ιστορικά αισιόδοξη θέση ότι οι συνεταιρισμοί θα μπορούσαν να οικοδομήσουν μια εναλλακτική λύση στον καπιταλισμό ή να διαδραματίσουν σημαντικό ρόλο στη μετάβαση είναι ακόμη πιο περιττή σήμερα. Αντίθετα, οι επαναστάτες έχουν την ευθύνη να αναπτύξουν και να δεσμευτούν σε στρατηγικές κατάλληλες για την ανατροπή του κράτους και του κεφαλαίου. Οι συνεταιρισμοί μπορεί να διαδραματίσουν θετικό ρόλο σε κοινότητες όπου το κεφάλαιο δεν παρέχει τα αναγκαία αγαθά ή μπορεί να δημιουργηθούν με την κατάληψη ενός καπιταλιστικού χώρου εργασίας κατά τη διάρκεια μιας περιόδου έντονης ταξικής πάλης. Αυτές είναι απολύτως λογικές καταστάσεις, αλλά οι επαναστάτες θα πρέπει να βρίσκονται μαζί με τη μάζα των εργαζομένων βοηθώντας στην οργάνωση του αγώνα και στην προώθηση του ταξικού πολέμου. Επιπλέον, οι κοοπερατίβες δε θα πρέπει να στοχεύουν στο κράτος να ενσωματώσει τους εργαζόμενους στη διοίκηση. Οι ουσιαστικές κατακτήσεις των εργατών θα είναι το αποτέλεσμα του αγώνα που δίνουν στους χώρους εργασίας, μέσα από μορφές άμεσης δράσης που έρχονται σε ευθεία αντιπαράθεση με το κεφάλαιο. Οι σοσιαλιστές που στρέφονται στην εργασία σε συνεταιρισμούς μπορεί κάλλιστα να είναι σοσιαλιστές στην καρδιά και την πρόθεση, αλλά δεν ακολουθούν επαναστατική στρατηγική.

Σημειώσεις:

1. Αυτό γίνεται πιο παράλογο από την πολιτική μιας Λαϊκής Τράπεζας, η οποία θα προσφέρει άτοκα δάνεια σε συνεταιριστικές επιχειρήσεις. Ο Προυντόν, και όχι ο Μαρξ, φαίνεται τελικά ότι «κέριδσε»

Πηγή: Red & Black Notes

https://www.alerta.gr/archives/33311

União Libertária, a group of young libertarians in Portugal, came into contact with militants of the Tekosîna Anarsîst (TA, Anarchist Struggle in Kurdish), present in Rojava, in northeastern Syria. This is a militant conversation around the reflections of this voluntary anarchist group around justice, art, religion and what it is to be "revolutionary". TA, in addition to having participated in the difficult fight against the forces of the Islamic State (ISIS), currently also functions as a unit of combat medics, assists in agricultural work and plays an educational role.

1 – We have seen statements about the work of TA outside of the battlefield, from medical support to education. This second one is of great interest to us, could you please clarify a bit on how you proceed with educational campaigns, not only amongst yourselves but also with local communities? Are there any lessons you wish to share about the role (and process) of revolutionary education? How do you see pedagogy as not only a tool, but also a space within the struggles you must face?

Education is what builds the foundations of a new society. It is often our best tool to defend ourselves and our communities. The kurdish liberation movement values education a lot, and this also brought us to reflect on our approach. In rojava it is a common practice to join educations of several months, where militants from different places have no other work than learn and develop. This is not a new practice from rojava, the kurdish movement has been working on their educational methods for decades. Joining some of those educations, we also noticed how much our understanding of education is connected to school, university and other state systems. And how much we should develop our own educational programs, shaped by our own political views and values. In this, the pedagogy of the oppressed of Paulo Freire can give very important perspectives.

Revolutionary education can be everything we do, if we learn from it in an organized way. Closed educations allow us to work deeper on one topic, like learning about the philosophy and political views of Abdullah Ocalan, study the proposals of Makhno or Malatesta about organized anarchism and the different attempts to put it in practice, or learn about first aid and medical care during war situations. But this also has to come with practice, which is often the best education, like when we work in society with our kurdish, arab and other comrades, when we build our organization day to day, or when we work as combat medics in the front lines. Theory brings knowledge and helps to build understanding and confidence, but is practical work what builds our experience.

Some knowledge we carry with us, is scarce here, and is important to collectivize it. We have been running educations of first aid and tactical field care to kurdish, arab and armenian comrades. We also shared our knowledge and experiences among ourselves, sometimes in short seminar formats sometimes in longer closed educations. This helped us to build our capacities and a common frame as organization, practically as well as ideologically. With time, our methods and systems of education are getting more adapted to our needs, reflecting not only of what we want to teach and learn but also how we want to do it. For some comrades it is helpful to read or listen a seminar for several ours, for others is better to do things and learn on practice. We try to keep this in mind but also challenge ourselves, like by encouraging comrades that are more familiar with academic areas to work on the ground, and push for ideological development and theoretical works with those more oriented to field work.

2- In previous statements you have discussed the need for revolutionaries to disengage from individualistic, selfish mindsets, as well as issues of ego when dealing with comrades and organization. How have you within TA managed to deal with such mindsets? We recognize this view, where anarchism and revolutionary struggle continuously straddle a difficult line between lifestyle and commodity, not allowing us to build meaningful relations on the march to liberation. Are there any lessons or warnings from your own activities that can be parted?

That is a very difficult question, because it is one of the main challenges we face. Anarchism has always discussed the contradictions between individual militants and the need revolutionary organizations. We are working to balance those points, because we see very important arguments to be made on both sides. As many anarchists before us, we reached the conclusion that organization is a necessity, not as an aim in itself but as a means to an end. We don’t accept unnecessary hierarchies and we value the individuality of our militants, often referring to the idea that “there is no organization without militants, there is no militant without organization”. With this we also want to point out the importance of individual responsibility towards the organization, as well as collective responsibility of the organization towards the individuals.

Becoming a militant of a revolutionary organization comes with individual and collective contradictions. The main aspects of our personalities have been shaped by the societies we have grown up in. Life in capitalist modernity relies on individualization. In school, in the work place, in the media we consume, we are told that individual freedom is everything that matters. “Your freedom ends where the freedom of other starts” is often the main idea running our societies. It denies collective belonging and it promotes individualist mindset and values. Is therefore no surprise that individualist anarchism manage to thrive in those capitalist societies we come from, because it connects with those individualist values that liberalism promotes. We want to challenge that. We believe our only way out is solidarity and mutual aid, and for this we have to challenge the deeply rooted individualism that we all carry with us.

Individualism can take many forms. Some are more obvious, like selfishness, elitism, or narcissism; but more subtle forms can take more time to notice, like refusing help when needed, not sharing information or knowledge with comrades, not listening or considering others proposals and ideas. We all have traces of individualism, and they are often connected with our ego and the image we have and we project of ourselves. Overcoming this requires that we are able to evaluate ourselves and others as well as our ways of relating. Criticism and self-criticism go hand in hand, we need to be able to acknowledge our shortcomings to meaningfully engage with the shortcomings of others. Admitting to ourselves that there is a difference between how we perceive ourselves/how we want to be perceived and how other perceive us can be painful. However acknowledging that gap opens the door for us to develop. Everyone has this gap, for some it is wider, for some it is more narrow, and to challenge it can create space to grow and learn. Keeping this in mind, we can build better relations that are founded in honesty and trust.

Trust is scarce in our societies. It is much easier to learn to suspect, to be afraid of your neighbor, to step on your co-workers to get upper hand and get a better piece of the cake. Capitalism relies on competition, and lying and selling yourself, on the society of spectacle. There is no place for honesty and trust in a system that is based on performance, on appearance of what you are not, on faking it and believing that one day you will make it. To be honest and transparent with our comrades necessitates vulnerability. We had been told to hide those things, to not let others see our weak points, to present ourself as the all-capable person that can do anything that is needed. All those individualist traits play against us, specially in difficult moments when stress and hardships reveal the things we try to hide.

We have been working on these issues by putting into practice tools like tekmil and platform, which we learned from the kurdish movement. We also explored other methods, and lately we have been deepening our knowledge on conflict resolution, with restorative circles and transformative justice. Transformative justice provides a good approach, connected to our ideological values and oriented towards topics like responsibility and accountability, that should always be the base of our organizing. We learned that organization is a struggle in itself, and that contradictions, conflicts and challenges will always arise in our organizing. In absence of hierarchical structures, how we take decisions and how we solve conflicts is a very important part of our organizing.

3- Maybe related to above, how is inter-personal conflict resolved at large in NES? We have seen several abstract perspectives, but little of actual accounts on the processes of justice and equity, how are such issues dealth with? Do the several autonomous groups have the freedom to deal with them “in-house”? Are all conflict resolutions centralized?

There are currently two justice systems at play in NES. One similar to state justice and one more based on communitarian justice. The communitarian system consists of peasant consensus committees and local councils that are often composed of religious leaders and community elders. These encourage people to take responsibility and agency over their own problems. However this system is not working so well, unfortunately. Because of this many conflicts are still settled through the state-like legal justice system that is half inherited from the Al-Assad regime and half reorganized by the Autonomous Administration. It is an awkward mix that works with the tools at hand in a difficult situation. The union of lawyers played an important role, as well as the effort to write the “social contract” of AANES, some kind of constitution that is revisited every few years in discussions with different political and social organizations.

The reasons that lead the Autonomous Administration to put more efforts to reorganize the general legal system instead of promoting the communitarian justice councils is not so clear to us. We suggest you talk to justice committee of the AANES directly, they will be better able to answer that. Besides these, there are also the women’s autonomous structures such as the women’s houses (mala jin) and women’s law. These have played and are playing an important role in addressing problems around gender as well as finding solutions around family conflict concerning women (marriage, divorce, abuse, etc.).

Councils, committees, communes, and autonomous organizations have some degree of freedom to deal with conflict “in-house”. How exactly it is approached and if people involve the state-like legal system depends on the nature and size of the conflict as well as the people and groups involved. With crimes that have big social impact, like brutal murders or organized treason (giving intelligence to Turkey that is used to assassinate revolutionaries, helping ISIS to plan and carry out attacks), there have been popular trials. Those trials gather different representatives of the social community, especially those more affected by the crime judged, and function as popular jury to decide the penalty.

For our organization and for organizations in europe we think it is important we come to understand the value of transformative justice, and that we build capacity to start offering alternatives to the legal ‘justice’ system, which is a racist ableist punitive lie and deeply connected to nation-state power. The topic on transformative justice has been on the table in leftist circles in europe for a while. We see it is slowly moving into a more practical phase now. Let us start with small practical adjustments, once we start gaining some experiences from the daily life, we can and should supplement them with some reading/study/theory. Conflict resolution cannot be learned from books, its fundaments can only be learned in practice, books will be very helpful to improve us but only if we are already putting it in practice. We will have to make many mistakes, and that is fine. We have a lot to unlearn from the state imposed systems of ‘justice’. We are making an imperfect start by using tools like tekmil, restorative circles and autonomous women’s structures to build on this.

4- What is the current status of art and self-expression within rojava? Has there been the chance and space for people to be able to perform, create, or show artistic creation? How is such received? How has the changing facets of the conflict affected it?

Tevgera Çand û Hûner (Tev-çand, the organization of art and culture) is a coordination of all the art and culture centers, present in every city. Most of those centers have different groups, like dance, music, theater, cinema, paint, literature, sculpture, etc. They mainly promote art connected to kurdish culture, language and identity. Every ethnic group is encouraged to promote its own traditional art and culture while also making space for other forms of art outside folkloric tradition. Tev-çand has a political approach to art, seeing it as a vehicle to share and spread the values of the revolution. A couple of successful examples are Hunergeha Welat - with their youtube channel publishing new songs and videoclips made in rojava - or the Komina Film a Rojava - the cinema commune that produced several movies, shorts, clips. Komina Film a Rojava recently published a series about rojava called “Evina Kurd” (kurdish love).

The local groups often perform in local celebrations, festive days and other cultural events. In the last years some of those groups and artists are gaining experience and getting more professional, and we start to see their art in different theaters, expositions and events. Art is seen as popular and cultural wealth, and there is no process of commodification around it. Theater, cinema and music are performed and shared for free, and we have never seen any cultural event with entrance fee. This is part of the political approach on ethics and aesthetics that is promoted. To keep it short, we can simply point the efforts to connect aesthetics to political and ethical revolutionary values. This approach challenges the standards of beauty that capitalist modernity tries to impose, seeing art as a vehicle of expression of the people, of the society and its values. A lot of art is connected to the resistance against ISIS and turkish fascism, with special focus on women’s resistances and YPJ, but also about the historical roots and struggles of the kurdish people.

In that approach to art we can see a shift that the revolution brought, that maybe started even before rojava. Kurdish cinema from the 20th century is often tragic, about the massacres and the exile that kurdish people suffered. Dengbêj, a traditional music/poetry, is also infused with stories of destroyed villages, murdered families and orphaned children. It is in this new century that kurdish art has started to reflect a new image. One not so focused on kurds just as victims of inhumane tragedies, but also as actors of change. The songs of YPG and YPJ defeating ISIS or the guerrillas fighting in the mountains, the new movies of the resistance in Sur or in Kobane, the big celebrations of NewRoz (kurdish new year) are examples of a rebirth of the kurdish people and their will to resist. They are not just a people whose faith is suffering, they are a stateless nation whose land has been occupied and whose villages burned down. They learned from other anticolonial struggles and from revolutionary movements of national liberation and they will take their destiny in their hands. They will defend their land and their culture, building a future for next generations, with weapons but also with music, with dance, with cinema.

5- What is TA’s view on the role of religion, and how has it affected their capacity to connect and relate to local communities? Have there been challenges, or chanegs in attitude of the militants? In the west we struggle to separate anti-clericalism from base islamophobia nad eurocentrism, what lessons have you gained from your insertion in Kurdish and Arab societies?

Religion is not the problem for us when it is connected to the people and ethics, it is a problem when religion is connected to power and rule. It is this wielding of authority that we are against, as you also touching with anti-clericalism. Some anarchists came here with atheist backgrounds, and when asked about our religion is easy for us to answer we have no religion. But this answer is often understood as if we have no ethics, and also made us reflect how most of us, even if not practitioners, had been raised in a christian culture.

We agree with you that we in the west can do a bad job at separating anti-clericalism from islamophobia and eurocentrism. The society we are in is overwhelmingly muslim (with small minorities of other belief), nearly everyone has belief in the Quran, even if not everyone describes themselves as practicing muslims. This reality grounds our work with people here. We should understand the importance religion holds to the people and local comrades. Knowing a little, or a lot, about islam is very helpful when we discuss with local comrades. Arguing from religion for a revolutionary perspective is a tactic that has proven successful. It is necessary to respect peoples religious conviction, but at the same time we also critique or question comrades when this leads them to take actions that are not in line with the revolutionary values in NES. There are efforts to build a democratic islam, looking at the ethical side of islamic religion and not so much at the Sharia law. This is a necessary process to come to terms with the aftermath of islamist fundamentalism carried out as theocratic fascism by ISIS. Though from the outside it might seem like ISIS is no more, the fight against its ideology very much continues here. In some regions of NES, ISIS ideology is still widespread and it will take time and effort for everyone to move towards a democratic islam.

6- Anarchist and so-called revolutionary movements in Europe have struggled for decades find something which can overcame our own weaknesses and smallness, looking at methods old and new. What is your perspective on this? Do you also agree or feel the movements are limiting themselves, and if so why? Lack of use of insurrectionary violence, lack of structures directing the struggle, lack of resources, lack of conviction?

This is a very important point and question you bring up here. We agree that movements are limiting themselves. We see the issue at the core as a lack of organizations that can create and promote long term aims perspectives, as currently we mostly see affinity based groups with short term thinking.

The wave of insurrectionism in the 90’s, especially in italy, brought a short term struggle perspective that seemed to promote effectivity. In some ways, it worked, however it did so at the cost of undermining organizational capacity. Organization capacity is crucial. By becoming an organization, we as TA, now have the ability to accumulate experience, we do not constantly have to start anew. We can also build lasting projects and relations, we can deepen our understanding and learning of other organizations that have struggled and are struggling. Not only on an individual level, but on an organizational one. Meaning that such knowledge and experiences cease to become merely tied to one person or one cell or affinity group, but that the whole organization takes ownership of it. This greatly grows our capacity as an organization.

To develop as a revolutionary organization is not easy, we already talked about this. We have to break with the liberal individualist mindset that is so deeply ingrained with capitalist socialization. Our societies are organized around those capitalist values, and to change it we have to develop our own values and social institutions, to anticipate the society we want. The things you mention lacking in anarchist movements (structures to direct the struggle, resources, conviction, action) can often be connected to the lack of organization. If we find ourselves isolated, as individuals or in small groups, our capacity to influence and change the society around us diminish. As we can learn many things in rojava, there are also many lessons we can take from the anarchist organizations in latin america. The ideas of “especifismo” (english: specifism), a theoretical frame oriented to develop specific anarchist organizations, are the result of decades of struggle. We can track them back to platformist proposal of Peter Arshinov and Nestor Maknho, but developed in practice by the Federacion Anarquista de Uruguay (FAU). As portugese anarchists, you have easy access to the materials and texts developed by brazilian anarchist organizations.

7- There was critique recently of the focus and resources given by western leftists towards nascent anarchist movements in Ukraine, who, without true autonomous structures and being inserted in statist armies, have received generous support and funds, while non-white movements have struggled for a fraction of this support. Do you agree with this critique?

We assume you are referring to the article “Anarchist who Fought in rojava: Response to ‘No War But Class War’ Debate”, that can be found on Abolition Media. We agree with the article that the amount of resources sent to Ukraine from western leftist is very disproportional with the amount of material support comrades in NES have gotten, especially given that the revolution here is so explicitly rooted in libertarian revolutionary ideology and praxis, where this is more debatable for Ukraine as the article pointed out. “Solidarity is something you can hold in your hands”, a slogan popularized by the anti-imperialist group KAK, active in Denmark in the 70s, is a statement we can very much find ourselves in. While NES has gotten an alright amount of solidarity pictures, awareness campaigns, diplomatics campaigns, etc. on the side of material, financial or other support that we can “hold in our hands” the western left has absolutely not given it serious effort.

That being said, the war in Ukraine has been going on for a bit over a year now, the war in rojava for over 10 years. Of course these timescales also have an effect. Ukraine is on the news and we aren’t, we won’t be either, until a new invasion, and even then we will only receive a fraction of the media attention that Ukraine is getting. When we look broader than Ukraine and rojava, we ask: who has been looking at the genocidal warfare in Tigray or the recent war unfolding in Sudan? Who has been organizing material support for those conflicts? The Tigray peoples self-defense forces have a long revolutionary tradition, with a project similar to the ideas of democratic confederalism. In Sudan we have recently see a military escalation after big mobilizations and uprisings shook the country, that had a remarkable anarchist organized movement not common to find in most of African countries. But few articles are written about it, and even less anarchist book-fairs discussions about those conflicts. It is not fair either that those movements received little to no media coverage, let alone material support. This is part of the colonialism that we are trying to fight against. For us this is also a reason to stay with rojava, where values of anticolonialism are very much alive.

Coming back to Ukraine, Anarchists have been struggling since the beginning of the recent conflict, they were there at Maidan square and tried to organize form there. Probably this is not the place to discuss how much this movement is rooted in the historical anarchist movement in Ukraine, with the Black Liberation Peasants Army and the Makhnovist revolution, but nowadays the presence of anarchists is crucial to question the nationalist narrative of the far-right, that has been a dominating presence in the protest in Ukraine from the start. We have a responsibility as anarchists to take our place in such times, we cannot leave all the space to the far-right, because if we do they will take it. Now the current situation in Ukraine is not a revolution aligned with our principles, but it is our task to push our principles to the forefront and make them known. We can quote Malatesta when saying that “We are in any case one of the forces acting in the society, and history will advance, as always, in the directions resultant of all the forces”.

Historically war and revolution have an important connection. War environments see state authority stumble and authority diffuse in some places. The state isn’t always there anymore to provide people with infrastructure and resources. This means there are often windows of opportunity to assist in the self organization and management of the people, initially primarily along lines of mutual aid and solidarity. This is a situation in which bringing our ideology and applying it in practice with the people can be a useful way of strengthening our tendency, as Malatesta says.

We support our anarchist comrades fighting in Ukraine, we have an approach of critical solidarity to the people of Ukraine and aim to engage the contradictions that it brings up and not devolve into a binary and dogmatic approach. We would also like to draw your attention to comrade Leshiy and comrade Ciya, they have both spend time in NES and fell on the Ukrainian front lines together with other anarchist comrades in Ukrainan front lines. We grieve this loss, and aim to learn from their lives and decisions, they also show us a way of nuanced analysis and consideration that has space for the contradictions that inevitably come up when we get our hands dirty in revolution. We agreed with the comrade who wrote the article that it is very easy to be purist and judgmental about decisions made in Ukraine and rojava from a comfortable armchair. Participating in an actual revolution or armed conflict will quickly make it clear that there are often no “clean” or clear-cut solutions and being a revolutionary in action, not just in words, means gaining a deep understanding of nuanced analysis and contradictions.

8 - How can we assist you in TA; materially or otherwise?

The main points in which we can see your assistance to be help us are; a) ideological development b) engaged network c) resist repression d) militants e) resources

a) Ideological development of anarchist struggle is the basis for us to move forward. We see that we have come to a point where we realize as european anarchists that affinity based organizing alone is not sufficient. We need anarchist organization or structures that keep us together not just based on personal affinity, but in an organized way, to be able to think long term and develop a wider strategy. By further developing anarchist ideology and praxis in our current context, we strengthen each other.

b) Engaged networks are a foundation to exchange discussion, projects, resources and experiences. We see this in the form of building long term relations with solid organizations, and such exchange can take place through visits and exchange of militants as well as other forms of communication. Related to the point about ideological development, this includes reading and discussing each other statements and letters, learning from each other experience and giving feedback, proposals and critique on them.

c) Networks also leads into resisting repression. In the past years, militants who have been to rojava and the kurdish movement in general have been increasingly criminalized. Quite a few comrades are spending time in prison or are in other kinds of legal problems. We need anarchists everywhere to push back against this criminalization.

d) We need more militants to join us in rojava to fight and struggle here. There is also opportunity for comrades are already organized in europe to join us here while remaining connected to their european organization. We would like this actually. We see this as a potential way to strengthen ties between our organization and anarchist organizations in europe.

e) On the directly material side, we need money. Since exactly what materials we need changes from time to time, sending materials directly can be a little tricky, though we can talk about this if there is a desire to do something like that. With money directly we can allocate it to the most pressing needs and make adjustments when necessary in this every changing situation we are in.

Militants of TA planting an olive tree in a field 0.39 Mb Making ready some basic DIY IFAKs (individual First Aid Kit) for SDF forces 0.2 Mb A view from next to qada azadî (freedom square) in Kobane, with a sculpture, the flag of Rojava and the eagle sculpture 0.14 Mb A commemoration of şehids in Til Temir, with mother carring pictures of their şehid sons and daughters 0.24 Mb Cooking a tea pot in the fire to make some tea. 0.33 Mb A newly made park in front of the wheat silos at the entrance of Hasakah city 0.17 Mb Carring the body of Şehid Tekoşer to the borderof semalka, among hunderds of people who gathered to give a goodbye 0.22 Mb A cat resting next to basic equipment 0.12 Mb