espero 7 – Die neue Sommerausgabe 2023 16:58 Jun 25 7 comments Hier ist sie: Die espero-Sommerausgabe 2021! 18:20 Jun 16 15 comments David Graeber, anthropologist and author of Bullshit Jobs, dies aged 59 00:24 Sep 06 7 comments Poder e Governação 02:58 May 17 2 comments Against Anarcho-Liberalism and the curse of identity politics 18:34 Jan 14 4 comments more >> |
Recent articles by Marco Montenegro
O Processo de Bolonha e a Constituição Europeia 0 comments Algunas consideraciones sobre la responsabilidad colectiva 3 comments Algumas Considerações Sobre Responsabilidade Colectiva 2 comments Recent Articles about Iberia Anarchist movementUn taller sobre anarcofeminismo para un 8M reivindicativo. Feb 22 20 Poder e Governação May 17 19 Υποστηρίξτε ... Dec 28 18 Some Considerations about Collective Responsibility
iberia |
anarchist movement |
debate
Sunday August 26, 2007 17:08 by Marco Montenegro riottheghost at riseup dot net
As critical to the Leninist-Marxist authoritarian communists, we frequently affirm that means have to be in accordance with ends, that is, if we want a classless society, where everyone is equal, where everyone has the same rights and duties, where self-management predominates and where an equilibrium exists between individual and collective, then the anarchist organizations that struggle for this society also have to be in accordance with these principles and, thus, contrary to the Marxist-Leninists, we have to reject bureaucratic organs, vertically hierarchised and centralised, as too we have to reject “followism”, the leadership cult and critical passivity. Soon, the practice of acting under the responsibility of an individual has to be decidedly condemned and rejected in the ranks of the anarchist movement. This not only for the reason discoursed above, the compatibility between means and ends, but also because the individual alone cannot obtain anything without the help of anyone else. Not even the most solitary writer would be able to write without having those who cut the trees, who fold the paper, who supplies them with ink. An individual acting alone will never obtain anything complete and would be easily decontextualised. The areas of social and political action are profoundly collective in their nature, giving that you can never base social and public activities under the responsibility of an individual. |
Front pageSupport Sudanese anarchists in exile Joint Statement of European Anarchist Organizations International anarchist call for solidarity: Earthquake in Turkey, Syria and Kurdistan Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy 19 de Julio: Cuando el pueblo se levanta, escribe la historia International anarchist solidarity against Turkish state repression Declaración Anarquista Internacional por el Primero de Mayo, 2022 Le vieux monde opprime les femmes et les minorités de genre. Leur force le détruira ! Against Militarism and War: For self-organised struggle and social revolution Declaração anarquista internacional sobre a pandemia da Covid-19 Anarchist Theory and History in Global Perspective Capitalism, Anti-Capitalism and Popular Organisation [Booklet] Reflexiones sobre la situación de Afganistán South Africa: Historic rupture or warring brothers again? Death or Renewal: Is the Climate Crisis the Final Crisis? Gleichheit und Freiheit stehen nicht zur Debatte! Contre la guerre au Kurdistan irakien, contre la traîtrise du PDK Meurtre de Clément Méric : l’enjeu politique du procès en appel |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5The original version of this article, in Portuguese:
What does it mean 'Collective'?
In a true class struggle anarchist collective, being the decision making process totally democratic and shared, it is not possible that some stay aside in the implementation of the decisions, under the pretext that they were not agreeing with it.
That's the meaning of «collective responsability» in practical terms.
traducción española (spanish translation):
I agree that members of a collective cannot refrain from the implementation of a decision under the pretext that they do not agree with it. Collective responsibility I think requires that members try as far as possible to reach a consensus, with which everyone is in agreement and willing to share responsibility to put said decision into place and that, failing consensus, members are bound by the same responsibility to the will of the majority, even if they disagree with decision reached.
But what of members of a group who, possibly due to a lack of availability ie. time constraints, locality etc., do not participate in the implementation of a decision? Or even the decision-making process?
And if a member is unable to participate in the decision-making process, are they still bound by collective responsibility to participate in its implementation? After-all their participation could have influenced a different outcome. I would think that, if the decision was reached collectively, they should be required to share in the responsibilities to put it into practice.
I agree that, ideally, all members would participate in both the decision making and implementation process, and that is the collective responsibility to be striven for, but how should we deal with members who cannot, through no fault of their own, be as involved as others?
And what about members of a group that appear not to want to be as involved as others, and seem comfortable to leave decisions up to others? I think that that is where the danger of leadership cults emerges, when people delegate their duties. If some people feel comfortable being less involved than others, then I think it brings into question their commitment, either to the collective or the cause, and consequently their place as a member.
I agree, also, that it is the duty of the collective to stimulate the members to participate in all activities and decisions of the collective but this, I think, is sometimes easier said than done.
What you point out is sensible, Jonathan.
We should raise permanently the awareness of all members, in a self-taught educational process. This is one of the reasons why we need permanent organisations, with militants rather than just 'activists'.
In fact, militants are trully committed individuals, but activists are -most commonly - people with intense activity for some time, but then they loose enthusiasm and sink in passivity.
In general, self education inside a collective should include discussion and remedy of problems, such as those you pointed out.
If we are sincere, we acknowledge our failures, both as individuals and as a group, and try to solve the problems.
There is no other way, I think.