user preferences

Upcoming Events

No upcoming events.
argentina / uruguay / paraguay / anarchist movement / interview Thursday February 27, 2020 05:15 byFelipe Corrêa

This interview with Juan Carlos Mechoso of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) – conducted by Felipe Corrêa – discusses FAU's “strategy of especificismo”. Relevant topics are addressed in the questions, such as: the concept of especificismo, this type of anarchism’s relationship with the classics and with similar experiences that have emerged in history, especifismo’s relation with the Latin American context, comparisons with other ideologies that promote operating at distinct levels (party - mass movement), scientific concepts, ideology and its relation to socialism, programmatic positions that anarchists should defend in popular movements, concepts and conceptions of class, neoliberalism, the development model of Latin American, popular power, strategy, armed struggle and social revolution.

[Português] [Castellano]


Juan Carlos Mechoso, Federación Anarquista Uruguaya
(Uruguayan Anarchist Federation–FAU)

Interview by Felipe Corrêa

(Conducted between May and August 2009)

Felipe Corrêa (FC): In this interview I would not only like to address the history of the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguayan Anarchist Federation–FAU) – which has been covered in detail in the four volumes of Acción Directa Anarquista: una historia de FAU (Anarchist Direct Action: A History of FAU)[1] – but also the strategy of social transformation proposed by the FAU, which implies especifismo. Noting also that the FAU’s especifismo is of widespread influence in Latin America, and even more so in Brazil – all the especifista organisations in the country, whether consolidated or in formation, are directly influenced by it — how would you define it? For the FAU, what is especifismo?

Juan Carlos Mechoso (JCM): I understand the thematic priority you mention, although it seems useful to me to say that the FAU’s especifismo can also be “seen” and “read” in its functioning, in its taking a position in the face of certain problems, as well as in the strategy that it has applied throughout its political and militant history. Of course, I am not saying anything you did not already know by that, but it seemed useful to say anyway.

Even so, I want to state that I will try to answer your questions based on positions and documents that the FAU has developed at different historical moments. However, I will give preference to those that have more to do with the organisation’s theoretical-political position today. 

I say this because my work as a militant has, throughout these 54 years, always been within the framework of an organisation and I participated in it, in different instances, in the elaboration, adaptation and reaffirmation of positions that have been the horizon of our daily social and political practice. My formation took place in this context. I believe that what will interest you the most are the positions the FAU has defended in the different social spheres. Certainly, I will give personal opinions in relation to certain particular questions, and perhaps in relation to some details. I will also intervene personally when, due to the technical requirements of an interview, it is necessary to summarise the texts produced by the FAU itself. Either way, I will try to make sure that the answers align with the organisation’s fundamental orientations.

When the FAU was founded in 1956, especifismo was the common theoretical denominator for the militants in this political task. This conception of anarchism was a strong general reference; understanding by this the necessity of building an anarchist political organisation. The most relevant theoretical reference at that time was Errico Malatesta. This did not mean – nor was the subject even discussed – that all of his ideas and proposals would be considered as they were produced in their own historical moment. However, many of his theoretical positions, politics and propositions for working in the social and popular milieu were especially considered and provided inspiration. 

It’s important to state that from the beginning the FAU’s especifismo, although using Malatesta as a reference, did not incorporate many of his conceptions and propositions – including his polemics with other currents of anarchism. Of these polemics special attention was given to his refutation of individualism, which was widely shared by us at that time. Mikhail Bakunin was another strong reference. Some of his ideas, prioritised at that time by the FAU, were also incorporated depending on the time and place we were living in.

You could ask me: Why did the FAU incorporate some things and not others? This has an historical explanation. In the construction of the FAU there were distinct generations of militants. There were comrades who had been active in anarchism since the 1910s, 20s, and 30s. Many of these militants participated in various internal polemics before and after the Russian Revolution, as well as in different organisational experiences. Comrades who even met, talked and discussed with militants who formed the first unions in Uruguay, around the 1880s. 

There are cases like that of Antonio Marzovillo, who had been active since 1905 and who actively participated in the formation of support committees for Emiliano Zapata when he was fighting in Mexico. Several militants had also participated in the 1936 Spanish Revolution. There were also anarcho-syndicalists who organised together with comrades that were active or present in the reorganisation of the Federación Obrera Regional Uruguaya (Uruguayan Regional Workers’ Federation–FORU) in 1911; comrades that, on that occasion, promoted especifismo

At the time of the FAU’s formation other texts dealing with especifismo were circulated together with Malatesta’s material. One of them, from the Uruguayan militancy itself, was elaborated by José María Fosalba in the 1930s; another, about anarchism and organisation, by Georges Balkanski, who was linked to the Federation of Anarchist Communists of Bulgaria (FAKB). 

Besides this there were also concrete especifista antecedents. In 1919, an Anarchist Relations Committee was established which, in addition to coordinating libertarian militancy at the union and popular level, had the intention of founding a specific organisation. In 1926, after a long process of activities and discussions, a plenary of the Anarchist Relations Committee gave life to the FAU; at that time Anarchist Federation of Uruguay. The FAU of today is heir to all this, although complexly.

However, despite these varied experiences of militancy that occurred in the formation of the FAU the theoretical discussion was not tense and did not take very long. There was a tacit agreement since the call was made. The “old” comrades considered many of those controversies that were met with passion, at another time, to be ironed out. 

It’s possible to say, coming much closer to the “real” question, that the organisation’s political character was more evident in its way of confronting the task of the different work fronts: union, student, community and internal. Analyses of the Uruguayan historical and conjunctural situation were performed – relating it to the general political, union, student and community spheres and putting an emphasis on Latin America. 

One of the first tasks carried out by the FAU was to organise the Latin American Anarchist Congress, which took place in 1957 and was participated in by militants from Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. The central concern of the young militants, a majority at the time, was that the political organisation that was being created should be an instrument for strengthening anarchism and bring it “up to date” in relation to our specific Latin American and Uruguayan reality. It seemed fundamental not to copy or automatically import schemas and formulas that had reason for being in other historical conjunctures. We would say more or less the following: “We are obliged to think about our reality and our time without mental laziness and produce responses accordingly”. 

It should be noted that this prioritising Latin America did not preclude a strong international concern; considering the internationalist framework of Uruguayan anarchism, which has practically existed since the 1860s. That’s how, from the beginning, the FAU adopted what was called a “thirdist” position here, which consisted of completely rejecting both “Russian and Yankee imperialism”.

In this manner the FAU’s especifismo established itself, from the beginning, which translated into concrete realisations: a Statement of Principles; an Organisational Charter that set out the militants’ rights and duties; attempts to understand the general and particular historical conjuncture and work projects for the different spheres, involving what was immediate and what concerned the medium and long term. 

At the same time, we were aware that many of these positions should be refined and deepened at future congresses. It’s worth mentioning something else that seems relevant: we did not consider the issues exhausted; there was modesty and an awareness of the complexity of most of the issues being addressed and, on the other hand, we often recalled the damage caused by dogmatisms, ready-made schemas and abstractions that were adopted out of context, based on the belief that they would be valid for all times and places. “Today, more than ever, anarchism must be open-minded” an “old” militant once said. 

It must be stressed that these positions never implied relativism or pragmatism. There was always a conceptual structure – which was conceived as something in motion, encompassing the possibilities of change according to new contributions that emerged in the field of knowledge – that supported the various discourses. The general aspects of these conceptual issues were discussed and we came to some common understandings. 

There was a rejection of the infrastructure and superstructure architectural schema and special concern concerning concepts and issues such as: power and the state, ideology, the role of utopia, science and socialism, understanding of class struggle beyond the economic structure, reformism and revolution, pacifism and revolutionary violence, method and content, permanent elements of the capitalist structure, a rejection of evolutionism and progressivism.[2] Such were the most relevant concepts and questions at that time.

I must make it clear that especifismo was not equally understood by everyone and there were nuances. The greater or lesser degree of organisation and commitment to decisions were issues that generated divergences. What is known as “synthesis” – that is all anarchist currents acting together in the same organisation – was never a matter for discussion.[3] 

At a certain moment, however, facts like some groups’ practices and their way of operating highlighted strategies and priorities that were very different from those recommended by the union, community and popular sectors and part of the militants in the student milieu. This factor, in addition to the political aspects of the time and the conception of rupture that was beginning to be advocated, resulted in the exiting of a group of comrades in 1963. Of course, these comrades were anarchists but they had another conception of how to bring about social transformations.

I am saying this to affirm that the FAU had different periods. After 1963, the organisational aspects, the strategic coherence with a conception of rupture, the collective position on the need for greater preparation for the repression that was manifesting were deepened much more. But this is an issue that can be dealt with later. 

It was also at that time that the systematisation of theoretical issues began to be considered more rigorously, organising the conceptual structure that would support the different discourses with due coherence. Because, for us, a political organisation needed a consistent conceptual tool, or toolbox, that would help formulate and guide the strategy of rupture that we wanted to carry forward, that would enable rigorous readings of the social reality and the development of the consequent political lines in order to put this project into practice. 

These questions were not only in the discourse or the realm of desires. In short, they were seen as activities pertaining to any other front of work, treating them with the same regularity and planning.

FC: I see that the FAU’s especifismo has a lot to do with its own history. It’s also possible to note that you relate especifismo with a classic tendency of anarchism, which advocates the distinction between political organisation and popular movements and, in this way, I believe it’s inevitable to agree with the wide influence of Malatesta’s and Bakunin’s organisational conceptions, which held this position. However, these are not the only influences, since we can also identify traces of anarcho-syndicalism and the expropriator anarchism of the Rio de la Plata region in the FAU. Could you describe for me what the influences of each of these “parts” are on the concept of especifismo you advocate? Could the FAU be considered heir to the Bakuninist conception of revolutionary political organisation represented by the Alliance of Socialist Democracy as well as to Malatesta’s conception of the “anarchist party” today?

JCM: Yes. It’s possible to say that all of this, in general, exists within the FAU and we will see how now. In Uruguay, the two most significant anarchist conceptions or currents were anarcho-syndicalism and especifismo. The so-called anti-organisationist current and affinity groups that advocated “propaganda by the deed” had little influence and had already disappeared by the 1940s. There remained a few comrades that had participated in expropriations or collaborated in armed operations and who, at the time of its foundation, joined the FAU. The only ones that did not join the organisation were a Spaniard who was in prison for 24 years and Boadas Ribas, a Catalan close to Buenaventura Durruti and who, once in the Rio de la Plata region, had relations with Miguel Arcángel Rosigna. However, he remained close to the FAU and collaborated on specific activities more than once.

What is called “individualism” did not have any significant expression in Uruguay at that time, since the anti-organisationists constituted something else that would warrant a separate explanation. 

Various expressions of anarchism, which if taken in a purely abstract manner are distinct, were being integrated in a rich and fluid process. But this integration, which involved a wide circulation of ideas, experiences, opinions and affinities did not affect the organisation’s hard organisational core. 

I am referring to what you call the “anarchist party” in the question. The organisation was built by militant subjects who admired the anarchist expropriators and avengers, the workers’ struggle for revolutionary and classist ends, Los Solidários and Durruti, the revolutionary attempt in Spain and Bakunin’s at times clandestine insurrectional, classist and organisational position. 

However, the process did not unfold as a patchwork but as a weave; woven together through a particular method. It’s true that it united some more than others, since there was one implicit constant: the necessity of revolutionary violence for a victorious process of rupture with the capitalist system. This system was evaluated by most militants in the same way as Malatesta, Bakunin and other comrades, who argued that domination is based on violence. Violence exercised in different spheres with the aim of ensuring the reproduction of the system, even with its historical unfolding. Such a violent configuration, with an enormous capacity for reproduction, could only be discontinued in this way.

Let’s go back to the organisational question. During activities that included discussion, elaboration and social action, we in fact constructed an ideological-organisational framework. In this framework we did not see it as a problem for public and clandestine work to be carried out at the same time; we also maintained that armed and public popular-union activities should have their own organisations, according to their specificity, and for them not to be treated separately but within the same organisation. The FAU, as a political organisation, should contain within itself all the activity necessary for its strategy and its project of rupture. 

The militants that continued in the FAU after 1963 identified with these notions and felt that this collection of activities constituted a unit that, organised in the same collective, would have operational potential in social and political terms and could carry out a coherent process of rupture and begin to establish new social relations.

If, owing to a misunderstanding of “the principles”, we cannot build an anarchist organisation that understands the collection of activities necessary for a process of transforming social structures we would be giving anarchism a death certificate.

It was at that time that the FAU as a political organisation integrated these components, which ended up merging and being reconstructed into one unit, giving it the character it has today. This construction was not the product of a political decision or of intellectuals burning midnight oil, but was forged in action and was the result of failures and rectifications; as well as of the passion for building an anarchism that was part of the social-political scene, and not one only of meetings. 

Even so, this is not a finished process since such questions are endless. The adaptation, correction and integration of new concepts seem to be permanent needs.

The FAU had, has and intends to have the intention of promoting a revolutionary, organised anarchism that is in accordance with present times; such was its intention that, with modesty and consequence, it tried to carry forward. Of course this involved hits and misses, something that is almost inseparable from doing and being present in a complex social interaction that requires continual responses.

There was a central concern not to turn anarchism into a critique alone, which would eventually create a world of gloom and hopelessness very close to resignation. To avoid any misunderstanding I can say that we are in favour of critical thinking but, together with it, we believe it necessary for there to be consequent proposals and actions. 

In its Statement of Principles our organisation states more or less the following: Anarchism is fundamentally based on a critique of relations of domination in all social spheres – political, economic, military, legal, religious, educational, etc.; this critique is permanently being redefined according to the concrete society and historical moment in which it finds itself, distinguishing and hierarchising the determinant levels in the social structure – but always expressing, with all the rigour and coherence, the need to find the original foundations, the hard core of the social injustices and the crises generated by them. 

With these analytical elements it is possible to perform a complete critique of the different social formations and guide the elaboration of an alternative social project; that can suppress the different forms of privilege and enable the revolutionary practice that this project requires in this long course of diverse struggles. A theoretical elaboration, a process and a struggle that have strongly organised political work as their central axis. 

FC: Some sectors of our current often ended up stigmatising Piotr Kropotkin – mainly for his evolutionary and, in a certain sense, educationalist conception – often invalidating or diminishing him as a relevant theorist for “our” anarchism. I do not agree with this because I believe that Kropotkin, despite having different positions to ours — many because of the context in which he lived — also has important contributions that must be taken into account. I see that Kropotkin is often quoted and used by the FAU and by you too. From your point of view, what is the validity of Kropotkin’s thinking for especifismo?

JCM: Kropotkin, his thinking and his anarchist communism had a lot of influence in the Rio de la Plata region and elsewhere in Latin America. It was books and articles such as The Conquest of Bread, An Appeal to the Young and writings translated in newspapers of the time that forcefully spread anarchism and, especially, its communist conception. So much so that, in Uruguay, the anti-organisationists, anarcho-syndicalists and especifistas were all anarchist communists. When Malatesta began to spread communism it was already known in certain environments. Much of this knowledge relates to Kropotkin and the contributions that a strong immigration brought to these parts: several libertarian militants from Spain, Italy and France who already knew these theoretical-political elements well. 

There are no doubts that, regardless of the respect we have for Kropotkin, one can say that he has his pros and cons with respect to his theoretical and political proposals and postures at the international level. 

One must bear in mind that he was linked to the First International in 1872 as a result of his time in Switzerland. Shortly thereafter, he began to elaborate his conception of anarchist communism in opposition to Bakuninist collectivism, which had been dominant until then. It’s also not correct to say that he was a person who devoted himself solely to intellectual work, to research and not to committed militant work. 

Kropotkin was arrested in Russia around 1874 and was imprisoned for about two years; later escaping, traveling through some European countries and carrying out propaganda. At that time, he founded Le Revolté, an anarchist journal that reached the Rio de la Plata, where it was widely read, especially by immigrants who soon spread its ideas. He was also linked to workers’ strikes and his connection with the International Workers Association cost him a trial and five years in prison in Lyon. Owing to mobilisations for his freedom he was not imprisoned all these years; he was released two years early. 

Why am I saying this? Although I am not saying anything original it’s always a good idea to deal with the political stature and size of this militant, even if we have various differences in relation to his positions.

Kropotkin’s work is broad and varied in theme. It ranges from the spirit of revolt, from prisons to mutual aid to considerations about the state and the French Revolution. It seems clear to me that this is not the space for making broader comments about his work. 

It must be added, to avoid possible confusion, that several of Kropotkin’s positions were not adopted in our region and even less so in the FAU, which did not even take some of them into consideration. These positions include: his general organisational proposal; his enthusiastic optimism that the revolution would come soon, an optimistic conception even for that agitated social context; his fatalism, marked by the emphasis that “states are already heading, as historical fatality, to their decay”; his mechanical conception of the universe, which Malatesta would disapproved of. 

Even if it’s possible to find his theoretical-political enthusiasm being reproduced in materials of the labour movement in Rio de la Plata, it can be said that it had no negative effects. It must also be considered that this occurred at moments of great impetus in the anarchist-oriented workers’ movement, which had a revolutionary objective in mind. However, it can also be said that most of his materials chosen for diffusion were not of a theoretical or philosophical nature but, essentially, agitational.

I am not arguing for anything like the defence of a “return to Kropotkin”. He was not an influential theorist in the formation of the militants of the FAU, but neither can he be said to have been completely absent. Some previously much discussed materials were edited by the organisation, and I say this with total frankness, seeking to contribute to the orientation and strategy adopted. Many of these materials are linked to the working class or to topics such as prisons. 

One can say that Kropotkin enjoys much respect and recognition in the FAU because of his extensive militant work and his writings, so widely disseminated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We appreciate that he was concerned with systematising themes, looking for theoretical and analytical tools but that the episteme developed at that time, which was very characteristic of the epoch, often limited him, making him believe he had a knowledge that was still distant and led him into a dead end. 

His work, however, cannot be scorned despite questions that are incompatible with us, of which there are undoubtedly many. I reiterate, then, that there are materials by Kropotkin that have an historical contribution and can be selected with a view to partially adapting them to an anarchist organisation that does not have its “philosophical” conception.

FC: I see from what you are saying that there was, and still is, a concern by the FAU not to import a ready-made theory from Europe, or even from the classical theorists; but also to include Latin elements and its own reflections on anarchism, so that it can be adapted to our reality. Clearly, it seems to me that there was a great concern with adapting the ideology to the conjuncture, to the historical moment and to our locality. What were the local elements and reflections that were incorporated into anarchism so that it could be adapted to the Latin American reality?

JCM: This is true. In fact, we decided not to import theories, schemas, methods and proposals that had their historical moment and that do not constitute an effective contribution to our work at the social-political level today. 

But we have to avoid confusion because we never wanted to produce our own theory, our own Latin American conceptual body outside of what was produced in Europe or in other parts of the world. That is, we never wanted to produce a Latin American science or a science from other parts of the world. Scientific knowledge that is produced, as long as it is consistent, is of value anywhere in the world. 

To make a playful analogy: we would never reject the theory of relativity, its notion of time and space because Einstein was not Latin American. Something that might resemble the USSR’s absurdities of demonising Mendel’s research or Jacobson’s works because they did not fit the schema of dialectical logic. 

At the time this discussion took place, we considered that there was new research and new knowledge that put an end to previous notions and offered new approaches, and that should necessarily be incorporated into anarchism under penalty that it would otherwise remain an historical relic. 

We assert that the categorical body adopted, because of its proper rigour – even with the notion that knowledge is infinite and that this body therefore cannot be dogmatic – should be complemented with elements that each specific locality could offer. Taking into account the existing realities in Latin America — its dependence, its imperial oppression and all its history — we emphasised that it was fundamental to study each reality, each social formation, so that the theoretical tools and political coordinates have a basis, constituting proposals not in relation to a people manufactured in thought, but the effectively existing one.

The history of the emancipation of the Latin American peoples from colonial rule, the characteristics of these movements and their bases nourished cycles of debate that alternated with the discussion of other libertarian experiences, such as the Makhnovist movement, Magón and Zapata’s Mexico and the Spanish Revolution. 

Regarding the realities of Latin America, several magazines and contributions by militants who traveled through various countries and had an effective insertion in the labour and popular milieu of countries with large indigenous and mestizo populations were circulated. The federal ideas and struggles of José Gervasio Artigas, for example, generated much interest. 

None of this had anything to do with nationalism, as has sometimes been said about the FAU. There was always a clear internationalist definition; but we knew we did not float in thin air, but were on solid ground with a people and history. It’s certain that some of these things went against the “culture” of the time, which was very much rooted in very general and reductionist parameters. Latin America was sometimes spoken of as if it were something homogeneous and could be described and interpreted with a very narrow set of concepts.

Some things were being sold as science. Things that are well known today, such as the assertions that the places in which the conditions for socialism would first arise would be those with significant industrial development and a large concentration of the proletariat. It was said that the most important thing to consider would be elements of this type, and that beyond that, there were nothing but residual remnants that would be quickly liquidated by development.

In our region there were very strong “remnants”, as in the case of the original and oppressed peoples who carried out struggles for important demands and, often, very deep resistances – some of which were associated with millennial ideologies and motivated by them.

The totalising, almost mechanical conceptions that I mentioned above did not come from our midsts. However, some of them were sometimes absorbed, bringing with it similar positions that have contributed to confusion and, often, to the rather contradictory character of our theoretical and political position. For example, along with the reductionist aspect of the economistic interpretation or with Eurocentrism came progressivism and evolutionism. 

There was a position against Eurocentrism and its baggage, independent of the ideological environment from which they came. There were also precautions regarding our internalised cultural colonialism. This tendency to follow the trend of social themes, proposals, organisational forms that have nothing to do with our locality, with what we live through here, with what we urgently need. This practice of importing projects and strategies without taking into account all the analysis of the fundamental aspects of our social formation, of our ideal – our Latin American historical subject and each one of the localities involved – of that which allows us to establish an effective relationship with the people, to initiate processes within and with the people. 

This relationship cannot be established solely by sudden ideas and decrees of conditions and characteristics forged by purely intellectual processes. Of course, our position against Eurocentrism does not imply negating or not incorporating rigorous and consistent contributions coming from Europe; that would be a kind of reverse discrimination.

FC: It can be concluded from your responses that especifismo is not something that was created by you in the second half of the twentieth century, but a name given to a practice that comes from classical anarchism. I see that you refer by “especifismo” to Bakuninist collectivism or, especially, to the anarcho-communism that existed in Latin America and so many other places in the world — which advocated the distinct “levels” of organisation, anarchist organisation and popular movements. Why the choice of the term “especifismo” then and when did the FAU start using it?

JCM: We never thought that especifismo was our creation. We never thought or said anything like that. That would, at the least, have been a childish vanity. Especifismo already had its rich history and ideological production. And, as I said, in the context of the FAU’s formation we saw in Malatesta its clearest and most developed expression, especially in some of his works. 

One should bear in mind that Malatesta was in Argentina for a while – including passing through Montevideo, Uruguay – in the years 1885-1889. It was at the request of Polinice Mattei, an Italian anarchist who participated in the labour movement, that Malatesta wrote the first statutes of a resistance society – the bakers’ union. In a short time, the resistance unions developed strongly and formed the backbone of the great workers’ “centrals” such as the Federación Obrera Regional Argentina (Argentine Regional Labour Federation–FORA) and the FORU itself, which comprised about 90% of the organised workers’ movement. 

Of course, this was not only due to Malatesta’s influence. To say that would be to turn our sympathy and respect into religion. Within the working class there was a search for organisational means and Malatesta managed to provide some answers, which was no small feat. With his intense activity, supported by the Italian collectivity and many other anarchists, he founded or gave strong impetus to especifista groups in Argentina. It was at this time that the collectivists, especially the Spaniards living in Argentina, adhered to anarchist communism, whose militants articulated these nuclei. This quickly reverberated in Uruguay as the relationship with Argentine anarchist militancy was constant.

In order not to dwell too much on this subject I should say that there was another FAU (Anarchist Federation of Uruguay) inspired by especifista ideas in the 1920s. 

In relation to your question I can say that the decision to use the term “especifismo” was necessary to indicate where on the anarchist ideological spectrum we stood. We used this term to indicate, fundamentally, that we were in favour of an anarchist political organisation and, also, that our positions, strategy, general orientation and programme differed from other anarchist expressions. Such expressions, with which we might occasionally coincidentally agree, did not have regular activity that corresponded to what we considered fundamental in terms of daily work at the social-political level; which we thought should be articulated with a strategy and a tactic that we believed to be coherent and necessary for the process of rupture, our final objective.

At the same time, I must add, we did not think of especifismo as a completed theoretical-political body, but as an important milestone that should be further developed. Our organisation, as with all anarchist organisations that identified with this general orientation, should try modestly to contribute whatever it could, so as not to be stuck in the past.

Some of this was raised by the FAU at the 1957 Latin American Conference; that it was not enough to take stock and emphasise that anarchism was at a low ebb – which at that time was the absolute truth. Our responsibility was to locate it in time and relate it to the problems posed by the present. 

It seemed to us that the first thing to consider was that something was wrong. It was easy to try place the blame outside of anarchism, to say that changes had removed us from the social arena and so many other things that sounded more like self-justification and a certain conformism. However, this would have prevented us from confronting the historical challenge we were facing and would not permit us to accept our inadequacy and lack of adaptation to the transformations that had occurred within capitalism. We did not want to keep repeating the same things about ourselves without the social sensibility of placing ourselves completely beside our people. We did not want to become, in practice, a kind of elite fit for overblown criticism, but with enormous difficulties learning from so much that the new times brought. 

This position was not only defended by the FAU at this Latin American conference; the Argentine delegation, which at certain times demonstrated great lucidity, performed a broad analysis of our difficulties at that time.

We maintained that we misdirected the questions most of the time and, as a result, the answers could not be appropriate. As Gastón Bachelard points out, directing the questions well is already a big step forward. It seemed fundamental to broadly incorporate modesty, to know the situation we were in and to recognise that we would, necessarily, face many difficulties in trying to get out of this social labyrinth. After all, we had lost the reference of a great historical period without having asked ourselves what was happening. 

We must look for references in those old congresses, in which the “old” theorists participated, and in which they boldly and creatively put forward philosophical and political positions that sought to advance and attract the interest of a broad public. It is not relevant, for what I want to highlight, that many of those positions were imbued with the knowledge framework of that historical moment and may, in light of new research and discovery, be considered inconsistent today. I only emphasise the political attitude.

In a certain period, which was not short, anarchist militants analysed the problems that they faced and formulated proposals for action. All the periods experienced many changes. Therefore, the lack of adequate answers indicated that the problem had not been properly addressed, that there was a lack of creativity, of political boldness to explore the new, to exercise critical thinking. The “old” theorists did this very well, giving their lives to anarchism and achieving continuity in various later movements.

I must stress that we do not present ourselves as especifistas in our “public” appearance, in our media and to other political and social organisations; we present ourselves as an anarchist political organisation. The term “especifismo” is useful only among anarchists or to answer that question that journalists often ask us in their reports about which anarchism we promote. If we referred to ourselves as especifistas at the popular level it would mean that we would have to carry an explanatory leaflet in our pockets to distribute whenever we made this statement.

We make it clear, internally in the organisation and to anarchists in general, that we are part of the anarchist ideological current and that it has always been our desire to contribute, even with a small grain of sand, to the continuation of its advance. This advance also implies the incorporation of various contributions, studies and researches that appear, here and there, both from the works of historical archeology as well as from the search for new things.

I must add that, today, many of our comrades prefer a precise and clear definition and thus define the FAU solely as an anarchist political organisation.

FC: Have you used this organisational concept of especifismo since the beginning of the FAU? I say this because when the FAU was founded there were already some documents that, at least from my point of view, are the result of this very “soup” in which the FAU’s especifismo develops and which bear some resemblance to it. I am referring particularly to the Dielo Truda group’s 1926 Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists, [4] the 1945 Platform of the Federation of Anarchist Communists of Bulgaria [5] and George Fontenis’s 1953 Libertarian Communist Manifesto. [6] Did you encounter these documents at the time of constituting the FAU and updating this concept of especifismo? Did they have any influence on the creation of the FAU’s especifismo?

JCM: I think part of this question has already been answered. But we can reiterate that with the exception of Balkansky’s text, which came from the Bulgarian Federation, none of these documents were circulated during the process of constituting the FAU. 

In the process, a Comisión Pro Federación Libertaria Uruguaya (Pro-Uruguayan Libertarian Federation Commission–CPFLU) nominated by a national plenary was formed, which worked during 1955 to circulate positions on various topics. The commission’s work mentioned experiences such as the formation of the Libertarian Federation in Argentina, in 1901. At the time of drawing up the Statement of Principles and the Organisational Charter (Carta Orgánica), there were contributions by the “old” comrades – who had participated in many organisational initiatives in Rio de la Plata between 1905 and 1950 – and also by young militants – especially the Juventudes Libertarias (Libertarian Youths–JJLL), that had a decisive proximity at that time to the Federation of University Students, which operated with a completely federalist structure and libertarian matrix. Another group present in this process, Cerro, included comrades who had participated in various organisational instances – one of them participated in the Spanish Revolution – who had experience and who had already elaborated concrete proposals in organisational terms, not only of principles or the Organisational Charter but also of strategy and programme. 

Lots of preparatory bulletins containing separate documents were published; they included any proposal that had to be considered at the founding instance. If someone had proposed any of these documents you mention they would have been incorporated, because that was the dominant criterion. I must say that the emphasis on the “here and now” – as it was then said – did not mean any willingness on our part to disregard previous experiences, documents or struggles. Nothing was excluded. The issue of the documents that were circulated in the founding process was dealt with exactly the way I put it. 

The fact that the documents you mention did not appear in the founding process does not mean that the “old” comrades did not know about them. For example, exemplary militants such as Nestor Makhno and Piotr Arshinov were often mentioned in conversations held a few years before the founding of the FAU, both in the Cerro Athenaeum and JJLL. Besides this, the edition of Argonaut about the Makhnovist movement was widely circulated. [7] Interestingly enough, this book was also published in Russian and there were some militants linked to the FAU’s activities from that region.

FC: Today, the documents that I quoted above form the basis of the strategy of organisations that identify with the Platformist tradition and call themselves anarchist communist. Since especifismo – by that name – is only identified with here in Latin America many of these organisations have been our interlocutors in other countries. First of all, I would like to know if you have had access to these documents and would you comment on them. Then, I would like to know: what, for you, is the difference between especifismo and platformism?

JCM: The criteria for information and militant formation was very broad. Indeed, even before the FAU was formed there were social organisations, such as Ateneu del Cerro, and unions that had large libraries. These environments sought to stimulate reading and create an environment for the exchange of ideas among militants. Lots of anarchist materials and other related works or works of general interest were read. I am referring especially to the labour milieu. In that context, many of the libertarian militants or those close to our ideas read Luigi Fabbri, Rudolf Rocker, Fausto Falaschi, Ricardo Mella, Anselmo Lorenzo, Piotr Arshinov, Ricardo Flores Magón, Rafael Barret, Manuel Gonzalez Prada and, of course, Bakunin, Malatesta and Kropotkin. These authors were read and discussed, formally and informally. Along with them leaflets and articles with new approaches, such as the texts of Gastón Leval and others, were also read.

It’s most likely that platformism was not known by very many militants. I do not know if its primary texts were circulated in these spaces, either among FAU militants or among those that comprised the Latin American Congress. They were never mentioned in the libertarian initiatives that were articulated in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time the anarchist communists that were partisan to organisation, in Argentina and in Chile, agreed with Malatesta’s positions.

However, regular mention of the authors of the “Platform” – who were considered to be exemplary militants – was always very common; they have always been spoken of with great sympathy and respect, but only that.

Year later it seemed to me, personally, that what the platformists argued for was very close to especifismo – particularly the especifismo practiced by the FAU. An analysis of the differences and similarities between these two proposals – and that considers aspects that are still current and those that are strictly linked to a particular historical conjuncture – requires specific work, which could be very interesting. But this is something that requires time, dedication and consulting a lot of documentation; a daunting task and a subject on which one cannot improvise. Right now, this is a task that does not excite me. I cannot even think about making a schematic and basic analysis without many pretences. Since, as I said earlier, I am focused on finishing an historical work about our organisation and I do not have much time available these days. 

Therefore, this response will be given only in terms of “impressions”. I could add as a contribution that if we were to ask the FAU comrades of the previous generations about what platformism is they would – I suppose, based on how things happened around here – answer something along the lines of: it’s about an especifista group like ours, that was nourished by another history and another experience.

As you can see I make various mention of things we have to overcome, the challenges that lie ahead, the need to start taking firm steps to make up for so much lost ground. I say all this from the perspective that anarchism has a vast past experience and that it still has a lot to say and to accomplish today. It’s obvious that libertarian history is not starting now; we are heirs to a past full of struggle, of exemplary militants, of true heroes of the people. 

Anarchism has written great pages in the book of history. The world of workers world knows the abnegation and integrity that characterises it, along with a past that even amazes us. Anarchism has given full answers to the necessity of transforming the structures of the capitalist system and has precisely laid down the general lines of social reconstruction which, in their fundamental aspects, have an unquestionable validity; it emphasised popular participation, direct action, the imperative not to participate in bourgeois initiatives. Faced with the failure of the other conceptions of socialism, anarchism can today, before the court of history, reclaim the right to develop its model of society. Of course, this can only be done within history, but not within the prevailing power – which must be defeated as it will not fall on its own. In our view this power must be fought with blood and fire.

FC: Within authoritarian and anti-authoritarian socialist currents there are sectors that, like us, defend this separation between the political organisation and the popular movement. Could you explain what the difference is between the relationship between the anarchist organisation and popular movements and the relationship of the Leninist / Trotskyist parties with these movements? That is, what differentiates a specific anarchist organisation from an authoritarian party? Could you talk a little about the relationship between the anarchist organisation and popular movements?

JCM: I will separate the themes so that the answer is clearer. First, I will address what have traditionally been called authoritarian parties. This theme brings us to another: the need for a new way of doing politics; which at the same time amounts to looking at political organisation in another way, emphasising aspects generally opposed to those of Marxist groups and organisations. 

All of these have strategies that consider minimal or even passive participation by the working class and popular movements in general. They believe they represent the interests of the workers and that it’s the party that must be strengthened since transformations or, in some cases, revolutionary events come from above and are determined by the party. In all cases – some more so and others less – the so-called “masses” act as conveyor belts. It’s the party that steers the process, determining what should be done without leaving the “mass” movement with any relevant decision-making alternative.

Without doubt, we must differentiate the strategies of these parties: the social democrats and the Marxist-Leninists.

The history of social democracies is well known, yet in spite of everything they always reappear in one or other guise. The reformist positions of the social democracy of the Second International promoted gradual transformations through reforms; transformations that did not challenge the structure of domination. These parties very quickly became champions of small changes or minor adjustments in systemic functioning. Although mentioned the word socialism renounced all real possibility of overcoming capitalism in its discourses, and soon in the facts. Reformism did not adopt a strategy of power but settled within it until it was integrated into all the structures, functioning, the institutions of capitalism. Its logic developed along the same lines: asking the people for their votes and claiming to represent them. Finally, social democracy created the best environment for capitalism’s existence and reproduction. Today it speaks little, if at all, of socialism and the pursuit of fundamental transformations through improvements in capitalism. So much so that it has made deals with right-wing parties in many countries.

On the other hand we have the case of Lenin who, appropriating Kautsky’s thesis that ideology comes from outside, entrusts the party with the ideology of the proletariat. Thus, it’s the party that does politics and is the enlightened bearer of the ideology of the multitudes of workers. A clearly vanguardist conception that, appropriating everything, finally places all its expectations on intellectuals; almost all of them from wealthy sectors or from the upper middle class of society. 

It’s necessary here to make a parenthesis in order to emphasise the importance of a theme – that is the confusion between two very different concepts: ideology and theory – which we will briefly discuss below. But let’s go back to Marxism-Leninism.

For Marxist-Leninists those “from below” – I will use this term, which seems clear to me and is close to those that Bakunin used on occasion – are subordinate to everything that is not of the order of immediate demands. And this as long as these demands never call into question the alliances and priorities established by the party. In this schema there is, in fact, only one direction: from the party to the class and the entire population. The fundamental belief is that the population – and its historical subject, “the class” – must remain subordinate to the party, since the class is unable to create instances of liberation on its own. It was often said that the class “was not conscious of itself”. It was also argued that it would not be possible to create the fundamental conditions for rupture from below within capitalist society. The level of development, of self-organisation, of the self-management of popular initiatives therefore does not matter. Fundamentally, it’s not about creating a strong people, but a strong party.

This logic did not change once Marxist-Leninism came to power. The proletariat and the people must stay loyal to the party under penalty of being treated as traitors to those that represented them and promoted their interests. The pilar of the regime’s continuity rested on an obedient people or one that did not clearly express its disagreements. 

We can say that we especifista anarchists do not separate the two levels, let alone subordinate one level to the other. We believe they are specific levels that fulfil distinct social functions and must be in constant interaction.

The organisational form is no less important. “Democratic” centralism is a conception that is linked to the party’s vanguardist dynamics; without this organisational tool such an orientation would not be possible. Thus, this organisational form should be evaluated as an important part of the conceptual framework of these organisations. In our organisations federalism fulfils this role. 

There are other historical currents of Marxism, but it’s possible to say that they have a common denominator: the vanguardist conception. Currents that are often masked, but which do not change the axis of their fundamental political action. They all consider the state as a centre from which to promote the transformations they propose to carry out.

However, there are also some anti-authoritarian currents that, perhaps, can not be rigorously defined if we establish a common standard. Historically, in Rio de la Plata there were significant groups, mainly in Argentina, that were called anti-organisers. Over time and through a complex process they incorporated into union work and stimulated a revolutionary type of unionism. 

In this region there is anarcho-syndicalism, which constitutes a rather unique anti-authoritarian movement; in practical terms it does politics and ideology through union work itself. Anarchist syndicalists hold a view that unions are capable of promoting revolution and, subsequently, rebuilding society on distinct socialist and libertarian foundations. But, unlike most other anti-authoritarian groups, they are embedded in the trade union milieu and deal on a daily basis with the rights, demands and struggles of the working class to which they are linked. 

For example, a few years ago sectors of the Spanish Confederación General del Trabajo (General Confederation of Labour–CGT) that were clearly anarchists stimulated an initiative that served the meeting and dialogue of anarchist groups interested in revitalising our ideology. This initiative was called International Libertarian Solidarity (ILS–SIL) and José Maria Olaizola, at that time secretary of the CGT, was the one who propelled this initiative. It was an instance where we could analyse our current situation with comrades from different countries. The new commission, nominated by congress, that took over the CGT did not give continuity to the ILS, which eventually ceased to exist. Most of the comrades that promoted the formation of the ILS formed the Apoyo Mutuo (Mutual Aid) group and continue with the same concern. This nucleus is organisationist and has very close relationships with specific (anarchist political) organisations, both in Europe and Latin America. This is an example that demonstrates the uniqueness of some of these movements and the points we can have in common with them.

I refer, briefly, to a resolution of the 1986 FAU congress, as it appears to me that it has a lot to do with this topic. It was established in that resolution, ratified by the 1988 congress, that we should do as much as possible to accomplish specific tasks and base-level agreements with all libertarian comrades who were active at whatever level within the organisation. It was also established that we should try our utmost to avoid the polemics – so impoverished and futile at other times – that were threatening to resurface. In order to establish any kind of joint action we had to keep in mind that these other anarchist groupings had other conceptions, other preferences and other strategies. Within these frameworks we, as a distinct organisation with its own strategy, would coordinate what was possible in terms of social action. We knew there would be groups that would want to do this and others that would not. It was decided that the discussions to be held in these situations should only take place around the concrete points in question.

In practice this happened on several occasions. For example, there was coordination with other anarchist groups and comrades during the war against Iraq, on dates commemorating anarchists like Sacco and Vanzetti and events such as the Spanish Revolution. But there is no doubt that this coordination depends on each place and on the established relationships.

Concerning the question about the issue of the party, I must say that there has been a tendency, particular in recent times, to confound the concepts of party and politics; besides this, the party has been identified with a way of doing politics that has largely been discredited in various sectors. It’s generally said that electoral parties with a democratic-centralist structure only take the people into consideration during times of elections. The rest of time the distance between the parties and the people is immense. In some cases there are politicians who support the repression of their own voters because they are mobilising around some or other issue.

We, like many other libertarian groups, do not conceive politics in this way. However, we cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.

I will now deal with the relationship between social and political organisations. I will only address a few aspects at this time, and leave the questions about popular power to be dealt with further on.

The first point that I think needs to be addressed is the question of class independence. By class I am referring here to the entire set of oppressed classes produced in this historical period. This relationship between classes and the historical period will also be developed a little further on. The question of class independence is closely linked to the possibility of creating popular power; or, as the FAU said in the 1960s, of “creating a strong people”. The development of a corresponding discourse is also undoubtedly of fundamental importance. As some scholars on this subject say, “In any society multiple power relations traverse, characterise and constitute the social body. These relations of power cannot be dissociated, established or function without a production, an accumulation, a circulation, a functioning of the discourses”.

A conception and practice of popular power has its specific production, its own discourse; it has its own production. For this conception and practice to intervene as a transformative force, for them to condition the conjuncture and produce disruptive advances, there is one necessary condition: they must maintain their independence at all times. At other times of historical development we spoke of “class independence”; today, adjusting to the new context, we would say, “independence of the oppressed classes” or, that is, of all social movements. With this category we want to include the particular characteristics of each social formation, its history, its transformations; without neglecting what there is in common with other countries, fundamentally those of our region, and the conditions established by world power structures.

It is well known that the networks of the dominant power crush, manipulate and mould; they encompass parties, ideologies, movements and histories, moulding them and turning them into good followers of what is old and into reproducers of what is there. This mechanism is constantly repeated. Incommensurable forces confirm this logic and spin this wheel of madness. These devices must be combatted with proposals and actions of distinct content, with a consistency that enables stability. It is not too much, therefore, to reaffirm that the immense circulation of the same dynamics and logic cannot create anything new. It can only recreate what already exists with greater or lesser fantasy. 

In order for other social relations to be established the facts seem to indicate the necessity of utilising other materials for this new construction: another focus, another perspective, another logic, other practices, other mechanisms and another point of departure. There is nothing original about this. It’s about the new civilisation outlined by the old socialists. This process must be supported and developed through the iron independence of the oppressed classes, of a people who create their destiny as far as historical conditions enable. 

Obstacles, relationships, tacit and explicit alliances themselves must be made from this perspective of independence. Since we cannot and should not isolate ourselves, as we must be part of the “confusion” and of the complex and variable social events, this factor acquires an importance of the highest order in strategic terms.

We have seen that populations often make their claims, their protests and their demands outside the traditional channels. However, it was not only widespread struggles that toppled governments or prevented right-wing coups, but also direct action battles over specific issues that, sometimes, exercised popular justice.

In recent times, it has not been the social-democratic governments nor parties that have sought to effectively break the advancing neoliberal onslaught. As recent history shows us the only social forces that acted, in fact, seeking to block, resist and even defeat neoliberal regimes were the forces of the movements of the oppressed classes that took the streets. “Progressive” governments of different kinds came afterwards, but that is another matter.

Those who are grounded in paradigms of a past that no longer exists speak of channeling this popular expression and its struggles into authorised avenues and seek to do so. They do not want to be convinced that these ways only domesticate bodies and have perverse results in satisfying popular aspirations and urgencies; they want to lead the energy and hope that are resurfacing into dead ends.

A process of advancement of socialism is the result of definite practices that allow a real formation of consciousness of the genuine objective, and in this solidarity – as well as the mobilisation and organisation of the different popular expressions, of this whole universe of those from below – has a more than important role. We know that socialism will not be decreed nor realised only by parties claiming to be socialists. 

A political organisation in tune with its time and with the popular movement has a fundamental role to play. However, the strength lies in the people themselves, both with regards to the previous as well as the later stages. The independence of the popular movement, of all its organisational forms – self-managed, self-organised, effectively participatory and federalist – is what will solidify the process and provide real possibilities for a socialist transformation.

There are others who venture into somewhat bold opinions. They tell us that the germ of the new, of the “post-capitalist” society is in these mobilisations and that it is a process that cannot be stopped. No fatalism is good. It will take the organisation and will of social forces to bring about profound transformations and to establish the line of a consequent process. However, this is a function of the political organisation; in tune with this process it becomes indispensable.

FC: Is there a scientific socialism? Can one produce a conceptual framework that leads to it? If there is no inevitability that leads us to socialism, as in fact there is not, how would we then define socialism – in our case, libertarian socialism?

JCM: Two concepts have been used somewhat regularly as synonyms, as if they were the same thing, and so-called “scientific socialism” is related to this. I’ll explain. Theory (realm of science) is one thing and ideology is quite another. Perhaps it would be more instructive to address the question of ideology and theory before we broach that of scientific socialism. There are writings from different moments of the organisation that grappled with this problem and I will try to summarise them. 

Theory – in the social context, which is our object at the moment – points to the development of conceptual instruments to think about and to know all that can be known, in a rigorous and profound way, of this concrete social conjuncture, that is, of the social formation that corresponds to the ensemble of its structures and practices. In this sense one can speak of theory as the equivalent of science, and this is how it should be understood.

Ideology, on the other hand, has elements of an unscientific nature that contribute to dynamising and motivating action based on circumstances that, although related to existing social conditions, do not derive from them in the strict sense; action is not mechanically determined by what, at some point, has been called an objective and not even by infrastructure. Primary components of ideology are: ideas, representations, behaviours, reflections and sensibility. The expression of motivations, propositions of objectives, aspirations, ideal goals, utopias, hopes, hatreds and desires also belong to the ideological domain.

Rigorous analysis of a concrete situation is thus a theoretical analysis, which should be as scientific as possible. Theory needs and circumstantiates the conditions of political action. 
There is certainly a close link between theory and ideology, since ideological proposals merge with, are supported by and instrumentalise the conclusions of theoretical analysis. An ideology is more effective as a motor for political action the more firmly it is supported by the contributions of theory. 

Theoretical work is always underpinned by and based on what happens in historical reality. However, it is work that is completely in the realm of thought: there are no concepts that are more real than others, just as ideology is only as real as the productive forces.

It’s therefore worth noting some things that will be dealt with below.

Firstly, the distinction between the existing reality – real historical processes – on the one hand; and thought processes – which point to knowledge and the understanding of reality, on the other. One can say, in relation to this, that the thought process is a distinct reality that fulfils certain functions. Scientific, theoretical production has its specific character and must be approached with precision and without confusion. It counts on an effort for knowledge, using the tools that each era provides, aiming to treat the object with the greatest possible scientific rigour. The scientific “toolbox” to be used does not exclude creations and possible discontinuities, however episodic they may be in the history of knowledge. Anyway, it is from a certain level of knowledge that it becomes possible to create new knowledge, which will affect the episteme [8] used.

But let’s return to the question of political theory, which is what interests us right now. Theoretical work in this domain is always carried out from a given raw material. However, it should be noted that it starts from information, data and notions about the subject in question. In the process of this theoretical work the primary material is treated by means of certain conceptual instruments, certain instruments of thought. The product of this treatment, of this work, is knowledge. 

In more appropriate terms, one can say that there are only singular objects: certain historical situations, in certain societies, at certain times. Theoretical knowledge aims to understand these singularities as much as possible. In the process of the production of knowledge, therefore, the raw material (superficial perception) is transformed into a product (rigorous, scientific knowledge). Many productions become instruments that no longer refer to the singular; they are general concepts, such as the concept of class. 

By this I mean that the process of knowing the whole social reality is susceptible to infinite theoretical deepening since knowledge, as such, is infinite. Thus, one cannot wait for a “finished” knowledge of social reality as a whole to begin acting upon it in order to transform it. One also cannot try to transform it without knowing it properly.

Socialism, the idea and aspiration of a different society, the establishment of just and solidaristic social relations, the “dreams” of equality and freedom belong to the realm of ideology. Ideology, whatever it may be, is inherent to the human condition, to this social human being; human beings do not exist without ideology, there is no Jurassic Park for them. Aspirations, “dreams”, hatreds, desires, loves – all of which often coexist with the gods – have always existed within the human being. Of course, these concepts, which are from different eras, do not even closely express all those feelings. 

There is no universal subject in itself, an invention of our times; the subjects are very different at different times. The subject as historical product is a child of its time. For us, today, what is of interest is subject and ideology in this structure of domination called capitalism. 

It is in this context of the differentiation of theory and ideology that one can speak – and, indeed, we speak – of ideological certainty and “philosophical ignorance”, as Malatesta said. “Ignorance” in the sense that knowledge is infinite, which is something that does not exempt us from trying to understand our times as much as possible, so that our political and social activity is not carried out in a disoriented way. 

There is no such thing as scientific socialism. No social law will necessarily lead us to this sublime aspiration. Nor will it be possible to know the general laws of social functioning at such a level that it would be possible to predict with complete certainty the events, the future, the specific character of a particular future. 

History has given us some lessons, and one of them is that participation in events is fundamental, that it is struggle that creates new possibilities. It is this kind of teaching that, along with all the theoretical development that an organisation can perform, will allow us to take steps towards a socialism that, by itself, will never arrive.

FC: Do you believe that ideology, together with theory, is a fundamental element for political action? Regarding social formations, can one speak of the existence of only one ideology?

JCM: Ideology is a fundamental element for political action; it is always present in one way or another and exists simultaneously with action. It is a primary sphere of social reality and cannot be conceived as a mere reflection of others. In some cases it is ideology that “determines” the events in which a wide range of elements such as economic and legal-military ones undoubtedly intervene. 

Marx defined ideology as a mirror in his economistic scheme of infrastructure and superstructure. Far from it; ideology is a sphere of relative autonomy, it operates in constant interaction and has enormous gravitation. Even scholars of the subject give it its own time of development and transformation, thus breaking with the homogeneous concept of time, which is implicit in most social studies. 

One can transform the economy and, at the same time, transform the ideology very little and even continue reproducing a lot of the previous conceptions. The USSR and Cuba prove this condition of ideology empirically. Some have argued quite well that ideology, or much of it, tends to continue even if the material conditions that originated it have disappeared.

It is also quite relevant to observe the functioning of ideology in concrete social formations, for it is not strange that the general concept is linked solely to the proletariat; that is, the class which, in abstract-formal terms, is antagonistic to the ruling class. What is noticeable in a social formation, however much it is marked by the domination of the capitalist system, is that many things are not in a pure state, but rather “mixed”. In any case, it is essential to take as reference the ideology developed among the workers in history and the values that have been left as its legacy, in terms of the aspirations of a new society founded on other bases.

The ideology and values of the workers

The transformations that occurred in the social sphere, in the sphere of labour, produced a set of new and dispersed social practices. Many “watertight or semi-watertight compartments” were created, with little or no relation to each other. However, what I want to point out here is the ideological problem generated by this.

At another historical moment, on a path of another unfolding and another articulation of the capitalist system, a collection of ideas, representations, notions and feelings were produced in the imagination of the workers’ universe with some force. The capitalist system and the bourgeoisie were obvious enemies, since their interests were directly opposed to the objectives of the working class. The workers, concentrated in large factories, created organisational forms to win improvements and, for this reason, suffered multiple and brutal repressions. 

A good part of the imagination of these workers began to be filled with determined certainties: there was no place for them in that system; to seek justice in that system was a chimera. The struggles faced, the cruel living conditions and group solidarity aroused dreams that related to social emancipation. Ideological elements antagonistic to the system animated immediate struggles and future dreams. The big factories and unions allowed the workers to meet and strengthen a sense of strength and belonging to something different to the current system; this latent feeling, mixed with other ingredients, could be organised coherently. 

If it is true that one can only organise something that actually exists, under such social circumstances one could organise – and, indeed, did organise in primary terms and also with a certain development – an antagonistic ideology; an enemy of the capitalist system and that aspired to a very different social order.

It seems obvious that it was not the abstract and intellectual discourses that gave rise to this ideology, but the conditions of everyday life and the practices, struggles, and shoulder-to-shoulder solidarity of the workers. Theory had a role in this process: to organise this world of very “plural” ideas and feelings, with several powerful antagonistic fragments.

In this historical period values such as solidarity, mutual aid, the conception of a different world from the existing one, and the vision of the oppressor and exploiter as irreconcilable enemies were produced. The bodies that were disciplined for regular and methodical work recreated this condition, promoting the pride of being a worker, of producing social goods, of considering their task as indispensable for the well-being of society, of thinking of all reconstruction on the basis of the necessary production of goods and services. However, this perspective was not strictly promoted and reflected by the free time needed to enjoy “life”; this is how we struggled to reduce the working day. The idea of not working more than necessary was also part of this ideological horizon.

Did these ideas and values die with the stage of capitalism that lasted until about three decades ago? Were these ideological elements banished or buried by fragmentation? I can say, initially, no. Many serious studies show that ideology does not have the same pace of change as other social structures. It has, as I mentioned before, the particularity of persisting even if the conditions that brought about its existence disappear. That being true, a significant part of this historical production would still be alive, perhaps more embodied than ever. Ideology would thus be in the popular imagination, which is as material as any other matter.

Where is it exactly? What state is it in? These questions, and of course others could be asked, are the ones that matter today. I will add another: Can it be reconstructed with intellectual or purely theoretical discourses? Nothing seems to indicate so. Where is this ideology that is so indispensable for rupture today? Where else can something similar to it or capable of being articulated to it, be produced? 

Here we would have to reconcile Malatesta and Bachelard. The first said that we are always in a state of philosophical ignorance, which allows us to practice critical thinking and to know that certainties are not absolute. The second would tell us that it is already a step forward just to correctly pose a problem, even if we cannot advance much in its treatment. That is the question; we just want to pose a problem in order to think about it. We do not believe that we can go much further than that today, but the problem is posed anyway.

But why do we want to talk about things we ignore so much? The reply is the following: We are convinced that without an antagonistic ideology and corresponding values there is no chance of beating this filthy system; today, without such elements, we cannot even achieve important gains for those from below. On our continent there are diverse ideological expressions that must be studied; without considering their specific codes communication from a political organisation may be being sown in the desert. 

There are indigenous peoples who cannot be reduced, in explanatory terms, to the “peasant” category of economic roots. There are oppressions in communities of different ethnicities, of African descendants, women, the “marginalised” who lack the most basic things. In these and other universes you cannot create a classical proletarian ideology, since that would mean disconnecting the subject from their daily experience and also from the way they live. Let’s add some more considerations on this.

Social behaviours derived from fragmentation

The regular and concrete social conditions that must be faced by a group at any given moment produce specific behaviours. They develop ideological elements that are of considerable relevance to people who have been socialised in certain “behaviours” since childhood. Basically, the difference with this situation is inequality. A brutally unequal distribution of material and symbolic goods. 

There are those who claim that, in this way, “the structure of the social universe in which the individual or group’s existence occurs is reproduced in them”. Social behaviours are similar for all those in a particular compartment. Thus, a fragmented oppressed class does not produce the same thing, in ideological terms, in each one of its compartments. 

Consequently, in this fluid and atomised social situation, there are class fractions that have a distant relation with little or no connection to class consciousness. Both the compartment stranger to any direct experience, due to the absence of concrete conditions that would permit it, and, almost at the other extreme, those who benefit from symbolic material ever more "full" of reproductive content, without opportunities of incorporation into the universe of the workers.

It seems essential to see how to break with this or even how to penetrate the different compartments that are not reproducing the dominant ideology. Practically, it is about asking: How can we articulate the specific practices of each class fraction with the historical legacy and rational discourses in order to achieve an ideology of confrontation and rupture?

When we talk about the construction of an ideology of resistance, we are not referring to an intellectual elaboration but to a social dynamic in relation to which we contribute with our intentionality, and taking into account its mechanisms and its real sphere of possible interpenetration. 

The attempt to understand this complex phenomenon belongs to the sphere of theory, the production of which is a task of the political organisation that does not take place in routine, in the repetition of schemas or in pure abstractions. Abstractions are of great value in their specific domain and, if properly considered, can guide the understanding of concrete historical phenomena, located in unique times and places.

If well developed this theme takes on a particular importance in the strategic conception of the front of oppressed classes and popular power.

FC: What positions should anarchists defend in popular movements? How can the specific organisation function as a catalyst within them, influencing them to have certain characteristics and connecting diverse movements in order to increase their social force?

JCM: I will use FAU materials to answer this question, tailoring and synthesising them.

Politically organised anarchism is decisive

The problem of power, which is decisive in profound social transformation, can only be resolved at the political level, through political struggle. And it requires a specific form of organisation: the revolutionary political organisation, for us of a libertarian matrix. 

Only through its action – rooted in the masses, in the different popular processes – is it possible to attain the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus, of the set of micro-powers that sustain and recreate it. 

It is imperative that this structure be replaced by mechanisms of popular power that have a political perspective and are supported by a strong people. 

It seems necessary to add, even briefly, a few more things about power. Studies that seem sufficiently rigorous indicate some fundamental questions: power circulates throughout the whole social body, through the different structured spheres; that is, through all social relations. Thus, there is power in the economic sphere, in the political-legal-military sphere and in the ideological-cultural sphere; power exists at all levels of society. On smaller scales power also acquires importance in light of the formation of embryos of a new civilisation, in the expression of different forms of self-organisation or self-management. On a large scale power presents itself, concentrated and with greater irradiation, in larger places.

It is very relevant to consider that there is a small, everyday social universe that constitutes a factory for the production of new notions, resistances and techniques of popular power. In this universe the anarchist political organisation has a big job to do.

In fact, forms of power, and the state as a special instance, are located at a precise level of the current social structure. Although they obviously have relations of interdependence with other levels of the social reality – economic, ideological, legal, etc. – they cannot simply be reduced to them. In concrete terms this means that political activity cannot be reduced to economic struggle, nor to union and popular practice in general, even though this practice may have “political” elements, as indeed it does.

Economic and popular struggle for immediate demands does not spontaneously produce a struggle against political power as such. Nor does it produce the organisational and technical means for the struggle for power, nor the capacity to end the social relations that reproduce it. Therefore, if not properly channeled and instrumentalised spontaneism – the spontaneous mobilisation of the masses, a reflection of an accumulation of unresolved problems that soon “explodes”— scarcely transcends to the political plane in the sense of changing power relations, of opening spaces for a new process of profound transformation. 

This is because the overthrow of power – which the bourgeoisie cannot permit, because their lives depend on it – presupposes the creation of another social order, with another “model” of organisation – with another economy, another ideology – and, besides this, an inevitable struggle, a constant process of popular struggle, and technical means that the mass movement alone cannot successfully develop spontaneously. This is also not its specific task. Taking into account an ample historical period as well as our time, the teaching we have is that great spontaneous “mass” movements are very rich in the experiences they develop, but do not necessarily have a strategy that points to the transformation of the system. Even in the case of mass movements that are creating a certain level of popular power, developing some new social practices and new ideological notions.

At the present level of systemic development the only thing that guarantees victory is the destruction of the bourgeois power apparatus, its entire structure of domination, in which the state has a primary role – some talk of condensation, some of coagulation. This implies more or less prolonged political-revolutionary action, with a renewed strategy and tactics adjusted to the conjunctural variations. To deny this means to renounce all revolutionary transformation, since this is the only real and profound transformation that can change the system of domination as it is structured.

It is correctly said that to demonstrate to the people a perspective of victory, a path of hope, of confidence in the possibility of a profound and revolutionary transformation is something ideologically fundamental. This “demonstration” is a function of a political organisation; in our case, of organised anarchism. In all its actions the political organisation promotes an ideological level, of consciousness, different from that generated by the spontaneous practice of the masses – saturated with notions, values and representations that the system promotes with its mass media and the discipline promoted through varied mechanisms. It is a matter of building a level that will enable the overcoming of this kind of spontaneism. 

This requires the development of specifically political activity, which is the only way to channel the rebellion and the constructions that are generated at the popular level in different processes towards victory. For this, a political organisation is indispensable. At the current juncture, here and now, it has certain characteristics which derive from the strategic peculiarities that the situation imposes. In any case, this political organisation must be the bearer, internally and externally, of the values it considers to be primordial to the establishment of new social relations.

When a new way of doing politics is only rhetoric

To maintain a new way of doing politics or creating popular power does not mean adopting elaborate rhetorical phraseology, or embellishing old and repeated discourses that lead, once and again, to the same place. There is an interesting saying: “Slowly, because I’m in a hurry.” Because haste has repeatedly led to dead ends or to deeper entanglement of those from below, and those who want to represent them, in this cruel and violent system.

Our project of revolutionary intent understands today, like yesterday, the coherent choice of paths to follow. There are no dogmas in relation to the theoretical tools that should be used. Every rigorous production that enables a more accurate reading of reality must be taken into account, with that openness that allows us to live our time, knowing all the changes it has brought and still brings about. 

In the end, we should have a reading that allows us to see the real problems of our time clearly. At the same time, we must have the firmness and the intransigence to confront everything that the present system produces and sustains, with a heart and perseverance rooted in a future that must be built every day, in the different areas of militancy.

This process must be carried out without elitisms and vanguards, which constitute two ways of hierarchising practices and, even unconsciously, incorporating values that do not belong to the camp of the oppressed. It must contain new values so that it is not confusing or negative. Otherwise one would not be deconstructing these hierarchical values, which are so connected with domination and obedience, but reinforcing constructs alien to the historical subject. 

Political organisation, as we conceive it, is not synonymous with vanguardism or the “enlightened” elite, without which the poor “ignorant people” cannot exit the capitalist labyrinth. Political organisation is a fundamental part in the construction of this exit; but starting from other values, other ideological and ethical practices and another social sensibility. Efficient organisation is not synonymous with hierarchy. The political organisation must always be within popular processes and be part of them together with the people, living with their level of consciousness and aspiring to contribute to their development and positive change. This must come from a sense of belonging to the people, from a plane of equality, and not from the “heights” of knowledge.

The self-proclaimed vanguards – with a classic conception that they are the bearers of the future and who carry it into the heart of the people as though it were something new – deserve to be extinct today because of their historical judgment. Ideology does not come from outside, but is produced within the very practices, ideas and behaviours that people develop in their confrontations. The development of a new social-political technology and “discourses of knowledge” that correspond with freedom cannot occur without confronting those who produce domination. These discourses should promote confrontation and feed on all instances of resistance in which the people propel struggles. In this regard, the political organisation is also in a process of constant re-education.

Finally, we will use a synthesis. For us, political practice is any activity that has as its object the relationship of the exploited and oppressed with the organisms of political power, the state, government and their different expressions. Political practice is the confrontation of government, expression of imposed power; the defence and extension of public and individual freedoms; the capacity of proposals that correspond to the general interest of the population or its partial aspects. Political practice is also insurrection as an instance of violent questioning of a situation we want to change. Political practices are the proposals that, appealing to popular demands, confront the dominant organs of power, provide solutions to general and concrete issues, and force organs of power to adopt them and make them valid for society as a whole. 

An example of this is mobilisations that extend popular rights. Clearly these conquests, won by means of a social force, can only be maintained and expanded when there is a corresponding social force.

They say that “power exists in the act”, and the same can be said of revolution. It’s not about a potentiality, something that is conjured up, nor is it an isolated act. It requires modifying, disruptive, interrupting practices in spheres such as the economic, ideological, political-legal and cultural in general. 

All this is concretised in a process with active popular participation, driven by a people of which we are a part and that make up a wide spectrum of the oppressed and exploited that, at this historical stage, we call the oppressed classes. 

It is a people that, within the structural changes that have taken place, suffers from a relevant fragmentation that must be overcome through ties of solidarity that create bonds. The unity of their struggles must be a primary foundation for a social force to be able to carry out effective struggles and to advance qualitatively. This does not involve any kind of “gradualism”, linearity or taking the enemies’ posts one by one. It is something else.

Knowing the environment in which one acts, being inserted in it, having a political purpose in this daily routine, having proposals in line with what people want and need and establishing priorities are some elements that allow the development of a political organisation like ours. There are instruments of our ideology that must be put into practice in concrete circumstances: direct action, direct democracy, self-management, federative forms of organisation etc.

Your question involves the question of social force as well as how we might define the work we do as a political organisation within popular movements. These are good questions, which I will not discard. Far from all elitism, as I put it earlier, our task is that of a small motor that functions within the people and is in constant motion. Social force seems to me to be a concept of great importance. I think this is very closely linked to the next question, so I will say something about it in the next answer.

FC: I would like to address the question of class. We have defended a position of anarchist activity together with the segments of the population that most suffer the effects of capitalism. Therefore, unlike the orthodox authoritarians who prioritise a type of urban and industrial proletariat we propose action that, in addition to this proletariat, takes into account other subjects, such as workers from other sectors, peasants, precarious workers of all kinds – the “lumpen” in the classical definition – and indigenous peoples. How do you see this question of “where to prioritise the sewing of our seeds”? In this case, would all social movements with these subjects, besides the unions themselves, be a priority?

JCM: Our forces as a developing political organisation undoubtedly place limitations on us. Prioritising the whole social sphere – which, no doubt, would be great if we could do it – is not possible until we have the necessary force. Therefore, prioritising places based on previous analysis and depending on the strategy is of prime importance. 

We could say, quickly, that at different levels according to social formations there are significant aspects being felt by the population: wages, better working conditions, housing, health, human rights, survival, working class neighbourhoods, extreme poverty and education, among others. But it is quite possible that, of the three or four fundamental elements of the established strategy, it will start with those which offer more concrete possibilities at any given moment. 

We must always be careful that this does not hypertrophy the political project and that, in its dynamics, it does not become a lock, thus enabling us to act on other fronts that we consider indispensable. It is something that the political organisation regulates in its organisational structures, producing a style of analysis and discussion that allows this to occur naturally. 

That is, there are priorities that are conjunctural and others that are constitutive of the strategy itself. These are different situations that often intersect, and do not have to be in contradiction or generate orientations that, later, may become divergent. Articulating the political organisation’s action in the popular domain requires this fluidity, which does not imply a loss of coherence. It should be noted that there is a construction that concerns the organisation itself: the establishment of the necessary mechanisms for the various domains of action, as well as the evaluation of forces and of the experiences that one does not have, in order to obtain them.

There are a series of “concepts”, such as that of the lumpen, which stem from reductionist conceptions that attempt to explain everything from the economic structure and the role that, a priori, is expected of the labour movement, primarily in industrialised countries. This type of position was very common in specific historical moments, but today it can be said that this is a paradigm that, given a rigorous approach, does not hold up. In this sense there is a kind of belief in the existence of a universal subject in itself and, also, of elements of progress. It is a conceptual structure, with its “methods”, that excludes and even disqualifies, in no elegant way, everything that does not fit into its schema.

I think it may be interesting to refer to some FAU material that deals with this theme, and which was later developed, with greater richness, in a joint work.

The subject of change must be produced

“The subject is also a historical product,” the scholars tell us. Therefore, practices should be put in place that can produce and organise it. The practices of the system, added to those inherited from other previous brutal systems, were oriented towards the creation of an individual-collective subject that adapts as much as possible to the existing order, to the values that sustain it. There is no doubt that it is significant that this has been internalised in them and in us.

Thus, another historical subject will not come out of nowhere, it will not appear with a stroke of magic; it must be the result of practices that cause other notions that contradict the dominant order to be internalised. Effective participation, self-management, direct action, federative forms of truly democratic functioning, solidarity and mutual aid need regular mechanisms, organisations and practices in order to be developed; they are constantly in need of organisation. 

The continuity necessary for deployment that enables change requires sustainable strategic activity. A coherent strategy that makes it possible not to deconstruct what was built at a given moment. A strategy that contains within itself a different world, that can be promoted within the shell of the world it is antagonistic to. The so-called “by all means necessary” can be an effective way to ensure that no antagonistic strategy is developed that carries the elements destructive of the prevailing system. For this reason the general orientation, established strategy and corresponding tactics are fundamentally important. This strategy must circulate within all practices, both at the social and political level, obviously respecting the specificity of each arena of action.

This does not mean sustaining the “all or nothing” and not even “planting in the desert”. We have to establish the starting point as precisely as possible – the specific character of the set of social relations that shape and sustain the system, as well as each precise historical social formation in which we intend to act. We must start from this cruel and brutal social reality and not work out solutions with independent mental processes, unrelated to the workings of concrete social processes.

The place in which people are found in the whole structure of domination has a fundamental role in the production of a determined subject. What people live every day, and how they live, conditions a certain view in different social groups. It is not a static thing; there are factors such as resistance, the incorporation of other notions and representations that will generate, or may generate, certain “short circuits”. We must make these factors work in our favour.

At the present stage of the system: the oppressed classes as revolutionary “subject”

You asked me how we see class composition at this historical moment. The general abstract-formal schema for defining classes as bourgeoisie and proletariat, which undoubtedly exist at this level, has long been shown to be of little or no practical use when the analysis reaches the level of social formations. This suspicion is present between the lines of many documents of historical anarchism. It can be said that the bourgeoisie, even at this level of analysis, is more complex than that: there are class fractions, certain strata linked to them, and even political and ideological influences on their establishment. It is the same thing in relation to the classic proletariat. However, what interests us as a political organisation, in theoretical terms, is the operational aspects that serve the here and now.

This question was raised at the 1986 FAU Congress and the public act of the same year. But it was only at the 11th FAU Congress that we decided to take a more complete approach to the question of social classes at this stage of capitalism. It was a theme that remained open; the proposal was to continue working towards the production of a hypothesis, an initial draft, that would deepen the concept of class in this stage of capitalism. 

We discussed the need to reformulate the concept of class according to the changes that have occurred, avoiding giving continuity to the definition established in the previous period of “Fordist splendour” and the “welfare state”. In sum, we considered that the purely economic foundation was not sufficient for a definition of class. Roughly, the need to take into account the way the complex and articulated set of relations of domination is expressed in the sphere of social relations today was pointed out. This is relevant and has decisive implications for how to establish an operational strategy of rupture under the current circumstances.

The document emphasises: “We put, in first place, the need for a popular outcome as a corollary of a long process of struggles with a revolutionary orientation.” And continues:

“It is clear that in the under-developed and dependent capitalist countries, as in the case of the Latin American countries — with their particular economic and class structure more affected and weakened than in other periods — one cannot think of the possibility of a revolutionary process being driven exclusively by nuclei of the factory proletariat, nor even by all the wage earners. Especially because, at this historic moment, our continent has huge numbers of unemployed, excluded, super-exploited and semi-employed, and the statistics tell us that more than half of the population is in poverty, below the poverty line or is indigent”.

It is necessary to think about building a front of oppressed classes that, as a basic strategic tool, seeks to have the working class — or a sector of it — as a central core; but that also includes, with equal rights, rural workers, peasants, the great diversity of informal workers — a sector increasingly thickened by the crisis and the system’s responses to technological changes — the marginalised who demand work, students and the new and diverse self-managed popular expressions. 

We believe that, in principle, demands for rights for different sectors, such as the black, indigenous, feminist and other human rights movements, must be incorporated and, in particular and from a specific approach, the ecological question must be considered. However, you cannot stop taking the working class into account, especially its antagonistic values. Globally, the “subject” would, then, be in this set of oppressed classes. 

As the document states: “The front of oppressed classes to which we refer is constituted as a network of permanent relations, programmatically linked, starting from the multiplicity of grassroots organisations, capable of expressing in struggle the immediate interests of these social sectors, of developing and deepening them, seeking to constitute transformative orientations and objectives, and making them into social forces of effective gravitation”.

This translates into a variety of questions in the work of the organisation: struggles for housing, against evictions, in defence of jobs, support for workers’ struggles for land, for shelter, defence of advances and human rights, health and education, social security, youth, self-managed initiatives, ethnic expressions etc. The organisational forms that can encompass such a varied process of militant work is a broad theme, and there is some consensus on its basic aspects. 

As I said, performing a prior definition of classes — which is not based on economic reductionism, but incorporates relevant political and, especially, ideological factors — does not mean abstaining from the definition of priorities; established according to the current situation, our evaluations and our strength. 

FC: Could we say, in this sense, that the so-called neoliberal model produced more and different places due to its effects in the social sphere?

JCM: Yes, the neoliberal model realised its specific production by the means of the effects that it had in the domain of social relations, very linked to the world of poverty of those from below. I even think that they sought, by means of the production of techniques and mechanisms of power, a new discipline that meant that the universe lost in poverty adopted behaviours that ended up by making them resigned to and inserted into this miserable social reality.

I will use FAU materials again.

Fragmentation and the new poverty

This title is part of the notes made at a FAU congress, held around 1998. Despite the changes in the current conjuncture several themes addressed in these considerations seem to be quite interesting. This paper, which reflects on new situations, raises questions and the suspicion that certain dynamics could develop more widely, and that we should strive to become aware of this.

The current world conjuncture and all its economic, political and social effects – which today impact on our Latin America and the world at large – do not invalidate the considerations of that congress. We do not know exactly what the scope of the so-called crisis will be, and it seems that for the world’s poor — now including a high percentage of workers in the highly industrialised countries — the situation will get worse.

I will transcribe these notes because I believe they are useful for understanding the situations and processes that are underway. It is not a completed material, but simply some initial notes that we aim to order so as to reflect on issues that have been debated for a long time.

“This stage of capitalism has reached unprecedented globalisation and has promoted neoliberal policies across much of the planet. International organisations have acted with overwhelming consistency and have successfully promoted an even more individualistic culture in many places. 

All of these fundamental mechanisms, which work acceptingly and cohesively for the benefit of a small group of powerful people, are at the same time producing an effect of popular fragmentation. The world of work, ties of solidarity, social life, the situation of the poor itself is fragmented. 

Along with this, there is an exclusion of multitudes of people, of leftover populations, as well as the great and inhumane struggle for survival among those in the midst of what might be called the ‘new poverty’. This ‘new poverty’ is made up of hopeless people for whom the prospect of work does not even exist. For them, it’s essential to get their daily bread at any cost. Even the much propagated consumption of less important objects is completely denied to these people. Those who are part of this ‘new poverty’ see those who have a lot, something, little or very little as sources from which to get a bit of what they need.

This ‘new poverty’ is actually a ‘new misery’ as it’s greater than in any other period in history. Given the developments that have occurred, what these people lack is also more than ever. These “miserables”, like new characters coming out of the pages of Victor Hugo, are forced to contemplate opulence, corruption, luxury and all that consumer society offers without having access to anything or almost anything. There is even a difference between those who have the security of daily work, who eat every day and who can raise their children with the bare essentials.

Will all this not produce more hatred, more feelings of injury and contempt? Will the word justice not be considered, in the most different contexts, a grotesque deceit? 

Mention is made, in different parts, of a new phenomenon that is formulated in a rather fragmentary and superficial manner. Could we be in a historic moment of deaf war in the world of ‘new poverty’ and ‘new misery’ against the rich and powerful; and even against those from below, who are seen as such?

This problem indicates that there are sectors of the lower classes that do not refer to the ideology of the workers and are producing another. This may be the case for those who are completely marginalised and for peasants living in utter misery; as well as for indigenous peasants, with the difference that they incorporate into their worldview elements from ancient cultures. In this universe what would the articulating effects of the workers’ ideology be?

Would the so-called “citizen security” that, supported by the media, holds that every ‘wretch’ is a common enemy not have to do with a lot of what we are talking about? Is it not intending for, and achieving, a tacit alliance of the police, the system, and those who have something – even if this “something” is only safe, well-paid work? Would we not, even subtly, be playing the system’s game that, for its survival and reproduction, establishes at this stage a struggle against the ‘wretched’? This new situation generates many reflections.

The world is full of prisons and they are still open in many places. There will be more prisoners and the ‘new poverty’ will increase their bond with this world. Will a good part of the ‘new poverty’ be even more enabled for this war?

More than half of our Latin America’s population is in poverty. Under the current structure this situation will not improve, but will worsen in the coming years. This is what the official figures themselves reveal. Moreover, in many places there has been a greater alternation between work and hunger aimed at preventing people from entering the ‘miserable’ and hostile world.

There have been uprisings by populations that, sometimes confusedly, express dissatisfaction and discomfort regarding their situation of marginality and misery; they have been driven by peasants, the unemployed and indigenous people. Mobilisations of this kind can be seen in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico and Bolivia. In Bolivia, correctly, a movement was created around the question of water, an unorthodox mobilising element. And this general mobilisation, driven by the poorest people, took place in the poorest country on the continent. Perhaps the vector of rebellion, that uses violence for change, is coming from those who are most oppressed.

The ‘miserable’, their struggle and this feeling of revaluation of human rights and certain values are perhaps the central axes of this moment. At the ideological level, as we put it in our overall strategy, we reaffirm the values of labour, the ideology that the world of work produced and produces under conditions of oppression and exploitation. It is an orientation for the militant task. This does not mean that it is already present in large sections of the popular movement, nor even that when some of its elements exist they are clear.

At the same time, in order to carry out its readings and act in accordance with these strong phenomena, a movement must have spiritual preparation. That is, it must have an understanding and some notions that are beyond the reading carried out about them; certain levels of collective experience.

Returning to the theme of fragmentation, it should be added that it can easily be seen in political and social institutions. It can also be seen in less institutional spheres, often linked to the varied and ‘inoffensive’ cultural offering that is promoted by the system itself or that this system allows to develop. In many ways there seems to be a general tendency to observe or be interested only in partial aspects of things. Corporatism joins this perverse and interested fragmentation. We are of the impression that, besides the cultural influence of the environment, some practices are due to poor readings, with ideological distortions that cause failures even though they are developed with research and reflection materials that contribute a lot. Among other things these distortions lead to overestimating what is specific and giving an almost self-sufficient character to partial issues.

It is true that part of this constitutes a legitimate reaction to empty totalities and globalities, which are not based on the specific elements that supposedly compose it and which have created many “scientific” dogmas and theories that lack consistency. But one cannot think about the effectiveness of partial elements, that are so frequently advanced, mostly with the best intentions, by alternativists, techno-optimists and the like, when we are faced with a system of domination and exploitation, a global repressive apparatus, a generalised neoliberal model, an ideological apparatus of such deep penetration. [9] Understood in this way these partial specificities resemble the ideology of the old Vizcaya: ‘Stay in your hiding place’. They also sometimes serve to save conscience from purgatory.

Approaching what we said above, traces of a more barbaric individualism seem to have grown; with anger and conflict circulating more within the population and among equals than in relation to those above.

Together with the new phenomena the ideological apparatus of the system – to which is added a deep ‘left’ liberal-reformism – sustains a determined “no you can’t”, or does something within what is considered ‘educated’ or ‘new’, of recent manufacture and admission. All within a perimeter that does not include the “wretched” or the confronters. This, in certain sensibilities, seems to generate discouragement, confusion, frustration, despair and, finally, the desire to turn to oneself, devoting oneself to one’s own things.

Obviously, these and other factors affect solidarity and collective values, prospects for tomorrow, efforts towards something that does not exist today, and stimulate individualism, corporatism, lack of respect for others and short-term perspectives. Are they also engendering complicity with the system?

There is an ideological torrent that floods a vast terrain and that often does not even allow us to think properly. As it was said, one must “separate the wheat from the chaff” and, while this is not a simple task, it is essential.

FC: I know you were very involved in the discussion about popular power. Could you explain to me what popular power is, for you, and why this strategy is important for the popular movement? I believe the same should occur in Uruguay as in Brazil, where various other sectors also use the concept of popular power, each to refer to something different: some with strategies more or less similar to ours, others with vanguardist or diametrically opposed proposals. How can we defend popular power and differentiate our proposal from authoritarian ones? Could you explain your conception of popular power within the framework of strategy and programme?

JCM: I will also use FAU documents to answer this question.

Overall strategy

In order to broach the concept of popular power it is necessary, before entering into the theme, to make some general notes based on materials that were developed by the organisation in 1970. I will make minor adjustments to what is essential, as it seems to me that the elements put forward are clear enough to enrich any debate. Let’s see.

“The activity of a political organisation implies a prediction of the possible unfolding of events in a more-or-less prolonged period of time, which includes the course of action to be taken by the organisation in the face of events in order to influence them in the most effective and appropriate direction.

These predictions are called the strategic line. Normally, a strategic line is valid as long as the general situation to which it corresponds persists. For example: The strategy of prolonged struggle, the creation of the conditions and the development of armed struggle actions within the framework of the process of socio-economic deterioration, with its predictable derivation of intensification of struggles. 

Of course, if the overall situation undergoes very significant changes they will change the conditions under which the organisation will have to operate; if the organisation is to act effectively it must revise its strategy to fit the new situation.

It should be noted that this does not imply changing the desired objectives, the ends, nor the ideological principles. Strategy concerns a more modest, albeit decisive, plan that relates to the organisation’s operational activity, its political practice.

This is relevant because, often, there are those who tend to turn into ‘principles’ questions that are, and can only be, strategic formulations valid to the extent of their suitability and effectiveness in operating in a given situation. These formulations can become dangerous if they become dogmas with the pretence of universal applicability and utility.

Because of these arbitrary and dogmatic extensions of the validity of strategic experiments, endless discussions about what we might call ‘false problems’ took place. [...] In some cases, such positions motivated, for years, discussions in which the various ‘arguments’ were repeated and scrutinised. And, as these discussions were taking place they were creating rigid positions and giving them a transcendence they did not deserve. What was only a matter of strategy became a matter of principle. As a result, the fact that the only appropriate method to resolve these issues is to undertake an analysis of the concrete situation — economic, social, political — within which one has to act has been lost sight of. The situation, the social reality — which is dynamically constituted through situations that change and follow each other — is the only suitable ‘judge’ to decide these controversies.

However, strategy only provides the general lines for a period. It is the tactics that give body to it in the actual, concrete reality and that translate it into facts. Tactical options, as they concern more precise, concrete and immediate problems, can be more varied, more flexible. However, they cannot be in contradiction with the strategy. 

An appropriate strategic-tactical conception, as stated, must take into account the actual situation and the expected timeframe for its realisation. But that is not enough: facts, practice, ‘pure’ experience are not enough. What’s more, ‘pure’ experience does not exist. Every politically active organisation comes to a strategic-tactical conception on the basis of certain assumptions, implicit or explicit, which are ideological, theoretical. 

There is no apolitical, ideologically neutral strategy. There is no way to deduce it from a presumably ‘objective’, ideologically acetic analysis. Those who believe in the possibility of such an analysis, of a definition without ideological orientation, almost always limit themselves to accepting as the maximum level of ‘political’ development that which may derive from spontaneous development. Ideology is replaced by conceptions emanating from ‘common sense’, which is always, inevitably, penetrated by the ‘common’ ideas and beliefs spread by dominant social groups. The only way to overcome these ‘common’ ideas and beliefs is to confront them with a set of positions, organisationally structured and the widest possible; with an ideology. Ideology is an essential motor for political action and an inevitable component of every strategy. All political practice implies definite motives and meaning that only become clearly discernible to the extent they are made explicit and organised into an ideology.

We should make some notes here. The more-or-less mechanical shift of schemas from other realities – that function as a kind of substitute for the real ensemble, of the true social reality before us – has been very frequent. For a long time — and many continue to do so — strategic and tactical lines have been drawn not on the basis of a careful analysis of our reality, but on the basis of what ‘so-and-so’ said, often in relation to situations that occurred in other distant and distinct regions. [...]

In Latin America this way of proceeding, according to prefabricated ‘models’, was responsible for immense damage. Even the simple production of information — which should be carried out by rigorous descriptive work on local or regional conditions and circumstances — encountered major obstacles. In this situation the ‘copy’, the mechanical displacement of effective ‘recipes’ proven by [...] outside experience, becomes a fast and attractively ‘easy’ initiative.

The persistent recurrence of these positions, especially on the part of certain sectors of the educated petty bourgeoisie, has generated — due to a reaction that, although explicable, is mistaken — an underestimation of ideological elements, considered part of a ‘theory’ with which we could do without. Overcoming this underestimation is a current task. We must depart from these aspects and advance on the paths of the most effective knowledge and theoretical elaboration as the increasingly firm foundation of an already defined strategic-tactical line.”

The concept of “strategy in the narrow sense”. Why?

In the congress discussions we had arrived at the conclusion that the concepts of general strategy and tactics left a kind of void between them. There were questions that did not correspond to the general strategy and did not belong to the realm of tactics either. The concept of strategy in the narrow sense emerges as a provisional definition for this “intermediary” concept.

We situate this concept between general strategy and tactics. We assign to it a function of general design, in a plan of greater approximation of social-political action. The concept of strategy in the narrow sense comprises the general lines already established in different spheres, but it serves as a tool for a closer approximation of social reality. This means that we will not operate in this reality in a pragmatic or only empirical way, and that we will also not operate from the limited tactical dimension.

On the other hand, strategy in the narrow sense feeds the programme of work for a period, starting from conjunctural orientations.

About the programme

We situate the programme “specifically and concretely in the arena of social practices. In the arena where social tensions and struggles are expressed”. The programme compiles the evaluation carried out about the stage in which a particular system is analysed and, from the existing space of action, develops the possibilities for work. The programme comprises “the orientation of all our action for a period”.

It is about not doing what appears, nor assessing everything that arises in isolation, nor being discouraged because the advance is not immediately visible. It is about setting goals and moving towards them. Choosing action and setting priorities according to these objectives. Clearly this implies that there will be activities that we will not undertake, events in which we will not participate. They can be important and even spectacular, but they should be disregarded if they do not fall within the intentions for the stage of our programme. In other cases we will be the absolute minority or have major complications in activities that match our objectives. Choosing what we like best or what gives us the least complications is not the right politics. For example, the various struggles, experiences, demands for improvements or defence of victories that mobilise the population must count on our participation. Obviously prioritising those that are most combative and have the most appropriate social sensibility.

However, just being present is of no use – you must be present with an “intention”. Because of the major changes that occur in the social situation it is convenient to establish short-term programmes that do not contradict what was planned for the medium term, let alone the central long-term objectives. It is also relevant to set deadlines as it is not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of a job after a few months or even a year after completion. There are tasks that take some time to bear fruit. What is accomplished only from a narrow short-term perspective, something occasional, ends up having little or no result. Political-social accumulation is a complex task that depends on several factors. In time, hits and misses, corrections and reiterations are combined. 

In relation to a certain culture that has been spreading we can say that creativity does not mean changing the project every hour, but “inventing” and renewing it within the framework of determined objectives and methodical tasks that have regularity. One thing is creation, another is instability. A project of a certain period requires perseverance, regularity and stability. The issue of regularity must be emphasised, as what remains is everyday work; the continuity of an established strategy in which the different tasks are finally convergent. Carrying out merely occasional and episodic activities and tasks leads nowhere.

Can one think of a time-frame for our programme right now?

The programme must constantly assess our strength, taking into account our militant capacity. The distribution of effort should be based on this capacity; all established objectives must be related to this capacity. The programme not only comprises the articulation of external work, but must also encompass internal work. The times and activities of these two planes should be articulated systematically. Neglecting the tasks in either of these planes causes a particularly delicate hypertrophy. Care must be taken to ensure that all activities function in a coherent manner.

The “vessel” that embraces the fruits of militant work is the anarchist organisation, and it cannot be relegated to the background. It unites efforts and gives continuity and meaning to action. It is the vessel that embraces a purpose of transformation, drives the growth of combative and transformative consciousness in the population and endures its own changes when carrying out this task. If our force and our external presence grow we must, at the same time, have a specific organisation with a force that is proportional to its insertion in popular movements and the sphere of social relations.

The organisational forms capable of embracing such a varied militant work process is something complex and requires a balance of our forces within the frameworks of the strategy and the project adopted; a project that can be short- or medium-term.

Stage of resistance

Social, political and ideological conditions seem to indicate that we are not in a revolutionary stage, nor even of combative accumulation. Profound transformations in the short- and medium-term are not on the horizon. This statement is important not in order to have a theoretical and abstract discussion, but to elaborate our practice today. From this theoretical and practical perspective we can say that, today, we are in a stage of resistance. When we set this general line we are not discounting the armed struggle of the legendary Colombian guerrillas or the creative and vigorous Zapatista movement, which has clear and innovative revolutionary propositions.

One of our documents said the following: “Resistance, therefore, for this stage. To strengthen struggles, raise spirits, regain confidence in our own forces, think of a just tomorrow, create a collective alternative, combat individualism and defeatism, rescue solidarity, generate new revolutionary possibilities.” We have to work to ensure that all practices are consistent with the established plan. That is, social and political practices that are in line with another moment of society should not coexist with practices corresponding to this historical moment due to the inertia of the past. This difference can create confusion and impact on the social environment. Even if we share the same objective of revolutionary intention this does not mean that we should keep repeating the same strategies; we cannot import models used in previous situations that were unique.

Why a strategy of popular power? And what power?

I must now answer as to why a strategy of popular power is important for popular movements. In fact, this strategy is important for both popular movements and the anarchist political organisation.

Our libertarian idea of power has its foundations in the theoretical and political conceptions that were developed by Bakunin with such lucidity, even foreseeing the future. He could not foresee the possibilities of rupture and the creation of a new civilisation — as many militants of that time called the new world they sought to build — without the destruction of the capitalist state, without popular action and participation. Bakunin said things like this:

“Free organisation will occur after the abolition of the state.

Society can and must start its own organisation which, however, must not be carried out from the top down, nor according to any ideal plan designed by a few wise men or philosophers, nor by decree promulgated by some dictatorial power, or even by a National Assembly elected through universal suffrage. Such a system, as has been said, would inevitably lead to the formation of a government aristocracy, that is, a class of people who have nothing in common with the popular masses; and this class would surely go back to exploiting and subjecting the masses under the pretext of common welfare or the salvation of the state. [...] In reality, what do we see in history? That the state has always been the patrimony of a privileged class.”

From the present, but modifying practices and logic

It is certain that the transition to a different society must begin to be made within this system. But experience tells us that there are means, orientations, instruments, institutions and forms of organisation that must be abandoned if we are to construct social forces capable of producing real transformations in the contents and forms of social organisation. This is an indispensable alternative if we want to build a different society that seeks to modify the collection of social relations that exist in a given society.

There is extensive experience regarding attempts to choose short cuts, basically those of a statist type, on the part of socialism and movements that claimed to want to overcome capitalism. All this in the name of realism, of the need to see the process of transformation pragmatically, to choose supposed paths that, as was argued, could reconcile aspirations for transformation and the mechanisms of systemic reproduction in our favour. 

They told us it is possible to be inside these same circuits of power — historically constituted to ensure greater effectiveness of domination — and, through them, to work and produce politics in the direction of changes that, gradually, would suffocate that dominant channel itself, in which we would be inserted and by which we would be influenced daily. In terms of logic this is something quite poor.

What history demonstrates, as do rigorous theoretical works, is that these apparatuses of power absorb and make functional that which circulates within them. It also seems clear that one cannot conceive questions contrary to the logic of the system by means of it.

This whole institutional body, all these mechanisms are not empty; more than that, they are full. Full of constant productions in favour of maintaining, reproducing and recreating this kind of social order. It does not in any way seem to be a good strategy to choose these ways, these places and these routes that have a master and, at the same time, the power to stamp their mark on everything that forms part of them.

“Society can and must begin its own reorganisation,” says Bakunin in the material quoted above. It should be noted that there is a series of activities that can and should be carried out right now, within capitalist societies. Social and political activities that enable the exercise of participation and resolving the population’s problems. These activities produce notions and experiences that increase awareness and confidence in our own strengths.

The more popular participation has developed in the stage prior to the fundamental transformations, the greater will be the possibilities for forms of organisation that move towards authentic socialism.

Even so, we must keep in mind something that seems to have a basis: the disruption of a system opens up new possibilities, giving rise to new combinations that had not previously presented themselves. For this reason, the limits cannot be observed only from a notion of horizon that is presented before us today. Faced with some changes, possibilities must arise that previously could not even be imagined. There are situations, produced by a process of rupture, that generate discontinuities with a part of what exists and establish a new scenario. They are not magic “jumps”, but are related to what precedes them. However, it should be noted that these possible situations cannot surprise us; in terms of political organisation we must be technically prepared for such events in case they should occur.

Popular power and rupture

Ensuring the viability of implanting popular power, according to what we define and from our libertarian perspective, implies, in strategic terms, a determined definition of revolutionary rupture. This definition constitutes one of the fundamental cores of the strategic debate of the Latin American left today, as there are proposals that do not point to the empowerment of the people, but seek their adherence and channel their combative energy and their desire for transformation into the classic ways, that is, into the institutionalism of the system of domination.

The autonomy of this process of popular power depends as much on the course that the revolutionary process can follow, as on the concrete characteristics assumed by the actions to confront the system. In this sense, we conceive of this task as an effective accumulation of the people; creating their own organisational instances, new forms, independent institutions, new mechanisms that make revolutionary rupture that has a popular base possible.

There is no doubt, and history itself has shown, that the possibilities for socialist construction grow stronger by the extent to which there is popular participation and weaken if rebellious events are conceived solely to change those who control the structures of domination.

We know that what has been said here has a precise and very general purpose; however, this is necessary to clarify an orientation of militant work. Another relevant theme is how to place this question of popular power in the concrete formations of our Latin America today, in the social and political activities themselves.

The protagonism of those from below and their power

We define power as a capacity to accomplish something and not as repression. In this particular case, the ability of a people to realise their various interests and to constitute for themselves a form of organisation that is founded on other bases, on values different to the existing ones, and which legitimately ensure solidarity, freedom and justice.

Power, thus defined – no matter how much it is conceived to function in complex societies and at technological levels that are not at all simple – does not equate, at any moment, to the concept of government. I will give some examples to make this idea clearer. Popular power is concretised in the control of the means of production of goods (factories, fields, mines, etc.), the mass media (newspapers, radios, television channels, information in general), services (transport, energy, sanitation works, communications, etc.), decision-making mechanisms (research, scientific work) and of the corresponding means at the political level, of collectively established “legal” instruments, ideological structures, education plans, different cultural manifestations. This control is of the people-collective, established by organs and institutions that have been developed during the process and at the moment of assuming power. And this will depend on an articulation between the “upper” and “lower” parts, of which Bakunin speaks, without authoritarianism or hierarchy.

It is certainly not about the end of history, nor does it mean the end of the ideological struggle and, perhaps, of others.There will still be many ghosts of the past, a capillary power, disseminated throughout society, which can reproduce the system’s values and institutions. In addition, all the affected circuits will be worn out in this first stage of profound transformation.

The complex nature of power obliges us to adopt equally complex strategic lines. In the face of an established strategy of power, designed to perpetuate it, one must oppose it with a strategy of the oppressed classes aimed at constructing a popular power that ensures a better and fair functioning of the whole of society. The concretisation of popular power requires the preparation of the organisations of the oppressed classes dedicated to assuming it, and the consolidation of these organisations with their corresponding role. This is necessary because building popular power does not mean conquering, through the social and political force of the oppressed, the constitutive elements of power and that, immediately after the work of rupture, they meet all social needs.

Finally, it is not simply a matter of uprooting the ruling classes of today’s centralised global power; but of disseminating it, decentralising it into popular organisations, transforming it into something else. Making it conform to a new political and social structure.

The popular power exercised by the workers and the people in amply democratic and participatory bodies controlled by them will assume this control, appropriating the tutelary functions exercised by the state sphere. Therefore, a strategy of popular power must have as its essential premise the construction of these bodies, and this is a fundamental political task that must be given priority right now. It will determine whether the future will be revolutionary and socialist or not. For this reason, the defeat of the capitalist and authoritarian order and the building of a legitimate popular power is being carried out on a daily basis, due to the way in which political and social work is permanently oriented and concretised.

We must, therefore, create or recreate, strengthen and consolidate workers’ and popular organisations, of all the oppressed, and defend their protagonism as a means to fertilise, bit-by-bit, the only possible socialism. A socialism that is founded on freedom, in which all the technical and scientific advances we know today are placed at the service of a more suitable social functioning that benefits all human beings, the people in general.

The teachings of capitalism and the cause of those from below

The last century of capitalism and of people’s struggles, in particular, left much material for reflection and study. It taught us that the system has a very great capacity to develop, to circumvent its difficulties and to digest its intestinal struggles. It taught us, too, that deviant practices do not cause it deep crises and can even constitute life-giving elements that ensure its improvement and changes in the dominant power, including at the imperial level. 

Everything seems to indicate that such a system does not commit suicide and that we cannot expect its internal process to make life easier for us; this process does not create elements that accelerate the arrival of socialism. Its whole strategy of existence is contrary to the necessary foundations for a society based on other social relations and conceived in socialist terms. The popular power of which we speak is conceived in terms of libertarian socialism.

The devices, mechanisms, institutions, habits, behaviours, the ideas that flood social life, the very way of envisaging the production of goods and services, its relation to nature — all of this has to be turned upside down to enable another form of social life. This social and organic universe does not produce anything useful for those from below. The old ideas of progress increasing with capitalist development have been buried by history, along with a host of other paradigms.

We use the concept of “those from below” or “people” in a very precise sense. It has nothing to do with the concept of “civil society”, which makes a blank slate of the classes and the class fractions that exist within them. This “civil society” which excludes the dominant power structures that circulate throughout it and that also prop up the system. This “civil society” which equates different interests while abducting and masking a brutal reality.

Our political obligation now

According to the model of society we want to build, our action today and on the tomorrow of transition must take place on two interdependent and indivisible axes: popular power and specific political organisation. 

Regarding the first, as I said, every act of direct democracy, of participation, every self-managed instance constitutes a contribution to this construction. But at the same time, it is important to acknowledge the lesson of history that it is impossible to reach a society of socialism and freedom without a strong political organisation that is embedded in the reality of its time. The complexity surrounding a process of transformation demands a high level of understanding of social mechanisms. 

It requires proceeding with a long-term goal-directed project and with a flexibility that allows it to be able to operate in various circumstances. Posing and solving problems, planning periods of action, being aware of changes, estimating your own forces, the forces of the enemy and of specific allies. Developing an analytical capacity to visualize events so as to be able to operate more effectively. Working for technical and political development that permits a relevant focus.

Socialism demands another path, another production

I will briefly enter somewhat pretentious paths. So, what is the path today? You can ask this question, which is a correct question. 

It seems that the historical experience of the last half century indicates a point of departure, which is not to participate in the hard core of the system with the aim of transformation. Not to choose elements that have reproductive force with the aim of creating something totally different. It seems to be necessary to strategically seek out the points where the system is most vulnerable, where its control is relative and it has weaknesses, as does a “virus”, and, in this way, to strengthen the reactions and resistances that oppressive politics arouses in social zones not entirely controlled by the system.

One can rightly ask: Concretely, what does this mean? An initial and synthetic response brings us closer to a very important subject, which I will only briefly address.

The system does not only reproduce its fundamental relationships. By basing itself on domination, exploitation, the pursuit of the greatest possible profit, inhuman competition, atrocious individualism, the market as its great god, the constant physical or psychological repression of oppressed agents, concentration of wealth and power in a ruling class, on a “cultural” industry that transmits values this system produces at the same time, albeit involuntarily, another universe, another situation. 

There are a huge number of people who are excluded from the basic enjoyment of goods and services, and most of humanity is walking towards misery and is increasingly excluded. This universe, which includes those who are deprived of everything (indigence), almost everything (poverty), or who have very restricted access to that to which they aspire (lower middle class) makes up 80% of the world’s population today. 

In this universe there have been various cultural changes. Survival mechanisms, original forms of mutual aid, experience with transient forms of work. In such conditions of daily existence new techniques emerge, new ways of thinking and feeling, as well as many behaviours that are not desired by and are combatted by the system. It is a world that does not believe in certain discourses, institutions, social and political practices, and in which there are different levels of changes in notions of justice and rights; changes that distance themselves from established positions. 

With this another historical subject is produced, both in personal and collective terms. This process involves the aforementioned militant work, although there are others of greater intensity and volume which must not only have our attention but also, if possible, be foreseen in our analyses.

There are moments when lots of social problems are condensed and social responses and mobilisations of different forces and significance emerge. These are moments of direct action that enable combative social development and politics in line with our ideas. Depending on how we intervene in these contexts, we will emerge more or less strengthened. There are abundant examples of popular uprisings in our Latin America that open up cracks that can be preserved and deepened or, on the contrary, be closed back up by the system.

The fluidity of a path

The timing of processes cannot be determined only by our will. That is why we have been talking about the need for a new way of doing politics, of building a strong people, of articulating these two instances in a coherent front. 

It is also relevant, in the same way, that the strategy, at its different levels, and tactics have a relationship of reciprocal influence – since the tactics must exist within the strategy, which is carried out through them. Although they constitute distinct spheres both must be permanently connected. The strategy frames general spheres, action guides, fundamental coordinates; the tactics should zigzag according to the fluidity of concrete historical action. But this zigzag must be done within certain boundaries and with certain contents — otherwise no project of transformation is accomplished. Strategy and tactics involve different practices and you cannot consider them as something similar or be unaware of their singularities, the sphere that each one encompasses with greater possibilities.

Reducing principles to tactics without the corresponding “mediations” turns discourse into something declamatory, which may even give it a pleasant ethical tone but that clearly is not our purpose.

The building of “a strong people”, in this sense, requires a determined regular social work and a political organisation that articulates with it, that makes it its “office”. Seen from afar this may seem like a very complex plot. However, when we deal with it, when we utilise it and combine it on a daily basis with different events it is not. In this process the appropriate elements for the work are generated and from these results a suitable craftsman for action of revolutionary intention. Certainly, to do so laziness must be totally abandoned.

It seems convenient to point out that I will use the concept of “social” to describe activities such as that of unions, cooperatives, issue-based community work, human rights, indigenous movements, peasants, general and specific themes of a demand-centred type or struggles for immediate improvement like health, housing etc. 

I will use the concept of “political organisation” to refer to an instance of synthesis that seeks to ensure the continuity of the strategy, theoretical elaboration, the development of technical instances, general orientations in the conjuncture, the search for effectiveness in confrontations, the general vision about the partial struggles, the study of the enemy’s strategy at each moment, the constant learning of what the popular struggle involves, the forming of alliances favourable to the process. That seeks to build a proposal of social functioning for the present, for the whole society, in which a change takes place without interruption. 

This must be done taking very precisely into account the state, in its current form, as the political structure of the class enemy — with all its repressive capacity, with all its institutions of “perverse fantasy”: elections, parliaments, etc. — but, at the same time, bearing in mind that the dominant power is not only found in the state, but runs through different arteries of the social body.

Thus, the social and political are conceived as two simultaneous and properly articulated plans of action but, with its relative independence, each one has its own specificity. We are, therefore, partisans of simultaneous work within the same project: of the libertarian political organisation and of work in the whole social sphere. We are in favour of building popular power, as our organisation has declared in materials produced since 1960.

However, I must say that the fundamental aspects of this conception were formulated in the context of the very emergence of the libertarian conception of socialism: the pursuit of social revolution; the notion of the state as an expression of the class enemy; the struggle for a society based on solidarity, in opposition to the cruel selfishness of capitalism; the necessity of not using the mechanisms of the system, such as elections, parliaments, positions in the state; the struggle against the institutionalisation of the unions... 

It was these social and political proposals and practices that set a general course so that it would be possible to break free from the deadly grip of the system, its sticky and deceptive webs that were at times so appealing to many. We used to say at the time: “Do not enter the enemy’s enclosures”.

The upper and lower part as homogeneous spheres. The destruction of the old

A revolutionary process has to be carried out from the bottom up, as Bakunin said, and not the other way around; as it has almost always happened. It should not involve hierarchy, but social organisational instances that are constituted by the people themselves, from the bottom up; by those who suffer the consequences of the system, who resist, create and seek organisational forms to defend themselves. 

This requires that militancy produces a culture for the process of proposed social transformation. It also requires some changes, an internalisation of the project, a change in militant “style” and behaviour. For, as a mestizo would say, “It is hard to make pumpkin jam with potatoes”. [10] 

The task of removing the old, modifying it, deconstructing its structure is something daily, not intermittent and episodic. We contribute to the constitution of a particular conjuncture and our possibilities for taking advantage of it will depend on what we have done before. 

This daily task must be carried out in the midst of the different popular expressions, seeking broad harmony with the concerns and urgencies of the people and ensuring that the necessary condition for popular participation is present. We should not carry out solitary practices or operate outside popular sentiments. This will only make us angry with the people. 

Sustaining this position does not imply blindly following the habits imposed by centuries of constructing a subject who was created for a given system, but performing daily activity, militating for the destruction of these habits within and among the people themselves. It implies attacking the structures that have their genealogy, their unfolding and that reside in different “territories” of the system.

It is a task to be performed in enemy territory, linked to multiple resistances and struggles, most of which are around immediate demands, that demand improvements, reforms of what exists today. 

But, as our theorist Malatesta rightly said, the question is not only to win reforms, but to focus on the spirit in which they are sought, what the background involved in this process is. He added that fighting for reforms is not the same as being reformist; what is being built in terms of popular power must have a north: socialism. Without this north there will be no emancipatory future. 

This process of building popular power may lead to imposing improvements and may not be in line with the somewhat magical premises of “the worse, the better” or “it’s all the same”, which obscure the specificities of the different processes that — even though they may have elements of the system, and such is the capitalist world — have, at the same time, singularities that provide particular spaces to be taken advantage of. It is not the same thing to live in capitalism under a dictatorship and under a classic bourgeois democracy. Without making a value judgment it is possible to say that, in both situations, there are spaces for action with different possibilities. 

Why do anarchists always seek a revolutionary process? It is neither a romantic nor a nostalgic choice, but something almost blatantly rational. This choice is based on a logic that this capitalist century, full of so many horrors, indicates to us. What are these such horrible things that demand such vast transformations? Some data can help answer.

Transnationals, neoliberalism and imperial power 

I will work with data that cannot be considered radical and raging. The audit that was done at the Vienna Counter-Summit not so long ago is undoubtedly interesting. “Transnational corporations wield an enormous power in the world, one that affects everyone’s life. Transnational corporations continue to confront workers, communities and even entire regions and countries, generating inhuman competition in which human rights end up being undermined everywhere. Transnationals are indisputable actors in the promotion of neoliberal ideology, fellow traveller of ‘this globalisation’. Latin America and the Caribbean are the two regions in the world that have suffered the most devastating consequences: unemployment and precariousness of work, growing poverty and marginalisation, destruction of agricultural systems in favour of the monopoly of agribusiness, violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and peasants, spoiling of natural resources, privatisation of public services, deindustrialisation, shrinking of states and governments to regulate their economies.” 

Those who declared imperialism dead do not serve to be gravediggers. Imperialism lives and oppresses like never before. At the same time as states in more industrialised countries have been multiplying their functions in various spheres, it is certain that another form of capitalist state has ceased to concern itself with some of its former functions and assumed others instead. 

This is a form of state that is related to the present stage, in which the large transnational corporations have a different role to the classic companies of previous stages, and in which international financial capital is involved daily with the political level. These are economic, legal-political and ideological-cultural structures that have a very specific articulation today.

Our Latin America and the building of popular power

I think it is important to mention some historical facts, since we are having a more-or-less theoretical discussion.

There are diverse social mobilisations: indigenous movements with certain specific and general demands; armed struggle, as in Colombia and Mexico, coexisting with social movements; popular uprisings against governments demanding nationalisation of natural wealth against imperial plunder; popular referendums against government decisions or in favour of certain social and political issues; repeated insurrections, as in the case of Bolivia; resistance that crosses borders and transforms into a single voice, as in the case of mobilisations against the FTAA; ecological movements in defence of the abused nature, which has been devastated by the system; the discontent who express themselves in traditional elections, voting against what seems repugnant to them, having hopes of different levels and waiting for the arrival of new and better things; elections that, generally, frustrate small or large existing expectations. 

Although not directly contributing to the creation of popular power these experiences, linked to electoral processes and institutions, must be taken into consideration as part of a reality distinct from other historical moments.

This has been said other times. Elections can be considered as polling research that uncovers the discontent and aspirations of a part of the population, given that the elections and all the political technology of those at the top that is engaged in them cannot nullify a certain state of consciousness that conjuncturally expresses itself through this disguising mechanism. The electoral mechanism does not correspond to the outcome of the struggles that point to other horizons, as in the case of Bolivia, and in it things get very confusing at times.

In spite of all the influence of this research we can notice, on some occasions, that important and active social sectors, of organised or spontaneous expressions, are decidedly positioned in favour of profound changes and, for a moment, waste their efforts on the institutional arena due to the symbolic power that this web still possesses in certain imaginations. Other times, popular rejection of governmental politics also has something to say. Clearly, in all electoral processes we must take into consideration the mechanisms that bring right and centre-right alliances into play, the fundamental role of the mass media, the multinationals, the United States embassy and so on.

The electoral question is confused with various and distinct expressions of popular power, of direct action by social movements in search of new forms of social organisation with another level of popular participation. Expressions that react against the old practices but that appear, at “opportune” moments, together with all the electoral paraphernalia and with discourses that touch, even with exaltation, on central aspects of the people’s demands. 

In this domain, of episodic elections, this is how things work: there is a preference for figures who, in fact, represent little or nothing to the people, and who quickly try to demobilise the elements of greatest transformative potential. There is a very perverse symbolic world that possesses strength and that, as can be seen, will continue to project itself in time and to impede authentic changes.

However, positions – permeated by a lot of elitism and vanguardism – that all these expressions and struggles of popular power are of little use and, finally, end without relevant electoral victories do not seem rigorous.

Victories must be sought in another domain; they have a rhythm that, maybe, is not suitable for the anxious to see their fruits. We must look for them in the multiplication of expressions of direct action; of self-management in different spheres; of popular organisation with forms that do not point toward institutionalisation; of disbelief in the growth of classic bourgeois democracy, the political “caste” and a particular way of doing politics. 

For example, in Bolivia Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was deposed and Carlos Mesa succeeded him, following a similar policy. However, the popular movement went back onto the streets and deposed Mesa, an indicator that their organisational experience and participatory consciousness had not died in the face of frustration. This does not mean that Evo Morales now represents these demands, but he does not have many alternatives but to take part of them into account, as his political life was based on that. 

Even with the infamous regressions, promoted primarily by the so-called progressive parties, we have seen that the struggles of those from below do not die; they have roots of some depth. There are reactionary structures and political proposals full of “new” promises, which imply choices in this relatively new universe that is emerging, of ways that are sometimes risky; provisional ways arise in concrete and deceptive instances that are not yet completely abandoned. They will only be so when those from below are able to shape their own general proposal for new social relations, which will not come from outside, but from within. To create it, it will be necessary to have a certain social-political force. 

We have seen that, in Latin America, struggles for popular power begin in day-to-day struggles. Mass movements have, at times, had a great capacity to accumulate forces in neighbourhoods, in committees that articulate around concrete themes, such as the struggle for water in Cochabamba and demands for land and respect for community life in the case of indigenous populations. Besides indigenous movements workers’ and peasants’ unions have arisen at times, forming a strong, combative social fabric that won the streets and raised slogans that, in general, no leftist party had on its agenda.

Various popular expressions with a decisive impact on social organisations, that have sustained struggles against the system for the past fifteen years, are know of. In Argentina, we can mention “Que se vayan todos”. [11] Governments have fallen in Bolivia, Ecuador — three in the last five years alone — and Peru. These expressions also played a key role in preventing the right-wing coup in Venezuela.

Even today a popular uprising is under way in Honduras. I must say that we are strongly in solidarity with the anti-dictatorial positions of this vigorous mobilisation, in which various social organisations are intervening. This event, which at this moment is essentially directed at opposing the coup, is something far more complex than the simple return of the constitutionally elected president.

There are various expressions of the capacity of social movements to act and challenge the worst government regimes and the measures they produce. These movements have confronted police and military repression in the streets with blood and fire. They are adopting different organisational forms and today they are mobilising around social and economic problems, struggles for health, water, employment, roads, electricity, human rights, the rights of indigenous populations and against dictatorships. These are movements that constantly go from social to political, because their demands touch the interests of the dominant power and the state quickly intervenes to repress them. Furthermore, in the medium term efforts are generally made to push them down the path of bourgeois institutional domestication.

It is sometimes said that there is little or nothing beneficial left after these struggles. This view results from a criteria that, you could say, is made up of categories of old discourses that are not adept to a reading of the present. In many of these discourses we see that is implied that if the old vanguard party is not present, with its group of professionals and technicians, there is no way out. Thus, no other way of doing politics is conceived; this enlightened elite must be present to guide everyone.

Political organisation is still of the utmost importance for liberation, rupture and the destruction of capitalism, as well as for the beginning of another process founded on different bases. However, the political form to be sought is different. The political organisation must not be a vanguard but a level or sphere distinct from the struggle itself and that operates within it, as part of it, which is an indispensable condition.

I want to highlight something that has already been said. All these struggles, demands and confrontations imply a process of active participation by the population, accumulation of knowledge from experiences and approaches that ferment in favour of legitimate solutions, questions that are fundamental to the building of popular power, in the midst of which we must be at all times. The political organisation must be completely inside and never outside of these processes, with the double articulation that something of this nature requires. 

Could it be our moment?

Everything that has been said led us to establish the role of the libertarian political organisation in this historical period: its strategy, its organisational form, its way of operating in the present. The “vanguard” parties, those that “represented” the proletariat and the people, seem more than ever to be in bankruptcy. If we consider our Latin America in recent decades there are rich examples of how these parties have been on the sidelines, or reproducing the dominant positions, in the various radicalised mobilisations and demonstrations that those from below have carried out, largely driven by broad social organisations. Bolivia was the most paradigmatic case. But we know that it was not the only one, that this situation was like a river that flowed through different points on our map. 

However, at the same time as they drive relevant social and political struggles and go beyond the positions of the “left” parties, popular movements at times fade away and leave a vacuum that is soon filled by old acquaintances. There are those that, almost always, assess this vacuum according to the logic of the absence of vanguard parties that propose to take spaces in the state, with a view to starting a process from that. It is worth saying that these people analyse or propose this kind of thing based on the same logic that caused the “left” parties to be absent or to deny that these popular ways were valid. 

It is hardly mentioned that the question concerns another way of doing politics and another way of conceiving political organisation. What role should the political play today, in light of the historical experience we have had? We believe that the notion of “conveyor belt” [12] is no longer useful; what works, seen from another logic, is the notion of the political organisation as a “small motor”, as was mentioned earlier. Without doubt the role of the political organisation continues to be valid and occupies a distinct space from the action of social organisations. But it seems to be increasingly necessary to specify in detail its area of action and practices that concern it. This is another of our tasks. 

And it seems to us that it is anarchism that is in tune with these mobilisations and that has defended, in general terms, political actions of this type, necessary as a corollary of such processes.

FC: The FAU had, along with the other activities, a specific task of armed struggle. Did this generate relevant organisational problems? Did the organisational structure undergo important alterations?

JCM: This is a relevant issue that must be related to internal organisation, the preparation and formation of militants within the framework of the historical conjunctures that need to be confronted. It is well known that, like others, especifista organisations have documents such as a Declaration of Principles and Organisational Charter. 

The political-social lines of work and experiences instrumentalise these lines in the different social spheres, causing — along with important conjunctural variations — the Organisational Charter to be modified occasionally. The Declaration of Principles of a period of the organisation also does not stay the same after several years of militant work. But in general I have the impression, according to our experience, that it is less modifiable. It also depends on how the Declaration of Principles is elaborated. If it addresses conjunctural aspects or historical stages it should be more modified. General principles are adjusted, developed and updated as knowledge advances, but generally at a slower pace. There are ideological, non-theoretical elements that constitute our collectivity, that involve imagination and cohesion and that, although they are not dogmas, provide certainty about the path sought and, therefore, do not vary much. 

In any case, these instruments that articulate with the collection of tasks were not conceived as means, but as part of the general conception of militant dynamics. Considerations that are constitutive elements of organised anarchism and have the same value as other elements. We know that in our libertarian environment there is an old discussion about whether or not the organisation is only a means. To assume the organisation only as a means, for us, means to separate the way it is carried out from the practice; a position that implies a significant problem.

But I’ll stick to your question more. Incorporating a specific armed apparatus to operate regularly requires a series of techniques consistent with the specificity of the tasks that must be faced and carried out. Moreover, and this question is fundamental, its existence has affects on the organisation as a whole. It is not just like adding another activity in addition to those the organisation already has. It means restructuring the entire organisation so that its articulation with the rest of the activities is coherently understood within the strategy and, naturally, within the general ideology that involves this social-political action.

In this concrete aspect, of armed action, the FAU did not start from scratch and neither did it add itself to the style of guerrilla action that was called “focalism”. [13] It did not start from scratch because anarchism had a whole history of very fruitful direct armed action: heroic, justice-seeking, expropriator, of cruel and bloody confrontations with repression. To put it briefly, the anarchist struggles and episodes were very important in history, as in the case of the Chicago Martyrs, Sacco and Vanzetti, the Spanish Revolution, Durruti’s Iron Column, and also here in Rio de la Plata with the Tragic Week, the Patagonia struggle and massacre, the avenging workers who executed executioners... The list would be very long, but I just want to give a few examples. 

These examples are not generic, but they were in the imagination and sensibility of a large part of the militancy that founded FAU; atrocious persecutions, arrests, assassinations of anarchists, executions and “disappearances”. This universe was not ignored. Many of these facts were the subject of regular conversations in different centres of anarchist activity, sometimes in great detail; but not only at the formal level, in written propaganda material or in debates. They were also told in fraternal conversations by comrades who knew of or participated in such activities: the Spaniards living in Uruguay who were part of the Spanish Revolution; the expropriators who suffered torture and long imprisonment; the workers who were fiercely persecuted and tortured in Argentina and some in Uruguay itself. 

We were aware that the struggle was not easy at all and that the revolution would not happen quickly either. The guerrilla currents that were emerging at that time had another vision of the enemy, and there were even those who thought, and even said, that the revolution was nearly there. Marxism in Latin America had a very different history and an imagination with almost no points of convergence with ours. At that time, the Marxists had in mind the Cuban revolutionary episode, which was atypical to the line of peaceful coexistence defended by the continent’s political parties, which constituted the largest Marxist force. 

For this reason the automatic transposition of the guerrilla strategy expressed by “focalism” has never been shared by us. We saw armed struggle in another way, in another historical perspective. We were very aware of the history of our countries. Just as there was no coincidence, there were no conflicts with those who were dedicating their lives to a different strategy from ours either. We walk different roads and, often, coordinate specific technical actions. 

I will talk a little more about this subject, not simply by daydreaming, but because in certain libertarian circles they have identified us with “focalism” or “guerrilla-ism”, as they said, and this was never the case; it is a misconception.

The decision to set up an armed apparatus was not made overnight; there was a whole prior process. In it organisational forms, infrastructure for emergencies, alternative places where the union and social comrades would operate in the public environment in times of persecution, establishment of basic security mechanisms and criteria – both for the public militants as well as for those that had already done armed work or harder support work in the union environment – were being adapted. 

This began to be articulated in 1962. In 1963, it was stopped a bit because, when it became necessary to adjust the general organisational instance to functioning in accordance with the hard times we foresaw, there was a group of comrades who disagreed because they already had another strategic proposal, fundamentally based on non-violence, and completely disagreed with our decision. This was one of the reasons for the split of some FAU comrades in 1963. 

The FAU then proceeded with the task of adjusting the Organisational Charter according to the assessment that had been made of the conjuncture ahead, and which we expected would soon get worse. Clearly this required finances and, for that, expropriations were carried out, mainly from banks. Thus, our Organisational Charter ended up keeping an important part almost intact, but it also incorporated a new part, which addressed new organs, commissions, secretariats and functions in order to be able to cover all the planned measures in an organised manner. 

There was a logic that emphatically told us that if a conjunctural analysis suggested a determined action, we could not, after knowing this, say things like: “It’s fine, but we can’t face many of these tasks because they alter our principles and imply risk of diversion”. If we did, we would be declaring the unfeasibility of anarchism as a social current that intends to transform the system. We would bury anarchism or leave it as a distant reference from the past. 

Back then, just like today, we looked at things this way. We have and execute a proposal that we believe conforms to popular demands; otherwise we would be leaving room for others, with other conceptions, to do so. And in that there is no possibility of return.

By then, the organisation needed to develop an armed apparatus for various functions and also to grow. To be able to direct sympathies and struggles that came to us, to push initiatives of a certain size, to take new organisational steps, and all of this also immediately required a sum of money. Of course, this was not the priority of the Organización Popular Revolucionária (Popular Revolutionary Organisation—OPR), especially if we consider the moment when it developed most. However, this would be one of the activities to be permanently faced and, initially, it was a priority for the reasons given.

Repression was high at the time because the Tupamaros guerrillas were already operating, and this required technically and appropriately empowering our people so that they could meet their objectives and get out of the process alive. Cooperation for certain armed actions at that repressive juncture no longer worked. The base of the armed apparatus was made up of workers, who invested heavily in their own preparation, and did so with much modesty and responsibility, being clear that some things would be learned as the process unfolded.

However, I think your question refers more to the theoretical aspect, related to the organisational form — in this case the Organisational Charter — which established the organisms, functions, rights and duties of fellow militants. 

We sought not to leave questions on relevant issues open, so that they could then generate endless doubts. Congressional instances decided any interpretative differences or shortcomings of the Charter. We always consider that the collective should deal with these issues.

The discussions, the different approaches, the changes of opinion occurred, fundamentally, in the political and social analyses. And that was, and always will be, very constructive; the production of a culture of serious analysis and discussion is not a minor task of the political organisation.

It is important to mention, even without the proper elaboration, that the OPR (armed wing) had no strategic independence. That is, expropriations, kidnappings, etc. were not decided by it, but by the political organisation through the body that represented it and which was collectively legitimised. This model was different from practically all other guerrilla activities of Latin America at that time, with the exception of the Chilean Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionária (Revolutionary Left Movement—MIR), which can be considered a party; but, to be clear, a Marxist-Leninist party, with its corresponding centralism.

FC: The OPR’s distinct character in relation to “focalism” is clear. Could you detail the functioning of this technical armed task a little? Within our libertarian conception, how was the operation of the armed apparatus viewed?

JCM: This has been a major concern since the beginning of the OPR’s regular task. The libertarian experience in this sense was very small. Not with regard to action itself, of course, but in relation to the work of armed direct action within an organisational framework and in appropriate relation to a general strategy, with responsibility, self-discipline and discipline. A process in which a group of comrades acted as another part of the organisation and affirmed their commitment to the collective resolutions in which they participated like the rest of the comrades. 

There is a comrade, Carmelo, who was imprisoned in another country and lived, for many years, in prison with comrades from other organisations. He told us that militants from other organisations found the way we had approached the armed struggle strange, and at the same time interesting. 

Carmelo is an old comrade with a lot of experience and a very good theoretical-political formation, and for many years he has been concerned with writing on the subject, expanding the attempt I made, synthetically, in volume IV of Acción Directa Anarquista: una história de FAU (Anarchist Direct Action: a FAU history). That is, this topic continues to interest us and, in due course, we will have more elaborated material on it. Now, I will refer to the book I mentioned.

Undoubtedly, armed struggle is a task that can contribute to many deviations and, also, for things to be observed from a different point of view to ours; in some cases, even worse, it can lead to behaviours that we have nothing to do with and that are the opposite of what we want in our struggle.

But, as I said, there was no anarchist holy tablet from which we could draw guidance and suggestions. We had to experiment, with fundamental aspects of our ideology as a guide. It was a challenge, but at the same time a true political obligation.

It was often said: “We have to be careful not to lose meaning of things. Certain values that are fundamental to us should not be abandoned along the way. This is an activity that can end in complicated deformations and have grave consequences”.

Needless to say these precautions were based on our libertarian conception and the known experiences, both historical and recent, that were taking place in the guerrilla movements that existed in various countries.

It’s possible to say that there was a libertarian concept about how this armed activity, which was taking its first steps, should take place. There was a set of ideas that, as we believed, could give a different character to this work based on the classic conception and practices. We had to perform experiments, based on certain criteria of our libertarian matrix.

To begin with, we gave great importance to the words used, which were related to the necessary functions, because of this magical relationship between words and things. Along with the word comes the content, as well as the deviation. There was no “commander” anywhere; comrades with certain responsibilities should be called “responsibles”. This was resolved, established and practiced.

Thus, the activity of the OPR has never had bosses or commanders. There were responsibles, and the content of this led to very different results. Clearly, along with that there were other things that formed a unity in this attempt to create a culture of resistance to commandment and militarism. Together with the different daily practices, internally bound by an ideology, we prioritised the training of comrades; we relied on having a broad training.

I will first talk about some of these small, everyday practices that helped so much in formation; the daily practices that are so effective.

“Self-criticism and values should not be empty discourses, detached from what we do every day.” This was said, felt and done.

The problem of values was experienced daily. All OPR cells had an evaluation form focusing on the militants’ behaviour. Periodically, monthly or every two months, this task of evaluation was carried out. The cell itself was self-evaluating, and in this instance both the cell and the leagues (organ formed by three cells) were analysed.

The evaluation form contained values such as solidarity, fraternity, modesty and ability to deliver, which preceded the “military” operative ability which, of course, was also properly assessed. 

This had very positive effects. To begin with, criticism and self-criticism were not empty words, they were not something that was said and not done. Thus, it was normal, totally legitimate and natural for a person in charge to be questioned and even to be asked to change roles.

It thus broke with the arbitrary means of power which, visibly or invisibly, end up generating perverse practices. There was an express tendency to minimise and devalue such things. It was a process that demanded significant work, seeing as it does not occur automatically. At least in this “Western, Christian and capitalist” culture the question of power and exaltation of the ego should never be disregarded. Without a doubt, it was not the same thing to potentialise these resources and to combat them.

“The comrade in charge of the league must improve a lot. Your modesty leaves something to be desired. ” Comments like this from a cell member were normal and positive. Therefore, by constituting a real right, not a formal phraseology, the collective was improving and it became difficult for an incumbent to maintain themselves arbitrarily.

It was not as if a boss would one day wake up just and say: Let’s do criticism and self-criticism. As a logical counterpart many turned it into pure conformism for fear of what might happen next. And, in this way, everything was as it was before and so it remained. As it is jokingly said, in some cases: “Any criticism that is to say that all is well is welcome”. 

It should be emphasised that the daily practice of these values did not make one lose sight of the specific character of the activity. There were purely executive instances and permanent tasks that had to be done in a certain way. For example, no one questioned that, at the moment of the operation, it was the person in charge who decided on the problems that might occur and that, by chance, had been left out of the previous planning — the imponderable. This is not a time for meetings.

“Yes, the activity may be technically military, but we should get used to mentioning this word as little as possible. We must use terms like revolutionary political action”, said Gerardo Gatti in a decision-making instance of the FAU.

With positions of this type, important cultural rudiments that materialised the values we prioritised were being created. Habits were created that made the militant see their rights and duties with clarity. Many things began to be “natural”. Being authoritarian, arbitrary, not having modesty or solidarity were not things that went unwritten and were never tolerated in silence.

The term “commander” was used only as a joke. There was an ideology that drove and animated all that. Some comrades had been formed in conversations about episodes of struggle, demands for freedom, humanly just and respectful future societies. 

All the mechanisms of power that demanded submission, that glorify the authorities and cardboard heroes were repudiated. Instruments of human robotisation in the service of the powerful, such as repressive apparatus, were completely rejected. The truth is that, in the framework of that culture, looking like a soldier did not gratify anyone.

It was a libertarian environment. From it emanated concerns not to produce soldiers of the revolution, but revolutionary comrades. There was a strong resistance to militaristic deviations and authoritarian practices. It was therefore normal for the armed apparatus to be subordinate to the political; that things were done according to the organisation’s overall strategy, its conjunctural assessments. The sovereignty of arms found no breeding ground, nor the presumption thereof in general.

Did this approach to discipline and self-discipline, collective protagonism, absence of militarism, militant respect as a human entity, egalitarian treatment and rejection of authoritarianism undermine the effectiveness, development and performance of specifically armed work? I can say no. 

We can draw many conclusions, even taking into account the short period of this experience.

It cannot be said in any way that things functioned perfectly. I have no interest in idealising the issue. But, considering the errors and problems we were facing and which we sought to overcome, we saw that we gained effectiveness and strengthened the exercise of tasks. We saw that self-discipline and the convinced comrade worked miracles. Even with great limitations and a lack of resources things worked. There was surrender, willingness, the capacity of each one to resolve things; there was an acceptable level of continuity and growth.

Fomento (Junta Federal), Aguilar (organism responsible for the armed section), Leagues (columns composed of three cells of five members each) and Cells (basic organism of five members) merged and created a distinct culture of armed militancy. It had no reference to what was emerging at that historical moment, which was spreading across the continent and was much imitated; despite great and respectable heroisms it had nothing to do with our purposes. 

“We have to go about creating our things, with our own conceptions, keeping them in relation to the history of this place and to our ideas. Imitation is not a good counsellor.” This was a widely shared criterion.

It was creating something that could not be accomplished by decrees, resolutions of meeting nor good manuals. A capacity for reflection and effective participation by the militants was developing, so as to create a love and an understanding of the cause that was being defended. 

Obviously this experience, besides being brief, had problems. However, it left us convinced of one thing: it is possible to develop a libertarian “military” activity and it is a myth that, for this to happen, everything can be better articulated by means of authoritarianism and hierarchies. “The organisation must have values that prefigure what we want tomorrow.” This was always affirmed and oriented all our tasks.

Regarding the concern for the militants’ formation, the development of their reflective capacity, there is a concrete experience that allows us to deepen the understanding of this situation: The “Escuelita” (Little School).

The activity became known by this diminutive, perhaps conceived in order to remove its solemnity and in seeking coherence with the notion of modesty, so emphasised in cell evaluations. What was the Escuelita? It was an experience carried out with youth from OPR who were taking on greater responsibilities. It included an activity of transferring knowledge on different topics: philosophy, psychology, history, pedagogy. We sought to generate discussions and reflections on these topics. Several specialised comrades, mostly teachers, were in charge of the training process.

The activity was carried out regularly and continuously, producing fruitful results. Nando and Silva were two of its great animators.

It is necessary to return to the social context in which the task of training was carried out in order to notice the importance given to it. It was a time when repression was in full swing. Constant street patrolling, persecutions, raiding homes and surveillance of suspect places. Under such conditions it was necessary to bring comrades of the armed apparatus who did not belong to the same league together with the specialists and teachers. At the same time, it was important to take care of the comrades’ general security and partitioning. 

Besides this, the house was unknown to almost everyone. This required extra effort as it was necessary to take the comrades there while making sure they did not know where they were. Meetings were held with the militants wearing hoods that hid their faces. But everyone was convinced that the goal was worth the effort and the risk.

This initiative arose in the Fomento (Junta Federal), deliberative organ of the FAU. A lot of discussion was also not necessary as there was consensus on the subject. It was the kind of task that was anticipated because militant formation was always highly regarded. There was a whole history behind it. Only Silva, who would later become a strong animator, had some doubts, which were basically the following: Is this not a task to be performed a little later on? Would there be sufficient interest to make the effort worthwhile? Did the OPR comrades that would participate see this as a necessity?

Once the doubts were resolved we decided to proceed with the activity, which would be organised by Rogelio. Nando would do the first part, forming a cell that would work with him and a group that would produce tests that would then be applied to all OPR members. These tests would then be discussed at a joint meeting afterwards. 

Comrade Nando was a psychologist of the highest technical level and a person of excellent human qualities who communicated very well. The other comrades who formed the cell next to him at that time were also professionals. This group worked tirelessly and continually on the design and application of the tests. Once this part was over, regular collective meetings were held in which a number of other issues were addressed.

The results of these experiments were considered very good. But it is better to let one of the participants speak about that — a fellow worker from the textile industry, I believe — a “disciple” who joined the activity enthusiastically. 

“Ruben, what do you remember about the Escuelita?

— The first question was that process of psychological testing to which we were submitted. I remember that this took place for a few days, in a hospital amphitheater, and comprised a battery of tests, drawings, histories and maps. All the tests used at that time, and which were reexamined in the comrades’ literature, were based on a critical perspective of psychoanalysis. And that was important. 

Marxism has distinctly never given a damn about this perspective, equating it with pharmacological psychiatry. For me, this process was very important and opened up a whole new world of literature. It turned out later, with the school now functioning, that the test results were spectacular as they got 90 percent of the assessments right, as we’ll see later.

The tests were only an introduction. Theoretical and practical questions were soon addressed. In practical terms the rudiments of explosives, weapons and tactics were given. I also remember that historical and philosophical questions were addressed, and I remember a graph, which had a square we could put on and take off, besides a whole discussion about science.

The Escuelita also encouraged the militants to read on their own, by their own initiative. If we compare it with boarding schools in Argentina and elsewhere we will see that the Escuelita has nothing to do with them. For example, the Argentine Partido Revolucionário de los Trabajadores (Revolutionary Workers’ Party—PRT) was very ideological and, when it came to arms, there was a lot of lyricism. The Montoneros invested a lot in military training and little in ideological formation. The Escuelita encompassed a range of things. In every education system there is always a relationship, a basis of transfer of knowledge.

Another thing I remember is that the batteries of tests were used critically. Because if it were not so, if the orthodox criteria were applied, we would all be considered unfit psychopaths. The technicians had to reassess all the tests with this distinct criteria, and that was a lot of work. There was great concern for the proper functioning of the Escuelita.

I would even add that, on comparing what I remember of the Escuelita with the Argentine Marxist experience, I could understand the Escuelita more clearly; both in its modesty and its grandeur, both in its psychoanalytic techniques as well as in its human concerns and philosophical doubts.

Only a Marxist can assert that it is only class struggle that moves history. It was good to fill our heads with doubts and certainties, starting from which we judge life. This sums up the wonderful aspect of an education system.”

FC: Other important contributions by our current to anarchism are positions on militant commitment and dedication to the cause, within the framework of an anarchist political organisation. Could you talk a little about the importance of these aspects for a project of revolutionary transformation? Finally, which term do you prefer: libertarian socialism or anarchism? Would you like to say some final words?

JCM: There is an old saying here: “Anarchism is a way of life”. This was said by the old comrades in the early 1900s, who had been active since 1905, 1910, 1920 and so on. When the FAU was organised this saying — which had so often departed from the lips of those sober, modest, self-sacrificing comrades — became an ideological-ethical element of the first order. Something so simple and yet so important. How important it was! No pride or elitism. We wanted to synthesise into one sentence something like complete surrender to the cause, to feel it and practice it every day, to be consequential, to resist complicity with the system by means of related conduct, to fight the superficiality of the ethereal and vain word.

These former militants meant that there are some things worth giving your life to, including the search for a just, free and solidaristic society. They meant that it was impossible to see so many infamies and atrocities and remain indifferent or concerned only with personal matters, seeing the rest as something secondary.

But let us not be mistaken in thinking that this implied isolation or contempt for different customs. No. These militants met among the people, organised fraternal festivals, soccer clubs, carnival bands, theatres, picnics and had completely normal human contact in their communities as well as in their family life, which was like that of any other neighbour. For them, it was necessary to permanently correct deeply rooted defects and devote as much time as possible to the struggle and propagation of the ideal; to the preparation of the revolution.

I believe that commitment to the cause must be profound, as well as commitment to political organisation with a social project of transformation; the anarchist organisation that intends to organise everything differently so that the collective does not negate but potentiates the individual.

Regarding the question about libertarian socialism or anarchism; I consider them synonymous. However, I must say that I prefer the term “anarchism”. It is a sentimental issue that involves emotions and memories. 

I return now to the present tense and conclude our conversation. For the final words of commitment to the cause I would let all the FAU comrades who have been tortured, murdered, “disappeared”, shot — like many others in our beloved history — speak through their conduct. They craved this tomorrow of socialism and freedom from the depths of their “souls”, and they did not hesitate in dedicating themselves completely to it. They are always telling us: Come on! Let’s go! Because this cause deserves everything!


1. Juan Carlos Mechoso. Acción Directa Anarquista: una história de FAU. Volumes I, II, III and IV. Montevideo: Excerpts, 2011, 2005, 2006, 2009.
2. “This refers to the Marxist schema of explanation of social functioning from the economic base of society, which in this vision, determines the thinking and institutions of the system. If the economy determined social life, and by the advance and development of the “productive forces” and its contradiction with "social relations of production" produced the revolution by itself, nothing could be done by the oppressed. The revolution would come alone, it would be the inevitable end of time, “the end of history”. It should be noted that the Marxist vision approves of the development of capitalism, since it would generate “its own gravediggers”, with which idea Marx and Engels applauded the invasion by Britain of India and of Mexico by the United States because it supposedly accelerated the revolution. A thought that contains a faith in progress and historical evolution.

Anarchism has historically criticised that deterministic vision, placing human will as an essential aspect of social transformations. Without that will to change, organised and put into action, there is no revolutionary process possible. There is no determinism and ideology is not “scientific”, it responds to the sphere of thought, feelings, hopes and a set of behaviours and beliefs. Therefore, the FAU’s especifismo has had as a permanent task the development of theoretical study to elaborate our own categories of analysis, trying to analyse reality correctly, avoiding falling into simplistic schemes that reduce everything to the economic. The capitalist system is composed of several structures (ideological-cultural, political, military, legal, as well as economic) that interrelate and none of them have a priori predominance.” See document: "Wellington Galarza-Malvina Tabares" by FAU-FAG; today adopted as an organisational document by CALA (Latin American Anarchist Coordination).
3. See the documents by Volin and Sébastien Faure, both called “The Anarchist Synthesis”.
4. Dielo Truda. “Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists” []. The correct name of this document according to the new translations is: “The Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)”.
5. FAKB “Platform of the Bulgarian Anarcho-Communist Federation”. In: Michael Schmidt. “The Anarchist-communist Mass Line: Bulgarian Anarchism Armed”. []
6. Georges Fontenis. “Libertarian Communist Manifesto”. []
7. It is the book “History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918-1921)”, written by Piotr Arshinov. [] 8. “Episteme” is the word used by the Greek philosophers for scientific knowledge.
9. This refers to insufficient alternatives that have emerged to deal with domination and exploitation such as the World Social Forum, referred to as “alternativists”, and liberal management solutions based on skilled people, referred to as “technicists”.
10. “Mestizo” is a term used in Latin America to refer to a person of mixed European and Indigenous American descent.
11. “Que se vayan todos!” (“All of them must go!”) was the popular slogan by which the December 2001 mass popular uprising in Argentina became known. []
12. “Conveyor belt” refers to a Leninist term in Portuguese for when a vanguard party gives the direction and the union just reproduces the political line determined by the party.
13. “Focalism” (or “foco”) refers to a theory of revolution by means of guerrilla war inspired by Ché Guevara. []

Interview conducted between May and August 2009

English translation by Jonathan Payn

Θυμόμαστε και διεκδικούμε τη μαχητική δέσμευση της Nora. Η συμβολή της ήταν πολύ σημαντική για να σηματοδοτήσει ένα μονοπάτι αγώνα, οργάνωσης, δέσμευσης και ώθησης του αναρχισμού στην πόλη μας, της οποίας η οργάνωση είναι κληρονόμος όλων αυτών.

Nora Giavedoni, συναδέλφισσα και αναρχική αγωνίστρια

Στις 12 Φεβρουαρίου 1975, γεννήθηκε στο Grenadier Baigorria της Αργεντινής, η συναδέλφισσα, η αναρχική αγωνίστρια, Nora Giavedoni. Παρ’ ότι εγκατέλειψε νωρίς τα εγκόσμια, άφησε ένα πολύ σημαντικό σημάδι στους κοινωνικούς αγώνες και την αναρχική οργάνωση στην πόλη του Ροζάριο. Σήμερα θυμόμαστε τον αγώνα της και συνεχίζουμε με την ίδια δέσμευση και την ίδια δύναμη για την οικοδόμηση του οργανωμένου αναρχισμού.

«Πιστεύουμε στα παιδιά, έχουμε εμπιστοσύνη σ’ αυτά», ήταν μια φράση που χαρακτηρίζει τη δέσμευση της Nora και την εργασία της από κοινού με τον συντονιστή της φυλακής,του Ινστιτούτου Ανακούφισης Εφήβων του Ροζάριο (Irar), στον αγώνα για την καταπολέμηση της ποινικοποίησης, της εγκληματοποίησης της φτώχειας και της καταστολής σε βάρος των λαϊκών τμημάτων.

Ήταν υποστηρίκτρια των δραστηριοτήτων και αναρχικών οργανώσεων, γιατί αν δρούμε συλλογικά δεν καταφέρνουμε κάτι. Συνδέθηκε με την αναρχική οργάνωση του Rosario (OHR), μια πολιτική οργάνωση και διατήρησε ισχυρούς δεσμούς με την αδελφή οργάνωση Αναρχική Ομοσπονδία Ουρουγουάης (FAU). Αναμείχθηκε σε διάφορους κοινωνικούς τοπικούς και περιφερειακούς αγώνες, στο Κοινωνικό Κέντρο “Ελευθερία” και αλλού. Συμμετείχε επίσης σε πορείες στο Ροζάριο, το Μπουένος Άιρες, το Μοντεβιδέο, και μίλησε στις ελευθεριακές πράξεις του Plaza Montenegro.

Θυμόμαστε και διεκδικούμε τη μαχητική δέσμευση της Nora. Η συμβολή της ήταν πολύ σημαντική για να σηματοδοτήσει ένα μονοπάτι αγώνα, οργάνωσης, δέσμευσης και ώθησης του αναρχισμού στην πόλη μας, της οποίας η οργάνωση είναι κληρονόμος όλων αυτών.

*Μετάφραση: Ούτε Θεός-Ούτε Αφέντης.

aotearoa / pacific islands / gender / opinion / analysis Tuesday February 25, 2020 12:21 byMatthew Burns

An exploration of the intersection between the queer community and anarchism.

On June 14, 2019, A video was uploaded to YouTube. The video was uploaded by someone whose channel name is “Suris the Skeptic.” But Suris doesn’t appear very much in the four minute and three second video. The video was called “We Deserve to Live”. It was made by people who sent in video or audio clips to Suris, all following the same format “My name is ​x ​ . I am ​y ​ and I deserve to live.” For nearly everyone ​y ​ was different, it was a combination of traits after all, but they shared a theme. Queer. Gay. Trans woman. Trans man. Bi. Lesbian. Non-binary. Intersex. Asexual. Aromantic. Demisexual. The video is moving to say the least. It’s incredibly sad, and something about it starts to bring you to tears, about two-thirds of the way through, something that’s very hard to put your finger on.

During 2007 an image started circling the internet. For many it had a profound impact, even if it was a little silly. It prompted this description by a writing collective known as The Mary Nardini Gang:
“A skeleton, dressed as a pirate, bearing a torch named ‘anarchy,’ with ‘communes’ emblazoned upon her chest, ‘round bombs’ around her hat and ‘free love’ on a pin. A sword hangs from her belt and she bears a scroll proclaiming “be gay! do crime!” The skeleton is frenzied.” 1
The skeleton is rather comical, based on a Californian propaganda poster. Something about the image is haunting. I found myself staring at it. Perhaps the absurdity of it that made me laugh drew me in. Or maybe looking at anything long enough makes you laugh. There are a few people in the back of the image, but they seem to turn their heads from the skeleton.
Two days ago, on the 14th of September 2019, the body of Bee Love Slater, 24, was found burned nearly beyond recognition in a car. She was the 18th Transgender woman to be killed this year in the US.

The thing that causes you to cry as you watch “We Deserve to Live​” ​ is not graphics, most of it is phone video, or drawn avatars. It’s not really the music, which doesn’t stand out too much. What causes you to cry two-thirds of the way into the 4-minute video is that you realise that the video had to be made.

Something about the image is haunting. The Mary Nardini Gang wrote “The skeleton is frenzied” and it is. But the people behind seem to turn their heads at the skeleton. No one watches her. Eventually as you stare at it you read the small text underneath. It’s a quote from a small comic anthology by a group of queer prisoners. “Many blame queers for the decline of this society—we take pride in this. Some believe that we intend to shred-to-bits this civilisation and its moral fabric—they couldn’t be more accurate. We’re often described as depraved, decadent and revolting—but oh, they ain’t seen nothing yet.” After reading it you take a breath, and your eyes go back from the small text to look at the skeleton again. She’s not funny any more. She’s deadly serious, and her hollow eyes seem to scream silently to a crowd that doesn’t want to know she exists. She screams: “Revolution”.

Part 1. Be Gay, Do Crime.

The Gay Star News published a piece in August 2018 that is partly an interview with Io Ascarian, who created the image of the skeleton , which is an adaptation of an 1880’s political 2 cartoon. Io says at one point:
​“We’re still out here risking arrest just to stay fed, housed and alive while waiting to drown in boiling sea water and no cis-gay winning elected office has done a whole lot to change that material reality. But expropriating entire shopping carts worth of video games, art supplies and baguettes to redistribute amongst all the poor gay kids like faggot Father Christmas has at least brought us some comfort.
So I guess the slogan means we’re done negotiating with mainstream gays over respectability. We realized being a gay criminal is the coolest thing you could be and war on bourgeois morality is the coolest thing you could do.”

The revolutionary nature of the cartoon is something not uncommon in gay or queer culture. I believe there are two main reasons for this: Firstly, there has not long been a mainstream gay or queer culture; even now this is only starting to develop, and cultures outside of the mainstream have commonly adopted politics equally radical. Io Ascarian mentions that the gay and queer community has been historically marginalised and disgraced, often homeless and otherwise impoverished. Often the separation between legality and morality becomes increasingly obvious the further into poverty you get. Stealing food from a supermarket doesn’t seem that wrong when you’re starving on the street, so “Being a gay criminal is the coolest thing you could be”. Secondly, the social changes the queer community have fought for and continue to fight for are radical changes. These social changes are something that nearly every queer person has had to fight for on an individual level. Even in New Zealand where we’ve had rather impressive legal reform already, casual homophobia is still a problem, and transphobia even more so. Having to fight this predjudice just to exist as who you are makes radical change something queer communities are more willing to accept than many predominantly straight communities.

I feel it is necessary to mention just how much American politics affects the queer community. US politics has a huge influence throughout the world, both through the country’s admittedly decreasing use of ‘soft power ’ or diplomacy and foreign influence but also as an influence for 3 what is considered acceptable political discussion. The so called ‘bathroom bills’ that target which rest-rooms a trans person can use were originally American talking-points, talking-points I have heard repeated in New Zealand. It is worth noting that many people in New Zealand are strongly influenced by US politics to a potentially harmful degree. This was particularly obvious after the gun buy-back after the Christchurch shooting, when some people complained about losing their second-amendment rights, despite New Zealand not having a constitution. Another factor that applies to queer youth is that finding other queer people is quite hard. Even though there can be hundreds of you in the same city, finding each other can be very difficult, especially since there are very few ways to tell ​visually ​ if someone is queer, and not many people are publicly ‘out’. In addition to this, the few very obviously queer oriented spaces are usually places like gay bars and gay clubs, which are age-restricted. To make matters even worse, there are many queer youth who are not publicly ‘out’ who are scared of being seen in a queer space and outed without their consent, something that can open them up to bullying and harassment. There have been many instances of young people lying about their ages on queer dating apps just to find another person like them to talk to locally. There are, however, many places to find queer people online, many family friendly chat-rooms or forums and the like. There is a massive representation of US queer people in these online places, in part just because of the size of the US population, and simply from that there comes a large influence of US politics. Radical politics can also be influenced by the politics of the United States, a place where the police, while not exactly exceptional in their oppression of marginalised groups, are far more obvious about it.

The need for radical change is something many queer people have felt in their lives, whether prompted by their own environment or by the environment that international friends have told them of. However, many of the changes commonly considered necessary by the queer community do not exclusively affect queer communities. Many social issues can be unique in the exact way they form for queer people, but uncomfortably similar to those that racial minorities and women have faced and continue to face. As current US senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in conversation with Harris Brevis during a charity live-stream : 4
“​And that’s why we have these conversations about intersectionality that are so important, because the Trans community does face a crisis when it comes to housing and healthcare, like most people (especially most Americans) do, except when you have this added layer of discrimination it makes these issues much more acute in their crises than they usually are on average for other people, so it’s important that we do talk about these issues in the economic frame but not let go of the fact that discrimination is a core reason for the economic hardship.” 5
Poverty and homelessness, for example, are issues that do acutely affect the queer community. 22-40% of the homeless in New Zealand are queer . Mental health and suicide are problems 6 that acutely affect the queer community. 70% of people contacting New Zealand queer helplines call about suicidal thoughts, and 65% have had a close friend kill themselves . These are not 7 problems that solely affect the queer community, but the queer community feels a particular pressure to deal with them.

Part 2: What’s so Radical Maaaaan?

Poverty is a catalyst for many of the radical views within the non-mainstream queer community, as many of the issues the queer community is faced with are either exacerbated by poverty or exist soley because of the frequency queer people find themselves in poverty. Because of this I expected fairly radical systemic changes to be on the minds of those in queer movements, especially considering the focus on poverty that Marxist analysis. But one ideology in particular caught my eye, one that I intially thought was unrelated to queer issues: Anarchism.
Anarchism is possibly the most misunderstood ideology that exists. You probably have an idea of what an anarchist looks and acts like in your head: black mask, violent, deranged, some sort of Heath Ledger Joker-esque “wants to watch the world burn” attitude. Maybe he’s even a terrorist. What you probably wouldn’t picture is an older Russian man from the late 1800’s, early 1900’s with an impressive beard and small reading glasses. Such a man was scientist and philosopher Pyotr Kropotkin, one of the most prominent anarchist philosophers . I was very 8 surprised when I found out that Anarchism was in fact its own ideology, with a strong philosophical backing and a wealth of literature; some books explaining anarchism are nearly older than the typewriter! Anarchism is, at its heart, an ideology that aims for all people to be equal in political power and to be free from coercion. To this end it attempts the abolishment and/or dissolution of all unnecessary or unjustified hierarchies. From this goal there are several quite distinct branches of anarchist thought, varying in either what they consider justified or unjustified hierarchies, or how an anarchist society should be run. Anarcho-Communists are the most common kind of anarchist, and they believe the class hierarchy is unjustified and must be abolished, and that the state as it would exist in a communist society is a form of unnecessary hierarchy. They advocate for a society that is not simply free from any form of government and law, but one with a bottom-up, direct democracy form of government. Anarcho-Communists are opposed in many respects to Marxist-Leninists, and were very against the authoritarian nature of the USSR. They argue that the state created a new hierarchy, not truly freeing the proletariat from class hierarchy, but replacing a capitalist hierarchy with a statist one . Stalin even had the 9 Russian anarchists executed because of this. Another group of Anarchists are Anarcho-Capitalists, who believe in free-market capitalism and the dissolution of the state. They are hugely criticised by other anarchists,who argue that laissez-faire capitalism would be even worse for people, and exacerbate class and other hierarchies. The other main form of anarchist thought is Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is also somewhat socialist, and believes that governments should be done away with and replaced by a board of worker super-unions. They generally argue that private ownership of the means of production should not be legal, and generally advocate some form of market socialism.

When people look up anarchist flags, there are two that might be surprising. Along with the red-and-black flag of Anarcho-Communism and the yellow-and-black flag of Anarcho-Capitalism are the purple-and-black and pink-and-black flags labeled Anarcha-feminism and Queer Anarchy. These are less whole-form ideologies themselves, but specific movements within the broader anarcho-communist movement (in fact for the rest of this essay I will be focusing on how these groups work, so will be referring to Anarcho-communism as just Anarchism, as Anarcho-Capitalism is rare and there is still hot debate as to whether it is really a form of anarchism). Anarcha-feminism is a movement specifically focusing on how women are treated within anarchism, how anarchist organising should be done in order for women and women’s issues to be properly represented, and finding anarchistic solutions to women’s issues. Anarcha-queers focus on the same but for queer groups. These two approaches are most apparent in the country of Rojava, an autonomous region in east Syria that is currently organised using anarchist principles. There are dual power structures for specifically feminist activism, even including a women-only militia and a form of ‘feminist court’ that deals with women’s issues such as familial abuse and assault. The region also has a similar militia for queer people, The Queer Insurrectionist and Liberation Army, or TQILA. The region has been a dominant force in the fight against ISIS, and a photo of TQILA marching with the sign ​“These Faggots Kill Fascists” ​ went viral around July 2017. Anarcha-Queer movements are not limited to Rojava however; Queer Mutiny is a British Anarcha-Queer group, and the Bash Back! Movement in the US was an explicitly Anarcha-queer movement during 2007-2011. Queer Fist have been involved in direct action in America, and The Fag Army in Sweden has been politically active since 2014. It is important to note that social progressivism is an important part of most anarchist movements; nearly all anarchist thinkers, far back as the 1800s (with the exception of Proudhon), thought that women should be equal to men. Queer issues lend themselves to anarchism too. Famous writer and gay man Oscar Wilde explicitly called himself an anarchist in his 1891 essay “​The Soul of Man Under Socialism”. ​ Anarchism is very focused on equality when it comes to people’s ability to live free from coercion, and gender roles as they currently exist can be very oppressive and limiting in the way society tends to apply them.

Being slightly radical is one thing, but anarchism?! How does the queer community find itself involved with such an out-of the way ideology? One reason is the way anarchists do their activism, and where they focus their attention. A core part of anarchist philosophy is direct action. There is much more anarchist action than one might expect in the world, as anarchists are focused with helping the homeless or those in extreme poverty, those who slip through the cracks of capitalism so to speak. The kinds of direct action that anarchists take part in can include simple things like running community pantries, but anarchists will often be more than willing to work outside of the law if it will help people. An example of such extralegal methods is the work of the Autonomous Nation of Anarchists and Libertarians (or ANAL, anarchist movements tend to be brilliant at creating acronyms), a group in the UK dedicated to setting up squats for homeless people in houses owned by foreign billionaires that haven’t used these giant houses for years. In an interview with the Independent one member of the group says 10
“With this building you can see it’s empty and it’s falling apart in places and there’s dust on the windows. The reason we have done this is because it’s cold and we have a lot of homeless people in the Victoria area that need shelter. We researched the building before we took it and saw it was owned by this Russian oligarch so we figured the damage caused to him compared to the gains for the homeless community is nothing. This is nothing to him but for these homeless people it could stop them from dying, especially with snow on the way apparently.”

Since queer people are much more likely to be homeless they are more likely to find themselves helped by anarchist movements such as ANAL, or the countless other movements who do other social work through anarchist means.
Another reason for some of the queer community to adopt leftist/anti-capitalist ideologies like anarchism is issues that have started to arise from the mainstreaming of queer culture into our neoliberal society. One way this materialises is queer representation in media. Queer people 11 have always had trouble with media representation. They still do, and a notable speaker on the subject is Rowan Ellis. Rowan Ellis started on Youtube making videos predominately about queer and feminist issues, which led into giving talks and participating in panel discussions across Europe and America. Her video “The Evolution Of Queerbaiting: From Queercoding to Queercatching” she describes something very interesting about the way queerness has been handled in cinema recently:
“So although Queerbaiting itself hasn’t finished it’s still going on, we have actually moved onto a third phase. And it wasn’t, as I hoped, that we would have just plain representation and everything would be fine, what a fool I was. This is the phase that I would like to call Queercatching, a.k.a. put it in the movie, not the press tour.
We’ve basically moved from the baiting, which is this kind of underground trapping element, to the explicit catching. Trying to ‘catch the queers’, and then also catching us out.”
She defines Queercatching as: “Explicitly talking in the promotion of a film or TV show about a queer character, but not following through in the piece itself in any meaningful way.” or “Putting little to no indication of a character’s sexuality into a piece of work, and then retroactively telling the audience they were LGBTQ+ all along.” Both of these definitions reveal something about how queer people are treated by corporations: as a marketing demographic. Ellis demonstrates that Queercatching is used to to get queer people excited to to see a film, while not alienating conservative, queerphobic audiences either: being able to sell to two demographics simultaneously, rather than take chances at portraying queer people well. At its worst, this practice shows how willing mainstream film is to throw queer people under the bus (by denying the representation that could help queer people be if not accepted, at least understood by mainstream society), while for the sake of profit, something unsurprising to an anticapitalist view such as anarchism. This exploitation of queer people has come to the fore most obviously in Pride parades. In queer culture Pride parades and festivals are incredibly important, prompting celebrations and generally embodying both the feelings of being able to be who you are, as well as a bit of a “F you, I am who I am ​despite ​ what you think” to homophobes. However, more and more corporations have been cashing in on this fervour around Pride, which journalist John Paul Brammer notices in his article for the Washington Post “Priced Out”

“The story is much the same for New York. This year, PrideFest VIP tickets will run you $50, though the parade is still free. NYC Pride, meanwhile, offers T-shirts at a cool $55 and a hoodie at $90. Don’t get caught without an overpriced Pride-branded beer in your hand, either! Merchandise at Pride isn’t new, necessarily, but it is the byproduct of Pride growing into a more commercial space where being nickel-and-dimed is the norm rather than the exception.” 13

Brammer goes on to examine how this excludes the poorer parts of the queer community, a large group of people, finishing his article: “​So as the celebration marches onward to ticketed festivities, it’s worth asking: Who can afford to be proud?”. ​ This is an extremely valuable analysis, but there are also many other questions to be asked: What do brands get out of supporting pride? Do these oppulant parades wrongly create a wider public image that excludes the topic of queer poverty from mainstream discussion? Do these brands do anything outside of pride month to benefit the queer community, or is it more about being ​percieved ​ as queer friendly? Also writing for the Washington Post, Vincent Delaurentis notes:
“But a critical contradiction attends brands’ marketing of Pride apparel. The global garment industry is defined by exploitative labor conditions that render workers — particularly queer workers — vulnerable to abuse. For all the alleged solidarity that brands telegraph to their queer consumers, it is rarely extended to queer workers in the factories where apparel is sewn.”

As corporations are increasingly present in pride events it is important to analyse both the effect of their presence on the culture and image of the festivals and the ways in which corporations benefit from the involvement. These are very similar analyses to the analysis of Anarchists and Anarcha-queers. The UK based Anarchist Federation website critiques London Pride through this framework in their article “Queer Liberation – Not Rainbow Capitalism”:
“Pride in London is no longer an act of resistance in the way that Stonewall was. Stonewall was a riot against the police; Pride in London marches with them. Stonewall encouraged everyone to participate; Pride in London hosts TERFs and requires payment in order to be in the march. Simply looking at their website shows us that this march is not something revolutionary, but simply another route to monetary gain. The revolution will not be televised, but it also cannot [must not] be sponsored. Barclays, Amazon Music, and Tesco are sponsoring this year, just to name a few rainbow capitalists” “If we continue to allow marches like Pride in London to be co-opted by corporations and greed, Queer Liberation will become less of a battle cry and more of a Che Guevara t-shirt.” 14

When talking about anarchism, one is almost certain to run into the topic of antifa, or Anti-fascism. Just like anarchism, there are a lot of misconceptions about anti-fascism, most importantly how the movement works. Antifa is a movement aimed at combating fascism wherever it may pop up. Recently many people have been actively performing anti-fascist action in the US, partly in response to a proto-fascist administration, and partly in response to increasing levels of action from known fascist groups such as the Proud Boys. As a decentralised movement many anarchists are also involved with antifa movements: they are often involved in organising support for antifa demonstrations, such as setting up systems of providing protesters water, or making sure as many protesters as possible are informed of the necessary legal details, or they can be actively part of the demonstrations. This is important to mention because fascist organising is incredibly dangerous to the queer community. Fascism is very identity-driven, and works by blaming an outside identity for the problems of the world. As ‘excluding’ these identities fails to stop problems, more are added to the list, and queer people are never far from the chopping block. Anti-fascist action inherently defends the queer community, something that most politically active queer folk are intimately aware of.

In this essay I have focused on aspects of the queer community borne out of a shared discrimination and oppression. It is important to note that anarchist organising, which has an emphasis on community and group effort, has provided something positive for many people. The Mary Narindi Gang, the anarchist writing collective mentioned earlier, describes this effect:
“We proceeded, despite the end of the world, seeking joy everywhere we could. Our communiques took the ruins for granted and we insisted upon dancing amid them. Sex parties, dance parties, street parties, reading parties – partying emerged as a central form in that frenzied moment.”
The revel was, to the Mary Narindi Gang, the greatest accomplishment of the Bash Back! movement. They describe the party like a rebirth, a dance amid the ruins of the old. To many this feeling is the feeling of being truly who you are, among other people who finally see who you are, a rebirth of being you, and this is the other thing that Queer Anarchist movements give: an accepting sub-community.
This essay I hope explained some of the reasons behind a movement that fascinates me, and the reason it appeals so much to the queer community. The queer community has always been radical just in its existence, and has been in a position to be helped by anarchist movements, which can give queer people the basics of life as well as a community in which they can grow and be themselves.

My name is Matthew Burns, I am bisexual, and I deserve to live.


1 ​
2 ​
3 Hard power contrasts with soft power, which comes from diplomacy, culture and history. According to Joseph Nye, hard power involves “the ability to use the carrots and sticks of economic and military might to make others follow your will”. (​​;) 4During the live-stream Brewis completed the game Donkey Kong 64, a feat that took him 57 hours. All the money donated during the stream went to the UK charity Mermaids, which deals with trans and gender-queer youth and families. During the livestream Brewis also had many guests including the CEO of Mermaids, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Chelsea Manning. The stream raised a total of $340 000, not counting any money that was directly donated to Mermaids during the time.
5 ​
6 ​
7 opulation-submission-to-the-draft-NZSPS-26062017.pdf
8 Among the likes of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Emma
9 This is of course over-simplified, potentially to the point of inaccuracy.
10 an-billionaire-oligarch-andrey-goncharenko-eaton-a7549136.html
11 Neoliberalism is a policy model—bridging politics, social studies, and economics—that seeks to transfer control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector. It tends towards free-market capitalism and away from government spending, regulation, and public ownership. Peter Coffin states it more simply as “Fetishisation of the Market” and the finding of market solutions to all problems.
12 ​

venezuela / colombia / miscellaneous / opinión / análisis Tuesday February 25, 2020 05:07 byViaLibre

En el presente artículo se realiza una reflexión sobre el desarrollo del periodo 2010-2019 en América Latina desde la perspectiva del Grupo Libertario Vía Libre. En primer lugar se reseñan algunas tendencias generales en materia de la economía y la política regional en el decenio, en un segundo apartado se realiza un análisis de esta mismo época en 24 países de la región atendiendo claves políticas y económicas y en un tercer momento se analizan el desarrollo de los movimientos populares, con énfasis en los sectores obreros, campesinos, estudiantiles, de mujeres, ambientales, así como de otros sectores.

Análisis del periodo 2010-2019 en América Latina

En el presente artículo se realiza una reflexión sobre el desarrollo del periodo 2010-2019 en América Latina desde la perspectiva del Grupo Libertario Vía Libre. En primer lugar se reseñan algunas tendencias generales en materia de la economía y la política regional en el decenio, en un segundo apartado se realiza un análisis de esta mismo época en 24 países de la región atendiendo claves políticas y económicas y en un tercer momento se analizan el desarrollo de los movimientos populares, con énfasis en los sectores obreros, campesinos, estudiantiles, de mujeres, ambientales, así como de otros sectores.

Tendencias generales

En el terreno económico la región experimento un crecimiento lento del 2.1% promedio del PIB entre 2010 y 2018[1]. Tras el impacto de la crisis económica mundial de 2008-2009, que llego este último año a un decrecimiento conjunto del -1.88%, se experimentó una fuerte recuperación en 2010 con el 5.84% debido al boom de las materias primas que coronaron un ciclo largo de precios altos, seguida de una importante desaceleración desde 2012 que ese año promedio 2.78%, que llega a su pico más bajo en la nueva recesión de 2015 con el decrecimiento del -0.35%. Después se produjo un fenómeno de crecimiento lento que llego a su mayor expansión en 2016 con 1.46%, seguido de una disminución con fuerte estancamiento en 2017-2018, que este último año llego a 0.49%, con tendencias de mejora lenta y relativa.

La dinámica de semi estancamiento de la economía regional ha llevado a plantear la existencia de una segunda década pérdida en materia económica para el continente, similar a la de 1980. Esta nueva década de extravió productivo estaría marcada por la crisis de la deuda externa y el inicio de los planes de ajuste económico, primero bajo el signo de los propios gobierno progresista y luego de forma más decidida por las administraciones conservadoras. De hecho los registros entre 1980-1988 muestran un promedio de crecimiento del PIB del 2.2%, un acumulado que de forma anual y total presenta un crecimiento ligeramente más alto que el de la década de 2010, aunque también vale anotar que hace 30 años, hubo más año de decrecimiento franco y menos de estancamiento general. Desde 2010 la economía de mayor crecimiento fue Panamá, seguida de República Dominicana, y con más distancia Nicaragua, Paraguay y Bolivia, mientras que las que de hecho acumularon un fuerte decrecimiento fueron Venezuela y Puerto Rico, con las mayores crisis de su historia reciente, así como el desarrollo de situaciones de virtual estancamiento de Argentina, Brasil, Surinam y Jamaica.

En materia empresarial en la región se registró la fusión en 2010 de las compañías Lan de Chile y Tam de Brasil, junto con sus filiales, en el grupo Latam, que se convirtió en la principal empresa de aviación de pasajeros y cargas de la región, con participación en sus acciones de Qatar y Delta Airlines; similar dinámica siguió en 2012 la alianza Avianca-Taca finalmente unificada bajo el nombre Avianca, en alianza con United Airlines. También se presentó una expansión regional de telecomunicaciones lideradas por empresas como Claro y otros marcas del grupo Carso, que supo aprovechar las privatización de la infraestructura comunicacional de 1990 en todos los países de la región, empresa propiedad de Carlos Slim, que entre 2010 y 2013 fue reconocido como el hombre más rico del mundo, y hacia el final del periodo descendió hasta la quinta posición en este ranking de injusticia realizado por la prensa corporativa. La misma dinámica de expansión puede señalarse sobre el rubro del comercio al detal, como lo muestra la dinámica de empresas chilenas como Falabella bajo la dirección de la familia Solari o Censcosud de la familia Paulmann, la mexicana Oxxo en expansión desde 2015 propiedad del grupo FEMSA el embotellador más grande de Coca Cola en el mundo, o el colombiano Grupo Éxito en expansión desde 2011 asociado con la multinacional francesa Casino. En diciembre de 2016 se revelo el escándalo Odebrecht, principal empresa de construcción en Brasil y América Latina, con casos de corrupción que salpican la elite económica y política de todo el continente. Similar fue la situación del grupo EBX de inversiones energéticas, propiedad del multimillonario brasilero Eike Batista, en prisión por corrupción desde 2018.

En materia política la región experimento el aumento relativo de los gobiernos progresistas iniciados en 1999 y que llegan a su auge en 2006-2009, que llego en 2013-2014 hasta 14 gobiernos de este signo político contra 10 conservadores, es decir una leve superioridad numérica de las opciones anti neoliberales. Luego se experimentó de la mano del impacto de las crisis económica y el desgaste de estas administraciones, un nuevo giro conservador sobre todo a partir de 2014, que se profundiza en 2016 con el retorno de la derecha en Brasil, que dejo para el periodo 2018-2019 un registro de 8 administraciones de centro izquierda e izquierda y 16 de derecha y la centro derecha, una mayoría más abultada que la anterior primacía progresista. El actual giro derechista aunque más extenso parece más frágil que su antecesor como lo demuestran las grandes protestas populares contra la desigualdad de 2019. El giro se acompaña tanto de un giro hacia el centro político, la apertura al mercado en materia económica y la continuidad tradicional en materia cultural, de las anteriores administraciones y movimientos progresistas, como de una importante crisis y cierre autoritario de los gobiernos más claramente rupturistas.

Son claras las largas tendencias derechistas de 5 países como Colombia, Panamá, Honduras, Guatemala y Puerto Rico, dos de ellos en importante crisis política en la actualidad. También se registra la contra tendencia de largas gestiones anti neoliberales de 4 estados: Cuba con su excepcionalidad, República Dominicana, Nicaragua y Venezuela, dos de los cuales atraviesan a su vez importantes problemas políticos y económicos. El restante grupo de 15 estados de la región han experimentado fluctuaciones, ya sean estas históricas como en Paraguay, Perú o México donde no existían antecedentes cercanos de gobiernos desarrollistas, o cíclicas como Costa Rica, Argentina o Chile, donde hay cambios de gobiernos de diferente signo político de manera más tradicional. En 2019 se presentaron importante cambios en direcciones opuestas, por un lado la contra tendencia importante pero minoritaria que lleva a la asunción del moderado gobierno nacionalista de López Obrador en México y la victoria de Fernández en Argentina, y la tendencia aún hegemónica pero con significativas debilidades hacia la derecha, con el ascenso de Lacalle Pou en Uruguay o la protesta popular liderada por la derecha y posterior golpe de Estado contra Morales en Bolivia, que constituía la experiencia más avanzada del ciclo progresista en materia política y cultural, y parecer concluir de forma dramática.

En la década se vivió la formalización de organismos como la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR) formada en 2008 y liderada por Brasil, que aunque vivió un desarrollo lento de múltiples instituciones interregionales y proyectos económicos y sociales, vivió su práctica desintegración en 2018 con la salida de 6 países del organismo bajo el pretexto de la crisis venezolana. Similar destino corrió la Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América-Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos (ALBA-TCP) formado en 2004 como alternativa al proyecto del ALCA liderada por Cuba y Venezuela, pero que tras su reorientación en 2010 hacia una mayor integración económica y cultural en la que surgieron iniciativas como Petrocaribe, experimento un claro estancamiento, para luego empezar a desintegrarse en el periodo 2018-2019, debilitada por la crisis y el cambio de orientación de diferentes gobiernos. En este periodo además fue creada la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC) formada en 2010 e impulsada también por Brasil, que desde 2018 entro en una dinámica estancamiento, marcada además por el reciente anuncio de salida realizada por el gobierno Bolsonaro.

En este marco de estancamiento y crisis de los organismos de integración regional con mayor autonomía especialmente a partir de la segunda mitad de la década, se vivió una recomposición y posterior fortalecimiento de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) y el proyecto panamericanista bajo la supremacía de los Estados Unidos, que ha tenido una participación política importante en el giro hacia la derecha regional y el impulso de organismos como el Grupo de Lima que buscan intervenir en la crisis venezolana. En paralelo se formó en 2012 la Alianza del Pacifico bajo el liderazgo diplomático de Perú pero la dominancia de México y Chile, con la asociación de 4 países neoliberales y pro estadounidenses, con miras a organizar un contrapeso contra las propuestas progresistas y facilitar una mayor integración con las económicas del sureste asiático opuestas a China dentro de la estrategia global del Tratado Transpacífico. Del mecanismo de la Alianza surgió el Mercado Integrado Latinoamericano (MILA) que estrechaba la cooperación de las bolsas de valores de los miembros suramericanos del organismo. La Alianza continúo y aunque el tratado comercial vivió un severo revés por la decisión de Estados Unidos, esta mantuvo una importante actividad a nivel regional.

Desenvolvimiento por países

En México se experimentó el final del mandato del líder político heredero de Fox, Felipe Calderón del neoconservador Partido de Acción Nacional (PAN) signado por el grave incremento de la violencia asociada con la llamada guerra contra las drogas. Más adelante en 2013 se presentó el ascenso de Enrique Peña Nieto y el retorno del neoliberal Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) al poder, en un mandato marcado por la gran impopularidad del gobierno, diversas medidas de ajuste económico y la continuación de la violencia. Finalmente en 2019 se presentó un giro a la izquierda con la irrupción de Andrés Manuel López Obrador del socialdemócrata Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (MORENA), que sin embargo ha mantenido un programa de gran continuismo en materia de economía, seguridad, e inmigración. La economía mexicana experimento un periodo de moderado crecimiento del 3% en promedio del PIB en 2010-2018, y tras el gran impacto de la recesión de 2009 que llego al descenso del -5.28%, el punto más bajo desde la crisis de 1995, presento una fuerte recuperación en 2010 con 5.11% del PIB similar al auge de 1998, seguida de una relativa desaceleración que llega en 2013 con 1.35%, sucedido luego por un ciclo de recuperación en 2014-2015 que llega a 5.28%, y posteriormente de un crecimiento lento pero continuado desde 2015, con promedio por encima del 2%, con una economía jalonada por la nueva producciones industriales de maquila y explotaciones minero energéticas. El país experimento la crudeza de la guerra contra el narcotráfico, con hasta 100.00 muertos como consecuencia de la violencia de los carteles y las Fuerzas de Seguridad, actores que mantienen entre si contradictorias y cambiantes relaciones de cooperación y choque.

En Guatemala se dio el final del gobierno del empresario Álvaro Colom de la social liberal Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza (UNE) que implemento algunos programas sociales focalizados y enfrento el aumento de la violencia criminal en el país. Ya en 2012 inicia la presidencia del general Otto Pérez Molina del conservador Partido Patriota que adelanto diversos programas de control policial y de empleo, se vio forzado a renunciar en 2015 en medio de escándalos de corrupción por el caso La Línea. Le sucedió la administración interina del abogado Alejandro Maldonado que aprobó el discriminatorio salario mínimo diferenciado por regiones, y desde 2016 el gobierno del pastor evangélico y actor Jimmy Morales por el ultraderechista Frente de Convergencia Nacional, luego comprometido junto con su familia en un nuevo escándalo de financiamiento ilegal. El país se vio fuertemente influido por el mandato de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG) que investigo diversos jefes de Estado y sufrió finalmente un ataque por parte del gobierno Morales. La economía del país creció de forma moderada en un promedio de 3.4% del PIB entre 2010 y 2018, en la que tras la caída a 0.52% de 2009 la tasa más baja desde 1986, se experimentó una moderada recuperación en 2010-2011 que llego este último año a 4.16%, una pequeña contracción en 2012 con 2.97%, seguida de un nueva ola de crecimiento entre 2013-2015 que fue en 2014 del 4.17%, el número más alto desde 2007 y desde entonces se experimenta una relativa desaceleración con un pico bajo de 2.76% en 2017.

En Belice se desarrolló el largo gobierno del abogado Dean Barrow del conservador Partido Democrático Unido (UDP) que asumió el poder en 2008 y vivió una primera relección en 2012 y una segunda en 2015, manteniendo control sobre la mayoría de los gobiernos locales y una importante presencia parlamentaria. El segundo gran periodo de gobierno conservador de la antigua Honduras británica, ha estado marcado por una política fuertemente neoliberal y de seguridad interior. La economía del país ha experimentado un moderado aunque inestable crecimiento de 2.3% del PIB en el periodo 2010-2018, pasando de un pequeño auge entre 2010 con 3.38%, desaceleración y contracción en 2013 con 0.83%, una nueva expansión en 2014 con 3.69% el porcentaje más alto desde 2006, la fuerte caída de -0.58 de 2016, la más significativa crisis desde 1983 y un moderada recuperación desde entonces, todo esto impactado por los vaivenes del precio del azúcar, su mayor producto de exportación y los variables flujos de inversión del país por su condición de paraíso fiscal.

En Honduras la década inicio con la administración ilegitima del empresario Roberto Michetti, tras el golpe de Estado de 2009 contra el gobierno centrista de Manuel Zelaya ambos del Partido Liberal (PL), golpe que genero múltiples protestas populares y una importante crisis económica. Esta administración fue sucedida en 2010 en viciadas elecciones presidenciales por el empresario y líder de la patronal agraria Porfirio Lobo del Partido Nacional (PN) que desarrollo un programa de combate a la inseguridad, el desempleo y la pobreza extrema con bajos resultados. Desde el 2014 se desarrolló el gobierno de Juan Orlando Hernández de la misma agrupación, salpicado por escándalos de narco política y la corrupción, que fue luego nuevamente reelegido en las fraudulentas elecciones de 2018. El país experimento un crecimiento moderado de. 3.8% del PIB en promedio de 2010-2018, y tras la depresión de 2009 de -2.43% la más grave desde 1991, vino una importante recuperación que llego hasta su máximo en 4.12% en 2012, un caída al 2.79% en 2013 y una nueva dinámica de crecimiento que llega a su máximo en 2017 en 4.78%, el porcentaje más alto de 2007.

En El Salvador se experimentó la mayor parte del gobierno del periodista Mauricio Funes del izquierdista Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) que adelanto su plan anti crisis con obras pública y subsidios a la población para también un plan de seguridad que impuso la entrada del Ejercito en el control del país, y posteriormente se vio envuelto en actos de corrupción. En 2014 en una relativa profundización del camino a la izquierda, asumió el dirigente magisterial e histórico comandante guerrillero Salvador Sánchez Cerén que se desempeñaba como vicepresidente de Funes, también del FMLN ahora en minoría en el parlamento, adelanto políticas de crecimiento del salario mínimo y protección medioambiental, sin lograr frenar la inseguridad o la crisis de salid, decidiendo además el rompimiento de las relaciones con Taiwan para acercarse a China. Más adelante y tras el gran desgaste de la administración de Sánchez, se presenta un giro hacia el mercado y la asunción presidencial en 2018 del empresario Nayib Bukele de la derechista Gran Alianza por la Unidad Nacional (GANA), con un programa de combate a la inseguridad. El país experimento un crecimiento moderado de 2.5% del PIB en promedio entre 2010-2018. Tras la fuerte caída de 2009 que significo un decrecimiento del -2.08% del PIB, el porcentaje más bajo desde 1982, se experimentó una recuperación que llega a su máximo en 2011 con 3.81% en 2011, porcentaje similar al 2005, seguido de una contracción que llega a la parte más baja en 2014 con 1.71%, seguida desde 2015 por un ciclo de crecimiento estable que en llego a un máximo 2.53% en 2018.

En Nicaragua se experimentó la década larga de gobierno del ex comandante guerrillero Daniel Ortega del Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) que volvió al poder en 2007 con un programa centrista de inspiración cristiana. El envejecido Ortega desarrollo programas de gratuidad de la salud y la educación, y paralelo respeto al tratado de libre comercio con Estados Unidos, para luego perseguir una primera relección en 2011 y una segunda y fraudulenta en 2016, generando un régimen político autoritario que enfrento con gran violencia las protestas populares de 2018. Ortega impuso una agenda cultural conservadora, con paradójico gobierno paritario con la mayor equidad de género del continente y a la vez la derogación de la ley de derecho a la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo que la Revolución sandinista había conseguido. La economía nica vivió un crecimiento importante que llega a un 5% promedio del PIB en 2010-2018, tras la fuerte caída de 2009 con el decrecimiento del -3.29%, a la que siguió una importante recuperación entre 2010-2012 que llega este último año al 6.49% del PIB, el porcentaje más alto desde 1999, de lo que se sigue una desaceleración relativa que se mantiene sobre el 4.5% entre 2013-2017 y una nueva crisis en 2018 con un crecimiento negativo -3.81%, un porcentaje similar al de finales de 1980 cuando el país afrontaba la guerra de Estados Unidos y la contra. La economía creció de la mano de las exportaciones agrícolas y los proyectos de infraestructura, incluido el proyecto del canal interoceánico de capital chino finalmente frustrado, aunque hacia final de la década experimento una nueva crisis.

En Costa Rica la década inicio con la elección de la politóloga Laura Chinchilla, heredera de Oscar Arias, del conservador Partido de Liberación Nacional (PLN) que impulso su política de seguridad integral y busco limitar en el país los peores efectos de la crisis económica mundial. Luego se da un relevo gubernamental y surge en 2014 el gobierno del académico Luis Guillermo Solís del social liberal Partido de Acción Ciudadana (PAC) con ciertas leyes progresistas en materia cultural y civil. En 2018 con un discurso más centrista resulta electo el comunicador Carlos Alvarado Quesada también del PAC, que sin embargo aplico una regresiva reforma fiscal que suscito una fuerte respuesta del movimiento sindical con una huelga general que el gobierno busco ilegalizar. El país vivió un quiebre del sistema bipartidista, así como el escándalo de corrupción por financiación electoral del PAC en 2016 y el llamado escándalo de cementazo que implico a miembros de diferentes partidos y poderes públicos. En la derecha se dio el enorme ascenso en 2018 de los fundamentalistas cristianos de Restauración Nacional, que se convirtieron en la fuerza política más votada en primera vuelta, mientras que en la izquierda el Frente Amplio pasó de un gran crecimiento a principio del periodo y registrarse como tercera fuerza nacional en 2014, a una fuerte en crisis en 2018. En materia económica el país vivió una década de crecimiento moderado a un 3.7% en promedio del PIB entre 2010-2018, que implico una importante recuperación tras la fuerte caída del -.0.97 de 2009, la más grave desde 1982, con el periodo 2010-2012 con promedios de crecimiento por arriba del 4.5%, con un pico en el 2010 con 4.95%, el más alto desde 2008, una contracción en 2013 con 2.26% y luego un nuevo recuperación que llego al 4.24% en 2016 y a partir de ahí una moderada desaceleración que llego hasta el 2.63% de 2018.

En Panamá el periodo inicio con el segundo año de la administración del empresario Ricardo Martinelli del partido derechista Cambio Democrático y la frágil alianza conservadora, en el que se desarrolló un plan de modernización de infraestructura y se aprobaron tratados de libre comercio con Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, así como un extenso plan de espionaje a la oposición política. En 2014 asumió la jefatura del Estado el ultra rico empresario Juan Carlos Varela del conservador Partido Panameñista, antiguo aliado y vicepresidente de Martinelli del que luego se distanciaría y buscaría procesar judicialmente. En 2019 resulto ganador de las elecciones el ganadero evangélico Laurentino Cortizo de una fracción social cristiana del centroizquierdista Partido Revolucionario Democrático (PRD). En la izquierda el Frente Amplio por la Democracia, conformado y disuelto en los periodos de elecciones generales por las restrictivas leyes electorales, tuvo un desempeño muy limitado. En materia económica el país experimento un crecimiento alto del 6.5% en promedio del PIB durante 2010-2018, con un primer momento de expansión entre 2010-2012 que llego en 2011 al 11.31%, la cifra más alta desde 2007 y uno de los porcentajes más alto en 30 años, para más adelante sufrir una curva de descenso que llega a 2014 al 1.24%, la cifra más baja desde la crisis de 2009, y una más moderadamente alta recuperación desde 2015, a la que siguió una desaceleración relativa en 2018 con 3.67%, con una economía jalonada por la actividad del canal ampliado, los servicios financieros y gran paraíso fiscal puesta de presente en el escándalo de los papeles de Panamá.

En Cuba tras el final del larguísimo mandato del líder revolucionario Fidel Castro Ruiz, el periodo estuvo marcado por el la administración del también histórico Raúl Castro, hermano menor de Fidel y comandante general de las privilegiadas Fuerzas Armadas del país, que profundizo los programas de liberalización económica, modernización estatal y relativa relajación de la actividad represiva. En 2016 se produjo un importante cambio generacional con la llegada del ingeniero de origen obrero Miguel Díaz Cannel a la presidencia, todo en el marco de la férrea dictadura del Partido Comunista, quien impulso en un proceso extenso pero limitado el cambio constitucional de 2019 y continuaba las políticas de giro relativo hacia el mercado. La isla experimento un crecimiento moderado del 2.3% promedio del PIB entre 2010-2018, ligeramente más significativo por la situación de estancamiento poblacional de la isla, con una curva de crecimiento de 2010 hasta 2012 que ese año llego al 3.01%, una desaceleración entre 2013 y 2014 que llego ese año a 1.04%, un gran auge en 2015 del 4.43%, con el promedio más alto desde 2008, y una nueva contracción en 2016 del 0.51% semejante a la segunda parte del periodo especial en 1998, con un ligera recuperación hasta 2018, que sin embargo se ha interrumpido con el regreso de las sanciones norteamericanas y el agravamiento de la crisis venezolana y el giro derechista, con la que asoma una nueva crisis de abastecimiento con algunos puntos de encuentro con la crisis de 1990.

En República Dominicana se dio el final del tercer gobierno del abogado Leonel Fernández del socialdemócrata Partido de la Liberación Dominicana (PLD) que impuso fuerte medidas para paliar el déficit fiscal, volvió a privatizar el sector eléctrico y promovió un programa de inversión en infraestructuras como la segunda línea del metro de Santo Domingo. Desde 2012 asumió la administración el economista Danilo Medina también del PLD, luego reelecto en polémicas elecciones en 2016. Medina impulso una severa reforma fiscal y acepto la racista resolución 168 que negó la nacionalidad a cerca de medio millón de haitianos residentes en esta parte de la isla. En el periodo continuo la hegemonía existente desde 2004 del PLD sobre el poder ejecutivo, legislativo y local. La economía del país registro un alto crecimiento del 5.7% promedio del PIB entre 2010-2018, con la gran recuperación de 2010 con el 8.34%, el porcentaje más alto desde 2006, seguido de una contracción en 2011-2012 que llego este último año a 2.71%, para pasar a una nuevo auge desde 2013 que en 2014 llego a una expansión del 7.05%, con una relativa baja en 2017 hasta 4.66% y una nueva subida en 2018.

En Haití se experimentó el último año del gobierno del agrónomo René Prevál del centro izquierdista Partido Esperanza favorable al derrocado y popular presidente Aristide, que impulso un severo plan de privatizaciones. En la primera transición pacífica del gobierno en su historia independiente se presentó un giro a la derecha, con la administración en 2011 del músico y cómplice de la dictadura Michael Martelly del conservador Respuesta Campesina ganador de las controvertidas elecciones de 2010. Más adelante se dio la administración interina del senador Jocerlerme Privert y después las irregulares elecciones presidenciales de 2015-2016 y el gobierno del líder del gremio empresarial Jovenal Moise del liberal Partido Haitiano Tet Kale, partidario de Martelly. En materia económica el país experimento un crecimiento lento del 2.7% promedio del PIB entre 2010-2018, agravado por el incremento poblacional, con la depresión de -3.12% de 2010 generada por el grave terremoto con enormes costos materiales y humanos, una importante recuperación en 2011 con 5.52%, el porcentaje más alto desde 1995, fluctuaciones con moderado crecimiento hasta 2014 y a partir de ahí una senda de estancamiento de 4 años seguidos, que en 2017 llevo al país a crecer al 1.17%, en medio de una economía afectada por los escándalos de corrupción de Petrocaribe que implicaron a los últimos dos presidentes.

En Puerto Rico el periodo inicio con los tres años de gobierno del abogado corporativo Luis Fortuño del conservador y anexionista Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), que impulso un severo programa de despidos y reducción salarial y un paralelo plan de obras de infraestructura privatizadas. En 2012 se presenta un giro hacia el centro con la asunción del abogado Alejandro García Padilla del centrista y pro autonomista Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) con un programa de aumento de combate al desempleo que sin embargo consiguio solo magros resultados. Desde 2017 se presentó el gobierno del académico Ricardo Antonio Roselló del sector afín al Partido Demócrata del PNP, derrocado en 2019 tras una intensa movilización popular contra su mandato, y la posterior administración interina primero del ex secretario de Estado Pedro Pierluisi y luego la abogada Wanda Vázquez Garced, todos de la misma formación partidaria. Para la isla esta fue una década de depresión con un decrecimiento del -1.3% en promedio y 8 años sumados de depresión entre 2010-2018, con una muy ligera mejora entre 2010-2012 que llego este último año al 0.02% de expansión, luego una nueva ola de decrecimiento entre 2013-2016 este último año registrando -1.26%, y luego un aumento de la dinámica de hundimiento en 2017-2018 que este último año llego al -4.90%, un porcentaje aún más bajo que lo registrado en las crisis económicas de 1975, 1983 o 1990 en la isla. La crisis se explica por factores como el fuerte agravamiento de la crisis fiscal con la enorme deuda externa, la contracción del empleo público a niveles históricamente bajos y los golpes recibidos por catástrofes naturales como el huracán María en 2017, que causo grandes pérdidas humanas ocultadas por el gobierno local y destruyo la totalidad de la red eléctrica del país, con muy baja ayuda del gobierno norteamericano.

En Jamaica la década inicio con el final del gobierno de Bruce Golding del conservador Partido Laborista de Jamaica (JLP) y más adelante en 2011 el primer mandato de Andrew Holness por la misma formación derechista. En 2012 en un cambio de orientación política asumió su segundo mandato la ex ministra de Trabajo Portia Simpson Miller del social liberal Partido Nacional del Pueblo (PNP) quien desarrollo un programa de reforma social con impacto limitados. Luego hay un nuevo giro conservador y desde 2016 se desarrolló el segundo mandato del propio Holness, bajo la promesa de atracción de inversiones y recuperación económica. En el periodo la economía ha experimentado un periodo de estancamiento del 0.7% promedio del PIB entre 2010-2018, tras la fuerte recesión de 2008-2010 que el último año registro un decrecimiento -1.46%, una leve oscilación en 2011 hasta un nuevo decrecimiento en 2012 del 0.61%, seguida de dinámicas de mínima expansión 2013-2015, que mejoraron en 2016-2018 con el último año en 1.93%, crecimiento similar a 2006, con una isla dependiente del creciente turismo y las remesas de la comunidad jamaiquina en el exterior, así como la exportación de bienes agrícolas principalmente el azúcar y en menor medida la minería de bauxita para la producción de aluminio.

En Colombia el periodo inicia con la aparente continuidad política que suponía el ascenso al gobierno del economista Juan Manuel Santos de extracción oligárquica y Ministro de Defensa de Uribe Vélez, por el neoconservador Partido Social de la Unidad Nacional (Partido de la U) y la coalición uribista Primero Colombia, que fue luego relegido por estrecho margen en 2014 con el apoyo de la coalición de la Unidad Nacional. El gobierno Santos emprendió un largo proceso de negociaciones de paz con la insurgencia de las FARC que llevo al Acuerdo del Teatro Colón de 2017 y la consecución del presidente del Premio Nobel de Paz, en medio de la continuidad de las políticas económicas neoliberales. Capitalizando la impopularidad del gobierno Santos, en 2018 se presenta el regreso del uribismo al poder con la administración del senador Iván Duque por el ultraderechista Centro Democrático y una nueva coalición uribista y conservadora, que ha buscado aprobar una agenda de ajuste económico en materia pensional, laboral y tributaria, en medio de la intensificación de la violencia contra los líderes y lideresas sociales especialmente de las zonas rurales. En la izquierda se experimentó la división y la relativa crisis del socialdemócrata Polo Democrático Alternativo (PDA), el ascenso del centro izquierdista Movimiento Progresista luego Colombia Humana que en las elecciones presidenciales de 2018 con Gustavo Petro el ex alcalde de Bogotá y antiguo líder guerrillero del M-19, obtuvo el mejor resultado de la izquierda en elecciones en la historia reciente.

La década puede describirse para la economía nacional como de moderado crecimiento con 3.8% de aumento promedio del PIB entre 2010 y 2018. El periodo estuvo marcado por la salida de la crisis de 2009 que dejo un promedio de crecimiento ese año del 1.2% del PIB, la más baja cifra desde la recesión de 1999 y luego de fuerte recuperación con el 7.36% de 2011, el número más alto desde 1970, con una subsecuente y paulatina caída, marcada por una enfermedad holandesa de auge de la materias primas y crisis de los otros rubros económicos, sobre todo desde 2014 que llega al crecimiento del 1.35% de 2017, momento a partir del cual se registra una dinámica de moderada reactivación en 2018.

En Venezuela se dio el final del gobierno del antiguo militar Hugo Chávez Frías con su debilitamiento y muerte en junio de 2013 y el ascenso del antiguo líder sindical obrero Nicolás Maduro, canciller y vicepresidente de Chávez, ambos del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) formado desde el poder y la coalición del Gran Polo Patriótico. Le llegada de Maduro supuso un cierre autoritario en el país que aunado a la profunda crisis económica facilito el crecimiento y radicalización de la oposición derechista que por primera vez en 17 años gano las elecciones parlamentarias de 2015. El deterioro de la situación económica y las fraudulentas elecciones de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente en 2017 y las violentas protesta cívicas de la oposición brutalmente reprimidas por el gobierno, condujeron una honda crisis orgánica, que tomo la forma desde 2019 de una situación de doble poder, con un gobierno paralelo en cabeza del presidente de la Asamblea Nacional y antiguo líder estudiantil derechista Juan Gaudio del social liberal Voluntad Popular, administración contrapuesta que ha logrado el reconocimiento de la mayoría de países de la región, ha buscado sin éxito la intervención militar y el golpe de Estado contra Maduro, sin lograr control efectivo del territorio.

La economía venezolana vivió una década de gran crisis con un decrecimiento promedio del -5.9% del PIB entre 2010-2018 y seis años de crecimiento negativo, incluida una depresión que inicio en 2014. El país vivió una lenta recuperación de la crisis de 2009-2010, que lo llevo a un crecimiento alto en 2011-2012 que alcanzo este último año el 5.62%, el más alto desde 2008, para pasar desde entonces a un fuerte contracción, primero con desaceleración en 2013 con 1.34%, luego de fuerte crisis en 2014-2015 con el último año promediando caídas del -6.22% y tras esto de honda depresión en 2016-2018, llegando este último año al descenso del -19.62%, que representa la cifra individual y la suma total de decrecimiento más severa de la historia contemporánea del país, rebasando por mucho las crisis de 1980, 1989, 1999 y 2002, sumadas. La República Bolivariana paso de un auge importante y una posición de crecimiento líder en América Latina además de un proyecto fallido de diversificación productiva y estímulo a la producción agrícola e industrial, con el barril de petróleo que llego a máximos de 115 dólares al barril en 2012, a la recesión de 2014 que llevo el precio de crudo en 2016 a 26 dólares, una contracción severa que supuso arrasar con las importantes conquistas sociales del chavismo y no hizo sino agravarse aún después de la moderada recomposición del crudo sobre 56 dólares de 2018, en parte por las grandes sanciones económicas y en parte por la masiva fuga de capitales. La severa crisis ha llevado a que en la actualidad se presente un fenómeno inédito en la historia del país, intensificado sobre todo desde 2018, como lo es la migración masiva de más de 4 millones de personas, en su mayoría jóvenes de clase media y trabajadora que han decidido viajar al resto del continente.

En Guyana se dio el final de la administración del economista Bharrat Jagdeo del izquierdista Partido Progresista del Pueblo (PPP) y luego el segundo gobierno del también economista y líder campesino Donald Ramotar del propio PPP. Desde 2015 se da en un giro más moderado, con la administración del militar retirado David Granger del centro izquierdista partido Asociación para la Unidad Nacional (ANPU) que impulsa un relativo giro hacia el mercado. La economía del país ha vivido un importante crecimiento del 4% promedio del PIB en 2010-2018, con un ciclo de expansión que llega al pico de 2012 con 5.27%, similar al de 2007, un parcial desaceleración que llega a 2.1% en 2017, que en cifras es algo inferior al bajón de 2008 y una importante recuperación en 2018 con 4.1%. El hallazgo nuevas reservas de petróleo en 2019 parece asomar al país a un boom económico inédito, que sin embargo se prevé difícil de controlar.

En Surinam se desarrolló la larga administración del militar retirado Dési Bouterse del nacionalista de izquierda Partido Nacional Democrático (PND) electo en 2010, donde se aprobaron proyectos de integración regional y una polémica ley de amnistía que lo beneficiaba a él y a sus socios del golpe de Estado de 1980. Bouterse logro relegirse en 2015 consiguiendo mayoría en el poder legislativo y local, con un segundo mandato centrado en los intentos parciales de reactivación económica. El país experimento un muy lento crecimiento del 1.3% del PIB promedio entre 2010 y 2018, que inicio con un fuerte crecimiento en 2010-2011, registrado este último año una expansión del 5.84%, la más alta desde 2006, seguido de una moderada desaceleración en 2012-2013 que llego el último año 2.93%, a la que sucedió un fuerte periodo de crisis que llego al decrecimiento de 2015-2016, registrándose este último año una contracción del -5.56%, la más severa desde 1993. Tras la crisis se siguió una ligera recuperación que llego al 1.9% en 2018 y parece continuar desde entonces. La dinámica económica estuvo ligada a los vaivenes de las exportaciones primarias, especialmente arroz y un gran crecimiento de la inversión china.

En Ecuador se vivió la mayor parte del segundo mandato del economista y tecnócrata Rafael Correa, así como su proyecto de segunda reelección en 2013, que supuso la presidencia continuada más larga de la historia republicana del país y se vio envuelta de un proyecto desarrollista y de fuerte control sobre la oposición. Tras las elecciones de 2017, se vio el ascenso con fuerte discontinuidad política del empresario y expresidente de Correa, Lenin Moreno, ambos del partido Revolución Ciudadana (RC), quien marcando fuerte distancia con Correa a quien busco judicializar, y para afrontar la crisis económica decide impulsar un severo plan de ajuste económico parcialmente derrotado por el movimiento popular en 2019. El país experimento un crecimiento moderado del 3.2% entre 2010 y 2018, con un importante que entre 2010 y 2011 que llego este último año al 7.86%, el más importante desde 2004, para pasar una dinámica de desaceleración relativa que se profundizo en 2015, y llego a su punto más bajo en 2016 con un decrecimiento -1.22%, el más significativo desde la crisis de 1999, y desde ahí una lente recuperación que llego en 2018 a 1.37% y se desarrolla de manera lente hasta hoy. Esta dinámica se explica por el desarrollo de proyectos de infraestructura y la intensificación de las explotaciones primarias.

En Perú el periodo inicio con el último año de la administración del segundo gobierno del político Alan García del derechista APRA, que luego fue seguido con un giro hacia el centro en 2011 con la administración del ex militar Ollanta Humala del Partido Nacionalista quien desarrollo políticos sociales focalizadas, mientras afianzaba la matriz productiva basada en minería. Luego de 2016 se presentó un retorno derechista de la mano del empresario y antiguo ministro Pedro Pablo Kuczynski que arrinconando por escándalos de corrupción debió dejar el gobierno en marzo de 2018 en manos de su vicepresidente Martín Vizcarra ambos del movimiento político PPK. El país se vio fuertemente sacudido con el escándalo Odebrecht, que involucra en hechos de corrupción a los presidentes de los últimos 20 años y el ascenso del derechista Fuerza Popular de Keiko Fujimori como principal partido del país. En materia económica esta fue una década de crecimiento económico alto con un promedio de 4.7% del PIB entre 2010-2018, que inicio con la gran recuperación de 2010 con 8.33%, similar a lo obtenido en 2008, seguido de un menos veloz crecimiento sobre el 5.8% entre 2011-2013, luego una importante desaceleración en 2014 que llega al 2.38%, el promedio más bajo desde la crisis de 2009, y luego un más lento periodo de crecimiento, con la relativa disminución en 2017 al 2.51% y una nueva recuperación que en 2018 llego al 3.97%. Esta dinámica de crecimiento estuvo jalonada por las exportaciones mineras y el desarrollo de la infraestructura interna, en medio de la continuación de los problemas estructurales

En Bolivia se dio el largo periodo presidencial del líder sindical indígena Evo Morales del indigenista de izquierda Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) con el desarrollo de la mayor parte de su segundo mandato obtenido en 2009 y su segundo reelección desde 2014. El histórico líder cocalero lidero un importante proceso de modernización económica e institucional en el país, pero se fue debilitando hacia el final de la década en medio de diversos escándalos por su gestión, como lo expreso la pérdida del referendo constitucional de 2016, que sin embargo logro sobrepasar. Más adelante las irregularidades presentadas en las reñidas elecciones presidenciales de 2019 a las que Morales volvía a aspirar, condujeron a las protestas cívicas lideradas por la derecha en la llamada revolución de las pititas y en medio de esta situación el golpe de Estado encabezado por las Fuerzas de Seguridad, que lleva la asunción de la senadora Jeanine Añez del conservador Movimiento Demócrata Social, quien en su corto mandato ha implementado una severa política represiva contra las protestas que rechazan el golpe. Durante la administración de Morales, la economía vivió un gran crecimiento del 4.9% entre 2010-2018, con una gran curva de expansión entre 2010 con 4.12% y 2013 del 6.79%, el porcentaje más alto desde 1975, y una desaceleración relativa que no impidió el mantenimiento de niveles altos entre 2014-2018. Esta dinámica estuvo impulsada por el aumento de los precios de las materias primas, el programa de desarrollo de la infraestructura interna y estímulos al consumo, así como la reducción de la pobreza extrema y el desempleo.

En Paraguay se presentó la segunda mitad del gobierno del sacerdote progresista ligado a los movimientos campesinos, Fernando Lugo del centro izquierdista Frente Iguasú que al tiempo que desarrollaba ciertos programas sociales impulso una política económica liberal que acerco al país a organismos multilaterales como el FMI. Tras los sucesos de Curuguaty en 2012 que llevaron a la muerte de 17 personas durante un desalojo policial de una hacienda ocupada por campesinos, el gobierno Lugo se vio afectado ese mismo año por un proceso de destitución fuertemente irregular, por lo que fue sucedido por el cuestionado gobierno interino del su vicepresidente, el oligárquico Federico Franco del Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA), que potencio la siembra de cultivos transgénicos, las inversiones de capital internacional y se vio involucrado en múltiples escándalos de corrupción. Desde 2013 se dio el retorno de gobiernos conservadores con el empresario Horacio Cartes del Partido Colorado con su intento reeleccionista y desde 2019 la administración del millonario Mario Abdo Benítez también colorado. La economía nacional vivió un gran crecimiento del 4.9% en promedio del PIB para 2010-2018, con una gran recuperación de 2010 que llego al 11.14% el porcentaje más alto desde 1980, vivió luego un acelerado bajón que llego en 2012 a un crecimiento marginal del 0.523, similar a la depresión de 2001, con una posterior recuperación en 2013 con 8.41% y desde ahí un cierta estabilidad con crecimiento superior al 3%, con un pequeño pico en 2017 con 4.95%. Está dinámica de expansión estuvo jalonada por el aumento de los precios de la soja y las inversiones inmobiliarias y de comercio.

En Brasil se experimentó desde 2010 el primer mandato de la antigua líder guerrillera y economista Dilma Roussef, jefa de gabinete de Lula y del Partido de los Trabajadores (PT), quien mantuvo las políticas de desarrollo industrial y agrícola con programa sociales grandes pero limitados. Tras las reñidas elecciones de 2015 en las que Dilma fue relegida con un programa contrario al ajuste que luego termino por impulsar, el gobierno progresista fue perdiendo apoyo electoral, afectado además por las renuncias por corrupción de parte de su gabinete. En agosto 2016 culmino el proceso de destitución irregular de la presidente que llevo al ascenso del abogado y vicepresidente Michel Temer del centro derechista Movimiento Democrático Brasilero (MDB), tenido como el mayor aliado de Odebrecht en el país, quien profundizo el ajuste en curso. Luego en las elecciones presidenciales de 2018 de las que Lula como candidato más popular fue prescrito, se registró el ascenso del ultraderechista y antiguo militar golpista y líder parlamentario Jair Bolsonaro del Partido Social Liberal (PSL), del que luego se retiraría para formar una ultra reaccionaria Alianza por Brasil, con un fuerte programa de conservadurismo cultural, avance de la agroindustria sobre el territorio y brutales ajustes económicos. La principal economía del subcontinente vivió una década de estancamiento con un crecimiento de 1.3% del PIB entre 2010-2018, iniciando con el gran crecimiento de 7.52% en 2010, el más alto desde 1986, y luego una fuerte desaceleración hasta 2012 que llega 1.92% en 2012, una leve recuperación en 2013 seguida de una fuerte depresión en 2015-2016 que llego en el primer año -3.54%, el porcentaje más bajo desde 1981, y tras este decrecimiento, una leve recuperación desde 2017 que parece continuar.

En Chile se experimentó desde inicios de 2010 el primer mandato del empresario y economista Sebastián Piñera del pinochetista Renovación Nacional (RN) administración marcada por importantes resistencias populares a las políticas neoliberales. En 2014 se experimentó el retorno al poder de la ex presidenta y médica Michel Bachelet del Partido Socialista ahora en la coalición con la Nueva Mayoría, que ampliaba la anterior coalición de la Concertación, que impulso reformas en materia de salud y educación, exploro sin éxito el proceso de una nueva constitución y vivió el estallido de los escándalos de corrupción Caval y Penta. En 2018 se presentó un nuevo regreso de Piñera a la presidencia con la coalición Chile Vamos, en una elección que supuso el debilitamiento del sistema de partidos chileno y un gobierno que pronto afronto un estallido social que afectó severamente su gobernabilidad y lo llevo a plantear la salida institucional de la Asamblea Constitucional. En el periodo, la economía del país experimento un modesto crecimiento promedio del 3.6% del PIB entre 2010-2018, con un periodo de expansión tras la recesión de 2009 que llego a 6.11% en 2011, con una importante contracción en 2013-2014 que llega a 1.76% este último año, una leve recuperación en 2015 con 2.3% y a partir de ahí una senda de crecimiento marginal que se supera solo en 2018, dinámica jalonada por el alza y las bajas del cobre y otros productos mineros en el mercado internacional.

En Argentina se desarrolló el final del primer gobierno de la abogada y senadora Cristina Fernández de Kirchner por el nacionalista Partido Justicialista (PJ), que conseguiría su relección en 2011, en un mandato marcado por políticas sociales moderadas y una creciente inestabilidad económica. Luego en 2015 se presenta un giro a la derecha con el ascenso del empresario y antiguo alcalde de Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri de Propuesta Republicana (PRO) y la derechista coalición Cambiemos, con una administración marcadamente favorable a los mercados y una política de ajuste económico. En medio del desgaste político y económico de la gestión Macri se presenta un nuevo cambio de signo político y el ascenso en 2019 del abogado y docente Alberto Fernández, escogido por la propia Cristina, por el centrista Frente de Todos de liderazgo peronista. La economía vivió un periodo de crecimiento lento del 1.8% en 2010-2018, con fuerte sobresaltos que iniciaron en 2010 con la recuperación 10.12% del PIB desacelerada luego a 6.0% en 2011, y desde ahí tres mico ciclos de decrecimiento y posterior crecimiento lento que empeoraron durante los últimos años de gestión de Macri, incluido el crecimiento negativo de 2014 con -2.51, el más bajo desde 2009. La economía del país vivió el auge de las exportaciones rurales y ciertas industrias intermedias en la primera mitad de la década, pero desde 2017 una recesión que supuso su mayor descenso desde 2001.

En Uruguay se experimentó desde 2010 el gobierno del antiguo líder tupamaro y ex ministro de Agricultura, José Mujica proveniente del Movimiento de Participación Popular del centro izquierdista Frente Amplio (FA), con un programa que combinaba mayor gasto social con leyes pro-empresariales y una retórica política que lo llevaría a la fama mundial. En 2015 se presentó el regreso a la presidencia del médico Tabaré Vásquez cercano al Partido Socialista del FA, y asesor del Fondo Monetario Internacional. Tras el desgaste de Vásquez en medio de cierta desaceleración económica, se dio en 2019 la ajustada victoria del abogado Luis Lacalle Pou, hijo de un presidente blanco, por el derechista Partido Nacional. La economía vivió una década de crecimiento moderado del 3.4%, con un importante auge en 2010 con la expansión del 7.8%, la más alta desde 1997, seguida de una relativa desaceleración entre 2011-2012, un repunte hasta el 4.63% en 2013, y una nueva dinámica de reducción en 2014 que tuvo su punto más bajo en 2015 con 0.37%, la cifra más reducida desde 2003, y desde ese entonces un leve crecimiento que en 2017 llegaría a 2.59%. La dinámica de crecimiento estuvo jalonado por los vaivenes de las exportaciones rurales.

Movimientos populares

A nivel general esta fue una década de importante actividad de los movimientos sociales con los importantes periodos de auge de 2011 y 2013, así como de subsecuente contracción manteniendo niveles altos de actividad. De forma más reciente y más profunda se registró la gran explosión de lucha social contra la desigualdad de 2019 con eje en Puerto Rico, Colombia, Ecuador y Chile, y la dividida movilización en Bolivia. La estrategia de subordinación de las organizaciones populares a los gobiernos progresistas expresada en organismos como el Alba de los movimientos sociales y el proceso de burocratización y control autoritario que esto implico, trajo resultados modestos en términos reivindicativos y de aplazamiento indefinido de las grandes reformas sociales. Por otro lado la estrategia dejo en general en malas condiciones para resistir a mismos, cuando se presentó el giro derechista que tiene como uno de sus ejes el combate y la desmovilización de estas organizaciones, lo que no impidió que la nueva ola neoliberal encontrara una importante oposición popular.

La actividad sindical urbana pareció mantener su relativa preminencia y liderazgo sobre otras luchas y organizaciones sociales, pero fue muy importante el desenvolvimiento de otros movimientos clasistas, como lo expresa el crecimiento de la movilización de los sectores barriales populares y reactivación de la lucha campesina en diversos países de la región. Hubo también una importante actividad estudiantil universitaria y secundaria, con importante capacidad para generar grandes coyunturas críticas, así como luchas por trabajo o servicios sociales como la vivienda, el transporte o las pensiones que resultaron aglutinando diversos sectores. Las más importantes novedades las constituyeron por un lado la irrupción muchas veces masiva del movimiento de mujeres de liderazgo feminista contra la violencia machista, por el aborto legal y la educación igualitaria, quizás el que ha conseguido los mayores logros de esta época, si bien más en materia cultural que en el terreno reivindicativo, y por otro la extensión del movimiento ambientalista, especialmente de base rural y local, con valiosas resistencias al extractivismo y sitúan al subcontinente como la región del mundo con mayor cantidad de movilizaciones sociales ambientales.

Especificando por actores, notamos que el movimiento obrero de la región tuvo una actividad diversa aunque continuada. Se experimentó el desarrollo orgánico de la burocrática Confederación Sindical de las Américas (CSA) formada en 2008 y más adelante la escisión de un minoritario sector derechista que formo la Alternativa Democrática Sindical de las Américas (ADS) que busca adaptarse mejor a posibles pactos con los nuevos gobiernos conservadores. En el periodo, hubo un importante crecimiento de la sindicalización en Argentina y Uruguay jalonado por luchas independientes y ciertas políticas de los gobiernos desarrollista, con lo que se consiguió volver a superar el 30% de la población asalariada, al tiempo que se mantenía un estancamiento relativo en Costa Rica, Brasil, Bolivia y México, y un crecimiento modesto en Colombia y Perú. Continúo siendo central la actividad del movimiento de maestras estatales de educación primaria y secundaria, así como el sindicalismo en el sector educativo de empleadas docentes y administrativos de universidades e institutos técnicos y más en general de las trabajadoras estatales, particularmente de servicios públicos y los ministerios. Mantuvieron su peso las trabajadoras del estratégico sector minero energético, especialmente del petróleo, así como las obreras de la industria de la construcción en algunos países, y las proletarias de la industria metalmecánica de los países más desarrollados. Sin embargo hubo también importante desarrollos sindicales en la industria maquiladora ya automovilística en México, ya textil en el norte de centro-américa, así como nuevas formas organizativas de asalariados rurales, y crecimiento importante pero insuficiente entre las trabajadoras del comercio, la logística y los servicios.

En materia cronológica en 2009-2010 se desarrollan huelgas obreras en las maquilas textiles de honduras y en este último año un paro general del sector eléctrico en México en marzo ante la liquidación de la empresa estatal de energía. En 2011 se presentó la huelga general de 48 horas en el mes de agosto en Chile para exigir una reforma tributaria. En 2012 en enero se desarrolló el cese laboral de trabajadores municipales en Guatemala y más adelante en agosto la huelga de trabajadores del subterráneo de Buenos Aires y el paro general de noviembre en Argentina por mejoras salariales. En 2013 se presentó la huelga nacional de docentes en México contra la reforma educativa y el desarrollo del día nacional de lucha en Brasil con ceses laborales en junio por políticas sociales y reducción de la jornada laboral. En 2014 se desarrolló un paro general en Paraguay por reajuste salarial en marzo y en Brasil importante huelga de recolectores de basura, sumada a conflictos de docentes y universitarios. En 2015 estallo en Uruguay la huelga general en agosto contra los recortes al presupuesto social. En 2016 se desarrolló un cese laboral de los trabajadores de la salud en El Salvador en octubre y en Argentina la marcha federal por diferentes regiones del país entre agosto y septiembre contra la política económica del gobierno. En 2017 se presentaron las grandes huelgas de maestros en Colombia, la más general, Perú, la más larga de dos meses y Argentina, más dispersa, dándose en este último país grandes movilizaciones obreras en marzo con elementos de rebelión contra la burocracia sindical, así como en Colombia la huelga de pilotos de Avianca, el más largo cese laboral en la historia de la navegación comercial a nivel mundial. En 2018 se desarrolló en Costa Rica uno de los movimientos más importantes de la década, con el paro general de 90 días contra los proyectos de reforma fiscal, a la que luego se sumaron la paralización de actividades de maestros en Guatemala durante un mes con toma de edificios públicos en abril y ese mismo mes el cese laboral de la construcción en Panamá, así como en Argentina las grandes protestas obreras y populares en diciembre contra la reforma jubilatoria. En 2019 se registró la huelga de las maquilas automotrices que luego se expandió a múltiples empresas de la región de Tamaulipas en enero de 2019 en México, el paro general en Brasil contra la reforma pensional y los recortes sociales en junio, en Perú en septiembre el cese de actividades de los trabajadores mineros por negociación colectiva que luego confluyo en noviembre con una huelga del sector público ilegalizada por el gobierno y en Paraguay el paro de los trabajadores del Estado contra el recorte del presupuesto público en noviembre del mismo año.

En el movimiento campesino se vivió una actividad moderada pero importante, con momentos de auge en las grandes jornadas de movilización de 2013 y 2019, pese a la gran burocratización de varias organizaciones integrantes de la Confederación Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo (CLOC) Vía Campesina, que sacrificaron su políticas de reforma rural por su alianza con gobiernos progresistas que mantuvieron las políticas de fomento del agro negocio. En el movimiento campesino continuo perdiendo relativa centralidad la lucha directa por la tierra, y en cambio aumentan demandas diversas como los derechos humanos, la protección del medio ambiente y los servicios públicos. En términos de las organizaciones se mantuvo una situación de fragmentación en la base y coordinación por arriba, y un desarrollo sobre todo concentrada en zonas de colonización reciente afectadas por la agroindustria, aunque también se registra actividad en económicas rurales consolidadas golpeadas por las políticas de librecambio.

En términos cronológicos en 2011 en Colombia se realizan protestas campesinas en el centro del país en el mes de octubre contra los bajos precios de los productos. En 2013 también en Colombia se desarrolla el gran paro nacional agrario entre agosto y septiembre con presencia tanto en las zonas de colonización como en sectores de agricultura tradicional, en un movimiento que consiguió importantes acuerdos con el gobierno y lleva a la formación organismos como Dignidad Agropecuaria y la Cumbre Agraria. En 2014 una vez más en Colombia se presentó un segundo y más reducido paro nacional agrario, contra el incumplimiento de acuerdos anteriores. En 2015 en Honduras se desarrolla en octubre un paro campesino y cívico contra la criminalización de líderes rurales. En 2016 en Colombia se desarrolla en junio el tercer paro nacional agrario más localizado que los anteriores, en Guatemala en mayo se dan una movilización nacional por tierra y subsidios inician ese mismo año en Argentina los verdurazos y frutazos de diversas organizaciones campesinas en las ciudades, en protesta por los bajos precios agrícolas. En 2018 en Perú se vivió un paro agrario entre enero y febrero fuerte entre cultivadores de papa, por mayor intervención estatal y en marzo sucede lo mismo en Paraguay, en demanda de reforma agraria. En 2019 importante participación campesina en las grandes protestas populares de Ecuador y en menor medida en el paro cívico del 25 de abril en Colombia, una participación dividida en Bolivia en la coyuntura de las elecciones presidenciales y el golpe de Estado, al tiempo que en Perú se desarrollaba una huelga nacional del sector en mayo y en México una protesta por mayores ayudas públicas en agosto.

Por otro lado, el movimiento estudiantil vivió un periodo de actividad importante, con los relativos auges de 2011 y 2018-2019, intercalados con periodos de parcial repliegue, que en ocasiones son más notorios que los de otros movimientos sociales. En este periodo se mantuvo la gran actividad de organismos como la Confederación de Estudiantes de Chile (Confech), principal actor regional, que vivió una importante extensión con la formación de Federación Estudiantiles en nuevas universidades privadas. Aunque es claro el estancamiento de organismos como la Organización Continental Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Estudiantes (OCLAE) y de grandes organizaciones burocratizadas como la Federación Universitaria Argentina (FUA) en donde la izquierda híper partidista perdió la dirección de la mayoría de federaciones locales donde tenía presencia o la Unión Nacional de Estudiantes (UNE) de Brasil, desinflada por el petismo. Al tiempo se desarrolló desde 2016 un importante activismo estudiantil con demandas feministas en torno a la educación no sexista en Chile, contra el acoso sexual en México y por el aborto legal en Argentina, que se extendió en gran medida al resto del continente.

En una línea de tiempo, en 2010 se desarrollaron en Argentina grandes movilizaciones de los estudiantes secundarios y universitarios por inversión en infraestructura. En 2011 se desarrollaron las grandes jornadas de paro estudiantil en Puerto Rico, el estudiantazo en Chile liderado por la Confech y en Colombia las movilizaciones de octubre-noviembre de la MANE. En 2012 se presentó una nueva movilización en Chile, esta vez con gran actividad de estudiantes secundarios contra las sanciones que quisieron imponer autoridades sobre el movimiento anterior, mientras en México se desenvolvía el movimiento Yo Soy 132 en mayo y junio contra el autoritarismo político. En 2013 en Colombia se desarrolla un localizado paro nacional universitario en el mes de octubre y en Venezuela un paro nacional de profesores universitario por mejoras salariales que fue acompañado por estudiantes opositores. En 2014 en México entre septiembre y diciembre se desenvolvió una huelga estudiantil del Instituto Politécnico contra una reforma inconsulta del reglamento interno. En 2015 se desarrolló un parcial paro nacional universitario en Colombia por la deuda histórica del Estado con las universidades públicas. En 2016 en Chile se volvió a experimentar una gran movilización estudiantil entre abril y julio en la coyuntura de la reforma educativa y en Argentina una importante lucha regional en mayo por el presupuesto universitario. En 2017 se registró la huelga general de la Universidad de Puerto Rico entre abril y junio amparada por la Confederación Estudiantil Nacional contra el recorte presupuestal y en Colombia en el segundo semestre paros en diferentes universidades públicas contra los programas de créditos-becas. En 2018 en Colombia se desarrolló el paro nacional universitario de octubre-diciembre en Colombia liderado por la UNEES que logro conquistas importantes frente al gobierno y en Argentina en materia negativa se registró la pérdida de la hegemonía de izquierda en la FUBA. En 2019 se grandes protestas estudiantiles en Brasil contra la reforma educativa autoritaria. Además se registró una gran participación estudiantil en las protestas populares de Guatemala en 2015, Venezuela en 2015 y 2017, Nicaragua en 2018 con el Movimiento Universitario 19 de abril, y de formas más reciente Puerto Rico, Honduras, Chile, Ecuador y Colombia en 2019.

Por su parte, el movimiento de mujeres registro un explosivo aunque fragmentario crecimiento, fundamentalmente concentrado en los países del Cono Sur y en especial Argentina, gracias en parte a instancias como el Encuentro Nacional de Mujeres y el desarrollo de coordinadoras regionales y sectoriales. Se consolido así en esta década, especialmente en su segunda mitad, la de la más extensa y profunda movilización de mujeres de la historia reciente de la región. En orden cronológico, en 2010 en marzo se presentaron movilizaciones en varios países de centro y Suramérica coordinadas por la Marcha Mundial de Mujeres. En 2011 se presentó en Colombia la huelga sexual de las habitantes de Barbacoa por infraestructura, con resultados parciales. En 2012 en abril en al menos 10 países se organizaron múltiples marchas de las putas replicando la experiencia de Canada, contra la violencia hacia las mujeres. En 2015 en Argentina se organizó la movilización ni una menos en Argentina contra los feminicidios que llamo a un paro nacional de mujeres y consiguió réplicas de la marcha en al menos 12 países de la región. Desde 2017 también en Argentina y Uruguay se convocó el 8 de marzo un paro internacional de mujeres, que logro grandes niveles de movilización, aunque no así de anormalidad laboral. Ese mismo periodo se extendió el efecto de la campaña virtual Me Too con diferentes variaciones regionales. En 2018 se dio en Argentina la marea verde que en junio y septiembre impulso movilizaciones por la legalización del aborto, que sin embargo fue vetada en el parlamento, mientras en Chile en abril y mayo se desarrollaban grandes jornadas por una educación no sexista con tomas de colegios y universidades. En 2019 en México se desarrollaron en agosto múltiples protestas con la consigna no me cuidan me violan, contra la violencia sexual de la policía y hacia final de año hubo un importante impacto del performance un violador en tu camino que se extendió desde Chile al resto de países de la región. .

Este también fue un periodo de gran expansión del movimiento ambientalista en la región, en parte surgido como respuesta al aumento de los proyectos extractivos. Se presentaron grandes años de actividad en 2011-2012 y eje regionales en Colombia, Perú y el norte de Centroamérica. En orden temporal, en 2011 en Colombia se presentó una movilización urbana y rural que logra frenar proyecto de minería de oro en el páramo de Santurban, en Guatemala la lucha del pueblo queqchi contra el desalojo de sus tierras por los proyectos extensivos de palma aceitera y azúcar, en Perú en noviembre movilización contra el proyecto Conga de explotación de oro en Cajamarca y se presentan grandes protesta contra el proyecto minero Tía María en Arequipa. Ese mismo año extraordinario en Chile se desata una gran movilización contra el proyecto hidroeléctrico HidroAysén, finalmente bloqueado y en Bolivia la movilizaciones contra la carretera que atravesaba el territorio indígena y parque natural Tipnis. En 2012 en Colombia se desarrollan protestas en enero contra la hidroeléctrica El Quimbo que no obtienen los objetivos esperados y contra la desviación del rio ranchería en La Guajira que resulta exitosa y en Argentina se registran protestas contra la minería a cielo abierto en Catamarca. En 2015 en Brasil se presenta la movilización de las víctimas del desastre generado por la ruptura de la presa Samarco que condujo a que población de Bento Rodrigues fuera sepultada. En 2016 en Honduras es frenada la hidroeléctrica de Agua Zarca y es asesinada la activista Berta Cáceres. En 2017 en Colombia en septiembre se desarrolla el paro cívico del sur de Bogotá de bajo acatamiento, con eje en la demanda del cierre del basurero Doña Juana. Ya en 2019 en septiembre hay expresiones regionales en varias ciudades de la región en el marco de la Huelga Mundial por el clima, al tiempo que hay presencia del activismo ambientalista en las protestas populares de Chile y Colombia.

Otros movimientos populares también se desarrollaron durante la época en la región. Así se mantuvo la actividad del fragmentado movimiento de trabajadores desocupados en Argentina que tuvo una importante reactivación desde 2016, ya articulada en el burocrático Triunvirato piquetero o ya en el Frente de Lucha Piquetera por reivindicaciones de más trabajos, mejores salarios y presupuesto para alimentos. En las ciudades continuo y se incrementó la gran actividad de los dispersos movimientos barriales, con importante desarrollos del Movimiento Sin Techo en Brasil o por la vivienda digna en Chile. También se adelantaron importantes movilizaciones por los servicios públicos, especialmente por el transporte como lo muestran los desarrollos en 2013 de Brasil con el Movimiento Pase Libre de Brasil o en 2018 en Chila las evasiones en el Transantiago, así como diversas movilizaciones contra los tarifazos y suspensiones de servicio en Argentina. Al tiempo se desarrollaron importantes luchas indígenas del pueblo Mapuche en la Patagonia de Argentina y la Araucanía en Chile por tierras ancestrales, de los pueblos kichwa y saraguros de la sierra en Ecuador por autonomía, en Colombia del pueblo nasa en el Cauca a partir primero de la minga y luego de las jornadas de liberación de la madre tierra por territorios y acuerdos incumplidos y de la continuidad en México del proyecto zapatista, con los territorios autónomos y el intento fallido de la candidatura presidencial de la lideresa indígena María del Jesús Patricio “Marichuy”. También se presentó actividad del movimiento negro, con gran actividad urbana en Brasil e importantes participación en conflictos indígenas y campesinos en Colombia.

El institucionalizado movimiento de derechos humanos mantuvo importantes niveles de actividad con la denuncias de desaparición de personas en México con el caso Ayotizinapa, en Argentina por Santiago Maldonado y por el juicio y castigo de los represores y en Perú contra el indulto a Fujimori, así como las movilizaciones contra los asesinatos de líderes y lideresas sociales en Honduras y Colombia. El grande pero despolitizado movimiento de las diversidades sexuales, se extendió por la región y adquirió importantes características de lucha en 2014 contra la persecución al interior de las instituciones educativas en Colombia tras el caso de Sergio Urrego y en 2018 contra el fundamentalismo anti derechos en Brasil, además sé que se vio una mayor irrupción de actores como las mujeres trans, tradicionales marginadas del movimiento gay. Continúo con un importante crecimiento la actividad del movimiento por la liberación animal con grandes demostraciones contra la tauromaquia y otros espectáculos crueles contra los animales no humanos en México, Colombia y Perú

[1] Todas las referencias económicas de este escrito están tomadas de la base de datos en línea del Banco Mundial que en solo recoge para febrero de 2020 números entre 2010-2018.

aotearoa / pacific islands / miscellaneous / news report Saturday February 22, 2020 06:48 byPink Panther

NZ politicians are embroiled in a financial scandal during an election year.

Just when it seemed the 2020 General Election (scheduled for September) was shaping up to be another yawnfest both National (traditionally one of the main parties of government, currently in opposition) and New Zealand First (a minor Right-Wing populist party now in the coalition government) have found themselves embroiled in a scandal that could upset the political landscape, or at least the outcome of the election itself.

The scandal that threatens to take down long-term political zombie Winston Peters and his New Zealand First vehicle does not directly involve the main government party, Labour. However, the latest polls mean that the parties Prime Minister Ardern needs to form a coalition government with, may not get back into Parliament. The Colmar Brunton Poll has the Greens at 5 percent and NZ First at 3 percent. Labour polled 41 percent. National polled at 46 percent. Unless New Zealand First, ACT [a very small purist free-market party] and the Maori Party win electorate seats, National will also have problems forming a coalition government. Under New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional representation system a party must win either 5 percent of the party votes or an electorate seat to gain representation in Parliament.

So what is this scandal?

Under the electoral laws any political party donations that are at least $15,000 must be made public so the everyone knows who is bankrolling them. To evade this legal requirement it has been alleged that in this case the two Directors of Conrad Properties and other entities owned by these Directors donated a total of $55,000 in four payments to the New Zealand First Foundation so they could avoid the public disclosure requirements of the Electoral Act. (Radio New Zealand, February 18th, 2020) The Electoral Commission, which oversees all matters relating to elections and enforcing the Electoral Act, including political party donations, views the failure to disclose these donations as a breach of the public disclosure provisions of the Act. However, this is not the only reason why there is such a frenzy.

The problem stems from the claim many of the donors, including the two directors from Conrad Properties, were using their 2017 election campaign donations as leverage to press NZ First MPs’ to make changes to the Overseas Investments Amendment Act 2018 that would personally benefit these directors and other donors in the housing sector. No matter how much Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters resorts to the standard Trump tactic of accusing journalists of fabricating news stories and smearing his reputation (Winston Peters’ message to his supporters dated February 18th) the reality is that many voters will see this as cronyism at best and corruption at worst.

Such donations also raised eyebrows among some former New Zealand First members who wondered how a political party that was supposed to be on the bones of its arse (according to Doug Woolerton, one of the two trustees who oversaw the running of the Foundation) was suddenly able to afford a campaign bus for Peter’s campaign in his (failed) electoral campaign for the Northland seat in 2017.

Even more intriguing was that David Carter, the National MP for Northland since 2017, had also been approached by these donors because he was on the select committee that was hearing submissions on the Overseas Investments Amendment Bill. This is nothing unusual in NZ politics: people personally approaching a Member of Parliament to discuss legislation is commonplace even in this day in age. However, in the context of their donations to the New Zealand First Foundation, this meeting has struck some people as highly suspect. Carter himself claimed that he was surprised to learn that the directors of Conrad Properties had donated money to the NZ First Foundation.

This problem of wealthy people donating large sums of money to a political party but avoiding the disclosure laws by donating it in smaller sums has also come to haunt the National Party. This came particularly after it was revealed that an unnamed wealthy Chinese businessman made two donations of $100,000 in 2017 and $100,050 in 2018 to National without this amount being disclosed. (Newshub, February 18th) This case has resulted in four people being prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office. Three of the four people being prosecuted are being charged over deceptive practices in trying to cover up these donations according to the Auckland District Court. The fourth is being charged with the same charges relating to the other three but is also being charged with misleading SFO investigators.

These people are expected to appear in court on February 25th. On February 19th, Newshub released their names. They are Zhang Yikun, the businessman who donated $100,00 to the National Party; Colin Zheng, Zhang’s business partner and perspective National Party candidate; Hengjia Zheng and JamiLee Ross, the already scandal-soaked MP for Botany. As expected Simon Bridges, the leader of the National Party, denied knowing anything about these donations in a media interview he gave on February 18th.

Despite these scandals Ardern has displayed what at first sight is a surprising lack of decisiveness. The same person who had no qualms about immediately banning military style weapons and generally plays on her own supposed dynamism, has taken a hands off approach to the scandals impacting her coalition partner. When she was interviewed by RadioNZ on February 17th, she said: “Indeed, I’m the Prime Minister, I run the government. I do not run three separate parties, so I don’t think it’s unfair or unreasonable to say that these are matters for New Zealand First, not for me.”

According to a RadioNZ website article dated the same day, she was quoted thus: “It is not conduct I’ve been engaged in. No, I don’t see these things as being explicit to the Cabinet manual, which is the conduct of how we run the government…”. “He [Peters] maintains the role he needs to maintain appropriately as Minister of Foreign Affairs. You’re asking questions of him as leader of a political party … these are matters for him…”. “It is ultimately an MMP environment, it will have separate political parties, they are in charge of their own conduct as party and party leaders. “These aren’t matters that I have any responsibility for. I’m the leader of the Labour Party, I had nothing to do with this and I’m not going to stand here and explain it or defend it because it’s not for me.” “I cannot run both a government and three political parties.”

Here is a Prime Minister stating that serious accusations being made against a key member of her Cabinet are nothing more than an internal NZ First matter that should be left to them to sort out! These accusations threaten to undermine the image of the system she supports and all she can say is that it’s not her concern?! The key to this is probably that once you cut through the smooth PR-generated rhetoric, media hype, advertising and spin, Labour exists as a vehicle that seeks power. That’s what it is for, plain and simple. NZ First is a populist party that specialises in the lowest common denominators of politics such as xenophobia. Since NZ First had sufficient support during the last election to be a serious junior partner, Labour could not alienate them. Though, given their shared nationalism and the anti-Chinese xenophobia Labour stoked up on the housing issue at the time, there isn’t a completely different outlook between them anyway. More importantly,they shared a pursuit for power that was ultimately more motivating than any technical, policy differences or supposed matters of principle. That being the case, it’s hardly surprising really that Ardern is soft pedalling the current scandal.

Ardern is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Winston Peters is a spiteful man and there is no doubt that if she kicked him out of Cabinet she will have to call an early election as he is unlikely to support her on supply and confidence motions. The Labour-led government will be in serious trouble if the poll results prove to be accurate or, worse, the tendency of the Greens to perform worse in elections than the polls holds true, if an early election is called. If she condemns him and kicks him out of Cabinet she will face an election where the chances are she won’t be able to form a coalition government. If she washes her hands of the situation she shows herself to be a moral coward which will almost certainly cost the Labour Party dearly in the election. The only thing that could save her election chances is if Jami-Lee Ross (who is admittedly now an ex-National MP) and Colin Zheng are found guilty of the charges laid against them. This will seriously dent National’s credibility among many swing and undecided voters.
At least she bothered to say something. The Greens have been noteworthy for having nothing whatsoever to say on these scandals. Considering how vocal the Greens have been in the past about holding other political parties to account, this is interesting. Now they have seats at the big table, its not really in their interests to mess with things in a way that might jeopodise their cut of the pie. They would seem to prefer waiting it out, pointing to the puny policy successes they’ve squeezed out of Labour and hoping for the best. Politically they’ve got nowhere to go except to tail behind Labour as the bigger dog anyway.

There is often the lazy and smug assumption in this country that ‘we’ are somehow an exception to the way things work elsewhere. To Anarchists, the scandals that have rocked National and New Zealand First have merely confirmed that this country is not immune to the influence of business elites donating large amounts of money in exchange for favours or, dare I suggest it, buying their way into Parliament. It’s noteworthy that it’s not a crime for wealthy donors to pay out $15,000 or more to a political party, just a crime for political parties not to reveal who made such donations. Just like in failed states such as the U.S.A, wealthy people are buying influence here by offering large donations to political parties they think will be most receptive to their lobbying.

None of this comes as a surprise to us. State-based ‘democracy’ has always been founded upon a link between money and power. You simply can’t obtain power under the current system without raising a lot of money for advertising, meetings, social media promotions, lunches and all sorts of stuff. Wealthy elites influencing the politicians who pass laws that benefit them financially is really just an extreme manifestation of what passes for normal.
The politicians and, by extension, the state itself does not exist primarily to serve the people. It is set up to ensure that the elites within each country or region are able to keep their wealth, privileges and power. As the anarchist activist Lucy Parsons put it a long time ago “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth”. Even in the countries that historically some Marxists are fond of calling “deformed workers countries” or “Socialist” the brute reality has been that the state only serves to keep bureaucratic, rather than wealthy, elites entrenched in power.

There are many reasons why Anarchists seek to eradicate the state but the key reason is that without the state these elites would not exist. Without the state there are no laws, no police, no military and no bureaucracies to create, entrench and protect these elites from the workers and everybody else they have bribed, exploited, lied to and terrorised. Attention to the current scandals and this year’s election, should serve to prove that while the scale may differ from elsewhere, this country is no different from any other in that regard.


Sat 29 Feb, 01:56

browse text browse image

mechoso.jpg imageThe Strategy of Especifismo Feb 27 05:15 by Felipe Corrêa 0 comments

This interview with Juan Carlos Mechoso of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) – conducted by Felipe Corrêa – discusses FAU's “strategy of especificismo”. Relevant topics are addressed in the questions, such as: the concept of especificismo, this type of anarchism’s relationship with the classics and with similar experiences that have emerged in history, especifismo’s relation with the Latin American context, comparisons with other ideologies that promote operating at distinct levels (party - mass movement), scientific concepts, ideology and its relation to socialism, programmatic positions that anarchists should defend in popular movements, concepts and conceptions of class, neoliberalism, the development model of Latin American, popular power, strategy, armed struggle and social revolution.
[Português] [Castellano]

79089562_2609305832457587_3033974252333170688_o.jpg imageΗ αναρχική Nora Giavedoni Feb 26 20:01 by Dmitri (translation) 0 comments

Θυμόμαστε και διεκδικούμε τη μαχητική δέσμευση της Nora. Η συμβολή της ήταν πολύ σημαντική για να σηματοδοτήσει ένα μονοπάτι αγώνα, οργάνωσης, δέσμευσης και ώθησης του αναρχισμού στην πόλη μας, της οποίας η οργάνωση είναι κληρονόμος όλων αυτών.

gay.jpg imageRadical Politics & the Queer Community Feb 25 12:21 by Matthew Burns 0 comments

An exploration of the intersection between the queer community and anarchism.

anlisis_periodo.jpeg imageAnálisis del periodo 2010-2019 en América Latina Feb 25 05:07 by ViaLibre 0 comments

En el presente artículo se realiza una reflexión sobre el desarrollo del periodo 2010-2019 en América Latina desde la perspectiva del Grupo Libertario Vía Libre. En primer lugar se reseñan algunas tendencias generales en materia de la economía y la política regional en el decenio, en un segundo apartado se realiza un análisis de esta mismo época en 24 países de la región atendiendo claves políticas y económicas y en un tercer momento se analizan el desarrollo de los movimientos populares, con énfasis en los sectores obreros, campesinos, estudiantiles, de mujeres, ambientales, así como de otros sectores.

leaders.jpg imageNZ Election: Money, Power and Kiwi Non-Exceptionalism Feb 22 06:48 by Pink Panther 0 comments

NZ politicians are embroiled in a financial scandal during an election year.

textCapitalism, Anti-capitalism and Popular Organisation Feb 20 08:01 by Universidade Popular & Movimento dos Trabalhadores Desempregados 0 comments

This booklet, called Capitalism, Anti-capitalism and Popular Organisation, is a publication of the Popular University of Rio de Janeiro in conjunction with the Movement of Unemployed Workers of Rio de Janeiro (MTD-RJ). In this co-edition, we thought that a first and important step would be material that explained, in a simple way, the functioning of the capitalist system and offered a critical and current perspective in relation to it. At the same time, this material should offer more than just criticism. It should present constructive elements that could show ways and possibilities of how to fight capitalism and, also, give some perspectives of struggle in the medium and long term.

460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_.jpg imageΝα υιοθετήσουμε _... Feb 19 19:33 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

Αυτό το άρθρο επισημαίνει την αδύναμη θέση μας στους παγκόσμιους αγώνες ενάντια στο κράτος και το σύστημα. Λέει στους αναγνώστες ότι το σημερινό σύστημα είναι πιο προηγμένο και ισχυρότερο από πριν, μιας και δεν λειτουργούν οι παλιές μέθοδοι αγώνων, κάτι που ωφελεί το κράτος και το σύστημα.

walter_crane.jpg imageAre Anarchists Socialists? Feb 18 08:37 by Wayne Price 3 comments

**Many people regard anarchism and socialism as contradictory programs. This is based on the conception of "socialism" as state ownership of the economy. Yet historically, anarchists have regarded this program as "state socialism" or "authoritarian socialism." They have rejected such views in favor of "anarchist-socialism" or "libertarian socialism." This concept of anarchism as a variety of socialism remains important today in opposition to pro-capitalist "libertarianism" and to "democratic socialism"--that is, reformist state socialism.**

82188998_2583736785015520_806557977304629248_o.jpg imageO Ουμανιταρινισμa... Feb 13 19:08 by Αργύρης Αργυριάδης, MD-PhD 0 comments

Το προσφυγικό ζήτημα είναι ο βαθμός μηδέν της ανθρωπότητας. Η διαμαρτυρία ενάντια στη απάνθρωπη μεταχείρισή τους, η απαίτηση να ακουστούν και να αναγνωριστούν, έστω και στο ελάχιστο, ακόμα κι αν πρέπει να πεθάνουν γι’ αυτό, είναι μια πραγματικότητα που οι επαγγελματίες ψυχικής υγείας αποτυγχάνουν να διαχειριστούν. Εγκλωβισμένοι στην εργασιακή επισφάλεια που επιβάλουν οι ΜΚΟ στην ουσία αποδέχονται την θέση του «επιστήμονα δούλου». Στη διαλεκτική αφέντη και δούλου που παρουσιάζει ο Χέγκελ στη Φαινομενολογία του πνεύματος, ο αφέντης κατακτά τη θέση του φτάνοντας μέχρι το τέρμα στον αγώνα του για αναγνώριση, πρόθυμος ακόμα και να πεθάνει. Αντίθετα, ο δούλος, που φοβάται για τη ζωή του, συνθηκολογεί και αποδέχεται την υποτέλειά του.

.jpg imageWe must bury the traditional struggles to adopt new ones Feb 13 06:47 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

This article points out our weak position in the global struggles against the state and the system . It tells the readers that the current system is more advanced and more stronger than before so that using the old methods of struggles do not work, benefiting the state and the system.

dont_vote.jpg imageNot Voting: "Unhelpful & extreme"? Feb 12 13:04 by LAMA 0 comments

This article defends the established Anarchist position of not voting for political parties. It arose as part of a dialogue with a self-declared Anarchist who claimed this view is "unhelpful and extreme".

whatsapp_image_20200210_at_10.04.jpeg imageDiálogos entre el Confederalismo Democrático y el Anarquismo social y organizado Feb 10 23:48 by ViaLibre 0 comments

Reflexiones del Erol Polat del Congreso Nacional del Kurdistán y el Grupo Libertario Vía Libre

aaron_baron.png imageΟ αναρχικός Aron Davidovich Baron Feb 10 16:24 by Nick Heath* 0 comments

Ο Aron Davidovich Baron γεννήθηκε το 1891 στο χωριό Hlynets στην επαρχία Κιέβου στην Ουκρανία σε μια φτωχή εβραϊκή οικογένεια. Εργάστηκε ως αρτοποιός. Είχε γίνει αναρχικός στα σχολικά του χρόνια. Γύρω στο 1906 ασχολήθηκε με την επαναστατική δραστηριότητα στο πλαίσιο της Ένωσης Αρτοποιών Κιέβου. Συνελήφθη και εξορίστηκε το 1907. Μαζί με τη σύζυγό του Fanya κατέφυγαν στις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες. Εδώ ενεργοποιήθηκε στο πλαίσιο της Russian Workers Union (Ρωσική Ένωση Εργαζομένων) και των Βιομηχανικών Εργατών του Κόσμου (IWW) από το 1912. Υπήρξε συν-συντάκτης της αναρχικής εφημερίδας “Alarm” του Σικάγου από το 1915, με την Lucy Parsons επίσης, ενώ έγραφε και στην εφημερίδα της Ρωσικής Ένωσης Εργαζομένων “Voice of Labour “ (“Φωνή της Εργασίας”). Συμμετείχε ενεργά σε δραστηριότητες στις κοινότητες των Εβραίων και Ρώσων εργαζομένων. Αρκετές φορές συνελήφθη για σύντομες περιόδους. Κατά τη διάρκεια των διαδηλώσεων των ανέργων το 1915, ο Aron και η Fanya ήταν στην πρώτη γραμμή του αγώνα και κάποια στιγμή χτυπήθηκαν σοβαρά από την αστυνομία.

textUS refusal to withdraw troops from Iraq is a breach of international law Feb 08 22:27 by Andrew G Jones 0 comments

A US strike which killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad in January, and the counter-strike by the Iranian military on US targets in Iraq, raised serious questions about the legitimate use of force. When military force was used against targets within its territory, Iraq’s sovereignty was breached.

textUS Announces Three New Bases in Iraq After Iraqis Demand Full Withdrawal Feb 03 20:22 by Alan Macleod 0 comments

The three sites chosen for the news bases, Erbin, Sulimania and Halabja are all extremely close to Iran, with Halabja just eight miles from its border.

83929793_2513531865528618_2957678247128596480_o.jpg imageΑμοιβαία υποστήρ... Feb 03 19:40 by Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira - CAB 0 comments

Οι αναρχικοί ανέκαθεν ασκούσαν την αμοιβαία υποστήριξη. Είναι μια σημαντική αρχή της ιστορίας και της ιδεολογίας μας. Σε όλες τις εμπειρίες αγώνα και οργάνωσης στις οποίες ήμασταν παρόντες, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη έγινε σώμα από τοι σώμα μας, υλοποιήθηκε σε πρακτικό επίπεδο. Και σήμερα, μπροστά σε μια δαπανηρή, βίαιη ζωή και με την αφαίρεση πολλών κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη είναι ακόμη πιο αναγκαία.

textJanuary 2020 Kate Sharpley Library Bulletin online Jan 31 19:04 by KSL 0 comments

KSL: Bulletin of the Kate Sharpley Library No. 100-101, January 2020 [Double issue] has just been posted on our site.

lolaridge.jpg imageLola Ridge, Αναρχική και π_... Jan 31 18:18 by Dmitri 0 comments

Η Lola Ridge υπήρξε κοντινή φίλη της Emma Goldman και άλλων γνωστών αναρχικών καθώς και γνωστών συγραφέων και ποιητών όπως των William Carlos Williams, Kenneth Rexroth και Marianne Moore. Σε αντίθεση με αρκετούς ριζοσπάστες συγγραφείς του καιρού της είχε ιδίαν αντίληψη και αυθντική εμπειρία από τη ζωή της εργατικής τάξης, την οποία απέκτησε από νεαρή ηλικία κατά τη διάρκεια της παραμονής της στα χωριά και τις μικρές κωμοπόλεις των ανθρακωρύχων στις δυτικές ακτές της Νέας Ζηλανδίας. Αλλά, πάνω από όλα, αφιερώθηκε στη σύνδεση της avant-garde λογοτεχνίας με την πολιτική δράση.

whatsapp_image_20191210_at_3.02.jpeg imageReflexiones sobre el salario mínimo para 2020 Jan 28 22:44 by ViaLibre 0 comments

En un país en donde son tan pocas las convenciones colectivas de trabajo y la negociación salarial por empresa o industria es tan débil, la negociación del salario mínimo nacional es una oportunidad para llegar a la mayoría precarizada y desorganizada de la clase trabajadora y proyectar una identidad obrera y popular común más allá de marcos locales y sectoriales.

dynamite_girl.jpg imageGabriella Antolini: "Το κορίτσι δυ&... Jan 28 16:44 by Dmitri (trans.) 0 comments

Οι άλλες γυναίκες την πολιορκούσαν σαν ένα αίνιγμα "Γιατί είσαι εδώ;" την ρώτησε μια φυλακισμένη. "Για κλοπή;", "Όχι”. “Διακίνηση ναρκωτικών;” "Όχι, τίποτα από αυτά" είπε η Ella, γελώντας. "Λοιπόν, τι έκανες και καταδικάστηκες σε δεκαοκτώ μήνες;" “Είμαι αναρχική” απάντησε η Ella.

82550238_2636711606433528_246902396943335424_n.jpg imageWashington Queiro ή “Mingo" Jan 27 18:57 by Dmitri 0 comments

Νεαρός και ενώ έκανε τα πρώτα του βήματα στον επαγγελματικό χώρο των γραφιστών, εργαζόμενος συν τοις άλλοις στα έντυπα Hechos, La Mañana και El País, συνδέθηκε με την ROE (Resistencia Obrero Estudiantil - Αντίσταση Εργατών Σπουδαστών). Έγινε μέλος της FAU λίγο μετά αφότου προσέγγισε τον αναρχισμό.

21_e.jpeg imageBalance de la jornada de protesta del 21 de enero de 2020 Jan 25 03:02 by ViaLibre 0 comments

El pasado martes 21 de enero de 2020 se convocó la primera jornada general de protesta del nuevo año. Enlazado con el gran movimiento de noviembre-diciembre de 2019, diferentes organizaciones sociales y políticas llamarón a un nuevo “paro” sin huelga laboral, que ya es el sexto desde el inicio del gobierno de Iván Duque y el cuarto desde la inmensa jornada iniciada el pasado 21 de noviembre, de la que se cumplían dos meses.

Primero de Mayo (2001) marcha por la Alameda, Santiago de Chile imageReflexiones sobre veinte años de anarco-comunismo en Chile Jan 24 05:55 by José Antonio Gutiérrez D. 0 comments

El 29 de Noviembre de 1999 nacía en el local de la Federación de Trabajadores de la Construcción, Madera y Áridos (FETRACOMA), en la esquina de Almirante Latorre con Claudio Gay, Santiago de Chile, el Congreso de Unificación Anarco-Comunista (CUAC). Este era un intento desde el mundo libertario por dotar al mundo popular en Chile de una organización decididamente anarco-comunista para emprender transformaciones de fondo y de alcance revolucionario en el país. Veinte años después, en el local del Centro Social y Librería Proyección, en la calle San Francisco, algunos de los protagonistas de ese esfuerzo, junto con compañeros que de alguna manera son continuadores de esa tradición, nos reunimos a discutir y evaluar los aciertos y desaciertos, los alcances y falencias de esa experiencia.

alvim_goebbles.jpg imageA real ameaça antissemita e a defesa do povo palestino Jan 23 23:57 by BrunoL 0 comments

Já nos países “ocidentalizados”, ter boas relações com governos mais à direita – como Bolsonaro e Trump – e ignorar os apoios de antissemitas declarados que tais governantes têm, forma um tipo de “pragmatismo político” que só ajuda a relativizar os efeitos danosos da laia.

3b093e78a2464ecc6018b79378dd240f.jpg imageΗ λανθασμένη θεω`... Jan 22 19:40 by Dmitri (MACG - personal capacity) 0 comments

Αυτή η εκπληκτικά πρώιμη όσο και ρηξικέλευθη κριτική απόρριψη της μαρξικής θεωρίας καθώς και του πρώτου της βλαστού, της σοσιαλδημοκρατίας, από τον εν πολλοίς λησμονημένο αναρχικό επαναστάτη και ουμανιστή Πιερ Ράμους -φιλολογικό ψευδώνυμο του Αυστριακού Ρούντολφ Γκρόσμαν- γράφτηκε εν μέσω του Πρώτου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου, το 1916, και εκδόθηκε τρία χρόνια μετά.

82291883_2803905029631893_2968741683451133952_n.jpg imageΠρώιμη αναρχική `... Jan 19 20:06 by Dimitri 0 comments

Δημήτρης Τρωαδίτης, Πρόλογος στο βιβλίο “Πρώιμη αναρχική σκέψη στον ελλαδικό χώρο - Τα πρώτα κείμενα, οι πρώτοι στοχαστές”, σε ανθολόγηση-επιμέλεια Γιώργου Μπουρλή, Εκδόσεις Opportuna, Πάτρα 2018

78625431_1445463048958620_6257469945261588480_o_1.jpg image[Turquía] Entrevista a compas de la DAF hecha por miembros de la Fed. Anarquista del Kurdi... Jan 17 09:48 by KAF & DAF 0 comments

Alb Noticias. Traducimos una entrevista que nos ha llegado al correo. Es una entrevista a dos partes, esta es la primera. Se trata de unas preguntas que hace la Kurdish Anarchist Federation a la DAF (Devricim Anarşist Faaliyet - Acción Revolucionaria Anarquista) de Turquía.

La entrevista trata sobre la situación actual de Turquía tras la invasión de Rojava, la reacción del pueblo turco, el impacto de la campaña de boicot a Turquía y sus mercados y en general el estado del pueblo turco.

Primera parte.

friedman_nytimeas_soleimani.jpg imageThomas Friedman e a desinformação da “burrice” Jan 16 20:34 by BrunoL 0 comments

No dia 03 de janeiro de 2020 ainda antes da resposta iraniana ao ato terrorista autorizado pelo presidente do Império Donald Trump, o célebre articulista e ex-editor do New York Times, Thomas Friedman, produziu um artigo de opinião que correu o mundo ocidentalizado. O título em inglês é “Trump kills Iran’s most overrated warrior”. E a linha de apoio afirma. “Soleimani pushed his country to build na empire, but drove it into the ground instead”. (neste link:

anarlogo.png imageΓια τη δολοφονία ... Jan 16 18:06 by Anarchist Era Collective 0 comments

Ανακοίνωση από την Anarchist Era Collective, της Ένωσης Αναρχικών Αφγανιστάν και Ιράν, για τη δολοφονία του Κασέμ Σολεϊμανί

textFrance at a Crossroads Jan 16 06:59 by Richard Greeman 0 comments

The nationwide general strike in France, now entering its record seventh week, seems to be approaching its crisis point. Despite savage police repression, about a million people are in the streets protesting President Emmanuel Macron’s proposed neoliberal “reform” of France’s retirement system, established at the end of World War II and considered one of the best in the world. At bottom, what is at stake is a whole vision of what kind of society people want to live in – one based on cold market calculation or one based on human solidarity – and neither side shows any sign of willingness to compromise.

more >>
© 2005-2020 Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]