Anarchism, Power, Class and Social Change

The theoretical elements and historical experiences discussed undergird the theses developed throughout this article. Anarchists have a conception of power and a general project around it that forms their conception of class, understood in relation to a certain type of power (domination), and constitutes the foundation of their notion of social change, which is characterized by: their belief in the capacity for action of the subjects that are part of the distinct oppressed classes, their implication in the transformation of that capacity into social force, their commitment to permanent growth of this force, and their defense of a revolutionary process that allows for overcoming enemy forces and replacing the power of domination over society by a self-managing power.

ANARCHISM, POWER, CLASS AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Felipe Corrêa

ANARCHISM: THEORY AND IDEOLOGY, PRINCIPLES AND STRATEGIES

Addressing anarchism in a study like this implies taking up three positions which were developed more broadly in another work.[1]

First, we maintain that anarchism constitutes an ideology, understood as a “collection of thought and action based on ethical precepts that guide collective political behavior and follow certain strategies. Similar to political doctrine, it is related to theory but not reducible to it”[2]. Ideology differs from theory in the sense that the latter has to do with knowledge of society and the former with how to intervene in it. Anarchism, therefore, is defined more by its ideological-doctrinal elements than by theoretical-methodological issues.

This distinction is substantive, since it assumes that the unity and historical coherence of anarchism is related to its political-ideological principles and not with methods of analysis and social theories that have been used by anarchists to interpret reality. On a theoretical level, anarchists have always used different tools deeply connected to the time and space in which they have been produced.

Second, we define anarchism as follows:

Anarchism is a socialist and revolutionary ideology based on certain principles, the bases of which are defined by a critique of domination and defense of self-management. In structural terms, anarchism advocates a social change based on strategies, which should allow for the replacement of a system of domination by a system of self-management.[3]

Getting into the details of the definition, we believe that there is a relatively constant set of ten political-ideological principles among anarchists that have been maintained over time and constitute the fundamental bases of anarchism. Those principles are: 1) Ethics and values; 2) Critique of domination; 3) Social change of the system and power model; 4) Classes and class struggle; 5) Class orientation and social force; 6) Internationalism; 7) Strategy; 8) Strategic elements; 9) Social revolution and violence; 10) Defense of self-management.

Third, we argue that in anarchism there is a series of relevant internal debates from which its distinct currents are established. Since they do not serve to define anarchism itself, the different theoretical positions do not constitute any basis whatsoever for the definition of anarchist currents, and neither do the anarchist critiques of domination. But in the defense of self-management there are four fundamental debates: self-managed market versus democratic planning, collectivism versus communism, political formation by place of residence or work, and the limits and possibilities of culture. Even so, these are secondary debates in relation to the strategic debates.

Within the different anarchist strategies, there are four debates that stand out as the most relevant, due to their continuity and historical permanence, as well as the greater lack of agreement among anarchists:

1) Positions favorable and contrary to organization. Among organizationist anarchists there are different conceptions of organization at the mass level, including community and union formations, and different conceptions about the specific anarchist organization. 2) Positions favorable and contrary to short-term gains (reforms), taking into account whether they contribute to the revolution or not. 3) Different positions in relation to violence, its function and the context in which it is used, taking into consideration whether it must relate to already established mass movements or whether it can function as a “fuse” that provokes them. 4) Different positions regarding the specific anarchist organizational model, a debate that cuts across the others.

The definition of anarchist currents is established according to the first three strategic debates. Historically, mass anarchism advocates organization at different levels, maintains that depending on the way in which they are achieved, reforms can lead to revolution and asserts that violence must strengthen existing movements. The two best known strategies of this current are revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. For its part, insurrectionary anarchism has always been opposed to structured organization, to struggles in pursuit of reforms and believes that violence must work as a generative trigger of revolutionary movements.

The fundamental argument of this article is that the same coherence of anarchism that can be verified in its political-ideological principles exists in the position of anarchists in relation to questions of power, class and social change. But in order to demonstrate it, it is essential to delve deeper into the semantic problematic of the terms in question and analyze the historical content of anarchist positions.

ANARCHISM AND SOCIAL CLASSES

Lucien van der Walt claims that anarchism is a revolutionary type “of libertarian socialism that emerged in the second half of the 19th century”[4]. As he states, “it was in the working class movement and the unions that anarchism was born.”[5]. Thus, we can conceive of anarchism as an ideology that arises out of the bosom of the dominated classes during the process of class struggle carried out in the nineteenth century. “The anarchists [...] viewed class struggle as a necessary part of social change, and saw in the victims of class domination and exploitation—the working class and the peasantry—the agents of that change.”[6] Anarchism, an essentially class struggle ideology, makes emphatic criticisms of class domination and proposes concrete class-based projects that seek to replace the system of oppression and its class structure with a system of self-management in which social classes, and the very structure of dominators and dominated, would cease to exist.

In general, for anarchists, social classes are established through the notion of domination and therefore exist beyond the ownership of the means of production and the economic exploitation of labor. Although contemporary reflections such as those of Alfredo Errandonea [7] deepen and recontextualize the debate, it can be maintained that from the beginning anarchists have verified domination in the economic, political-legal-military, cultural-ideological spheres and, therefore, in the systems that have to do with capitalism and the state, and have seen their impact on the question of social classes.

Reflecting on the social classes of his time, Bakunin emphasizes that the difference between them is quite clear: the noble aristocracy, the financial aristocracy, the upper bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, the proletarians of the factories and cities, the great landowners, tenants, peasants, landlords and rural proletarians would constitute the concrete social classes of his time. For him:

All these varying types of political and social life may nowadays be reduced to two main categories, diametrically opposed, and natural enemies to each other: the political classes, i.e. privileged classes constituting all those whose privilege stems from land and capital or only from bourgeois education, and the disinherited working classes, deprived of capital and land and even elementary schooling.[8]

In his critique of the state, Kropotkin asserts that anarchists have demonstrated that “the mission of all governments, monarchists, constitutional and republican, is to protect and maintain by force the privileges of the ruling classes, aristocracy, clergy and bourgeoisie”[9]. These are positions similar to those advanced by Malatesta, when he points out the result of human struggles that end up dividing society into oppressors and oppressed.

From all this stems the misery in which most workers live today, and which in turn creates evils such as ignorance, crime, prostitution, diseases due to malnutrition, mental depression, and premature death. From all this arises a special class (Government) which, provided with the necessary means of repression, exists to legalize and protect the owning class from the demands of the workers; and then it uses the powers at its disposal to create privileges for itself and to subject, if it can, the owning class itself as well. From this the creation of another special class (the clergy) , which by a series of fables about the will of God, and about an after-life etc., seeks to persuade the oppressed to accept oppression meekly, and (just as the government does), as well as serving the interest of the owning class, serves its own.[10]

In defining the foundations of social classes, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta take domination as their starting point which occurs in three social spheres. They emphasize distinct types of domination that have an impact on the definition of social classes: labor exploitation of urban, rural and peasant proletarians, the result of economic domination; physical coercion and political-bureaucratic oppression, the result of political-legal-military domination; and education and religion, which imply alienation, obedience and the strengthening of dominant interests, which are the result of cultural-ideological domination.

Van der Walt emphasizes that “the broad anarchist tradition sees classes founded on the control of a set of resources and not just economic property.” According to him, in anarchism the definition of social classes,

[...] is not just about the relations of production but also the relations of domination, not just about the ownership of the means of production but also about the ownership of the means of coercion—the capacity to physically enforce decisions—and the means of administration—the instruments that govern society—. Viewed in this way, the unequal ownership of the means of production is a necessary but not sufficient description of the class system.[11]

This definition of social classes based on domination has historically had a determining influence on the anarchist conception of social stratification and its revolutionary subject: while the dominated classes included waged, precarious and marginalized workers and the peasantry, the ruling classes included, in addition to the owners of the means of production, “presidents, kings, generals, members of parliament, mayors, directors of government departments, and heads of state companies,” among others.[12]

In the process of class struggle, anarchists promoted popular movements that directly opposed property owners, rulers, high-ranking military, police, judges, clergy and other class enemies. As Van der Walt points out, in addition to the peasantry, they sought to strengthen different oppressed subjects and other sectors of urban workers were also mobilized:

First, casual and seasonal labourers, such as construction workers, dockworkers, farmworkers, mariners, and gas workers, whose lives were characterised by instability, frequent job changes, and movement in search of work; and second, workers from light and heavy industry, such as factory workers, miners, and railway workers. In addition to these main categories, there were also smaller numbers of white-collar workers and professionals, notably journalists, teachers, nurses, and doctors [...].[13]

The revolutionary subjects historically included in the mobilizations promoted by anarchists did not come only from the urban-industrial proletariat, although this was an important sector—perhaps the most relevant in quantitative terms—of those who participated. Anarchists got involved in popular movements with a base among both urban and rural workers, both wage earners and peasants, as well as among precarious, marginalized and poor workers in general.

ANARCHISM AND SOCIAL CHANGE

The revolutionary strategy of anarchism is based on a model of social conflict that seeks to overcome the system of domination and the establishment of a self-managed system. The goal is to replace capitalism, the state and domination in general with socialized property and power and with new libertarian social relations.

The process for this social change, historically advocated for by anarchists, is based on five aspects: 1) The definition of social classes and the process of class struggle. 2) The belief in the agency of the oppressed classes. 3) The organization and mobilization of these classes, the permanent promotion of the conformation and growth of their social force, and the quest for overcoming their strategic enemies. 4) The selection of appropriate means to carry out this process. 5) The establishment of a self-managing power, with its respective regulatory and control structures.

Above we have touched on the point of view of three classical anarchists—Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta—on some of these questions: their perspective on social classes based on the concept of domination and their definition of the class struggle between dominators and dominated, oppressors and oppressed; their belief in the agency of the oppressed classes and the oppressed in general; their search for a new society, socialist and libertarian, built on new institutions and social relations.

To understand the process of organization and mobilization of the dominated classes and the drive to grow their social force, it is essential to critically review the concept of social force and differentiate it from the capacity for action.

The notion of social force—developed by Proudhon [14] in his serial dialectic, which Bakunin [15] appropriated to a certain extent—implies understanding that in social conflicts and in the class struggle, the dominated must organize, because when individuals associate and “combine their efforts to achieve a common goal, a new force emerges from their union that long surpasses the simple arithmetic sum of their individual efforts.” Organizing and mobilizing the oppressed classes enables a significant increase in force, which, being collective, is much greater than the simple sum of the individual forces of each of the people involved in the process. In addition, coordination and organization to intervene in conflicts and struggles enables the transformation of the capacity for action of the dominated classes into social force, as Bakunin points out:

It's true, the people have a lot of spontaneous strength, a force incomparably greater than that of the Government, including that of the ruling classes; more for lack of organization, spontaneous force is not a real force. It is not a force capable of sustaining a long struggle against forces that are much weaker but better organized. It is on this undeniable superiority of the organized force over the elemental force of the people that all the power of the State rests. That is why the first condition of the victory of the people is the union or organization of popular forces. [16]

When he says that a spontaneous force is not a real force, Bakunin distinguishes the capacity for action of the oppressed, which is situated in the field of potential, with its social force, which allows for the de facto entry of the dominated classes into the political field, as a relevant actor in the game of forces that forges the power relations of society. As a matter of fact, it is not simply about creating a social force, but getting to the point where it can face the ruling classes and overcome their forces.

For Kropotkin, [17] the moment when popular forces overcome capitalist and statist forces is the social revolution, which also signifies a series of cultural and ideological transformations, implies substantive changes in the economic and political field. “Both types of changes, political and economic, must walk together, go hand in hand […]. Each step towards economic freedom, each victory achieved against capitalism will be, at the same time, a step towards political freedom.” At the same time, Kropotkin argues, “every step in the sense of withdrawing the powers and attributes at its disposal from the state will contribute to the victory of the masses over capitalism.”

Malatesta, for his part, emphasizes the need for strategic coherence between the ends that are sought to be achieved and the means that are employed for them:

Means are not arbitrary, but instead cannot but be conditioned by the ends we aspire to and by the circumstances in which the struggle takes place, for if we ignore the choice of means we would achieve other ends, possibly diametrically opposed to those we aspire to, and this would be the obvious and inevitable consequence of our choice of means. Whoever sets out on the road and takes a wrong turn does not go where he intends to go but where the road leads him. [18]

The positions of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Malatesta carry fundamental notions about the anarchist perspective on social change. Bakunin reinforces Proudhon's idea that collective association multiplies individual forces and differentiates action from social force. For him, it is about organizing and mobilizing the dominated classes and stimulating the permanent growth of their social force. Kropotkin stresses that a revolutionary process of transformation must modify relations in the three social spheres and overcome enemy forces. Malatesta affirms the need for coherence between means and ends.

Malatesta's arguments provide the conditions to keep advancing. Based on the theorists of strategy themselves, Malatesta affirms the demand for coherence between the applied tactic and strategy and between the strategy applied and strategic objectives. If the ends of anarchist social change are characterized by a transformation in the model of power in society -- one that surpasses power as domination in favor of a self-managing power— the means employed must reinforce self-management.

Means that do not match this end should be discarded: those that reinforce capitalism, the state and the institutions that sustain them, those that take away from the masses their necessary protagonism in the process of social change, those that promote the spirit of survival and obedience. Building generalized self-management implies, therefore, the defense of economic and political socialization and revolutionary transformation of social institutions, the leadership of the masses through class autonomy and democratic construction of the struggles of the rank and file.

Anarchist positions on the nature of the State and its conception of social classes are a relevant example of the application of strategic coherence. They are positions that are at the origin of the split between anarchism and most Marxist currents and have as their background different strategies for social change.

Errandonea maintains that “from its origins, anarchism was a revolutionary sociopolitical movement that, according to its anti-statist and anti-authoritarian position, scorned the path of conquest of centralized social power for the benefit of the self-managed collectivization of decentralized power” [19]. For anarchists, the state is a fundamental institution of the contemporary system of domination, an essentially oppressive instrument, so that rulers, high-ranking military personnel, policemen and judges are their class enemies. The strategy of taking over the State, either through reforms—as the social democratic currents advocate—or through revolution—as the Bolsheviks call for in their different versions—necessarily implies the use of a means that contradicts ends such as the abolition of capitalism, the state or social classes, socialism, communism, etc. For anarchists, conquering the state necessarily means substituting one ruling class for another, although the new rulers have their origin in the oppressed classes, it is a simple substitution of some rulers for others.

Following this method could bring about social change, but the power model would continue to be characterized, essentially, by domination, by the complete lack of participation. Anarchists advocate a transformation in the power model that necessarily passes through the abolition of the State and its replacement by self-managed mechanisms with high levels of participation, together with the end of capitalism, of the institutions and of the relationships that underpin the present system of domination.

POWER, CLASS AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Among the most outstanding episodes in the history of anarchism we can cite: the Macedonian Revolt, of 1903; the Mexican Revolution, begun in 1910; the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions, of 1917 and 1919 respectively; the movement in Bulgaria between the 1920s and 1940s; the Spanish Revolution, between 1936 and 1939; the Manchurian Revolution, in Korea, between 1929 and 1932; and the movement in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s. [20] Next we are going to lay out some of the theoretical arguments presented above based on one or more of these historical episodes.

The anarchist assumption in these and other movements was that the capacity for action of the oppressed classes could become a social force. In Mexico, the manifesto of the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM)—which adopted an anarchist ideology during the revolution—“envisioned a radical transformation in labor relations, land distribution and organization of Mexican society”, which the poor would lead. [21] In Ukraine, according to the Makhnovists’ conception, “the masses are capable [if] being fired up with real revolutionary momentum [they are allowed] total freedom to act” [22]. In Spain, the ideal of workers' emancipation “does not deal with philosophical abstractions, but with social justice, with work organized by solidarity, with active fraternity created by the equal enjoyment of the goods produced by the work of all” [23].

This social force must be class-based and, therefore, concretely mobilize the different social classes that constitute the broader parts of the dominated classes. “In Macedonia, the anarchists gained massive support among the peasants” [24]. In Ukraine, the revolutionary process was “produced purely and solely by the ‘lower’ layers of the popular masses.” [25] The objective of the anarchists was “to help the masses and interpret the significance of the struggle that awaits them, […] define the work to be carried out and their objectives, make the necessary combat provisions and organize their forces” [26]. In Spain, during the revolution, “industries and rural properties [were] taken over under self-management by workers and peasants,” in a process in which “anarchists and syndicalists played a central role.”[27] In Uruguay, the radicalization of the workers relied on the labor movement organized in the Convención Nacional de Trabajadores (CNT), driven by anarchists. [28]

In the search for permanent growth of class-based social force, anarchists, through the organizations in which they participated and promoted, had the objective of defeating enemy forces and implementing their proposals. In Mexico, “the PLM rejected nationalism and argued that the struggle was both against capitalism and against imperialism, understanding the resistance in Mexico as part of a global class struggle.” [29] In Bulgaria, in addition to being against the capitalists, the anarchists had to fight both “against fascism and against Stalinism” and established “a mass movement with a notable diversity and resistance.” [30]

The Bulgarian anarchist movement was built with a formidable force—the third largest in the field of the left—using workers' disenchantment with agrarian and communist reformism to build many urban unions and later influence all sectors of society, through a network of interrelated organisms that associated workers, laborers, students and guerrillas. [31]

In Manchuria, the anarchists advocated for the creation of a power of their own: “It is evident that Korean libertarians were speaking of a proper power of the oppressed classes” [32]. In Uruguay, “the organization [FAU] developed a conception of non-state ‘popular power’, organized from the bottom up but with global coordinating bodies” [33].

In this process of establishing their own forces, by coherently and strategically adapting the means and the ends used, anarchists sought to promote means that stimulated self-management and confronted domination. They asserted class independence with respect to parties, States, institutions and agents who threatened popular leadership, and called for building democratic struggles from the base, through direct action. In Russia, anarchists defended the Soviets with the following arguments: “Power should be decentralized in the following manner: each individual agrees with others to form a commune, the federation of communes forms a province (region, city, district, neighborhood), and from the federation of the provinces arises a pan-Russian federative republic” [34]. In Russia, “true and complete autonomy of the movement was sought, which was consciously and energetically guaranteed against intruding forces.” [35] In Uruguay, they tried to build “direct action at all levels,” through “various spheres of action,” to “build class leadership through their own organizations.” [36]

Here are some of the tools of struggle that they used during the process: union organizations, in the cities and in the countryside, including workplace and housing movements, as in the case of the Spanish Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT); armed defense organizations, such as the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine or the Organización Popular Revolucionaria-33 Orientales (OPR-33), of Uruguay; anarchist political organizations such as the PLM of Mexico or the Federation of Anarchist communists of Bulgaria (FAKB); the soviets (popular councils), like those that constituted the bases of the revolution in Russia; cooperatives, such as the Vlassovden run by the Bulgarians.

In the revolutionary processes that advanced the most, self-managed structures of regulation and control were established. In Macedonia, the establishment of the Krouchevo Commune and the Strandzha Commune laid the foundations for “a revolutionary social liberation movement with clearly libertarian aspects” [37], with experiences of self-management that lasted a month and constituted the first local attempt to build a new society on the principles of libertarian communism. In Russia,

[…] the anarcho-syndicalists control a certain number of committees in factories, in unions of bakers, metallurgists, stevedores, etc. They extol the direct and collective taking by the workers themselves of all production. That worker control differs from that advocated by the Bolsheviks due to its organization from the base and not from the State. [38]

In Spain, the first organizations established by the revolution were the “Grocery store committees”, in charge of food distribution. “From these committees the first measures of rationing distribution started” [39], which included priority for those injured in the war, children and the elderly. With the establishment of the Commune of Shinmin, in Manchuria self-management was established in a territory with more than two million peasants and “managed to liberate large rural areas and small towns. Administrative Councils were established, not without difficulties, that supplanted the State and they extinguished it at all levels”. Through a council structure, which had “Municipal or Village Councils, […] District Councils […] and Area or Regional Councils ”, “they promoted decision-making boards of direct democracy” [40].

FINAL OBSERVATIONS

The theoretical elements and historical experiences discussed undergird the theses developed throughout this article. Anarchists have a conception of power and a general project around it that forms their conception of class, understood in relation to a certain type of power (domination), and constitutes the foundation of their notion of social change, which is characterized by: their belief in the capacity for action of the subjects that are part of the distinct oppressed classes, their implication in the transformation of that capacity into social force, their commitment to permanent growth of this force, and their defense of a revolutionary process that allows for overcoming enemy forces and replacing the power of domination over society by a self-managing power.

* Translated by Enrique Guerrero-López

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARSHINOV, Piotr. História do Movimento Macknovista: a insurreição dos camponeses na Ucrânia. Lisboa: Assírio e Alvim, 1976.
BALKANSKY, Gr. Histoire du Movement Libertaire en Bulgarie. Antony: Groupe Fresnes-Antony (Federation Anarchiste), 1982.
BANCAL, Jean. Proudhon: pluralismo e autogestão. Vol. I. Brasília: Novos Tempos, 1984.
BAKUNIN, Mikhail. Estatismo e Anarquia. São Paulo: Imaginário/Ícone, 2003.
________________. Estatismo y Anarquía. Buenos Aires, Anarres, 2006.
________________. Deus e o Estado. São Paulo: Imaginário, 2000.
________________. Federalismo, Socialismo, Antiteologismo. São Paulo: Cortez, 1988.
________________. A Ciência e a Questão Vital da Revolução. São Paulo: Imaginário/Faísca, 2009.
________________. “A Ilusão do Sufrágio Universal”. In: WOODCOCK, George (org.). Os Grandes Escritos Anarquistas. Porto Alegre: LP&M, 1998.
CORRÊA, Felipe. “Poder, Dominação e Autogestão”. In: Anarkismo.net, 2011. [http://www.anarkismo.net/article/21065]
______________. Rediscutindo o Anarquismo: uma abordagem teórica. São Paulo: USP (Mudança Social e Participação Política), 2012.
______________. Surgimento e Breve Perspectiva Histórica do Anarquismo (1868-2012). São Paulo: Biblioteca Virtual Faísca, 2013.
CRISI, Emílio et alli. Revolución Anarquista en Corea: la Comuna de Shinmin (1929-1932) y otros textos sobre el anarquismo coreano. ITHA, 2013.
ERRANDONEA, Alfredo. Sociologia de la Dominación. Montevideu/Buenos Aires: Nordan/Tupac, 1989.
GURVITCH, Georges. Los Fundadores Franceses de la Sociología Contemporánea: Saint-Simon y Proudhon. Buenos Aires: Galatea / Nueva Vision, 1958.
IBÁÑEZ, Tomás. “Por un Poder Político Libertario”. In: Actualidad del Anarquismo. Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2007.
KROPOTKIN, Piotr. “Modern Science and Anarchism”. In: BALDWIN, Roger (org.). Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Panphlets. Nova York: Dover, 1970.
________________. Palavras de um Revoltado. São Paulo: Imaginário/Ícone, 2005.
LEVAL, Gastón. Las Colectividades Libertarias em España. 2 vols. Buenos Aires: Proyección, 1972.
MALATESTA, Errico. Ideologia Anarquista. Montevidéu: Recortes, 2008.
___________________. “Programa Anarquista”. In: Escritos Revolucionários. São Paulo: Imaginário, 2000.
MECHOSO, Juan C. Acción Directa Anarquista: una história de FAU. Tomos I, II, III e IV. Montevideu: Recortes, 2011, 2005, 2006, 2009.
MINTZ, Frank. La Autogestión en la España Revolucionaria. Madri: La Piqueta, 1977.
PAZ, Abel. O Povo em Armas. 2 vols. Lisboa: Assírio e Alvim, s/d.
PEIRATS, José. Los Anarquistas en la Crisis Política Española (1869-1939). Buenos Aires, Anarres, 2006.
PROUDHON, Pierre-Joseph. A Nova Sociedade. Porto: Rés, s/d.
RUGAI, Ricardo R. O Anarquismo Organizado: as concepções práticas da Federação Anarquista Uruguaia (1952-1976). Campinas, UNICAMP (mestrado em História), 2003.
SAMIS, Alexandre. “Introdução”. In: MAGÓN, Ricardo F. A Revolução Mexicana. São Paulo: Imaginário, 2003.
SCHMIDT, Michael. Anarquismo Búlgaro em Armas: a linha de massas anarco-comunista. Vol. I. São Paulo: Faísca, 2009.
SCHUJMAN, Héctor. La Revolución Desconocida: Ukrania 1917-1921, la gesta makhnovista. Mostoles: Nossa y Jara, 2000.
SKIRDA, Alexandre. Les Anarchistes Russes, les Sovietes et la Révolution de 1917. Paris: Éditions de Paris, 2000.
TRAGTENBERG, Mauricio. A Revolução Russa. São Paulo: Faísca, 2007.
TREJO, Rubén. Magonismo: utopia y revolución, 1910-1913. Cidade do México: Cultura Libre, 2005.
VAN DER WALT, Lucien. Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press, 2009. [41]
VOLIN. “Prólogo”. In: ARSHINOV, Piotr. História do Movimento Macknovista: a insurreição dos camponeses na Ucrânia. Lisboa: Assírio e Alvim, 1976.
ZARCONE, Pier Francesco. Os Anarquistas na Revolução Mexicana. São Paulo: Faísca, 2006.

NOTES

1. Felipe Corrêa, Rediscutindo o anarquismo: uma abordagem teórica.
2. Op. cit., p. 80.
3. Op. cit., p. 87.
4. Lucien Van Der Walt, Black flame [...], p. 71.
5. Op. cit., p. 45.
6. Op. cit., p. 51.
7. Alfredo Errandonea, Sociología de la dominación.
8. Mikhail Bakunin, Federalismo, socialismo, antiteologismo, p. 16.
9. Piotr Kropotkin, Palavras de um revoltado, p. 180.
10. Errico Malatesta, “Programa anarquista”, p. 9.
11. Lucien Van Der Walt, Black Flame […], p. 109.
12. Op. cit., p. 110.
13. Op. cit., p. 279.
14. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, A nova sociedade, pp. 211-229.
15. Mikhail Bakunin, A ciência e a questão vital da revolução, p. 35.
16. Op. cit., p. 67.
17. Piotr Kropotkin, “Modern Science and Anarchism”, pp. 181-182.
18. Errico Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, p. 11.
19. Alfredo Errandonea, Sociología de la dominación, p. 45.
20. For a brief history of anarchism and diverse bibliographic notes, see Felipe Corrêa, Surgimento e breve perspectiva histórica do anarquismo (1868-2012). On the Macedonian Revolt and anarchism in Bulgaria, see Michael Schmidt, Anarquismo búlgaro em armas: a linha de massas anarcocomunista, and Georges Balkansky, Histoire du mouvement libertaire en Bulgarie. On the Mexican Revolution, see Pier Francesco Zarcone, Os anarquistas na Revolução Mexicana, and Rubén Trejo, Magonismo: utopía y revolución, 1910-1913. On the Russian Revolution, see Mauricio Tragtenberg, A Revolução Russa, and Alexandre Skirda, Les anarchistes russes, les soviets et la Révolution de 1917. On the Ucranian Revolution, see Héctor Schujman, La revolución desconocida: Ukrania 1917-1921, la gesta makhnovista, and Piotr Archinov, História do movimento macknovista: a insurreição dos camponeses na Ucrânia. On the Spanish Revolution, see Abel Paz, O povo em armas; Josep Peirats, Los anarquistas en la crisis política española (1869-1939), and Gaston Leval, Las colectividades libertarias en España. On the Revolution in Manchuria and Korean Anarchism, see Emilio Crisi et al., Revolución anarquista en Corea: la Comuna de Shinmin (1929-1932) and other texts on Korean anarchism. On anarchism in Uruguay, see Juan C. Mechoso, Acción directa anarquista: una historia de FAU, and Ricardo R. Rugai, O anarquismo organizado: as concepções práticas da Federação Anarquista Uruguaia (1952-1976).
21. Alexandre Samis, “Introdução”, p. 17.
22. Volin, “Prólogo”, p. 20.
23. Gaston Leval, Las colectividades libertarias en España, p. 35.
24. Lucien Van Der Walt, Black Flame [...], p. 284.
25. Volin, “Prólogo”, p. 7.
26. Piotr Archinov, História do movimento macknovista: a insurreição dos camponeses na Ucrânia, p. 259.
27. Lucien Van Der Walt, Black Flame [...], p. 180.
28. Ricardo R. Rugai, O anarquismo organizado: as concepções práticas da Federação Anarquista Uruguaia (1952-1976), p. 220.
29. Lucien Van Der Walt, Black Flame [...], p. 315.
30. Michael Schmidt, Anarquismo búlgaro em armas: a linha de massas anarcocomunista, p. 6.
31. Op. cit., p. 46.
32. Emilio Crisi et al., Revolución anarquista en Corea [...], p. 8.
33. Ricardo R. Rugai, O anarquismo organizado [...], pp. 205-206.
34. Alexandre Skirda, Les anarchistes russes, les soviets et la Révolution de 1917, p. 82.
35. Volin, “Prólogo”, p. 21.
36. Ricardo R. Rugai, O anarquismo organizado [...], pp. 165 y 256.
37. Georges Balkansky, Histoire du mouvement libertaire en Bulgarie, p. 5.
38. Alexandre Skirda, Les anarchistes russes, les soviets et la Révolution de 1917, p. 67.
39. Josep Peirats, Los anarquistas en la crisis política española (1869-1939), pp. 131-132.
40. Emilio Crisi et al., Revolución anarquista en Corea [...], pp. 4 y 10.
41. This book was originally co-authored by Lucien van der Walt and Michael Schmidt. However, due to serious complaints against Schmidt, many of which were proven true, there was a conflict between the authors, and also with us (Institute for Anarchist Theory and History - IATH). Through these complaints it was learned that the writing of Black Flame had all been done by Van der Walt. So, as a result of the rupture between the two, the project was scrapped and Black Flame was left only as the work of its true author. For this reason, I modified the authorship of the book, as well as quotes, keeping only Van der Walt. On the website of the Institute (http://ithanarquista.wordpress.com) there is information (and our positions) about this controversy.