The problems posed by the concrete class struggle and popular organisation
international |
anarchist movement |
feature
Monday November 14, 2005 21:46
by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.

Reflections from an Anarchist Communist Perspective
A member of the Chilean OCL deals, in general, with the problems posed by concrete class struggle and popular organisation for anarchist communists. It aims to raise a number of questions -in an orderly and systematic fashion- that are important and necessary to think of a revolutionary alternative in a concrete place in a concrete time.
The levels of the organisation are determined by the merging of both
a programme of action and the social nature of the actors alongside
whom we fight. To go any further, let us first agree on an
unavoidable dilemma of every revolutionary movement: the
acknowledgement that only the unity of the working class can
overthrow the ruling class and the fact that the working class is not
a homogeneous block - there are different levels of awareness and
class consciousness, there are different ideas, opinions, tendencies,
some being more inclined to a libertarian pole, and others more
towards an authoritarian pole. Therefore, unity is necessary, but an
absolute unity is just not possible
About the problems posed by the concrete class struggle
and popular organisation
Reflections from an Anarchist Communist Perspective
As anarchists start discussing the prospects for anarchist activity
in the medium term, the link becomes clearer between strategy and
tactics: that is to say, what we see as our goal, the libertarian
society, and the means through which we are going to reach it.
Considering the strong rejection of traditional anarchism of the
artificial distinction between "means" and "ends", it is very
surprising how often they are divorced in anarchist practice. This is
caused mainly due to the lack of strategic planning, what should
create the bridge to link the "distant future", and the day to day
issues we deal with. There is little chance of disagreement in any of
the two, both the daily issues and the distant future (though nothing
can be discarded in the mad zoo of Anarchy), but clearly, it is in
the medium term prospects when most of the disagreement emerges, as
it is in that point when we start talking about the revolutionary
path to achieve the overthrowing of the old society and the birth of
the new one. It is only when we have decided our medium term
prospects when the struggles turn to be "revolutionary", as they
start serving a goal, as we can take the political initiative and as
it is only then when the distant future stops being a utopian dream
to become a revolutionary programme.
We acknowledge the need of achieving something more than media
coverage or a bunch of new militants with each struggle. We
acknowledge as well, the need to create some mechanism so that we can
test if we are actually going somewhere. That is supposed to be the
creation of permanent (organic) links that, in one way or another,
will survive the passing sparks of rebellion, linking those
rebellions in time. And at the same time, we need to have a set of
objectives to aim for that will serve as the guide to our activity
and the evaluation tool with which to measure effectiveness.
With regard to the organic links between struggles, we need to look
into the nature of the actors in struggle, to know how to address,
from a libertarian point of view, the problem of organisations in
society.
ACTORS OF STRUGGLE
First of all, and there is not much need to argue this in length
with class struggle anarchists, the basis of the struggle is the
contradiction between two fundamental classes; working class and
bourgeoisie. As comrade Mac Giollamóir stated in Workers
Solidarity (86), "The working class is one side of the social
relationship that defines capitalism. This relationship is the
relationship of the employer and the employed. It is the relationship
between the capitalist who buys the worker's ability to labour and
live freely and the worker who gives up that ability in order to live
at all" It is part of a dynamic, dialectical, relationship; not a
set of fixed characters. The main characteristics of the working
class are its dependence on the wage system; its lower rank in the
hierarchical organisation of labour (you always end up having someone
above); its nature as a creator of profit that is appropriated by the
capitalist; and thus, the fact that it lives exploited and
oppressed.
This is the underlying reality that shapes the life of modern
-capitalist- society. It is real, but we are talking about a
relationship, about a description of a process, about theoretical
models to understand a reality that is far more complex than these
two antagonistic poles (otherwise, revolution wouldn't pose no
problem, as if only by numbers the ruling class would have been long
been expelled from power). Between this two poles, a wide range of
grey areas do exist. And the class conflict assumes a concrete
expression in concrete characters. Who are those characters? That is
a matter of paramount importance to any revolutionary, and the
definition of those actors of struggle will determine to a great
extent the tactics chosen.
We can tell these actors of struggles in groups or categories by
many
indicators:
1. Problems that affect them immediately and their
immediate interests;
2. Traditions of struggle and organisation sprouting out from these
set of problems and interests;
3. A common place or activity in society;
No matter that the actors can be in quiet, the potential for them
to become a factor of explosion of the class struggle can be there in
slumber.
As well, it is worth mentioning that the actors of struggle (or
popular subjects, as they are also called), do not necessarily
represent a clear cut class; take for example the traditional
examples of actors of struggle - students, workers, neighbours and
peasants. Only workers can be considered a "pure" class, while all
the others contain members of different classes and all sorts of grey
areas (petit bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie, the nebulous middle class,
marginal elements and the working class). The class nature of the
social actors, in general, gives an important need to a working class
tendency expressed as a political force, able to win other segments
of society to a revolutionary cause and programme.
These, as well, are categories that don't exist in isolation from one
another: the kids of the worker can be students, and they are all
residents of a certain community. But their identity as part of a
certain actor of struggle becomes clear when the struggle emerges,
and around certain organisational traditions. To give an example, in
the year 1983 in Chile there erupted huge mass rallies against the
dictatorship of Pinochet; although the calls to struggle came from
the Miners' unions, the relative weakness of the unions in a
semi-clandestine context, caused that the main space for protest were
the slums - where the workers lived - and other layers of society as
well, including small shop owners, and so on, took part on the
struggle right beside workers. But the identity of these struggles
was created around certain organisations and struggles that were
located in that concrete space -the slums in this case. And
many of them were the same people that ten years before, articulated
their identity around the industrial networks, during the Unidad
Popular period (1970-1973). This reflects the dynamic nature of the
social actors, and of their identity. But the creation of such an
identity, and the creation of those actual demands, are the ground
over which struggle can flourish; not over a theoretical statement
about the social conflict in abstract, or over lofty demands of
social change.
Once we decide which ones are the popular subjects in a concrete
place and time, we can start thinking in the medium term about
concrete demands for struggle, in the frame of a programme, and we
can take the political initiative. But we can also start thinking of
ways to organise those sectors in accordance to our political views,
or at least, how to influence in a healthy and libertarian way, their
own organisations. But here we need to be very careful not to confuse
the different spaces and types of organisations, if we want to create
unity and not discord. The best example of how not to do it is the
classic Trotskyst approach that completely mixes up the domains of a
party, with the ones of a social movement. This political short
sightedness leads to the shrinking and splitting of every single
group in which they take part, until it is impossible to distinguish
them from their "fronts". Sectarianism is the only logical result of
this practice, and weakening of the social forces. Historically,
anarchists have suffered from the same problem in the form of
anarcho-syndicalism, that traditionally confused a "party" with a
"union". The results are there for everyone to see: they didn't end
up acting like a proper political force, and they didn't act like a
proper union. That caused its quick decline almost everywhere.
So we need to know what we are talking about when we talk about
organising the people for the struggle, as there are many sorts of
organisation, and we need to have a clear policy in all of the
different levels of the organisation of the people.
THREE LEVELS OF ORGANISATION
Taking into account the above mentioned (that is, the nature of
the working class and its concrete expressions), we can now get into
the matter of this document: the three levels on which the people
organise and the way to build a movement of a revolutionary and
libertarian nature. It should be stated that there are no magical
formulas for this, and that the description of these three levels is
as theoretical and general as the definition of the working class;
they do exist in an essential way, but they are expressed in concrete
and specific ways as well.
The levels of the organisation are determined by the merging of both
a programme of action and the social nature of the actors alongside
whom we fight. To go any further, let us first agree on an
unavoidable dilemma of every revolutionary movement: the
acknowledgement that only the unity of the working class can
overthrow the ruling class and the fact that the working class is not
a homogeneous block - there are different levels of awareness and
class consciousness, there are different ideas, opinions, tendencies,
some being more inclined to a libertarian pole, and others more
towards an authoritarian pole. Therefore, unity is necessary, but an
absolute unity is just not possible. So we need to determine the
levels of unity that we can achieve in different levels of
organisation [1]. It is not possible to
divide this issue from the nature of each level of
organisation:
1. The level of the social, popular or mass organisations -the
social level: This level is characterised by those organisations
who bring together a single actor of struggle, regardless of their
political leanings (trade unions, student unions, community
associations, etc.). The unity has to be as broad as possible, we
have to struggle against sectarianism in them, and the way to
influence them is by agitating demands, practices and exposing the
contradictions of the system in them. Here is where the unity of the
bulk of the people is possible, and this should be regarded as the
aim. And though they are not political by its nature, they can get
political in the course of struggle and by the natural development of
the class contradictions. No matter how political they can become,
they cannot be confused with a political group or with a tendency.
And we need to keep it clear that we aim that our ideas influence the
majority, but minorities cannot be purged and we cannot impose
ideological definitions or labels on them.
2. The level of the tendency, network, current or front -the
social political level: This is an intermediate level, in this
one are brought together members of a single popular subject with a
certain political leaning: this is what makes it different from the
above level. This leaning, though, cannot be as defined as the one of
a political group or party. Certain activists or militants that share
outlook and that share policies regarding to the specific issue of
their concern, come together to form a certain tendency inside of a
bigger movement or organisation. A good example can be a tendency in
a Trade union: people can disagree on many political issues, they
might come from different political traditions, but they will, for
instance, agree in developing a combative trade unionism and in the
fight against social partnership, for instance. You really don't need
to agree with anything else; it would be mistaken to try to confuse
unity with "marriage" and you would only risk failing to achieve the
most urgent tasks. They would be more specific, politically talking,
than the trade union itself; but they wouldn't be a defined,
homogenous, political force. Another good example are the experience
of the "libertarian fronts" in South America -they bring together
students, workers and neighbours who share a libertarian approach to
politics, in terms of organisation and means of struggle, and that
share a set of concrete proposal regarding to their problems. But the
people in the fronts would disagree on many of those issues that are
not necessary for unity's sake in the specific struggle and
organisation to which they belong.
3. The level of the revolutionary organisation or party -the
political revolutionary level: This level is the most specific of
them all, and it is characterised by gathering people from different
popular subjects (ie. Students, workers, etc.), but who share a
political view and a political programme (of a revolutionary and
libertarian nature, in our case). Coming from different backgrounds,
it is obvious that this level will naturally refer to changes in
society as a whole, and this level as well is the most restricted;
unity here is based on the required levels of ideological and
tactical unity. Otherwise, there is not much point in staying
together, if it is not possible to come out with a collectively
agreed programme for intervention in society at large. This level is
the one that reflects clearest the class struggle positions and the
different class options assumed by the different political
forces.
This is, briefly, a general overview of the problem of the actors of
struggle, class and organisation. It is only a skeleton to be used
for the discussion about what to do in the medium term, and how to
address the big problems we have ahead in trying to define a
revolutionary path for our respective region in the XXI
century.
José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
July 15th, 2005.
[1] It is a merit of Bakunin and of the
Platform, to give us very interesting glimpses
over these issues.
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5in spanish plis...
lo lamento compa, el texto este está solo en inglés. Básicamente, se puede revisar los acuerdos del congreso programático de OCL para ver lo de los niveles de organización y una aproximación libertaria a ellos.
Revisar el siguiente link
The popularity of red costumes is a cheerful hue and cozy attire that combines innovation with tradition. With its striking and symbolic colors, it captivates audiences and represents a dynamic growth in artistic expression and community involvement.
Your blog consistently delivers high-quality content, making it a valuable resource for all of us. I highly recommend checking out the Joker 2024 red Suit from California jacket for a stylish and memorable look.
https://www.californiajacket.com/product/joker-red-suit/