HALLMARKS: *********
1) We are anarchists because we believe that human freedom and happiness
would be best guaranteed by a society based on principles of
self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid, and because we
reject all forms of social relations based on systemic violence, such as
the state or capitalism.
2) We are, however, profoundly anti-sectarian, by which we mean two things:
a) we do not attempt to enforce any particular form of anarchism on one
other: Platformist, Syndicalist, Primitivist, Insurrectionist or any other.
Neither do we wish to exclude anyone on this basis - we value diversity as
a principle in itself, limited only by our common rejection of structures
of domination such as racism, sexism, fundamentalism, etc.
b) since we see anarchism not as a doctrine so much as a process of
movement towards a free, just, and sustainable, society, we believe
anarchists should not limit themselves to cooperating with those who
self-identify as anarchists, but should actively seek to cooperate with
anyone who are working to create a world based on those same broad
liberatory principles, and, in fact, to learn from them. One of the
purposes of the International is to facilitate this: both to make it easier
for us to bring some of those millions around the world who are,
effectively, anarchists without knowing it, into touch with the thoughts of
others who have worked in that same tradition, and, at the same time, to
enrich the anarchist tradition itself through contact with their experiences
3) We reject all forms of vanguardism and believe that the proper role of
the anarchist intellectual (a role that should be open to everyone) is to
take part in an ongoing dialogue: to learn from the experience of popular
community-building and struggle and offer back the fruits of reflection on
that experience not in the spirit of the dictat, but of the gift
4) Anyone who accepts these principles is a member of the Anarchist
International and everyone who is a member of the Anarchist International
is empowered to act as a spokesperson if they so desire. Because we value
diversity, we do not expect uniformity of views other than acceptance of
the principles themselves (and, of course, acknowledgement that such
diversity exists)
5) Organization is neither a value in itself nor an evil in itself;the
level of organizational structure appropriate to any given project or task
can never be dictated in advance but can only be determined by those
actually engaged in it. So with any project initiated within the
International: it should be up to those undertaking it to determine the
form and level of organization appropriate for that project. At this point,
there is no need for a decision-making structure for the International
itself but if in the future members feel there should be, it shall be up to
the group itself to determine how that process should work, provided only
that it be within the broad spirit of decentralization and direct democracy.
--------------------
Furthermore, anarchism must turn to the experiences of other social
movements. It must be included in the courses of progressive social
science. It must be in collusion with ideas that come from the circles
close to anarchism. Let's take for example the idea of participatory
economy, which represents an anarchist economist vision par excellence and
which supplements and rectifies anarchist economic tradition. It would also
be wise to listen to those voices that warn of the existence three major
classes in advanced capitalism, not just two. There is also another class
of people, branded coordinator class by these theoreticians. Their role is
that of controlling the labour of the working class. This is the class that
includes the management hierarchy and the professional consultants and
advisors central to their system of control - as lawyers, key engineers and
accountants, and so on. They have their class position because of their
relative monopolization over knowledge, skills, and connections. This is
what enables them to gain access to the positions they occupy in the
corporate and government hierarchies.
Another thing to note about the coordinator class is that it is capable of
being a ruling class. This is in fact the true historical meaning of the
Soviet Union and the other so called Communist countries. They are in fact
systems that empower the coordinator class.
Finally, I believe that modern anarchism has to turn to envisioning of
political vision.
This is not to say that various schools of anarchism did not advocate very
specific forms of social organization, albeit often markedly at variance
with one another. Essentially, however, anarchism as a whole advanced what
liberals are calling 'negative freedom,' that is to say, a formal 'freedom
from,' rather than a substantive 'freedom to.'
Indeed, anarchism often celebrated its commitment to negative freedom as
evidence of its own pluralism, ideological tolerance, or creativity.
Medjutim, failure of anarchism to enunciate the historical circumstances
that would make possible a stateless anarchic society produced problems in
anarchist thought that remain unresolved to this day. One friend has, not
so long ago, told me that "you anarchists always strive to keep your hands
clean, so that eventually you are left with no hands at all." I believe
that this remark relates exactly to the lack of more serious thinking about
political vision.
Pierre Joseph Proudhon attempted to formulate a concrete image of a
libertarian society. His attempt turned out to be a failure, and viewed
from my perspective, utterly unsatisfactory. However, this failure
shouldn't discourage us, but point to the path followed by, for example,
social ecologists in North America - a path leading to the formulation of a
serious anarchist political vision. Anarchist model should also encompass
the attempt to answer the question:" what are the anarchist's full sets of
positive institutional alternatives to contemporary legislatures, courts,
police, and diverse executive agencies. To "offer a political vision that
encompasses legislation, implementation, adjudication, and enforcement and
that shows how each would be effectively accomplished in a
non-authoritarian way, promoting positive outcomes would not only provide
our contemporary activism much-needed long-term hope, it would also inform
our immediate responses to today's electoral, law-making, law enforcement,
and court system, and thus many of our strategic choices."
Finally, what would be the strategic implications of promoting of such a
model?
I have, several times in contact with anarchist activists, heard a
strategic proposition for which I have neither sympathy nor explanation. We
should, they say, to make an effort and live worse in order for things to
be better. As opposed to this extraordinary logic, which reads "the worse,
the better", I think it would be wiser, and far more sensible, to listen to
the advice of Argentinean anarchists which advocate a strategy of
"expanding the floor of the cage". Such a strategy will understand,
instead, that it is possible to fight for and win reforms short of
revolution in way that both improve people's conditions and options now,
and that also create opportunities for further victories in the future.
This strategy will understand, that is, that to be an advocate of a new
society does not warrant ignoring people's current pain and suffering, but
does warrant that when we work to address current ills and work to make
things immediately better, we should do so in ways that raise our
consciousness, empower our constituencies, and develop our organizations
and that therefore lead to a trajectory of on-going changes culminating in
new defining economic and social structures. Expanding the floor of the
cage will not dismiss people's short run struggles for higher wages, an end
to a war, affirmative action, better work conditions, a participatory
budget, a progressive or radical tax, a shorter work week with full pay,
abolishing the IMF, or whatever else - because it will respect the reality
of how people's consciousness and organizations develop through struggle,
and, aggressively avoid the kind of contempt among activists for people's
courageous efforts to improve the quality of their lives.
To conclude, I think that such a model of modern anarchism could have a
significant role which is to build, amidst the current horrors of
capitalism, a post- Marxist movement that would reclaim the values of the
Enlightenment and make them finally realize their full potential.
Thank you.
Link: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=2991
And w/comments...
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/02/19/2524824
