Philosophical, theoretical, strategic, programmatic and organizational frameworks
Libertarian Socialist Organization (OSL)
The Libertarian Socialist Organization (OSL), our organization, is based on a set of principles - non-negotiable conceptions that permanently guide political practice - which express our philosophical, theoretical, strategic, programmatic and organizational conceptions. In this document, we give a more in-depth account of these principles and conceptions, which are summarized in our "Founding Manifesto".
Libertarian Materialism/Realism and Libertarian Social Theory
The OSL defends libertarian materialism or realism and libertarian social theory as a theoretical-methodological approach for analyzing social reality, which has been developed with a focus mainly on the anarchist classics and establishing certain dialogues with past and present references from the socialist/communist anti-authoritarian/libertarian left.[1]
This approach differs from Marxist, postmodern, (neo)positivist, and, obviously, liberal analytical assumptions; it is not synonymous with economic determinism, nor does it recommend any pragmatism of realpolitik that would imply abandoning our principles and political identity.
Libertarian Materialism/Realism
In very general terms, this materialist or realist approach maintains that matter is synonymous with nature (in the broad sense) or the totality of reality, i.e., everything that has existed and exists in the universe. Matter/nature/reality is in permanent movement, not because of some external force (God, for example), but because of its dynamics of perpetual actions and reactions.[2]
Even with all its problems and limits, science was the tool found to understand matter better. Through a realistic approach, it can express in ideal terms (through thought) life's material and real development. It is important to note here that any analysis or theory about reality is nothing more than an attempt at an ideal reproduction of material reality, so the latter must always take priority over the former. In other words, reality is more important than thinking about reality.[3]
This libertarian realist materialist method is experimental, comprehensive, and critical. It proposes analyzing the past and present reality of phenomena or facts through experience, identifying the influence of variables, understanding the properties and direct and indirect relationships between them, and always remaining open to criticism and self-criticism, as well as possible refutations arising from the analysis. Furthermore, if possible, it proposes to indicate, based on these results, what must necessarily or probably (in terms of probability) happen.[4]
Libertarian Social Theory
When applied to the analysis of society, this materialist or realist approach supports a libertarian social theory. (Social) theory is a coherent and articulated set of scientific conceptual tools that help us analyze reality and social facts in depth. This libertarian social theory is based on a set of procedures and theoretical assumptions established by the historical analysis of society; it thus proposes reconciling theory and history. Although developed in the anarchist field, it is not to be confused with ideology or doctrine. It does not replace what was or is (material reality) with what one would like (in ideological terms) to have been or to be. Nor does it claim to be scientifically neutral or impartial (we, therefore, deny the Marxism and neo-positivism that underpin such positions).[5]
In line with our materialist/realist method, libertarian social theory makes critical use of science, seeking to understand what was (past) and what is (present) in an (ideal) analytical construction that aims to approach a material (real) totality in movement.[6] We understand that this approach is possible and that this reality is not impenetrable, entirely incomprehensible, or the result of multiple perspectives or narratives (we therefore deny the subjectivism and postmodernism underpinning such positions).
Libertarian social theory proposes a systemic or structural analysis to explain how this society reproduces, changes, and transforms itself, especially in modern society. To do this, it points to the need to critically understand social conflicts and the scenario in which they occur.[7]
Understanding social conflicts requires an understanding of the social forces at play (what these forces are, how they relate to and influence each other) and the relations of power/domination that result from this confrontation; it also requires knowledge of how these forces and relations contribute to shaping, reinforcing or modifying society.[8]
It also requires a characterization of social conflicts and the role they play in society. When dealing with a system/structure (society), it is essential to identify which conflicts can be resolved while maintaining the systemic logic (non-contradictory conflicts) and which can only be resolved by modifying the systemic logic (contradictory conflicts or contradictions). When a non-contradictory conflict is resolved, there is change; when a contradictory conflict (contradiction) is resolved, there is social transformation.[9]
Understanding the scenario in which social conflicts occur requires breaking down the main parts of a society or system (what these parts are and how they relate and influence each other).[10] A society has different levels of complexity and depth in its formations, social relations, and human activities. It has macro, meso, and micro social aspects (from greater to lesser complexity) and structure, conjunctures, human actions, discourses/thoughts (from greater to lesser depth.[11]
In macrosocial terms, and taking the formations and relationships of greater depth in a society, we can say that a system has a particular structure, which is divided into fields or spheres and social institutions, and that, while a structure is maintained, at a level of lesser depth different conjunctures are formed. The structure is the scenario constructed from a set of elements (fields, institutions, and relationships) that are deeper and more enduring in a society; its change is generally slower. The conjuncture is the scenario of short-term events that mark everyday social life; its elements are less profound and long-lasting, and its change is generally more rapid.[12]
In order to understand structural and circumstantial scenarios, it is necessary to identify the social forces that have become institutionalized in a more profound way, which thus explains the logic of the scenario, which can be thought of as a river with a particular course of water. It should be noted that when social forces operate in a scenario, that scenario is not neutral; it has a dynamic logic that favors the intervention of specific forces and hinders others. Usually, the forces favoring the current (structural logic) have an easier time influencing and imposing themselves than those against the current.[13]
In the materialist and realist understanding of conflicts and scenarios, our approach maintains that it is often fundamental to distinguish facts from ideas, concrete elements from abstract ones, and to prioritize the former (concrete facts or elements) over the latter (abstract ideas or elements).[14] This is the case when, as we have already mentioned, we prioritize material reality (concrete fact) over the representation or interpretation that is made of this reality (abstract idea). Or when, for example, we consider that social classes exist, regardless of whether people understand this fact or have greater or lesser class consciousness.
Obviously, this position must be considered non-deterministic because, due to the action-reaction dynamic, ideas, representations, and knowledge, to the extent that they are produced and spread in society, can become concrete facts and influence social reality at all levels.[15]
This has an impact both on the analysis of social conflicts and on the scenario in which these conflicts take place. Moreover, consequently, on how social changes and transformations are understood. Proceeding from the most factual and concrete that exists in a society towards the most ideal and abstract, we can say that, in this analysis of social forces and relations: the structure of society is more profound/influential than the conjuncture; structure and conjuncture are more profound/influential than human action (with collective action tending to be more influential than individual action); and human action is more profound/influential than thought or discourse (with collective thoughts and discourses tending to be more influential than individual ones).[16]
Society and Social Conflict
In line with this theoretical development, we can state that society is a system or structure made up of fields or spheres and institutions; it is a totality of individuals (who are inseparable and interdependent with each other, as well as being inconceivable outside of it), social relations and human development that exist, articulately, in a community.[17]
By taking society as the basic unit of analysis, we maintain that it cannot be reduced to the simple sum of individuals (we therefore deny the liberalism and methodological individualism that underpin such positions).[18] Even if we move away from determinism, we consider that the most complex parts of society are the most influential. In other words, society usually exerts much more influence on the individual than vice versa, as do macrosocial aspects concerning microsocial ones.
Society is a system in motion, structured from a dynamic of actions and reactions, marked by relationships, influences, conflicts, and contradictions generated in/by society itself. Social conflict is the factor that explains this movement (dynamism). It expresses itself in different ways, both in times of peace and war, in local or global terms, in a contradictory way or not (we therefore deny the functionalist approaches, which prioritize consensus over conflict).
Society, its parts (fields and institutions), and their relationships are formed from the conflict between social forces and power relations. Its reproduction is explained through socialization, which occurs within the workplace, the family, and social life in general. Its changes and transformations are explained by human actions but also by conjunctural and structural dynamics.[19]
Power and Domination
All individuals, alone or in collaboration with others, possess a certain capacity for achievement (the possibility of producing a social force), which, when put into action and thus coming into real or material existence, forms a social force (materialization of the capacity for achievement; energy applied by individuals, groups or social classes in social conflicts to achieve particular objectives).[20]
Social forces permanently confront each other at all levels of society, forming power relations: temporary imbalances of these confrontations occur when a particular force, or forces, overpower others. These relationships support the establishment of social regulations and controls.[21]
Domination is a form of power marked by lasting hierarchies, in which some – individuals, groups, classes – impose themselves on others, deciding, without participation (due to a greater or lesser monopoly of decisions), what concerns many or all, and enjoying privileges. It involves control of social force, appropriation of the fruits of labor, relations of command and obedience, violence, repression, alienation, etc., always in favor of the dominators and to the detriment of the dominated (we, therefore, disagree with approaches that consider power and domination to be synonymous).
Domination can be based on class, gender, race, nationality, and other criteria; when established at a structural and systemic level, it becomes a system of domination.[22]
Concept of the Capitalist-Statist System
Capitalist-Statist System
Capitalist-statism (capitalist-statist system or society, or just capitalist) is a historical mode of power/domination.[23]
Its macrosocial systemic structure can be analytically divided into three spheres or fields (we will prioritize this last term from now on): economic, political, and intellectual-moral, which express, historically and respectively, the capitalist economy, the modern state and the great institutions of communication and instruction. These three fields (economic, political, and intellectual-moral institutions) are inseparable and interdependent and have only relative autonomy since they are part of a social totality. In other words, capitalism is not limited to the capitalist economy, and it is inseparable from the state and the ideas that legitimize it (we, therefore, disagree with approaches that see capitalism only as an economic system/structure).[24]
The capitalist-statist system is a structure marked by relations of domination that are lasting and hegemonic in its fields, institutions, and preponderant social forces.[25] It is defined by capitalist-statist ownership (private or national/state) of the economic (production and distribution), political (administration, control, and coercion), and intellectual-moral (production and dissemination of knowledge and beliefs) means. It has a structural/systemic logic based on permanently accumulating economic, political, and intellectual-moral (or cultural, in the strict sense) capital.[26]
The social formation of this society (macrosocial scenario) is the product of class struggle (conflicts/contradictions between historical social class forces), of conjunctural and structural changes and transformations.[27] This struggle, generated by class domination, has influenced and is continually influenced by other conflicts based on other forms of domination.
Domination and social classes
Social classes are defined by the ownership of economic, political, and intellectual-moral means (we, therefore, disagree with approaches that understand classes solely as an economic concept).[28] The struggle between dominant and oppressed classes is the main (although not the only) social conflict in capitalist-statist society - its most significant contradiction.[29]
The rise of the bourgeoisie and the modern bureaucracy as dominant classes and the development of the urban and rural proletariat as oppressed classes were striking features of the historical social formation of capitalist statism. These new concrete social classes were added to the old ones, and intermediate sectors emerged in between them.[30]
In the capitalist-statist system, the movement of production and reproduction of social classes is explained by four forms of domination: the exploitation of labor (appropriation of surplus labor; the majority works to give profit and well-being to a minority), physical coercion (violence and repression; a minority kills, imprisons and intimidates the majority), political-bureaucratic domination (command and obedience; a minority decides and the majority follows the deliberations) and intellectual-moral domination (monopoly on the production and dissemination of ideas, information, conceptions of the world; legitimization of relations of domination; a minority produces and distributes these ideas, information and conceptions, and the majority "consumes" and reproduces them).[31]
These four forms of domination unify concrete social classes (landowners, bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasantry, etc.) into two broader and mutually contradictory groups: dominant classes and oppressed classes, which, under capitalism-statism, are in permanent conflict, struggle, and contradiction.[32]
Environment, Nationality, Race-Ethnicity and Gender-Sexuality
In conforming to and reproducing itself, capitalism-statism has proved to be a considerable source of destruction of the environment and natural resources.[33] It has also produced, incorporated, and/or modified other forms of domination which interact with class domination.
Three forms of domination stand out because of their role in the structural relations of power and domination in our society: 1.) National domination (colonialism/imperialism), in which the ruling classes of one country dominate all the classes of another; 2.) Ethnic-racial domination (racism), in which members (they may be the ruling class or not) of one race-ethnicity dominate members of another; 3.) Gender and sexuality domination (patriarchy), in which one gender-sexuality dominates another.
These three forms of domination have contributed and continue to contribute to the establishment of capitalist-statist relations between social classes and, in this way, to class domination itself. In other words, colonialism/imperialism, racism, and patriarchy contributed - and continue to contribute - to the constitution of social classes. On the other hand, social classes have influenced - and continue to influence - all these forms of domination.[34]
Analytically, it is impossible not to make distinctions between dominant and oppressed classes in central and peripheral countries: between whites, blacks, indigenous, asians, and latinos; between men and women; between straight and homosexual; between cis and transgender; and so on. In the capitalist-statist system, nationality, race-ethnicity, and gender-sexuality produce conflicts that cut across social classes and which, therefore, significantly mark its class contradiction.[35]
On the one hand, these conflicts are essential for understanding the oppressed classes and the challenges of mobilizing them; on the other hand, it is necessary to recognize that the ruling classes have also used them to split the oppressed classes. By pitting workers against workers, they encourage division and fragmentation, which are central elements of capitalist-statist domination.[36]
Colonialism/Imperialism, Racism and Patriarchy
From a historical and global point of view, colonialism/imperialism and racism have been and continue to be essential for the expropriation of both the (natural and human) resources of the dominated nations and the labor power and human life itself of certain so-called inferior nations, races, and ethnicities.
Colonial conquests and slavery are at the heart of the shaping of capitalism; the international division of labor continues to benefit the countries of the center to the detriment of those of the periphery; the social division of labor (based on the opposition between intellectual and manual labor, desirable and undesirable labor) has reserved the highest positions in the social hierarchy for whites; people of black, indigenous, asian, latino and other origins (depending on the time and place) have not only occupied the worst working positions but have also been: used to diminish the value of labor; deprived of information and knowledge; governed, tried, imprisoned and killed because of their national, racial and/or ethnic origins.[37]
Still, in global terms, patriarchy has been essential to the sexual division of labor, the establishment of the public and private spheres, and the centrality of the nuclear family, which have been and continue to be fundamental in maintaining the conditions for economic exploitation and the political and intellectual-moral domination of women, genders and dissident sexualities.
In the capitalist-statist system, men were responsible for work outside the home, public decisions, and socially recognized knowledge; women were assigned to care for the home and family. The exclusion and subordination of women in economic, political, and intellectual-moral terms are also at the heart of the shaping of this society; the sexual division of labor continues to benefit men to the detriment of women, reserving for the former the highest positions in the social hierarchy; at work, women still receive lower wages, and have been: used to diminish the value of labor; governed, raped and killed because of their status as women.
In this society, gender and sexuality dissidents have been victims of prejudice and violence, whether in the family, at school, at work, or in other spaces. This stems directly from the emergence of modern individuality and has been significantly stimulated by the state and the medical sciences.[38]
Revolutionary Transformation and Libertarian Socialism
The OSL advocates, in terms of its maximum program and general strategy, social revolution, socialism or libertarian communism, and the construction of self-managed popular power.
Revolutionary Social Transformation
We advocate a social revolution that ends the capitalist-statist system and all forms of domination. It is one of the possible outcomes of the class struggle, the culminating moment of the process of building popular power, and marks the beginning of the structural transformation of society.
This revolution destroys the foundations of capitalism, the state, and the great institutions of communication and education; it ends social classes, (private and national/state) ownership of economic, political, and intellectual-moral means, to imperialism, racism, and patriarchy. It thus opens up the possibilities for the reconstruction of society and thus for the establishment of libertarian socialism.[39]
In other words, it is not a political revolution that replaces the leaders of the state and/or nationalizes economic property (we, therefore, reject Marxism-Leninism and the experiences of "real socialism" as paths to the emancipation of working men and women). Neither changes that only have a conjunctural impact, and even less those that are ultra-restrictive ("molecular revolutions," "autonomous zones," etc.), whose specific actions and restricted discourses have no broad, influential, or permanent impact on social reality.[40]
A social revolution happens when, in the confrontation between the social force of the oppressed classes and the dominant classes, the class struggle reaches a limit, and the former (the force of the oppressed classes) imposes itself on the latter (the force of the dominant classes); a power relationship is thus consolidated between the former and the latter.[41]
Nor is it a question of a quick insurrectionary movement, a short-term combative conflict that solves all the major social issues. The social revolution is the fruit of a long process that can be accelerated at certain times and in the context of particular struggles but requires intense work and time. It is a long-term process that transforms society simultaneously as it transforms the people who participate in it. It does not happen by simply developing conjunctural or structural contradictions. However, it requires a lot of organization and preparation beforehand, concrete human action that takes deep and lasting roots in all areas of society.[42]
The results of the revolution will depend on these roots. There is no way of believing that a set of actions or a few circumstantial events will put the oppressed classes on the streets and that, even if they are subjected to a very harsh economic, political, and intellectual-moral structure, they will easily transform themselves and start promoting revolutionary and self-managing positions. The revolution and its development depend on the rooting of a political culture and a revolutionary and self-managing practice. This implies the need for daily practices of combative struggles and confrontations involving grassroots democracy, direct action, and class independence.
As the revolution is not just the work of anarchists, those who hold these positions must be fully involved in the processes of struggle in order to promote and guarantee a socialist and libertarian outcome. It will be necessary to confront not only the enemies but also different adversaries, as in the Ukrainian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, and other revolutionary episodes in which anarchists played an important role.[43]
The revolution will certainly involve levels of violence and advanced struggle (as in periods of insurrection). We understand this as a response to a society (capitalism-statism) based on daily violence, led by the ruling classes and their institutions. Social classes and property are the actual violence; the revolution only confronts this violence by combating social positions and not necessarily people.[44]
We understand that between the social revolution and the consolidation of libertarian socialism or communism, there will undoubtedly be a transition period, with the need for a project to defend the revolution. However, we are not talking about state socialism. The revolution must immediately destroy capitalist and statist institutions; the necessary intermediate measures must consider strategic coherence (means that lead to certain ends) and must, therefore, be libertarian and self-managing, guaranteeing the advance to libertarian socialism.[45]
There is no possible path to economic, political, and social self-management through the nationalization of property, Taylorism, and militarization at work, or the dictatorship of a state bureaucracy. We, therefore, reject the Marxist project of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" because, first and foremost, it is not of the proletariat but of the bureaucracy over the workers in an authoritarian and incoherent project of transition that does not lead to the end of capitalism and the state.[46] Means adopted in the transition period need to prepare society for the future.
Libertarian Socialism
In our view, it is unnecessary to establish in detail what forms a future society should take. However, we also consider those positions that refuse to discuss the issue to be mistaken, as if establishing finalist objectives was optional to devising appropriate strategies and tactics.
Our strategic vision considers that the objective conditions the strategies (more comprehensive, structural, and fixed), and these the tactics (more restricted, cyclical, and flexible) so that having a rough idea of "where we want to go" is fundamental to formulating "how we will start from where we are to get where we want to go". This means maintaining coherence between means and ends. The ends do not justify the means; it is, in fact, the means chosen that will or will not make progress toward the ends possible.[47]
Our ultimate goal is libertarian socialism, a form of society, a mode or system of power. However, unlike others (such as capitalist-statist), it does not have relations of domination at its core. We, therefore, reject the notion of socialism as a transitional path that, through the state, builds a communist society without a state. We refuse to have to choose between equality or freedom, socialism/communism or democracy/self-management/federalism; our conception of the future society combines all of these elements; it is a society that is at once egalitarian, libertarian, socialist/communist, democratic, self-managing and federalist.[48]
First and foremost, we believe that society is part of nature, and for this reason, we discard utilitarian visions, which consider that the only function of the environment is to serve humanity. We want an ecological society that promotes both environmental preservation and human well-being. This requires libertarian solutions for the ecological use and management of biodiversity.[49]
In social terms, the three fields mentioned (economic, political, and intellectual-moral) must be completely restructured, with a view to the disappearance of classes, property, and domination (class, national, race-ethnicity, gender-sexuality).
With all the people in that society then being workers, and with ownership of the economic, political, and intellectual-moral means then being completely socialized (collectivized, made available to the whole of society), there will no longer be capitalism, the state and its institutions of communication and instruction. In libertarian socialism, there will be no more capitalist and pre-capitalist exploitation of labor, no more physical coercion and political-bureaucratic domination by the state, and no more capitalist-statist intellectual-moral domination. This society will also put an end to imperialism, colonialism, nationalism, racism, and patriarchy; national, racial-ethnic, or gender-sexual prejudices and discrimination will be permanently combated.
Domination will be replaced by self-management throughout society, which requires ensuring widespread participation in decision-making processes, whether economic, political, or intellectual-moral, in proportion to how much one is affected. Self-management does not require everyone to participate in everything, but only in what impacts them. Specific issues may require international or national participation; others, regional participation, that of a sector, a company or factory, a neighborhood, or even that of groups, collectives, or individuals.[50]
In general terms, workers' councils and associations, organized by workplace and/or home, will be responsible for society's economic, political, and intellectual-moral management. Participation in these councils and associations will be voluntary and denoted by self-discipline. Decisions will be taken in assemblies, from the bottom up, and, whenever necessary, they will be articulated through federalist mechanisms: the grassroots elect delegates for this articulation with broader bodies, taking grassroots decisions and guaranteeing their execution; the grassroots control the delegates, their functions rotate, and their mandates are revocable. This will enable the articulation of local, regional, national, and even international decisions.
Self-management and federalism will organize society from the workplace and the home, from the city and the countryside, and will avoid both centralization and atomization; they will preserve the relative autonomy of affected parties and simultaneously guarantee unity. This will avoid centralism (hierarchical, top-down decisions) and autonomism (local decisions that are not articulated).[51]
In the economic field, there will be collectivization of machinery, equipment, tools, technologies, facilities (buildings, warehouses, offices), energy sources, means of transport, raw materials (minerals, plants, animals), and land. The economy (agriculture, industry, services) will seek to satisfy popular needs; production and consumer councils and associations will decide the destination of investments and surpluses. Work will be equivalent for everyone, reconciling intellectual and manual activities with political participation; it will be compulsory for everyone who can to work. Children, the elderly, the sick, the injured, and the incapacitated will be supported by society.[52]
In the political field, the state will be replaced by a form of popular self-government. Social regulation and control institutions will also be socialized, and workers, through their councils and associations, will make decisions, control their execution, and resolve conflicts. They will decide and execute everything that concerns public services, offering education, health, basic sanitation, transportation, housing, security, cleaning services, water, electricity, gas, etc., to society as a whole.
This new system will promote social equality and collective freedom. All members of society will be in egalitarian and liberating relationships, with the end of property, classes, and domination, with widespread socialization and self-management, with the possibility of full capacity development. Such a society will also promote diversity and individual freedoms within these self-management frameworks (of expression, assembly, association, work, belief, coming and going, sexuality, lifestyle, appearance, etc.); it will seek to develop the faculties of each and every one. After all, in our conception, individual freedom is only realized in collective freedom; one can only be individually free when the collective is free (we, therefore, reject the liberals' individualistic notion of freedom). Legal and military institutions will also be self-managing; their ultimate purpose will be to guarantee the territory's sovereignty, the self-determination of peoples, general security, and, above all, generalized self-management. They will respond to the interests of the working masses, resolving disputes, conflicts, and crimes.[53]
In the intellectual-moral field, the institutions of communication and instruction will also be socialized; they will permanently promote a self-management culture, a libertarian ethic based on specific values, which are the foundation of the libertarian project: individual and collective freedom, in the sense of the full development of individual and collective faculties, capacities and critical thinking, outside domination; equality, in economic, political and social terms, promoted through self-management, federalism and including issues of nationality, gender-sexuality and race-ethnicity; solidarity and mutual support, sustaining fraternal and collaborative relationships between people rather than individualism and competition; permanent encouragement of happiness, motivation and will. Education will be public and comprehensive, focusing on intellectual development (scientific knowledge), technical development (intellectual and manual work), and physical development (health and well-being). The media will promote diversity and critical thinking, informing, discussing, and entertaining.[54]
Solidarity, cooperation, peace, and equality between nations, peoples, and ethnic groups; between whites, blacks, and indigenous people; between men and women; between different sexualities (the expression of which will be guaranteed by individual freedom) will be actively and permanently promoted.
A Project of Self-Managed Popular Power Project
Our project of self-managed popular power is the central aspect of our general transformational strategy. Its construction begins under capitalist statism and is strengthened by the struggles to the extent that it organizes and enhances the social force of the oppressed classes; the realization of this power only happens with the social revolution and the establishment and guarantee of libertarian socialism when the ruling classes are finally defeated.
For this reason, building this popular power is a task that must begin now, with the transformation of the oppressed classes' capacity for achievement into a social force, that is, the conversion of the potential of the urban and rural proletariat, the peasantry, the traditional peoples and the marginalized (the oppressed classes of contemporary Brazil) into action, into a reality of struggle, into concrete intervention in the play of forces in society.[55] The most suitable space for this process is the popular movements (mass organizations, trade unions, social movements).
It is essential to take into account that the vast majority of members of the oppressed classes are not organized or engaged (and therefore have not been producing social force) and that the minority, that is, also has, for the most part, promoted positions that, when they do not reinforce the system of capitalist-statist domination (movements of the new right and yellow or bosses' unionism, for example), have as their horizon only minor changes in favor of the working masses (reformism, social democracy, etc.).[56]
There are, therefore, two central aspects to building this popular power. First, it is essential to organize and engage the proletariat, the peasantry, and the other oppressed classes as much as possible in popular movements so that they can intervene concretely in social reality. Secondly, investing in the strategic and programmatic direction of these mass organizations, trade unions, and social movements is essential. This aspect is equally important because there is no point in being organized and engaged if you do not know where to go, if the means chosen are not suited to the intended ends, or if they do not move in that direction. Hence, the importance of conceiving means and ends with due strategic coherence and ensuring that the former moves in the direction of the latter (we, therefore, reject realpolitik, which supports that absolute pragmatism of "anything goes" in political action, which is not only breaking with strategic coherence but also mortgages the principles of the people who act politically).
Capitalism-statism permanently generates countless social problems, the impact of which is felt mainly by working men and women. Popular movements (trade unions, social movements, etc.) are organizations of people and/or entities with common interests aiming to tackle one or more of these social problems or even to promote specific societal issues.
These movements can be articulated around environmental or social demands; they can focus on issues that emerge more directly from class conflict (work, land, housing, public services, repression, education) or on issues that arise from national domination (national liberation struggles, anti-imperialist struggles), ethnic-racial domination (anti-racist movements) and gender-sexuality domination (women's / feminist movements, LGBT+ movements).[57]
As anarchists and workers, we create, participate in, strengthen, and influence the strategic and programmatic direction of popular movements. All this must be done from a strategic perspective. We should not create or participate in any movement because some offer better prospects for our project than others. By participating in these movements, we have to contribute directly and actively to making them levers for this project of popular power. This means promoting a set of characteristics and ways of conducting struggles, whose historiographical reference is in revolutionary trade unionism, from which we start making the necessary additions and updates.[58]
A central characteristic is that popular movements have a mass character or, at least, the capacity to become mass organizations. Trade unions and social movements must be broad and robust without being locked into a specific ideology or doctrine (we reject proposals for an anarchist trade union or student movement, etc.). All workers who suffer from the social problems a particular movement faces and who are willing to organize and engage in struggles should be able to do so.
Another fundamental characteristic is that these movements have a class basis (that workers form them) and a class perspective (that they actively promote the class struggle), regardless of the social problems they intend to tackle and their immediate demands. It is necessary to fight internally against all those who promote the interests of the ruling classes, even if they suffer or claim to suffer other oppressions. At the same time, it is necessary to confront people who defend alliances and/or conciliation with class enemies, whether they are members of the bourgeoisie, the state bureaucracy, authorities of hegemonic religions, prominent businessmen, or senior managers (the dominant classes of contemporary Brazil).[59]
In addition, we maintain that trade unions and social movements promote their struggles combatively, with class independence, and through direct action.
Defending combativeness means that movements must dedicate themselves to combat, confrontation, and struggle permanently and with due firmness. They need to win their demands through the imposition of their social force (we, therefore, reject welfare, the intermediation of business people, politicians, NGOs, etc.), using a variety of repertoires of struggle, which may or may not use violence.
It is worth remembering that pacifism, conciliationism, and violence detached from the masses (insurrectionism/foquismo) [*] have severe limits. That radicalization needs to accompany the willingness of the grassroots and the pedagogical learning produced by the social conflicts and popular struggles themselves. Furthermore, if discursive "combativeness" is not accompanied by actions to create and increase the social force of the oppressed classes, it is worth very little or almost nothing.
Upholding class independence means that movements must maintain their autonomy from companies, institutions, and agents that promote the interests of the ruling classes and/or different forms of domination, including those responsible for the social problems the movements face.
This includes vanguardist and/or electoral parties, which see unions and social movements as a mass of maneuvers to strengthen their authoritarian and opportunistic power projects. After all, the emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves. Even so, this independence must not be confused with isolation and sectarianism.
Asserting direct action means that the movements must have the working masses as the protagonists of the struggles, promoting forms of politics not only outside the channels and institutions of the state but even against the state. Direct action can subsidize struggles against bosses/companies and also against bureaucracy/state; conquests from struggles are always welcome.
Even though we recognize that, in many cases, the state can be more open to popular demands (mainly when it follows, even partially, the precepts of bourgeois democracy) than companies (which are, in the vast majority of cases, actual private dictatorships), we do not recognize the state as a legitimate arena for an emancipatory politics of workers. Just as we do not think it is possible to promote workers to managers or bosses to fight capitalism, it is not feasible to elect politicians to fight the state. We are anti-capitalist and anti-statist; therefore, it is our duty to combat the bureaucratization of trade unions and social movements and the internal bureaucracies of these movements.[60]
In these movements, it is also fundamental to constantly encourage self-management and federalism, confronting the expressions of domination that can be (re)produced internally. This means defending grassroots democracy and collective decision-making and rotating and revocable delegations with grassroots control. Full participation in the organization and struggles of popular movements makes a decisive contribution to producing the revolutionary subjects essential to any legitimate project for social transformation.
Furthermore, it seems central to us to start building the future in the present and thus prefigure the future society we want in our struggles. To do this, we must fight against leaders detached from the grassroots, hierarchical decision-making processes and the capitalist-statist modus operandi often reproduced within movements. Remember that domination is not a means or a path to self-management.[61]
Finally, building a perspective of social transformation within these movements is essential, especially between them. This requires breaking with reformism and corporatism and moving forward, putting the revolution of the working masses as the horizon of the struggle. However, breaking with reformism (reforms as an end) and defending a revolutionary position does not mean giving up the struggles for reforms or immediate conquests.
These struggles (for reforms and immediate conquests) make it possible to massify the movements; if they are victorious, they make the lives of the oppressed classes less difficult. Nevertheless, whether they are victorious or even defeated, these struggles have a pedagogical effect on the militants who take part in them, which is decisive for the radicalization of the workers. The closer they are to the project we are defending, the greater the chance of unions and social movements turning their immediate struggles into revolutionary gymnastics, which strengthens this project of popular power and thus brings the revolution and libertarian socialism closer together. Thought of in this way, the struggles for reforms can be a path to the revolutionary struggle.[62]
A massive challenge for this revolutionary struggle is to build genuine unity between the many popular movements. This can only be done through a class perspective since the social class only makes it possible to break down fragmentation and unify the interests and movements of the oppressed classes. Promoting this unity and combating fragmented positions is central to a broad struggle that contradicts the capitalist-statist domination system.[63]
However, this class unity cannot be false or artificially constructed, nor can it reproduce within itself the forms of domination that are structural and functional to capitalist-statism, in particular, those based on nationality, race-ethnicity, and gender-sexuality. Throughout their history of struggle, unions and social movements must adopt positions to combat imperialism/colonialism, racism, ethnic discrimination, patriarchy, and prejudice against LGBTs+.
Specifically, in the case of action in national liberation, anti-racist, feminist, and LGBTs+ movements, it is essential to adopt a class, internationalist, and revolutionary line. Because it is in these movements (and in the discussion of these issues more broadly) that progressive liberalism and postmodernism have spread their positions, stimulating the fragmentation of the oppressed classes and giving new legitimacy to capitalist-statism.[64]
Regarding the struggle against these different forms of domination, our project of self-managed popular power rests on four pillars. First, a class struggle that must be, at the same time, internationalist, revolutionary, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchal or feminist. Second, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, and anti-patriarchy or feminism must be, at the same time, classist, revolutionary, and internationalist. Thirdly, a break with fragmentation and a permanent promotion of the unity of the oppressed classes. Fourthly, a strategic understanding, based on our conception of the class struggle, of who our real enemies are: the ruling classes (and not the workers of imperialist countries, white people, men, heterosexuals, etc).
That is why we reject the different forms of identitarianism, that idealization of a particular social identity whose origin lies in the countless social differences (for example: Brazilian, woman, gay, trans, black, indigenous, poor, worker, etc. ), which is essentialized (people of an identity X have essential characteristics Y, for example: women have a non-violent essence, men have a rapist essence, etc.) and which reduces structural issues to problems between groups or even individuals (for example: racism is only the problem of people who openly express their racial prejudices).
We defend unity (of class, in the class struggle) in diversity (national, racial, gender, in confronting all forms of domination). Moreover, as we said, we believe the different forms of domination must be analyzed and combated as part of a broader historical and structural framework. Finally, we oppose the exclusive search for recognition and representation of identities, as these are tools of progressive liberalism.[65]
The Role of the Anarchist Organization
The anarchist political organization plays a central role in these strategic and programmatic conceptions. It is an association or grouping of workers who are adherents of anarchism, which has particular objectives and collectively establishes and promotes the means to achieve these ends. In our case, the final objective or end we advocate is libertarian socialism, and the means we establish and promote are specified in our conception of self-managed popular power. Further on, we will further deal with our conception of anarchist organization.[66]
For now, we will only discuss the role or function of this organization in the process in question (building self-managed popular power, revolutionary social transformation, and the implementation of libertarian socialism), which is more directly related to the strategic and programmatic elements being addressed.
Historically, the anarchist organization and its role have been represented by different metaphors. It has been placed as a catalyzing agent, accelerating processes without being consumed or permanently altered. It has been presented as a small engine insofar as it boosts energy, allowing vehicles or boats to increase speed on a given journey. It has been presented as yeast because it affects the dough and raises it considerably.[67]
To a certain extent, these metaphors help explain the role of the anarchist organization. It affects the working masses (oppressed classes), mobilizing, organizing, and engaging them in popular movements, enhancing and accelerating the transformation of their capacity for achievement into a social force. Nevertheless, it also impacts popular movements (trade unions and social movements), competing with other forces and movements for their strategic and programmatic direction.
With this, the political organization also contributes to enhancing and accelerating the process of emancipation of the oppressed classes themselves (building self-managed popular power and libertarian socialism). To the extent that it does not dissolve into these activities, the anarchist organization becomes an indispensable tool for preparing and strengthening the social revolution and guaranteeing the implementation of libertarian socialism.[68]
The need for anarchist organization is justified for several reasons. First of all, to increase the strength of anarchist action. When we are alone, we are very fragile, and the social force we can mobilize is almost negligible. Furthermore, even if we are part of popular movements, we have few conditions to effectively dispute the direction of these movements, especially when confronting other collective forces. In other words, due to the principle of collective strength (in which the organization multiplies the individual forces and always far exceeds the simple sum of these forces), the anarchist organization multiplies the social strength of the anarchists for their intervention in reality; it considerably increases the chances of their proposals prevailing in social conflicts, in the class struggle.[69]
However, that is not all. Trade unions and popular movements, by their very nature (broad mass organizations formed around concrete social issues and focused mainly on immediate conquests), have difficulties and certain limits in building self-managing popular power in the sense that we advocate (we, therefore, disagree with other political currents that believe that mass organizations are sufficient for an emancipatory transformation, as in the case of anarcho-syndicalists, councilists, communitarians, etc.).
Popular movements do not spontaneously move towards building the popular power we propose, and even less towards libertarian socialism. We see an anarchist force capable of influencing the direction of these movements and the relationship between them as essential if this is to be possible. This anarchist force will have to confront some of the tendencies of these movements (emergence and disappearance, ebbs and flows of struggles, disputes between different political forces, very heterogeneous internal positions, corporatism, reformism, etc.) as well as contend in an organized way, with opponents and enemies of the movements themselves, who have other power projects.
However, this is not about defending a vanguardist view that trade unions and social movements have no capacity for social transformation. Moreover, it would only be up to the vanguard party to endow these movements with consciousness and transformative capacity and to lead the revolutionary process itself (party), understood as the conquest of the state (we, therefore, reject the expressions of Marxism-Leninism that underpin such positions). Trade unions and social movements (the working and oppressed masses) have this transformative capacity. However, they have yet to convert it into a real possibility for several reasons (how they are structured, hegemonic political forces, etc.).[70]
The anarchist organization contributes to reversing this situation, boosting and accelerating this awareness, and the strategic programmatic direction is discussed, emphasizing the unification of the oppressed classes. In a context of ebbs and flows of movements and struggles, it accumulates experience and guarantees continuity, given its greater stability and permanence over time. This allows the anarchist social force to be measured, the situation to be assessed, and the organization to decide, in the most appropriate way possible, how to act, which may mean moving forward or backward, choosing to act one way or another.
The anarchist organization encourages a social revolution that is led by the masses (and not by the party) that simultaneously destroys capitalism, the state, and its legitimizing institutions and that forms power of the masses in society (a class revolution that abolishes the state, and not a party revolution that conquers the state).
This difference with vanguardist positions is also evident in how we conceive the relationship between anarchists (as a political organization) and popular movements (as mass organizations). We believe that the relationship between these two levels (political and social) is complementary and interdependent: anarchist organizations and popular movements complement each other and depend on each other. We do not believe it is possible to advance our political project with the anarchist organization isolated from the masses, nor with the organizations of the masses without the presence of the anarchist organization.
We also maintain that this relationship must be self-managing (anti-authoritarian, non-hierarchical). In other words, we reject that the political organization should subordinate or rig trade unions and social movements and use them as a mass of maneuver or as a means of promoting the party. We reject that there should be a hierarchy between the party (where the conscious, revolutionary people are, who know "what to do") and the masses (where the unconscious people are, restricted to immediate interests, who do not know what to do). We reject that grassroots movements should or can be subjected economically, politically, or intellectually (financial dependence, uncritical obedience, threats or physical coercion, impediments to education, training, etc.).
The anarchist organization mobilizes against relations of domination in trade unions and social movements. It permanently promotes self-management, placing itself as an ally of the movements to exercise the role, as mentioned earlier, of catalyst, engine, or ferment, always in the interests of the oppressed classes. These interests are well represented in our political project, which is, first and foremost, a class project and not just a party project.
Even so, it must be clear that if we reject vanguardism, we also reject positions that equate organization and structure with hierarchy and domination - something that, curiously, brings vanguardists closer to anti-organizationists and autonomists. We also discard ‘baseism’ or the role of "rearguard" (following any positions of the bases of these movements, even if they contradict our project). We seek to project an anarchist political line of intervention in the struggles of the working masses to become a benchmark in this process.
We want an egalitarian relationship between anarchist organizations and popular movements, in which there is mutual learning and that, through an anti-authoritarian/self-managing influence, we can promote our program, stimulating self-management and federalist forms of organization and struggle (confronting the different dominations and oppressions that can reproduce themselves) and beginning to build the future in the present.[71]
Concept of Anarchist Organization
We assert organizational dualism (concomitant organization, as anarchists, in political organization, and as workers, in popular movements). Moreover, concerning the anarchist organization, we defend its homogeneous and programmatic forms, as in the historical cases of platformism and especifismo (we reject synthetism, which opposes these positions).[72] We are, therefore, an organization that adheres to organizational dualism, a platformist and specific organization.
We have already dealt with the role or function of this organization and its relationship with the mass organizations (popular movements). Now, we will present our way of conceiving the anarchist organization and its organizational foundations.
We promote a conception of the anarchist political/specific organization as an organization of cadres, of an active minority (we, therefore, differentiate ourselves from mass organizations and parties); we define ourselves as a party (which does not contest elections nor does it intend to win state power) that articulates militants around a political line (principles) and a strategic-tactical line (program).
Our organization expresses, articulates, organizes, and coordinates the ideological or doctrinal positions (the anarchist ones) of a sector of the oppressed classes, which have been present among working men and women for almost 150 years. Although we do not claim to be the only or the "true" organization representing the interests and emancipation project of the working masses, we stress - and it could not be otherwise - that we consider our proposals to be the most appropriate for a political practice that promotes the interests and emancipation of the oppressed classes.[73]
Regarding organizational principles, we adopt self-management and federalism, theoretical and ideological unity, strategic and tactical unity, and collective responsibility.[74]
We see the anarchist organization as self-managing (democratic, with broad participation, without hierarchies or relations of domination), with decisions taken by its grassroots bodies (nuclei) and articulated locally, regionally, and nationally by federalist mechanisms (delegations with grassroots control, rotating and revocable), and deliberative and executive bodies.
For this self-managed operation, we use the logic of concentric circles, which simultaneously allows for coherence between rights and duties, the maintenance of accumulations, and the renewal and growth of cadres. This is because an anarchist organization needs to be closed enough to have prepared, committed, and politically aligned militants but open enough to bring in and integrate new members. The decision-making method we adopt is consensus building and, if this is not possible, voting, with the majority or the percentages defined organically for each question winning.[75]
We advocate theoretical and ideological unity, that is, a unitary position around a clear political line, which must be defended by the entire militancy established collectively and through the decision-making as mentioned above. This political line comprises a theoretical line (an understanding of reality based on our method and social theory) and an ideological line (an understanding of anarchist ideology and its application). Different or even divergent positions can be freely expressed within the organization, but once this political line has been established, the entire militancy defends it publicly. This line can be modified according to the position of the militancy and organic criteria.
We also demand strategic and tactical unity, a programmatic unity of action that establishes a standard set of objectives and paths for collective action. It is also defended collectively by the entire militancy and built collectively. This programmatic unity is expressed in a strategic and tactical line and is formalized in a program. Likewise, there may be different positions, and the line (ends and means) may be modified. However, as long as a collective decision is taken, the entire militancy defends and puts it into practice. The most important thing is always rowing the boat in the same direction.
We also advocate collective responsibility, i.e., individual commitment and self-discipline, with each militant taking responsibility for their tasks, participating in organizational bodies, and always following the criteria of conduct, the political line, and the strategic-tactical line of the organization. Nevertheless, the responsibility of militancy is not individual but collective. Each militant is responsible for the anarchist organization, and it, likewise, is responsible for the actions of each militant.[76]
The anarchist organization has several daily and permanent tasks. It produces, updates, and modifies analyses of past and present reality, making historical and theoretical studies of the structure and conjuncture of society. It establishes its ultimate goals and general strategy; it formulates, updates, and modifies its time-restricted strategy and tactics; it formalizes these elements in a program for the period.
The organization also articulates and promotes the social work of the militancy (creation of and participation in popular movements) and constantly seeks social insertion (real influence on these movements, in the sense of building the project of self-managed popular power). It advertises its ideological conceptions (anarchism), strategies, and tactics, constantly adjusting the form and content of communication according to its objectives.
The anarchist organization also promotes the political formation of its cadres, preparing newcomers and contributing to organizational formative maturity and unity. It maintains political and social relations with other anarchist groups, with people, groups, and organizations from other political currents, and with mass movements and other societal entities. It manages its human and financial resources.[77]
Final Words
Throughout this document, we have set out our principles and general strategy, the concepts that guide our organizational project. We invite interested people and activists to visit our website to learn more about other documents, deepen the theoretical discussion, learn about our practical work, and even get involved in organizing!
Ethics, commitment, freedom!
Fight, create, popular power!
For the advancement of organized anarchism in Brazil!
Libertarian Socialist Organization (OSL)
July 2023
References / Notes
(*)Translator's note. Foquismo is a variant of armed struggle inspired by Che Guevara and developed by Régis Debray. It was adopted in the 1960s by left-wing organizations critical of the Soviet line and consisted of creating guerrilla groups that, supported by a mass movement, would lead a revolutionary process. One of the most important anarchist critiques of foquismo was developed by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation in a document entitled “El Copey”.
1. Our choice of the terms "materialism" and "realism" (which we use here as synonyms) is based mainly on the classic anarchists Mikhail Bakunin and Errico Malatesta. Bakunin referred to his approach as "scientific materialism" and claimed the "realist method" for analyzing society. Malatesta adopted an approach that has been called "realism" by many who have studied his work. The choice of the term "libertarian social theory" is based on Alfredo Errandonea, and on the use that has been made of it by researchers associated with the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA). In both cases (materialism/realism and social theory), we use the adjective "libertarian" to mark this ascendancy of the anarchist classics and their possible dialog with other members of the socialist and communist anti-authoritarian left. It is important to emphasize that we are very aware that Bakunin, Malatesta (as well as other libertarian and anarchist classics, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Piotr Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Murray Bookchin, among others) have more and less adequate contributions, if we have a contemporary use in mind; and also that these authors have convergences and divergences, continuities and ruptures between them. When we use them, it's important to keep two things in mind: 1.) This use is critical and selective and, for this very reason, we don't assume all of their positions (we're not Bakuninists, Malatestians, Proudhonians, etc.); this goes for all the references (authors, organizations, etc.) mentioned in the references throughout this text; 2.) Our critical and selective dialog with different sources does not imply eclecticism, but the careful elaboration of a coherent libertarian approach, which not only has reference to anarchists, but which is in line with the approaches that we believe have the greatest potential for analyzing reality at the beginning of the 21st century.
2. Bakunin, “Considerações Filosóficas sobre o Fantasma Divino, o Mundo Real e o Homem”, “Sofismas Históricos da Escola Doutrinária dos Comunistas Alemães”, “Resposta de um Internacional a Mazzini”.
3. Bakunin, “Considerações Filosóficas...”, “Sofismas Históricos...”; Malatesta, “Anarquismo e Ciência”.
4. Bakunin, “Considerações Filosóficas...”, Federalismo, Socialismo e Antiteologismo; Malatesta, “Anarquismo e Ciência”, “Ciência e Reforma Social”; sobre estas cuestiones en Bakunin y Malatesta, ver también: Corrêa, Liberdade ou Morte, “Epistemologia, Método de Análise e Teoria Social em Malatesta”.
5. Malatesta, “Anarquismo e Ciência”, “Ciência e Reforma Social”, “Ideal e Realidade”; FAU, “Huerta Grande”; Corrêa, “Epistemologia...”.
6. Malatesta, “Anarquismo e Ciência”; Bakunin, “Sofismas Históricos...”.
7. Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação.
8. Malatesta, “A Anarquia”; Bakunin, “A Ciência e a Questão Vital da Revolução”.
9. Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação; Corrêa, Bandeira Negra.
10. Bakunin, “Sofismas Históricos...”; Malatesta, “A Anarquia”.
11. Rocha, A Interdependência Estrutural das Três Esferas.
12. Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação; Rocha, A Interdependência...
13. López, Poder e Domínio; Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação; Rocha, A Interdependência...
14. Bakunin, “Sofismas Históricos...”, “História do Socialismo”, “Deus e o Estado”.
15. Bakunin, “Considerações Filosóficas...”, “Carta ao Jornal La Liberté de Bruxelas”.
16. Bakunin, Estatismo e Anarquia, Federalismo...
17. Bakunin, “As Intrigas do Sr. Utin”; Malatesta, Ideologia Anarquista, “O Individualismo no Anarquismo”.
18. Malatesta, “O Individualismo…”; Bakunin, “As Intrigas...”.
19. Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, “Ideal e Realidade”, “O Individualismo...”; Bakunin, “A Ciência...”; Estatismo e Anarquia, Federalismo…; Corrêa, “Contribuições Malatestianas para a Teoria Social”.
20. López, Poder e Domínio.
21. López, Poder e Domínio; Bakunin, “A Ciência...”, A Teologia Política de Mazzini e a Internacional; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”.
22. López, Poder e Domínio; Corrêa, “Poder, Dominação e Autogestão”; Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação.
23. Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação; Bakunin, Estatismo e Anarquia; Malatesta, “A Anarquia”; Nitzan e Bichler, Capital como Poder.
24. Rocha, A Interdependência...; Corrêa, “Contribuições Malatestianas…”; Malatesta, “A Unidade Sindical”, “A Propósito do Revisionismo”; Bakunin, “Sofismas Históricos...”.
25. Bakunin, “Três Conferências Feitas aos Operários do Vale de Saint-Imier”; Kropotkin, Ciência Moderna e Anarquismo; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”; Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação.
26. Malatesta, “A Anarquia”, “O Declínio do Espírito Revolucionário e a Necessidade de Resistência”; López, Poder e Domínio; Corrêa, “Contribuições Malatestianas…”.
27. Bakunin, “A Ciência...”, “Três Conferências...”, “A Política da Internacional”; Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação.
28. Corrêa, “Anarquismo, Poder, Classe e Transformação Social”; Van der Walt, “De Volta para o Futuro”; Bakunin, “A Rússia”, “Instrução Integral”; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”.
29. Bakunin, “A Ciência...”, “Três Conferências...”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma Organizacional”; Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação.
30. Bakunin, “Três Conferências...”; Kropotkin, Palavras de um Revoltado.
31. Bakunin, “A Rússia”, “Instrução Integral”, “Programa da Sociedade da Revolução Internacional”; Malatesta, “A Anarquia”; Corrêa, “Contribuições Malatestianas…”, “Classes Sociais e Burocracia em Bakunin”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social e Organização.
32. Bakunin, “Federalismo...”, “O Patriotismo”, Estatismo e Anarquia. Sobre las clases sociales en general (teoría, historia y análisis contemporáneo), ver: OASL, “Formação: Classes Sociais”.
33. Bookchin, “Por uma Ecologia Social”; ZACF, “Luta de Classes e Crise Ambiental”.
34. OSL, “Sistema Capitalista-Estatista, Classe e Outras Formas de Dominação”; Corrêa, Bandeira Negra; Bakunin, O Império Cnuto-Germânico e a Revolução Social; “Sofismas Históricos...”, “A Política…”; Malatesta, “Programa e Organização da Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores”; Rocker, Nacionalismo e Cultura; Reclus, Da Escravidão nos Estados Unidos; Parsons, Liberdade, Igualdade e Solidariedade; Gonzáles Prada, “Nossos Índios”; Berneri, “Contra o Delírio Racista”; Sánchez Saornil, A Questão Feminina em Nossos Meios; Zhen, “Sobre a Questão do Trabalho da Mulher”; Bookchin, “Para Onde Vai o Anarquismo?”; Ervin, Anarquismo e Revolução Negra; BRRN, “Virando o Jogo”; WSM, “Opressão Queer”; Fraser, Capitalismo em Debate.
35. ZACF, “Luta de Classes, Capitalismo e Estado”, “Anti-Imperialismo e Libertação Nacional”, “Lutando e Combatendo o Racismo”, “Lutando pela Liberdade das Mulheres”, “Opressão de Gays e Lésbicas”.
36. ACG, “A Política da Divisão”; BRRN, “Virando o Jogo”; Bookchin, “A Esquerda que se Foi”.
37. ZACF, “Anti-Imperialismo…”, “Lutando e Combatendo…”.
38. ZACF, “Lutando pela Liberdade…”, “Opressão…”; Wolf, Sexualidade e Socialismo.
39. Bakunin, Estatismo e Anarquia, “Carta a Meus Amigos da Itália”; Kropotkin, Palavras…; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, “Programa e Organização…”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”.
40. Bakunin, Estatismo e Anarquia; Vasco, Concepção Anarquista do Sindicalismo; Fabbri, Ditadura e Revolução; Bookchin, “Anarquismo Social ou Anarquismo de Estilo de Vida”.
41. Corrêa, “Anarquismo, Poder…”.
42. Malatesta, “A Organização”; Kropotkin, “1º de Maio de 1891”; Fabbri, Ditadura e Revolução; Fontenis, “Manifesto Comunista Libertário”; Van der Walt, “Revolução Mundial”.
43. Bakunin, “Carta a Tomás González Morago”; Malatesta, “A Propósito da Revolução”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; Arshinov, História do Movimento Makhnovista; Rocker, A Tragédia da Espanha.
44. Bakunin, “Os Ursos de Berna e o Urso de São Petersburgo”, “Os Enganadores/Adormecedores”; Kropotkin, Memórias de um Revolucionário; Malatesta, “A Violência e a Revolução”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”, FAU, “Copei”; Guillén, Teoria Anarquista da Guerra; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”.
45. Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”.
46. Malatesta, “Carta a Luigi Fabbri”; Fabbri, Ditadura e Revolução; Rocker, Os Sovietes Traídos Pelos Bolcheviques.
47. OSL, “Teoria da Estratégia”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; Malatesta, “Os Fins e os Meios”, “Socialismo e Anarquia”; Mechoso, A Estratégia do Especifismo; RL, “O Partido Libertário”; Guillén, Teoria Anarquista da Guerra.
48. Bakunin, Federalismo…; Guillaume, “Ideias Sobre a Organização Social”; Kropotkin, A Conquista do Pão; Malatesta, “Programa e Organização…”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; RL, “Por Que uma Sociedade Libertária?”.
49. Bookchin, “Por uma Ecologia Social”, Ecologia da Liberdade; Purchase, Anarquismo e Sobrevivência Ambiental.
50. Corrêa, Bandeira Negra; Van der Walt, “Revolução Mundial”.
51. Bakunin, Estatismo e Anarquia, “Irmãos da Aliança na Espanha”; Guillaume, “Ideias…”; Malatesta, “A Insurreição”; Kropotkin, A Conquista…, Campos, Fábricas e Oficinas; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma dos Anarcocomunistas da Bulgária”; Besnard, O Mundo Novo; Proudhon, Do Princípio Federativo; Dolgoff, “A Relevância do Anarquismo para a Sociedade Moderna”; Berthier, Do Federalismo; López, Poder e Domínio; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; Albert, PARECON.
52. Bakunin, “Programa da Sociedade…”; Guillaume, “Ideias…”; Malatesta, “Produção e Distribuição”; Vasco, Concepção…; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”, “Suplemento à Plataforma Organizacional”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”.
53. Bakunin, “Programa da Sociedade…”, “A Política…”; Malatesta, “A Anarquia”; Vasco, Concepção…; Puente, “Comunismo Libertário”; Passos, “Federalismo e Centralismo”; Flores Magón, “Liberdade Política”; Amigos de Durruti, “Para uma Nova Revolução”.
54. Bakunin, “Programa da Sociedade…”, “Instrução Integral”; Malatesta, “Os Anarquistas e o Sentimento Moral”; Besnard, A Ética do Sindicalismo; Dielo Truda, “O Problema Organizacional e a Ideia de Síntese”; Chaeho, “Declaração da Revolução Coreana”; Ferrer y Guardia, “A Renovação da Escola”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; RL, “O Partido Libertário”.
55. Bakunin, “A Ciência…”, “A Política…”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAU, “A Organização Política é o Decisivo”; López, Poder e Domínio; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; Corrêa, “Anarquismo, Poder…”; OASL, “Formação…”.
56. Corrêa, Bandeira Negra; FARJ/OASL/RL/COMPA, “Combater o Avanço Fascista e a Conciliação de Classes”; Malatesta, “A Organização”, “Sindicalismo”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; FAU, “Copei”.
57. Bakunin, “Protestação da Aliança”, “A Dupla Greve de Genebra”, “Carta a Morago”; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, “Programa e Organização…”; “A Propósito da Revolução”, “Em Torno de Nossa Organização”; Makhno, “Nossa Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “Sindicato e Tendência”; OSL, “Definindo o Poder Popular”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…, “Carta de Princípios”.
58. Bakunin, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Carta a Morago”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Malatesta, “Organização”, “Em Torno de Nosso Anarquismo”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”, “Sindicato e Tendência”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; RL, “O Partido Libertário”, “A Política das Frentes e a Função da Organização Anarquista”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social… El sindicalismo revolucionario no fue una creación de la Confederación General del Trabajo francés, fundada en 1895, sino de la Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores (AIT, 1864-1877); Bakunin fue uno de sus mayores teóricos. Ver, por ejemplo: Bakunin, “A Política…”, “Protestação…”, “A Dupla Greve…”.
59. Bakunin, “A Política…”, “Escrito Contra Marx”, “Carta a Morago”, “A Dupla Greve…”; Schwitzguébel, “A Associação Internacional dos Trabalhadores”; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, “Programa e Organização…”, “A Propósito da Revolução”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; Vasco, Concepção…; Pelloutier, “O Anarquismo e os Sindicatos Operários”; Besnard, Os Sindicatos Operários e a Revolução Social; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; ZACF, “Sindicatos e Revolução”; OASL, “Formação…”.
60. Bakunin, “A Política…”, “Protestação…”, “A Dupla Greve…”; Kropotkin, “Carta para A Voz do Trabalho”, “Comemoração dos Mártires de Chicago”, “Sindicalismo e Parlamentarismo”; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, “Programa e Organização…”; Vasco, Concepção…; Pelloutier, “O Anarquismo…”; Besnard, Os Sindicatos…; Pouget, “A Ação Direta”, “A Confederação Geral do Trabalho”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “Copei”; RL, “O Partido Libertário”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; ZACF, “Sindicatos e Revolução”.
61. Bakunin, “A Política…”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Kropotkin, “Comemoração…”, “Sindicalismo e Anarquismo”; Malatesta, “Programa Anarquista”, “Programa e Organização…”; Vasco, Concepção…; Pelloutier, “O Anarquismo…”; Besnard, Os Sindicatos…; Pouget, “A Ação Direta”, “A Confederação…”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “Copei”; RL, “O Partido Libertário”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; ZACF, “Sindicatos e Revolução”.
62. Bakunin, “A Política…”; Malatesta, “Anarquismo e Reforma”, “Quanto Pior Estiver, Melhor Será”, “Programa Anarquista”, “Sindicalismo e Anarquismo”; Vasco, Concepção…; Ba Jin, “O Anarquismo e a Questão da Prática”; Sakae, “Do Ideal Social”; Meltzer, Anarquismo; Dolgoff, “A Relevância…”; FAU, “Copei”, “Sindicato e Tendência”; Price, “Anarquismo Classista e Revolucionário”.
63. Bakunin, “A Política…”, “Protestação…”, “Carta a Meus Amigos…”, “Carta a Morago”; Malatesta, “Programa e Organização…”; Kropotkin, “Comemoração…”, “A Revolução Russa e o Anarquismo”; Vasco, Concepção…; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; Besnard, Os Sindicatos…; De Jong, “A Concepção Libertária da Transformação Social Revolucionária”; Errandonea, Sociologia da Dominação; Van der Walt, “Revolução Mundial”; ZACF, “Luta de Classes, Capitalismo…”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social….
64. ACG, “A Política…”; BRRN, “Virando o Jogo”; Rowe, “A Política das Vozes”; ZACF, “Luta de Classes, Capitalismo…”, “Anti-Imperialismo…”, “Lutando e Combatendo…”, “Lutando pela Liberdade…”, “Opressão…”; Van der Walt, “Revolução Mundial”, “Entrevista KDVS”; FAU, “Copei”; Bookchin, “A Esquerda que se Foi”; Fraser, Capitalismo…
65. ACG, “A Política…”; BRRN, “Virando o Jogo”; Rowe, “A Política das Vozes”; ZACF, “Luta de Classes, Capitalismo…”, “Anti-Imperialismo…”, “Lutando e Combatendo…”, “Lutando pela Liberdade…”, “Opressão…”; Van der Walt, “Revolução Mundial”, “Entrevista KDVS”; FAU, “Copei”; Bookchin, “A Esquerda que se Foi”; Fraser, Capitalismo…
66. Bakunin, “Programa da Fraternidade Internacional”; Malatesta, “A Organização”; Makhno, “Nossa Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; Fabbri, “Organização Anarquista”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…
67. FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; Vasco, Concepção…; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…
68. Bakunin, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Carta a Morago”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Malatesta, “Organização”, “Em Torno…”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; RL, “O Partido Libertário”, “A Política das Frentes e a Função da Organização Anarquista”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…
69. Bakunin, “A Ciência…”, “A Dupla Greve…”, “Carta a Meus Amigos…”; Malatesta, “A Organização”, “A Organização das Massas Operárias Contra o Governo e os Patrões”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…; Proudhon, O que é a Propriedade.
70. Bakunin, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Carta a Morago”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Malatesta, “Organização”, “Em Torno…”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”, “Sindicato e Tendência”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; RL, “O Partido Libertário”, “A Política das Frentes e a Função da Organização Anarquista”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…
71. Bakunin, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Carta a Morago”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Malatesta, “Organização”, “Em Torno…”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”, “Sindicato e Tendência”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; RL, “O Partido Libertário”, “A Política das Frentes e a Função da Organização Anarquista”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…
72. Bakunin, “Carta a Morago”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Malatesta, “A Organização”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”, “O Problema Organizacional….; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…
73. Bakunin, “Estatutos Secretos da Aliança”, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Carta a Morago”, “Irmãos da Aliança…”; Lehning, “As Concepções de Bakunin sobre as Organizações Revolucionárias e seu Papel”; Malatesta, “Organização”, “A Preparação da Insurreição e os Partidos Subversivos”; Dunois, “Anarquismo e Organização”; Oiticica, “Críticas e Proposições Organizacionistas”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; FAKB, “Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”, “O que é Ideologia”, “Huerta Grande”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; RL, “O Partido Libertário”, “A Política das Frentes e a Função da Organização Anarquista”; Luta Libertária, “Socialismo Libertário”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…
75. Bakunin, “Estatutos Secretos…”, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Carta a Morago”; Malatesta, “A Organização”, “Ação e Disciplina”; Makhno, “Sobre a Disciplina Revolucionária”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”, “Suplemento…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; FAU, “A Organização Política Anarquista”; FARJ, Anarquismo Social…, “Reflexões sobre o Comprometimento, a Responsabilidade e a Autodisciplina”.
76. Bakunin, “Carta a Morago”, “Programa da Fraternidade…”, “Estatutos Secretos…”; Malatesta, “A Organização”, “Ação e Disciplina”; Oiticica, “Críticas…”; Dielo Truda, “A Plataforma…”; Fontenis, “Manifesto…”; Mechoso, A Estratégia…; RL, “O Partido Libertário”.
77. FARJ, Anarquismo Social…