Life After Capitalism 포럼(WSF3, Porto Alegre, 2003)의 일부로 Andrej Grubacic이 제공한 강연의 대략적인 사본입니다.
A friend of mine has written recently that: “no one needs another -ism from19th century, another word which imprisons and fixes meaning, another word that seduces a number of people into the clarity and comfort of a sectarian box and leads others in front of the firing squad or a show trial. Labels lead so easily to fundamentalism, brands inevitably breed intolerance, delineating doctrines, defining dogma, and limiting the possibility of change”.
It is really difficult not to agree with this attitude. However, today it is exactly my pleasant duty to present an -ism, and that is the – ism which is the dominant perspective of today’s post-Marxist global social movement. It is anarchism. This idea, the idea of anarchism, has coloured the sensibility of the “movement of movements” of which we are the participants, and has stamped it with a essential inscription. Anarchism, its ethical paradigm, represents today the basic inspiration of our movement, which is less about seizing state power than about exposing, de-legitimising and dismantling mechanisms of rule while winning ever-larger spaces of autonomy from it.
It is my intention, in this couple of minutes that I have at my disposal, to present to you in short the history of anarchism, in order to be able to subsequently suggest a model of modern anarchism and strategic implications which follow from accepting of such a model.
I am inclined to agree with those who see anarchism as a tendency in the history of human thought and practice, a tendency which cannot be encompassed by a general theory of ideology, that strives to identify compulsory and authoritarian hierarchical social structures, by posing a question of their legitimacy: if they cannot answer to this challenge, which is most often the case, then anarchism becomes the effort to limit their power and to widen the scope of liberty.
Anarchism is, therefore, is a social phenomenon and its contents as well as manifestations in political activity change with time. One thing that is special about anarchism is that, unlike all major ideologies , it could never have had a stable and continuous existence on the ground through being in government or a part of a party system. Its history and contemporary characteristics are therefore determined by another factor – cycles of political struggle. As a result, anarchism has a ‘generational’ tendency in the sense that you can identify pretty discreet phases of its history according to the period of struggle in which they were shaped. . Naturally, as any other attempt at conceptualisation, this one is also doomed to be simplified. I hope that, regardless of this, it will be useful for the understanding of this social phenomenon.
Historically, the first phase was shaped by late 19th century class struggles in Europe and is exemplified both theoretically and practically by the Bakuninist faction in the 1st international. It starts in the run-up to 1848, peaks with the Paris Commune (1871) and dwindles through the 80’s.
It is quite an embryonic form of anarchism, mixing together anti-state tendencies, anti-capitalism and atheism while retaining an essential dependence on the skilled urban proletariat as a revolutionary agent. Bekunin, that magnificent dreamer, that “dynamite, not a man”, who, in 1848, shouted that ” Beethoven’s Ninth symphony should be saved from the coming fires of the world revolution at the price of giving up one’s life”, has bequeathed to us one of the most beautiful and perhaps the most precise descriptions of a single leading idea within the anarchist tradition: “I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each — an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom”.
1890년대부터 러시아 내전까지의 두 번째 단계에서는 동유럽으로의 상당한 이동이 나타나므로 농업에 더 초점을 맞춥니다. 이론적으로 이것이 크로포트킨의 무정부주의-공산주의가 가장 지배적인 특징인 곳이다. 이는 마흐노의 군대로 정점을 이루고 볼셰비키의 승리 이후 중부 유럽 저류로 이어진다. 20년대부터 40년대 후반까지의 세 번째 단계는 다시 중부 및 서부 유럽에 초점을 맞추고 다시 산업 지향적입니다.
Theoretically it is the peak of anarcho-syndicalism, with much of the work being done by exiles from Russia. In this moment the differentiation between two basic traditions in the history of anarchism has become clearly visible: anarcho-communist and one might think, say, of Kropotkin as a representative- and, on the other hand, the one of anarcho-syndicalism which simply regarded anarchist ideas as the proper mode for organization of highly complex, advanced industrial societies. And that tendency in anarchism merges, or inter-relates, with a variety of left wing Marxism, the kind one finds in, say, the Council Communists that grew up in a Luxembourgian tradition and that is later represented, in a very exciting fashion, by Marxist theorists like Anton Pannekoek.
제2차 세계대전 이후 무정부주의는 경제 재건으로 인해 큰 침체를 겪었고, 남부의 반제국주의 투쟁에서는 극히 미미하게 표면에 드러났지만, 이 투쟁은 친소련 영향력이 상당히 지배적이었습니다. 60년대와 70년대의 투쟁에는 여전히 역사의 무게를 짊어지고 있고 계급 지향적이지 않은 새로운 정치 언어에 아직 적응할 수 없었던 무정부주의의 심각한 고조가 포함되지 않았습니다. 따라서 반전 운동, 페미니즘, 상황주의, 블랙 파워 등을 통해 매우 다양한 그룹에서 아나키스트 성향을 찾을 수 있지만, 아나키즘으로 확실하게 식별할 수 있는 것은 없습니다. 명시적으로 이 시기의 '무정부주의' 그룹은 이전 두 단계(공산주의와 혁명적 생디칼리스트)를 어느 정도 재진술했으며 상당히 종파적이었습니다. 이러한 새로운 형태의 정치적 표현에 참여하는 대신 그들은 스스로를 폐쇄하고 일반적으로 매우 종파적인 표현을 채택했습니다. 소위 "플랫폼주의" Maknoist 전통의 무정부주의자와 같은 엄격한 헌장. 그러니까 이게 '유령' XNUMX세대인 거죠.
Arriving at the present, we have two co-existing generations within anarchism: people whose political formation took place in the 60s and 70s (which is actually a reincarnation of the second and third generations), and younger people who are much more informed, among other elements, by indigenous, feminist, ecological and culture-criticism thinking. The former exists in as various Anarchist Federations, the IWW, IWA, NEFAC and the like. The latter’s incarnation is most prominent in the networks of the new social movement. From my perspective Peoples Global Action is the main organ of the current fifth generation of anarchism. What is sometimes confusing is that one of the characteristics of current anarchism is that its constituent individuals and groups do not usually refer to themselves as anarchists. There are some who take anarchist principles of anti-sectarianism and open-endedness so seriously that they are sometimes reluctant to call themselves ‘anarchists’ for that very reason.
But the three essentials that run throughout all manifestations of anarchist ideology are definitely there – anti-statism, anti-capitalism and prefigurative politics (i.e. modes of organization that consciously resemble the world you want to create. Or, as an anarchist historian of the revolution in Spain has formulated “an effort to think of not only the ideas but the facts of the future itself”.) This is present in anything from jamming collectives and on to Indy media, all of which can be called anarchist with the understanding that we are referring to a new form . There is quite a limited degree of confluence between the two coexisting generations, mostly taking the form of following what each other is doing – but not much more.
그러므로 현대 아나키즘에 스며드는 기본적인 딜레마는 아나키즘에 대한 전통주의적 개념과 현대적 개념 사이의 딜레마이다. 두 경우 모두 우리는 그러한 종류의 “전통으로부터의 탈피”의 증인입니다.
I dare say that “traditionalist anarchists” have not fully understood the tradition. The very word “tradition” has two historical meanings: namely, one is more familiar and more widespread, and that is the meaning of folklore – “tales, beliefs, customs and behavioural norms”, while the other meaning is less familiar, and that reads: pass on, hand down, articulate, confer, recommend . Why do I call attention to, but also over-emphasize, this difference in the explanation of the word tradition? Exactly because of the possibility that the term tradition can, in the history of ideas, be comprehended in two different ways. One way (probably a more common one) is that tradition is accepted as a completed structure that cannot or should not be changed further on, but should be preserved in its solid state and passed on into the future, unchanged. Such an understanding of tradition is connected to that part of the human nature which is referred to as conservative, and which is prone to stereotypic behaviour, Freud would even say ” the compulsion of repetition”. The other meaning of tradition, which I advocate here, relates to the new and creative way of reviving the experience of tradition. Such a, let us say immediately, positive way of conveying, has been put into effect of the other side of the general human nature, provisionally deemed revolutionary, along the lines of paradoxically expressed truth: a wish for a change and, at the same time, a healthy need to remain the same.
“전통으로부터의 탈피”의 또 다른 형태는 무정부주의에 대한 다양한 포스트모던적 해석에 도피하는 것이다.
나는 무정부주의에 대한 “환멸”, 포스트모더니즘 허무주의, 반합리주의, 신원시주의, 문화 테러리즘, “시뮬라크르”의 꿈에서 깨어난 막스 베버의 말을 인용할 때가 왔다고 생각합니다. 이제 계몽주의 프로젝트의 지적, 정치적 맥락에 무정부주의를 복원할 때입니다. 이는 “객관적 지식은 개인이 스스로 정보에 입각한 결정을 내릴 수 있도록 사용되는 도구”라는 이해에 지나지 않습니다. 유명한 고야의 그림에 따르면 이성은 꿈을 꾸면 괴물이 나오지 않고 잠을 자면 괴물이 나온다.
오늘날 현대 아나키즘 내에서는 다양한 세대 간의 대화가 필요하다고 말하고 싶습니다. 현대 무정부주의는 수많은 모순으로 가득 차 있습니다. 이분법을 주장하는 대부분의 현대 무정부주의 사상가들의 습관에 굴복하는 것만으로는 충분하지 않습니다. '또는-또는' 사고방식의 배타성을 버리고 토론에 들어가 종합을 찾는 것이 좋을 것입니다. 그러한 합성 모델이 가능합니까? 제가 보기엔 그럴 것 같습니다.
A new model of modern anarchism, which can be discerned today within the new social movement, is the one that insists on widening the anti-authoritarian focus, as well as on deserting the class reductionism. Such a model endeavours to recognize the “totality of domination”, that is, “to highlight only the state but also gender relations, and not only the economy but also cultural relations and ecology, sexuality, and freedom in every form it can be sought, and each not only through the sole prism of authority relations, but also informed by richer and more diverse concepts. This model not only doesn’t decry technology per se, but it becomes familiar with and employs diverse types of technology as appropriate. It not only doesn’t decry institutions per se, or political forms per se, it tries to conceive new institutions and new political forms for activism and for a new society, including new ways of meeting, new ways of decision making, new ways of coordinating, and so on, most recently including revitalized affinity groups and original spokes structures. And it not only doesn’t decry reforms per se, but it struggles to define and win non-reformist reforms, attentive to people’s immediate needs and bettering people’s lives now as well as moving toward further gains, and eventually transformational gains, in the future.”
Anarchism can become effective only if it contains three, encompassed, components: worker’s organizations, activists and researchers. How to create a basis for a modern anarchism on intellectual, syndicate, and popular level? There are several interventions in favour of an another anarchism, which would be capable of promoting the values I mentioned above. First of all, I think it is necessary for anarchism to become reflexive. What do I mean by this? Intellectual struggle must reaffirm its place in modern anarchism.It appears that one of the basic weaknesses of the anarchist movement today is, with respect to the time of, say, Kropotkin or Recluse, or Herbert Read, exactly the neglecting of the symbolic, and overlooking of the effectiveness of theory.
Instead of the anarchists’ criticizing of the popular Marxists post-modern fairy-tale “Empire”, they should write an anarchist Empire. Marxist religion has, for a long time, referred to the theory and, by this, has given itself a scientific appearance and the possibility to act as a theory. What anarchism today requires is the overcoming of extremes of anti-intellectualism and intellectualism. Like Noam Chomsky, I also have neither sympathy nor patience for such ideas. I believe that the antagonism between science and anarchism should not exist: ” Within the anarchist tradition there has been a certain feeling that there is something regimented or oppressive about science itself. There is no argument that I know for irrationality, I don’t think that the methods of science amount to anything more than being reasonable, and I don’t see why anarchist shouldn’t be reasonable”. Like Chomsky, I have even less patience for an unusual trend that has spread, in various manifestations, within anarchism itself: “”It strikes me as remarkable that left intellectuals today should seek to deprive oppressed people not only of the joys of understanding and insight, but also of tools of emancipation, informing us that project of Enlightenment is dead, that we must abandon the illusions of science and rationality – a message that will gladden the hearts of the powerful…”
더 나아가 우리 앞에는 일종의 아나키스트 연구자를 구상하는 과제가 놓여 있다. 아나키스트 연구자의 역할은 무엇인가? 그녀는 구좌파 지식인들이 하는 것처럼 강의를 하지 않을 것입니다. 그녀는 교사가 되어서는 안 되며, 새롭고 매우 어려운 역할을 구상하는 사람이 되어야 합니다. 그녀는 듣고, 탐구하고, 발견해야 합니다. 그녀의 역할은 객관적인 담론 뒤에 조심스럽게 숨겨져 있는 지배 엘리트의 관심을 폭로하는 것입니다.
She has to help activists and to supply them with facts. It is necessary to invent a new form of communication between activists and activist scholars. It is necessary to create a collective mechanism that would connect liberterian scientists, workers and activists. It is necessary to found anarchist institutes, reviews, scientific communities, internationales. I believe that sectarianism, unfortunately a very widespread phenomenon in modern anarchism, would in this way loose its power, as the consequence of such an effort. One of the organised attempts to resist sectarianism in modern anarchism is the outline of the new anarchist international, which I have recently been given, and which I will now read to you.
THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL is an initiative meant to provide a venue for anarchists in all parts of the world who wish to express their solidarity with each other, facilitate communication and coordination, learn from one another’s efforts and experiences, and encourage a more powerful anarchist voice and perspective in radical politics everywhere, but who wish to do so in a form which rejects all traces of sectarianism, vanguardism, and revolutionary elitism. We do not see anarchism as a philosophy invented in 19th century Europe, but rather, as the very theory and practice of freedom – that genuine freedom which is not constructed on the backs of others – an ideal that has been endlessly rediscovered, dreamed and fought for on every continent and in every period of human history. Anarchism will always have a thousand strands, because diversity will always be part of the essence of freedom, but creating webs of solidarity can make all of them more powerful.
********* 특징: *********
1) 우리가 아나키스트인 이유는 인간의 자유와 행복이 자기조직화, 자발적 결사, 상호부조의 원칙에 기초한 사회에서 가장 잘 보장될 것이라고 믿기 때문이며, 체계적 폭력에 기초한 모든 형태의 사회적 관계를 거부하기 때문입니다. 국가나 자본주의처럼요.
2) 그러나 우리는 근본적으로 반종파적입니다. 이는 다음 두 가지를 의미합니다.
a) 우리는 플랫폼주의자, 생디칼리스트, 원시주의자, 반란주의자 등 특정 형태의 무정부주의를 서로에게 강요하려고 시도하지 않습니다. 우리는 이러한 근거로 누구도 배제하고 싶지 않습니다. 우리는 인종차별, 성차별, 근본주의 등과 같은 지배 구조에 대한 공통 거부에 의해서만 제한되는 다양성을 그 자체의 원칙으로 소중히 여깁니다.
b) 우리는 아나키즘을 하나의 교리라기보다는 자유롭고 정의로우며 지속 가능한 사회를 향한 운동 과정으로 보기 때문에 아나키스트는 자신을 아나키스트로 정체화하는 사람들과의 협력에만 국한되어서는 안 되며 적극적으로 추구해야 한다고 믿습니다. 동일한 광범위한 해방 원칙에 기초한 세상을 만들기 위해 노력하는 모든 사람과 협력하고 실제로 그로부터 배우는 것입니다. 인터내셔널의 목적 중 하나는 이를 촉진하는 것입니다. 두 가지 모두 사실상 무정부주의자인 전 세계 수백만 명 중 일부가 그 분야에서 활동한 다른 사람들의 생각과 접촉하는 것을 더 쉽게 만드는 것입니다. 동일한 전통과 동시에 그들의 경험과의 접촉을 통해 무정부주의 전통 자체를 풍요롭게 합니다.
3) 우리는 모든 형태의 전위주의를 거부하고 무정부주의 지식인의 적절한 역할(모든 사람에게 열려 있어야 하는 역할)은 지속적인 대화에 참여하는 것이라고 믿습니다. 지시의 정신이 아니라 선물의 정신으로 그 경험에 대한 성찰의 열매를 돌려주십시오.
4) 이러한 원칙을 받아들이는 사람은 누구나 아나키스트 인터내셔널의 회원이며, 아나키스트 인터내셔널의 회원인 모든 사람은 원할 경우 대변인 역할을 할 수 있는 권한을 부여받습니다. 우리는 다양성을 중요하게 생각하기 때문에 원칙 자체를 수용하는 것 외에는 견해의 통일성을 기대하지 않습니다(그리고 물론 그러한 다양성이 존재한다는 인정도 필요합니다).
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.
코디네이터 클래스에 대해 주목할 또 다른 점은 지배 클래스가 될 수 있다는 것입니다. 이것이 사실 소련과 소위 공산주의 국가들의 진정한 역사적 의미입니다. 실제로는 코디네이터 클래스에 권한을 부여하는 시스템입니다.
마지막으로, 나는 현대 아나키즘이 정치적 비전을 구상하는 방향으로 전환해야 한다고 믿습니다.
이것은 다양한 아나키즘 학파가 매우 특정한 형태의 사회 조직을 옹호하지 않았다는 것을 의미하지는 않습니다. 비록 종종 서로 현저한 차이가 있기는 하지만 말입니다. 그러나 본질적으로 아나키즘 전체는 자유주의자들이 '부정적 자유'라고 부르는 것, 즉 실질적인 '~에 대한 자유'보다는 형식적인 '~로부터의 자유'를 발전시켰습니다.
실제로 아나키즘은 종종 자신의 다원주의, 이데올로기적 관용 또는 창의성의 증거로 부정적인 자유에 대한 헌신을 찬양했습니다. 참고로, 무국적 무정부 사회를 가능하게 하는 역사적 상황을 밝히는 무정부주의의 실패는 오늘날까지 해결되지 않은 채로 남아 있는 무정부주의 사상의 문제를 야기했습니다. 얼마 전 한 친구가 나에게 "너희 무정부주의자들은 항상 손을 깨끗하게 유지하려고 애쓰다 결국 손이 전혀 없게 된다"고 말했다. 나는 이 발언이 바로 정치적 비전에 대한 더 진지한 사고의 부족과 관련이 있다고 믿습니다.
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.”
마지막으로, 그러한 모델을 홍보하는 것의 전략적 의미는 무엇입니까?
나는 무정부주의 활동가들과 여러 차례 접촉하여 공감도 설명도 할 수 없는 전략적 제안을 들었습니다. 우리는 상황이 더 나아지도록 노력하고 더 나쁘게 살아야 한다고 말합니다. “나쁠수록 좋다”는 이런 이상한 논리보다는 “우리의 바닥을 넓히는” 전략을 옹호하는 아르헨티나 무정부주의자들의 조언을 듣는 것이 더 현명하고 훨씬 합리적일 것이라고 생각합니다. . 대신 그러한 전략은 현재 사람들의 조건과 선택을 개선하고 미래에 더 많은 승리를 위한 기회를 창출하는 방식으로 혁명이 아닌 개혁을 위해 싸우고 승리하는 것이 가능하다는 것을 이해하게 될 것입니다. 즉, 이 전략은 새로운 사회의 옹호자가 된다는 것이 사람들의 현재 고통과 고통을 무시하는 것을 보장하는 것이 아니라, 현재의 질병을 해결하고 상황을 즉각적으로 개선하기 위해 노력할 때 그렇게 해야 한다는 것을 보장한다는 것을 이해할 것입니다. 우리의 의식을 높이고, 구성원에게 권한을 부여하고, 조직을 발전시키는 방식으로 새로운 정의의 경제 및 사회 구조를 만드는 지속적인 변화의 궤적을 이끌어냅니다. 새장의 바닥을 확장한다고 해서 임금 인상, 전쟁 종식, 차별 철폐 조치, 더 나은 노동 조건, 참여 예산, 진보적이거나 급진적인 세금, 전액 임금을 받는 주당 근무 시간 단축, IMF든 뭐든 투쟁을 통해 사람들의 의식과 조직이 발전하는 현실을 존중하고, 삶의 질을 향상시키려는 사람들의 용감한 노력을 활동가들 사이에서 멸시하는 일을 적극적으로 피할 것이기 때문입니다.
결론적으로, 나는 현대 아나키즘의 그러한 모델이 현재 자본주의의 공포 속에서 계몽주의의 가치를 되찾고 마침내 그 잠재력을 최대한 실현하게 하는 포스트 마르크스주의 운동을 건설하는 중요한 역할을 할 수 있다고 생각합니다. .
고맙습니다.
* 내 친구 David Graeber, Uri Gordon, Michael Albert에게 감사의 말씀을 전하고 싶습니다. 여기에서 읽은 아이디어는 실제로 그들 중 한 사람이 발명한 것일 수도 있습니다.
ZNetwork는 독자들의 관대함을 통해서만 자금을 조달합니다.
후원