Груби транскрипт говора Андреја Грубачића у оквиру форума Живот после капитализма (ВСФ3, Порто Алегре, 2003.)
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”.
Друга фаза, од 1890-их до грађанског рата у Русији, види значајан помак ка Источној Европи и стога је јаснијег аграрног фокуса. Теоретски, овде је Кропоткинов анархо-комунизам најдоминантнија карактеристика. Она достиже врхунац са Махновом војском и преноси се, након победе бољшевика, у централно-европску подвалну струју. Трећа фаза, од 20-их до касних 40-их година, поново је усмерена на средњу и западну Европу и поново је индустријски оријентисана.
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.
После Другог светског рата, анархизам је доживео велики пад услед економске реконструкције и појављује се само маргинално у антиимперијалистичким борбама на југу, којима, међутим, прилично доминира просовјетски утицај. Борбе 2-их и 60-их нису садржале озбиљан пораст анархизма, који је још увек носио мртву тежину своје историје и још није могао да се прилагоди новом политичком језику који није био класно оријентисан. Стога можете пронаћи анархистичке склоности у веома различитим групама, у распону од антиратног покрета, феминизма, ситуационизам, црначке моћи итд., али не било шта што се позитивно може идентификовати као анархизам. Експлицитно 'анархистичке' групе из овог периода биле су мање-више понављање претходне две етапе (комунистички и револуционарни синдикалистички), и прилично секташке – уместо да се баве овим новим облицима политичког изражавања, затварале су се за њих и обично усвајале веома круте повеље попут анархистичке такозване „платформистичке“ макноистичке традиције. Дакле, ово је 'дух' четврта генерација.
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.
Основна дилема која прожима савремени анархизам је, дакле, она између традиционалистичке и модерне концепције анархизма. У оба случаја сведоци смо „беговања од традиције“ те врсте.
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.
Други облик „бежања од традиције” је онај који тражи уточиште у разним постмодерним интерпретацијама анархизма.
Мислим да је крајње време за извесно, да цитирам Макса Вебера, „разочарање“ анархизма, буђење из сна постмодернистичког нихилизма, антирационализма, неопримитивизма, културног тероризма, „симулакрума“. Време је да се анархизам врати у интелектуални и политички контекст пројекта просветитељства који није ништа друго до схватање да је „објективно знање оруђе које треба користити како би појединци могли сами да доносе одлуке на основу информација“. Разум, каже чувена Гојина слика, не производи чудовишта када сања, већ када спава
Рекао бих да је данас неопходан дијалог између различитих генерација у оквиру савременог анархизма. Савремени анархизам је прожет безброј противречности. Није довољно предати се навици већине савремених анархистичких мислилаца који инсистирају на дихотомијама. Било би добро напустити искључивост „или – или” начина размишљања и ући у расправе, у потрази за синтезом. Да ли је могућ такав синтетички модел? Чини ми се да јесте.
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…”
Пред нама је, даље, задатак да замислимо тип анархистичког истраживача. Која би била улога анархистичког истраживача? Она сигурно не би држала предавања, као стари левичари интелектуалци. Она не треба да буде учитељица, већ неко ко предвиђа нову и веома тешку улогу: она мора да слуша, истражује и открива. Њена улога је да разоткрије интересе доминантне елите пажљиво скривене иза наводно објективних дискурса.
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.
******* ЗНАКОВИ: ********
1) Ми смо анархисти јер верујемо да би људску слободу и срећу најбоље гарантовало друштво засновано на принципима самоорганизовања, добровољног удруживања и узајамне помоћи и зато што одбацујемо све облике друштвених односа заснованих на системском насиљу, као нпр. као држава или капитализам.
2) Ми смо, међутим, дубоко антисекташки, под тим мислимо на две ствари:
а) не покушавамо да наметнемо било који одређени облик анархизма једни другима: платформисти, синдикалисти, примитивисти, инсурекционисти или било који други. Нити не желимо никога да искључимо по овој основи – ценимо различитост као принцип сам по себи, ограничен само нашим заједничким одбацивањем структура доминације као што су расизам, сексизам, фундаментализам, итд.
б) пошто анархизам не видимо као доктрину колико процес кретања ка слободном, праведном и одрживом друштву, верујемо да анархисти не би требало да се ограничавају на сарадњу са онима који се идентификују као анархисти, већ треба да активно траже да сарађује са сваким ко ради на стварању света заснованог на тим истим широким слободарским принципима и, у ствари, учи од њих. Једна од сврха Интернационале је да ово олакша: и да нам олакша довођење неких од оних милиона широм света који су, у ствари, анархисти, а да то не знају, у додир са мислима других који су радили у томе исте традиције, и да, у исто време, обогате саму анархистичку традицију кроз контакт са њиховим искуствима
3) Одбацујемо све облике авангардизма и верујемо да је права улога анархистичког интелектуалца (улога која треба да буде отворена за све) да учествује у текућем дијалогу: да учи из искуства популарне изградње заједнице и борбе и понудити плодове размишљања о том искуству не у духу диктата, већ дара
4) Свако ко прихвата ове принципе је члан Анархистичке интернационале и свако ко је члан Анархистичке интернационале је овлашћен да делује као портпарол ако то жели. Пошто ценимо различитост, не очекујемо уједначеност погледа осим прихватања самих принципа (и, наравно, признања да таква разноликост постоји)
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.
Још једна ствар коју треба напоменути у вези са класом координатора је да она може бити владајућа класа. То је у ствари право историјско значење Совјетског Савеза и других такозваних комунистичких земаља. Они су у ствари системи који оснажују класу координатора.
Коначно, верујем да се савремени анархизам мора окренути замишљању политичке визије.
То не значи да различите школе анархизма нису заговарале врло специфичне облике друштвене организације, иако често у значајној супротности једна с другом. У суштини, међутим, анархизам је у целини унапредио оно што либерали називају „негативном слободом“, што ће рећи, формалном „слободом од“, а не суштинском „слободом да“.
Заиста, анархизам је често славио своју посвећеност негативној слободи као доказ сопственог плурализма, идеолошке толеранције или креативности. Међутим, неуспех анархизма да изнесе историјске околности које би омогућиле анархично друштво без државности произвело је проблеме у анархистичкој мисли који су остали нерешени до данас. Један пријатељ ми је, не тако давно, рекао да „ви анархисти увек настојите да вам руке буду чисте, тако да на крају останете без руку“. Верујем да се ова примедба односи управо на недостатак озбиљнијег размишљања о политичкој визији.
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.”
Коначно, које би биле стратешке импликације промовисања таквог модела?
Више пута сам у контакту са анархистичким активистима чуо стратешки предлог за који немам ни симпатије ни објашњења. Треба, кажу, да се потрудимо и да живимо лошије да би било боље. За разлику од ове изванредне логике, која гласи „што горе, то боље“, мислим да би било мудрије, и далеко разумније, послушати савете аргентинских анархиста који заговарају стратегију „проширења пода кавеза“ . Таква стратегија ће разумети, уместо тога, да је могуће борити се и победити у реформама које нису револуционарне на начин да се побољшају услови и опције људи сада, а такође се стварају могућности за даље победе у будућности. Ова стратегија ће разумети, то јест, да бити заговорник новог друштва не гарантује игнорисање садашњег бола и патње људи, али гарантује да када радимо на решавању тренутних болести и радимо на томе да ствари одмах побољшамо, то треба да урадимо на начине који подижу нашу свест, оснажују наше бираче и развијају наше организације и који стога доводе до путање текућих промена које кулминирају новим дефинисањем економских и друштвених структура. Проширење пода кавеза неће одбацити краткорочне борбе људи за веће плате, прекид рата, афирмативну акцију, боље услове рада, партиципативни буџет, прогресивни или радикални порез, краћу радну недељу са пуном платом, укидање ММФ, или било шта друго – јер ће поштовати реалност како се свест и организације људи развијају кроз борбу, и агресивно избегавати ону врсту презира међу активистима за храбре напоре људи да побољшају квалитет свог живота.
Да закључим, мислим да би такав модел модерног анархизма могао имати значајну улогу, а то је да изгради, усред тренутних ужаса капитализма, постмарксистички покрет који би повратио вредности просветитељства и натерао их да коначно остваре свој пуни потенцијал. .
Хвала.
* Желео бих да се захвалим својим пријатељима Дејвиду Греберу, Урију Гордону и Мајклу Алберту. Било коју идеју коју овде прочитате можда је заиста измислио један од њих.
ЗНетворк се финансира искључиво захваљујући великодушности својих читалаца.
поклонити