http://libcom.org/library/call-venezuela-anarchists-latin-america-world-solidarity-much-more-written-word-el-liber
In a rundown of what local anarchism says today, the present juncture shows the fascist nature of the Chávez regime -and its sequence with Maduro-, reactionary militarist governments that we have denounced forever in El Libertario. It has been a regime linked to crime, drug trafficking, looting, corruption, imprisonment of opponents, torture, disappearances, apart from the disastrous economic, social, cultural and ethical management. Chávez managed to impact with his messianic and charismatic leadership, financed by the rise of the price of oil, however after his death and with the end of the bonanza, the so-called Bolivarian process deflated, being supported by weak bases. This “revolution” followed the historical rentist tradition initiated at the beginning of the 20th century with the dictator Juan Vicente Gómez, continued by the militarist Marcos Pérez Jiménez, and did not cease in the later representative democratic scheme.
pogfan1996 posted:Anarchism.txt
http://libcom.org/library/call-venezuela-anarchists-latin-america-world-solidarity-much-more-written-word-el-liber
In a rundown of what local anarchism says today, the present juncture shows the fascist nature of the Chávez regime -and its sequence with Maduro-, reactionary militarist governments that we have denounced forever in El Libertario. It has been a regime linked to crime, drug trafficking, looting, corruption, imprisonment of opponents, torture, disappearances, apart from the disastrous economic, social, cultural and ethical management. Chávez managed to impact with his messianic and charismatic leadership, financed by the rise of the price of oil, however after his death and with the end of the bonanza, the so-called Bolivarian process deflated, being supported by weak bases. This “revolution” followed the historical rentist tradition initiated at the beginning of the 20th century with the dictator Juan Vicente Gómez, continued by the militarist Marcos Pérez Jiménez, and did not cease in the later representative democratic scheme.
The really disturbing thing are the comments. I expect a CIA funded org to sell imperialism as anarchism, but most people agree and spout things like "So it's little different from when anarchists and communists criticised the the USSR, the Cuban revolution, the Hanoi government, the ANC, the Sandinistas, the Mujahadeen Khalk, Colonel Ghadaffi and the IRA that we were all somehow in cahoots with the CIA, Ronald Reagan, Thatcher, the Brits... and were also "middle class". Um...yes?
And the response to that of "It's pretty much always a variation on this same argument" and "Yawn at the Red-Brown, antisemitic "Soros" bullshit." I know an important part of being a western petty bourgeois anarchist is being "interesting" since that's every "post-colonialist" leftist in academia but when the basic understanding that imperialism exists is too unoriginal and boring holy hell you are so deserate for attention. Of course that guy could be and probably is CIA too but damn anarchists are silly when they're not dangerous.
Here for more awful comments and one hilarious one:
http://libcom.org/forums/general/el-libertario-venezuela-fake-anarchists-where-get-info-venezuela-29032014
And I have seen no more evidence of their involvement with the CIA than I have any member of the London anarchy scene.
that is unintentionally a correct statement.
I think in both cases as well the anarchists, such as they are, come mainly from the relatively better off and educated (and probably also whiter) sectors rather than from among the uneducated and poor. Does this make them middle class? Probably it depends on your definition and in practice people seem to use ideas of class differently according to context and the argument they're trying to make. I tend to avoid the term for this reason. People who are educated, have regular jobs and don't live in a favela still have to sell their labour to get by, even if they have more of a first world standard of living (maybe not so different from most of the people reading libcom). I doubt that the people involved in El Libertario are so different to other Latin American anarchists in this regard.
This guy is so close lmao
There's a bit more to it than this though. I think El Libertario lack a 'class' basis to their approach sometimes and tend to see themselves as activists rather than workers. Having said that, i honestly think it's different to operate in an environment where there is a state which has recuperated terms like socialism, class power, etc. El Libertario do participate in 'labour' issues, but very much as activists. I was surprised hwen I was out there to see a very violent strike by manual workers at the university most of them operate out of which they were basically ignoring.
My main take about the limits of anarchism is that they don't really seem to have a conception of the stuff that they do as playing a role within a political project. It seems their plan is more or less just that everybody eventually becomes an anarchist like them. Communists have the party form and they understand the party as having a special role that it plays in relation to workers in general who are not necessarily members of the party, but anarchists don't really seem to think like that in their organizing, so it only ever goes so far.
Another thing is that anarchists totally do have hierarchies and leadership positions and stuff because of course, but it's all de facto and unacknowledged and there is no official structure because everyone wants to pretend that it's all horizontal, which means that there's also no structure for accountability and when someone with power acts shitty it can be pretty messy to deal with.
Also in general Anarchists just seem to have a lot of liberalism and idealism in the way they think about things. They understand why liberals are bad but they still fall prey to some pretty basic mistakes. Anarchists come off as having basically the right idea but trying to reinvent everything about leftism from scratch. They have no institutional memory because they have no institutions.
Edited by proceduraldialectics ()
toyotathon posted:at its core, modern US anarchism isn't a theory of how to change the world. it's an ethical system wedded to horizontalist organizing techniques.
this really captures contemporary anarchism in such a succinct way, jibes so much with my own experiences working with anarchists. thanks
proceduraldialectics posted:I live in a city that's full of anarchists and they are actually a lot better organized than our local pathetic vestigial communist parties, so I end up working with anarchists most of the time in practice.
they're well organized, but not well organized to accomplish any long term strategic goals. they're well organized to have a dance party or a poetry night, or to do a banner drop that everyone ignores, or to show up with some black&red flags for may day. they might even be well organized enough to start a single wildcat strike that will last a couple days before everyone's had their cathartic fill and goes back to work with no demands met (if they remembered to make any demands.)
they're very well organized to be a recreational social activity club. they're my friends, and we do fun friend things together 