Anarchism and Revolutionary Syndicalism - A critical review of the book

Chuck0's picture

by Fabiana Toledo, from the visions of Michael Schmidt, Lucien van der Walt and Alexandre Samis b

by Felipe I.

In this article, we attempt to discuss the concepts of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism, placing them within their historical contexts, both in Brazil and abroad, and compare what Fabiana Toledo argues in his book Anarchism and Revolutionary Syndicalism: workers and activists in Sao Paulo the First Republic. To do this, we use two great books published in 2009, but unfortunately not yet available in Brazil: Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt (South Africa), and My Homeland is the Whole World: Neno Vasco, anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism in two worlds, Alexandre Samis (Brazil).

"Anarchism is a trade unionist from the cradle." Neno Vasco

Recently we had the opportunity to read the book Anarchism and Revolutionary Syndicalism: workers and activists in Sao Paulo during the First Republic of Fabiana Toledo, published in 2004 by publisher Abramo. In fact, in anarchist circles have already commented on the work a few years, mainly because of its central thesis that seeks to relieve the revolutionary syndicalism of anarchism in Brazil. In maintaining that in Brazil there was anarcho-syndicalism, but revolutionary syndicalism, the author tries to undo the bond that is anarchy, through a series of tests that do not hold up after further examination and careful.

Demonstrating not know nor understand the classical anarchism and its history - that we have initiated the first wave of a union of revolutionary intention, even in the 1860s - she mistook the underlying assumptions, resulting in distortion of the majority their conclusions. Impressed, in fact, the number of misleading statements or generalizing that demonstrate significant knowledge of the topic covered in the book.

In this article, we attempt to discuss the concepts of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism, placing them within their historical contexts, both in Brazil and abroad, and compare what the author argues in his book. To do this, we use two great books published in 2009, but unfortunately not yet available in Brazil: Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism, Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt (South Africa), and My Homeland is the Whole World: Neno Vasco, anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism in two worlds, Alexandre Samis (Brazil).

The first fruit of a 10-year-old has a comprehensive review and discuss anarchism and unionism around the world, both from a political analysis / sociological and historical. The only book which had access to their conclusions based on analysis of events surrounding anarchism and syndicalism in all corners of the world. The second, also a work that was the result of a long period of research, argues that anarchism and syndicalism in Brazil and Portugal, from the perspective of historical bibliography of organizacionista Neno Vasco. Certainly, in our view, the two best books on anarchism and syndicalism published recently, and they urgently need to be translated and published in Brazil.

Before we begin, it is important to make some clarifications. This article is not only a critical review of the book Edilene, which deals with counter their arguments with the historiographical material best known of anarchism. This could be done, but it was not our choice. The fact that we elected the works of Schmidt, van der Walt and Samis is deliberate, and also aims to question the way the history of anarchism has been addressed in several publications, Brazilian or not. Thus, the reader is more akin to the theme of anarchism may also be surprised, since the points of view supported, and the challenge that is placed on Anarchism and Revolutionary Syndicalism, aim to present an alternative reading of the history of anarchism which owned and carefully considered.

We believe that the three authors have chosen to develop this work from its reflection and research based in the theory - and thus, in fact - looking for her lessons for the analysis of historical, political and sociological. Thus, we believe that they do not seek to fit the story into an ideological conception itself; relatively common practice in left field.

Much of what has been publishing in the history of anarchism, despite having unquestionable relevancy incurs mistakes, which we believe are caused by the (in) definitions as to what is anarchism and syndicalism, and the way The various anarchists and their strategies advocated. And this is where Black Flame and My homeland is the whole world has to contribute, as they both understand, in our view, within the contexts in which they work, anarchism, syndicalism and understand that this relationship be between ideology and strategy.

These concepts of ideology and strategy will be used in the article to discuss anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism and it is a clarification regarding what is ideology and what is strategy. We will work with what he called "low significance" of ideology, regarding it as "a set of ideas and values relating to public order and with the task of supervising the collective political behavior" or as "a system of ideas associated with the action" , which include "a program and a strategy for its operations" [1]. So do not work with the so-called "strong meaning" of ideology, understood as a "false belief", a "negative concept denoting precisely the mystifying character of false consciousness of a political belief" [2]. Regarding the strategy, work with the view that it is the technique used to achieve a goal "and, therefore, is the" determination of strategy "and" choose the most effective means "to make you reach the goals set . "The strategy must be subordinate to politics, so the tactic is and can not be subordinated to strategy." [3] Although they are not concepts developed concurrently with trade unionism and anarchism, we can use them for this analysis without incurring in anachronism.

Please do not often make a distinction between what constitutes ideology - a set of ideas and values in political and ideological principles - and the strategy - choosing the most appropriate means to achieve certain purposes - we believe that many authors finished mixing anarchism, syndicalism and getting lost in trying to understand and analyze both.

For us, anarchism is an ideology that is formed from the European proletariat's struggle against the development of capitalism, constituting a kind of socialism. Thus, we can say that anarchism came in a relatively precise time of the nineteenth century, and can not be identified as a current anti-authoritarian who always been present in humanity. The fact that thinkers might call libertarian, but not anarchists - like William Godwin and Stirner, for example - are often included in the list of anarchists, makes a comparison between the libertarians and anarchists Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, the only similarity between them is the anti-statism. A similar conclusion comes from those who tend to define anarchism as a simple opposition to Marxism.

And do not agree that anarchism is the same as anti-statism - as well as several historians have defined - mainly because we understand anarchism as a kind of socialism, and therefore, in principle, anti-capitalist. Thus, we will work with the idea that since there has always been anti-authoritarian traits in humanity, which could be called libertarian. However, we can not call all libertarian anarchists, since the emergence of anarchism is connected to a specific historical context - the emergence of capitalism, the proletariat birth and development of socialism - and certain social practices that allow us to understand what was in Indeed, historically, its emergence and development. We will also work with the idea that anarchism and Marxism arise from the same popular movement, and has, therefore, similarities and differences.

This premise could generate controversy chosen, since it is possible to establish a criterion to define what or who is or is not or was or not an anarchist. It is not our intention to judge and say who owns the ideology, or who is not accepted by her. It's simply a matter of method. For us, the simple self-identification is not a correct criterion, since, historically, some of the anarchists who were not identified as such, while others, who identified themselves as anarchists, which practices had little or nothing came what was, and to some extent still is, anarchism, if it is defined from a social practice widely recognized.

Anarchism, understood from this social practice throughout its historical development, had different positions. In anarchism as an ideology formed by his political and ideological principles, has never been possible to find a unit on the best strategies and tactics to be used. As we consider and try to demonstrate, revolutionary syndicalism was not a different ideology of anarchism, but one of the strategies adopted by anarchism.

Thus, the criterion used in the analysis finds that anarchism is born and develops in a specific context, what is not necessarily libertarian anarchist, that self-identification is the most appropriate way to determine who is an anarchist and What is anarchism and anarchism defended historically distinct strategic positions. The criterion, therefore, seeks the reality of events taking these premises.

For this reason, we will seek, to discuss in some depth the concepts of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism, in referring to some references that seem most relevant to the topic. Therefore, although the book Fabiana Toledo has its focus in Brazil, when we discuss and define concepts, approaches and arguments, we often use international benchmarks, which we believe on the central themes. We will give a specific focus on Brazil towards the end of the article.

Finally, we question this article with a classification that has historically tended to regard "anarcho-syndicalist" all anarchists who defended the action and the unions as "anarcho-syndicalism" all the trade union movement that had wide influence anarchist. As we shall see, the traditional classification of the anarchists among anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists and anarcho-individualists can not deal with reality, and includes categories that overlap and are unclear as to the fundamental issues of ideology and strategy. We will work with new classifications and a distinction between unionism and anarco-sindicalismo/sindicalistas / revolutionary union (s) - which also calls into question a significant part of the historiography on the subject.

We therefore believe that while we will do a critical review of the book Fabiana Toledo, we will propose new perspectives to the debate, raising issues relevant to a historical, political and sociological anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism. We would like to receive comments, criticisms and suggestions, because we know that many of the points of view need further sustained. And do not judge to be proposing something finished, but merely a different reading, questioning various aspects of the topic, and is under permanent construction. And we have the proper humility to recognize that new investments are necessary and even essential.


As we have emphasized, we believe that the main purpose of the book Fabiana Toledo is releasing the anarchism of revolutionary syndicalism. Therefore, we think it essential to discuss the concepts of one and another. Discussed first, in some depth, the concept of anarchism. The author

Anarchy, etymologically, means no government, that is, anarchism is a political doctrine that holds that the state is harmful and unnecessary, there are viable alternatives for social organization voluntarily. Anarchist was - and is - who, through the free trial, aims to create a stateless society, changing it little by little, which are based on self-managed communities, where there is maximum freedom with maximum solidarity and fraternity . [4] "The anarchists wanted a complete transformation of society, solidarity, well-being of all, freedom, an end to violence, religions, private property, governments, parliaments, the army, the police, judiciary and all institutions considered authoritarian and violent. They proposed instead a society organized by free associations and federations of producers and consumers, formed and modified according to the will of the members, guided by science and experience and free of any charge which did not obtain the necessities of nature. These changes, however, for most anarchists, could not be imposed by violence, but should be achieved by human will: men should desire them. It was up to the anarchists the task of transforming men, convince them, awaken their will and creative industry. "[5]

So for Edilene, the anarchist ideology would oppose the rule - which stands out in its first definition by putting anarchism anti-state - and authoritarian institutions, such as private property - which in its second definition, puts anarchism also in opposition to capitalism. The means for this transformation would be largely rural, education and persuasion, in order to change the reality gradually, little by little, without the use of violence. Thus, anarchism seek to create a new company, which would be based on self-managed communities, associations and federations of producers and consumers, guided by science and natural needs.

This definition has something to do with anarchism, but confused with strategy and ideology, which seems more complicated, widespread strategies of anarchism.

The definitions of anarchism has always varied greatly, having been, throughout history, significantly different. A methodology has been widely used to define anarchism and its history was based on self-identification and common traits in all that could be called libertarian. As already emphasized, this methodology does not seem right, and helped a lot with this problem of definition. Using this method meant that anarchists were considered diverse thinkers and movements that, for a more careful analysis, could not have been.

The author herself has identified in his book this methodological problem by stating that "it was typical of anarchists refer to the history of anarchism as development of anti-authoritarian spirit through the history of humanity," considering that "his doctrine was in line with the aspirations fundamental human rights and that at all times people fought so ". Therefore, the "libertarian spirit" is "inherent in human nature, dating from the presence of man on Earth," which certainly approaches were defended even by persons of about anarchism, timely or not, as Kropotkin and Max Nettlau. In this way, "Tolstoy's followers" saw "Jesus Christ the true founder of anarchy", "others claimed Rabelais and La Boétie" and "philosophers of the eighteenth century." Although these interpretations of the history of anarchy goes back to the very essence of humanity, Fabiana Toledo recognizes that "anarchism as a movement, however, comes at a very specific historical context of critique of capitalism and its history involves a great complexity and diversity of views" [6].

Our arguments here are largely based on the positions of Schmidt and van der Walt, even though we have small differences and contributions to be made fundamentally on issues involving Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. First, we agree with the author, is that, historically, we can situate anarchism as a socialist power, and therefore, as a response to capitalism that developed in nineteenth-century Europe. Thus, we believe that we can not talk about anarchism before capitalism and anarchism in or out of the socialist camp. Right now in this city and it is born of anarchism, believe that you can understand it as an ideology that presents some strategic proposals. With wider use around the world, and over time, we believe that it is possible to identify the strategies and tactics that later, while distinct, not questioned or put into question the core of the ideological aspects of anarchism, characterized by their political principles ideological.

The criterion for this analysis here will identify - historically, from a widely recognized social practice - what are these political and ideological principles that form the backbone of anarchism and its various strategies and tactics over time. The definition of anarchist ideology and the establishment of their political and ideological principles to analyze, more properly, what anarchism is and what are the thinkers and movements that have been or still are, ideological heirs of that tradition.

It is at this time we carry out a comment that marks one of the few disagreements we have with the views expressed in Black Flame, which revolves around the thinking and practice of Proudhon. We agree with the view held by Africans that anarchism entered it, "the notion of self-management of the means of production, the idea of free association, hatred of capitalism and the power of landowners and the deep distrust of the state" [7 ]. Our disagreement is true concerning the interpretation theory of Proudhon, especially when they claim that Proudhon advocated a peaceful transformation of society that their strategic conceptions linked-if only to a sector of artisans and small producers can not be generalized to the peasantry and working class, who defended the small property, and when generalize their thinking with that of mutual benefit followed.

We will not go deeply into this debate, but we believe that the reading of Schmidt and van der Walt has been determined by some interpretations of the thought of Proudhon, a fact that is evident when considering that all the statements and conclusions are made from interpretive readings and not the original works of the author. [8] It is important to consider that there are other interpretations of the central and Pierre Joseph Proudhon's thought that, too, in an analysis like theirs, the reading of documents is crucial for an interpretation from their own interpretations to this important theme. We can not forget that much of what has been written about Proudhon saw only part of his work and / or taken based on the charges of Marx's writings or other currents that sought to diminish or devalue their contribution.

In this sense, we consider important to bring an interpretation of Pierre Ansart, in his book The Birth of Anarchism [9], which is different from African authors. To Ansart, Proudhon was part of the labor movement that took shape in mutualism and his work should be understood as the theory of a system of ideas, values and aspirations that were present in one sector of the working class: workers of the silk industry, particularly workshop leaders Lyonnais, called canuts. However, it should be noted that despite having been inspired by this class fraction - of oppressed workers and not petty bourgeoisie - the theory and Pierre Joseph Proudhon's system are not made for this class fraction and propose a generalization should encompass the entire global society. The analysis and transformation strategy Proudhonian recognize the centrality of class struggle [10] as an antagonism generated by a system based on private property and, consequently, on the farm. The strategy is revolutionary Proudhon, Bakunin and recognized, as it proposes the destruction of capitalism and the construction of socialism - which involve economic, political and social. Your mutualism, in the economic, sought to integrate in a self-managed the three spheres of production: large industrial, medium-sized enterprises and handicrafts, and the peasantry, always guided by the notion of ownership - the workers are the owners of their own means of production -- and not private property, which allows the operation. In the political sphere, mutualism provided a functioning self-managed communities. The basis of the accumulation of force to achieve the social revolution would be in the economic field, must be undertaken through the workers' associations. This revolution, which should be carried out from the bottom up and the masses, would begin working with the association and the progressive appropriation of economic forces. The radicalization of mutual aid societies, which are transformed into companies endurance - on the uprisings of 1831 and 1834 - and the direct management of production by the producers themselves would constitute the beginning of the revolution, a long and drawn out process that would finish only with the construction the new company. For Proudhon the revolution is the force put into practice by the labor movement in the fight outside the State, to impose and create a new order. It has the elements necessary class consciousness (of the class struggle and the political capacity of the class), the theory (held by own class and inseparable from practice) and practice (which should take shape in the mutualism). Despite the positions of Proudhon against revolutionary violence, the model that inspired it, the mutualism from Lyon, was responsible for developing, transforming itself from an economic struggle in a political struggle, and culminating in the said insurrection, loaded with revolutionary violence. Thus, the revolutionary strategy advocated by Proudhon foresaw the widespread organization of the federal base, can rise up and make a political struggle, seeking to create a new balance of power in a controlled and contained violence. Proudhon was concerned with avoiding the political revolutions which, without the necessary preparation of the masses, would replace violence through the management of the state and would continue the system of exploitation and domination. Finally, it is possible to affirm the need to differentiate the analysis and strategy of mutualism of Proudhon, as it is true that much of mutualism inspired, we can not say that all the mutualists, even if they claimed Proudhon, strictly followed its analysis and strategy, which is evidenced, for example, the positions of Tolain that the way we understand them, have been challenged by Proudhon for being different.

Based on this interpretation, we could say that Proudhon was not a reformer, and his revolutionary strategy did not provide a peaceful transformation of society. Despite having been inspired by a fraction of the class, his proposal was that the model was widespread. He did not advocate the property, but ownership, even if it meant for medium-sized enterprises, crafts and the peasantry a certain type of individual ownership, rather than private property, since it does not allow the operation.

We put these questions because, for Schmidt and van der Walt, though Proudhon had an absolutely decisive influence in the birth of anarchism, it was only with Bakunin and the Alliance of Socialist Democracy (ADS) that anarchism would arise and take form in the foundation of ADS in 1868 and by defining clearly the next year, within the International Workers Association (IWA). For them

Is crucial to note that the environment was in socialist ideas identified by Bakunin, Kropotkin and anarchist movement emerged, and since the First International was a working class movement was the movement and associations of the working class that anarchism was born " [11]. "Bakunin and the Alliance appeared publicly for the first time in the Congress of Basel in 1869 the First International, Bakunin that prevailed for his amazing oratory and personal strength." [12]

Thus, for Africans, despite the earlier influences, the fact is that only anarchism would exist, namely those the late 1860s, emerging as a political ideology it represented a form of socialism. The fact that, for them, Proudhon be more the father of anarchism than anarchism in itself is characterized primarily by the three issues that we discussed earlier.

So, here are targeted to the need for further research on these aspects of the theory Proudhon, for if Ansart interpretation is correct, the question of the moment of birth of anarchism could be revisited. This does not invalidate the assertion made earlier that we can identify precisely the birth of anarchism. This doubt about Proudhon, in fact, only possible to consider that perhaps that moment of birth is not in the 1860s, but in 1840.

Whereas Ansart interpretation is correct, trying to position itself in relation to the matter and considering what is specified in the Black Flame, we could come up with some issues in common. First, that anarchism definitely comes from within the labor movement of the nineteenth century, this movement is the associations in which they entered the mutualism Lyonnais or AIT, both movements of oppressed workers who sought to find ways to fight against capitalism which developed . However, it seems possible to say, even taking into account the views of Ansart, that anarchism has really emerged in Proudhon, providing an analysis of society and a transformation strategy. In this analysis, conclusions about capitalism and the state as a pillar of exploitation and domination and the centrality of class struggle, pointing to the need to destroy this society and building a new one, providing a strategy that was based on accumulation forces the mass associations in the economic field. A fight that could become political and even accept the violence, albeit in a controlled and contained, but necessarily with broad popular participation. This revolutionary process should point to a market socialism, with equality and freedom, founded on self-management and federalism in both economics and politics, a system that would integrate the collective to individual ownership, working with the notion of ownership and preventing exploitation and domination.

However, it is clear that even if the elements listed above are correct, there was a qualitative and quantitative nature of anarchism that emerged in Proudhon, for anarchism that, in our view is consolidated fully, in fact, with Bakunin and ADS - anarchy might be called maturity. We believe that the fact that the anarchism of Bakunin and ADS work in an organized and collective allows us to say that maturity, as well as other issues. These could be placed into two camps: one whose views of Proudhon in fact opposed to anarchist principles, specifically its positions with respect to women, another of the controversial positions that, over time, they were more informed and deepened by Bakunin and the ADS, for example, issues of social revolution, the necessity of violence, the revolutionary subject, the struggle in protest, the cooperatives, the future society, among others.

So our position is that anarchism may have arisen in Proudhon, developing the main lines, but gives an undeniable quantum leap in Bakunin and the ADS, would exist in its fullness and maturity, consolidating itself as an ideology whose foundations are popular movement in the nineteenth century and which advocates a political practice and organized conference. [13]

After these discussions can continue the discussion on the definition of anarchism, considering what lay Schmidt and van der Walt.

"The practice of speaking in class anarchy or social anarchism is sometimes likely to be needed, but it implies that there is a legitimate anarchist tradition that is against the class struggle or that is anti-social, which is incorrect. [...] In our opinion, the term anarchism should be reserved for a particular form, rationalist [14] and revolutionary libertarian socialism that emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century. Anarchism was against the economic and social hierarchy, and inequality - and specifically, capitalism, the power of landowners, and the state - and called for an international class struggle and a revolution from below by a working class and peasantry self -organized with the goal of creating a social self-managed, socialist and stateless. In this new order, individual liberty would be in harmony with its obligations through joint cooperation, democratic decision-making and equal economic, social and economic coordination happen through federal forms. Anarchists emphasized the need for revolutionary means (organizations, actions and ideas) to foreshadow the ends (an anarchist society). Anarchism is a libertarian doctrine and a form of libertarian socialism, so not all the views of libertarians or libertarian socialists are anarchists. [...] Anarchism was and is a political ideology that embraces rational method of analysis to formulate their criticism, its strategy and tactics. His greatest moral component, however, is also important - and can not be proven scientifically. "[15]

Taking into account that the interpretation of Ansart is correct, we can say that this definition covers the theory Proudhon, with minor exceptions. However, there is no doubt that it applies fully to anarchism that has developed Bakunin and ADS on. Thus, we consider that it is in Bakunin and anarchism ADS that comes into existence in its fullness and maturity, so when we refer to classical anarchism - mainly in the discussion of principles and strategy and the comparisons between anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism - keep it in account, mostly, their positions, which we are well outlined below. In Brazil, it seems that the greatest influences have been international anarchism of Kropotkin and Errico Malatesta and to discuss the Brazilian anarchism, when we refer to international anarchy, we will use the writings of Malatesta, especially the references that are made to it the book and also reviewed the book of Samis. [16]

Let us return to the definitions of anarchism on the one hand, the definition of Fabiana Toledo, whose rationale is not explained, on the other, that of African authors, made from a global survey of anarchism, which investigated the theory and practical experiences from around the world, including Brazil. It may be noted that both are significantly different.

Although Edilene place in the second part of its definition the opposition to capitalism, when referring to the rejection of private property in the first part she seems to regard anarchism as a synonym for anti-statism, the mistake mentioned above and which is committed by many historians . For a definition of anarchism, and to deny that anarchism is the same as anti-statism, believe it is essential to consider it a chain of socialism and place it in time and space. We believe that anarchism can not be defined as a simple opposition to Marxism, since both arise from the same working-class background, having similar influences, such as the so-called socialist utopian socialists and Proudhon. Obviously, with this, we can not say the similarity between anarchism and Marxism, but it seems to put anarchism as merely an opposition to Marxism is a mistake, both have similarities and differences. Arising from the same popular movement, each represent an ideology that was present in the working class of the day, both have a similar critique of capitalism and propose a social transformation that leads to socialism. The fundamental differences are given about the method of analysis and resources for the fight - which directly involves the discussion of the state (transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.).. In this sense, since anarchism is a form of socialism, he necessarily opposed to capitalism. Nevertheless, it is the central place, too, that he is opposed to forms of exploitation and domination pre-capitalist and oppressions that are outside the realm of economics.

Locate anarchism in time and space will note that at the time of its appearance it is with political and ideological principles with well-defined and can not be considered the similarities between libertarians ranging from Jesus and the Anabaptists, to Bakunin and Kropotkin, through Rabelais, La Boétie, Godwin and Stirner - that is, use the lowest common denominator among all these libertarians - to forge a definition of anarchism.

We question the assertion widely Fabiana Toledo that the strategy of most of the anarchists is a progressive transformation, which should be given by education and persuasion, without the use of violence. While we recognize that this strategy has been advocated from time to anarchism does not mean that the majority has chosen her. It does not mean that those who chose to focus on education and persuasion have denied the need for revolutionary violence or abandoned the prospect of a social revolution. Anarchists as Élisée Reclus - who knew one essential task of education and persuasion to be done before the fight for the revolution [17] - believed that a peaceful revolution could even be possible, but never completely denied the necessity of using violence and not the need for a social revolution.

Anarchists, in general, have always regarded education and persuasion strategically fundamental. However, there is a significant difference on the timing and context in which to invest in such measures of education and persuasion to take shape in different positions between those who put the role of education and persuasion necessarily as a process prior to the mobilization and the struggle for revolution -- Reclus's position, for example - and those who felt we should educate and persuade in the midst of struggles, as they themselves have a vital educational role - the position of Bakunin, for example. We believe that by examining anarchism in the world, from this historical perspective, the position of Bakunin, that is, a process of education and persuasion to occur within the context of struggles, has been the majority.

In this sense, we agree Schmidt and van der Walt, disagreeing with Fabiana Toledo, the anarchists did not consider a progressive transformation through education and by conviction, without using violence. In contrast, anarchism has always been revolutionary and did not deny the necessity of revolutionary violence and not social revolution, which should be carried out within a class perspective, workers and peasants. For this revolutionary process, the anarchists have always considered the central role of education and persuasion, but they differed in relation to the time and context for your application. The majority considered strategy on education and persuasion in the context of class struggle, seeking to organize and mobilize the masses and / or prepare them for the social revolution. In this sense there can be no denying that the anarchist social revolution or revolutionary violence, he preaches pacifism or some kind of reformism. [18]

Another issue of widespread Edilene is the science and the natural needs that have been advocated by those who came of positivism, as is the case of Kropotkin, can not be generalized, much less represent all anarchism, as anarchists, also central to Bakunin and Malatesta, advocating positions that anarchism would be in the field of ideology - and, therefore, the ideas, aspirations and desires - and not science. Thus, one can say that this attempt to bring science and the natural needs of anarchism was present in the anarchist tradition, but it is not true to say that she represented all anarchism, or even that it was widely majority as a very significant sector defended different positions.

For the issues discussed, it seems that the definition of Schmidt and van der Walt is much more appropriate than the Edilene Toledo. The definition of Africans consider anarchism as an ideology, a kind of revolutionary socialism, which appears in the nineteenth century by placing in the social field and without disregarding the inequalities of society [19], and thus has a historical legacy, ideological and theoretical determined. Possessing moral elements of relevance, anarchism can not be scientifically proven, despite using rational methods for the reading of reality - positioning themselves against exploitation and domination - to create a prospect of future society and to establish strategies and tactics. Anarchism stands for a revolutionary social transformation at the international level, which must be carried out from the bottom up, to star oppressed by different individuals and have the means to fight are in keeping with the objectives to be achieved. As objective, anarchism proposes the creation of a socialist self-management and federalism, without capitalism and without the state, reconciling individual freedom, collective freedom and equality.

From the definition listed above, we can extract the political and ideological principles that embody the backbone of anarchism, understood as an ideology - and thus not a science - and as a chain of revolutionary socialism.

  • Understanding the relations of exploitation and domination in society and the present trial, from ethical values, that they must be transformed. These relations of exploitation and domination are given in various fields (economics, politics and social relations) and thus the search for the transformation of these relations requires an opposition to capitalism, the state and the various forms of dominance (imperialism, gender, race, etc. .).
  • The transformation of these relations implies that there is a political practice, which is necessarily part of society and is part of the correlation of forces. This practice means a struggle against exploitation and domination by a reading of reality and the establishment of paths for this fight.
  • The reading of the situation and establish ways to fight imply a method of analysis and a set of strategy and tactics, both established and involves a rational theory.
  • The method of analysis and the set of strategy and tactics based on the understanding that society, whose bases are the relations of exploitation and domination, is essentially a society of inequality. This inequality finds its foundation in social classes and it is natural that these classes - as sets of exploiter / exploited, oppressor / oppressed, etc.. - Have different positions in society and, therefore, are not consistent and constant struggle. Thus, anarchism is based on classism, which recognizes the class struggle and the need for paths that the end of social classes.
  • The classism necessarily imply a notion of association and common interests between those who are victims of the system of exploitation and domination. Therefore, it is understood that the initiative for a struggle for the transformation of international system should be guided by class interests, not national interests, which means support for internationalism.
  • The reading of reality and the establishment of goals and paths mean the design of strategy and tactics, that is, paths to social change that you want to accomplish.
  • The theory and practice generated by the analysis and strategy are necessarily guided by an ethical concept, determined by specific moral values.
  • Practices aimed at combating the order of exploitation and domination must be made by those who suffer the consequences of that order by means of direct, without intermediaries, persons or institutions to establish authority relations or dispose of such practices which must therefore have autonomy.
  • The fight for direct action is performed from the bottom up, from the base, without authoritarian direction take those fighting the capacity and role. This struggle involves necessarily spontaneous and emotional elements.
  • Solidarity and mutual support between the dominated and exploited classes need to put a permanent association between these classes and not the priority of either of them.
  • The means provided for political practice must be consistent with the purposes they want to reach.
  • A social transformation is necessarily revolutionary and is not in capitalism or the state.
  • Self-management and federalism guide all policy and practice are key elements of future society, organizing and coordinating horizontally by means of direct democracy, economic structures, political and social.
  • The freedom and equality are necessarily the basis of socialism that arises as post-revolutionary goal to create a future society.

These are, in our view, the political and ideological principles that define the anarchist ideology, based on the definition of Schmidt and van der Walt, and putting small contributions themselves.

As pointed out earlier, the ideology that is expressed in these principles differ from the strategy, which is "to choose the most appropriate means to achieve certain ends. At this point, we can leave the question of ideology to join the discussion of strategy. The vision that we are arguing is that the ideological matrix of anarchism - that is what defines what is anarchy - is comprised of the political and ideological principles that we try to conceptualize and discuss previously.

It is relatively common to see, now, the assertion that there would be several "anarchism", which does not seem true. What, in our view, are different strategies within anarchism and is based on that statement that will reject the classical division "of anarchism or anarchist currents in three principles: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism and anarcho-individualism. In fact, this division seems to overlap categories and a methodology that allows us to see, understand and distinguish all the strategies anarchists. Thus, we conclude that there is an anarchist, defined by its political and ideological principles, and different strategies.

To study these different strategies and their consequences anarchist tactics, use the categories proposed by Schmidt and van der Walt who believe in anarchism, there are two fundamental approaches: the "insurrectionists anarchism" and "anarchism of the masses."

"The initial strategy, anarchism insurrectional says that reforms are illusory and that the organized mass movements are incompatible with anarchism, with emphasis on armed action - advertising the fact - against the ruling class and its institutions as the main Up through a spontaneous uprising revolutionary. "[20]

This strategy maintains a position contrary to the organization, setting itself against the popular movements organized. From this position, unionism is considered a movement that seeks only bureaucratic reforms (short-term gains), constituting a danger to anarchism, which is essentially revolutionary. The "anarchist insurrectionists" argues that the mass popular struggles are useless and only help to strengthen the status quo and, therefore, this strategy seeks only the revolution, the reforms are condemned or considered superfluous, as this will alienate workers revolutionary goal. This strategy considers that anarchism should not be spread by word or by writing, but by facts, by considering these acts of violence against capitalist / bourgeois members of the State should take shape in assassinations, bombings or even insurrection -- case basis and without popular support. This strategy of insurrection, also known as "propaganda by the fact, believes that these are individual acts of violence, which will impact on workers and peasants, generating from them, insurrectionary movements and popular uprisings, capable of carrying out the social revolution . Importantly, this strategy supports the use of violence - this popular form of revenge - and out without the backing of large movements, or violence without widespread popular support outside the scope of the oppressed class organizations. Much of what is called "individualist anarchism" was almost all incentive and / or supporter of this strategy, especially for their positions contrary to the organization. Although historically minority, this strategy was the most spread in the popular imagination, which was forged in the image of the anarchist and terrorist conspirator. The "anarchist insurrectionists" was defended by anarchists as Luigi Galleani, Emile Henry, Ravachol, Marius Jacob, Nicola Sacco, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Clément Duval and Severino DiGiovanni. It was also advocated by groups such as the French of the Bonnot gang and the Russians Chernoe Znamia and Beznachalie. The "anarchist insurrectionists" also found support for some time, as anarchist Nestor Makhno, Kropotkin and Malatesta who, despite having defended for most of their lives the "anarchy of the masses," went through a period of protection insurrectionists. [21]

"The second strategy - which we refer, for lack of a better term, as anarchism masses - is very different. It emphasizes the view that only the mass movements can create a revolutionary transformation in society, such movements are usually manufactured by means of struggles around immediate issues and reform (about wages, police brutality and high prices etc.. ), and that anarchists should participate in these movements to radicalize them and turn them into levers of revolutionary change. "[22]

This strategy is quite favorable to the organization and argues that social change can only take the active role of popular movements, they are built in places of work (trade unions or other structures) and / or communities, where on the need. Anarchism mass defends reforms - since they will be caught by their own movements and not coming "from above" as the work of the capitalists or governments - considering that they are the first targets of popular struggle. This struggle, which should be with the social mobilization, strengthen class solidarity, raises awareness and improves the conditions of the people, when there conquest of reforms. Agreeing that anarchist ideas should also be used by the facts, proponents of this strategy masses believe that these facts are the popular mobilizations of mass and not the isolated acts of violence.

Violence, also backed by the "anarchy of the masses," should not be done with the goal of creating insurrectionary, but it should be perpetrated from large movements already in existence, and therefore have significant popular support, a violence that is be carried out by the class itself organized. It is through the struggles around the issues of short-term and seeking to win reforms that proponents of this strategy contend can build such movements may, in due course, to engage in revolutionary violence, creating insurrections and conquering the social revolution without breaking one or other representative of capitalism or the state, but with the entire system, building a new one. Thus, reform and revolution are not contradictory but complementary, it is the struggle for reforms that forge the conditions to achieve the revolution. The future society could be based on collectivism (distribution according to work done) or communism (distribution according to needs). This strategy has been historically and majority held, inter alia, by militants as Bakunin, Buenaventura Durruti, Fernand Pelloutier, Rudolf Rocker, Volin, Ricardo Flores Magon, Yuzuru Kubo, Mikhail Guerdzhikov, Thibedi, Ba Jin, Osugi Sakae. Most of the time of militancy, Makhno, Kropotkin and Malatesta also defended the "anarchy of the masses."

From this definition of strategic categories, it is understood that the difference between them is given on some key issues: organization, movements, reforms, better way to spread anarchism and how to implement the revolutionary violence. According to the argument that we are holding the different positions on these issues do not put into question the principles of political-ideological anarchist - so both strategies are necessarily anarchists - but mark the various positions that define these two strategies anarchists. In this sense, we could say that the main strategic differences in the anarchist camp are:

  • Regarding the question of the organization, and those who defend it and believe it is imperative for social change and those who believe it is unnecessary or even authoritarian.
  • About the movements, and those who believe they are the only way to organize the people to fight for social revolution and those who believe that they are useless and nothing can help the anarchy in their revolutionary struggle.
  • With regard to reforms, there are those who argue that, within a popular movement is the struggle for reforms that motivates the organization on the need for these reforms and improve the conditions of the people, and are considered a way to revolution. There are also those who believe that the reforms did not contribute to the revolutionary goals are insignificant and thus anarchists must fight only for the revolution and not by the reforms.
  • To spread anarchism, some argue that the best way is among the organizations of popular struggles (building and participating in this struggle), still others through acts of violence against the ruling class, which should inspire similar measures, giving body to a broad revolutionary movement.
  • About the revolutionary violence, there are those who argue that it should be applied with a broad popular support, deriving from an existing movement, and there are those who believe that the acts of revolutionary violence are the very generators of this insurrectionary movement and that So there is no problem if there is no popular support, since these are acts that lead to that support.

In addition to these core differences that characterize the "anarchy of the masses" and "anarchism insurrectionists, other issues were the source of disagreements and debates within the anarchist over the years and in different places in the world, to establish the best strategic positions and tactics: need for specific anarchist organization or not, come in the popular movements existing or create new ones, draw more or less to the anarchist movements, mobilize the workplace and / or housing, distribution system and reward for their work in future society , how to structure the self and federalism after the revolution, among others.

Continuing the strategic discussion of anarchism and trying to situate it historically, we can say that was a strategy of "anarchism of the masses" that adopted at the time that anarchism reaches its maturity, with the ADS and Bakunin. This strategy could be called "Bakuninist" emphasizes the need for popular movements, built around the need - that is, the short-term issues - to deepen and operate a revolutionary transformation. For Bakunin, the AIT should be this movement and, therefore, proposed to her methodology and syllabus, which confirms this strategy. Let's see what he says Bakunin in 1869:

"The International Workers Association, faithful to his principle, never support a political upheaval which is not direct and immediate goal to complete economic emancipation of the worker, ie the abolition of the bourgeoisie as a class separate from the cost of the population, nor any revolution from day one, from the outset, not subscribe to their flag social liquidation. [...] It will give the labor unrest in every country a fundamentally economic, posing as objective the reduction of working hours and wage increases; as goals, the organization of the working masses and the formation of resistance boxes. [...] She expand will, in short, organize and will strongly across the borders of all countries, so that when the revolution, led by force of circumstance, has begun, there is a force real, knowing what to do and, therefore, able to overcome it and give you a truly healthy direction for the people, a serious international organization of workers' associations of all countries, able to replace that of the political world States and that part of the bourgeoisie. "[23]

Thus, the strategy proposed by Bakunin masses was clear: a broad popular movement internationally and created by all of the oppressed classes, fighting while the immediate issues and the social revolution that would overthrow capitalism and the state and build a society of freedom and equality. ---- Deepening a little strategy that Bakunin and ADS, we emphasize that it took as base materialism as a method of analysis, arguing for a dialectic that, unlike Hegel, denied the economic determinism of Marxist historical materialism and claimed an influence multiple aspects of economic , political and social. From this analysis to understand the system and state capitalism as a society of oppression, which should be transformed, giving rise to a new society.

This society of freedom and equality be implemented from the economic transformations (socialization of production, the federation of partnerships, distribution according to work done - collectivism - the end of the inheritance of private property and the division between manual and intellectual) of political change (end of infallible authority and the establishment of political federalism) and the intellectual and moral transformation (full instruction and knowledge to serve the people). The best means to achieve this new society would be: a violent social revolution, internationalization of the revolution, a mass movement that would allow broad popular role of workers and peasants through the economic solidarity. Such methods have provided a performance that would be beyond the social level, the mass movements, the political level. This work, which would take the body in the political revolutionary, would aim at ensuring the social revolutionary perspective, working with the character of an active minority, horizontally, with program unit, collective responsibility, unity of action, and discipline.

This strategy of anarchism proposed by Bakunin and ADS is, in our view - as regards the level of the masses - the embryo of what would be revolutionary unionism. We will examine the revolutionary unionism ahead, in contrast to the definitions of Fabiana Toledo, but for now, suffice it to say that for us, revolutionary unionism has its roots in anarchism - in particular the views expressed Bakunin and ADS, to develop positions of Proudhon and propose a methodology and a program for AIT, formed their foundations. For us

"The real founder of revolutionary syndicalism was Bakunin. This is too much to ignore, silence or do not know what reason, therefore, the theoretical constructs and tactics on the goal and the historical tasks of the unions, Bakunin contributed a set of thoughts of wealth and dynamism that not only not been overcome, as never been equaled by any other thinker. "[24]

It is in Bakunin and ADS, with its proposals for the AIT, which we can identify the birthplace of revolutionary unionism of intent that would become known years before the term revolutionary syndicalism.

Shortly after Bakunin's death, the "anarchy of the masses" led by a number of factors, the "insurrectionists. The insurgent strategy, detached from the popular movements, although in some cases meant some desperate anarchists who were finding the loss of "social vector of anarchism" [25], in others it represented an expectation that these insurrectionary acts - such as bombings, murders and actions armed without popular support - could stimulate the creation of these movements. We can say that much of the anarchist movement endorsed this strategy, and the London Congress of 1881 the position in March of this world.

In the late nineteenth century, anarchism insurrectionists out of this phase and the resumption of revolutionary unionism of intent, with a strong inspiration Bakuninist, back into the fold of the exploited classes and mass movements. This approach, which dates back to the strategy of the anarchists in AIT differed from the strategy of "anarchism insurrectionists" as analyzes Samis. For him, the goal of the strategy of the masses, this resumption of the late nineteenth century, anarchism was to

"Seek an insert, to make people co-participant in the process, to serve the revolutionary ferment, acting with the masses, not to his face or his name, were the new approaches and even another methodological inspiration to put into practice. A concussion in the conviction of the methods of action earlier produced a rearrangement of forces and a realignment theory trying to account for the most pressing social demands. A shift tactics, with epicenter in old France, circa 1894-95, probably because there exist structures expressive and active workers was in progress. The 'Grants Work' driven by, among others, Fernand Pelloutier earned the dynamic organizational model of trade union federations 'guesdista' and, since 1892, had been proving, by force and attitudes, the former superior to those corporations. "[26]

It was so revolutionary unionism of the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) French, who had several anarchists, was instrumental in this revival of popular character and class of anarchism, which is reflected in the Charter of Amiens in 1906 when reaffirms that the CGT adds workers aware of the fight, regardless of their political positions, and that

"This statement is a recognition of the class struggle, which opposes the economic field the workers in revolt against all forms of exploitation and oppression, both material and moral, brought into play by the capitalist class against the working class." [27]

Emile Pouget, another reference militant CGT, summarized:

"The problem is this: I am an anarchist, I sow my ideas, which is the ground where they germinate best? I already have a shop, the bistro ... I want something better: a place where find the workers realizing that suffer from exploitation and killing the head (sic) to find a remedy for this. This place exists? Yes, Holy Name of God! And it is only one: the corporate group. "[28]

After the emergence of the CGT's strategy of revolutionary syndicalism, now under the epithet of revolutionary syndicalism, spreads throughout the world. Nevertheless, it seems fair to say that the strategy of revolutionary unionism only comes into existence and spread throughout the world in the 1890s, the decade of the founding of CGT and from their union model. And it marks another departure from the book Fabiana Toledo because, she said, revolutionary unionism "is becoming an important international project, from the 1890s [29]. As counterpoint Schmidt and van der Walt,

"The notion that unionism [30] 'was born in France' in the late nineteenth century is wrong. The doctrine of unionism, as we argued, can be recognized in the current times of the First International anarchist. To this must be added that there was a significant wave union in the 1870s and 1880. "[31]

Supporting this thesis, the authors illustrate with the intention of revolutionary unionism that developed in Spain, Cuba, the U.S. and Mexico in the period before the 1890s. [32]

The origins of this revolutionary unionism of intent can not be summed up thus the emergence of the term "revolutionary unionism" - but this year and 1890, largely associated with the CGT - and even the appearance of the CGT itself. I

n accordance with the arguments made, we maintain that the birthplace of revolutionary syndicalism is the AIT and the experiences of the years 1870 and 1880 do not differ significantly from that revolutionary syndicalism was practiced and defended by the CGT in the 1890s. Thus, the origins of revolutionary syndicalism, for us, would be in the AIT and the experiences of union that took shape within a revolutionary perspective, Spain, Cuba, the U.S. and Mexico, independent of the word "revolutionary unionism", which would appear only in France years later.

Closing this first part, we would argue that anarchism as an ideology determined by their political and ideological principles, has always had within it different strategies. And these strategies are not a cause are more or less anarchist than others, they mark the different paths taken by anarchism. One such strategy was the intention of revolutionary unionism that begins to grow significantly in the years since 1860.

Revolutionary syndicalism: IDEOLOGY OR STRATEGY?

Enter into the central thesis of the book Fabiana Toledo. It recognizes that

"Had engaged in socialist revolutionary trade union movement who believed that unionism was the true heir of socialism. There were also anarchists who saw the revolutionary syndicalism true anarchism. And there were the militants who recognized the revolutionary unionism as an autonomous political power in relation to socialism and anarchism. "[33]

So, as she acknowledges, the interpretations of the ideological frameworks of revolutionary unionism were in dispute. And the whole thesis of his book is based on this third position, that trade would be a revolutionary ideology itself, "a movement in various parts of the world, had become an autonomous political power in relation to anarchism and socialism." [34] Thus, it defines the revolutionary syndicalism as

"An international phenomenon, a trade practice that constitutes the current stand-alone policy, it is a movement in defense of the union as the only body capable and sufficient to ensure the achievements and future workers, and advocates the class struggle, the direct action of workers, workers' autonomy associated with union autonomy and political neutrality of the union, namely the lack of association of the latter to any current policy, which translates to guarantee their autonomy and overcoming the divisions among the workers. "[35 ]

In this sense, revolutionary unionism have huge differences with anarchism:

"As for the anarchists the union was something to be fought or instrumental as advertising space that would disappear in future society, as well as all other institutions of the bourgeois world, for the revolutionary syndicalist union was the basis of future society, through which workers organize production and distribution of wealth, replacing the authority and functions of the state. While the first dreamed of a federation of individuals, the latter imagined a world that is a federation of unions. Some bet on the moral solidarity, solidarity of others in class. As for the revolutionary syndicalists the benefits to the workers were preparing their emancipation, many anarchists were part of a phenomenon that would harm that capitalist society is perpetuated. "[36]

After all, "for the revolutionary syndicalist theory converged socialist ideas like class struggle, the anarchists refused to base its doctrine" [37] and the organizations guided by the principle of revolutionary unionism sought to obtain short-term benefits under the existing system (which was opposed by many anarchists). "[38] And finally, quoting a discussion between advocates of anarchist unions and others who opposed him, the author stresses the charge of the first, played in his own way , that "could be an anarchist in theory," but not in practice. "[39]

Thus Edilene take their positions. In the controversial dispute over the ideological matrix of revolutionary syndicalism, it takes the position that it would be an ideology itself - and therefore completely separate anarchist - whose strategy would be based on an international movement and the union as the only form of struggle for achievement short and long term - should be, including the foundations of future society. Moreover, revolutionary unionism defend the class struggle, direct action, workers and trade union autonomy and political neutrality of the union. To the anarchist, the second comparison, the unions would not be means of struggle, but "something to be fought" or at best used as a space to advertise your ideal job in an education and persuasion. Anarchism, in addition, to create a future society based on a federation of individuals, he called for moral solidarity, positioning itself against the class struggle and, in most cases, against the reforms, and may in some cases, summarized to a simple theory.

In this distinction between anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism, which is grounded to the classification of the police [40], Fabiana Toledo commits a serious mistake to consider the strategic positions of anarchists, who are within the previously defined as "anarchism insurrectionists" as principles political-ideological would define anarchism. Some locations that it uses to define anarchism and differentiate it from the unions are not revolutionary, as we saw in the principles of anarchist ideology, but in the field of strategy: the denial of the union as work space, the future society based on associations of individuals and the denial of the struggle for reforms. The other claims seem unfounded: that anarchy could be just a theory does not involve a practice that anarchism is against the class struggle [41] and it would be based merely on moral solidarity.

Another misconception is that in addition to considering strategic positions and principles, it often generalizes strategies minority of anarchism, as if they were majority. Globally, it can be said that the "anarchy of the masses" has always been much larger than that of "anarchist insurrectionists." In Brazil, we will discuss later, we could say that the "anarchy of the masses" was largely what is called here the "organizational" and "anarchism insurrectionists" has been part of that in Brazil, he called of "antiorganizacionismo" - even though this Brazilian strategy had a significant number of anarchists who were against the organization, but defended the "educational" - a view that the masses should be educated and convinced to promote transformation, even without organization , and counting with a high degree of spontaneity. In Brazil, the tradition of "organization" was much larger than that of "antiorganizacionismo. Therefore, it is wrong to generalize strategic aspects of the "anarchism insurrectionists" or "antiorganizacionismo" as if they represented any anarchist strategy. As pointed out, certainly strategies "insurrectionists" or "antiorganizacionistas" existed, and are part of the anarchist ideology. However, there were, nor represent the main and most significant strategy of anarchism.

This generalization of the strategic positions of minority anarchism is made, in most cases, the citations of examples, implying that they would be generalizable. For example, when she said: "Oreste Ristori, who declared himself opposed to any kind of trade unionism" [42], giving the idea that this position is the majority or generalizable, we know what is not. The author herself acknowledges that "despite the common goals, anarchists differed a lot about the strategies, ways to go" [43] and therefore it is true that there were those who, like Ristori, defended positions critical to the organization, the unions, pensions etc.. there were others who had completely different positions.

And Fabiana Toledo know the anarchists who defended trade unions as it states that many anarchists "plunged in ideas and practice of revolutionary unionism and the union saw its largest and most efficient work space" [44]. Plus, "many anarchists also decided to join the trade union movement inspired by revolutionary syndicalism" [45], as was the case with the anarchists gathered in the newspaper Il Libertarian, which actually worked in the union and revolutionary syndicalists "[46]. Even she knows that "for some activists, however, despite criticism of anarchism, especially to their divisions and their powerlessness, revolutionary syndicalism was a new chain, but inside the anarchism: Anarchism worker" [47] .

With these statements could begin to discuss some arguments Fabiana Toledo. These self-citations, it is noticed that there were anarchists who would not only fight the union and use it to advertise their ideal, as she put it in your comparison. There were those who saw "the union its largest and most efficient work space." If there were those who considered the unions' principal and most efficient space "and there were those who advocated revolutionary syndicalism as an" anarchist worker, "then it follows that not all were against the class struggle, reforms and that many anarchists were well grounded in practice and not only in theoretical work. This is because revolutionary unionism was based on the class struggle between workers and employers in the fight for short-term achievements - such as reducing working hours and wage increases - and in practice union, which went far beyond theory.

Set unionism, Schmidt and van der Walt say he

"Is a variant of anarchism, and the trade union movement is part of the broader anarchist tradition. This applies to all major variants of unionism: anarcho-syndicalism (which is explicitly within the anarchist tradition), revolutionary syndicalism (which did not make explicit this connection due to ignorance or a denial tactic your link with anarchism), the DeLeon (a form of revolutionary unionism that is claimed Marxist) and the basic trade unionism (a form of unionism that builds on the independent groups that engage in trade Orthodox, although they are independent of them). The unions, in essence, is an anarchist strategy and not a rival of anarchism. When we use the term unionism without prefixes or qualifications, we do it to describe all these variants of unionism. "[48]

Not deepen discussions on the deleon and unionism base, pausing in the revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism, which we will discuss the differences before.

Resuming, we can say that "there are two main currents of anarchism, as defined by its strategic orientations: anarchism and anarchism mass insurrectionists." Unionism

"Was a form of anarchism mass that illustrated the view that the media should foreshadow the purposes and the daily struggles that could generate a counter-revolutionary power, and the vast majority of anarchists embraced. [...] Unionism was an anarchist and strategy must be understood as such. "[49]

Recall that Fabiana Toledo says that unionism is a revolutionary ideology, other than anarchism. Unlike, for us, as the theory of Schmidt and van der Walt, and in accordance with the discussions made above about ideology and strategy, revolutionary syndicalism was a strategy of anarchist ideology for mass movement. It must be stated and discussed in some detail what are the arguments Fabiana Toledo supporting the view that trade unionism is a revolutionary ideology, as opposed to our position, that he would be a strategy of anarchism. Fabiana says that

"New revolutionary trade union movement was its linking of autonomy working for union activity, ie, the union is seen as the instrument of autonomy. [...] Autonomy in relation to the political parties and was therefore a celebration of the capacity of self-government workers. "[50]

In addition to mean "capacity for self-government of workers' autonomy would prove that the completely unrelated to the unions with anarchism. Represented the neutrality and independence, the autonomy of trade unions should be given to "the parties and doctrines" referring "both to socialism and anarchism, which was then called anarchist party." [51] According Fabiana's interpretation, "the union's neutrality advocated by revolutionary syndicalists was a compromise aimed precisely to overcome the struggle between socialists and anarchists within labor organizations" [52]. Even the resolutions of the Workers' Congress of 1906 reinforce this position, since it was recommended to "put off the union to fight for a particular political party and the rivalries that result from the adoption by the association of resistance, a political and religious doctrine, or of electoral program "[53]. Therefore, if the revolutionary syndicalism advocated independence, neutrality and independence, he would not be an anarchist, because anarchism is an ideology, a political position defined and determined, and is sometimes even a "party" and the fact that the union may be all workers, regardless of their political and ideological positions, shows that revolutionary unionism would not be related to anarchism.

Moreover, Fabiana Toledo sometimes uses the example of revolutionary syndicalism in Italy, which grew from an offshoot of the Socialist party. She said "several Italian historians believe that the revolutionary syndicalist ideology was closer to the Marxism of anarchism" [54]. The defense of a class-culture [55], the monthly fees for workers [56] and paid staff [57] further differentiate the revolutionary syndicalism - which in his opinion held all these positions - anarchism - which, according to his interpretation would be contrary to such positions.

These arguments lead her to believe, finally, that "the labor movement has, at various times, far more than revolutionary syndicalist anarchist [58], stating in conclusion that" the union was not an anarchist because it was open to all workers, whether they were linked to any current policy or not "[59].

Let us try to systematize the positions of Edilene. First, the autonomy proposed by revolutionary syndicalism (which for her would have appeared in 1890) was a novelty. Then this new autonomy would be - represented by the union neutrality and independence - would encourage workers' association on an economic basis, and not political or religious. Thus, the fact that the unions are open to all workers disentailing revolutionary unionism of both anarchism and socialism. Moreover, the example of Italy shows that were not the anarchists who pioneered the revolutionary unionism around the world, as there are authors that claim as a derivative of Marxism. Finally, revolutionary syndicalism advocated culture class, the shares and the paid staff, which would be rejected by anarchism. All this would lead to the conclusion that unionism is a revolutionary ideology independent, unlike anarchism and completely separate from it.

As argued previously, in our revolutionary unionism does not appear in the 1890s, having its origins in the 1860s and developed during the years 1870 and 1880. In the cradle of revolutionary syndicalism, the AIT, founded in 1864, this "new self" was already present. Take some positions of Bakunin in 1869:

"We think that the founders of the International Association acted with great wisdom to eliminate the first program of this with all the political and religious issues. Certainly not missed them at all, or political views, opinions or anti-religious well-defined, but they have declined to send them this program as its main objective was to gather up all the working masses of the civilized world in a common action. They need to seek common ground, a series of simple principles on which all workers, whatever, by the way, their political and religious aberrations, provided it be serious workers, that is, hard men exploited and suffering, are and must comply. If they fly the flag of a political system or anti-religious, far from uniting the workers of Europe, they have divided them further. [...] [The plea for AIT was] only the exclusively economic struggle of labor against capital, because they [the founders of the AIT] were convinced that, from the time that the worker puts his foot on this soil from the moment that, to gain confidence both in law and in its numerical strength, he engages with his fellow workers in a joint struggle against bourgeois exploitation, it is necessarily led, by the very force of things, and the development of this struggle The soon recognize all political principles and philosophy of the socialist International. [...]"[ 60]

With this passage, we can get some ideas. First, that autonomy was not a new issue in the labor movement of the 1890s, being defended by anarchists and militants from other ideologies already in the 1860s. These positions, which reinforced the AIT's own, as can be seen in the Constitution voted by the Congress of Geneva in 1866 that, among other things, stated:

"That the emancipation of workers must be the workers themselves, [...] That the economic subjection of the worker to hold the means of production, ie the sources of life, is the primary cause of their bondage political, moral, material; That the economic emancipation of the workers is therefore the great object to which every political movement must be subordinated as a means [...]"[ 61]

Thus it can be said that the argument that autonomy was a new element of unionism in the 1890s is untrue as themselves anarchists, and even other members of the labor movement of the 1860s, has defended the involvement of workers in economic fundamentals and non-political (ideological) or religious. They argued, moreover, the emancipation of the workers by the workers themselves and the class struggle as a contradiction in the midst of which these workers would engage in the struggle for emancipation.

According to that, also as we can see, the autonomy, neutrality and independence of the popular movement was already advocated by Bakunin. In this sense, anarchist strategy, resigned at that time by the writings of Bakunin and other alliances, did not make any anarchist in AIT (revolutionary socialist or collectivist, as they preferred to call it), defending it as a working-class movement that received in her breast every worker willing to fight. The anarchist strategy that moment provided a stimulus to the mass organizations of workers under an economic basis, not subject to any idea or political or religious - and therefore autonomous organizations, neutral and independent - they should cluster employees of the city and the countryside to in through the class struggle, claim short-term issues and, with the accumulation of force necessary to promote the social revolution and building socialism libertarian. Although, for anarchists of this period, political organization (ADS) have a catalytic function of the mass movement (AIT), the strategy provided that the transformation was made by the workers themselves, not the anarchists, who were only one sector of workers. Therefore, in the classic debate between "party" and "mass movement", one can say that, for anarchists, was the social level, ie the mass movement - and in this case AIT - they should feature in the social transformation and not the political level, ie the revolutionary anarchist political organization (party).

Third, the struggle for the achievement of short-term (reforms), when workers are organized in the field of class struggle, is valid, because they give confidence to workers and build up forces for social revolution. And that's why Bakunin spoke of the need "to talk to them [workers] the economic reforms of society" [62], and defend the workers' association as a means of making life better for workers, causing them to become able to organization and management of the company:

"Let us join together in joint ventures to make our existence a little more bearable and less difficult, we form everywhere, and as much as possible in these consumer societies, credit and mutual production, which, although unable to emancipate in a manner serious enough and the current economic conditions, the workers accustomed to the practice of business and prepare for the precious germs organization of the future. "[63]

Bakunin recognized that the associations, although not immediately make the revolution, could help in the organization and struggle of the exploited for short-term gains, improving their living conditions and workers accustomed to struggle, organization and management of their own lives, central to the horizon of the achievements of long-term.

Therefore, the strategy of anarchism at the moment of maturity was based mainly on the formation of a mass movement, large and popular, requiring more workers, irrespective of political or religious, providing the necessary conditions to carry out dual function: to fight for issues of short-term and head, himself, the revolutionary process towards socialism.

What about the strategy advocated by anarchists within the International? She was not an anarchist? Using the argument that says Fabiana Toledo, revolutionary unionism is not part of the anarchist tradition, one could argue that Bakunin and alliances - in other words, anarchism is the maturity that has developed after Proudhon - also were not anarchists, or even that they would be more "revolutionary unions" than anarchists, which seems a huge mistake.

Fourth, on the case of revolutionary syndicalism in Italy. Here again, the author confuses the reader to catch an episode of exception in the history of the world revolutionary unionism and generalize it, hinting that he might be a rule. Here's how Schmidt and van der Walt deal with the theme of the influence of anarchism in unionism in the world and also the case in Italy. They say

"In the glorious period and then, anarchists and trade unions have established or influenced in different countries such as Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, France , Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela. "[64]

Contrary to the assertions of Fabiana Toledo, while emphasizing that "it is difficult to assess the degree of penetration of anarchist action" [65], the African state:

"If we use the criterion somewhat limited influence in the union movement to determine the influence of large anarchist tradition in the working class, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, France, Mexico, Peru, Portugal and Uruguay is, all countries where anarchism and syndicalism were [besides the case of Spain] a dominant political force among the workers organized, the Netherlands is also a case of fundamental influences. [...] [This is are excluded] peasant movements with broad anarchist influence [that] have been developed, among other places, in Bulgaria, Manchuria, Mexico and Ukraine, as well as in Spain. [...] Even where the broad anarchist tradition has had less influence than the orthodox unionism or socialism political impact was often considered, a minority situation should not be confused with insignificance. "They continue:" Italy offers us a important example of the need to take into account the cultural impact and the widespread informal anarchist tradition. The lack of an anarchist or syndicalist organization from the time of the First International to the emergence of USI in 1912 is easily interpreted as an indication of the insignificance of the broad anarchist tradition. This approach comes from the tradition of 'old labor history', which emphasizes the formal organization and leadership. The "new labor history ', which emphasizes the social history of popular classes and the need to examine the popular movements from below, provides a necessary correction to this outlook, for his observation of cultural forms and informal organizations. Using an approach of social history, the innovative work of Carl Levy on Italian anarchism suggests that the movement had a greater impact on working-class culture and left at the local level, providing much of its language, symbols and tactics, and influence sections of the PSI [Italian Socialist Party] and GLC [General Confederation of Labor]. "[66]

This analysis argues that, beyond the fact that revolutionary syndicalism was hegemonically an anarchist strategy for the mass movement in the world, even in places where anarchism was not hegemonic, there was a spread of its strategy to become mainstream , permeating and influencing other union practices throughout the world. Thus, we consider that the Italian case to demonstrate the lack of influence of anarchism in revolutionary syndicalism does not seem right, the first case of Italy is not a rule but the exception, then the practice of revolutionary syndicalism had been widespread throughout the world, having wide influence.

Fifth, we must condemn the attempt to give the unions a revolutionary Marxist affiliation. Within the AIT, which in our view proved in practice the main differences between anarchism and Marxism, which separated the "libertarian" to "authoritarian" was precisely the difference in strategy: while the former wanted to mobilize the masses by economic needs, giving it the responsibility of the social revolution and the management of the new classless society without the state, sought to constitute the second class in a class party, by making the move to the political-economic ideology, with the imposition of a political-ideological program for the popular movement, which included a conception of socialism as an intermediate phase of centralization of political and economic power in the state.

Sixth, and finally, it was revolutionary syndicalism, anarchist as a strategy that promoted the culture popular among the masses, and demonstration that are centers of culture that were influenced by the anarchists, and their efforts to educate and instruct people who helped forging the culture in significant sections of workers and peasants. With regard to quotas, anarchists have always defended the contributions of the militants, which may be certified with the contributions that were over the years for its publications and associations. About the paid staff, the anarchists sought to avoid them, but in cases unavoidable, preached that they do not receive more than one worker, that is, finished living with it.

Also in relation to the arguments made in comparison Edilene between anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism, let us quote Bakunin again for two issues. About internationalism, emphasized:

"An association working alone, local or national, even if belonging to one of the largest countries in Europe, can never succeed. [...] For this triumph, it takes nothing less than the union of all workers' associations in local and national universal association, it is necessary to the great International Workers Association. "[67]

About the class struggle, said:

"The antagonism that exists between the worker and the bourgeois world takes on a more and more pronounced. Any man who thinks seriously, and whose feelings and imagination are not at all changed by the influence often unconscious sophistry concerned, must understand today that no reconciliation between them is possible. Workers want equality, and the bourgeois want to maintain inequality. Of course, one destroys the other. "[68]

We put, therefore, that anarchism stands for: that capitalism is a class society, there is a class struggle between workers and their exploiters, an international grassroots movement of workers, that this movement should be constituted on an economic basis and therefore autonomy, neutrality and independence, allowing all employees, irrespective of political or religious, a part of it, which are the workers themselves, that is, the very popular movement that must be emancipated itself - which the future would be called "direct action"; that this movement has a dual role in the struggles of short-term (reforms) and the construction of a popular force capable of carrying out the social revolution and building socialism libertarian. We can say also that anarchism: drove the first wave of revolutionary unionism of intent from the 1860's, developed world, in theory and practice, and revolutionary syndicalism its biggest field for practice and strategy more widely adopted, cultivated a culture of classes, participated in the contributions and lived with paid employees in the unions. Finally, we can say: Italy is not a test case for overturning the influence of anarchism in revolutionary syndicalism, Marxism's strategy differs greatly from the strategy of revolutionary syndicalism.

All such statements can only lead us to conclude that virtually all the arguments presented by Fabiana Toledo - to release the revolutionary syndicalism of anarchism, to set the revolutionary unionism as an ideology itself or to compare it with anarchism - are false or misleading.

The elements identified by her constituents as "revolutionary syndicalist ideology" were already present in the strategy of social transformation proposed by classical anarchism, when collectively organized and developed, from its early days. What the author does, in our view, is in a debate that was given in the anarchist camp, a link to the strategic positions that would be "anarchist" (counter-positions the organization, unions, pensions etc.. ) and the other would be "revolutionary unionism" (defense of the organization, unions, pensions etc.).. As already explained, both strategies have been advocated within the anarchist ideology is not therefore possible to state this distinction between anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism of the way argued by Edilene.


Indeed, even Fabiana Toledo recognizes

"If there was agreement among anarchists about the ultimate goal to be achieved, there was also plenty of disagreement on the way to go to achieve it, on strategies and tactics. While some believed the insurgency, others bet on individual acts of violence: some chose the field of propaganda and education of all people, while others chose the world of work as a privileged space to spread their ideas. "[69]

Here, we agree with it: anarchism in Brazil, as happened in the world, there were differences on strategies and tactics to be used. In Brazil, as places Samis, discussing the life of Neno Vasco:

"Internally the group Neno stood out in a debate that put in evidence two trends within the anarchist movement. The first, championed by the Friend of the People, the organization, sought a relationship between the libertarian, with views to the establishment of the thesis Malatestiana party. In accordance with this perspective in the union saw an excellent way to unite workers and make the necessary propaganda, aimed at creating an anarchist organization with strong working-class base. [...] In contrast, the trend antiorganizacionista suspected of close-quarters between anarchists and trade unionists. They thought that the case that the setting up of stable, solid and durable relationships, often unrelated to the demise of certain goals, it was a deviation from the same essence of anarchism. In the year 1905, the newspaper La Battaglia, a stronghold of antiorganizacionistas, summarized his thesis in the group La Propaganda. "[70]

Thus, it is possible to say, as did Schmidt and van der Walt, who would in this case two different strategies. What they called "anarchism of the masses," analog "organization" described by Samis, and they called "anarchism insurrectionists" analog "antiorganizacionismo" overcoming differences mentioned above. In "antiorganizacionismo Brazilian" gathered, in addition to those who supported the insurgent positions as driving the movements in those who also oppose the organization, held education as the primary means of anarchists working in the popular media, and many of those anarchists significant influence individualistic.

This does not mean that all those who supported the education were "antiorganizacionistas", as well as already explained, education was seen as being central to the vast majority of anarchists and the difference between "organizations" and "antiorganizacionistas" on this aspect is essentially gave the best way and the best means to promote such education. For the former, the unions were the most effective means to promote popular education, for the latter, not.

In addition to the strategic differences between the "organizational" and "antiorganizacionismo" had discussions within those chains. One, taken in the "organization" leads us to another aspect of the book of Fabiana Toledo. According Samis,

"Among organizational, which in theory accept the unions as a field tactician, yet there was no unanimity. They shared that position two streams: one, which was affiliated Neno, always faithful to Malatesta, who defended the neutrality of the trade unions and non-subordination of anarchism or any social doctrine, and others who, supported by experiences such as the V OUT Congress, in which anarchism had tacitly been recommended as an ideology to Congress, via the 'final' a more consistent. "[71]

Indeed, this strategic debate that took place within the "organization" Singapore seems central. We understand that the very motivation Edilene to write his book was to demystify the use of the "anarcho-syndicalism" - often used in reference to the Brazilian revolutionary unionism - and "anarcho-syndicalist" - also often used in reference to the anarchists who were active in unions.

For her, "anarcho-syndicalism, a term which in fact would only be used much later, had a different conception of revolutionary syndicalism" [72] and "part of the misconception of associating the whole labor movement of the First Republic to anarchism was a trend to incorporate the revolutionary syndicalism to anarchism, with the name of anarcho-syndicalism "[73].

And it really was, and still is, in our view, a confusion about the differences and similarities between the anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary unionism. And there are few approaches that have used and still use the term anarcho-syndicalism, referring to the experiences of revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalists term referring to the anarchists who defended the role of trade unions.

This is a really important discussion and we see that Fabiana Toledo, noting that it was proposed to analyze the phenomenon of association in Brazil's First Republic seeking an answer to what happened in Brazil was revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. The problem, it seems, is that this differentiation between them, she realized, correctly, that what happened in Brazil was revolutionary syndicalism.

However, we do not understand why, instead of identifying and deepen the differences between them, showing that what happened in Brazil was revolutionary syndicalism, and instead of showing the relationships, similarities and differences with the revolutionary syndicalism anarchism, she chose to do something else. He made the central thesis of his book an attempt to demonstrate the differences between anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism to demonstrate the incompatibility and the distance between them. Deepen a little discussion about this revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism.

As we have seen, within the anarchist camp had two strategies: one that defended the unions (major) and another that was against them (minority). However, as stated by Schmidt, van der Walt and Samis, into those who supported the unions, there was discussion about the type of bond that should exist between syndicalism and anarchism. And we believe it is this difference - the level of conscious and explicit linkage of trade unionism to anarchism - which takes the difference between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism. Consider the definitions presented in Schmidt and van der Walt on these two ways of conceiving the organization of workers:

"Anarcho-syndicalism is a term reserved for the more revolutionary type of unionism that is openly and consciously anarchist in its origins, orientations and goals. The classic example would be the Spanish CNT, which has its roots in the Spanish section of the First International anarchist [a FRE] and the ideas of Bakunin. [...] Revolutionary unionism, on the other hand, is a more reserved for variant unionist who, for various reasons, does not bind specifically to the anarchist tradition, and did not understand, ignored, minimized his descendants anarchist. [74] is typical of the current revolutionary unionists deny its alignment to any political philosophies or specific groups - claim to 'apolitical', despite the radical politics that together. The French CGT after 1895 is a classic example of a revolutionary union downplayed its links with anarchism. "[75]

As we try to demonstrate to the unions that supported the neutrality, independence and autonomy of the unions, that is, its not linking to any current policy is the ideological and revolutionary syndicalism. Revolutionary syndicalism has never before explicitly and consciously, in connection with anarchism. And this does not invalidate the claim made above: the revolutionary syndicalism is for us, a strategy of anarchism - a social vector - which was decisively driven by anarchists, although it has taken shape around a popular range of tariff and non-anarchists -anarchists, this body that was its true basis, and makes it not possible to assign completely the phenomenon of revolutionary syndicalism to anarchists. What differentiates this revolutionary syndicalism anarcho-syndicalism is the first ever to explicitly and consciously linked to anarchism, unlike the second. Considering this difference, the two greatest examples of anarcho-syndicalism in history have occurred in Argentina and Spain.

The Federacion Obrera Regional Argentina (FORA), "although being a class organization, [...] was representative of anarchism in Argentina" [76]. The Third Congress, 1903 to OFF rejects reformist socialism and the end of 1904 combine search unionism and anarchism. The V Congress of 1905, answering the question of what are the methods for the working class to conquer their full emancipation, AWAY says:

"The Fifth Congress workers regional Argentine consequent with the philosophical principles that are the raison d'être of the organization of federations workers, declares that he approves and recommends to all its members advertising and illustration as widely as possible in order to inculcate in workers the economic and philosophical principles of anarchist communism. This education, preventing them to hold the conquest of 8 hours, the track will lead to their empowerment and, consequently, to the social fetched. "[77] (emphasis added)

At this ideological orientation of the unions called off if "teleology forista. From this V Congress when, in our view, to mark the establishment of anarcho-syndicalism in Argentina AWAY, design is being advocated is that the workers organized and joins the union not on the idea or a philosophical belief or ideology, but by their status as exploited. Therefore, it was restricted to enter the union only to those who identify with anarchism: the unions let in all the exploited workers who were willing to fight for better conditions of life and work. However, beyond these goals to fight, it was believed that workers should seek the complete transformation of society and, through social revolution, build a new order. This teleology is characterized by long-term perspective, would be represented by anarchist communism. [78] The Congressional approval to endorse a conscious and explicit linkage to anarchism, encouraging its spread, and finally determined by the anarchist communism reveal, for us, anarcho OUT-unionism.

In Spain, for a similar process, the National Confederation of Labor (CNT), in its 1919 congress held in Madrid, also adopted a conscious and explicit link with anarchism, in its statement of principles:

"The delegates themselves - given the trend that shows more strength within the labor organizations of all countries is the one that goes to the full, complete and utter liberation of humanity's moral, economic and political, and considering that this goal can not be achieved until they are socialized the instruments of production, exchange, the land and remove the absorptive power of the state - propose to Congress, according to the tenets of the First International, which states that the purpose of the search National Confederation of Labor of Spain is the anarchic communism. "[79] (emphasis added)

In this case, too, what characterizes us anarcho-syndicalism of the CNT is the explicit linking of anarchism to be followed in later years.

Thus we can say that out until 1905, and the CNT, until 1919, were revolutionary unionist. After that date, both become anarcho-syndicalists.

Establishing what is anarcho-syndicalism, we can say that what happened in Brazil was revolutionary syndicalism, since the Brazilian labor movement never consciously and explicitly linked to anarchism. And here we agree with Fabiana Toledo. For us, the term anarcho-syndicalist applies more to the anarchists who advocated this link explicit and conscious unionism with anarchism than the anarchists who defended the role of trade unions. As we know, there were anarchists who defended the action by the unions but they were against this bond, as was the case, for example, Neno Vasco.

So for us, calling what happened in Brazil's anarcho-syndicalism and all anarchists who were active in the unions of anarcho-syndicalists is certainly a misconception that has been very committed to the case of the Brazilian history of the labor movement. However, this does not mean, at any time, revolutionary unionism should be removed or disconnected from anarchism, whatever you believe Edilene.

Returning to the reflections of Samis on anarchism in Brazil, we see that the first division was between strategic if the antiorganizacionistas and organizational. And within the organizacionistas was anarcho-syndicalists and revolutionary syndicalists. In this sense, these strategic differences of anarchism, even recognized by Fabiana, do not allow generalizations to be made in an attempt to assign aspects of "antiorganizacionismo" anarchism at all, as it does to generalize the headings "educationalists" [80], the say that the "insistence on class struggle is one of the aspects that drive the revolutionary syndicalism of anarchism" [81], or even maintain that "anarchists" argued that "the union was something to be fought" and that the fight the short-term issues would be "part of a reformist who would harm that capitalist society is perpetuated" [82]. Generalizations are still on the positions that were the subject of debate within the field of "organization": the assertion that those who defended the entry of anarchists in the union did "to prevent the Socialists to move into them" [83] or "streamline efforts to spread the anarchist idea" since as "the union would become anarchist" [84]. All generalizations that show the ignorance of the author in relation to the subject and lack of methodology in the trial of all the party.

The views we have support in the book of Sami, which states that the origins of revolutionary unionism are in AIT, maintaining its connection to anarchism:

"Anarchists the Organizational Brazil had already understood the need to exploit the favorable conditions offered by the rise of the proletarian forces gathered around the revolutionary syndicalism. After all, the methods had been inherited from the International and in particular the alliances that worked for years inside. Observing the proper historical and economic characteristics, it was then put in motion the project of revolution contained in the assumptions made in the Workers' Congress that the circumstances set out above, happened even before the drafting of the Charter of Amiens. Libertarians, therefore, because they have more directly opposed to the reformist ideas and concrete proposals that would fit the adjective 'revolutionary', and even appealing, thanks to all decisions made in the Workers' Congress, a non-negligible fraction of the workforce for unions, have become largely the privileged agents in a process that had the legend of revolutionary syndicalism its clearest trench fighting. Why not be possible for one idea to be dissociated from those who defend and, in particular, who took her inspiration for the ongoing movement to break with the existing order, falls on the shoulders the responsibility of the anarchists and the zeal necessary for the conduct of specific tasks arising from the resolutions of Congress. "[85]

In accordance with these positions, we can say that in Brazil were the anarchists organizacionistas the most responsible for driving the revolutionary syndicalism, understood by them as a strategy. Although other anarchists in the vast majority related to "antiorganizacionismo, with different positions, you can not deny the preponderance of strategic anarchist, which gave body to the revolutionary unionism, having this significant legacies of the AIT.

In Brazil, the "organizational" anarchist who advocated the strategy of revolutionary syndicalism had great influence of Malatesta, as was the case of Neno Vasco, a organizacionista Malatestiano:

"In Neno, most likely, closer relations with the Argentine was an opportunity not only to ignore borders, as required under the internationalist agenda, but also a closer relationship with anarchist organizations that, in his early years, they had a physical presence Malatesta. In the year 1885, the months of May and June, Malatesta came to Buenos Aires for a stay of about four years. [...] Malatesta perceived the need for anarchists to invest in training militants to join the associations of resistance. [...] Before returning to Europe, Malatesta was left Montevideo and Buenos Aires in the second half of 1889. At the time he was even more enthusiastic unionism. "[86]

In 1907, Malatesta defend the Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam in 1907, which

"The labor movement, though the best way, it was still" only a means' to achieve the revolution. The ultimate goal, although he said it was anarchy, as the classless society antagonisms, who in part defined the profile of working-class, have disappeared. Malatesta argued in reality what had inherited the anarchist movement of the International Covenant. "[87]

Fabiana Toledo does not deny this influence of Malatesta in Brazilian anarchism, quite evident, in fact, but emphasizes their positions most resistant to unionism. For her

"Malatesta considered unionism only one instrument. [...] He accused the unions of conservative, criticizing his concern about the immediate gains and his desire to replace the anarchy in the construction of future society. "[88] Furthermore," some anarchists have come to believe more in the importance of the union as strategy for both the daily struggle and for the construction of future society, embracing the revolutionary syndicalism, and, therefore, strongly criticized the so-called anarcho-communists, as Malatesta. "[89]

It should be noted, however, that despite being reluctant to various aspects of unionism, we can not understand how a antiorganizacionista Malatesta. He was an organizational defended the participation of anarchists in the unions, although unions see the various problems. Let's see what Malatesta himself says about it.

"Anarchists should recognize the usefulness and importance of the union movement should encourage its development and make it one of the pillars of its action, making it possible for this movement, in cooperation with other progressive forces exist, will deliver a social revolution that leads to abolition of classes, total freedom, equality, peace and solidarity among all human beings. But it would be a large and lethal illusion to believe, as many do, that the union movement can and should, by itself, as a consequence of its very nature, lead to a revolution of this magnitude. Instead, all movements founded on material interests and immediate - and you can not build on other grounds a vast movement of workers - if they lack the yeast, the momentum, the work of established men of ideas, fighting and sacrifice if glimpsing a future ideal, inevitably tend to adapt to circumstances, promote conservative fear of change and those who can obtain better conditions, and usually end up creating new privileged classes, serving to sustain and consolidate the system who want to kill . From this arises the urgent need that there are organizations closely anarchists, both inside and outside the unions, fight for the completion of anarchism and dealing with sterilization of the seeds of degeneration and reaction. [...] It is clear that in many cases the unions, the immediate demands, are required to agreements and commitments. I do not criticize him for this, but it is precisely for this reason that I recognize the unions essentially a reformer. [...] Through the organization founded to defend their interests, employees develop an awareness of oppression in which they are and the antagonism that divides them from their employers begin to aspire to a better life, get used to the fight collective solidarity, and can get to win those improvements that are compatible with the persistence of the capitalist and state. [...] While the unions should fight to get through the achievement of immediate benefits, and no doubt is just that workers require improvements, the revolutionaries go beyond that too. They fight for a revolution expropriating the capital and the destruction of the State of any State, no matter how you call. [...] The anarchists in the unions should fight for them to remain open to all workers regardless of their opinion and party, with the only condition to have solidarity in the fight against the bosses, should oppose the corporate spirit and any claim a monopoly of the organization and work. Should prevent the unions serve as an instrument of politics for electoral purposes or for other purposes authoritarian, and instruct and practice direct action, decentralization, autonomy, free enterprise, should strive to learn that organized to participate directly in life of the organization and not need to create leaders and civil servants. "[90]

Let us recall the arguments of Samis and Edilene. Samis said Malatesta argued that the entry of anarchists in the union, being an enthusiast of them, arguing that unions would be not only a means, but the best way to get to the revolution. However, for Malatesta, the unions would be only a half since the end would be anarchy, or a future society, libertarian socialist. Fabiana says Malatesta considered the union a mere instrument, a conservative, criticizing the immediate achievements, saying that the unions would replace the anarchy in the construction of future society, and that Malatesta would have criticized the anarchists who embraced revolutionary unionism.

Malatesta himself - though he had asked with regard to trade unionism, as stated by Edilene - emphasizes the importance of the union movement, placing it as a pillar of anarchist action. However, for him, as Sami said, the unions would be a means, not an end in itself, ie, unions embody the mass movement capable of accumulating strength to a revolutionary design that should not head to unionism, but socialism, so his claims of unionism as a means and not an end. Malatesta, nevertheless, never endorsed the unions without criticism or concerns. It certainly was the basis of these criticisms and concerns that Edilene based his assertions. However, regardless of the criticisms and concerns, Malatesta recognized the need for mass popular struggles, which would be incurred on material interests and immediate - that is, on the need - the merits of short-term gains (reforms) and their usefulness for workers, the importance of such mobilizations to gain awareness and understanding of class struggle. Still, for him, the unions would not be revolutionary course, just because they are based on short-term struggles. Hence the need for anarchist action, proposing a methodology and syllabus: openness of trade unions of all workers, independent of parties and electoral interests, direct action, decentralization, free enterprise and self-management - which would boost trade unions for social revolution . Thus, we can say that Malatesta, despite these reservations, the anarchists encouraged to adopt the strategy of revolutionary unionism and propose to do so, a specific role to be played by anarchism.

This was the strategy recommended and adopted by the majority of Brazilian organizational which were largely Malatestiano. Samis again cites an example of Neno, saying that

"He was fighting for the right one collective way to the revolution, because this was not necessary to rely solely on spirits selfless and courageous, hard to find, except sporadically. In the collective, even second Malatesta, the combined effort could, and invariably came, the union of men of average quality quite common. Neno this way the need to prepare for entering the anarchists in the masses, encouraging insurgency and showing models from the propaganda of surveys that have been happening around the world. The 'big night' so desired should come from the collective forces, otherwise remain dormant memory, as the chimera repressed desires of the powerless individual minds. "[91]

So it was a deliberate action, media anarchist organization, preferred to adopt a strategy of revolutionary syndicalism. And therefore, we are mistaken that the differences between Fabiana Toledo is anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism. She puts it in his book that "many anarchists also decided to join the trade union movement, inspired by revolutionary syndicalism [92], and cites as an example Sorelli Giulio, who" entered the revolutionary labor movement, without abandoning, however, anarchism "[ 93]. Examples that contradict his own thesis that revolutionary syndicalism was a different ideology of anarchism. Were the anarchists as Neno Vasco or Giulio Sorelli defending two different ideologies and second Edilene contradictory? For us, obviously not. They were militant anarchists, supporters of "organization" Brazilian, and who saw the revolutionary syndicalism and best strategy to be adopted.

Get into some detail what we are considering the strategy of revolutionary syndicalism in Brazil. How Edilene places, the French CGT

"Asserted the independence of the unions in relation to socialism and anarchism. Its main objectives were to organize workers in the defense of their moral, economic and professional, without linking this fight to any party or political affiliation. "[94]

It is a consensus to Edilene and Sami, as well as several other Brazilian historians, the revolutionary syndicalism in Brazil had extensive and direct influence of the French - although it is not possible to state an equal models - with the Workers' Congress 1906 sent "to the French working class the most ardent expression of their sympathy and solidarity, showing him as a model of activity and initiative of workers in Brazil." [95]

In this sense, there is no doubt that the labor movement in Brazil was really inspired by the CGT, and this is another argument that supports the position that the union strategy that was adopted in Brazil was of revolutionary syndicalism, which was the strategy of the French and not that of anarcho-syndicalism. And it also confirms the thesis approved by Congress in 1906, when

"Advises the proletariat to organize themselves into companies endurance economic grouping essential and, without abandoning the defense, direct action, the rudimentary political rights needed by economic organizations, and the union put out the political struggle of a particular party and the rivalries that result from the adoption by the association of resistance, a political or religious doctrine, or an election program. "[96] And again:" Congress considers only method of organization compatible with the irrepressible spirit of freedom and with the overriding need for action and education workers, the federal method, the widest autonomy of the individual in the union, the union federation and the federation the federation and only admissible as simple delegations to function without authority. "[97]

Thus, there is no doubt that when grouped into the workers' associations of resistance - which, thereafter, in Brazil, would be called trade unions - to fight, using methods of direct action, autonomy and federalism, was that it was a revolutionary syndicalist struggle. Fight this, as stated, was driven by anarchist organization, such as Neno Vasco that after this Congress, said:

"Congress was not in a sense, a victory of anarchism. Should not be. The International undone because of party struggles within it, should be memorable lesson for all. If Congress had taken libertarian character, would have made our party, not class. Our aim is not be duplicates of our groups. But if Congress is not the victory of anarchism was, however, indirectly useful to the dissemination of our ideas. "[98]

Thus, the Neno that mean? That, at the time of Congress, the goal was not to create groups or anarchist organizations, or even want to turn around the labor movement in an anarchist movement, or even link trade unionism to anarchism. The goal of the anarchists was certainly boost a strategy that forces the masses to revolutionary syndicalism, that is, as emphasized Neno, in a project class. Since its inception, anarchists fans "anarchism mass" or "organization" - an anarchy that we might call social - had sought to create a people strong and widely held that could determine the course of the struggle and reach the intended goals . That's what recommended Malatesta:

"As we need the assistance of the masses to be a force sufficient material, and to achieve our specific goal is the radical change of the social organism through the direct action of the masses," [there is only one alternative]: "We must approach them, accept them as they are and as part of the masses, make them go as far as possible. "[99]

When anarchists proposed a methodology and a program for the functioning of the unions sought to make were as far as possible, as places Samis, saying that organizacionistas

"Advocated by the need to strengthen the resistance of the alloys and to introduce these content explicitly revolutionary class. Also in this tactic could be seen the influence of Malatesta that since the end of the previous century, prescribed the entry of anarchists in the union. According to the libertarian militants should air the mentality of the union, awakening in them a sense opposed to the authority, teach by example and encourage revolutionary initiatives, by direct action, federalism, and the fight against the authoritarian socialists in tune with parliamentary tactics. "[100]

In closing this discussion of Brazil, can tie up the main points made. Anarchism in Brazil, as well as around the world, differed in relation to strategies and tactics to be adopted. This difference was evident mainly in the division that occurred between the "organizational" and "antiorganizacionismo. Generalizations of Fabiana Toledo evidence that elements of anarchism that deviate from the revolutionary syndicalism are all of the field "antiorganizacionismo. Anarchists organizational and Neno Vasco and Giulio Sorelli, inspired by the ideas of Malatesta, were the foremost advocates of revolutionary syndicalism. Finally, although we agree that revolutionary syndicalism is not the same as anarcho-syndicalism, and was the first one was conducted in Brazil, this is not meant to minimize the importance of anarchists. As with CGT French revolutionary syndicalism in Brazil was a decisive driven by anarchists and defended as the best strategy for the labor movement, so that he could perform the dual purpose of fighting for short-term gains and to meet the forces that to achieve the social revolution and build a new society. The congressional resolutions, far away from anarchism to revolutionary syndicalism that if adopted, only show the full implementation of one, although the main strategies of the mass of anarchism.

Anarchism and syndicalism Revolutionary

As we deal with in this article, no less than we disagree strongly with Fabiana Toledo when she claims to have presented "a more detailed analysis [101] on the subject in question. According to the arguments we have set out, his analysis does not show "more careful" in any respect whatsoever. It presents, in our view, mistaken definitions of anarchism and what anarchists argued, beyond the generalizations that tend to judge the whole from a part, often minority.

Not surprisingly, in this sense that the bibliography of his book there is no classical anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta), which proves our assumption that the author has fallen into the tale of a reading of second-hand interprets the arguments to anarchists their own way (in most cases, mistaken). There are also significant problems in their comparisons between revolutionary syndicalism and anarchism in their interpretations of the positions of anarchists towards unions, and the history of revolutionary syndicalism. All this, leading the author to the mistaken conclusion that the unions would be a revolutionary ideology and autonomous self, a different political tendency of anarchism.

In addition to ignorance, there are methodological problems, since the author clings to the terms and self-definition, which, as we try to demonstrate, is not a good criterion to be considered alone. For us, a good criterion should be based mainly on the practice of facts.

It seems also that the author tries to overcome an ideological vision - and therefore would refer to some concerns of a non-scientific - a theoretical view of history - they should stick to the hard facts and even in science. [102]

To counter these views, it seems that the contributions of Schmidt and van der Walt is of paramount importance to make a rereading of anarchism and syndicalism in the world, challenging settings made and facts presented by other authors and at other times, reflecting on the subject from what it is and not what others said it was. In our view, is the only book that deals with the issue, really, on a global level - running away from the traditional Eurocentric readings or even partial and generalizing - analyzing experiences around the world, performing a very strict reading of the events and historical documents and developing brilliant performances.

Similar praise could do the Sami, one of the greatest historians of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism in Brazil from the early twentieth century, which leaves no doubt about his criticism of the conclusions Edilene. Unlike her, Africans and Samis, in our opinion, really do "further analysis" on the issues involved.

We should strengthen the view that anarchism is not an ahistorical phenomenon, lost in time and space, which allows one to identify this anti-authoritarian sentiment since the dawn of humanity. Anarchism is an ideology that comes from the labor movement of masses of the nineteenth century, in a time of capitalist development. And so, we can say that anarchism may have arisen in Proudhon, which develops, reaching maturity in the AIT, with Bakunin and alliances.

For us, the AIT is the birthplace of revolutionary unionism that would extend the decades of 1870 and 1880 and, therefore, as we hold, the CGT is a continuation of a first wave of revolutionary syndicalism, which was responsible for the demonstrations that took place in Brazil, mainly the beginning of the twentieth century.

Since the AIT, the strategy of the anarchists was clear: to strengthen people's movements and give prominence to them. And that is what the anarchists sought to accomplish when stimulated revolutionary unionism.

As we try to sustain the revolutionary unionism should be considered as an anarchist strategy, and, therefore, part of which involves the broad anarchist tradition. Vision that we think is shared by the three authors who chose to oppose the view Fabiana Toledo. Samis, when dealing with Brazil and Portugal, says:

"Since, in both countries, this case was admittedly adopted unionist from his theoretical matrix French, conceived by this effort Pelloutier, Pouget, and Delesalle Yvetot, all declared libertarian, is hardly an exaggeration attributed to anarchists some prominence in relation to the use of all methods gathered under the banner of 'revolutionary unionism'. This prevalence was even a widespread acceptance at the time, since, with the aim of condemning the current majority of the French CGT, the reformist guesdistas and worth to the epithet 'anarcho-syndicalist' to identify the supporters of revolutionary syndicalism. Obviously taking any move by his current majority, also widely applied practice, prevents them from accurately explain the complexity of the model revolutionary syndicalist, endemic in much of the world until the Great War. On the other hand, depriving the universe that was his strength is more vibrant, at least steal a body movement that actually moved and horrified the international bourgeoisie for at least two decades. In the Brazilian and Portuguese cases, men who, like Neno, helped build the revolutionary syndicalism were mostly devoted anarchist. Those who fought to the bone as the major confederations, the CGT and the COB in Portugal in Brazil - using to achieve their demands direct action, boycotts, sabotage and the general strike, moreover, methods heavily identified with the anarchism - have left a greater or lesser degree, to make the libertarian propaganda within these organizations. [...] To reinforce that thinking and adopting the premise on which Pierre Bourdieu defines as scientifically absurd 'the opposition between individual and society', it is also absurd the possibility, in the name of a generalization about one's current political stand-alone ' , to move away from it the ideology that largely inspired his action methods or simply the relative contribution of certain individuals when they incorporate the militant cadres of the ideology in question. Too bad when these individuals were not only numerically significant as in everyday construction of revolutionary syndicalism, in fact assumed role. Similarly, we can say that the institution of the revolutionary project was a union wins, if not all of it, but a significant proportion of the working class. Coming to this - invoking E. P. Thompson, referring to the self-help class - could never be considered as such or even exist without the presence of social actors, many of them with ideological credentials well defined. It is significant to point out in a reasonable number of cases, and certainly in the Brazilian and Portuguese, the revolutionary syndicalism grew up as opposed to a significant social reform; and before Bolshevism current that can only be considered after 1917, represented anarchism the only revolutionary ideology clearly with sufficient density to provide inspiration union policy, in addition to the practices already listed here. "[103]

And in this sense we chorus saying that we must consider the strategy of revolutionary syndicalism part of anarchism, with no way to erase the history of the anarchist unions. Still, we must emphasize again, as Samis argues that despite the revolutionary unionism was promoted as a strategy anarchist, he materialized as a work of class. So do not deserve the credit for that revolutionary syndicalism was the only anarchists, but all working people who mobilized around the unions and decided to take upon itself the task of changing the world. This class that we are in agreement went far beyond anarchism.

In conclusion, we regret that the book of Fabiana Toledo has been published by a major label, and therefore has a great distribution in Brazil, as it continues to reaffirm that the misinterpretation is made of anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism, both by ignorance, for deliberate bad faith. And unfortunately, as the works of Schmidt and van der Walt and the Samis have not yet had the opportunity to be published in these lands. This is an unfortunate picture of historiography that "Brazil" comes from deciding to build.

January-March 2010

* My sincere thanks to fellow Manolo that despite disagreements about my approach, was a factor in discussions of this article, which results in many places, and even some approaches were changed. I also thank colleagues Daniel Alves Leo Vinicius and by contributions.


1. Norberto Bobbio et alli. Dictionary of Politics. Brasília: Editora UNB, 2004, pp. 585-587.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., Pp. 431-432.

4. Fabiana Toledo. Anarchism and Revolutionary Syndicalism: workers and activists in Sao Paulo in the First Republic. São Paulo: Abramo, 2004, p. 12.

5. Ibid., Pp. 42-43.

6. Ibid., P. 41.

7. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press, 2009, p. 84.

8. It should be noted that only we see this problem in the discussion of Proudhon and in all other subjects, reading the original literature and the choice seem the best. Perhaps, in this case on Proudhon, the authors have made the choice to be guided by interpreters by the size and complexity of his work. However, by working primarily with literature in English, did not consider interpretations that seem most relevant as Georges Gurvitch, Jean and Pierre Bancal Ansart.

9. Pierre Ansart. El del Nascimiento Anarchism. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu, 1973.

10. Proudhon would be based on the concept of class struggle developed by Blanqui and Guizot, well before Marx.

11. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 45.

12. Ibid., P. 46.

13. Still, we think it's important stop pointing the need for a deepening of the writings of Proudhon and the development of socialism from his work What is Property? 1840, until the late 1860, when it appeared the ADS. Not to say that it seems essential to continue the studies on Bakunin, AIT and ADS, which we believe are a little more advanced.

14. It is interesting to seek a deeper reflection on the issues of rationalism in anarchism. Several authors attribute to anarchism an enlightened origin and therefore place emphasis on this issue rationally. Without questioning the principle of rationalism, the approach in question, it would still consider another hypothesis, which emphasizes the influences of the Renaissance, especially in anarchism understand a project that has the wishes of those who drive, not a model predetermined. While the project is linked to weather and climate, the model attempts to loosen them, which can seriously condemn it.

15. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 71.

16. This does not mean denying the importance of Kropotkin, in the world, was certainly the anarchist who exercised more influence.

17. Élisée Reclus. Evolution, Revolution and the Anarchist Ideal. São Paulo: Imaginary, 2002.

18. Differentiating here reformism reforms. Reformism is to design solutions that give within the capitalism. The reforms are short-term gains which may, depending on how you understand the anarchist strategy, make you go to a social revolution.

19. If the class struggle as a concept is refuted by the anarchists, the fact is that the inequalities of capitalist society and are not statist, and the fact that there are exploiters and exploited, oppressor and oppressed and that the contradictions in these cases are undeniable. So what is the part of anarchists, is a rejection of the form (the term used), but not the content (the inequalities of society and its contradictions). In our view these inequalities and are represented in social classes and their contradiction in the class struggle.

20. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 123.

21. Makhno before his arrest (1908-1917) and Malatesta and Kropotkin during a period between the years 1870 and 1880.

22. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 124.

23. Milkhail Bakunin. The Politics of International. São Paulo: Images / Spark, 2008, pp. 67-69.

24. Gaston Leval. Bakunin: Founder of revolutionary unionism. São Paulo: Images / Spark, 2007, p. 19.

25. Concept developed by Samis on pavilion Black on Homeland Oliva. In: History of the Revolutionary Workers Movement. São Paulo: Imaginary, 2004.

26. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World: Neno Vasco, anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism in two worlds. Lisbon: Letra Livre, 2009, pp. 115-116.

27. Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT). "Charte d'Amiens, 1906. (

28. Apud. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, p. 126.

29. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit .. p. 13.

30. Schmidt and van der Walt use the term "trade unionism" (in English syndicalism), differentiating it from the "trade-unionism or syndicalism before this revolutionary intent (unionism in English).

31. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 155.

32. In support of this thesis, the authors show the trade union experiences, which had characteristics very similar to what the future would be called revolutionary unionism is in Spain, the Spanish Regional Federation (ERF) in 1870 followed by the Federation of Spanish Regional Workers (ftree) of 1880 ; in Cuba, the movement inspired by the FRE in 1884, the U.S., the movement involving the Martyrs of Chicago in the 1880s in Mexico the General Congress of Mexican Workers (CGOM) founded in 1876.

33. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 51.

34. Ibid., P. 12.

35. Ibid., P. 13.

36. Ibid., P. 15.

37. Ibid., P. 59.

38. Ibid., P. 66.

39. Ibid., P. 87.

40. Ibid., P. 116.

41. Recalling that we are discussing not the term, but the content that it implies: inequality and contradiction.

42. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 87.

43. Ibid. p. 47.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid. p. 49.

46. Ibid. p. 87.

47. Ibid. p. 50.

48. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op .. p. 16. We must bear in mind the distinction between the "syndicalism" and "unionism," explained earlier. In this case, the authors speak of "syndicalism". It is important to think about the dialectic of anarchism as an ideology that comes from the popular movement, but at the same time, boosts the movement itself. In this sense, anarchism encourages grass-roots movement, based on programmatic and methodological approaches, making it the ideology that drove the revolutionary unionism, working as a motor, a starter. However, revolutionary unionism should not be considered a work only of the anarchists, as were the employees of different ideologies (anarchist or not) that became the foundation that gave substance to such a powerful global movement, carrying out their actions. Revolutionary unionism was when the great popular movements have endorsed the main strategy anarchist. Metaphorically, these movements could be understood as boats or doughs, and anarchist ideology, as engine or starter. If the boats or the masses do not exist, nothing would serve as engines and yeasts.

49. Ibid., P. 170.

50. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 59.

51. Ibid., P. 65.

52. Ibid., P. 102.

53. Apud. Ibid., P. 89.

54. Ibid., P. 61.

55. Ibid., P. 69.

56. Ibid., Pp. 53, 79.

57. Ibid., P. 84.

58. Ibid., Pp. 11-12.

59. Ibid., P. 122.

60. Bakunin. The Politics of International, pp. 42-43, 46.

61. James Guillaume. The International: documents and memorabilia vol. I. São Paulo: Images / Spark, 2009, pp. 62-64. Bakunin argues these statutes, claiming them in "La Organización de la International. In. Frank Mintz (ed.). Bakunin: critica y acción. Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2006, pp. 109-110.

62. Mikhail Bakunin. The Politics of International, p. 59.

63. Mikhail Bakunin "The Dual Strike Geneva. In: Gaston Leval. Op., P. 95.

64. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 158.

65. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 44.

66. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., Pp. 271-276.

67. Bakunin. The Politics of International, p. 41.

68. Ibid., P. 56.

69. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., Pp. 12-13.

70. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, p. 161.

71. Ibid., Pp. 337-338.

72. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 59.

73. Ibid., Pp. 48-49.

74. There were also those who explicitly refused its descent.

75. Michael Schmidt and Lucien van der Walt. Op., P. 142.

76. Eduardo Colombo. "The F.O.R.A.: the 'final' revolutionary. In: History of the Revolutionary Workers Movement. Op., P. 76.

77. Apud. Eduardo Colombo. Op. In: History of the Revolutionary Workers, p. 100.

78. Ibid., P. 101.

79. Apud. José Peirats. La CNT en la Revolución Española. Tomo I. Cali A. A. La Cleaver, 1988, p. 28.

80. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 43.

81. Ibid., P. 66.

82. Ibid., P. 14.

83. Ibid., P. 52.

84. Ibid.

85. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, pp. 200-201.

86. Ibid., Pp. 188-189.

87. Ibid., P. 228.

88. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 36.

89. Ibid., P. 52.

90. Errico Malatesta. Los Anarchists and Movements Obreros. In: Vernon Richards. Malatesta: pensamiento y acción revolutionaries. Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2007, pp. 111-130.

91. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, p. 232.

92. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 49.

93. Ibid.

94. Ibid.

95. Apud. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, p. 196.

96. Brazilian Workers Confederation. "Resolutions of the First Workers' Congress of Brazil." In: Edgar Rodrigues. Socialism and Unionism in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro: Laemmert, 1969, p. 121.

97. Ibid., P. 117.

98. Apud. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, p. 196.

99. Errico Malatesta. " 'Idealism' and 'materialism'." In: Anarchists, Socialists and Communists. São Paulo: Cortez, 1989, p. 55.

100. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, p. 154.

101. Fabiana Toledo. Op.cit., P. 122.

102. For us, the ideology is not and can not be science, and that is why we believe it is impossible to speak of "scientific socialism". The ideology is in the field of aspirations, ideas and values. In contrast, the theory can be grounded in science and seek truth, and therefore is closely tied to the story. To investigate this difference between theory and ideology, see the "Huerta Grande" of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, which is based on the positions of Malatesta.

103. Alexandre Samis. My Country is the Whole World, pp. 429-431.

Related Link:

Rate this article: 
No votes yet