Two contributions by Juan Sorroche: “The Mutual Agreement of Non-Systemic Revolutionary Anarchism or the Myth of Systemic Revolutionary Anarchism” and “A Misinterpretation of the Concept of Anarchist Individualism”
– THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF NON-SYSTEMIC REVOLUTIONARY ANARCHISM –
OR
– THE MYTH OF SYSTEMIC REVOLUTIONARY ANARCHISM –
Should ideological principles, concepts if not deepened nor confronted nor recognized in anarchism be assumed, assumed and accepted?
Once again, workers’ organization, strike, general strike, direct action, boycott, sabotage and armed insurrection itself are but means. Anarchy is the end.
Errico Malatesta, Syndicalism and insurrectionist organization, Monte Bove Editions, 2023
This is the second response in continuation of the critical-dialectic to certain evaluations and analyses regarding the article in “Vetriolo,” No. 7, “Revolutionary Anarchism versus Desistance.” I will use the text of “Vetriolo” as a compass for my reflections and to set forth conclusions. I don’t think they are anything groundbreaking, just a mixture of old and “new” ideas and concepts remixed. However to be honest it is also because of my little ability to write and follow with linearity certain discursive concepts that are very complex for me. And that the article touches, and they are different notions such as ideological principles, even historical, the organizational methods: the economic question in anarchism, as written in the first text, and different and very different tactics and strategies of struggle in anarchism. It also touches on what we call the more “visceral” subjective-objective conceptions of individual anarchist sensibilities. It also touches on anarchy-utopia if we want to deal in depth with the concept of revolutionary anarchism and thus the individual-collective notion of organizing.
These different notions as we see in reality are very complicated and complex of much of action anarchism. So please don’t blame me if I will be long-winded and use the writing of “Vetriolo” as a crutch and to thus develop my ideas with more linearity of analysis and criticism, more complex. But I want to try to write and take advantage to deepen the theories of the experiences of my individual vision of anarchism and anarchism-utopian. Without delegating to others.
And finally, for convenience, I will come out with separate and specific chapters as I go along. But as I said in the previous paper, which came out in the journal “Days and Nights [I giorni e le notti]” No. 15, it will be part of a whole, of a fuller pamphlet that I will title: “The Anarchist Organization of Change” “The Middle Way Planning” and “The Individual-Anarchist-Action.”
To begin to question the comparison of a complex range of concepts for me it is essential first, to understand each other, to have a conceptualization of mutual agreement. And, mind you, in common in sharing does not mean to flatten it into the all the same, but rather to be recognized in diversity in order to understand each other a little more deeply.
The article begins with this big question, “Revolutionary Anarchism?”
To begin to clarify. In part, only in part, I agree with the article by “Vetriolo,” who writes that “the revolutionary principle is inseparable from the anarchist idea.” So yes, anarchists and the whole anarchist movement and anarchism historically to date is in its majority revolutionary. So I could follow the same logic and say that even in the great majority it has been ideologically of anarchist-communist principles.
But, be careful, because to say that “the revolutionary principle is inseparable from the anarchist idea” to me is not really correct, either personally or historically.
Because in anarchism from the late 1800s until today there are anarchist individualities who do not believe, and have not been willing to take on, consciously denying it, the revolutionary principle.
Of course can I, can we, say that these anarchist comrades can be counted on the fingers of my hand? Yes. But they have been there and this cannot be erased by a majority criterion.
I believe that in anarchism, and in anarchism in general, one should not, by force of majorities or minorities, attach reasons or principles, and all the more so if they come from principles of revolutionary anarchism. Because I sincerely believe that so principles become absolute single idea, with their perfect method that everyone must adopt, they become myths, beliefs.
I believe that we must accept of the past and present the various diversities as such in anarchism, even those that are not in the least for revolutionary social transformations. But moved by other infinite motives and interests that of anarchist individualities have assumed for themselves:
For individual enjoyment? Revenge? Love? Despair? Revolt? Selfish egoism? For the sake of chaos? For the pleasure of destruction?, etc.
And this is beyond whether one likes it or not, or whether these different principles are conflicting. Just as there is no denying that there have been these non-revolutionary anarchist comrades, and that they have made their own contributions to anarchism of attack and not surrender. And I say all this from firsthand experience because I was one of these anarchist comrades who only believed in destruction and chaos and did not think about it, nor was I absolutely and consciously interested in social and revolutionary change. And this I do not want to ignore as if it were nonexistent, but instead as a constant development and part of me as an anarchist and of the contribution to anarchism that, however limited, I was able to make. This is a fact.
I would like to remind that concepts should be usable in both intuitive and logical relationships, and practical! And above all, first thoroughly discussed and shared, then acknowledged and accepted. And then, when they are accepted and enter into our articulation of theoretical-practical notions, then, for me, they are part of an anarchic collective whole. For me collective should be thoughtfully chosen by mutual agreement. Which very often, and systematically, is not done. It is a self-criticism.
So: What revolutionary anarchism? And what concepts of revolutionary anarchism?
– Why is it necessary first to ask all this and all the more to clarify some essential knots and especially not to take for granted ideological principles of these questions? Because there are very different hearts of the anarchist idea, not one, on which the theoretical-practical union of anarchism is based.
– And without these conceptual and visceral shares of mutual theoretical-practical bargaining in anarchism, is it not delegating to the authority of the conservative traditions of mythical thought and myths in anarchism?
I believe in this particular non-systemic revolutionary “permanent” way of mine.
And I see revolutions-liberations as methodological tools to be used, only to turn back to them again. And so continuously, in an endless cycle. My discriminant of revolutions is simple: they must be methodologically libertarian and anti-authoritarian. And that does not mean an “anarchist revolution,” an insistent concept for me.
Instead, I also believe that there are systemic and methodologically authoritarian revolutions: these, on the other hand, yes, are to be fought and deserted. So the concept of revolution and revolutionary would need to be explored well because it is complex.
I stole this concept: anarchist individuality in revolt-revolution-revolt-revolution-revolt… making my own a very interesting concept from the chapter “Revolt and Revolution” in Albert Camus’ book The Rebel, which he summarizes very well in this sentence:
“Every revolutionary ends up an oppressor or a heretic.”
That is why the “end” understood as the principle-end is anarchy (as Errico Malatesta also says).
It is not insurrection, revolution. I do not believe in revolution as a principle except as a method in anarchism-individual-action.
And be careful, because this thought of mine is a very pragmatic matter. And that comes from different concepts of E. Armand’s anarchist individualism.
So, first, the project is in organizing-organically of methods of partisan struggle in the long run “permanent.” Focus on that because it is the most practicable pragmatically, here and now, and it is not on the basis of, either primarily or a priori toward a direction or tension to insurrection, revolution. And it doesn’t mean that I don’t think about it, as you read. Plus I think it would be a good “ uniting trait” for the different diversities of action and revolutionary anarchism. Insurrections, revolutions are very changeable like the becoming of life itself in relation to the general, worldwide whole. They are not entirely intelligible. And often, as we have seen, and we see, historically requiring decades, years and years of pre-insurrectionary struggle with armed guerrilla struggles. Experience, even historical experience, tells us that it is not at all easy to achieve the means, methods, that must bring us up to the causes. Anarchism is not delegating organizing and waiting for the x hour and everything will come by itself. And this thought comes even, and especially of the antecedent traditional circles of revolutionary anarchism that deliberately lost these strategies in immobility, completely erasing the means to achieve them.
Then there is also today, in the anarchism of insurrectional-projectuality, we often make a temporal and spatial and organizational leap and go from actions… nothing… nothing… to intermediate-insurrectional strategy and revolutionary strategy as if in between, even, so many actions and strategies there is the NOTHING of struggles and means and basic tactical methods of organizing. To think of it this way, as almost all (mind you, not all, almost!) the anarchism of insurrectional projectuality does, and even the antecedent traditional immobilist circles of revolutionary anarchism, so seems to me metaphysical.
The experience of these last 25 years of anarchist struggle in Italy would be enough to understand this. For me it is so. So I would not be against insurrection, revolution, but I use it as a method instrumentally, as self-education of the methods of partisan struggle in the long run “permanent” and as gymnastics of the “revolutionary in the permanent state” (E. Armand).
So these: insurrection, revolutions, are to be used or not.
So it depends on the moment, it depends on how they are and how they develop in relation to the self organized in that space-time. And they are transient, temporal, they have a beginning and an end. And revolutions end when they become systematic because they become conservative systems of that such a “revolution,” even libertarian; so you have to revolt again.
So these are not my foundation of anarchism-individualism. Neither fundamental nor totalitarian.
The inseparable of any anarchism and anarchism in my opinion is not the revolutionary method or principle of anarchism. But instead it will always be the freedom and autonomy of all individuals and the individuality of anarchism.
Then I believe in it, in confrontation and for sharing the different and diverse principles of anarchism and libertarianism. And in the long run with perspective. And of organizing organically in action and revolutionary anarchism. And certainly collectively, in an anarchist minority struggle movement. So one should ask together by mutual agreement also this point that often seems to me very abstract. Just be clear.
So:
“Which of the revolutionary principles are inseparable from the anarchist idea?”
I believe all are inseparable if they are assumed acritically.
Because this presupposes the supremacy of the object and that in this case it is “the revolutionary principles of the anarchist idea” that are lowered from the top of the ideology than above the subject of the individual-being-anarchist: That in Itself they have denied the object Being subject consciously. And I believe that this supremacy comes from ideological mythical thinking, and idealized myths of higher principles despite being labeled as revolutionary anarchism or anarchist individualism and whatever. Because that is how the myth of the authority of the conservative tradition of an a priori belief will always remain. I think the principles, the concepts in action anarchism and revolutionary-libertarian if you want and decide to struggle-live in common, and not atomized, you should be able to be clear about the essential and constant characters of our different and diverse specific realities. By constantly taking back and assuming our times and spaces both individually and collectively in mutual agreement.
With our looks and notions, yes, individual, however, never forgetting that they are inseparable from the collective question of organizing each other. Especially if we decide and want to struggle in common in action anarchism and I believe even more so in revolutionary anarchism and that they have different and diverse visions of a shared world of living anarchy.
These substantive aspects, which are our particular, individual-collective “defining uniquenesses,” are riches to be valued and limitations and mistakes to be confronted in order to learn. However, I repeat because it is fundamental, one must have the recognized concepts of mutual agreement. And this should be present as a real awareness in all people and individualities who want to relate horizontally without hierarchies in anarchist and libertarian struggle-life. This is fundamental to be able to recognize, and therefore to recognize ourselves as comrades in struggle-life. Assuming all this; then, yes! Without having to proceed each time to further elaborations of all those methods, tools, objects, relations that present the complex of those same particular characteristics within the different diversities of revolutionary action anarchism. Of course, always continually under discussion and in a movement of relational development of struggle-life in anarchism.
This is exhausting, needs time and space wrested so willingly and passionately from practical and direct confrontation, especially in the 21st century, with (non-)relationships and technological “communications” with smartphones and the endless various prostheses that one should collectively desert in anarchism and destroy what creates them because: they manage to contribute and formulate technical surrogates of alienated-authoritarian and collective lives.
Effectively killing the mutual creative, intimate interchange, i.e., of complicity, that is the magic of the personal-collective relations of struggle. I believe that these experiences, today more than ever, are needed, as life-struggle relations, as “tools” of mutual interconnections and coexistence among comrades.
Because action and revolutionary anarchism is not necessarily synonymous with ease. But if we skip all that and do not continuously and dynamically recognize ourselves in these particular “defining uniquenesses” of ours, and if they are not mutually accepted at all, we are not, and will never be able to recognize ourselves as constructive complicities.
To finish this chapter and go further to be able to understand each other better and address these issues, I would like to conceptualize what I mean by: anarchism of action.
What anarchism of action? And what concepts of anarchism of action?
This concept for me is fundamental, inseparable and discriminating in recognizing each other’s sharing of mutual theoretical-practical agreements as comrades in anarchism, and includes all the different tendencies and visions of anarchism that are for the complete destruction of the state and capitalism.
So, first, recognition in anarchism that struggles in de facto actions. And which are actions of struggle of rupture attack against the structuring of any authoritarianism and specialism and non-delegation, individual-collective. With or without tactics and strategies.
This is beyond different tensions, tendencies, groups, collectives and individual inclinations. Beyond methodologies and means of organizing in revolt or revolutionary-libertarian action anarchism.
These, I repeat, for me are essential discriminants in action anarchism.
The concept of action anarchism has in it the antidotes to the reformism that is in our inner-outer environment.
It has in itself antidotes for non-surrender, against capital and the state and against all authoritarian structuring of privileges and specialisms.
It has antidotes of individual non-delegation to each other or others. The concept of action anarchism is autonomous acting individuality that either associates or does not. Or it also does both in different and whatever times-spaces, and evaluates by itself, without articles of faith. Praxis anarchism to BE such should have in it the non-delegation of individual to defensive-offensive acting.
Action anarchism is non-delegation to the superior ideological mythical object: to party-anarchism, movement-galaxy, trend, conditions, theories-analysis, preaching-verbal-radicals, cult of violence, cult of pacifism, inertia, resignation, etc.
I give this concept a fundamental importance, essential at the time of organizing for struggle in anarchism collectively.
30/01/2025
Juan Sorroche
“A BAD INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF ANARCHIST INDIVIDUALISM”
Now, having made these general reflections of the various concepts previously, I go into more specifics about the concept of anarchist individualism and its misinterpretation.
I agree with the article by “Vetriolo,” which is there:
“A misinterpretation of the concept of anarchist individualism.”
But I think there are misinterpretations of the concepts of anarchist individualism in the article by “Vetriolo.”
Of the interpretations at the misleading basis of atomism, that is to reduce notions and facts to a few simple elements, very complex and overall concepts. And which are created altogether by the ideologue of anarchist individualism E. Armand.
But which unfortunately the article glosses over completely, almost all of them. Naming one or two of them, atomizing them into too much fragmentation from the rest of the considerable planning of anarchist individualism, remaining exclusively in formality and surface, in just naming the name of E. Armand and the anarchist individualism theorized by him in its great complexity.
And in my opinion there are several important concepts of E. Armand’s anarchist individualism that we cannot ignore, at least if we want to analyze anarchist individualism and its development and criticize it even harshly as the article does.
I also believe that those meanings in the few sentences I read in the “Vetriolo” article by anarchist Enrico Arrigoni are also misguided. Of the phrases in the article and they are, yes, pro-democratic and reformist concepts and that would be enough to be in complete contrast to E. Armand’s anarchist individualism.
But, I apologize, but I could not say much more, out of my own ignorance, and, to be honest, without ever having read anything by E. Arrigoni, I prefer not to dwell on criticism, also because I might be wrong and make the same mistake I criticize and mislead myself into a certain atomism.
So, in order not to fall into that, I will go to the source, to the ideology directly to show literally the misinterpretation of the article of “Vetriolo.”
And the misinterpretation of the causes of any pro-democratic, statist and reformist concept of E. Armand’s anarchist individualism.
I believe that certain concepts that E. Armand in Anarchist Individualism criticize, yes, aspects of a certain revolutionary anarchism, however, what he thinks was systemic and authoritarian in revolutionary anarchism. Not all revolutionary anarchism, then!
E. Armand goes very, very, very well in depth and in the totality of these critiques, you would only have to read his book which I think is more complex, which is somewhat unobtainable in its entirety:
Anarchist Individualist Initiation, of pp. 566, released in Italy in 1956, thirty years after its first Italian translation. Translated edited by Fioravante Meniconi, immediately when the French edition came out in 1924-1925, but, when it was ready for printing, invaded the printing press in Milan the fascists burned all the copies and three could be saved from which this edition comes. And which I urge everyone to read, because it touches in the overall structure of the book so many aspects of anarchism and anarchy. It is very interesting and well done.
Plus I have to say out of intellectual honesty that my view of anarchism-individualism and the notions I use, and the criticisms I often make in these texts of some concepts-are stolen from there. Like the critiques of authoritarian systemic revolutions. Or the systemic authoritarian revolutionary. They come precisely by using in my own way, and making them my own, parts of the ideology and conceptual methods of E. Armand’s anarchist individualism. And I can say very convincingly that I have also consciously assumed in part the development of this current of E. Armand’s anarchist individualism.
Above all, I make these concepts by E. Armand my own:
“The Individualist as Revolutionary in the Permanent State,” from the book Anarchist Individualist Initiation, p. 194.
Or the concept of not being: “Revolutionary in the systematic sense.”
And that I think of already would be worth, with these various simple concepts, to question the whole basis of the article of “Vetriolo” on the question of “desistance to the revolutionary,” as the article of all anarchist individualism understands it.
But what does E. Armand with these concepts?
And especially how and what methods-means “of the individualist as a revolutionary in the permanent state”?
Again, I think it would be enough to go and read the book. It is crystal clear!
E. Armand writes it very clearly: he does not exclude, as we see in the sentence above, neither the revolutionary nor “the attacker” and “the individual attacker,” nor “the ‘illegalist’ expedient” nor any means-methods, even violent ones, such as insurrections and revolutions, that are consistent with the perspective of anarchist individualism.
Of course, yes!, he also includes pacifism, “passive resistance” as “revolutionary tactics.” And he also believes in peaceful revolutions; I think he prefers them, with abstentionism. With educationism, that each individuality will gain free and autonomous consciousness and will be so aware to face a general arm-crossing revolution and the state and any authoritarianism in the face of that will be more incapable of facing. But beware. Because it includes all these things in the whole perspective of anarchist individualism. Of course it has its preference, as we all have them.
He is certainly very clear in this, though: he does not set forth nor do I think he intended to do so a single solution, he advances a set of theories, theses, antitheses, and syntheses, of opinions, and of propositions through which an infinite number of design solutions can be formulated. Then each anarchist individuality can choose or exclude in an infinite alchemy, those best suited to its individual anarchist self. And in and with these sets of different and diverse methodologies, he wanted to create the anarchist individualist movement. But it is not thought of in one exclusive way. Like only the atom of educationism, or only the atom of pacifism, or only the atom of individual attack or the atom of “illegalist” expedient and so on and so forth and so on.
And I don’t say this as my own interpretation, Comrade E. Armand says it, writes it in the chapter: “Of the Revolutionary Gesture and the Spirit of Revolt,” pp. 181-195 of the book that I was quoting before and which analyzes well all these concepts and methods that are very, very interesting. Beyond whether I can agree or disagree. Then I will transcribe separately this chapter, but with the invitation to read the book, so that on the other hand I can’t mislead it, that so we don’t get a schematic and misleading idea.
For me, the economic issue of E. Armand, it is a different matter, because in that he is intransigent, and that to me is an error of vision, what the comrade does.
However on many other issues I disagree, such as on the economic issue of anarchist individualism, Armand makes a chapter in the book about it, explaining it well. That is to say, I disagree with the unique and exclusive use of this method of managing and organizing the materiality of things in a very general anarchist-individualism.
Just as I do not agree with anarchist-communism exclusively or other exclusive ways of organizing.
Just as I also disagree with informal anarchist organization when it becomes exclusive, unquestionable, as the absolute and only methodological means of organizing.
As well, I disagree with the creation of an exclusive movement of anarchist individualism as E. Armand wanted, and I could go on for pages more.
The issue for me is that dichotomies must be overcome, that there is one right and one wrong, one good and one bad, one positive and one negative, one creation and one destruction. Dichotomies that I am convinced we have to go beyond, even in conceptual forms and words, in a coexistence and acceptance of such and of continuous changes and hybridizations between anarchist-individualism and anarchist-communism, between revolutionary anarchism and anarchism in revolt, as well as other different and multifarious methods of living-role in anarchism of action. But be careful, I repeat, because I do this in general, about the exclusive use of any one method even economic, libertarian, homogenizing it. Here, yes, I think it becomes in my opinion a vision or methods of organizing in a systemic, authoritarian insurrection and revolution or a future “utopian” society, that is, it becomes dystopian, authoritarian. And I believe that E. Armand wanted this exclusive economic way, excluding anarchist-communism as a risk of authoritarianism, partly in error. But mind you, only partly.
I believe that to pass off the theories-practices of E. Armand and all anarchist individualism as desistance of the whole revolutionary, or as interclassist and reformist surrender, is a completely wrong thesis. That is not to understand the ideologue in the whole structure of that book, which is the theorization of the broad general movement he wanted to create and which developed autonomously; and not if you can extrapolate methodological pieces of that whole context of general theorization, because it is crystal clear.
At least to be honest with ourselves and with anarchist individualities who assume that and his practical thinking within the movement in anarchism of action and revolutionary.
And be very careful, because I am not denying here that within the current of anarchist individualism there is not this “desistance to the revolutionary” in the meaning given by the article of “Vetriolo.” That is, of interclassist surrender with specific “educationist” and reformist currents. Which I think need to be fought politically vigorously.
But, I think it is obligatory at this point to ask fundamental questions and interrogations that in the text of “Vetriolo” does not analyze:
– Did this happen and does it happen exclusively to the development of anarchist individualism?
– And most importantly, how does the text write for the responsibility of anarchist individualism historically and its development to the present?
– So I repeat why is it strong to imply by logicality that the whole surrender of “desistance to the revolutionary” is the responsibility of anarchist individualism?
– And therefore it is also a must to ask whether the “desistance to the revolutionary” does not come mainly from revolutionary anarchist-communism?
– Or from anarchist-syndicalism, which is also largely revolutionary communism?
– Or from a combination of factors of the whole historical development to date of the revolutionary anarchist and libertarian movement?
– Or of revolutionary development in general?
This responsibility to anarchist individualism without these reflections and analyses to me seems to mislead, is forced and becomes completely wrong, if we want to analyze a little more accurately and specifically anarchist individualism, and the ebb and flow of revolutionary anarchism to the present day. Which is a very complex thing.
But I think if you mislead the basic analysis, then you automatically and physically deviate from the methodological, tactical and strategic concepts and tools that you want to create.
I agree that we need to dialectically and deeply reflect on concepts in action and revolutionary anarchism as the “Glazing” article does in order to try to have methodological tools in perspective in anarchism today, and that to me is good even in dialectical contrasts-complementary like these. Analyses that I believe are, are, of constant changes, as well as changing conditions, so analyses to try to refine and improve, and why not, also to change tactical-strategic yet ideological tools and methods, when we think it is needed.
But above all, to place this exclusive responsibility on the whole of anarchist individualism and its development, it seems to me that in a way the article puts it as a kind of scapegoat; isolating itself, isolating us and isolating even those who have not surrendered in the struggle of anarchism of action but have different principles, concepts and methods of logic, even visceral, non-revolutionary logic. Yes, anarchist conception.
I prefer to have the feeling and spirit of accepting the collective responsibility of action and revolutionary anarchism. And that does not mean to deny individual responsibility. To be a part, to take on the “mistakes,” even very serious ones, and try to change the causes. Mistakes in quotes because it is a concept that belittles the scope, especially when we talk about the freedom of life and death of comrades and many other people, and they are very serious and very authoritarian it must be said, that our anarchist movement of action and revolutionary in the history of 150 years has made. For example, I feel very much taking on culturally and personally certain very authoritarian issues of anarchism in the “revolution” of Spain. Like the idea of creating concentration camps and having formed part of the state with all its repressive structures, prisons, repression even against comrades themselves, etc.
This is to say that if I am and feel consciously a part of anarchism; collectively taking responsibility for the ebbing of our entire anarchist and revolutionary movement and its great “desistance to the revolutionary” is a positive and constructive way of addressing its causes. And this in my opinion goes beyond the ideological currents within action and revolutionary anarchism in history to date. Take it on, neither blaming nor guilting, without victimhood.
With criticism, even frank but constructive among comrades in struggle.
Otherwise the whole article at its base becomes, sorry, flimsy.
But, yes, in a way in E. Armand’s concepts and mine there is also the paradox of contrasts-complementary of “desistance”-denial. That is, desistance as synonymous with defeatism, with desertion. But, I repeat so that it is clear, “desistance”-denial is desertion from the methods of the systemic, authoritarian revolutionary. It is “desistance”-denial of all systemic and authoritarian revolutions. And that one must be ready to fight.
So today I think it is important to continue in the specific circumstances that we are in, I think it is important to return to conceptualizing the meanings of the “old and new” concepts, and I think this is essential to deepen well from the practice of struggle. Because the goal for me should be the mutual recognition in the different differences of the whole movement of the revolutionary, anarchism of action and libertarian.
At least if what we want is to decide to make roads together, individually-collectively, and coexist articulately and organically to create real forces and qualitative relations of struggle in the anarchist minority. For me the intent, is, to try in action and revolutionary anarchism to recognize each other as comrades. Especially from diversity and in the multiformity of organizing.
And attention, I repeat, not only exclusively in a certain sectarianism, and that exists, in informality.
Although I consider today anarchist organizing informality for the historical context that I live the best method to use.
So hopefully we discover and recognize each other as constructive complicities instead of rejecting, and rejecting each other as differences and nullifying each other as enemies. This to me is real value of the word comrade! Not being aware of these issues, without real theoretical-practical deepening, makes, that we actually lose sight of its great complexity, even of the very serious mistakes, but above all of all the amazing and valuable creations experienced in 150 years of life-struggle of the historical knowledge of anarchism to date.
30/01/2025
Juan Sorroche