Sectarianism

In Defence of Associative Specificity – Part III: “The marxian church against anarchist “sectarianism”” by Gustavo Rodriguez

Posted on 2022/04/20 - 2022/04/20 by darknights

Concerning (Inherently) Anarchist “Sectarianism” Part I

Consulting the dictionary: concepts and definitions of “sectarianism” Part II

———————————————————————————

Part III: “The marxian church against anarchist “sectarianism””.

Anti-sectarian grammar achieved preeminence amidst the entanglements of the First International between 1864 and 1872. While during its first years the conceptual discrepancies between Proudhonians, Blanquists, Lassalleans and Marxists had been resolved without major tantrums within the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), in 1868 tensions increased with the incorporation of Bakunin and a large group of like-minded people. The anarchists went so far as to demolish all the economistic onanism of Saint Charlie and his acolytes, placing in their sights the “gravest evil”. That is to say, the State (in particular) and all authority (in general). Thus, they erected their strongest theoretical specificity on the assumption that property or, generically, the relationship with the means of production, was not the only and excluding factor of “class” domination, but that the very instances of domination – and the State in particular – were also mechanisms that generated social groups that could be considered privileged.

On top of all that, the anarchists defended the full autonomy of the different sections of the IWA against the statutory centralism of the General Council tooth and nail. This position provoked the definitive rupture with the Marxists during the celebration of the V Congress of the Association in 1872. The theoretical-practical positions were irreconcilable and markedly antagonistic. For Saint Charlie, the International had to be the centralizing and guiding organ of the “movement”; while for the Russian anarchist and his comrades, it had to be a planetary conspiracy lacking a directing organ, centred on the concrete individual and his freedom; capable of eradicating all authority from the face of the earth, even that which was instituted in the name of the proletariat. By placing individual freedom and voluntary and autonomous association “before the historical development of society”, they received the eternal condemnation of the marxian Church and were accused of being “sectarians”; becoming the target of the wrath of Saint Charlie and his fervent sacristans. Continue reading “In Defence of Associative Specificity – Part III: “The marxian church against anarchist “sectarianism”” by Gustavo Rodriguez” →

Thessaloniki, Greece: The time has come for my roar to be heard – Denunciation of sectarianism by the Biologica haunt

Posted on 2021/12/29 by darknights

“Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! […] You have a fixed idea!” – Max Stirner

It’s been some time that I wanted my anger to be heard. An anger that awaited for its moment, so that it can be ready to be released from within me. If this denunciation won’t bother everyone, it will bother most, if not then it will bother a few. And for many reasons that I won’t analyse!

I have been active in the anarchist / anti-authoritarian milieu in Thessaloniki since September ‘21 and I was not pleased by many things and generally they do not express me. Because, as Renzo Novatore wrote, “I am an individualist because I am an anarchist and I am an anarchist because I am a nihilist.”

Nevertheless, I did not fall into the trap of dogmatism, I did not stop my activity just because most collectives and squats do not represent post-left anarchy, pure negation, direct action and informalism. Whenever and wherever I could, I showed my solidarity in practice, from participating
in postering, to taking part in protests, and only out of personal desire because I was tired from complete isolation in Athens.

But some do not appreciate it and worse, they turn against me.

Since the announcement of the plans for the demolition of the Biologica haunt, I wanted to show my solidarity and support in this situation that the squat has come. I knew very well what had happened 9 years ago, but it wasn’t an obstacle in this particular action of mine, because I was not involved in the “civil war” 1 as I did not and will never hold a position in these past events, because nothing will change, as it would be stupid of me to maintain vendettas. I always look at the present, I only study the past when there is something useful for today!

The first open assembly in support of Biologica is announced and took place in SPS 2 . In short, before the assembly began, I was asked by a person (whom I do not know if they are from Biologica or from another collective that is housed in the haunt) to leave because I am not accepted,
because I am from the anarchist haunt of Nadir. I respected this request because I had no mood for fights and quarrels. I left SPS and then some comrades (not related to Nadir) left some minutes later dissatisfied by this request. Continue reading “Thessaloniki, Greece: The time has come for my roar to be heard – Denunciation of sectarianism by the Biologica haunt” →

Consulting the dictionary: concepts and definitions of “sectarianism” Part ii by Gustavo Rodríguez

Posted on 2021/12/17 by darknights

First part can be read here: In Defense of Associative Specificity by Gustavo Rodríguez EN/ES

From anarquia.info, translated by Act for Freedom Now!

According to the Diccionario de uso del español¹ María Moliner,² it is defined as:

Sect: Doctrine taught by a teacher and followed by his adepts. Particularly, the doctrine and the group of its adepts. desp. Doctrine considered erroneous, or that departs from the traditional or official, and, especially, that which is considered pernicious for its followers: “Destructive sect”. A group of the followers of a sect.
Sectarian: -a (adv. sectarian) 1 adj. and n. (of) Follower of a certain sect. 2 Applied to one who fanatically follows a doctrine, and its attitude, opinions, etc. → *Intransigent, * partisan.
Sectarianism: m. Quality or attitude of sectarian.

If we consult the Indo-European Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish Language, it reveals that the noun “sect” (sectam) is the feminine of an obsolete participle of the Latin sequor (“to follow”) that comes from the Indo-European root *sekʷ-.³ The Oxford Latin Dictionary also agrees with this meaning.⁴ And, in the same vein, the Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary is also in agreement with this meaning; therefore, it is inferred that “the sect has as its first point of reference, not a particular doctrine, but […] membership to a group with a identity which is well-defined and distinct from the broader social environment […] The opposition is then manifested at the level of doctrine, morals, ritual and discipline and structuring of the group”⁵.

However, around this elucidation there are strong discrepancies, since the Indo-European root sek actually has three meanings that give rise to three Latin verbs: 1. secare (to blind/cut), 2. sequor (to follow), 3. siccare (to dry). The latter comes from the Latin word siccus (“dry”) which has a very different Indo-European root (*seik). However, secare or sectum (“to cut”), from which the Latin word sectio (sector/section/segment) derives, does seem to be related to the Latin and Spanish voice “secta”, as well as the verbs sequor, sequi, sequire (“to follow”, “to continue”, “sequence”). In this sense, the Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Latine. Histoire des mots by Alfred Ernout and Antoine Meillet, offers us a certain “solution” by combining the verbs sequor (to follow) and siccus (“dry”), concluding that secta could rather derive from the verbal frequentative sector.⁶ In this regard, it is curious – without falling into wordplay – that the feminine noun “sedition”, which comes from the Latin seditio, seditionis (“estrangement”, “disunion”, “going far away”, “departure from an established power or a common march”), from which also comes “revolt”), although derived from a completely different Indo-European root (*ei, meaning “to go”), is closely related conceptually to the notion of “sect” understood as the “doctrine that departs from orthodoxy” or “sections itself from the established”.

In the religious context, these nominatives (“sect”, “sectarian” and “sectarianism”) are widely documented in the Jewish religion. Specifically, upon their return from exile (in the 6th century B.C.E.), the idea of a single God became popular among the Israelites and, hand in hand with this monotheistic conception, any group that departed from the religious hegemony began to be adjectivized as a “sect” or “faction”, considering it a “disloyal practice”. In this sense, the Bible mentions the Sadducees, Pharisees, Nazarenes and Christians as factions of Judaism. When they departed from the orthodox ideas and practices of Judaism, they were called “sectarians”. Continue reading “Consulting the dictionary: concepts and definitions of “sectarianism” Part ii by Gustavo Rodríguez” →

In Defense of Associative Specificity by Gustavo Rodríguez EN/ES

Posted on 2021/11/29 - 2021/11/29 by darknights

ES: APOLOGÍA A LA ESPECIFICIDAD ASOCIATIVA

“The International was founded in order to replace the Socialist or semi-Socialist sects by a real organisation of the working class for struggle. The original Statutes and the Inaugural Address show this at the first glance. On the other hand the Internationalists could not have maintained themselves if the course of history had not already smashed up the sectarian system. The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers’ movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other. So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity al sects are essentially reactionary. […] And the history of the International was a continual struggle on the part of the General Council against the sects […] At the end of 1868 the Russian, Bakunin, entered the International with the aim of forming inside it a second International called the “Alliance of Social-Democracy,” with himself as leader. He – a man devoid of theoretical knowledge – put forward the pretension that this separate body was to represent the scientific propaganda of the International, which was to be made the special function of this second International within the International. His programme was a superficially scraped together hash of Right and Left […] atheism as a dogma to be dictated to the members, etc., and as the main dogma (Proudhonist), abstention from the political movement. This infant’s spelling-book found favour (and still has a certain hold) in Italy and Spain, where the real conditions of the workers’ movement are as yet little developed, and among a few vain, ambitious and empty doctrinaires in French Switzerland and Belgium. Resolutions I (2) and (3) and IX now give the New York committee legal weapons with which to put an end to all sectarian formations and amateur groups and if necessary to expel them.”

K. Marx, Letter to Friedrich Bolte, November 23, 1871. [1]

Since the defeat of Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, reiteration is a frequent ocurrence in the Babellian context in which the life of the so-called “anarchist movement” painfully takes place.[2] As if it were “Groundhog Day” [3], we are condemned to repeat the same experience indefinitely. Time and again, the ideological displacements and the conceptualizations of others gain presence in our camp. Thus – again – the notions of “sect”, “sectarianism” and “sectarian” emerge in the debate. We don’t have the slightest chance of escaping from this vicious cycle. Like Phil Connors (Bill Murray) in the famous comedy, every day the same song is hammered into us (at six in the morning!), forced to repeat ourselves in an infinite cycle from which not even suicide saves us.

Perhaps, for those who come from the so-called “left” – who have happily already evolved into “libertarian” positions – and today share the same barricade side by side, these imprecations have always been there, close at hand. Ready to be wielded at the slightest provocation. So they assume that such curse words are part of our lexicon or that they are part of a kind of universal vocabulary that we have to use out of obligation.

For those of us who have been in the fight for some years, the feeling of déjà vécu caused by the remastering of this farcical operetta is inevitable. Indeed, it’s not the first time that we have to face these epithets and, definitely, it will not be the last. They are repeated as a mantra invoking the “crushing march of history” (Saint Charlie of Trier, dixit). The sad observation is that this liturgy even occurs in the ins and outs of the praxis —live and active today— of the Informal Anarchic Tendency (TIA). A tendency that has no place for uniforming practices, nor for repetition; that is to say, the attempts at fronts, nor the attempts at “tactical unity” and “collective responsibility.” Continue reading “In Defense of Associative Specificity by Gustavo Rodríguez EN/ES” →

Chile: Against Sectarianism. For an Affinity Supported in Practice. Words from compañerxs Monica and Francisco EN/ES

Posted on 2021/08/01 - 2021/08/01 by darknights

Facing what we see as direct interpellations towards us, the need arises to write this text to make clear the issues.

As we have written on several occasions both individual and collectively, we understand anarchy not as an embodiment or place of arrival, but as a tension, a permanent confrontation in the first personm putting at the center the search for individual freedom. For us, this constant struggle has been real, which is why we find ourselves today behind bars. This situation has not prevented us from continuing to participate in struggle initiatives both inside and outside the jail.

In short, anarchy for us is an ethics and a permanent practice against authority, a practice in which we have met with others (not necessarily “anarchists”), enriching and enhancing our visions and capabilities, as well as forging close relationships of complicity, strengthened in the course of years and confrontation. To designate that these relationships can only be established with those who are called “anarchists,” apart from being a fallacy that can only be believed by those who have not ventured to travel the paths of the conflict and spend their time in front of the computer, is something that we reject from the moment when we prioritize establishing links over repeating empty slogans until you get enough. To self-identify as “irreducible anarchists” does not mean anything without being accompanied by a confrontational practice that sustains it.

On the other hand – and most importantly – assuming that anarchists only should relate to anarchists reflects an absurd purism and a sectarianism that, without a doubt, is an expression of authoritarianism. Establish coordinations and joint struggle initiatives only between those who are self-defined “anarchists” is to restrict and limit greatly our relationships and with this our chances of growing. It is to lock up stupidly in dogmatisms that restrict us and prevent us from free association. So, we see how in the name of freedom, some raise absolutely the opposite, setting sects as the basis for relationships.

With this, we do not want to say that we establish indiscriminate relationships or do not have a type of filter.

We have left clear points that for us are impassable in previous communications; repentances, dissociations and institutionality corresponds to some red lines that constitute insurmountable aspects that prevent carrying out any joint initiative with those who opt for these roads. As you can appreciate, these points do not correspond to empty labels but are concrete, in ways of living in prison and not only here. They are options that generate a total contradiction between what is said and what what is done. Well, maybe for some, the only value is what incendiary proclamations are said online or on some social network. On the contrary, we prioritize the practice and from there, we are establishing affinities and ruptures.

And certainly, authoritarian practices represent a point that we will not tolerate. We have never established fighting relationships based on authoritarianism and the experience of anarchist and subversive prisoners is no exception. The common points we have between all of them are a lot stronger than the discrepancies that we can have, discrepancies that evidently, do not represent insurmountable aspects, since if it were so, we would have set aside from the beginning of this initiative. The ties that unite us with the comrades have been forged in the confrontation. Inside as outside the jail, for more than a decade, meaning for us a relationship and enriching experience that, undoubtedly, has nourished, strengthened and qualified our anarchic path. Today, in this new confinement situation, this joint initiative is not new, but the last year has counted on important mobilizations that allow us to develop interesting projections. Now, as we affirm it in the article “about the need for continue the fight within the prison” of the magazine Kalinov MOST 4, the anarchist prisoners have broken with certain codes inside of the prisons, installed and reproduced by the members of the armed left groups from the ’80s, codes that mainly had to do with the reproduction of organic-partisan logic inside jail and also with establishing a ratio of superiority with respect to the rest of the penal population. They have been in charge of keeping live subversive codes with which we feel identified and that we see indispensable to incorporate and live. We refer to a refractory position and attitude against the prison institution that grants a particular identity, view and recognition both by social prisoners and the jailers. We also refer to the undeniable fact of continuing the fight within the prison, to show in practice that with the confinement nothing ends, that It is only another struggle, which breaks with victimism. Many times in the struggle for liberty of prisoners, comrades for decades have raised and taken forward an anti-carceral practice that has pierced the walls that divide the street and jail. These are just some of the subversive codes that we share with the comrades, who reinforce our ties of affinity in the task everyday and we are moving away from those who, even calling themselves anarchist, diverts away from the fight or is completely disconnected from this. What do these purists and so-called “anarchists” who are completely disconnected from these ideas and practices do when they face a trial or are in prison? We reiterate, we establish relationships based on common practices, not on the basis of words or incendiary announcements published on the Internet. Finally, we see the need to refer to the danger that sectarianism or purism represents within our spaces, apart from authoritarian relationships mentioned above.

From our clear anarchic positioning, supported in the permanent conflict and in individual freedom, we are establishing relationships and coordinations that potentiate us and strengthen us on this path for total liberation.

As the incendiary comrades of Conspiracy of Cells of Fire said a few years ago: Solidarity with Anarchist Prisoners and Those that Do No Repent of all Revolutionary tendencies!

TODAY WE SAY: Comrades Pablo Bahamondes, Marcelo Villarroel, Juan Aliste, Juan Flores and Joaquín García: To the street!

Mónica Caballero Sepúlveda. C.p.f San Miguel.

Francisco Solar Domínguez. C.p. Rancagua.

Translated by AMW
Continue reading “Chile: Against Sectarianism. For an Affinity Supported in Practice. Words from compañerxs Monica and Francisco EN/ES” →