The intention of my work is coming to expose the "truth", but on the contrary, seek to be about the issues, I believe, deserve to be discussed as anarchists to better address our struggles, both present and future. That is why I will not seek any current referrers necessarily logical or purely academic, because anarchism is simply not based on them, although of course I support some ideas and thoughts that I think may be useful for a good approach.
What I like to address today is, specifically, that old opponent, that old enemy is for us and we the state. In this regard, and anarchists have written dozens of pamphlets, books and treatises. Much has been theorized [1] , is driven against [2] , and the relationship has always been controversial and virulent, because as we know, the State represents the main visible institution of oppression and authoritarianism, compared to which, as anarchists, we stand as the main antagonists.
These tests, these actions, this way of thinking correspond precisely to any stage of development of anarchism itself, which inevitably reflects his time, synonymous with their time and conflicts [3] . However, planted in this century that began long ago, we realize that the picture is rather different. Societies have changed, capitalism has changed, more complex and elaborated itself many times, and therefore the State has changed its form and its actions, but of course its dominance matrix structure has not changed, but instead, they perfected in their forms of social intervention.
Well, it is within this perspective, it is possible to realize that many of our ways of thinking and acting against the state have been taken out of context, that is currently lacking. Strange as that sounds, it seems that anarchism has operated some kind of univocal logic by which the thinking and assimilating the State has been institutionalized. Everything written and analyzed by various classical theorists of libertarian socialism seems to be sacred point, against which there is not much to add or say, at most we can add two or three general considerations that must meet these basic precepts. There are few cases where there were attempts to challenge these notions, but immediately fell into a dynamic labeling and stigmatization, negative ("they are reformers," are not anarchists ", etc.), So, what might be called the "officers" of anarchism were ignored and relegated to a marginal role [4] .
This is not surprising, as has happened over history every time there was glimpses of questioning the institutionalized within different movements and schools of thought, but it is surprising that this happens in anarchism, a trend that is broad, heterogeneous and non-dogmatic. Well, it seems that once again, we must dare to that old exercise that we proposed the old Bakunin, who said "The destructive passion is also a constructive passion ...." It may be necessary to break and destroy many of our ideas and actions that operate as "dogmas", so you can come something new, a lever and revolutionary, something genuinely anarchist. Otherwise, you would think that both poor societies as capitalism and the state are capable of change, but this is not possible for anarchism ...
As I stated at the beginning, I will not expose truths or certainties show because I have not. I just interested in drawing attention to some issues that I believe should be taken into account when thinking about and analyzing the State.
One approach that seems appropriate, refers to a kind of simplistic and reductionist to certain currents of anarchist thought or sectors usually do on the state to capture it and define it strictly as a kind of character structure police / repression, and therefore purely top-down and authoritarian. Speaking of the state seems to be that likened to a Nazi-type state (every state is Fascist "," Power is Fascism, Fascism is Power "," everything is a terrorist state "), context within which the anarchists and it seems that we live in a kind of state permanent war against state authority [5] , and the whole horizon of our actions is "freedom" [6] . Is not envisaged the relationship with capitalism, and indeed there are even those who define capitalism as a form or method of the State to implement its economy (¿!?). We will not deny the authoritarian nature of the state or its policing and repressive, but making this analogy to think the State (and indeed any state), seems naive and very light, and tends much to use a sort of "common sense libertarian" that appeals to a theoretical vacuum that unfortunately can turn into sectarian practices and cutting edge.
In a second approach, I think there is another issue that deserves reflection. Anarchism, as well as the entire spectrum of socialist thought (the fruit of modernity), has a strong array position which seeks to express a kind of universalizing vision of nature, which often lose perspective and specific local problems. As anarchists, we often fall into a sort of simplification to think that all States (as different societies) are born, work and drive the same way in all places at all times. In that sense, I think many times we have fallen into the dynamics of moving ideas, analysis and actions originating in Europe directly to our various realities, and consequently, this leads to problems.
Consider for a moment the context in which ideas anarchists arrived in Latin America: from the hands of many workers exiled from the 1 st International, as well as the odd intellectual anarchism was loyal representative of the aspirations of emancipation high part of European societies oppressed, playing the same struggle and aspiration in these land. Similarly, picked up much of their imagery, and their conceptions. In that sense, in the case of Argentina is reproduced local development structures of capitalism in which Buenos Aires, inhabited by workers and migrant workers almost entirely, was coupled to the logic of a plant whose primary products were the main destinations European cities, with visible social class distinctions and a clear role as an accomplice structural state of the relationship between capital and labor, guaranteeing private ownership of the means of production and main structure of repression and domination. But if we withdraw from there, we can see that in the rest of the country [7] , and almost a majority of other Latin American history and social composition are different.
What I think is necessary to think of all this, consider the fact that the history of the American continent is no transfer from feudalism to capitalism, nor of the absolute monarchies to fall against the emergence of the bourgeoisie. It is not American history of the appropriation of land by a few who expelled the peasants to the cities to become labor reserve army and the development of capitalism. American history speaks of previous cultures and ways of development of various complex societies with their own forms of relationship with nature, earth and time [8] . The same story tells of the conquest, plunder and genocide practiced by the major European empires, who under the cross and the sword, plundered, slaughtered and enslaved all peoples. It tells us the story of the imposition of religions, languages \u200b\u200band customs of the conquerors, and various acts of rebellion and insurrection featuring these peoples. Just observe some problems faced by people surviving in local wars of independence, we can see the confusion of his situation, realizing they could not see the horizon of emancipation in the instituted (English crown) and in the future (the emerging Latin American republics). Because the patterns of domination (educational, religious, cultural, etc.) That are formed and shaped also respond to the interests of dominant groups, often lose sight of whether or not we consider these aspects, and even they assign a marginal and secondary prospects within our control: we remember these things only when it is October 12, or when we learned that there was a repression or colleagues are members of the indigenous people arrested or detained.
It is now possible for many and many to wonder if I am not exaggerating and I say that and anarchists have always considered these issues. But I invite you all to find authors or experiences as anarchists (at least for the case of Argentina) which has been devoted to analyzing the composition of our local society and its various ideas, imaginations, customs and social practices. Except for isolated case out of context from Alberto Ghiraldo, it is hardly possible to find a reflection on this, or at least have some today.
American societies are complex, diverse, and have their own territorial identity matrices. If, as anarchists seek to understand and operate based on many preconceptions that are specific to their area of \u200b\u200borigin (ie Europe) can hardly conceive or think of anarchism as a perspective of Latin American emancipation [9] . In my opinion, I think first of all, you must first think of ourselves as we are, as we feel and think, locally speaking. Otherwise, do not think of ourselves as part of a historical process both locally and globally, understating social habits and practices of these regions, it is highly unlikely that anarchism can be a way to a horizon of emancipation. I think we deserve first think of ourselves as inhabitants of this land, with our special and tensions, and from there to think and look for similarities with libertarian ideas and practices [10] . We should not be
anarchists who want freedom for all Latin Americans, but Latin Americans who find affinities and resonances anarchism compatible or similar concerns for emancipation and freedom [11] . On this basis, it is possible to understand better how both their composition, their different social customs and practices, including various imaginary. Similarly, we can better understand how they operate the various national states, as its various matrices form of domination and social intervention, and develop various forms of local capitalists and their relationship with the logic of development of Global Capitalism [12] .
A third approach that has exposed deep relationship with here, refers to the various characteristics, tensions and contradictions that exist in Latin American states and societies. In that sense, if we look to Marxism, there were major efforts to interpret and understand, but inevitably have found serious limitations, mainly having to do with the Marxist prism which sought to interpret and accommodate these various issues to the "objective" parameters of "scientific socialism", with various kinds of reductionism, undermining local identities and particularities subordinating the mapping strategy of conquest of political power. Marti Aricó Mariátegui, Sandino, Peña, Castro and Guevara, among others, have sought work and find a "Latin American Marxism, but always came across the problem of assimilating" nationalism "to" American way to socialism ", with a strange and confusing notion of "patriotism" that open the door to digest oppression and power structures of local [13] . As anarchists, we have a broader and more complex the matter, particularly when we understand and assimilate notions such as "class struggle" or "revolutionary subject" so expensive to Marxism. Of course we can not deny the contradiction between capital and labor, which remains the engine of exploitation and alienation, but we make a sharp division between employers and exclusive and proletariat, but the class struggle refers to something broader, that is a struggle and strife for domination. These relationships not only exist between the owners of the means of production and workers who sell their labor, but in both there are also internal relations of authoritarianism (dominant parent, discipline and punish the household, husband that exploits both socially and sexually to his wife, imposition of family traditions / religious / cultural values \u200b\u200bthat reproduce sexist, authoritarian and nefarious of various societies, etc.).. Thus, unlike the Marxism that is often left only with the relations arising from the contradiction between capital and labor within the state, as anarchists we should understand the deep relations of domination embedded in our various societies, while we observe workers / as and owners must also include in our analysis and perspectives to the various peoples and their tensions, desires and imaginaries in dispute with the state and foreign corporations, a confusing and divisive effects of the various nationalist and patriotic expressions and social policies local results of anti-state activities of the various dominant castes and landowners, as well as anti-state activities of companies, corporations and international consortia, the results of the various cultures, religions and customs, the tensions and conflicts of various sexualities and gender, age problems of students, youth groups and various urban tribes, regional, local and diverse territorial possessions, and many more contradictions and tensions, such as those arising within their own vertical structure of state bureaucracies. I believe that society operate many more issues that arise strictly the capital-labor ratio, and that as anarchists we must pay attention, giving them an honest perspective of assimilation and understanding of their struggles and disputes [14] within anarchism.
The last issue that I would draw minimal attention, concerns the very existence of States and self-justifying their actions. While States are accomplices structural contradiction between capital and labor, guaranteeing private ownership of the means of production and main structure of repression and domination, also justify their existence through the implementation of various public policies, both in infrastructure Road (routes, roads, bridges, highways, railway lines, etc.), health (hospitals, emergency rooms, etc..), education (kindergarten, primary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, etc.). , and other social intervention agencies (soup kitchens, homes for the day, workers and various social workers and pensions of various kinds, care plans and food bags, etc..), giving the state an image of a role "necessary "for their actions and existence. All these institutions, agencies and roles that are embodied in the rule make sense for different companies, so think as anarchists destruction and disappearance of the State, should lead us to think that way we can handle (as corporations) of all these tasks, and that it is not nothing but a romantic yearning of "fighting against all state and all forms of oppression" . Read the first chapters of "libertarian Communities in Spain" can give us a faint idea of \u200b\u200bthe complex network which has had to give the revolutionaries English civil war when it began, the state in many parts "disappeared" and had to appeal our old notion of self, but in every way possible. This exercise should think today in our present circumstances and our various limitations.
is quite possible that at this point, many and many are thinking what is the meaning of all this what I'm talking about, or believe that many of these issues are already settled, but these things affect us and we go through daily. If we do a simple review of bird flight and the events that took place in Argentina throughout the conflict by the adoption of resolution 125, called by the media, "the struggle of the field" or "soy war," we can see that, beyond how it was resolved, or social and political alignments were, anarchism was the odd warm positioning but overall a confused silence prevailed, that I personally refer to an inability to properly analyze the conflict. I've heard from positions that were in favor of soy producers because "they are against the government" to proposed solutions such as "land reform and" a type of load or clear political commitment, but diffuse chances to materialize. I must say that, in my view, anarchism is very far from having any influence both as a capacity to understand these situations and propose some action. Or want to get into thorny issues such as what is happening in Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia.
As I said earlier, I have no certainties, but concerns and some ideas. I am interested in translating them, to serve as a trigger for discussions that consider both necessary and interesting. Thank you very much and hopefully not having too boring.
Xaby
[1] Without going into great detail, there is an abundant life in this regard. Proudhon, Bakunin, Stirner, Kropotkin and Malatesta and others are those who have done what we could call classical theorizing about the state.
[2] Since the various uprisings Popular featuring Bakunin and the Federalists during the 1 st International until the English Civil War, we find the classic action-type insurrectionary and revolutionary anarchism, through the Paris Commune, Russian Revolution and Workers Councils in Germany, among many others. In this sense, also for individualistic antiorganizacionistas sectors of the movement, the state has been the main focus of the main actions and attacks.
[3] Very lightly, I only dare to suggest that anarchism, in its origins, contains both perspectives and action of contract, as well as a kind of deep analysis positivist in many cases reflect the nineteenth century itself, and survive over much of the twentieth.
[4] This type of action by an anarchist "official" or institutionalized can be seen in particular from the 1907 Amsterdam Congress, where questioning views conflicted with orthodox or classical anarchism. From then on, this dynamic is constantly repeated in almost all facets.
[5] This is unthinkable almost Hobbesian terms referring to the "permanent war of all against all" and think in terms Lockean response to rebel against the centralizing power of the state.
[6] does not seem appropriate to wear to make a specific definition of what the concept of freedom for and anarchists, because that would require further reflection and careful, but what I think must be emphasized in this particular case, is that in this perspective, the notion of freedom is treated, often, to individual freedom, and confused can find parallels with a concept of individual freedom and self-serving negative character is very close to the most radical of Liberalism.
[7] enter into a similar dynamic and surrounding cities of Rosario, Cordoba, Mendoza, and parts of coastal Northwest and the Patagonia. But the case of Buenos Aires is paradigmatic deep to find parallels with European cities, including the dynamics of work (industry) and its social composition.
[8] I want to be careful with it, because it is very easy to fall into simplistic. In America we find various kinds of human societies and development, including what might be described as states, as in the case of the Maya, Aztec and Inca. Necessary to rethink our histories and our own cultures, does not mean you have to make a generalization and an immediate positive valuation, because we know that authoritarianism, war, domination and enslavement were commonplace. But if you think it is necessary to reconsider the issues related to cultural practices and customs that were able to permeate the domination of the conquistadors and survive ...
[9] This I suggest here is not new, but is one of the axes of debate that existed between Bakunin and Marx in the 1 º International. Bakunin watched again and again could not put aside the regional issues that dealt specifically with the customs and cultural practices of different peoples, criticizing the approach "scientific" and homogenizer that Marx was talking about social class Bakunin who always objected to seeing it as a sentimental who devoted much effort to juveniles Panslavists intentions.
[10] I want to acknowledge that I am not appealing to a kind of "localism" claiming unequivocally nationalist or anything or local historical process, because as an anarchist I am very critical of many such issues could fall so easily appellate almost Peronist or other ideologies such self-referential as "national overview". But if I think that anarchism must be thought from the Latin American, and not playing its parent Eurocentric.
[11] You can find hundreds of jobs, research and monographs which discussed the Guarani, Aymara and other indigenous peoples, finding "ways" and "practices" anarchists. How is that possible? Anarchism as an ideology is its own process of modernity and nineteenth century, while the practices and customs of these peoples have centuries of development. How could they be anarchists? In fact, we should think that these social practices have some kind of affinity with the libertarian ideas and practices. With the intention to question everything, I suggest reading "Local histories / global designs: coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking" by Walter Mignolo.
[12] To think both the problem of the scope and limitations of the current development of capitalism and nation states within a neoliberal context, suggest the critical reading of "Globalization: the human consequences" of Zygmunt Bauman, among a profusion literature on the subject.
[13] Anyway, there are some contributions that could be enriching for a local libertarian approach. Suggest the critical reading of "The State in Latin America" \u200b\u200bBolivian René Zavaleta Mercado, who harshly questioned many of these preconceptions of "Latin American Marxism, but valuing a local dimension of the thing.
[14] Unfortunately, in certain tendencies of Marxism and socialist parties, these contradictions are seen almost utilitarian key, and speeches and messages are created with the intention of gaining adherents almost exclusive or constituencies, without the slightest intention to achieve any real change.
