The Practice of Freedom

Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt

Richard J. White, Simon Springer, Marcelo Lopes de Souza

• Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield International
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781783486656
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Anarchism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The last two decades have seen a re-birth of practices and principles that connect with the ‘soul’ of left-libertarianism, although they may not explicitly engage with the anarchist tradition. From practices of mapping and land-use planning to local protests and transnational social movements, this book explores a variety of case studies that trace the influences of, and affinities between, anarchist and geographic practice. The chapters explore the vast possibilities of inventive, exploratory libertarian practices from contemporary and historic contexts around the globe. They examine the ways in which various spatial practices have been compatible with left-libertarian principles, and explore the extent to which anarchists, neo-anarchists and libertarian autonomists have animated these waves of protest and forms of resistance. In an age that is desperately in need of critical new directions, this volume shows that a serious (re)turn toward anarchist thought and practice can challenge and inspire geographers to travel beyond their traditional frontiers of geographical praxis.
.

Chapter 1

Anarchist Geographies in the Rural Global South

Navé Wald and Doug Hill

Anarchy as a social philosophy has never meant ‘chaos’—in fact, anarchists have typically believed in a highly organized society, just one that’s organized democratically from below.

Noam Chomsky (2013: 28)

This edited volume seeks to bring to light different forms of anarchist geographies where alternative socio-spatial constellations are being constructed along ideals of horizontality, freedom and mutual aid. For Springer (2012: 1607), anarchist geographies are ‘kaleidoscopic spatialities that allow for multiple, non-hierarchical, and protean connections between autonomous entities, wherein solidarities, bonds, and affinities are voluntarily assembled in opposition to and free from the presence of sovereign violence, predetermined norms, and assigned categories of belonging’. The renewed impetus to the relationship between anarchism and geography is due in part to the historical contributions of Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921) and Élisée Reclus (1830–1905) around the turn of the twentieth century and to current radical geographers wishing to emphasize and study dissenting spaces where new forms of affinity and egalitarian social relations emerge, flourish and struggle.

Rural geographies that can be analysed as reflecting anarchist theoretical ideals and praxes are found across the world, many of which are related to the transnational peasant movement La Vía Campesina. Following Brincat and Aylward (2010) and Wald (2015a, 2015c), we contend that this movement, or confederation, along with its member organizations and key concept of food sovereignty, embodies a number of anarchist principles such as participatory horizontal politics and abolishing domination.

In this chapter, we depict and analyse the multi-scalar structure of a confederative organization linking together horizontal spaces of geographically and culturally diverse struggles and aspirations of rural communities and groups worldwide. Rather than focusing on a particular scale, we are interested in how such a multi-scalar structure operates from the grassroots to the level of the global organization. Importantly, the practice of horizontal spaces and their scales are always situated in time and place. The examples provided here are contextualized by historical and current geographies of rapture and struggle in Argentina, a country with a rich history of anarchism, political and economic unrest. In so doing, we scrutinize the continuities from past anarchist experiences, mainly but not exclusively in the urban realm, and current anarchist-inspired practices in the countryside.

Rural Prefigurative Spaces and Confederative Networks

Different theoretical propositions and actions were labelled ‘anarchist’ across space and time. These have sometimes encompassed conflicting tendencies, and thus it has been difficult to formulate precisely an anarchist theory of society and social change (Chomsky 2013). Thus, unlike some other political doctrines, anarchism has tended to be more heretical and diverse. Embracing these kaleidoscopic anarchic spatialities as a body of thought, anarchism converges particularly around the core principals of anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism (Newman 2010). In fact, anarchism is usually wary of formulating grand theories and is best characterized by its methods and principles, such as autonomy, self-organization, mutual aid and direct democracy (Graeber 2004).

Within this diversity, a notably influential type of anarchism has been that of anarcho-syndicalism. This doctrine refers to a radical form of trade unionism that calls for workers’ organization along anarchist principles such as self-management, autonomy and direct action. Anarcho-syndicalists were critical of other, including socialist, labour unions and saw them as mere reformists within the capitalist system, the same system anarcho-syndicalists wished to abolish. Herein, anarcho-syndicalists believed in workers’ direct control over the means of production and in an organizational model based on a free and solidaric federation of syndicates (Rocker 1989 [1938]; Wilson and Kinna 2012).

For the anarchist philosopher and geographer Peter Kropotkin (1910: 914), anarchism is

the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government—harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations . . . would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international—temporary or more or less permanent—for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on.

This overarching definition of anarchism, written by Kropotkin for the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, includes a multi-scalar vision of a free and federative society that is organized by networks of voluntary associations. A confederation of free associations was also a pivotal feature in the anarchist thoughts of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), who saw this organizational form as a mechanism through which one’s freedom does not restrict another’s (Rocker 1989 [1938]). Similar ideas are also found in the more recent writings of Murray Bookchin (1989, 1991) on confederalism and libertarian municipalism.

The anarchist rural geographies in Argentina discussed below are part of broader multi-scalar geographies of radical forms of organization, constituting a confederation that stretches from the nuclear community level, through to the regional, national and global scale. The social space in which these geographies are produced and reproduced is the transnational movement La Vía Campesina, which brings together over 160 organizations of peasants, small-to medium-sized farmers, landless workers, rural women and indigenous people from around the world. Consolidated in 1993, La Vía Campesina forms part of a struggle against the neo-liberal restructuring of agricultural policies that impose a direct threat on rural livelihoods around the world (Desmarais 2007). La Vía Campesina is today a large network of grassroots organizations with affinity to other global dissenting spaces such as the World Social Forum and the alter-globalization movement (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010). As such, La Vía Campesina has become a ‘“space of encounter” among different rural and peasant cultures, different epistemologies and hermeneutics, whether East and West, North and South, landed and landless, farmer, pastoralist and farm worker, indigenous and non-indigenous, women, men, elders and youth, and Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Animist, Mayan, Christian and Atheist’ (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014: 979).

Within this pluralistic space of encounter, however, there are groups and individuals of diverse ideological inclinations, including variants of neo-populism, Marxism, radical environmentalism, feminism and anarchism. Some may have, of course, overlapping ideological orientations, while others may not have any notable ideological leaning at all (Borras 2008). This vision of a federated and democratic society, therefore, also finds purchase within other leftist ideologies, such as autonomist Marxism. The nexus between these doctrines are important and interesting, particularly the one between anarchism and Marxism, which has been a source of ongoing contention among leftist circles. Both political philosophies have had a long history of rivalry and collaboration since the time of Marx and Bakunin in the First International (1864–1876), but in spite of having capitalism as a shared ideological adversary, many thinkers and activists on the political left are still very much occupied with this dispute. This may be more obvious among those trying to advocate for anarchism by pointing out Marxism’s weaknesses (e.g., Graeber 2004; Springer 2012, 2014a, 2014b), but similar counterarguments have also been made (Choat 2013; Mann 2014), as well as comparative studies that are more sympathetic to both (Day 2005; Franks 2012; Gautney 2009). While comparing and contrasting anarchism vis-à-vis Marxism may be useful for a number of reasons, and while their joint history warrants such examination, we agree with Chomsky’s (2013: 14) view that ‘in fact, radical Marxism merges with anarchist currents’. Consequently, we shall avoid debating whether a concept or an action is inherently anarchist or Marxist, as it could indeed be both.

In addition to ideological diversity, within La Vía Campesina there are sociocultural differences (predominantly relating to language, religion and ethnicity) that are bridged over using imagery and symbols (such as seeds, soil and water). This strategy is successful in creating and maintaining a common peasant identity, which serves as the movement’s main cultural ‘glue’ (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010). Indeed, the peasant identity, problematic as it may be (Bernstein 2014), is neither narrowing the struggle into solely a class struggle, nor is it the only uniting mechanism in place. The organizational structure of La Vía Campesina is designed, inter alia, for accommodating this multifaceted diversity within the constituency of the movement, as well as for its extensive geographic coverage. It is worthwhile to depict, ever so briefly, this organizational structure in some detail. Doing so would enable us to reflect on the set of politics underlying this structure and its relation to anarchist political philosophy.

At the global level, the movement comprises nine regions, each of which with its own coordinating secretariat. The highest decision-making forum in the movement is the International Conference, held every three to four years. In this forum, delegates from member organizations get together to discuss and debate policies, strategies, problems and the internal running of the movement. Delegations to the International Conference from the nine regions should be equally comprised of women and men, with a third being youth.1 Decisions in this forum are reached by consensus with no veto rights. If consensus cannot be reached, the matter returns for further consultation with the regional delegations and the outcome is used for drafting a new proposal. The conference also dedicates a space for a women’s assembly and a youth assembly, two groups identified by the movement as deserving additional focus and autonomy (La Vía Campesina 2014).

At the movement’s trans-regional level are the International Coordinating Committee (ICC), the International Operative Secretariat (IOS) and the International Working Commissions (IWCs). The ICC meets twice yearly and examines the implementation of the Conference agreements in each of the regions. This body also follows and analyses developments relating to global agriculture issues and defines plans for action. It consists of two democratically elected delegates (a woman and a man) from each of the nine regions. The IOS is the movement’s coordinating body, in charge of implementing the decisions of the Conference and the ICC. This body currently sits in Harare, Zimbabwe, and rotates between the regions every few years. The IWCs carry out and coordinate the movement’s work on different issues. There are a number of such IWCs covering the main issues tackled by La Vía Campesina. These include agrarian reform, food sovereignty and trade, human rights, women and gender parity, youth, education and training, and more (Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2010).

This organizational structure reflects the anarchist vision of a society that is organized democratically from the bottom up (Chomsky 2013). It is designed so that authority does not lie with the global echelons of the movement; different forms of domination are contested (gender and age, for instance); decisions are made through consensus following genuine debate and consultation; and a dialogue between a diversity of views, ideological inclinations, struggles and social and cultural identities is made possible. The movement’s structure and politics epitomize the anarchist ‘desire [for] a federation of free communities which shall be bound to one another by their common economic and social interests and shall arrange their affairs by mutual agreement and free contract’ (Rocker 1989 [1938]: 9–10).

Here we wish to focus on the trajectory of the anarchist principles that can be found in the forms of mobilization and organization of member organizations of La Vía Campesina within the more specific context of Argentina. Argentina makes for an interesting case for its rich history of anarchist organization, as well as for its more recent and current prefigurative organizations. E...