💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › felipe-correa-tendency-groups.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:53:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Tendency Groups Author: Felipe Corrêa Date: 2010 Language: en Topics: Tendency Groups, Social Movements, strategy, Especifismo, popular power, direct action, autonomy, self-management, federalism, Direct Democracy Source: “O Agrupamento de Tendência”. Firstly published at Passa Palavra website, 2010. Notes: Translated by Enrique Guerrero-López. Original article: “O Agrupamento de Tendência”. Firstly published at Passa Palavra website, 2010.
Fortunately, we are at a stage where we can and should experiment with
different forms of organization, with patience and generosity, but with
persistence in critical thinking. The forms of organization should help
facilitate the implementation of the main objectives. Immediate action
must be deeply tied to what you want in the future.
Gilmar Mauro
Before moving on to the topic of tendency groups, it’s important to
start with our transformation strategy. It is based on three fundamental
premises:
of its central aspects.
and oppressed, that is, popular mass struggles, are essential, since
need, will and organization expose the contradictions of the class
system.
these movements, that is, the leadership of organized people, while
according to other approaches transformation is the work of the vanguard
party or the action of minorities separated from the base (as in the
insurrectionary case of “propaganda by the deed” or foquismo, for
example).
Therefore, we intend to carry out this transformation through popular
movements. When these movements do not exist, our goal is to organize
them; where there are movements, we encourage and promote from within
them a particular methodological and programmatic vision. Finally, we
foster alliances between movements, the integration of their struggles
and the growth of their social force. Only a significant build up of
strength is capable of applying the violence necessary for a
revolutionary transformation.
Permanently accumulating social force, organizing, mobilizing and
fighting, here and now, learning and teaching, building the new society
within this one — this constant construction should aim at final
objectives: a revolutionary process and the construction of a new
society based in equality and freedom. When we begin to implement this
process, some say we are building popular organization and others
popular power.
Based on this strategy, we can ask ourselves: what is the function of a
tendency group? If we want a transformation made by popular movements,
wouldn’t that mean simply create and participate in these movements?
It follows that we cannot ignore the question of social force. In order
for a transformation that points toward the end of exploitation and
domination to occur we need very strong popular movements, within which
the seed of the society of the future develops, as was the case with
Brazilian revolutionary syndicalism of the early twentieth century. We
know that most of the popular sectors are not organized, and therefore
cannot achieve the objectives that must be achieved. On the other hand,
the sectors currently organized in movements do not serve, in most
cases, to promote collective interests and effect a transformation of
society as expected. Movements are used for the benefit of bureaucrats,
to provide resources and votes to a certain political party and even to
promote it, and to orient people towards authoritarian power proposals,
with leaders separated from the base, which means, among many others
things, problems for the implementation of our project.
In this sense, there are two fundamental problems: the disorganization
of the most popular sectors and, within the organized sectors, the
promotion of forms of organization and programs that do not lead to a
proposal for liberating transformation.
Therefore, we could say that we have to deal with two types of spaces
that are in constant contestation. On the one hand, a broad social space
of workers (permanent, temporary, unemployed), residents of peripheral
neighborhoods and other popular sectors that are not organized and do
not mobilize for a variety of reasons. And, on the other hand, a more
restricted social space, with the most diverse organized movements, such
as unions, neighborhood associations, the homeless, the landless, the
unemployed, etc. To act in these spaces, which are contested—as is the
rule in any space, because there is no “power vacuum” in any social
relationship, since there is always some conflict of interest—we need a
social force.
The idea of ​​social force is that we all have a certain capacity for
action, but if it is not exercised it means nothing. Thus, potentially,
the force of the people is greater than the force of the ruling class,
but since it is not fully implemented, the rulers cannot be defeated. We
need to put into practice our ability to act, transforming our potential
force into a real social force.
In this process, organization is an indispensable tool. Organization
offers an “account” in which 1 + 1 is more than 2. For example: if we
have to carry a large box of 200 kilos, four people at a time can carry
it, but if each try to load it separately, one after the other, they
won’t succeed. Thus, when the four people are together their strength is
greater than the sum of each of them separately. Another example: if we
organize a protest we can go together or one by one. How will we become
a greater force? Clearly if we are all together.
The bottom line, then, is that we must organize and participate in
popular movements, always promoting certain methodological and
programmatic criteria. The more organized we are, the greater our social
force will be and therefore it will be easier to succeed in reaching our
goals.
Having social force does not mean imposing anything on others in an
authoritarian way, but to defend our positions, our opinions, our
methodology, our program and, ultimately, be able to influence popular
movements and not be used by other sectors or even isolated or
eliminated.
That said, we now come to an explanation of what a tendency group is.
The tendency group is an organization that could be called political and
social, that is, an organization that brings together popular sectors
that share an affinity around methodological and programmatic questions,
but not necessarily an affinity with a certain ideology (Marxism,
anarchism, autonomism, etc.). The tendency group, therefore, is neither
a political organization (party) or a mass organization (popular
movement), but is situated in an area that could be called intermediate
between the political and the social.
The tendency group brings together activists who work in one or more
movements or sectors of the population and aims to promote within the
movements in which it operates a specific method and program, as well as
the creation and organization of these social movements in the different
unorganized sectors of the population.
In addition, the tendency group provides a space of interaction for
militants who share similar points of view, and also serves to increase
their social impact and influence in popular circles, and thus prevent
other people or groups with contrary ideas from asserting their points
of view or use other militants to achieve their own goals.
The tendency group provides operational coherence to work with clear and
well-defined objectives and is the “face” of militancy in the day-to-day
of social movement work. Instead of aspiring to be the vanguard of the
movement, it has the function of acting as a ferment and motor; it must
encourage popular movements, ensuring that they have the capacity to
promote their own struggles, for demands (in the short term) and for
transformation (in the long term). Militants of the tendency group are
part of the people and promote popular leadership, that is, the goal of
building a strong people.
The tendency group operates, as we have said, from a specific
methodological and programmatic proposal. But what does this
“methodological and programmatic proposal” that we have mentioned
several times consist of?
In our militant work, when we are engaging in social movement activity,
we say that we promote a specific methodology and a specific program.
But what methodology and what program?
Obviously, this is all a collective construction, but we already have
some concepts to begin with. First of all, we know that we do not want a
society of exploitation and domination, as occurs in capitalist society
and all that entails. So, we know that we want to build a new society
that is free and equal, where we can live without exploitation or
domination. To carry out this radical transformation of society we have
to create a strategy, which will be reflected in a program.
We understand that strategy is the path we choose for this
transformation. It is not enough to have a defined destination: the path
to get there has to be the right one, because a bad path will lead us to
a different destination. For this reason, we believe that we must ensure
that the means lead to the desired end, that the means we choose (the
tactics and strategies) are those that allow us to achieve the goals.
The tactic is subject to strategy and both are subject to strategic
goals. We do not believe in the maxim that the end justifies the means,
since it is the means we choose that will determine the extent of our
achievements. A programmatic vision must be built collectively, from an
analysis of the present. Final objectives are the broad path for
transformation, and this programmatic line should be defended within
mass organizations by supporters of the tendency.
Regarding methodology, we can say that when we create or participate in
movements, we promote a way of functioning, certain characteristics, a
militant style of work that, in fact, are means to achieve desired ends.
But what, in general, is this methodology?
that is, cannot be reserved exclusively for militants of a certain
particular ideology. Anyone who is willing to struggle should be
included, utilizing need as a criteria.
carrying out our actions against domination and exploitation and leading
our own struggles, without depending on politicians, representatives or
someone who speaks on our behalf.
without one sector or group prevailing. It is important to foster a
class perspective that assumes the class struggle and the need for a
revolutionary role played by all the exploited, dominated and oppressed
sectors.
from the State, political parties, bureaucratized unions and others who
want to use movements for their own ends. Movements should not be the
transmission belts of individuals, groups or organizations.
everyone, encouraging equal participation without hierarchies and
collective decision-making in assemblies. Self-management of struggles
must be promoted and organized according to federalism, which provides
organization and coherence to struggles and at the same time respects
their autonomy.
struggle, so that popular movements carry out a dual struggle: to
guarantee the conquests that improve the situation of the popular
classes, and for a long-term revolutionary transformation; that is, the
construction of a permanent organization and popular power.[1]
We know that our proposals are different from those of many other
sectors of the left that work with popular movements. Therefore,
tendency organization is of utmost importance to promote methodological
and programmatic objectives, give strength to our proposals, and to
permanently add militants of popular movements who are in agreement with
us and are willing to do social work.
The tendency organization is like a group of popular sectors, with
certain affinities, that acts within struggles to increase the
possibilities of promoting what we believe, standing in the way of
getting run roughshod over, expulsions, boycotts, isolation, etc., which
are quite common. Tendency groups increase the ability to promote our
ideas and influence and are decisive.
[1] I believe it is important to highlight two aspects, taking into
account the different interpretations that this text has received since
it was published. First, that the construction or not of a tendency
group, for anarchists who defend organizational dualism, is not a matter
of principle. Distinctly, it is a matter of strategy and tactics. In
other words, whether a tendency group should be created or not has to do
with whether or not it will facilitate and enhance work in popular
movements. Second, that the methodological and programmatic proposal
presented here reflects resolutions embodied in concrete tendency groups
in Brazil, namely, the Popular Resistance of São Paulo (1999–2007), the
Popular Organization Aymberê [Organização Popular Aymberê] (2009–2012)
and other Popular Resistances created latter in the state of SĂŁo Paulo.
In these cases, it was decided to give this libertarian aspect (in a
broad sense, not specifically anarchist), expressed in the mentioned
methodological and programmatic elements. However, not all tendencies
that were or are driven by anarchists had or have these same principles.
Let us remember that the notion of tendency groups originates from the
Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), which, during the 1960s, conformed
the so-called Combative Tendency [Tendencia Combativa] at the National
Convention of Workers (CNT), the union’s central of the country. In that
case, understanding that the main dispute at that moment occurred
between a reformist sector, headed by the Communist Party of Uruguay
(PCU), and a revolutionary sector, in which the FAU militants
participated, they decided to conform the tendency, uniting mainly the
revolutionary sector of the central, in order to strengthen this
perspective in relation to the PCU. In other words, the principles of
tendency group, when it needs to be created, must adapt to the concrete
movements and struggles in which it is intended to intervene.