Difference between revisions of "FAQAnar:A.2.9 - Quelle sorte de société les anarchistes veulent-ils ?"
(début de traduction) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{traduction| | + | {{traduction|20}} |
[[Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?]] | [[Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?]] | ||
{{faqanarAd}} | {{faqanarAd}} | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
La libre association est la pierre angulaire de la société anarchiste. Les individus doivent être libre de se réunir comme ils le veulent car c'est la base de la liberté et de la dignité humaine. Cependant, chaque accord libre doit être basé sur la décentralisation du pouvoir, sinon il ne serait qu'un faux-semblant (comme dans le [[capitalisme]]), car seule l'égalité peut donner le contexte sociale nécessaire à la liberté de développement et de croissance. Ainsi les anarchistes soutiennent les collectifs de '''[[démocratie directe]]''' qui sont basés sur le principe d'« ''une personne, un vote'' » (pour les justifications de la démocratie directe en tant que contrepartie du libre accord, voir la [[FAQAnar:A.2.11 - Pourquoi la plupart des anarchistes soutiennent-ils la démocratie directe ?|section A.2.11]]). | La libre association est la pierre angulaire de la société anarchiste. Les individus doivent être libre de se réunir comme ils le veulent car c'est la base de la liberté et de la dignité humaine. Cependant, chaque accord libre doit être basé sur la décentralisation du pouvoir, sinon il ne serait qu'un faux-semblant (comme dans le [[capitalisme]]), car seule l'égalité peut donner le contexte sociale nécessaire à la liberté de développement et de croissance. Ainsi les anarchistes soutiennent les collectifs de '''[[démocratie directe]]''' qui sont basés sur le principe d'« ''une personne, un vote'' » (pour les justifications de la démocratie directe en tant que contrepartie du libre accord, voir la [[FAQAnar:A.2.11 - Pourquoi la plupart des anarchistes soutiennent-ils la démocratie directe ?|section A.2.11]]). | ||
| + | Nous nous devons d'indiquer ici qu'une société anarchiste n'est pas une sorte d'état idyllique d'harmonie où tout le monde est d'accord sur tout. La réalité est bien éloignée. Comme [[Luigi Galleani]] le montre : « les désaccords et les frictions existeront toujours. En fait ils sont une condition essentielle d'un progrès sans limite. Mais une fois l'instinct animalier primaire de compétition — la lutte pour la nourriture — éliminé, les problèmes de désaccord pour être résolus sans la moindre menace à l'ordre social et la liberté individuelle. »<ref>[[Luigi Galleani]], ''The End of Anarchism?'' (''La fin de l'anarchisme ?''), p. 28.</ref> L'anarchisme a pour but de « réveiller l'esprit d'initiative des individus et des groupes, ceux qui arriveront à créer dans leurs rapports mutuels une action et une vie basées sur ces principes, ceux qui comprendront que la variété, le conflit même, sont la vie, et que l’uniformité c’est la mort, travailleront non pour les siècles à venir, mais bel et bien pour la prochaine révolution. »<ref>[[Piotr Kropotkine]], ''[[L'Anarchie, sa philosophie, son idéal]]''.</ref> | ||
| + | Ainsi, une société anarchiste devra être basée sur des conflits coopératifs, car un « conflit, en soi, n'est pas dangereux [...], les désaccords existent [et ne doivent pas être pas être cachés] [...]. Ce qui fait que les désaccords deviennent destructifs n'est pas le conflit en lui-même mais l'ajout de la compétition. » En fait, « une exigence d'accords signifie que les gens seront en réalité empêché(e)s de faire partager leur sagesse à l'effort de groupe. »<ref>[[Alfie Kohn]], ''No Contest: The Case Against Competition'' (L'absence de contestation : le cas contre la compétition''), p. 156.</ref> C'est pour cela que la plupart des anarchistes rejettent les consensus pris dans de grandes assemblées (voir pour cela la section [[FAQAnar:A.2.12 - Le consensus est-il une alternative pour s'organiser en démocratie ?|A.2.12]]). | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of the assembly which elected them. Thus in an anarchist society, "we'll look after our affairs ourselves and decide what to do about them. And when, to put our ideas into action, there is a need to put someone in charge of a project, we'll tell them to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . . nothing would be done without our decision. So our delegates, instead of people being individuals whom we've given the right to order us about, would be people . . . [with] no authority, only the duty to carry out what everyone involved wanted." [Errico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, p. 34] If the delegates act against their mandate or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains in the hands of the union of individuals who created it. | So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of the assembly which elected them. Thus in an anarchist society, "we'll look after our affairs ourselves and decide what to do about them. And when, to put our ideas into action, there is a need to put someone in charge of a project, we'll tell them to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . . nothing would be done without our decision. So our delegates, instead of people being individuals whom we've given the right to order us about, would be people . . . [with] no authority, only the duty to carry out what everyone involved wanted." [Errico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, p. 34] If the delegates act against their mandate or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains in the hands of the union of individuals who created it. | ||
Revision as of 21:26, 29 March 2010
| L'avancement de cette traduction est de 20%. |
Catégorie:En traduction Catégorie:Que représente l'Anarchisme?
Les anarchistes veulent une société décentralisée, basée sur la libre association. Nous considérons que cette forme de société est la plus à même de maximiser les valeurs que nous avons soulignées auparavant — la liberté, l'égalité et la solidarité. Il n'y a que grâce à une décentralisation rationnelle du pouvoir, autant structurellement que territorialement, que la liberté individuelle peut être nourrie et encouragée. La délégation du pouvoir dans les mains d'une minorité est un déni flagrant de la liberté individuelle et de la dignité. Plutôt que d'éloigner la gestion de leurs affaires loin du peuple et de la confier à d'autres, les anarchistes sont en faveur d'organisations qui minimisent l'autorité, en gardant le pouvoir à la base, dans les mains de celles et ceux qui sont affecté(e)s par chaque décision prise.
La libre association est la pierre angulaire de la société anarchiste. Les individus doivent être libre de se réunir comme ils le veulent car c'est la base de la liberté et de la dignité humaine. Cependant, chaque accord libre doit être basé sur la décentralisation du pouvoir, sinon il ne serait qu'un faux-semblant (comme dans le capitalisme), car seule l'égalité peut donner le contexte sociale nécessaire à la liberté de développement et de croissance. Ainsi les anarchistes soutiennent les collectifs de démocratie directe qui sont basés sur le principe d'« une personne, un vote » (pour les justifications de la démocratie directe en tant que contrepartie du libre accord, voir la section A.2.11).
Nous nous devons d'indiquer ici qu'une société anarchiste n'est pas une sorte d'état idyllique d'harmonie où tout le monde est d'accord sur tout. La réalité est bien éloignée. Comme Luigi Galleani le montre : « les désaccords et les frictions existeront toujours. En fait ils sont une condition essentielle d'un progrès sans limite. Mais une fois l'instinct animalier primaire de compétition — la lutte pour la nourriture — éliminé, les problèmes de désaccord pour être résolus sans la moindre menace à l'ordre social et la liberté individuelle. »[1] L'anarchisme a pour but de « réveiller l'esprit d'initiative des individus et des groupes, ceux qui arriveront à créer dans leurs rapports mutuels une action et une vie basées sur ces principes, ceux qui comprendront que la variété, le conflit même, sont la vie, et que l’uniformité c’est la mort, travailleront non pour les siècles à venir, mais bel et bien pour la prochaine révolution. »[2]
Ainsi, une société anarchiste devra être basée sur des conflits coopératifs, car un « conflit, en soi, n'est pas dangereux [...], les désaccords existent [et ne doivent pas être pas être cachés] [...]. Ce qui fait que les désaccords deviennent destructifs n'est pas le conflit en lui-même mais l'ajout de la compétition. » En fait, « une exigence d'accords signifie que les gens seront en réalité empêché(e)s de faire partager leur sagesse à l'effort de groupe. »[3] C'est pour cela que la plupart des anarchistes rejettent les consensus pris dans de grandes assemblées (voir pour cela la section A.2.12).
So, in an anarchist society associations would be run by mass assemblies of all involved, based upon extensive discussion, debate and co-operative conflict between equals, with purely administrative tasks being handled by elected committees. These committees would be made up of mandated, recallable and temporary delegates who carry out their tasks under the watchful eyes of the assembly which elected them. Thus in an anarchist society, "we'll look after our affairs ourselves and decide what to do about them. And when, to put our ideas into action, there is a need to put someone in charge of a project, we'll tell them to do [it] in such and such a way and no other . . . nothing would be done without our decision. So our delegates, instead of people being individuals whom we've given the right to order us about, would be people . . . [with] no authority, only the duty to carry out what everyone involved wanted." [Errico Malatesta, Fra Contadini, p. 34] If the delegates act against their mandate or try to extend their influence or work beyond that already decided by the assembly (i.e. if they start to make policy decisions), they can be instantly recalled and their decisions abolished. In this way, the organisation remains in the hands of the union of individuals who created it.
This self-management by the members of a group at the base and the power of recall are essential tenets of any anarchist organisation. The key difference between a statist or hierarchical system and an anarchist community is who wields power. In a parliamentary system, for example, people give power to a group of representatives to make decisions for them for a fixed period of time. Whether they carry out their promises is irrelevant as people cannot recall them till the next election. Power lies at the top and those at the base are expected to obey. Similarly, in the capitalist workplace, power is held by an unelected minority of bosses and managers at the top and the workers are expected to obey.
In an anarchist society this relationship is reversed. No one individual or group (elected or unelected) holds power in an anarchist community. Instead decisions are made using direct democratic principles and, when required, the community can elect or appoint delegates to carry out these decisions. There is a clear distinction between policy making (which lies with everyone who is affected) and the co-ordination and administration of any adopted policy (which is the job for delegates).
These egalitarian communities, founded by free agreement, also freely associate together in confederations. Such a free confederation would be run from the bottom up, with decisions following from the elemental assemblies upwards. The confederations would be run in the same manner as the collectives. There would be regular local regional, "national" and international conferences in which all important issues and problems affecting the collectives involved would be discussed. In addition, the fundamental, guiding principles and ideas of society would be debated and policy decisions made, put into practice, reviewed, and co-ordinated. The delegates would simply "take their given mandates to the relative meetings and try to harmonise their various needs and desires. The deliberations would always be subject to the control and approval of those who delegated them" and so "there would be no danger than the interest of the people [would] be forgotten." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 36]
Action committees would be formed, if required, to co-ordinate and administer the decisions of the assemblies and their congresses, under strict control from below as discussed above. Delegates to such bodies would have a limited tenure and, like the delegates to the congresses, have a fixed mandate -- they are not able to make decisions on behalf of the people they are delegates for. In addition, like the delegates to conferences and congresses, they would be subject to instant recall by the assemblies and congresses from which they emerged in the first place. In this way any committees required to co-ordinate join activities would be, to quote Malatesta's words, "always under the direct control of the population" and so express the "decisions taken at popular assemblies." [Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas, p. 175 and p. 129]
Most importantly, the basic community assemblies can overturn any decisions reached by the conferences and withdraw from any confederation. Any compromises that are made by a delegate during negotiations have to go back to a general assembly for ratification. Without that ratification any compromises that are made by a delegate are not binding on the community that has delegated a particular task to a particular individual or committee. In addition, they can call confederal conferences to discuss new developments and to inform action committees about changing wishes and to instruct them on what to do about any developments and ideas.
In other words, any delegates required within an anarchist organisation or society are not representatives (as they are in a democratic government). Kropotkin makes the difference clear:
"The question of true delegation versus representation can be better understood if one imagines a hundred or two hundred men [and women], who meet each day in their work and share common concerns . . . who have discussed every aspect of the question that concerns them and have reached a decision. They then choose someone and send him [or her] to reach an agreement with other delegates of the same kind. . . The delegate is not authorised to do more than explain to other delegates the considerations that have led his [or her] colleagues to their conclusion. Not being able to impose anything, he [or she] will seek an understanding and will return with a simple proposition which his mandatories can accept or refuse. This is what happens when true delegation comes into being." [Words of a Rebel, p. 132]
Unlike in a representative system, power is not delegated into the hands of the few. Rather, any delegate is simply a mouthpiece for the association that elected (or otherwise selected) them in the first place. All delegates and action committees would be mandated and subject to instant recall to ensure they express the wishes of the assemblies they came from rather than their own. In this way government is replaced by anarchy, a network of free associations and communities co-operating as equals based on a system of mandated delegates, instant recall, free agreement and free federation from the bottom up.
Only this system would ensure the "free organisation of the people, an organisation from below upwards." This "free federation from below upward" would start with the basic "association" and their federation "first into a commune, then a federation of communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into an international fraternal association." [Michael Bakunin, The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 298] This network of anarchist communities would work on three levels. There would be "independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and of federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the organisation of men [and women] in accordance with their different functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic, sanitary, and educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda of ideas, for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 79] All would be based on self-management, free association, free federation and self-organisation from the bottom up.
By organising in this manner, hierarchy is abolished in all aspects of life, because the people at the base of the organisation are in control, not their delegates. Only this form of organisation can replace government (the initiative and empowerment of the few) with anarchy (the initiative and empowerment of all). This form of organisation would exist in all activities which required group work and the co-ordination of many people. It would be, as Bakunin said, the means "to integrate individuals into structures which they could understand and control." [quoted by Cornelius Castoriadis, Political and Social Writings, vol. 2, p. 97] For individual initiatives, the individual involved would manage them.
As can be seen, anarchists wish to create a society based upon structures that ensure that no individual or group is able to wield power over others. Free agreement, confederation and the power of recall, fixed mandates and limited tenure are mechanisms by which power is removed from the hands of governments and placed in the hands of those directly affected by the decisions.
For a fuller discussion on what an anarchist society would look like see section I. Anarchy, however, is not some distant goal but rather an aspect of current struggles against oppression and exploitation. Means and ends are linked, with direct action generating mass participatory organisations and preparing people to directly manage their own personal and collective interests. This is because anarchists, as we discuss in section I.2.3, see the framework of a free society being based on the organisations created by the oppressed in their struggle against capitalism in the here and now. In this sense, collective struggle creates the organisations as well as the individual attitudes anarchism needs to work. The struggle against oppression is the school of anarchy. It teaches us not only how to be anarchists but also gives us a glimpse of what an anarchist society would be like, what its initial organisational framework could be and the experience of managing our own activities which is required for such a society to work. As such, anarchists try to create the kind of world we want in our current struggles and do not think our ideas are only applicable "after the revolution." Indeed, by applying our principles today we bring anarchy that much nearer.
- ↑ Luigi Galleani, The End of Anarchism? (La fin de l'anarchisme ?), p. 28.
- ↑ Piotr Kropotkine, L'Anarchie, sa philosophie, son idéal.
- ↑ Alfie Kohn, No Contest: The Case Against Competition (L'absence de contestation : le cas contre la compétition), p. 156.
