December 24, 2024 / informativoanarquista
sent by email
Considerations On Freedom.
Writing of Anarchist Comrade Francisco Solar
Freedom is, without a doubt, a fundamental principle within the various anarchist discourses and tendencies. It constitutes an touchstone from which proposals, projects and practices are elaborated, on the basis that the existence of a centralized power determines the different oppressions that affect communities and individuals. It is the State or any other expression of power which ultimately creates and strengthens this system of exploitation along with all of its consequences. Its tentacles, scopes and manifestations point in multiple – increasingly imperceptible – directions, covering practically all of the aspects of people’s lives.
Understanding freedom as a permanent process of taking back our lives step by step, in which we strive to eliminate any vestige of authority that tries to coerce us as well as those found in our own behaviours, doesn’t constitute an end point to which we should aspire to arrive. Therefore, it’s very likely that freedom as an established entity, as a culminating point of a path, doesn’t exist except maybe as a daydream. I believe our gaze shouldn’t be focused on this, but rather on the process of struggle contained in this concept. As Don Quijote put it, “the road is more important than the inn.” It’s the construction of relations that aim to be free and the destruction of any expression of authority that should be the center of our preoccupations and undertakings, since it’s through deepening daily practice that we seize moments of freedom.
This doesn’t mean that deciding to travel this path transforms us into free beings or that we’ve reached the desired freedom; it only represents an option of struggle which seeks to break away from authority. We aren’t free and don’t know if we will be one day, which definitely doesn’t bother us.
On this point it’s pertinent to briefly reference the distinction that the irreverent Albert Libertad made between the terms “anarchist” and “libertarian” in his article “Freedom” from the year 1907. The former “doesn’t make liberty the causality but rather the finality of the evolution of his Self. He doesn’t say, even when it concerns merest of his acts. ‘I am free.’ but ‘I want to be free’.” While the libertarian understands freedom as “the beginning and end of all things… to declare oneself free of hereditary determinism when its atavistic and encompassing movements make you a slave”.
The anarchist is clear that it’s essential to struggle for freedom, that constitutes a daily confrontation with authority. On the contrary, the libertarian feels and believes themself to be free, and that they must defend this conquered freedom. They don’t see, or don’t want to see, the multiple oppressions to which they are submitted, derived in large part from Power.
We can appreciate this characterization of libertarians made by Albert Libertad in the present, for example in the spaces that define themselves as “safe” in this idea of building “bubbles of freedom”
that will be free from any form of authority. These spaces, according to their defenders, will be detached from the many “exterior” nuisances, focusing the large part of their efforts in avoiding – allegedly and naively – the intrusion of “harmful behaviours” in their internal dynamics.
Understanding freedom in this way, besides being an illusion, implies a risk for any confrontational positionally to the extent that they imagine and propose the existence of free experiences within the bounds of complete and total domination.
RISKS OF AN ILLUSION
Power is present, in its various forms, in practically all of our behaviours because we are, consciously of unconsciously, yet undeniably, reproducers of Power. For those of us who opt for a life without restraint, this obviously represents a contradiction on which we must always remain clear. This implies, among other things, permanent questioning, which constitutes a fundamental part of our struggle against authority in this unending path on the individual and collective level. However, the illusion of believing ourselves to be “free”, outside of oppression, has taken root as a powerful argument to justify behaviours that definitely make us weaker and, to a greater or lesser extent, undermine our integrity.
One practice that has characterized anarchists across history is the non-negotiable commitment to keeping our word, which is recognized and valued by all revolutionary tendencies as well as by our enemies. This characteristic has reflected a particular ethic which is related to doing what we say, trying by all means so make our proposals consistent. Not possessing and opposing rigid statutes that determine our behaviours, our word is what gives us identity and strengthens us, it gives us continuity and credibility. However, this rich inheritance is erased in one fell swoop with the surprising argument of “respecting individual freedom”.
Commitments will often be an obstacle for the supposed free individual inasmuch as they place absolute priority on personal interest and desire. What stands out is that these commitments don’t come from obligation, but rather are the result of personal will and initiative. In addition, this way of understanding individual freedom makes us ask ourselves how solid our collective projects can be. How seriously can our word be taken if it’s going to be contingent upon our changing state of mind and emotions?
“I’m free to do what’s convenient to me, including, when the time comes, letting down the commitments I’ve taken on”. This is the argument that is given under this disturbing conception of individual freedom that is nothing but a childish justification for irresponsibility. This not only makes any collective initiative nonviable by instilling a lack of trust, but also throws away this coherence that is the result of the historical labor of comrades that came before us and that is valued as part of our theoretical-practical arsenal that distinguishes us from the other revolutionary tendencies.
Just like some spaces see themselves as safe and outside of all forms of authoritarianism and exploitation, the individual who sees themself as free understands that they have achieved a victory and must safeguard it, and so see the struggle as something unnecessary that doesn’t make sense. Inaction, therefore, goes hand in hand with this way of understanding freedom, encouraging a peaceful coexistence with oppression. Confrontation with power is negated and even criticized because it has no reason to exist and, moreover, is often seen as a threat because it could endanger whatever freedom has been obtained.
Another risk of this libertarian illusion is the adoption of behaviours that are found in our polar opposites. On more than a few occasions, this excuse of “individual freedom” has been mobilized to justify making decisions that have historically been contrary to anarchist practices. I’m thinking about the “comrades” who decided to vote for social democracy because they were afraid of the advance of fascism or who even, after being hit by repression, have collaborated with the police and informed on comrades.
The use of this argument has come to these extremes in a disturbing, self-serving and opportunist way of understanding freedom. In an astonishing way, they resort to “freedom” to maintain and reinforce the bonds of domination.
FREEDOM AS A MOTOR FOR CONFRONTATION
Albert Libertad is correct in pointing out that “man is not free to act or not to act, by his will alone. He learns to do or not to do when he has exercised his judgment, enlightened his ignorance, or destroyed the obstacles that stand in his way.”
Drawing from this, freedom isn’t something that is achieved but rather, as stated above, a path that is taken both individually and collectively through a process of permanent questioning that points towards the elimination of all forms of authority. And this path means confrontation, it means struggle against all passivity or inaction. For an anarchist, understanding that we aren’t free, that we live under various oppressions, constitutes an invitation to rebellion to break each and every one of these chains. It also represents a strength by identifying our contradictions and trying to overcome them, understanding that we are determined by a framework of domination that must be destroyed. Taking into account the clarity that we’re subject to multiple aspects of authority doesn’t stop us from trying to bring forth relations that are far from and against all forms of coercion. The struggle to eliminate authority in our relationships and behaviours is here and now, just like the confrontation with Power. And it’s from there that we opt for informality to organize ourselves in and for confrontation since its flexibility and dynamism makes it unfeasible for coercion to prevail.
“We fight to be free”, this is the basis of the proposal to situate freedom as the motor of the struggle that has pushed anarchists to plunge themselves into combat with all their strength, and that today is more valid than ever.
For a constellation of individualities and affinity groups of struggle!
Francisco Solar
La Gonzalina Rancagua Prison
December 2024