Freedom is, without a doubt, a fundamental principle within the different discourses and anarchic tendencies. It constitutes an articulating axis from which proposals, projects and practices are elaborated, based 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 that ultimately generates and strengthens this system of exploitation and all its consequences. The tentacles, scopes and manifestations of this point in multiple directions – being increasingly imperceptible – encompassing practically all aspects of people’s lives.
Understanding freedom as a permanent process of gradual appropriation of our lives, where we try to eliminate any vestige of authority that seeks to coerce us as well as those found in our own behaviors, it is not a place of arrival to which we should aspire. Therefore, it is very likely that freedom as an established entity, as the culminating point of a path, does not exist, perhaps it is only a daydream so, I think, our gaze should not be set there, but on the process of struggle that this concept contains. As Don Quixote said it well; “The road is more important than the inn.” It is the construction of relationships that seek to be free and the destruction of each expression of authority that should be the center of our concerns and tasks, since it is through daily practice and the deepening of it that we snatch moments of freedom.
This does not mean that deciding to walk this path makes us free beings or that we have achieved the longed-for freedom, it only represents an option of struggle for the search to detach ourselves from authority. Therefore, we are not free and we do not know if we will ever be, which by the way does not concern us.
At this point it is pertinent to refer briefly to the distinction made by the irreverent Albert Libertad in his article “La Libertad” of 1907 between the terms “anarchist” and “libertarian”. The first “does not make freedom the cause, but rather the end of the evolution of his individuality. He does not say, even if it is the least of his gestures, ‘I am free’, but ‘I want to be free'”. While the libertarian understands freedom as “the beginning and the end of all things… He declares himself free of movement while hereditary, atavistic and surrounding determinism turns him into a slave…”.
The anarchist would be clear that it is essential to fight for freedom, which constitutes a daily confrontation against authority. On the contrary, the libertarian feels and believes himself to be free, and that he must defend that freedom conquered. He does not see or does not want to see the multiple oppressions to which he is subjected, derived in large part from Power.
This characterization that Albert Libertad makes of libertarians can be seen today, for example in the spaces that define themselves as “safe” in that idea of building “bubbles of freedom” that would be free of any form of authority. These spaces, according to their defenders, would be oblivious to the multiple harmfulness of the “outside”, focusing a large part of their efforts on avoiding – supposedly and naively – the intrusion of “nefarious behaviors” in their internal dynamics.
Understanding freedom in this way, apart from being an illusion, implies a risk for any confrontational positioning to the extent that it thinks and proposes the existence of free experiences within a framework of the most complete and absolute domination.
THE RISKS OF AN ILLUSION
Power in its different forms is present in practically all our behaviors, so that we are currently, consciously or unconsciously, reproducers of it, and that is undeniable. For those of us who are committed to a life without ties, this obviously represents a contradiction that we must be clear and always keep in mind. It implies, among other things, permanently questioning ourselves, which is a fundamental part of our struggle against authority on this endless path that is made at the individual and collective level. However, the illusion of thinking of ourselves as “free”, alien to oppression, has been installed as a powerful argument to justify behaviors that certainly weaken us and detract from us, to a greater or lesser extent, seriousness.
A practice that has characterized anarchists throughout history is the uncompromising commitment to one’s word, which is recognized and valued by all revolutionary tendencies and even by our enemies. This characteristic has imprinted on us a particular ethic that is related to doing what is said, to trying by all means to be consistent with our approaches. By not having and being contrary to rigid statutes that set standards of behavior, the word is what gives us identity and strengthens us, gives us continuity and credibility. However, this rich heritage is erased with the stroke of a pen with the surprising argument of “respect for individual freedom”.
The commitments assumed would often be an obstacle to the development of the supposed individual freedom since it is based on the basis that the absolute priority is personal interest and desire. What is striking is that these commitments are not the result of obligation, on the contrary, they are the result of personal will and initiative. Therefore, this way of understanding individual freedom makes us wonder; How solid can our collective projects be? How serious can our pledged word be if it is going to be subject to our changing mood and emotional state?
“I have the freedom to do what I deem appropriate, even, when the time comes, to fail to fulfill commitments acquired.” Such is the argument that is wielded under that nefarious conception of individual freedom that is nothing more than seeking a childish justification of irresponsibility. This not only makes any joint initiative unfeasible since it leaves distrust installed, but also throws overboard that coherence that is the result of the historical work of comrades who preceded us and that is valued as part of our theoretical-practical arsenal that distinguishes us from other revolutionary tendencies.
In the same way that some spaces feel safe and alien to all forms of authoritarianism and exploitation, the individual who believes himself to be free understands that he has achieved a conquest and must take care of it, therefore he sees in the struggle something unnecessary that makes no sense. Inaction, then, goes hand in hand with this way of understanding freedom, thus encouraging a peaceful coexistence with oppression. Thus, confrontation against power is denied and even criticized because it would have no reason to exist, moreover, it is often seen as a threat that can harm the freedom achieved.
Another risk of this libertarian illusion refers to the adoption of behaviors that are at our antipodes. With the excuse of “individual freedom” on many occasions options have been taken that have historically been contrary to anarchic practices. I think of the “comrades” who decided to vote for social democracy for fear of the advance of fascism or who, even seeing themselves hit by repression, have collaborated with the police and betrayed comrades.
The use of this argument in a disastrous, self-serving and opportunistic way of understanding freedom has gone to such extremes. Surprisingly, “freedom” is used to maintain and reinforce the bonds of domination.
FREEDOM AS AN ENGINE FOR CONFRONTATION
Albert Libertad is accurate in pointing out that “the human being is not free to do or not to do of his own free will. He learns to do or not to do when he has exercised his judgment, enlightened his ignorance or destroyed the obstacles that hindered him.”
On this basis, freedom is not something conquered but, as noted, it is a path that is carried out both individually and collectively in a process of permanent questioning that aims at the elimination of all forms of authority. And this path means confrontation, it means struggle against all passivity and inaction. Understanding that one is not free, that one lives under various oppressions, constitutes for an anarchist an invitation to rebellion to break each of the chains. It also represents an effort to identify our contradictions and try to overcome them, understanding that we are determined by a framework of domination that it is essential to destroy. Although it is clear that we are subject to multiple aspects of authority, this does not prevent us from trying to carry out relationships that are distant and contrary to all forms of coercion. The struggle to eliminate authority from our relationships and behaviors is here and now, as is the confrontation against Power. And it is from there that we opt for informality to organize ourselves in and for confrontation to the extent that the flexibility and dynamism that constitutes it makes it unfeasible for coercion to prevail.
“We fight to be free”, that is the basis of the approach that places freedom as the engine of struggle and that has driven anarchists to throw themselves into combat with all their strength, and that today is more valid than ever.
For a constellation of individuals and affinity groups for combat!
Francisco Solar
La Gonzalina Rancagua Prison
December 2024