A-Infos (en) Turkey, Yeryuzu Postasi: Reflections on Commitment, Responsibility, and Self-Discipline - FARJ (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

This is a statement from the Federation of Anarchists of Rio de Janeiro 
(Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro - FARJ), a Rio de Janeiro-based 
anarchist organization within the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination. --- 
"A subject with libertarian ethics knows why they are fighting and can 
explain the ideological reasons for the struggle; they possess the 
commitment and self-discipline to fulfill the tasks undertaken ." - 
Ideal Peres
One of the important characteristics of the organisation of the FARJ is 
its members' militant commitment. We believe that in order for our 
struggle to bear promising fruit it is essential that each one of the 
organisation's militants has a high level of commitment, responsibility 
and self-discipline.

When our dear Ideal Peres spoke the words above he expressed, in a 
single sentence, a series of opinions of paramount importance to our 
organisation. He emphasised, above all, the importance of the militant's 
consciousness with regards to the motives for struggle. This means that 
the anarchist militant should not simply obey those who determine a 
direction detached from the base or serve as "pawns" for an elite with 
personal interests in the domination of people and/or for other 
unethical interests, in our point of view. The anarchist militant is a 
subject that participates actively in all the discussions that take 
place within the Federation. They are expected to get involved in the 
discussions that take place, positioning themselves, discussing the best 
options for the questions posed and contributing to the tactical and 
strategic direction adopted by the organisation.

This is why all militants must be clear about why they struggle, against 
what they struggle and for what they struggle. Each one's commitment in 
relation to their self-education, independent of the political education 
tasks being performed by the organisation, is fundamental to this. It is 
the militant's obligation to seek to inform themselves, constantly, to 
educate themselves politically in order to be able to be fully conscious 
of the organisation's objectives, of the discussions that take place and 
of the activities that are being developed. In this way the militant 
gets to understand the direction of the organisation (in practical and 
theoretical terms) and is ready to talk, discuss and debate with others, 
or even put themselves in an assembly or speak publicly in some 
circumstances, thus removing from the hands of a few the execution of 
such tasks. It is also expected that the organisation support the 
militants, helping those who may have some difficulty.

The anarchist militant is not alienated. They don't follow orders that 
come from above and are not the "base" for vanguards' (or elites') 
interests, as happens in political parties and other hierarchical 
organisations.

The anarchist militant's opinion within the organisation is not only 
consultative, but also deliberative. That is, it is the militants of the 
organisation that decide its direction and there are no vanguards 
(elites) whose opinions are worth more than that of the others. For us, 
the opinions of all of the organisation's full members have the same 
weight in any discussion.

When Ideal Peres spoke about commitment and self-discipline, he was 
speaking fundamentally about an individual commitment to collective 
decisions. But how does this work?

A large lack of commitment with respect to the issue of commitment and 
self-discipline is very common in organisations that claim to be 
horizontal and nonpartisan. An example of this is the large quantity of 
people that go to meetings (of groups that are relatively open), giving 
opinions on matters they don't know about or assuming responsibilities 
knowing that they will not be able to fulfil them. It is very common 
that these people don't come to the next meetings nor comply with what 
they promised, claiming that they could not, for one reason or another, 
nor satisfy the collective. Worst of all is that a lot of these people, 
on being called to order, feel themselves victims of some sort of 
authoritarianism.

There is a very illustrative example of the situation posed above: in a 
"free radio" in the south of Brazil (we'd prefer not to mention the 
name) that said it functioned under self-management, people that wanted 
to have their programmes would go to the radio's meetings and mark their 
programmes down on the grid, in collective agreement. After this, a lot 
of the people that had marked their programmes simply didn't pitch up, 
leaving the radio without working and taking the opportunity away from 
other people who could have used that time slot. On being called to 
order by other members of the radio collective the absentees would say 
that this was authoritarianism because they were within their rights, 
exercising their "freedom" not to pitch up to do the programme even 
though they had committed themselves to it from the beginning.

This is an isolated example but unfortunately situations like this are 
very common in the so-called libertarian milieu. For us, what happens is 
that there is an inversion of values in judging a certain type of 
behaviour authoritarian, i.e. they who committed to something before the 
collective and fail to fulfil it consider themselves the victim of 
authoritarianism.

The "commitment and self-discipline to carry out the tasks assumed" 
emphasised by Ideal Peres breaks radically with the model presented 
above. In this type of attitude of commitment and self-discipline we 
agree with Ideal that, within the organisation, there must be ample 
space for all the discussions and all points of view should be analysed 
carefully and, as we said above, have the same "weight" in the 
decision-making of the organisation. All the activities that the 
organisation is going to do, which means to say that its members will 
carry out, are deliberated at the meetings. After all, the organisation 
doesn't do anything by itself. It doesn't have a brain, arms or legs to 
be able to perform the activities that are deliberated inside it. That 
is why all the activities that are decided on and that are the 
organisation's responsibility will have, in one way or another, to be 
carried out by its members. It was on this that Bakunin positioned 
himself, already in the 19th century, in discussing the question of 
discipline:

"Hostile as I am to the authoritarian conception of discipline, I 
nevertheless recognize that a certain kind of discipline, not automatic 
but voluntary and intelligently understood, is, and will ever be, 
necessary whenever a greater number of individuals undertake any kind of 
collective work or action. This discipline is nothing more than the 
voluntary and considered agreement of individual efforts toward the 
common aim. At the moment of action, in the midst of the struggle, roles 
are assumed naturally according to the skills of each, considered and 
judged by the whole collective: some direct and order, others carry out 
orders. But no function petrifies, nor is it fixed and it does not 
remain irrevocably linked to any one person. Hierarchical order and 
promotion do not exist, so that the commander of yesterday can become a 
subordinate tomorrow. No one rises above the other, or if one does rise, 
it is only to fall back again a moment later, like the waves of the sea 
returning to the salutary level of equality. In this system, in fact, 
there is no power. The power is fused in the collective and results in 
the sincere expression of the freedom of each individual in the faithful 
and serious realisation of the will of all[...]"[1]

It is appropriate to insert a parenthesis here to say that, in the same 
way as a "spirit of the organisation" that resolves problems and carries 
out the tasks does not exist, it is fundamental, at the time decisions 
are made, to divide the responsibilities; the members being formally 
responsible for their execution. This is important because another 
common problem in horizontal organisations is deciding to do one thing 
or another and then everyone going home without resolving who is going 
to be responsible for what activity. In this model one of two things 
happens: either nobody carries out the activities, or the activities 
fall on the shoulders of the organisation's most active members. 
Therefore, we believe in the need to share the activities between the 
militants, always seeking a model that distributes these activities well 
and avoids the concentration of tasks on the most active and capable 
members.

From the moment in which a militant takes on one or more tasks for the 
organisation they have an obligation to carry them out and a big 
responsibility to the group in relation to these tasks. It is the 
committed relationship that the militant assumes with the organisation. 
As discussions within the organisation are amply democratic and nobody 
takes on tasks because they are required to, each commitment is a 
commitment undertaken by the initiative of the militant themselves, 
being their complete responsibility. If there is an unforeseen event and 
the militant notices that they may not be able to do that to which they 
committed themselves it is there responsibility to inform the 
organisation in advance and transfer their responsibility to another member.

We do not believe that the checking up, on the part of the organisation, 
on the responsibilities assumed by the militant is anything 
authoritarian. It has to exist, and if it happens that this 
responsibility or lack of commitment is constant the other militants 
should have a frank conversation with them in order to resolve the 
problem and not harm the organisation's work.

Self-management is the engine of the self-managed organisation. As in an 
organisation of this type as is our case in the FARJ there are no 
leaders that "charge" the functionaries or base with the execution of 
tasks, each one that takes on a responsibility must have enough 
discipline to execute it. Likewise, when the organisation determines a 
line to follow or something to carry out, it is individual discipline 
that will make what was decided collectively be carried out. There 
should be no need for checking up, as it is expected that each one of 
the group charges themselves with the realisation of the tasks decided 
on in the organisation, but the individual has to satisfy the 
organisation, having to inform it of the progress of the activities 
under their responsibility and when they are not carried out, explain to 
the collective the reason, possibly being sanctioned for it. When there 
are problems with the progress of one or other member's activities the 
organisation can "charge" those responsible for the activities' 
progress, also in order not to hinder the work and struggle. Obviously 
the form of checking up must be within the criteria of mutual respect 
and anarchist ethic.

In 1920, on discussing the question of discipline Errico Malatesta 
treated it in the following way:

"Discipline: this is the grand word of which serves to paralyse the 
conscious workers' will. We also ask for discipline, because, without 
understanding, without the coordination of each one's efforts for common 
and simultaneous action, victory is not materially possible. But 
discipline should not be a servile discipline, a blind devotion to 
leaders, an obedience to those who give the orders not to move. 
Revolutionary discipline is consistency with the ideas accepted, 
fidelity to commitments undertaken, it is to feel oneself obliged to 
share the work and risks with comrades of the struggle."[2]

It is relevant for us to take note of Malatesta's comments, agreeing 
that this discipline and this checking up should not follow an 
authoritarian model, both in the oppression of the group's members and 
in the form of these penalties, which, as mentioned should also take 
respect and ethics between the members of the group into account. It is 
of great concern for us to differentiate the self-discipline that we 
preach here from military discipline, exploitative and oppressive in its 
essence and which, from our point of view, does not follow different 
paths to other well-known authoritarianisms.

On the question of discipline in the libertarian milieu, it is worth 
carefully observing the debate that took place around the Organisation 
Platform of the Libertarian Communists, published by the Dielo Trudo 
group when exiled in France. After its publication in 1926 different 
responses and a very rich debate arose, primarily on anarchism's 
organisational aspects and also on other important questions, among them 
the question of discipline, on which we will now focus.

Both the Platform itself, as well as the responses and discussions that 
took place later like the 1927 Synthesis and "Response" to the Platform 
written by Volin and other members of NABAT (Anarchist Confederation of 
the Ukraine), the more detailed critique of the Platform made by G.P. 
Maximov called Constructive Anarchism, the debate between Nestor Makhno 
and Errico Malatesta, an extremely rich exchange of letters from 1927 to 
1929, Piotr Arshinov's reply to Malatesta, called The Old and the New in 
Anarchism, besides various other articles from this period are all 
important sources for this debate.We could cite important texts like La 
Response aux Confusionistes de l'Anarchism (Response to the 
Confusionists of Anarchists) by Piotr Arshinov, the series of articles 
published in Solidariedad Obrera by Alexandre Schapiro in 1932, other 
articles by Volin, as well as by thinkers like Sebastien Faure, Luigi 
Fabbri and Camilo Berneri. There are central articles by Makhno (On the 
Defence of the Revolution and On Revolutionary Discipline) and Malatesta 
(On Collective Responsibility) that also raise arguments relevant to the 
discussion on the Platform.

For the subject that we are discussing here, we believe that the richest 
source is the debate between Nestor Makhno and Errico Malatesta. It is 
not the case here for us to take up the defence of one side or the 
other, but to observe the pertinent contributions both on one side and 
the other, since we have great appreciation for both militants in 
question and believe there to be correct arguments on both sides.

We agree with what the Russian exiles pose in the Platform when they 
affirm that "the miserable state in which the anarchist movement 
vegetates, has its explanation in a number of causes, of which the most 
important, the principal, is the absence of organisational principles 
and practices in the anarchist movement". The Russians stressed that 
there is "a false interpretation of the principle of individuality in 
anarchism: this theory being too often confused with the absence of all 
responsibility". We know that one of the big problems of the libertarian 
world is that the principles of freedom and of anti-authoritarianism are 
often understood as the lack of commitment, such a "lack of 
responsibility" pointed out by the Russian comrades. We must also agree 
that, as they said, "the individualist and chaotic elements understand 
by the title 'anarchist principles' political indifference, negligence 
and absence of all responsibility".

We know that the critique of the individualist principle within 
anarchism makes sense and it is because of this that we also agree that 
"the federalist principle has been deformed in anarchist ranks: it has 
too often been understood as the right, above all, to manifest one's 
"ego", without obligation to account for duties as regards the 
organisation". We believe the Russians correct when they claim that " 
all the participants in the agreement and the Union fulfil most 
completely the duties undertaken, and conform to communal decisions." 
and that " the federalist type of anarchist organisation, while 
recognising each member's rights to independence, free opinion, 
individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake 
fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal decisions".

We should also pay attention to Malatesta's contributions in his 
response, titled A Project of Anarchist Organisation, in which he 
emphasised:

"Rather than arousing a greater desire for organisation in the 
anarchists, (the Platform) seems deliberately to reinforce the prejudice 
of a lot of comrades who believe that to organise oneself means to 
submit to leaders, adhere to an authoritarian and centralised 
organisation, that suffocates all free initiative".

It is worth then reflecting on those issues that are not so clearly 
exposed in the Platform. Malatesta exaggerated, but it is worth noting 
his comments and taking care such that the need for responsibility that 
we defend does not mean hierarchy and authoritarianism. Malatesta's 
comments imply exactly the means that we use to reach our objectives; 
so, he emphasised that "it is inconceivable that the same people who 
profess anarchist ideas and want to achieve anarchy, or at least prepare 
for its realisation today instead of tomorrow, renege on the basic 
principles of anarchism in the organisation with which they propose to 
fight for its victory". Still on the subject, he emphasises that his 
project of anarchist organisation must have "full autonomy, full 
independence and, therefore, full individual and collective 
responsibility; free agreement between those that believe it useful to 
unite to cooperate in common work; moral obligation to keep commitments 
assumed and not to do anything contrary to the accepted programme". 
Finally, and returning to the discussion on means, he states that "to 
live and to win, we must not abandon the reasons for our life and deform 
the character of eventual victory. We want to struggle and to win; but 
like anarchists and for anarchy" (our emphasis). Here too we agree with 
Malatesta because if we want to achieve our objectives with the utmost 
urgency, we mustn't leave aside the principles involved in how we do this.

In his "Reply", Makhno correctly states: "You yourself, dear Malatesta, 
admit to the anarchist revolutionary's individual responsibility. 
Moreover, you have supported it throughout your life as a militant". 
Something that is confirmed if you look at Malatesta's quote about 
discipline presented further above, which dates from 1920 and maintains 
the same arguments as Makhno. Quite rightly, and agreeing with 
Malatesta's statements, Makhno says that "None of us has the right to 
avoid such responsibility. On the contrary, if it has until now been 
ignored in anarchist ranks it needs now to become, for us, anarchist 
communists, an element of our theoretical and practical programme"; 
moreover, "just the collective spirit and collective responsibility of 
its militants will enable modern anarchism to remove from its circles 
the idea, historically false, that anarchism cannot be a guide, be it 
ideologically or in practice, for the working masses in a revolutionary 
period, and therefore could not demand total responsibility".

Malatesta responded again, already approaching a certain agreement with 
Makhno, when he wrote: "certainly, I accept and support the vision that 
anyone who associates and cooperates with others for a common cause must 
coordinate their actions with that of their comrades and not do anything 
that would undermine the others' action and, therefore, the common 
cause; to respect the agreements made except when they intend to leave 
the association for differences of opinion, change of circumstance or 
conflict about the methods chosen makes cooperation impossible and 
inappropriate. Thus, I argue that those who do not feel or practice such 
duties must be expelled from the association. Perhaps, speaking of 
collective responsibility, you refer precisely to the agreement and 
solidarity that should exist between the members of an association. If 
so, your expression signifies, in my view, an incorrect use of language, 
but this would be but an irrelevant question of phraseology and soon we 
would reach agreement".

We believe it still to be important to quote from a 1926 article by 
Makhno called On Revolutionary Discipline, when he says: "I take 
revolutionary discipline to mean the self-discipline of the individual, 
set in the context of a strictly-prescribed collective activity equally 
incumbent upon all, the responsible policy line of the members of that 
collective, leading to strict congruence between their practice and 
their theory". Makhno closes the article with a very important phrase: 
"Responsibility and discipline must not frighten the revolutionary. They 
are the travelling companions of the practice of social anarchism".

Malatesta, a year after the debate with Makhno, published an article 
called On Collective Responsibility in which he affirms: "Moral 
responsibility (and in our case we can talk of nothing but moral 
responsibility) is individual by its very nature". He states then that 
"If a number of men agree to do something and one of them allows the 
initiative to fail through not carrying out what he had promised, 
everyone will say that it was his fault and that therefore it is he who 
is responsible, not those who did what they were supposed to right up to 
the last".

We believe that all the passages quoted bring teachings to libertarians 
with regards to the questions discussed. The objective of our 
organisation is exactly to be conceived in a way to exalt the elements 
of commitment, responsibility and self-discipline, without this giving 
rise to authoritarian postures, which cross ethically accepted limits, 
as we have already said. Ethics is defined by us as one of the central 
axes of our organisation.

These elements, today and always, are fundamental to the realisation of 
the activities of any organisation that claims to be serious and has 
goals of social transformation.

Let's look at the question using practical examples from our 
organisation. The FARJ, as you well know, works in two main fronts: the 
community front and the occupations front. In the one as in the other 
commitment, responsibility and self-discipline are indispensable.

For example, for the activities of the community front: the management 
of the Centro de Cultura Social do Rio de Janeiro (CCS-RJ, Social 
Cultural Centre) implies having a rotation so that there are people from 
the organisation in the CCS on the agreed days, with the goal that the 
programmed activities take place and that the space doesn't become 
"dead". This management is about developing activities that point toward 
paths pursued by the organisation, ensure that the water, electricity 
bills etc. are paid on time (it's worth adding another parenthesis here 
to paraphrase a comrade from our organisation that used to remind us, 
saying that it is useless arriving at the end of the month to pay the 
supermarket bill and saying to the cashier, "but I'm an anarchist, I'm 
against capitalism"; this doesn't solve the problems of who still lives 
within capitalism).

Anyway, there is a whole demand of tasks that the organisation has to do 
and which, if it doesn't do, damages the path which it is intended to be 
achieved when programming these tasks. The commitment of a militant with 
a front functions the same way: if the front gives to one of the 
militants the task of opening the CCS, for example, it is expected that 
this militant will go to the location on the date and time planned and 
perform the task. The same applies to all the other projects that are 
carried out by the community front: so that the Fábio Luz Library opens 
on the planned days and times, that the books are catalogued, so that 
theory is produced in the Marques da Costa Research Group etc.

In the occupations front things work in the same way. There is an 
immense need for militants to go to the occupations' assemblies and 
that, for this, they are aware of the hours, days and topics to be 
addressed in the assemblies. After that, it is important that the 
militants participate in the assemblies in the way that was agreed with 
the front, respecting the due rotation and the objectives to be 
achieved. Militants must also work so that the occupations link 
themselves with others, in the forum that we today call the 
Internationalist Homeless Front (Frente Internacionalista dos Sem-Teto, 
FIST). Commitment in the case of the occupations is even more critical 
than in the community front, seeing as though in the community front, a 
large part of the time, you act among comrades who have similar ethical 
values to ours, which allows for the degree of organisation and 
commitment to be a little more flexible. In the environment of the urban 
occupations, as in that of other social movements, there are a lot of 
disputes and, at various times, we have to deal with enemies such as 
institutes of crime, of the church, political parties, exploitative left 
organisations, among others. In this context, we have to highlight the 
importance of organisation, of commitment and of discipline because 
there is a strong dispute over political space (power), which means that 
if the anarchists open space, or have commitment problems , etc., they 
will generate space so that the other organisations that are in the 
social movement gain hegemony. There is no vacuum of political space (or 
power), therefore, a lack of commitment and responsibility in the 
realisation of activities means that we are generating space for others 
to take. If we want libertarians to have a dominant position and that 
they can influence a social movement more than the other forces involved 
it is essential to know that we must work with the utmost responsibility.

We conclude by stressing that our work cannot be something that takes 
place occasionally and that we can do some times, when we feel like it. 
The commitment that we establish, as an organisation, demands that we 
are responsible for the consistency of our actions. This is often hard 
because the battles are often lost. It is militant will and commitment 
that will make us walk day after day, for the development of the 
organisation's activities and so that we can overcome the obstacles and 
prepare the ground for our long-term objectives. This is how we 
understand it possible to walk toward freedom.

Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro
(Federação Anarquisa do Rio de Janeiro - FARJ)

[1]Mikhail Bakunin. The Knouto-Germanic Empire. Taken from Frank Mintz. 
Bakunin: crítica y acción. Buenos Aires: Colección Utopia Libertaria pp. 
74-75.

[2]Errico Malatesta. Anarquistas, Socialistas e Comunistas. Sao Paulo: 
Cortes p. 24.) (our emphasis)

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchist-federation-of-rio-de-janeiro-thoughts-on-commitment-responsibility
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/08/07/adanmislik-sorumluluk-ve-oz-disiplin-uzerine-dusunceler-farj/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en