The anarchist movement & left-libertarianism: Marriage or relationship between singles?

My aim here is to outline the relationship between the anarchist movement and the left-libertarian area through the analysis of the editorial-cultural experience of the Milan-based Editrice A cooperative. I have worked for the cooperative since its establishment in 1971 [formally in 1977] and contributed in various capacities to its initiatives. This outline hence stems from a precise standpoint, it is based on the experience of a specific group within the Italian anarchist movement and represents a deeply personal point of view -mine- from within the cooperative.

It could be beneficial to begin with an overview of the cooperative’s scope and sections, some of which are still active, while others have concluded their journeys, and alert the reader to different modes of communication (from militant information to theoretical reflection). The cooperative comprises of: The monthly anarchist magazine «A rivista anarchica» [1971-2020], which always was the most widespread anarchist publication in Italian; the quadrilingual international journal «Interrogations», created with Louis Mercier Vega in 1974 and active until 1979, and replaced one year later by the quarterly «Volontà» [1946-1996], originally established in 1946 by Giovanna Berneri and Cesare Zaccaria; the publishing house Antistato [1975-1985], originally managed by Pio Turroni [1947-1974], and  replaced by the new publishing house elèuthera in 1986 [still in activity]. Closely connected to this latter project, although autonomous, we should also mention the Centre for Libertarian Studies/Giuseppe Pinelli Archive, active since 1976.

The above sketched experience has developed since the beginning of the 1970s and lies therefore entirely within what we can call, with no firmly established definitions, neo-anarchism or post-classical anarchism. Certainly, it was an anarchism marked by a generational transition: from the generation that knew fascism, the Spanish war and the Resistance, with solid proletarian roots, to the generation of those who are barely in their thirties in 1968, when the movement is reborn. They are no longer overwhelmingly workers, but rather students, teachers, third sector employees, and drop-outs of various types...

To be sure, the relationship between anarchism and left libertarianism has a much longer history, stretching the entire second half of the past century, and undergoing various phases which did not unfold in a strictly linear sequence, but rather came with overlapping and historical cycles, often dictated by the prevailing anarchist trends among those who addressed the issue.

Before outlining the history of this relationship, it may help outlining the evolution of the Italian anarchist movement in the post-war period, since it is marked by contrasting periods. In brief, the movement was reorganized in 1945, thanks also to the Resistance against Nazi-fascism, and enjoyed both political visibility (all major Italian political parties, including the Christian Democracy, sent their delegates to the first anarchist congress of the post-war period, held in Carrara in 1945) and intellectual vivacity (for instance around the journal «Volontà», which brought together a libertarian intelligentsia of considerable value).

This phase continued until around 1955. In the subsequent decade the movement went through a dramatic crisis and virtually disappeared from the Italian scene at all levels, to the point that some bad prophets did not hesitate to announce the death of anarchism. Notwithstanding, it tumultuously reappeared in 1968 and continued to experience a minoritarian and yet very active presence until the end of the 1970s; the 1980s marked another phase of stark decline, which pertained anarchism as well as the whole extra-parliamentary left, i.e. the protagonists of the roaring 1970s. Such crisis therefore was well beyond the specific history of the anarchist movement, which all in all held up better than the extra-parliamentary, predominantly Marxist, left. This said, a dangerous ghetto syndrome was spreading in the movement, showing symptoms of isolation, inactivity, and a crisis of militancy. In the 1990s the "established" movement further shrank and maintained characteristics quite close to the previous decade (although more nuanced), yet there was an increase in the individual, unorganized presence of anarchists in many of the active sectors of society which were, to various degrees, close to libertarian culture and practice.

So long for our outline. Let us now move to the metaphor of the couple's relationship suggested in the title, which, although grossly simplifying reality, can help us, if we do not push it too far, to exemplify the various phases of the relationship between the anarchist movement and the left-libertarian area:

1. Patriarchal relationship; The traditional relationship in which the male role is interpreted by the anarchist movement, while the left-libertarian area is the woman. Indeed, it is not unusual for the anarchist movement to think of the libertarian area as a service area where to "fish" for new militants to be co-opted into their own ranks. It is a somewhat ambiguous area populated by a new figure, the so-called sympathizer, a sort of quasi-anarchist (or imperfect anarchist) whose main goal would be to amplify proposals and strategies developed by the movement. From this latter's standpoint, the left-libertarian area shines with reflected light and is not recognized as an autonomous culture.

2. Open couple relationship; the almost partisan approach («conveyor belt» style) of the previous relationship is no longer satisfactory for the left-libertarian area, which does not enjoy its subordinate role in the relationship; a desire for emancipation pushes the libertarian area to look for other less suffocating partners. Such arrangement is not met with favour by the movement who soon realizes how rusty his seductive skills are. On the contrary, the libertarian area easily finds other partners (even today, many anarchists refuse to admit the existence and legitimacy of a non-monogamous libertarian area connected to movement).

3. Guilt-induced separation; as for many open couples, the experiment does not work and after a period of mutual recriminations –the anarchist movement deems the libertarians too easy-going, while this latter feel exploited and silenced by the movement– they break up and become estranged. This damages both: the movement loses its lifeblood and will confine itself in increasingly narrow spaces, and the left-libertarians will obscure, even to themselves, their own origins, thus weakening their identity and becoming easy prey of ruthless institutional subjects.

4. Relationship between singles; this corresponds roughly to the current phase. After a period of silence and mutual distrust, world changing events (not least the crisis of Marxism) restored visibility and appeal to anarchism and left libertarianism. The new favourable context leads to their rapprochement, this time based on the newly achieved equality and autonomy. Resentment put aside, even if with a pinch of mistrust, the relationship is re-established, albeit less close than in the past. Monogamous obligations and marital duties are buried, with the mutual promise to keep seeing each other as good friends and occasional lovers.

Let's get out of the metaphor now and translate it into the experience of Editrice A cooperative. The work of the cooperative stems from militant anarchism, which is at least partly mirroring the movement (thus following its evolution), but it is also expression of a specific cultural project that can be differentiated from the broader movement.

As such, the initiatives of the cooperative are expression of precise choices, like the decision to give space to Anglo-American anarchism, an inspiring cultural tradition for “Latin”[1] anarchism, if anything because it dealt with the problem of its relationship with libertarianism much earlier on. Thanks to early exposure to democratic regimes, Anglo-American anarchism reached a more advanced understanding of anarchism in contemporary societies (see Paul Goodman, Colin Ward, and Murray Bookchin).

In Italy, Camillo Berneri (1897-1937) began to engage with this issue, but his innovative thinking found a tragic end too early, causing a theoretical delay which will be reflected in the crisis of the following decades. A peculiar aspect of Editrice A is certainly the attempt to transplant, albeit in a syncretic way, Anglo-American anarchist and libertarian culture in the corresponding «Latin» culture, in particular in the Italian context.

We can identify three phases in the relationship between Editrice A and left libertarianism, which can also be considered as steps towards rapprochement. The first phase began in 1971 with the birth of the magazine «A rivista anarchica», and can be  summed up in the slogan «anarchists and proud of it». The movement finds new life, is young and has no direct contact with previous anarchism. The priorities are set around the need to rebuild and then strengthen the movement (this is the goal of the Antistato publisher, through new editions of anarchist classics). Concurrently, there was the need to rethink anarchism in the face of new social, cultural, and economic contexts. This was the task of the quadrilingual magazine «Interrogations» (1974-1979) and the Centre for Libertarian Studies, whose events and conferences revolved around issues like techno-bureaucracy, self-management, utopia, power, and social mutation.

The second phase, gradually unfolding within the first, reached maturity in the early 1980s, in a moment marked by a strong detachment from the left-libertarians, who are rising to prominence. This separation prompted us to investigate the reasons behind our estrangement, focusing on the newly developed autonomous lines of thinking within the left libertarian culture. What came out of it was the idea of using such diversity to revitalize anarchism, as exemplified in the experience of the quarterly «Volontà» (1980-1996).

The third phase, from the end of the 1980s onwards, is embodied in the editorial project behind the elèuthera publishing house, i.e. to bring anarchism out of its isolation. Self-inflicted or not, such isolation could be overcome by getting closer to the ever expanding left-libertarian culture, which seems to live and prosper without tangible links to “official” anarchism.

Clearly, this endeavour called for a more accurate portrait of the relevant left libertarian sphere, some sort of identikit picture. As with this technique, the physiognomy we obtained was made up of assembled parts. It was not a coherent structure, but rather a composite structure, derived from the juxtaposition of different elements.

The first obvious trait characterising the left-libertarian area is the lack of rigidly defined boundaries, and its self-identification as a heterogenous and fluid sphere, encompassing different subjects, often not communicating with each other. The typologies vary greatly, sometimes we see actual movements (for example militant anti-psychiatry), but more frequently we are presented with segments of movements (for example some fringes of the environmental movement, or of the women's movement), or even moments within the development of a movement, generally pre-institutional (see the movement for conscientious objection); At times we see transitory, contingent situations that are more modes of action, rather than objectives (such as citizen movements dealing with crucial yet very localised issues, pioneering horizontal decision-making methods and direct action); Other times, we have interventions in the so called “high culture”(in pedagogical sciences, for instance), but also in the hard sciences, with important epistemological consequences (see for instance in geometry after chaos theory, in mathematics, with the work of Jean Petitot, and in biology after the contributions on symbiosis – reminiscent of Kropotkin-  and autopoiesis by Humberto Maturana).

Lastly, we might find political areas with their own specific agendas, whose members and workers adhere to libertarian modes of intervention and values (see self-managed social centres, volunteering -sometimes even Christian volunteers- with their practice of solidarity, or left-wing oriented people and their growing refusal to fit into a ruling party/master).

This loose identikit picture clearly points towards a subject which is made of a multiplicity of inhomogeneous categories. This very lack of homogeneity is what prevented libertarianism, for better or for worse, from becoming institutionalized, from giving itself a statute, a strong identity, established boundaries. On the one hand, this indefinity made it less recognisable as site of social and cultural aggregation, to the point that even a certain ultra-liberal right can proclaim itself libertarian, but on the other hand it enabled its widespread diffusion.

Moving back to the specific experience of elèuthera, the goal we have positively pursued for the past years through the establishment of our network of contacts, is the creation of a shared environment for various libertarian experiences, scantly frequented by the anarchist movement and mutually indifferent to one another. The aspiration of the project is therefore twofold. Firstly, we aimed at bringing anarchism out of its isolation and expose it to different libertarian cultures, in a process of cross pollination. Secondly, we wanted to provide a coherent and meaningful context to the multiformity and heterogeneity of left-libertarianism (without erasing difference and thus distort it). Such context acts as an enabler by providing a sharper awareness and a stronger sense of belonging, so that the connection between the knots in the network can grow stronger and have a greater impact on Italian society.

Anarchism has many opportunities ahead to regain vitality and concreteness, pending two conditions: 1. it must free itself from its “gospel”- that is, from the vulgarization and neurotic simplification of the theories of classical anarchism, that are often preached with the certainty of religious orthodoxy; 2. Anarchism must re-establish a movement with different characteristics from the currently prevailing ones: it must be a community of active anarchists (in various fields, forms and intensity), and no longer a political "party" for the militants.

If these two conditions are met, anarchism could become one of the strongest forces in the above sketched network; it is stronger because of its deeper awareness of the need of connecting its own theory and praxis, as well as those of the various left-libertarian experiences. Anarchism could contribute greatly to the definition of a libertarian practice in the here and now, by hinging on its "common sense", while at the same time maintaining its irreducibility to the extant, its “utopian” dimension.

In this blend of possible anarchy are at stake not only its relations with left-libertarianism, but the very future of anarchism as a vital social force, rather than an item belonging to industrial archaeology.