ANARCHOS

1NST!TUT€

A few themes came up repeatedly during the Venice conference which warrant some further consideration. We offer these thoughts as a way of broadening the context of some of our discussions, and thinking about the strengths and limits of what we accomplished-There seemed to be a continuing theme of the 'old anarchism' versus the 'new anarchism.' Apparently, the 'old anarchism' connotes a movement oriented primarily (if not exclusively; around labor-union organizing, while the 'new anarchism' is meant to include contemporary counter-cultural movements, ecology, anti-nuclear activism, feminism, etc. On a number of occasions, discussions —often almost bitter-seemed to focus on this distinction, with some appearing to claim that any reliance (or primary reliance) on working-class organization was doomed to failure, and others feeling that to take such a position is to deny not only the history of the anarchist movement, but the vitality of some contemporary workers' movements.

Our sense (deriving, tor Martha and Myrna Breitbart. at least), from our studies of the history of the anarchist movement in Spain from 1868 through the Civil War period, is that this dichotomy is false and unnecessary. A single-minded reliance on, or dedication to, labor organizing may have characterized certain Marxist-sociaiist movements in the U.S. and elsewhere, but it has never reflected the whole story of anarchist organizing—particularly in Spain. There, although the CNT did focus a great deal of its attention on organizing workers (primarily mate workers) into unions, that was never the sole focus of the movement as a whole. Practically from the beginning, movement organizers and activists recognized that people live their lives not only at the workplace, and that a truly revolutionary movement must speak to the variety of contexts in which people live and work (and to the variety of people who would make up a movement). Thus, from early on, for example, the anarchist/ anarcho-syndicalist movement in Spain committed itself to education of workers, recognizing that learning is empowering for people, as well as a good mechanism for organizing. What is important to recognize is that

much of this sort of organizing (particularly that at the local neighborhood level) is work that was then (and -is still now) done by women—which, we suspect, may be related to its neglect by male anarchists then and now. In addition, Mujeres Ltbres—founded by women in 1935 to corrrect some of the neglect with which women and issues of concern to women had been treated within the anarcho-syndicalist movement—nevertheless drew on long-standing anarchist traditions: a commitment to non-hierarchy (in the family and community, as well as a work) and sexual equality, and a recognition that 'direct action' means taking action on whatever contexts are meaningful to people- Although they took issue with the mainstream of the movement in some important respects, they were, nevertheless, part of it.

Related to this is the overall treatment or feminist issues at the Venice .conference. We were distressed that., aside from the last-minute switch because of Ynestra King's foot Injury, 'feminism' was relegated to one particular session, and the rest of the conference was supposedly dealing with 'mainstream' anarchism. As Vastra made clear in her presentation on Friday morning, however, feminism is not simply a movement (which needs to be recognized as such), but also a perspective, which should be informing ail that we as anarchists do. In fact, to the degree that feminism questions hierarchies based on sex, it is the logical extension of an anarchist perspective that questions hierarchy in all its forms. Just as the women of Mujeres Libres questioned the practices of much of the mainstream anarchist movement while, at the same time, insisting on their partnership with it, so contemporary anarchist-feminists (or feminists within the anarchist community) question the articulation of these issues, while still insisting on our membership in the larger whole. !t is important not just for us, but for the growth of the movement as a whole, however, to recognize that the concerns we raise are not just 'women's issues,' not just 'of concern to women,' and not just the feminist movement. We are trying to address some fundamental issues relevant to everyone: but for that to happen, they have to be recognized as relevant by others.

In our view, then, while serious attention to feminist issues by more than a fraction of mainstream anarchists may represent a relatively new emphasis, for the movement (and of those concerns is far from unanimous), it is historically incorrect to speak as though concern with issues beyond the workplace is uniquely a contemporary phenomenon. The particular articulation of anti-nuclear activism, feminism, and

ecology may be contemporary; but the place of such activity within a broader anarchist framework has a long and honorable—albeit neglected—history. One can find early reflections of many of these perspectives, for example, in the writings of as 'old' an anarchist as Peter Kropotkin. Not to acknowledge these links is to neglect and forget our history, to lose the lessons we might learn from it, and to make all of us feel much more isolated in our struggles than we otherwise need be. What is new about the 'new anarchism,' then, is not that attention is being directed to otber-than-workplace issues. It is that men are becoming more actively involved in, or committed to, such projects —and thus, recognizing their legitimacy!

Martha Ackelsberg & Ynestra King