A-Infos (en) Brazil, OSL, Libera #183 - SOCIAL CLASSES IN STATIST CAPITALISM: NOTIONS OF LIBERTARIAN SOCIAL THEORY - Felipe Corrêa (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

This article aims to present and discuss, from a theoretical and 
libertarian perspective, the concept of social classes in statist 
capitalism. Methodologically, it is a bibliographical work in the field 
of social theory, based on classic and contemporary anarchist authors, 
and from them, it presents an initial outline of a libertarian theory of 
social classes, which distinguishes itself from hegemonic conceptions 
and is capable of supporting contemporary analyses.

Towards a Libertarian Social Theory

What is referred to here as libertarian social theory is a recent 
endeavor undertaken by some researchers - notably those affiliated with 
the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA), among whom I 
include myself - to produce a contemporary social theory, inspired by 
libertarian thought, capable of supporting concrete analyses of 
different social realities in the modern world. And of explaining the 
processes of reproduction and change/transformation of these realities. 
To this end, this theory proposes a critical understanding of social 
conflicts (forces at play, power/domination relations) and the context 
(structural logic, fields/spheres and institutions, structure and 
conjuncture) in which these conflicts occur.

When I speak of "libertarian social theory," I am inspired by the 
terminology used by Alfredo Errandonea (1989, p. 7) in his book 
Sociología de la Dominación . This theory stems primarily from the 
contributions of classical anarchist thinkers, that is, what Lucien van 
der Walt (2009, pp. 83, 113) called "anarchist social analysis," and 
also incorporates contributions from later authors influenced by them. 
It also proposes critical dialogues, both with non-anarchist authors of 
this libertarian tradition and with other classical and contemporary 
thinkers, whenever these interactions are productive and do not call 
into question the analytical coherence of the project in question.[1]

It is important to highlight that this libertarian social theory is not 
intended to be the sole representation of the thought of anarchist or 
libertarian authors, nor even the one that best represents all their 
contributions, given the philosophical and theoretical diversity that 
has marked this tradition. This theory encompasses one of the 
possibilities that the rich anarchist and libertarian tradition offers 
to the contemporary analytical field.

-------------------------------------------------------------

[1]López (Brazilian economist), Bruno Lima Rocha (Brazilian political 
scientist) and Felipe Corrêa (Brazilian social scientist, author of this 
article). In this article, I revisit some elements of the extensive 
contributions of these authors, focusing only on what can support the 
discussion on social classes, which I now intend to carry out.

[2]It is crucial to highlight that the term "libertarian" here refers to 
the tradition of the anti-authoritarian, federalist, self-managed and 
democratic socialist and communist left, which has existed since the 
19th century, and which has used and claimed the term "libertarian" and 
its derivatives since the end of the 1850s. (MCKAY, 2018) Among its 
great historical representatives are the anarchists, but also other 
anti-authoritarian and heterodox socialists, communists or Marxists.



ANARCHISM AND SOCIAL CLASSES

It is always important to remember that anarchism is a political 
ideology or doctrine that, in its more than 150 years of global 
presence, has considered the question of social classes as something 
paramount. Anarchism emerged within the International Workingmen's 
Association (IWA) as a socialist, revolutionary, and anti-authoritarian 
expression of a sector of the oppressed classes . Throughout its 
history, anarchists have made use of social classes in their class-based 
analyses of reality , in their class struggle strategies , and in their 
conceptions of social transformation, which include the end of social 
classes . (CORRÊA, 2022a)

This position should not be considered some kind of class reductionism. 
This is because anarchists have always criticized and fought against 
various forms of domination, which certainly included class, but also 
involved nationality, race/ethnicity, and gender/sexuality. However, a 
prominent feature of this position was the historical link to the class 
question in critical analyses and struggles against imperialism, racism, 
and patriarchy. Why did this happen?

The answer lies in the unique character of class inequality. Among all 
social relations, it is only class that involves both domination and 
exploitation; only the popular[oppressed]classes are exploited, and only 
the exploited classes are capable of creating a society without 
exploitation, for only they have no interest in exploitation. If 
exploitation is an inseparable aspect of modern society, and if human 
freedom demands the abolition of exploitation, then it is only class 
struggle that can emancipate humanity. Viewed from this perspective, 
forms of oppression[domination]that are not strictly reducible to class 
- such as gender and race - must be approached from a class perspective, 
for this establishes the only basis for general emancipation; 
conversely, it is only through combating divisions within the working 
class - divisions based on prejudice and unjust discrimination - that 
class revolution, the only one that can emancipate humanity, is 
possible. (VAN DER WALT, 2009, p. 111, brackets added)

This conception of social classes has permeated distinct anarchist 
practices and theories. It has involved both its "political-militant" 
and "analytical-scientific" dimensions (VAN DER WALT, 2018, p. 515), as 
well as its strategic-programmatic elements: "analysis of past and 
present, structural and conjunctural reality", "strategies and tactics 
to transform reality" and "finalist objectives" (CORRÊA, 2014a, pp. 6, 8).

Despite its breadth, as pointed out, this article only considers part of 
this analytical-scientific dimension. More specifically, the part 
related to the analysis of reality from a social theory perspective, 
which aims to conceptualize social classes within the capitalist-statist 
system of domination or mode of power.

This libertarian approach to social classes in statist capitalism, when 
compared to others, proves to be, in a certain sense, innovative. 
Because it breaks with non-relational and economistic perspectives, 
proposing a relational and multicausal approach that starts from 
relations in the economic field and advances to those in the political 
and moral/intellectual fields. Therefore, this approach differs from 
those that understand classes exclusively from income, wealth, or even 
ownership of the means of production and/or relations of labor 
exploitation. It takes these elements into account, but inserts them as 
part of a broader systemic structure of domination, which is 
indispensable in the analysis of statist capitalist society.

CAPITALISM-STATISM: SYSTEM OF DOMINATION AND MODE OF POWER

Despite substantial changes and specific historical forms, it is 
possible to say that the society that takes shape in modernity and 
endures to the present is the capitalist-statist society - or, simply, 
capitalism-statism . Bakunin (2003, pp. 168, 228) referred to this 
society, among other ways, as the "capitalist system" and the "statist 
system." Malatesta (2000, p. 21; 1999a, p. 190; 2014a, p. 436) also used 
"capitalist system" and, among other terms, employed "social system" and 
"capitalist and statist order."

In an analysis that can be called horizontal² , both proposed 
analytically dividing the macrosocial structure of this system into 
three parts. Bakunin ( 2014a, pp. 256-257) distinguished between 
"economic organization" or "economic facts", "political and legal 
developments" or "political facts", and "development of ideas" or 
"intellectual and moral facts". Malatesta (2014b, p. 528; 2014c, p. 230; 
2000, p. 11) referred to a certain "economic, political and moral 
configuration" of society; he claimed "economic resistance", "political 
resistance" and "moral resistance"; he related the moral question to the 
intellectual one.

Based on Malatesta's terminology, each of these parts can be called a 
field 3 , and the capitalist-statist system can be analytically divided 
into three fields: economic field , political field , and 
intellectual-moral field . 4 This system brings together the set of 
"means of life," that is, the totality of economic means (production and 
exchange), political means (government and repression), and 
intellectual-moral means (communication and instruction). (CORRÊA, 2022b)

Furthermore, both Bakunin ( 2003, pp. 35-36, 71-73, 228; 2009a, p. 49) 
and Malatesta ( 2001, p. 23; 1989, p. 141) highlighted the systemic 
character of this society, which articulates these fields and means of 
life in an interdependent and inseparable way, namely, the capitalist 
economy, the modern state, and large institutions of communication and 
instruction (mainly religion and education). Malatesta's terminology 
also allows us to name this notion of the inseparability of the three 
fields . 5 (MALATESTA, 1999c, p. 58)

When discussing the "capitalist-statist system," the systemic and 
extra-economic characteristics of modern society are highlighted 
simultaneously, both supported by Bakunin and Malatesta. Errandonea 
(1989) conceptualizes this society as a "system of domination," insofar 
as it possesses a class structure in which relations of domination are 
established between dominant and oppressed classes, and between other 
social groupings. Jonathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler (2009) refer to 
it as a "mode of power," that is, an order that has a structural impulse 
towards capital accumulation and in which relations of power and 
domination prevail.

This allows us to assert that modern society is a system of 
capitalist-statist domination , a historical capitalist-statist mode of 
power , whose class structure is marked by durable and hegemonic 
relations of domination, and which encompasses other forms of domination.

DOMINATION, PROPERTY AND PRIVILEGE

For Bakunin and Malatesta, the capitalist-statist system of domination, 
like other historical societies, is explained primarily by its social 
conflicts, its power relations, and its domination. (BAKUNIN, 2009a, p. 
34; MALATESTA, 2020) Errandonea, Nitzan, and Bichler also focus on the 
concepts of power and domination. Now, although Bakunin, Malatesta, and 
other classic anarchists have tended to consider power and domination 
practically as synonyms, I believe it is important, based on López 
(2001, pp. 121-130) , to insist on the distinction between the two 
concepts, placing domination as a form - although not the only one - of 
power. 6

López (2001, pp. 61-62, 121-130) defines power as a "social relation" 
that results from the "confrontation between social forces"-whether 
class-based, group-based, or individual-as soon as one or more social 
forces impose themselves on others. "It is this act of imposing one 
force on its opposition that we call power." He further points out that, 
historically, power can be conceived in two major forms or models: 
dominating power (domination) and self-managing power (self-management).

Domination, considered here as a historical form of power, is conceived 
by Bakunin, in macrosocial terms, as a social relation that results from 
the confrontation between social forces, in which some (generally a 
minority with greater social power) impose themselves on others 
(generally a majority with less social power) and take advantage of this 
imposition to become artificial authorities and obtain economic and 
non-economic privileges. It is, therefore, a relationship between a 
privileged minority and a disadvantaged majority for the benefit of the 
former and to the detriment of the latter . (CORRÊA, 2019a, p. 457)

Bakunin and Malatesta understand the capitalist-statist mode of power as 
a society profoundly marked by domination. (BAKUNIN, 2003; MALATESTA, 
2001) Domination that, in economic, political, and intellectual-moral 
terms, is expressed in four forms, as Malatesta indicates.

In the economic field, economic domination or " exploitation of labor " 
is a central characteristic of the capitalist economy. 7 In the 
political field, two forms of political domination are promoted by the 
modern state. The first is the use of "brute force," "physical 
violence," or simply physical coercion . The second is "the power to 
make laws to regulate the relationship of men among themselves and to 
enforce these laws," or simply political-bureaucratic domination . In 
the intellectual-moral field, there is intellectual-moral domination or 
" religious, university power ." 8 (MALATESTA, 2001, pp. 18, 23, 42)

It is important to note here that domination, in these forms, was 
historically established and is simultaneously the cause and effect of 
capitalist-statist (private or national/state) ownership of economic, 
political, and intellectual-moral means, and of various privileges. In 
other words, there is a cycle or relationship of mutual reinforcement 
between domination and property-privileges in all three fields, which 
explains the structural/systemic logic of capitalism-statism, whose 
essential feature is the permanent accumulation of economic capital, 
political capital, and intellectual-moral capital.

SOCIAL CLASSES IN STATIST CAPITALISM

According to Bakunin, historical societies have been traversed by a 
division between social classes, contrasting the oppressed-dominated and 
the dominators-oppressors.

Since the dawn of history, the human world has been divided into two 
classes: the vast majority, chained to more or less mechanical, brutal, 
and forced labor; the millions of workers, eternally exploited, spending 
their sad lives in misery bordering on hunger, in ignorance and slavery, 
and condemned, for that very reason, to eternal obedience. Then, on the 
other hand, the more or less fortunate, educated, refined, exploitative, 
dominant, governing minority, consuming the best part of the collective 
labor of the popular masses and representing the whole of civilization. 
(BAKUNIN, 2017, pp. 453-454)

In statist capitalism, this contradiction between classes remains, as 
Malatesta argues:

Through a complicated network of struggles of all kinds-invasions, wars, 
rebellions, repressions, concessions made and taken back, the 
association of the vanquished, united to defend themselves, and of the 
victors, to attack-society has reached its current state, in which a few 
men hereditarily own the land and all social wealth, while the great 
mass, deprived of everything, is frustrated and oppressed by a handful 
of owners.

This determines the state of misery in which workers generally find 
themselves, and all the resulting evils: ignorance, crime, prostitution, 
physical decay, moral abjection, premature death. Hence the constitution 
of a special class (the government) which, provided with the material 
means of repression, has the mission of legalizing and defending the 
owners against the demands of the proletariat. It then uses the force it 
possesses to arrogate privileges to itself and to subject, if it can do 
so, the class of owners to its own supremacy. From this follows the 
formation of another special class (the clergy), which, through a series 
of fables relating to the will of God, the afterlife, etc., seeks to 
lead the oppressed to docilely endure the oppressor, the government, the 
interests of the owners, and their own. (MALATESTA, 2000, pp. 8-9)

First of all, it is important to emphasize that, if social classes are a 
fundamental feature of historical societies, this is no different in the 
capitalist-statist system of domination. However, what exists in this 
society is a structure in which concrete social classes present a 
specific configuration, since they vary according to the historical 
context (space and time). When a new system is established, classes 
rise, become more and less significant, emerge and disappear.

For the emergence of the capitalist-statist mode of power, both the rise 
of the bourgeoisie and the modern bureaucracy, as well as the 
development of the urban and rural proletariat, were relevant in terms 
of class structure. Also significant was the incorporation of former 
landowners and peasants, both of decreasing relevance, and also of new 
intermediate sectors and new religious, academic, and communicational 
agents. (BAKUNIN, 2008; VAN DER WALT, 2009, pp. 48-52; CORRÊA, 2019a, 
pp. 464-491)

This class structure is the main aspect of capitalist-statism, and the 
social conflict between dominant and oppressed classes (class struggle) 
is its main contradiction. (ERRANDONEA, 1989) Bakunin stated that "the 
division of humanity into classes is systemic," and insisted on this 
centrality, albeit in a non-deterministic way, because, for him, class 
struggle is not the only social conflict in capitalist-statist society, 
nor is it the one that determines all others. (LEIER, 2009)

For Bakunin, this centrality of social classes and class struggle is 
justified by at least three reasons. "First, it moves politics away from 
abstract discussions about 'justice' and anchors it in experience." This 
experience mediates, on the one hand, the class structure, and, on the 
other, class consciousness and actions. "Second, it demonstrates that 
'the people' is not a unified notion, because material interests - class 
- divide the people." Therefore, there is no single society; what exists 
is a class society. "Regardless of other issues that may unite people, 
class remains a crucial dividing line." Third, "the argument about class 
suggests that focusing on local issues, on identity issues, and on 
reforms is important, but none of them encompasses the main issue, 
exploitation, which affects the vast majority of humanity." (LEIER, 
2009) In this sense, it is the class, and only it, that has the 
conditions to unite the workers to confront the capitalist-statist 
system of domination and its class structure, to promote a revolutionary 
transformation that guarantees the end of domination and social classes.

Both Bakunin (2008, p. 75) and Malatesta (2001, p. 42) discussed the 
issue of labor exploitation numerous times, and always recognized its 
importance in statist capitalism. For example, the former criticized, in 
this society, the "exploitation of collective labor by individuals who 
have no right to do so"; the latter recognized "in individual property 
and government" the roots of the "exploitation of everyone's labor by a 
privileged handful".

However, both did not restrict their definition of social classes and 
class struggle to purely economic criteria and/or those linked to the 
realm of work, as in the case of the concept of exploitation. Note that, 
in the quotations that open this part of the article, when Bakunin and 
Malatesta discuss social classes, in addition to economic criteria 
(exploitation, work, poverty), they also address political criteria 
(government, violence, command-obedience) and intellectual-moral 
criteria (education, instruction, knowledge). (BAKUNIN, 2017, pp. 
453-454; MALATESTA, 2000, pp. 8-9)

Both, therefore, go beyond the one-dimensional approach, which defines 
classes solely by economic criteria and/or the exploitation of labor, 
and point to a multidimensional definition, whose foundation is the 
broader concept of domination. Bakunin and Malatesta conceptualize 
social classes based on the four major forms of domination that occur in 
the economic, political, and intellectual-moral fields - that is, 
exploitation of labor, physical coercion, political-bureaucratic 
domination, and intellectual-moral domination - and, at the same time, 
on the ownership of the means of subsistence - that is, the economic 
means (production and exchange), the political means (government and 
repression), and the intellectual-moral means (communication and 
education) - and the privileges linked to these three fields.

Therefore, based on these two anarchist classics and what has been 
discussed so far, it is possible to theoretically synthesize the concept 
of social classes as historical and stable human groupings that are 
produced and reproduced by macrosocial relations of domination, by 
private or national/state ownership of the means of subsistence, and by 
privileges that exist in the economic, political, and intellectual-moral 
fields.

Between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Bakunin and Malatesta 
identified the concrete classes that existed in their time and place. 
Both pointed to a fairly similar set of dominant and oppressed classes. 
Among the former, they indicated landowners and the bourgeoisie (owners 
of the means of production and exchange, or economic means), the 
bureaucracy (owners of the means of government and repression, or 
political means), and the clergy (owners of the means of communication 
and instruction, or intellectual-moral means). Among the latter, they 
pointed to workers in a broader sense, that is, the urban proletariat 
(wage earners in the cities), the rural proletariat (wage earners in the 
countryside), the peasantry (tenant farmers and small landowners), and 
the marginalized or poor in general (the unemployed, beggars, the 
destitute, etc.). (CORRÊA, 2019a, 460-462; 2022b, pp. 11-12 9 )

Among these classes there is class struggle , this expression of class 
conflict that places the dominant and the oppressed on opposing sides, 
whose access to property and economic, political, and intellectual-moral 
privileges is profoundly unequal. This struggle is produced by the 
position that individuals and groups occupy in the social structure - 
and therefore by their structural class interests - and which is 
strengthened or weakened, becomes more or less evident, thanks to the 
experience, action, and consciousness of these subjects, that is, to the 
positions assumed in the class conflict. (BAKUNIN, 2001, p. 68; 2009a, 
pp. 59-60; 2014b, p. 209)

Class struggle has distinct expressions. It manifests itself in more 
particular, microsocial ways, when it involves specific conflicts, for 
example, between the owners (bourgeoisie) of an industry and the workers 
(proletariat) employed in it, or between a large landowner (latifundist) 
and the peasants subjected to him. (BAKUNIN, 2007; MALATESTA, 2007) But 
it also manifests itself in more general, larger-scale, macrosocial 
ways, between two broad groups: dominant classes and oppressed classes. 
In analytical terms, the latter are the most important, because, as 
Bakunin (1988, p. 16) indicates, "all these different political and 
social existences" - the concrete and historical social classes - "can 
today be reduced to two main categories, diametrically opposed to each 
other, and natural enemies of each other: the[dominant]political 
classes[...]and the[oppressed]working classes".

Therefore, it is possible to say that, in the capitalist-statist mode of 
power, when this analytical and theoretical reduction of concrete social 
classes is carried out, there is, on the one hand, a set of dominant 
classes, composed of a tiny minority of landowners, bourgeois, 
bureaucrats, and large producers and disseminators of beliefs, 
knowledge, and information , 10 who exploit (appropriate the surplus of 
labor), govern (repress and impose obedience), and deceive (impose 
ideas, values, and worldviews) the oppressed classes; on the other hand, 
a set of oppressed classes, composed of a vast majority of workers in 
general, or urban proletarians, rural proletarians, peasants, and 
marginalized people, simultaneously exploited, governed, and deceived by 
the dominant classes. This is the meaning adopted when one speaks, in 
this society, of two contradictory classes.

Finally, it is important to highlight that, as stated, class domination 
is not unique, nor does it determine all other forms of domination and 
social conflict in capitalist-statist society.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the other major 
historical and structural forms of domination in this society - national 
domination (colonialism/imperialism), ethnic-racial domination 
(structural racism), and gender and sexuality domination (patriarchy) - 
as well as their relationship to class domination, something that has 
been developed in other writings, both mine and those of other authors 
linked to libertarian social theory. Nevertheless, it is only necessary 
to point out that colonialism/imperialism, structural racism, and 
patriarchy stand out in the production, reproduction, and changes of 
capitalism-statism, as well as in social classes and class domination 
itself. At the same time, social classes have profoundly marked these 
three forms of domination. (VAN DER WALT, 2009)

CONCLUDING NOTES

In conclusion, it is possible to highlight a set of aspects that 
synthesize the positions argued in this article. First of all, it is 
important to reaffirm that classical anarchists in general, and the 
authors who have been building libertarian social theory in particular, 
not only see classes as fundamental elements of social reality, but also 
have significant contributions to the theoretical discussion about 
social classes in statist capitalism.

According to what has been discussed, capitalist-statist society is a 
system of domination or mode of power, whose structural/systemic logic 
is the permanent accumulation of economic capital, political capital, 
and intellectual-moral capital, and whose class structure is its main 
aspect, and the conflict between dominant classes and oppressed classes 
(class struggle) is its main contradiction.

This system of domination is the result of a power struggle, a 
historical and macro-social confrontation between social forces, in 
which some have been imposing themselves on others, establishing not 
only power relations, but also relations of domination. In the 
capitalist mode of power, based on a systemic/structural approach, 
domination is primarily (but not exclusively) class domination, insofar 
as it involves the ownership of economic, political, and 
intellectual-moral means, as well as privileges in these three fields.

Social classes are defined, from a relational and multicausal 
perspective, based on historical and macrosocial relations of 
domination, private or national/state ownership of the means of 
subsistence, and economic, political, and intellectual-moral privileges. 
In other words, it is the confrontations between social class forces, as 
well as the relations of domination between them (dominant classes and 
oppressed classes, especially), that best explain this society in 
systemic and structural terms.

However, it cannot be denied that, in statist capitalism, class 
domination coexists with other forms of domination, notably 
colonialism/imperialism, structural racism, and patriarchy, which have 
contributed and continue to contribute to the shaping and reproduction 
of social classes, and have been permanently marked by class domination.

Therefore, while it is true that there is no possibility of a break with 
capitalism-statism without a struggle focused on social classes, on 
class struggle, it is also true that, since anarchism aims to end all 
forms of domination, it is necessary to simultaneously confront 
national, racial/ethnic, and gender/sexual dominations, but always from 
a class perspective.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

BAKUNIN, Mikhail. Federalism, Socialism and Antitheologism. São Paulo: 
Cortez, 1988.

_____. "Written Against Marx". In: Writings Against Marx . São Paulo: 
Imaginário, 2001.

_____. Statism and Anarchy . São Paulo: Imaginário, 2003.

_____. "The Double Strike in Geneva". In: LEVAL, Gaston. Bakunin, 
Founder of Revolutionary Syndicalism . São Paulo: Imaginário/Faísca, 2007.

_____. "Three Lectures Given to the Workers of the Saint-Imier Valley". 
In: The Principle of the State and Other Essays . São Paulo: Hedra, 2008.

_____. Science and the Vital Question of Revolution . São Paulo: 
Imaginário/Faísca, 2009a.

_____. "Patriotism: To the comrades of the International Workers' 
Association in Locle and La Chaux-de-Fonds". In: Essence of Religion / 
Patriotism . São Paulo: Imaginário, 2009b.

_____. "Historical Sophisms of the Doctrinaire School of German 
Communists". In: FERREIRA, Andrey C.; TONIATTI, Tadeu (eds.). From the 
Bottom Up and from the Periphery to the Center: political, philosophical 
and sociological theory texts by Mikhail Bakunin. Niterói: Alternativa, 
2014a.

_____. "The Knuto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution". In: 
FERREIRA, Andrey C.; TONIATTI, Tadeu (eds.). From the Bottom Up and from 
the Periphery to the Center: political, philosophical and sociological 
theory texts by Mikhail Bakunin . Niterói: Alternativa, 2014b.

_____. "First Speech at the Second Congress of Peace and Freedom". In: 
Selected Works 2. São Paulo: Intermezzo, 2017.

CORRÊA, Felipe. "Anarchism, Power, Class and Social Transformation". In: 
Em Debate , no. 8, 
2012.[https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/emdebate/article/view/1980-3532.2012n8p69]

_____. "Epistemology, Method of Analysis and Social Theory in 
Malatesta". In: Institute of Anarchist Theory and History , 
2014a.[https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/felipe-correa-epistemologia-metodo-de-analise-e-teoria-social-em-malatesta/]

_____. "Power and Anarchism: Approximation or Contradiction?" In: 
Anarkismo.net , 2014b.[https://www.anarkismo.net/article/26913]

_____. Freedom or Death: Theory and Practice of Mikhail Bakunin . São 
Paulo: Faísca, 2019a.

_____. "Anarchist Theory and History in a Global Perspective". In: 
Institute of Anarchist Theory and History , 
2019b.[https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/felipe-correa-teoria-e-historia-anarquista-em-perspectiva-global/]

_____. Black Flag: Rethinking Anarchism . São Paulo: Autonomia 
Literária, 2022a.

_____. "Malatestian Contributions to Social Theory". In: Institute of 
Anarchist Theory and History , 
2022b.[https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2022/12/06/felipe-correa-contribuicoes-malatestianas-para-a-teoria-social/]

ERRANDONEA, Alfredo. Sociologia de la Dominación . Montevideo / Buenos 
Aires: Nordan/Tupac, 1989.

LEIER, Mark. "Bakunin, Class and Post-Anarchism". In: The Anarchist 
Library , 
2009.[https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mark-leier-bakunin-class-and-post-anarchism]

LÓPEZ, Fabio López. Power and Domination: an anarchist perspective . Rio 
de Janeiro: Achiamé, 2001.

MALATESTA, Errico. "'Idealism' and 'Materialism'". In: Anarchists, 
Socialists and Communists. São Paulo: Cortez, 1989.

_____. "Qualche Considerazione sul Regime della Proprietà Dopo la 
Rivoluzione". In: Il Buon Senso dela Rivoluzione . Milan: Eleuthera, 1999a.

_____. "L'Unità Sindacale". In: Il Buon Senso dela Rivoluzione . Milan: 
Eleuthera, 1999b.

_____. "'Idealism' and 'Materialism'". In: Il Buon Senso dela 
Rivoluzione . Milan: Eleuthera, 1999c.

_____. "Anarchist Program". In: Revolutionary Writings . São Paulo: 
Imaginário, 2000.

_____. Anarchy . São Paulo: Imaginário, 2001.

_____. "La Ocupación de las Fábricas". In: RICHARDS, Vernon (org.). 
Malatesta: revolutionary thought and action . Buenos Aires: Anarres, 2007.

_____. "Anarchist's Line Within the Trade Union Movement." In: TURCATO, 
Davide (org.) The Method of Freedom: an Errico Malatesta Reader . 
Oakland: AK Press, 2014a.

_____. "Apropos of 'Revisionism'". In: TURCATO, Davide (org.) The Method 
of Freedom: an Errico Malatesta Reader . Oakland: AK Press, 2014b.

_____. "The Duty of Resistance". In: TURCATO, Davide (org.) The Method 
of Freedom: an Errico Malatesta Reader . Oakland: AK Press, 2014c.

_____. "Individualism in Anarchism". In: Última Barricada , 
2020.[https://ultimabarricada.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/o-individualismo-no-anarquismo-errico-malatesta/]

MCKAY, Iain. "160 Years of Libertarianism". In: Anarquistfaq.org , 
2018.[https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/blog/160-years-libertarian.html]

NITZAN, Jonathan; BICHLER, Shimshon. Capital as Power: a study of order 
and credit . London/New York: Routledge, 2009.

ROCHA, Bruno Lima. The Structural Interdependence of the Three Spheres: 
a libertarian analysis of Political Organization for the process of 
democratic radicalization. Porto Alegre: UFRGS (doctoral thesis), 2009.

VAN DER WALT, Lucien. Black Flame: the revolutionary class politics of 
anarchism and syndicalism . Oakland: AK Press, 2009.

_____. "Anarchism and Marxism". In: JUN, Nathan (org.). Brill's 
Companion to Anarchism and Philosophy . Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018.

* Paper presented at the First Meeting in Uruguay of Historians and 
Researchers on Anarchism, 2023

1

2 In an article on Malatesta's contributions to social theory, I suggest 
that, based on his writings, it is possible to conceive of the analysis 
of capitalist-statist society from two directions. One, "vertical," 
discusses the "interdependent relations between the individual and 
society, something that explains why the subject produced in this system 
carries with him an important part of the influence of the relations and 
institutions of capitalism and the State"; the other, "horizontal," 
discusses the "three fields and the relations between them, that is, the 
capitalist economy, the modern State, and its major institutions of 
communication and instruction." (CORRÊA, 2022b, pp. 3-4)

3 The original Italian term that allows translation as "field" is 
terreno . Cf., for example: Malatesta, 1999b, pp. 175, 177. " Field , 
here, can be defined as the area or space dedicated to certain human 
activities, which is established from institutionalized social 
relations." (CORRÊA, 2022b, p. 6)

4 In an approach that coherently engages with Malatesta, Bruno L. Rocha 
(2009, pp. 285-286, 111) names these fields "economic sphere", 
"political-legal-military sphere", "cultural/ideological sphere", and 
argues that there is interdependence between them.

5 The original Italian term that allows the translation as 
"indissociability" is indissolublità . Cf., for example: Malatesta, 
1999c, p. 58.

6 Approaches such as López's and others, including my own, open the 
possibility of recognizing that the anarchist project is also a project 
of power. But one that rejects domination and has self-management as its 
foundation. (CORRÊA, 2014b, 2012)

7 Following Errandonea (1989, chapters 3 and 4), I consider here 
exploitation as part of domination, as a form of domination.

8. A form of domination that I have previously referred to as "cultural 
alienation" and "ideological/cultural domination." (CORRÊA, 2019b, 
2022a, p. 152)

9 See these texts of mine for all the references to the writings of 
Bakunin and Malatesta that discuss this issue.

10 Note that, as has been happening in other classes and class 
fractions, these "great producers and disseminators of beliefs, 
knowledge, and information" have changed since the production of these 
anarchist classics. In their contexts, Bakunin (2009b, p. 60) and 
Malatesta (2000, p. 9) pointed to the clergy as the most prominent 
representative of this class. However, it should be noted that, over 
time, Catholic leaders have increasingly shared space with Protestant 
leaders and those of other religious expressions. Throughout the 20th 
century, academic intellectuals and large business owners in the press, 
publishing, and education sectors have gained increasing prominence 
among the representatives of this class, a movement that, at the 
beginning of the 21st century, has been spearheaded by the owners of the 
so-called big tech companies .

https://socialismolibertario.net/
_________________________________________
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