A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion - On Beefs, Ego Trips, and Cancellations in the Libertarian Movement (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

"The time has come to take responsibility." - Ad Nauseam Manifesto: 
Notes Against the Political Ghetto
Index
* On Beefs, Ego Trips, and Cancellations in the Libertarian Movement
* References
Since identifying as an anarchist, I have always been an "idealist," or, 
to take it to a messianic level, a "believer" in The Idea. I was 
fascinated (and continue to be fascinated) by all the stories and 
experiences that Anarchism has contributed, fought for, and defended in 
the name of a conviction that a more dignified Humanity is possible. 
I've always been drawn to texts that speak of "igniting a spark of 
consciousness that transforms the instinct for mutual aid into the 
foundation of a society without masters, where bread and freedom are 
universal and inalienable rights," or that address "the end of the 
exploitation of Man by Man" and the "emancipation of the people by the 
people themselves." I believe that, based on this interpretation, my 
logical conclusion was that ego and personalism have no place in a 
universal project.

Perhaps that's why I found certain dynamics within the libertarian 
movement so perplexing. I'm not talking about real political 
differences, which are necessary. I'm talking about endless beefs , ego 
wars, settling scores disguised as principles, social capital 
accumulated by pointing fingers at others, and personal conflicts 
artificially elevated to political issues. I've always seen the 
anarchist struggle as incompatible with ego. Not because we lack pride, 
wounds, or a desire for recognition. We have them all. But a militant 
ethic should serve precisely to put that in its place. If we claim to 
fight for something that transcends us, the collective project cannot be 
hijacked by anyone's narcissism.

It's no coincidence that I chose this title: "Os cães ladram ea caravana 
passa" (I understand it's used in Spain). The expression comes from an 
old Arabic saying: even if the dogs bark, the caravan continues on its 
way. In other words, there are provocations and unconstructive 
criticisms that cannot stop progress. There will always be noise. There 
will always be those who criticize, poison the atmosphere, or need every 
other project to fail in order to confirm their own superiority or 
maintain their comfort. We must listen to criticism when it's valid and 
acknowledge our own mistakes, but we cannot let every noise become a 
paralyzing fear.

In his text, Anarchism Against Anarchism - Less Complacency, More 
Self-Criticism, Rafael Viana da Silva points out a widespread 
misconception within the libertarian movement that has caused us much 
harm: equating anarchist freedom with "doing whatever one wants" and 
individual autonomy with ethical relativism. Freedom without collective 
responsibility does not produce libertarian activism; it produces 
capriciousness, informality, personalism, and a bourgeois caricature of 
the anarchist as someone incapable of maintaining agreements. Anarchist 
ethics are not demonstrated through daily consistency but by fulfilling 
one's commitments, not disappearing when it's time to carry out a task, 
not turning every criticism into a personal attack, not using the 
assembly as a stage for ego, and not confusing charisma with legitimacy.

And here lies one of our biggest problems within the movement - the lack 
of self-criticism (with some exceptions, of course) and the perpetuation 
of a self-serving movement. We are the first to detect and point out 
contradictions in others, but we struggle to examine our own. We know 
how to issue scathing statements against other organizations, but often 
we don't know how to say, "We failed here, we were unfair here, we acted 
out of pride here, we confused a personal wound with a political stance 
here."

A libertarian (and also revolutionary) movement without self-criticism 
rots from within. It may have impeccable rhetoric and a combative, 
appealing aesthetic, but if it is unable to examine its practices, 
acknowledge its mistakes, and transform its dynamics, it ends up doing 
more branding than politics.

We have also too often confused horizontality with a lack of 
responsibility. As if organizing, evaluating, asking for explanations, 
fulfilling tasks, or upholding agreements were authoritarian practices. 
They are not! Why would it be authoritarian for an organization to 
remind you of what you collectively agreed upon? Collective 
responsibility is not punishment or blind obedience. It is understanding 
that the common good only exists if someone sustains it. That an 
assembly does nothing on its own. That an organization has no arms or 
head separate from its members. That each person is responsible for 
their own organization and for fighting for the things they disagree 
with. If no one takes responsibility, the Idea becomes mere rhetoric: 
many words, little force. It makes me wonder if the most common 
criticism within anarchism-that there is a lot of theory but little 
practice-is that perhaps our problem is not so much an excess of theory 
but rather poor internal and external practices...

On the other hand, in certain circles, a culture of fear has 
developed-fear of making mistakes, fear of speaking out, fear of not 
using the perfect word, fear that disagreement will be interpreted as 
violence, fear that a blunder will become public condemnation. And when 
a political culture produces more fear than courage, more calculation 
than honesty, and more complacency than criticism, we have a problem 
centered on punitivism disguised as radicalism. And mind you, I'm not 
saying this to deny the real harm. There are aggressions, abuses, 
violence, and despicable behaviors within our spaces, and we must act 
relentlessly against them. There are serious issues that demand 
protection, boundaries, and consequences, but it's one thing to confront 
the harm and quite another to reproduce, on a smaller scale, the 
prison-like and punitive logic we claim to be fighting: good and bad, 
saints and monsters, expulsion as the only response, reputation as the 
tribunal, rumor as evidence, and lynching as a form of education.

In their text  "How We Handle Harm," the Punch Up Collective, a small 
anarchist collective from Ottawa, Ontario, focused on building resilient 
radical movements, emphasizes a fundamental point: not all conflict is 
abuse, not all disagreement is violence, and not all discomfort is harm. 
If everything is labeled the same, we cease to understand what is 
happening. And if we don't understand what is happening, we cannot 
intervene effectively. If admitting a mistake means automatic social 
death, no one will truly take responsibility. People will learn to hide, 
justify themselves, lie, or perform remorse. A serious militant culture 
must make accountability possible without turning it into a punitive 
spectacle.

It must also be said that many problems between organizations are not 
political, even though they are presented as such. They are personal. 
Poorly managed wounds, emotional breakdowns, envy, competition for 
symbolic capital, old grudges, informal leadership, insecurities, 
resentments. Then all of that is dressed up as a line, ethics, strategy, 
and principles, but the sad reality is that it's a problem of ego. And 
let's be clear: mixing the personal and the political in this way is a 
mistake. Of course, the personal has political dimensions, but it's 
another thing entirely to turn my personal grievances into a universal 
political criterion and dictate the pace of my organization to move to 
the rhythm of my wounds.

And I also want to make it clear: using bourgeois or liberal 
institutions to resolve conflicts between comrades should make us 
reflect on the state of our movement. Not because we should demand 
heroics from anyone, nor adopt moralistic positions in the face of 
serious situations. If our only response to each conflict is to delegate 
it to the State, its courts, or its police, something is failing in our 
collective capacity to build a revolutionary alternative.

From my perspective, politics should be seen as a field of struggle, 
and we must be prepared to give, receive, fall, and rise again with our 
heads held high in any dispute. We have ethical codes, but others don't, 
and we can't forget that. That's why we must be intelligent, humble, and 
consistent, but we must also be bold, disruptive, and know how to hit 
hard when the time comes to a fight. As Bakunin said, "Destructive 
passion is also creative passion." It's about understanding that every 
revolutionary construction demands breaking with the old ways that bind 
us, such as ego trips , personal beefs , fear, complacency, the ghetto, 
and the inertia that reproduces the very things we claim to fight. 
Because if the libertarian movement remains trapped in self-destructive 
and sectarian dynamics, we will not only fail to escape the ghetto, but 
we will continue to drag anarchism toward marginalization. And then 
we're surprised and annoyed when people call us childish, useful idiots, 
or utopian. But what do we expect, if we waste more energy on internal 
squabbles than on thinking about how and what we can contribute to those 
we claim to defend and fight for?

Enough of pretending to be pure, and let's build a militant ethic 
capable of acknowledging mistakes without being consumed by them. 
Knowing when to apologize. Knowing when to recognize one's own 
rightness. Knowing how to face the consequences. Knowing how to confront 
conflict head-on without turning it into a spectacle. Knowing how to 
speak clearly without destroying. Knowing how to criticize without 
humiliating. Knowing how to care without covering up. Knowing how to 
fight without losing one's soul.

In the face of rumors, clarity.
In the face of beef , politics.
In the face of ego trips , a collective project.
In the face of fear, responsibility.
In the face of punitivism, reparation and limits.
In the face of complacency, criticism and self-criticism.

The anarchism that interests me is a demanding practice of freedom, 
responsibility, and organization, not a philosophy of moral superiority 
locked in its ghetto, devoid of any transformative capacity. Because 
ultimately, the problem is that we want to destroy the state, capital, 
and all forms of domination, but we aren't even capable of destroying 
our own miserable dynamics.

A movement that cannot look at itself in the mirror is doomed to defeat. 
And I am tired of sustaining defeats disguised with good slogans. I want 
an anarchist practice that is on the front lines of social struggles and 
that dares to grow, to correct itself, to demand accountability, to 
acknowledge mistakes, but also to be rebellious, bold, and never lose 
the tenderness of its soul in the face of the world's harshness.

Don Diego de la Vega, a militant from Liza.

References
Ad Nauseam. Notes against the political ghetto . Reissue of the Ad 
Nauseam Manifesto. 2026.
Rafael Viana da Silva, Anarchism against or Anarchism: Less complacency, 
more self-criticism
Punch Up * Kick Down Distro, How We Handle Harm
Dicionário da Academia das Ciências de Lisboa, «Os cães ladram ea 
caravan passa»
Mikhail Bakunin, The Reaction in Germany

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/06/14/os-caes-ladram-e-a-caravana-passa/
_________________________________________
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