A-Infos (en) Italy, FDCA, Cantiere #45 - Porto Alegre and the Possible Internationalism: Lights, Shadows, and Contradictions of the Anti-Fascist Conference - Totò Caggese (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The first International Anti-Fascist and Anti-Imperialist Conference 
took place in Porto Alegre from March 26 to 29, 2026. It was an 
ambitious attempt to build an international space during a time of 
fragmentation and crisis for the global left. Promoted by a broad 
spectrum of political, social, and trade union organizations-including 
sectors of the PSOL, PT, PCdoB, and the Movimento Sem Terra-the 
conference brought together delegations from over forty countries. The 
stated goal was to build a space for international coordination against 
the advance of the radical right, the return of war, and the 
transformations of global capitalism. The initiative consisted of 
plenary sessions, assemblies, and numerous self-organized panels, 
attracting significant participation from activists, workers, and youth.

It was not a given that such a space would exist.

The International Anti-Fascist Conference represented a significant 
political turning point. Delegations from over forty countries, a strong 
youth participation, and a diverse presence of movements, unions, and 
political organizations conveyed the idea that an international space 
was still possible.

In a context marked by the global advance of the radical right, social 
crisis, and intensifying conflicts, the attempt to build common ground 
for discussion and coordination takes on a value that goes beyond the 
event itself, indicating a political possibility still open.

The conference had the merit of bringing some crucial issues back to the 
forefront: the rise of the far right, the attack on social and labor 
rights, the climate crisis, the global dimension of neoliberal policies, 
and the return of war as a structural element of international relations.

A broad but fragile convergence

The composition of the conference reflected a strong political 
heterogeneity: radical left organizations, sectors of trade unionism, 
social movements, and groups linked to institutional progressivism.

This breadth represented both a wealth and a limitation.
On the one hand, it allowed for the creation of a space for 
international discussion that would have been difficult to achieve under 
other conditions; on the other, it highlighted profound divergences in 
terms of analysis and perspectives. The difficulty of reconciling these 
differences without openly addressing them is reflected in the final 
document, which appears to be largely acceptable in its general 
criticisms, but more uncertain and contradictory when it addresses the 
more controversial issues.

Anti-fascism and anti-imperialism: categories to be redefined

One of the most obvious limitations that emerged during the conference 
was the lack of a shared and rigorous definition of the central 
categories around which the initiative was built.
What is meant by fascism today? What are its distinctive features in the 
contemporary context? How can effective anti-fascism be articulated that 
doesn't simply become a generic slogan?

On these points, the comparison has remained largely implicit, if not 
completely absent.

Similarly, the reference to anti-imperialism often appeared marked by a 
selective and hierarchical reading of global conflicts. While the 
document forcefully denounces the responsibilities of the United States 
and its allies, significant omissions emerge.
The lack of explicit condemnation of Russian aggression against Ukraine 
and the silence on domestic repressive dynamics in other contexts 
indicate a difficulty in maintaining a coherent approach.
This selectivity is not a secondary factor: it risks weakening the very 
political framework it seeks to strengthen.

The issue of progressive governments

Another critical point concerns the relationship with so-called 
progressive governments.
Several interventions highlighted the need to question the connection 
between the left's experiences in government and the rise of the radical 
right.

The disillusionment caused by policies perceived as insufficient or 
inconsistent with the neoliberal system is cited, in several contexts, 
as one of the factors that favored the rise of the far right. However, 
this reflection is not addressed in the final document, as if it were a 
problem to be avoided rather than addressed. The lack of a critical 
assessment of the role of these governments signals a significant 
political shortcoming, especially in a context where building a credible 
alternative also requires the ability to address recent experiences.

A structural limit: participation and method

Alongside the political issues, the conference also revealed 
methodological limitations.
Despite broad participation, real spaces for discussion and 
decision-making remained severely limited. The plenary sessions were 
more like moments of exposition than places for effective debate; the 
final document was not the result of an open, collective process. 
Without spaces for real discussion and transparent democratic processes, 
the risk is that of reproducing the very dynamics they seek to 
challenge. In other words: it's not enough to evoke participation; it 
must be built.

A significant absence: the libertarian gaze

A striking aspect is the limited visibility of a libertarian and 
anarchist perspective.
This absence has concrete political consequences. It undermines a 
tradition that has historically centered critique of the state, distrust 
of any form of centralized power, and the refusal to subordinate social 
struggles to geopolitical logic.
This absence also helps explain some of the ambiguities that have emerged.
A libertarian perspective would not automatically resolve these 
contradictions, but it would help make them explicit.

The Porto Alegre Conference represents a significant, but not 
conclusive, step.
It demonstrated the possibility of building an international space for 
debate, but also the current limitations of the global left: 
difficulties in theoretical definition, political inconsistencies, and 
the weakness of democratic practices. Rather than a point of arrival, 
Porto Alegre appears to be a mirror of current contradictions.

To go further

If this experience is to continue, the key will not simply be to 
replicate it, but to address what has emerged. A true internationalism 
cannot be based on selective exclusions or implicit balances between 
divergent positions.

It must be capable of naming all forms of domination and constructing 
autonomous practices of struggle. It is on this terrain that the 
possibility of transforming an important moment into a real political 
process, worthy of the moment, will be played out.

http://www.alternativalibertaria.org
_________________________________________
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