Britain, Specifism explained: the social and political level, organisational dualism and the anarchist organisation

In discussing the platform of Collective Action some individuals have expressed confusion
at our use of the label ?specifism? to describe the tradition of social anarchism we
associate with. The following is a short introduction to what we consider to be the most
essential concepts within the specifist model. This text is an adaptation of a forthcoming
interview with Shift Magazine on anti-capitalist regroupment. --- "Specifism" refers to an
organisationalist current within the anarchist tradition which, in contemporary terms, is
principally elaborated by the Federa??o Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) but has its
historical roots in the writings of Bakunin, Malatesta and Makhno (among others). ----
Many associate these ideas solely with Makhno's "Organisational Platform of the General
Union of Anarchists (Draft)" but they actually date from one of the first organisational
documents of social anarchism - Bakunin's programme for the International Alliance of
Socialist Democracy.

At the core of the specifist framework is an understanding of the division of anarchist
activity into the social and political level1. Specifists argue that a lot of the
organisational errors of anarchist militants result from a confusion of the social and
political level.

The social level is understood as those struggles that exist within the material and
ideological framework of capitalism (bread-and-butter issues in layman terms). These will
be heavily determined by the ideology of capitalist society and situated principally
within the logic of capitalism, for example the demand for increased wages in exchange for
labour or the desire for social reforms from the state. These will also be structured by a
wider cultural, economic and political framework that will both shape their character, as
well as causing their level of combativity and consciousness to ebb and flow, one example
being the way in which the ongoing financial crisis has provoked an acceleration of
working class resistance in certain sectors and geographical areas. Anarchists need to
find a way of engaging with these struggles in a way that relates directly to the existing
composition and level of consciousness present within the class. Successful engagement
requires both a relationship of study, in terms of the need to understand and critically
evaluate the existing composition and ideas of the class, and a relationship of
intervention, to practically shape anarchist ideas and methods so they appear as sensible
and useful tools for those engaged at the social level.

Anarchists also need to maintain their own coherent vision of an alternative society -
anarchist communism. This is the political level. The political level represents the idea
(theory) expressed by revolutionary minorities as visions for social transformation and
alternative societies. This political line is obviously not static and exists relationally
to the social level. The political level cannot be purely the expression of propaganda of
the ideal. Anarchist communism is a tradition developed from the lessons drawn from the
struggles of the popular classes. Work at the political level is cultivated through the
study, self-criticism and organisational activity of anarchist communist militants and
expressed through the unity and organisational discipline of the specific anarchist
organisation (SAO). While the social level acts at as the ?compass?, as Magon puts is,
that steers the theory of revolutionary militants, the political level is also distinct
from the social level in that the ideas here are held irrespective of the general social
framework and therefore not subject to the mediations of capitalism and the state. The
political level, therefore, while expressing clarity in revolutionary ideas does this in
the form of minority organisations that are independent and not representative of those
held by the class-as-a-whole.

What results from this understanding of the political and social levels is the practice of
"organisational dualism". Specifically anarchist groups (hence the term "specifism") with
well defined positions of principle and operating under conditions of political unity at
the political level intervene, participate within or seek to build popular movements at
the social level. The objective of this intervention is not to "capture" or establish
anarchist fronts but to create the correct conditions, by arguing for anarchist methods
and ideas, for the flourishing of working class autonomy. It is this autonomy that is the
basis for working class counter-power and revolutionary change, as Malatesta (1897)
famously stated, ?We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people
to emancipate themselves?.

As the Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (FdCA) (2005) argue, work at the social level
should not be a carbon copy of the organisations of the political level. Intervention at
the social level has to arise within the context of the immediate needs of the proletariat
and their current state of ideological and technical composition. In this sense work at
the social level intervenes within and aims to accelerate the process of, as Marx
expressed it, the class acting ?in itself?, subject to a common condition under
capitalism, towards a class-for-itself, a self-conscious grouping acting to its own
material interests ? communism.

Specifism is a praxis that seeks to strike the balance between a healthy relationship of
influence within the class and an ideologically coherent communist organisation, while
rejecting the vanguardist approaches of Leninist groups. Whereas Marxists will
traditionally look to the fluctuating struggles of the social level and argue the need for
a revolutionary leadership from without, specifists argue that anarchist communists fight
by acting as a critical conscience from within.

For this reason specifism is fundamentally organisationalist in character rejecting the
idea that anarchism can be developed purely through the propagandistic activity of
discussion circles, groups or federations. Rather the SAO needs to form unified tactics
and a strategy as the basis of its programme that it carries through in its activity
within the class.

Specifism represents both an alternative to anarchist activism, which does not compose
itself formally at the political level, and certain models of anarcho-syndicalism, which
attempt to unify the practice of the social and political level in the formation of
revolutionary unions.

In criticism of anarchist activism, specifists stress the need for an educated and
self-critical practice at the political level to build sustainable long-term interventions
at the social level. The alternative is sporadic, reactive political work that doesn?t
incorporate a cycle of review and re-evaluation. Likewise, as Fabbri notes, the lack of
?visible organisations? on the part of anarchist militants, i.e. clear and accessible
lines of participation, creates space for the ?establishment of arbitrary, less
libertarian organisations?.

In response to anarcho-syndicalism, specifists argue that the formation of social-level
organisations - unions - with revolutionary principles, does not resolve the problems
created by capitalist mediation at the social level. Rather, as the FdCA argue, what
result often is, ?a strange mix of mass organisation and political organisation which is
basically an organisation of anarchists who set themselves up to do union work?. This
situation usually resolves either in the actual existence of a revolutionary minority
within the union itself that seeks to preserve the line in the face of fluctuations at the
social level, often being forced to act undemocratically or necessarily preserving a
minority membership for the union, or a flexibility in anarchist principles which leaves
open the question of where the radicalisation between the political and social level will
occur. Likewise the FARJ make a historical point that the dissolution of anarchist
activity into the social level has meant in many cases the complete loss of any political
reference point following the collapse or repression of these organisations. The SAO, in
this sense, can act as a vital line of continuity for anarchist communist ideas.

Collective Action argues that the lessons and guides derived from specifist theory are a
critical tool in the process of anarchist regroupment. The only way there can be a future
for anarchist politics in the UK in the 21st Century is in making anarchist communist
ideas and methods a practical and coherent tool for organising workplaces, intervening in
social struggles and empowering working class communities. Anarchism needs to recapture
its traditional terrain of organising, what Bakunin referred to as, the "popular classes"
and abandon the dead-end of activism. This means a fundamental re-assessment of what we do
and what we hope to achieve. It also means returning, as Vaneigem would call it, to the
politics of "everyday life". This means reorientation of our practice to both the social
and political level and utilising the richness of our own political tradition to clarify
and improve our own organising efforts.

- Collective Action

REFERENCES

Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici (2005) Anarchist Communists: A Question of Class.
Studies for a Libertarian Alternative: FdCA

Malatesta, E. (1897) ?Anarchism and Organisation? Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1897/xx/anarchorg.htm

1. A certain elasticity must be allowed with these terms and the labels should by no means
be considered exclusive. The ?social? level, for example, is of course at the same time
?political? in that it is a sphere for both the contestation and birth of ideas. Likewise
the ?political? level is simultaneously ?social? in respect to the fact that anarchist
communist ideas are derived from a historical and materialist analysis of society, and
composed of the experiences and lessons of social struggle (for more commentary on the
historical materialist character of anarchist communism see ?Appendix 1: Historical
Materialism and Dialectical Materialism? In: Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici (2005)
Anarchist Communists: A Question of Class. Studies for a Libertarian Alternative: FdCA).

a-infos-en@ainfos.ca