#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #INTERNATIONAL #yeryuzupostasi: Fundamental Concepts of a Specific Anarchist Organization (1) - Tommy Lawson (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 A part of the "Basic Concepts of Specific Anarchist Organization" brochure on

Tommy Lawson's website named Red&Black Notes, which has a worldwide impact and is
at the top of our translation list, has been translated by Barikat Haber by
removing the original preface of the article and replacing it with a "Foreword by
Translators". . We find it positive that this text has been translated into
Turkish, and we know that the political discussions to be carried out over this
text will improve the anarchist movement in this geography. For this reason, we
share the text by adding the preface of the article.
yeryuzupostasi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foundational Concepts of the Specific Anarchist Organisation is a new pamphlet by
Tommy Lawson. In this pamphlet Lawson introduces the basic theoretical concepts
that inform Anarchist-Communists and their organisational practices. From a set
of theoretical concepts forms of organisation and strategies shared in common
across the history of the anarchist tendency emerge.

Foundations traces the influences on anarchism from theorists like Marx and
Malatesta to the practices of modern Anarchist-Communist organisations.

It is by centering a material analysis of society and class struggle
Anarchist-Communists seek to contribute to the struggle for a better world. At
once free and equal, or in other words, Libertarian Communism.

This pamphlet was written on the lands of the Wathaurung peoples of the Kulin
Nation. Sovereignty was never ceded.

For Nicolas Lazarevitch; a construction worker and translator, who fought in the
Russian Civil War, occupied the factories of northern Italy during the Biennio
Rosso, fought Italian fascists on the streets and organised strikes in Belgium in
support of the Spanish Revolution. He continued to work exposing the crimes of
the USSR throughout his life and participated in the occupations of May '68 in
France. Lazarevitch also co-authored the Organisational Platform of the General
Union of Libertarian Communists. May we all lead such revolutionary lives.

Download Foundational Concepts of the Specific Anarchist Organisation as a
pdfDownload
Introduction
The intention of this pamphlet is to introduce the foundational concepts that
inform the organisational models, strategies and tactics of Anarchist-Communists.
Though this work attempts to lay these concepts out in a manner that is easy to
understand, it is not intended to be introductory to anarchist or socialist
theory in general. It attempts to reflect the general practices of
Anarchist-Communist organisations throughout the history of the
Anarchist-Communist political tendencies existence. There are of course, however,
some differences in theory and practice between both historic and contemporary
organisations that must be acknowledged. But overall, a coherent set of theories
and practices form the general outline of the specific anarchist organisation.
Hopefully the reader will be inspired towards further research regarding the
details as related to the context and practice of different organisations.

Topics and concepts included in the pamphlet reflect an attempt to cover a broad
base of relevant concepts, and also to a degree reflect my personal biases and
experiences in the anarchist movement. This work can only be taken as my own
explanation of foundational concepts, in the sense that I should be held to
account for mistakes rather than Anarchist-Communist organisations in general.
This work no doubt also reflects to some degree the mood and preferences of the
Australian movement. For example, contemporary Australian Anarchist-Communists
have had a critical engagement with the specific anarchist organisational theory
of Especifismo (Murphy, 2020). As such some concepts and topics may be as notable
for their exclusion as much as those that are included.1

In an attempt to demonstrate the breadth and consistency of Anarchist-Communist
theory I have made deliberate references to particular texts rather than
compiling a recommended reading list. Referencing therefore is generous but not
excessive. For the sake of accessibility, references are so far as possible, made
to the Anarchist Library, Libcom, and Marxists online archives. Where books are
referenced, it is usually for a preference for translation or that they are not
yet online.

Occasionally, a footnote will elaborate or give more detail. Footnotes will also
sometimes indicate various connections between concepts that connect between
sections. Certain concepts have been expanded upon further than others. This is
either because the idea requires further explanation as to its particular import
for Anarchist-Communists, to add historical context or to give practical
examples. Others are shorter as they are more reflective of revolutionary
socialist theory in general. Overall, the hope is that this work will contribute
to the cohering and further development of the Anarchist-Communist tendency in
Australia, and may also be of practical use to international comrades.

What is the Specific Anarchist-Communist Organisation?

The ideas that inform the modern concept of the specific anarchist organisation
can be traced back to the Alliance for Social Democracy in the International
Working Mens Association (IWMA). Also known as the First International, the great
body that was the IWMA reflected the coming together of the early socialist
movement across borders as nascent socialist ideas contended the meaning of
working class emancipation. Inside the First International James Guillaume,
Mikhail Bakunin and other 'federalist' revolutionaries advocated the need to form
a specific, revolutionary socialist organisation to agitate for revolutionary
goals (Graham, 2015). Since the Alliance's rudimentary structures were drawn up
by these comrades a red (and black) thread can be traced through history
connecting the practice of unitary revolutionary organisation by anarchists.
Specific anarchist organisations have consistently functioned as a space for
militants to coordinate their activity, develop theory, practice and skills and
collectively propagate anarchist ideas (Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici, 1985).

While anarchism is considered by scholars and intellectuals to be a fairly broad
philosophy, its theoretical roots and the practice of the vast majority of its
historical adherents have been definitively based in the organisational, class
struggle socialist movement. Anarchist-Communists have overwhelmingly been
advocates of both specific revolutionary political organisations and mass
proletarian organisations, while other currents, such as insurrectionists and
syndicalists have at times rejected them (Corrêa, 2021).

The most contemporary manifestation of Anarchist-Communist organisational theory,
which todays reader may be familiar with, is known as 'especifismo.' Especifismo
was coined by the Anarchist Federation of Uruguay (FAU) in the 1960s to refer to
the particular conclusions they came to around the need for programmatic
anarchist organisation. After the FAU played a significant role in Uruguayan
workers revolts and the subsequent resistance to military dictatorship, the model
of  'especifismo' spread to Argentina and Brazil, and then across the Americas
(Lawson, 2022).

There are many similarities in the ideas of the Especifists and those of the
Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists written by Peter Arshinov,
Ida Mett, Nestor Makhno and others following the Russian Revolution.2
Surprisingly, the Uruguayan anarchists had no access to the historical document
of the Platform when they developed their own ideas. However they were at least
influenced by and aware of the history of members of the Bulgarian
Anarchist-Communist Federation (FAKB), who had adopted the Platform as a model in
the mid 1920's.3 Both the most influential members of the Anarchist-Communist
movement and the majority of its adherents have consistently advocated a similar
strategy, even if there have been slight disagreements over form (Corrêa & da
Silva, 2022).

Today, the terms Platformism, Dual-Organisationalism and Especifismo are
relatively interchangeable.4 There are small differences given the historical
context of when and where they evolved. However this pamphlet uses the term
"Anarchist-Communist" to indicate the continuity of historic practice and suggest
a return to the orthodoxy of the term. Hopefully the pamphlet also reflects a
modern articulation of Anarchist-Communist ideas, which have by no means remained
stagnant over the last century.

"Anarchy, in common with socialism, has as its basis, its point of departure, its
essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and
freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal which
like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all
progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody."

Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, 1891.

Key Ideas
The first section of this pamphlet provides introductory explanations on
fundamental concepts for Anarchist-Communists. These form the theoretical basis
from which the organisational concepts and models, strategies and tactics of the
specific Anarchist organisation emerge. The list provided here is not exhaustive
in terms of general anarchist theory. Some concepts raised are included
explicitly to draw a line between the way Anarchist-Communists and other
anarchists understand them.

Anarchism

Anarchism itself can be understood as a set of ideological principles, core
strategies and a vision of a free society.5 Furthermore anarchism is a
revolutionary, class struggle tendency of the socialist movement. Its principles
are anti-capitalism, federalism, and the attempt to find the most harmonious
between means and ends possible. These principles result in a set of strategies
based on class struggle, self-management, direct action and parliamentary
abstention. The goal is a society run directly by workers free from all forms of
exploitation and coercion (Workers Solidarity Federation, 2018). Anarchism is,
ultimately, a methodology (Malatesta, 1891). The purpose of the anarchist method,
composed of its principles and strategies, is for advancing towards the goal,
communism, which to anarchist-communists is synonymous with anarchy itself
(Cafiero, 1880).

Communism

The essence of communism is captured in the famous dictum "from each according to
their ability, to each according to their needs" (Marx, 1875). It is the
abolition of all capitalist social relations: waged labour, commodification and
exchange value.6

Communism is the construction of a new society described by a variety of
revolutionaries as the "free association of producers" and a set of collective
methods and principles that in turn guarantee the fullest realisation of the
individual (Puente, 1932; Group of International Communists, 1930). In a
communist society everyone will be granted access to all the necessities to live,
the greatest degree of democratic participation in all aspects of life and all
possible opportunities to flourish as individuals. Furthermore, communism, by
abolishing exploitative relationships, will be the elimination of class distinctions.

Class Struggle

Capitalist society is ultimately divided into two fundamental classes. The
capitalist class, also known as the bourgeoisie, who owns the "means of production."9

Because capitalists must seek to maximise the profits they make from industry,
they need to find ways to keep costs low. Usually, rather than sell products for
a higher price, which might make their business uncompetitive on the market,
capitalists find other solutions. They will invest in automated machines rather
than employing workers, use cheaper materials, or drive down wages.

Workers, who do not own the "means of production" are forced to sell the only
thing they have to survive. That is, their ability to work.10 In return for time
and labour, workers are paid wages. Out of their wages workers have to buy food
and clothes, pay rent, pay bills, pay for transport to work, and all the things
that mean they can reproduce and enjoy their own lives. Clearly, the better the
workers wages, the more opportunities they have for a fulfilling life. This
places workers on a direct collision course with capitalists.

But it goes further than just the immediate interests. The logic of capitalism
means that all of society is subjected to the need for making profit. Capitalist
interests dominate government (think of the inaction on climate change, because
it would cost too much for capitalists in many industries to deal with), local
planning, the content we see on television, and even shape the structure of the
family. Everything that is produced is produced for profit, rather than the
greater needs of society. Given that workers make up the vast majority of
society, this means that the entire structure of society is subjected to the
class rule of the bourgeoisie.

For all revolutionary socialists, be they anarchist-communists or Marxists, the
only way these contradictions can be overcome is by the abolition of capitalism.

It would be negligent to not mention that there are what can be described as
'intermediate classes', such as the peasantry, the self-employed, and the
permanently unemployed. These other classes may or may not be incorporated into
the struggle against the capitalists, depending on the historical moment. But the
fact remains that the fundamental conflict of society revolves around capitalist
production, and subsequently between workers and capitalists.

What makes the working class key to social transformation is not just the way the
nature of their material needs clashes with those of capitalists, it is also
because during a revolutionary transformation society will still need to produce
in order to survive. Workers thus become the most important class in
revolutionary transformation, because they have the skills and knowledge to both
run and restructure production to meet the needs of all.

Class Conciousness

Class consciousness refers to the awareness that workers have of their position
in capitalist society. That is, their understanding of how capitalism shapes
their social world, how they are exploited, and the ways in which they might
overthrow the system and construct another one. Karl Marx put this neatly when he
said that the working class exists as a class 'in itself' but through struggle
comes to realise its place, and as it actively fights for a new society becomes a
class 'for itself' (Marx, 1847). While such a statement is an abstraction that
contains no great psychological insights as to the actual processes of shifting
ideas amongst individuals, it is broadly applicable as a way of comprehending the
prevailing mood and politics amongst workers at a given time.
Anarchist-Communists understand that the greatest realisation of class
consciousness occurs when the individual is aware of their position in society,
and their own capacity to act, both individually and as part of the collective to
change it (Bookchin, 1975).

Anarchist-Communists see the process of developing class consciousness as an
organic result of conflict of material needs and the heightening of the
contention between the needs of the proletariat and the capitalist class. While
Anarchist-Communists and their specific organisations, like any other political
organisation of the working class, reflect developments in the conflict between
the bourgeois and the proletariat, they see themselves as a part of that process,
not the very end result of revolutionary consciousness. They are instead simply
an attempt by workers with a political vision and ideology to articulate and
contribute their own insights to the mass struggle (Federazione dei Comunisti
Anarchici, 2003).

Freedom

The ideal of freedom is central to anarchist ideas. However this term can appear
quite abstract. To anarchist-communists, freedom contains two sides. There is
negative freedom, or 'freedom from', and positive freedom, 'freedom to.'

Negative freedom can be seen as the freedom from oppressive social relations.
Capitalism, the state, poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia and all forms of
interpersonal discrimination. Without negative freedom, there can be no positive
freedom.

Positive freedom rests on the ability to achieve things, to reach the full
potential of an individual human being. This requires access to resources,
education, and a healthy, egalitarian society. To anarchist-communists then,
society is the guarantor of freedom as it can not be achieved upon an
individualist basis. Mikhail Bakunin noted that 'Society is the basis and natural
starting point of man's human existence, and it follows that he only realises his
individual liberty or personality by integration with all the individuals around
him and by virtue of the collective power of society. According to the
materialist theory . . . instead of diminishing or constricting the freedom of
the individual, society creates it. Society is the root and branch, liberty the
fruit (Bakunin 1895/1973, p. 145)."

Democracy

Often discussions of democracy amongst radicals, anarchists included can be
hampered by semantics around definitions (Baker, 2022). The concept of democracy
often suffers from this problem, so it is necessary to expand upon it slightly.
If we consider 'democracy' to be the system of bourgeois administration of
capitalists states where the mass of people get to vote for a party or politician
every few years, then anarchists are against such a democracy (Price, 2018).
Bourgeois democracy is hypocritical, and essentially a cover for the dictatorship
of bourgeois, capitalist interests, although it is also obviously preferable to a
literal dictatorship.

When it comes to radical, working class democracy the term itself does not
suffice to cover what is meant. Would socialist democracy mean electing workers
candidates to a workers parliament every few years to make decisions about how
the economy is run? If that is the case, Anarchist-Communists are also against
such a workers' democracy, although it would be preferable to bourgeois democracy.

Democracy also comes with the baggage of utilitarian philosophy. That is, what's
best for the majority is the best for everyone. Hence in standard practice a vote
is won if it is carried by fifty percent plus one vote. Majority vote has always
been the predominant practice of Anarchist-Communists, but it does not tell the
whole story. This is why the 'libertarian' aspect of Anarchist-Communism has
always been emphasised.

Majorities should not always have the right to dictate to minorities, as
majorities are not always correct. But neither should, indeed it would be worse
if, minorities dictated to majorities (Malatesta, 1926). Anarchist-Communists
believe people should be free from coercion to do whatever they wish provided it
does not infringe on the freedom of others.

Following the logic of the points above, democracy, if it is to be given a
positive definition by Anarchist-Communists means it's most radical realisation.
Everyone should have a say in decisions in the workplace and in the community.
Majorities are respected, but not when they impinge the rights of the minority.
The application of such a concept is entirely practical and at times the majority
must nonetheless be respected (Price, 2000). The development of a train line
through a certain suburb for example would practically require majority support.
In contrast, say a majority wanted to impose a restrictive dress code at a social
club, that would be ridiculous.

Whenever organisations are required to make decisions that most people cannot
participate in, anarchists advocate a particular practice of delegation. The
topics to be decided on are previously discussed prior by local groups and their
decisions and views are taken and given to the delegate. The delegate is expected
to argue and vote according to the views they are to represent, though with a
degree of autonomy for discussing unforeseen developments. Following every
delegated meeting, delegates can be recalled and replaced if they have not done
their job. In this sense, democracy for Anarchist-Communists is unique and
reflects the realisation of popular participation in social life that does not
unnecessarily limit or bind minorities or individuals.

Means and Ends

What seems as a relatively simple concept, the connection between means and ends,
lies at the heart of anarchism. Anarchist-Communists have a vision of a free
society as their end goal, and they believe the means used to reach such a
society should be adequate to achieve such an end. As means employed in struggle
affect the ends that are sought, they should also be judged not only according to
intentions but according to the real results they produce (Malatesta, 1920).

As with all philosophical considerations, it is important to maintain the right
level of abstraction when considering the concept of means and ends. For example,
some might take the logic of consistent ends and means to insist on pacifism if
we seek a world without war. However, despite wanting a world free of war, this
is not the anarchist position. To Anarchist-Communists it is justifiable for the
oppressed to commit violent acts against their oppressors, as it contributes to
the liberation of humanity. However anarchist-communists also suggest that a
society built on militarism would not produce an egalitarian, libertarian
society. Thus the practices regarding the armed struggle of the oppressed against
their oppressors, so far as they are informed by anarchism, must have a degree of
consistency.

Because of the link between means and ends, anarchist-communists insist that
means considered must contribute to the self-management and organisation of the
working class in struggle (Price, 2020). From this basic position flows the logic
of federalism and direct action. There are thus a set of practices somewhat
inherent in anarchism, such as every member of an organisation having a say, the
appointment of mandated delegates and the restriction power granted to people in
positions of leadership, the insistence upon independent struggle by the working
class.11 As the nature of socialist values and vision for a future society is
abstract and contested by various tendencies, the forms of struggle advocated by
anarchists help to guarantee the working class has the ability to shape the
revolutionary means and ends themselves (Kinna, 2016).

Historical Materialism

Historical materialism is a philosophical concept that is shared alike by
Anarchist-Communists and Marxists. The theory was first articulated in the works
of Marx and Engels, then incorporated into early anarchist theory by Mikhail
Bakunin (Morris, 1993, #78). It is a tool for thinking that is not entirely
empirical or complete, rather it is useful for thinking about concrete conditions
(Organização Socialista Libertária, 2007). Historical materialism argues that the
ideas that exist at any stage in society are not just abstract, independent
things floating around like ghosts waiting for people to notice them. They are
instead the direct result of the practical, material interactions of humans with
their environment at a particular stage in history (Engels, 1880).

According to historical materialism, each (roughly defined) 'stage' of human
history is defined by a mode of production, that is, the way humans interact with
their environment to produce, consume and reproduce their own lives, constructing
and shaping their environment and ultimately reproducing the human species. Each
of these stages contains various class relations and thus, various
contradictions, driving social change through conflict (Federazione dei Comunisti
Anarchici, 2003).

Out of each of these contradictions, new forms of production eventually emerge.
Great clashes between classes mark the history of humanity. Think of the slave
revolts in Ancient Rome, the Peasant Rebellions of the Middle Ages, and since the
birth of capitalism, workers revolts like the Russian and Spanish Revolutions.

This of course, does not mean that history follows a pre-ordained path or that
there are not "random events" that shape history. Nor that human action cannot
change the course of destiny. But as a broad rule class struggles, just like
development of techniques of production and scientific innovation mark the
shaping and direction of human history.

There have been certain "Marxists" who have interpreted the insights of Marx and
Engels as prescriptive rules of development, suggesting every society must pass
through a series of stages before communism can be achieved. Such reductive
interpretations strip historical materialism of its revolutionary content. In
reaction, some anarchists have rejected Marx and Engels theories, which is also a
great mistake. As Daniel Guérin noted "'historical materialism should not be
reduced to a simple determinism; the door must stay wide open to individual
freewill and the revolutionary spontaneity of the masses (Guérin, 1981).'

Anarchism is not bound by a strict adherence to Marx's ideas, but rather seeks to
employ all correct scientific and philosophical understandings towards its
ideological ends.

"The causes of injustice, in the socio-economic sense, do not reside so much in
human conscience as in the inhuman essence of societies of conflicting classes
and in the State which perpetuates them throughout history" (Guillén, 1993)

Dialectics

Dialectics is a philosophical concept with long historical roots. Its
relationship to anarchism can be traced back to the development of certain
tendencies of socialist philosophy during their break with the German philosopher
Friedrich Hegel. Marx, Engels, Bakunin and an entire group of young radicals were
educated by Hegel who posited the idea of dialectics as 'thesis, antithesis and
synthesis.'

Any attempt to put dialectics as an abstract concept in simple terms will
undoubtedly have its shortcomings, but it is worth attempting a basic
explanation, as the concept appears consistently in radical literature.
Essentially, thesis is something that already is, anti-thesis is its 'negation'
or its opposite. The two come into conflict, destroying or absorbing elements of
the other and producing synthesis. Hegel applied these concepts to abstractions
like the spirit, Marx to social classes in society. If the bourgeois exist as the
defining class of capitalist social relations, the proletariat exists as its
opposite. They come into conflict, resolved by the abolition of both in the
synthesis of communism.

This abstract way of thinking can be useful, but it is merely a tool. Following
Marx, Friedrich Engels attempted to apply dialectics to other fields than
philosophy and social science in a number of ways that are quite dubious.12

However the strength of dialectics as a theoretical tool is its application to
materialist philosophy in explaining that things are not static. They are
constantly shifting according to the balance of multiple forces in contestation.
It is in this manner that anarchist-communists will sometimes use the term
dialectics in theory, but it does not occupy a central place to all anarchists.
While some classic authors like Mikhail Bakunin and Elisée Reclus may be argued
to have their own conception of dialectics, others like Peter Kropotkin rejected
the concept as it can be interpreted to reflect incorrect the laws of nature and
reality incorrectly (McLaughlin, 2002; Clark, 1997; Kropotkin, 1913; Organização
Socialista Libertária, 2007).

Theory and Ideology

To Anarchist-Communists there is a clear distinction between what constitutes
theory, and what is ideology. Rather than trying to resolve the 'problem' of
ideology, anarchist-communists recognise that it has its own place alongside the
production of theory.

Theory is the product of intellectual tools and concepts that allow us to know
and understand reality. It attempts, so far as possible, to be objective and is
based on logic, the collection of facts and data, and testable hypotheses.
Ideology on the other hand is a set of abstract principles that motivate people
to action. Ideology to anarchists is essentially a 'motor' for political action
(Mechoso & Corrêa, 2009).

As anarchists do not believe socialism is inevitable, the conscious desire for a
new way of life has to be developed amongst the working class, full of insights
that spring from the class struggle itself. Action as revolutionaries can only
ever be based on the limited scientific knowledge that we have at a given stage
in history, but that does not stop us from trying to achieve our goals.
Furthermore, the development of theory is given impetus by ideological values
(Organização Socialista Libertária, 2007).

The State

To Anarchist-Communists the state is a coercive, centralised institution that is
the manifestation of class relations in society. Mikhail Bakunin said 'the State
has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly
class, and aristocratic class, a bourgeois class' (Bakunin, 1950). To Peter
Kropotkin 'Capital and the State are two parallel growths which never could have
existed without each other'(Kropotkin, 2014, #498). To Errico Malatesta, a
society where 'the mass of people' are 'exploited and oppressed by a small
possessing class' there 'arises a special class (government) which... exists to
legalise and protect the owning class' (Malatesta, 1920). As Wayne Price notes
'of the theories which place the state within the context of the capitalist
economy... anarchism and Marxism stand out' (Price, 2018).

While the state in both anarchism and marxism represents a manifestation of class
struggle, elements of the bourgeois state were considered more historically
progressive by Marx and Engels than by anarchists (van der Walt & Schmidt, 2009,
p. 96). Going further than Marxism, anarchists also suggest that the state is a
hierarchical and centralised institution that uses coercive methods in defense of
inequalities (Baker, 2019).

The state has a number of institutions that enforce its rule through coercion;
the police, the military, the legal system and judiciary, prisons and a
bureaucracy that presides over all of these repressive functions. While the state
also organises services like healthcare, public transport and infrastructure it
must be kept in mind these are necessarily required for capitalist society to
function efficiently, and a number of the 'positive' aspects of services provided
by the state have been won as concessions through struggle by the working class.
The final purpose of the state is the reproduction of capitalist society.

Anarchists argue that nuance should be shown when analysing the state. Though the
state ultimately exists to perpetuate capitalist rule, it also generates a degree
of interests separate to that of the disparate capitalists in any given society.
Therefore it is wrong to purely reduce the activity of the state at all times to
the interests of capitalists. The interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole are
sometimes in conflict. This can be between individual capitalists, international
business, and the political class of any given society.

Either way however, the state as an apparatus and form of social rule must be
destroyed. The manner in which society is centralised under an executive minority
with coercive powers reproduces inequality. Even if it is possible to overturn
capitalist society while maintaining any form of state, anarchists do not seek a
militarised socialist society that reproduces any forms of inequality. Instead,
Anarchist-Communists seek the abolition of the legal, military and administrative
institutions which regulate class society. They will be replaced by federated and
self-managed proletarian structures based upon communist methods of production
(Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici, 2008).

Anarchist-Communists believe that capitalism cannot be abolished while ignoring
the role of the state, but neither does smashing the state guarantee the end of
capitalism.

Oppressive Social Relations

Anarchist-Communists are not only opposed to capitalism and the state, but all
forms of oppression such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. A
consistent historical materialist analysis suggests that the concrete forms that
these oppressions take in any given society are informed by the historical and
productive relations of said society. For example, the cultivation of racial
divisions between black and white workers in the USA (Rashid, 2021). While class
structures are fundamental to the form non-class oppressions take, oppression
cannot be reduced purely to the functions of capitalism. Each form of oppression
must be analysed in its concrete nature (Price, 2007). However the notion that
class, race and gender are similar 'overlapping' oppressions as suggested by
liberal conceptions of intersectionality do not provide an accurate picture nor
provide a useful way forward (Volcano & Rouge, 2013).

It is the relationship of class as the binding form of exploitation that unites
all workers and offers the possibility of solidarity in resistance, but only if
oppressive relations are challenged individually and collectively in the process.
Furthermore the development of theories of identity and oppression such as gender
must be incorporated into a class struggle framework if analysis and practice are
to remain meaningful (Akemi & Busk, 2016).

Colonisation

Any broad discussion of revolutionary political theory written in Australia must
necessarily address the question of colonisation. To Anarchist-Communists
colonisation is a process whereby the indigenous people of a land are
dispossessed. While colonial processes began before capitalist social relations
had spread across the globe, colonial projects were nonetheless shaped and given
further impetus by the interests of early capital. Colonisation is simultaneously
its own process and one intimately linked to imperialism. The political interests
of capital in its processes of accumulation require centralisation and tolerate
no social system outside of capitalism and the bourgeois state. Thus the material
process of colonisation does not end even under a liberal capitalist regime
(Bonanno et al., 2019).

Today capitalism continues to dispossess and destroy indigenous communities in
the pursuit of resource extraction, profit, and the bourgeois project of nation
building. Continued colonial projects are also based on processes of coercive
assimilation, denying indigenous autonomy and identity that exists outside the
project of the bourgeois nation (Melbourne Anarchist-Communist Group, 2008).
Anarchist-Communists argue there can be no meaningful autonomy of indigenous
communities nor decolonisation in any sense under the capitalist system. Only the
real abolition of the state and capital can end colonisation.

Federalism (Conceptual)

Federalism is one of the most distinguishing features of anarchist politics. It
is at the same time a theory of how anarchist organisations ought to be
structured, and a model for revolutionary social organisation.

Federalism holds that organisation should always be freely agreed upon and
constituted from the 'bottom up, periphery-to-center', with 'higher' bodies
mandated to fulfil tasks decided upon by the lower, grassroots bodies. The groups
that form a federation are self-governing, voluntarily forming higher
co-ordinating bodies. The higher levels have no executive power over the lower
levels. However this does not mean that organisations are not accountable to each
other. (Rashid, 2020) Individuals and branches that enter into a federation on a
particular basis, be this social or political, are held to account for their
action regarding the agreed principles of the federation. Accountability to each
other and the community is the direct opposite of capitalist society, where
workers are only accountable to their boss (not each other), small businesses to
the state (not their workers), and the state to powerful business interests.
While there are of course capitalist states organised upon a 'federalist' basis
however only socialism can give federalism real revolutionary content (Guérin,
1970). That is, proletarian federalism is completely unlike bourgeois federalism.

Federalism means workers directly control their own affairs, establishing
socialism on a genuine basis of workers control, and allowing the space for
transformative practices. Thus, federalism really is 'socialism from below.' As a
historical example, many large trade union bodies have been formed on federalist
practices. At its peak the anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association
(IWA), had millions of members, all whilst operating in a federalist manner.

Federalism is usually considered in opposition to 'centralism.' This does not
mean that there is no central space for coordinated activity nor decision making,
rather that the central body of any social organisation should not establish a
minority with executive power over its parts. The establishment of such
'centralism', usually in the name of efficiency, has a tendency to stifle
initiative and freedom. It can often exaggerate inequalities in an organisation
by granting privileges to small minorities.

Centralism in economic matters is also no silver bullet. Certain industries may
be better served by establishing giant workshops and factories, others may
require localised production. Federalism allows such flexibility and is not
hampered by a priori notions around centralisation or decentralisation. Dogmatism
around either is usually inferred from existing capitalist social practices.

Social Force

The term social force is a term found in anarchist literature used in an
interchangeable manner with collective force. Effectively, it simply means the
collective capacity to act. It is the rather common sense proposition that by
combining their efforts, human beings can achieve far more than they could as
individuals. On an ideological level, this is a departure from liberalism. Think
of how capitalists claim that 'they' as an individual 'built' or are responsible
for the achievements of their business. To anarchists however, all labour, all
production, is a collective effort. Even when an individual labours, they draw on
the labour of people in the past who developed technologies, made scientific
discoveries, and established the basis for the reproduction of social life etc.
(Rashid, 2020)

Expanding upon social force as the collective capacity to act, it became a key
concept amongst anarchists in articulating the need for oppressed social groups
to join together to fight. Bakunin took this concept and expanded it to the
tactical needs of organisation:

"It is true that there is in the people a great elementary force, a force beyond
that of the government and that of the ruling classes as a whole, but without
organisation the elementary force is not a real force. It is this undeniable
advantage of organised force over the elemental force of the people that the
force of the state is based. Therefore the problem is not so much to know if the
people can revolt, but to see that they are capable of building such organisation
that gives them the means to reach a successful end." Mikhail Bakunin (Corrêa, 2009)

So then the task of anarchists is to encourage workers and the oppressed to
harness their social force, to amplify it by organisation and to wield it against
the state and the capitalist class.

Direct Action

One way in which social force can be harnessed and encouraged is by the means of
direct action. A well known phrase used by anarchists, it is at its core both
strategic and tactical. It attempts to link the means and ends of struggle to a
society where workers self govern without capitalism or the state. What direct
action means is working class people taking action to achieve a particular goal
by themselves, bypassing bourgeois representational and legal means. (Sparrow,
1997) It is the collective acting out of social force.

The term direct action was coined by French anarcho-syndicalist Emile Pouget.13
To Pouget the concept was born of class conflict, where the workers created their
own means of struggle. Instead of understanding themselves as citizens of the
liberal state, workers who undertake direct action come to understand themselves
and their power as the producers of society. Direct action, collectively
undertaken by workers, is a direct attack on the capitalist system. (Pouget, 1910)

Anarchist-Communists seek to avoid the fetishisation of small scale and
individual actions as 'direct action.' This is not to say that we do not support
individuals fighting against oppressive circumstances, but that direct action
should be understood in its original sense. That is, as a transformative practice
of mass, collective and class based action.

Praxis

Fundamental to anarchist politics is the concepts of praxis, or, the embodiment
of theory in action. Praxis is a philosophical concept that is key not only to
anarchists, but all socialist doctrines. In essence, it means 'process' and is
concerned with the creation of knowledge and how it is turned into action.

To Anarchist-Communists in particular praxis means that an individual or
collective establishes a reflective relationship between action and theory,
placing a particular emphasis on the action that must be undertaken to change the
world (Miami Autonomy and Solidarity, 2010). This was also a particular concern
for Marx in his philosophical analysis. To Marx, contradiction in theory can only
be resolved in action, and this is what separates revolutionary political theory
from bourgeois philosophy. Bakunin had similar reflections, believing that if
socialism was left to scientists and intellectuals rather than created by the
conscious activity of the masses it would merely become another tyranny (Bakunin,
1871).

In revolutionary theory, the starting point must be a materialist analysis of
society, with an eye towards resolving its contradictions by action (Marx, 1845).
Based on such a principle for analysis, individuals and collectives decide upon
actions they may choose to undertake in order to alter the world. The action they
decide to undertake is then analysed according to not only its intentions, but
its actual results, thus informing future action. This basic concept underlies
the entirety of anarchist politics, as blind action is useless much as theory
without practice is useless (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, 1972).

The undertaking of praxis not only changes the world around us by conscious and
active intervention into society, but it also transforms those who undertake it.
This is why, in contrast to individualist schools of anarchism, or authoritarian,
vanguardist schools of Marxism, Anarchist-Communists seek to consistently
mobilise the mass of workers. Praxis after all is not limited to revolutionaries.

Anarchist-Communists thus seek to encourage workers to undertake self-directed
activity. Through mass action, the consciousness of individuals is transformed,
as people realise they have the capacity to change the world, reshaping it
towards their collective desires.

"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence,
the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian
tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their
demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity
of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through
hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and
the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those
allegedly acting on their behalf." - Maurice Brinton (Brinton, 1967)

Self Management

Drawing from and expanding upon social force, direct action and praxis, it makes
sense to explain self-management, a concept applicable to both economics and the
organisation of anti-capitalist struggle. Self-management means that at every
level, people have direct democratic control over their lives, their community
and their workplaces. The term itself gained popularity to contrast the concept
of socialism-from-below, or anarchism, to other models of revolutionary socialism
that justified forms of top down organisation (Keefer, 2018).14 Through
self-managed movements, the content of class-struggle is linked with democratic
forms such as mandated delegates and popular assemblies.

There is sometimes a misconception that anarchists fetishise the forms of
struggle over the content.15 This is incorrect. Anarchists believe there is a
dialectical relationship whereby form and content are mutually reinforcing. For
example, imagine a popular movement that elects a  directing committee of working
class origins. This does not guarantee the class basis of the demands the
movement puts forward. A small relatively unaccountable clique could produce its
own interests, make decisions around alliances with other class forces etc.
Rather, democratic forms ensure that the popular mass of a movement, that is,
workers, are able to put forward proletarian demands, which at least ensures the
class has democratic control over the content of struggle.

In terms of economics, self-management means that workers have direct control
over their own labour and the very firm they work in (Pannekoek, 1947). By these
means, workers can overcome alienation, avoiding the development of a
technical-bureaucratic class of managers. From each democratically controlled
workplace, delegates are sent to congresses and bodies that combine industries
and community representatives. This allows for the working out of bottom-up plans
for production and consumption. The self-managed system avoids the problems of
the traditional Leninist model where a small clique is elected to plan the
economy and dictate down to the producers. Contrary to such models, anarchists
believe there is no iron law that dictates centralisation is always the best
model of production (Fabbri, 1922). The problem is a balancing of centralisation,
in the sense of coordination, with autonomy (Price, 2014).16

There are critiques that self-management does not guarantee socialist content. Of
course, this is true. Anarchists make this exact critique. Co-operatives for
example function as capitalist enterprises without bosses. They may fulfil
certain social needs at a given time, but they are not core to anarchist
strategy, which seeks a revolutionary rupture with capitalism. After a
revolution, when the means of production have been seized by workers the problem
changes. So called 'factory socialism'17 can become a very real problem.

During the Spanish Revolution for example, many factories functioned as entirely
separate enterprises, interested primarily in the interests of their workers
rather than workers in general. This in turn reproduced inequality amongst the
class (Hill, 2020). On the other hand, some syndicates completely socialised
production, moving rapidly towards communist structures (Guillamón, 2020). For
Anarchist-Communists then, during the revolutionary transition the goal is to
encourage workers' economic organisations to freely move towards increasingly
socialised models of economic production.18

Possibilism (Reform)

Possibilism refers to an attitude towards social reforms and their potential.
While impossibilists19 believe that any reform under capitalism is tangential,
meaningless or not worth fighting for, as it puts off the day of revolution,
anarchist-communists take a more nuanced view. There is simply no good argument
that workers and the oppressed should not fight to make their lives under
capitalism more bearable. The question for anarchists who take the possibilist
view is how reforms are achieved.

What separates revolutionaries seeking reform from actual reformists like social
democrats is not the struggle for reforms themselves, but the strategies and
goals undertaken to achieve them. Anarchist-Communists do not seek reform through
electoral candidates, lobbying or any such manner. For a start, these methods are
actually much less effective. (Malatesta, n.d.) The strategies
Anarchist-Communists employ in the struggle for reform seeks to build workers
power by relying upon direct action. This empowers workers and the oppressed,
teaching them that they can achieve improvements in their lives by the social
force of their own collective action. The intervention of anarchists in this
process is to help keep the forms of struggle as directly democratic and
unmediated as possible, and to agitate for socialism and the idea of revolution
within any movement for reform. As movements become more powerful and the class
becomes more conscious of the nature and limits of its conflict with capitalists
and the state, the potential for a revolutionary moment increases.

Dual Power

Dual power refers to a situation, a moment in time, where the organised power of
the workers and oppressed social groups rivals that of the bourgeoisie (Lenin,
1917). The term Dual Power was coined by the Bolshevik leader Lenin when the
power of the Soviets in Russia existed side by side with that of the Constituent
Assembly (the Russian parliament). This was not a situation that could last. Nor
should it. In the end, an anarchist, Anatoli Zhelezniakov, ordered the
dissolution of the bourgeois Constituent Assembly (Heath, 2005). Thus, the
organised power of the workers was expressed, if only temporarily, through the
Soviets, opening the door to the potential for socialist transition.

Anarchist-Communists do not aim for a situation of dual power, they seek to
establish workers' power. Lenin's definition was correct, and the waters should
not be muddied by employing the term Dual Power to refer to anything else. The
building of Workers (or Counter, or Popular) Power, that is the capacity of the
workers and oppressed to impose their own demands upon the bourgeois and the
state is a strategy, not a situation (Crossin, 2022).

Workers Power

Workers Power (sometimes Popular Power or Counter-Power in literature) ties into
the definitions of class struggle, direct action and self-management explained
above. It is essentially a term for the capacity of workers and oppressed groups
to take action and enforce their demands independently of the state. (Corrêa,
2009) It is the accumulation of social force or autonomous power of the
proletariat in movements, trade unions and revolutionary political organisations.
Workers Power is created, not taken. The culmination of Workers Power is when
these forces are organised and overthrow capitalist production and the state,
establishing socialism based on self-management.

Workers Power also demands a degree of autonomy for groups and individuals as
actors within the class. Power is essentially the capacity to act and to
transform things. If workers not only as a class, but as individuals and as
sectors of the broad working class lack the ability to act and change the society
they exist within, then the term of Workers Power only applies in the abstract.

Revolution

It should go without saying that Anarchist-Communists are for revolution. The
question is then what does this actually mean?

A revolution is an insurrectionionary moment where the power of a ruling class is
smashed and overturned by the mass of people. In popular culture the overturning
of a dictatorship and its replacement by a bourgeois democracy can be conceived
of as a revolution.20 But to anarchists this is a political revolution. One set
of masters is replaced by another and the system of production and the state
remain. Anarchist-Communists seek a social revolution.

That is the thoroughgoing transformation of society from one based on
exploitation, in other words capitalism, into one of self-managed socialism. The
anarchist revolution seeks the abolition of private property in the means of
production21 and the abolition of government. This includes the military,
parliament, the police and the judiciary (Malatesta 1920).

The social revolution will not be a national affair. Anarchists will seek to
encourage workers to expand the revolution across all borders, reconstituting the
world into a new international federation of self-managed communities and
communist production organised from the bottom up. Along the way all forms of
domination will be challenged and overthrown as social life is reconstructed
anew. The revolution begins not only with workers taking over the means of
production, but with the smashing of the state. Revolution is the mobilisation of
the masses, the exercise of freedom, unconstrained by laws and governments
(Fabbri, 1921).

Internationalism

Internationalism is basic to anarchism not just as an ethical value, but a vital
concept in terms of struggle. As capitalism is an international system, the
struggle against capitalism can also only be international. The division of
workers across national boundaries ultimately undermines liberation. Benefits
that workers of a particular imperialist nation state may receive often come at
the cost of workers in other countries. The further the division between nations
grows, the more divided the labour movement becomes, and the weaker even the
workers of the imperialist nations become in imposing their own strength upon the
capitalist system (Rocker, 1938). Hence, it is vital that anarchists aim to
clarify the importance of internationalism in labour struggles.

Furthermore, nationalism sacrifices workers to the war efforts of competing
capitalists. Out of opposition to the sacrifice of workers for the sake of
profits, anarchist anti-militarism becomes an important point of agitation. This
is not to renounce violent practice when it works towards our own ends, but
rather to stand in opposition to the military of national states and their
capitalist classes (Tiggjan, 2022). For workers in imperialist countries this
value means revolutionary defeatism. Revolutionary defeatism means that during
the struggle of an imperialist bourgeoisie the workers of that country will fight
to see their own nation fail at its imperialist conquests. They agitate against
the sacrifice of workers' lives to oppress and occupy another nation and aim to
turn imperialist war into class war (Nilsen, 2022).

When it comes to questions of anti-imperialism, Anarchist-Communists try to avoid
the ultra-leftist errors of other anarchist schools. There is a trap where some
anarchists and revolutionary socialists equate all national liberation struggles
with bourgeois nationalism. On the one hand, national liberation struggles
inevitably involve bourgeois and petty bourgeois elements; the concrete struggle
necessarily mobilises all classes. But it would be criminal for anarchists to
suggest that workers in a concretely oppressed nation refrain from a national
liberation struggle on the basis that they are falling into the trap of
'nationalism' (Bonanno et al., 2019).

The real question is one of strategic involvement. Anarchist-Communists argue
that workers make up the vast majority of people in any oppressed nation. These
groups can take up the struggle on an independent basis. It does not necessitate
falling into the project of bourgeois nation building, nor oppose the potential
of making alliances with revolutionary defeatist workers in the imperialist
countries. Certainly anarchist and revolutionary socialists abstaining from
national liberation movements only makes the bourgeois content of such struggle
more inevitable. Anarchists must participate, winning people to their program and
pushing national liberation even further, towards an internationalist, socialist
revolution.22 (Price, 2017)

Finally, the importance of internationalism is vital in the revolutionary period.
When any territory begins to go through a revolutionary process it will be
inevitably isolated and attacked by bourgeois forces. No matter the pure ideals
of revolutionaries, material conditions will dictate what is achievable.
Prolonged isolation makes degeneration inevitable. The strength of the
international revolutionary movement will be fundamental in protecting, defending
and expanding any potential revolutionary situation. The more internationalist
organisation is prior to the revolutionary rupture, the more likely the
revolution will be internationalist in content.

The Transition Period and Anarchist Gradualism

To expand upon the concept of international revolution, we must necessarily deal
with anarchist understandings of the so-called 'transition period' between
capitalism and socialism. There is another common myth that anarchists believe in
a semi-magical revolutionary transformation, from one day to the next, between
capitalist social relations and communism. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The transition period from capitalism to socialism rests upon two fundamental
factors. The defeat and suppression of the bourgeoisie and their state, and the
reconstruction of a socialist society. (Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici,
1985) Neither of these are simple, and will take many years to accomplish.

The standing bourgeois army must be conquered and eliminated. Different nations
will face different tasks in confronting the reactionary threat of the military.
Some nations still have large militaries made of conscripts with close ties to
the mass of the population. Relations between the workers and the rank and file
of the military may offer opportunities for liaison and rebellion that do not
exist in countries with smaller, highly trained and specialised militaries. In
such countries the extremely rapid economic isolation and crippling of the
military will be key, given that usually the population is rarely armed or
trained in combat.

The new popular forms of social organisation will have to organise militias,
established with similar protocols to economics organisations. Democratic
structures, mandated roles, no distinction between officers and soldiers,
accountability to civilian bodies, and as little as possible permanence of
institutions as the situation permits. A fundamental factor in the military
defeat of the bourgeoisie is not necessarily terrain nor even arms, but the
positive will of the people (Guillén, 1969/1973, p. 242). Furthermore,
international bodies will have to be formed linking the struggle between forces
in the revolutionary territory and those fighting for revolution elsewhere.

In terms of economic reconstruction, workers will immediately have to restart
production. No revolution was ever won by starving people. Representatives of
productive industries will have to link together in regional, national and
international federations, finding the most immediate and practical solutions to
economic matters whilst under the direction of workers. Deals will have to be
made between industrial and agricultural sectors, ensuring the appropriate supply
works both ways. Everything from towns to cities to schools and train lines can
be restructured. The revolution will unleash the creative capacity of the workers
from the restrictions of capital. Solutions will be found that are both local and
decentralised, to economically federated and international.

Exactly what these intermediate economic forms take we cannot specify. They will
have to be the subject of the free creation of workers to make their own ends
meet. This is what is meant by anarchist gradualism (Malatesta, 1925). We do not
expect a communist society overnight, but an experimentation with alternatives to
capitalist production that anarchists will encourage social reorganisation
towards completely communist practices (Kropotkin, 2015, p. 29-39).

This commitment to free association and bottom up construction is a
distinguishing feature of anarchism. Anarchist-Communists do not believe that
libertarian ends can be achieved by authoritarian means.23 Anarchism seeks, as
much as possible, to find a gradual solution that neither invites unnecessary
conflict between the non-exploiting classes nor passes authority to a small
clique charged with planning the lives of millions of people.24 Practical
solutions should be found that are not only economically viable, but produce the
most socially equitable, just and free forms. (Malatesta 1925)

"We trust more in agreement than in imposition, in knowledge than coercion, in
freedom than in authority. That is why we are libertarians."

Gerardo Gatti

Organisational Concepts and Models
The following section on Organisational Concepts attempts to illustrate the
concrete forms and practices of the Specific Anarchist-Communist Organisation.
Certain concepts included in this part of the pamphlet rather than the Key Ideas
section inform particular practices and models of organisations. In turn,
understanding the theoretical basis of Organisational Concepts will help
illustrate why particular strategies are employed, vis a vis the final section.

Social Vector

The social vector conceptualises the relationship of anarchism to the popular
movements in which anarchism has or seeks to have an influence (Federação
Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro, 2008). The relationship is dialectical. As
anarchism influences the mass of people, it in turn is further articulated and
developed in relation with mass struggles. Historically, the key social vector of
anarchism was the labour movement, endowing the anarchist ideology itself with
certain characteristics.25 Following the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Civil
War and the struggle against fascism, it can be said anarchism broadly lost its
once significant social vector. The struggle to recover anarchism's social vector
informs core elements of Anarchist-Communist organisational practice and analysis.

Social Insertion

Social insertion then is the struggle to recover the social vector of anarchism.
Essentially, anarchists must be involved in the daily fights of the oppressed and
working class. This does not mean involvement in political parties, or advocacy
and lobbying organisations. Instead anarchists focus on the fighting movements
based in oppressed social layers (Weaver, 2007).

The task of the specific anarchist organisation is to analyse various forces at
work at society, calculating the appropriate spaces in which to intervene. The
task in these movements is simultaneously to promote anarchist ideas, but more
importantly to fight for the popular set of principles and methods associated
with anarchism and working class liberation. These are anti-capitalism, direct
action, mass democratic procedures, self-organisation, and political independence.

Anarchist-Communists believe it is through the mass organisations born of class
struggle that workers will exercise their power. While it is vital the specific
anarchist organisation has clarity and direction in its program, the task of
implementing and constructing socialism will be the work of mass organisations of
the working class. The specific anarchist organisation, through the influence of
its ideas, attempts to guide the mass forward by linking and encouraging
struggles, but it does not dictate the specific line or programme.

Social and Political Level

The concept of the 'social' and 'political levels' aims at clarifying confusion
and mistakes in previous anarchist theory. The conflation of the two has led to
not only theoretical, but organisational errors amongst other currents of
anarchism, in particular anarcho-syndicalism.

The social level is where basic class struggle occurs. Struggles at this level
are popular, wide ranging and mobilise significant numbers of not only the
working class, but periphery and intermediate classes around immediate demands.26
They are heavily shaped by the predominant ideologies of society, i.e. liberal
demands limited to the capitalist framework. Struggles at this level rise and
fall, motivated by material events and structures. For example, financial crisis,
war, climatic events. (Collective Action, n.d.)

In contrast the political level is where individuals, organisations and parties
operate with particular frameworks and ideologies, aiming to achieve particular
goals. The political level can be conservative, social democratic, liberal or
socialist. For the specific anarchist organisation, the political level indicates
the work its militants undertake to specifically promote and achieve their
ideological goal; libertarian communism or, anarchy.

Popular (or Mass) Organisation

Mass organisations are organisations of the class, not specific political
organisations. They are based on the satisfaction and achievement of immediate
and objective material needs. Their program however may in time approach that of
the specific organisation.27 Efforts must be made not to confuse the program of
the mass organisation, which is developed as a whole by the oppressed groups
articulating their own struggle, with the specific revolutionary program of
political organisations. Such is sometimes the difference between
Anarchist-Communist and Leninist conceptions of mass work (Gutiérrez, 2021).

The specific anarchist organisation works to clarify political ideas amongst the
mass organisation without dominating or dictating the line of march. That is,
Anarchist-Communists do not place themselves in positions of executive power over
class organisations, rather they take up positions only when specifically
mandated and delegated by a democratic process.

This does not suggest that anarchists cannot provide leadership.
Anarchist-Communists work to encourage workers to draw revolutionary conclusions
through both illustrating the contradictions within capitalism and through the
practice of direct action in class struggle. As revolutionary situations develop,
the mass organisation must be prepared for the establishment of self-management
and socialist economy. In the right situation, through the mass organisation,
workers unleash revolutionary transformation (Federazione dei Comunisti
Anarchici, 1985).

Today's Anarchist-Communists do not delude themselves with the historical errors
of many Marxists or anarchists alike. We do not assume that revolutionary
spontaneity will be enough to bring about revolution.28 Nor that certain forms
guarantee revolutionary content; syndicalist unions, factory committees,
soviets29. All these forms of workers organisation still exist within a broader
context that can shape them as revolutionary or collaborationist. Finally, the
fundamental error of making a principle out of 'red unionism.' That is,
establishing separate revolutionary unions as a principle.30 These organisations
often split class forces and abandon intervention amongst workers who do not join
the new unions, hence leadership in the mass unions automatically falls to less
revolutionary or even reactionary forces.

Theoretical Unity

The absolute basis of any coherent political organisation is theoretical unity.
By theoretical unity we mean a shared framework for interpreting the world and in
turn acting upon it. A specifically political organisation without theoretical
unity is as useful as a racehorse whose legs are independent and run in different
directions the moment the gates open. In other words, not effective at all. This
is important to understand for two reasons.

In the first and most obvious instance this is because the revolutionary
political organisation operates at a different level to social struggle
organisations, such as trade unions. Unions for example are united by common
interests but can functionally retain people who adhere to different
philosophies. The revolutionary organisation however works to argue for and
achieve specific goals across multiple fields of social struggle; in the
workplace, the neighbourhood, the unions and in social movements.

The second reason is because of the need for shared analysis; a lack of broad
concrete and conceptual theory means that militants and organisations would have
to over-examine, study and debate every single issue that arises they wish to act
upon and may find they have completely different ways of understanding a problem.
Starting from a solid basis of theoretical unity avoids this over complication or
reactions based on spontaneity and subjectivity (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya,
1972).

Through the course of their development Anarchist-Communist organisations develop
shared positions on particular issues. The development of theory and practice go
hand in hand. It is not vital that every single issue is theorised and decided
upon before people begin to act. However it is vital that as work arises the
organisation reflects upon its activity and forms a solid theoretical basis. Such
theoretical reflection can take shape via journal articles, propaganda, and
position statements.

Overall, the specific anarchist organisation requires a high level of theoretical
unity given the tasks it sets itself. In the past many looser anarchist
organisations have attempted to function with low levels of theoretical unity;
all have failed or proven largely ineffective.

Strategic Unity

Given that Anarchist-Communists argue for high levels of theoretical unity, the
need for unity in strategy and tactics should also be apparent. By basing
analysis of an economy, a political situation, a struggle or a social movement on
a firm theoretical ground the specific organisation should be capable of
developing a clear collective response.

Tactical unity amplifies the social force of the anarchist organisation. It helps
cohere and direct the broader social layers around it towards libertarian
socialist goals and it rids the broader movement of the confusion of antagonistic
tactics and actions (Dielo Truda (Workers Cause), 1926).

A specific anarchist organisation should aim for the highest level of voluntary
tactical unity, while remaining flexible enough to respond appropriately to
immediate local needs. Anarchist-Communist organisations employ a number of
frameworks to decide upon the scope of a particular strategy. Such as a
conjunctural analysis of a social situation, the general or overall political and
organisational strategy, short term strategies and in the most immediate and
flexible level, general tactics (Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira, 2017).

Often, Anarchist-Communist organisations usually break down their social work
into internal 'fronts.' These sections generally relate to movements in the
context the revolutionary organisation operates within. For example, all
Anarchist-Communist organisations will have a 'union' front, where activists
work, reflect, theorise and struggle in their workplaces. There might also be
fronts, or sections, for environmental struggles, housing, student, queer rights,
indigenous rights, anti-fascism etc. It depends on the context. Given that
militants only have so much time, beyond their general responsibilities to the
organisation they may be expected to select and contribute to a particular front
over others.

Ultimately, the correct application of theoretical and tactical unity should
result in not only reflective and collective struggle, but the creation of the
revolutionary programme; the backbone of any serious political organisation.

Collective Responsibility

Furthering the basic concepts of the revolutionary organisation itself, one that
further ensures the integrity of the organisation is the concept of collective
responsibility.

Anarchist-Communist organisations reject the liberal conception of individual
responsibility. This does not mean that an individual cannot be held to account;
quite the contrary. It means that the individual is held to account to the
collective, mutually reinforced by all the individuals holding each other and the
entire organisation to account. As it is laid out in the Organisational Platform
of the Libertarian Communists; 'the[organisation]as a whole is answerable for the
revolutionary and political activity of each member of the union, likewise, each
of its members is answerable for the revolutionary and political activity of
the[organisation]as a whole (Dielo Truda (Workers Cause), 1926).

In practice, this means that individuals and branches are accountable to the
entirety of the organisation. People and sections can be disciplined and expelled
for inappropriate behaviour, or for undertaking actions that undermine the
broadly defined and collectively agreed course of action. It also means that an
organisation has the duty to provide and assist the development of each
individual within the organisation; providing education, access to resources,
moral and material support, efforts to make it easier for parents or people with
disabilities to contribute to the struggle etc. After all, to anarchists freedom
is collectively established and developed, it is not simply defined by a lack of
rules or restraint on the individual. Libertarian organisation rests upon the
principle of fraternal discipline (Makhno, 1996, #68).

Overall, the anarchist organisation is not a political free-for-all but a tightly
knit, mutually supportive and collective organisation.

Federalism (Organisational)

Federalism in the anarchist organisation attempts to safeguard against the growth
of domination in social relations and the creation of a leadership clique
separate from the mass of members.

Anarchist-Communists recognise that although the dangers of the creation of a
permanent class of managers are somewhat inherent in organisation, formal
structures and accountability actually do more to prevent degeneration than to
create it. Organisation after all, is both socially and politically necessary for
revolutionary action and for the building of a communist society.

Therefore there are certain federalist organisational principles that anarchists
follow, most of which are touched upon in the conceptual section on Federalism.

These include free agreement: Members consent to the ideas and practice of the
organisation, and are not dominated or coerced to join or to remain as members.
This does not mean that individuals are not accountable to each other, nor that
the organisation is not accountable to anyone. Individuals and branches that
enter into a federation on a particular basis, be this social or political, and
are held to account for their action regarding the agreed principles of the
federation. This is distinct from capitalism, which compels individuals to
participate in the labour market with the discipline of the wage, and where
individuals are held to the account of the boss.

Bottom-up, periphery-to-center: The ultimate decision making body of an
organisation is a democratic assembly of all its eligible members, which has real
power to compel, create and destroy committees to serve its goals.

Officials: For tasks that require permanent roles for the organisation, members
are elected to a fixed mandate, are required to report back on their activities
to the entire organisation, are regularly rotated, and are recallable at any
time. This includes members of higher co-ordinating bodies, which do not have
executive power over the 'lower' levels.

Anarchist-Communist organisations tend to use one of two practical forms of
federalism. In the first model, a set of independent anarchist communist groups
form a federation on the basis of shared theoretical, strategic and tactical
agreement. Each group retains its independence in the forms of internal
practices, constitutions, and fields of activity, but creates a common set of
shared practices and political analysis that allow for unified action and
collective accountability and growth. Groups like the 1919-1920 Italian Anarchist
Union or today's Anarchist Coordination of Brazil share this model.

Alternatively, a federation may be formed by a set of constituent groups who then
dissolve their independent organisations into the federation whilst retaining
functional independence as branches, or a singular group may expand into various
regions and workplaces. Organisations such as the Anarchist Federation of
Uruguay, Libertarian Communist Union (France), Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist
Federation (USA) are all examples of more unitary federations.

In both situations, power resides with the branches and grassroots bodies. They
maintain complete autonomy within the bounds of the agreed political line.
Administrative bodies oversee the work of militants and branches, however no
executive power is granted to an elected minority. Political decisions are made
at congresses, not by minority committees.

Concentric Circles

Concentric Circles is an organisational model employed by some, but not all,
Anarchist-Communist organisations. It aims to resolve questions around the level
of integration and responsibilities of militants. An organisation based on
concentric circles has a series of "layers" that relate to the specific duties of
the militant (Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro, 2010).

The core, or central layer is that of a specific organisation itself. It is made
up of fully committed militants. These militants decide the theoretical and
strategic line of the organisation. They are also responsible for the main
activities of the organisation such as publishing the journal, integration of new
militants, education, and political work in the various fronts.

In the secondary level, often referred to as 'supporting members', there may be
activists who identify with or support the organisation but are unable or
unwilling to dedicate the time or energy required to fulfil the functions
required of a full member. Activists in the secondary level would not be granted
the same decision making power as those of the core militants. They might not sit
on the editorial collective of the organisation's journal, or may not have full
voting privileges at a Congress. But perhaps they still have voting rights in
their local branch. Supporting members would still contribute to the journal or
to everyday work whenever possible. The anarchist-communist organisation attempts
to find ways to allow anyone who wants to contribute the ability to do so.

The overall differences in the concentric circle model are worked out by each
organisation according to what functions best for them. Organisations may of
course have even more levels, or establish a secondary organisation, such as a
school, to educate and train new activists.

While a layered model might seem hierarchical, there is a simple and logical
reason for this division between layers in the organisation. Decisions should not
be made by those who do not bear the responsibility for following through with
action. Such an imbalance of power to those who bear no responsibility for
revolutionary activism would actually be the less democratic option. After all,
to anarchists, rights are balanced by duties.

Movement between the layers is entirely voluntary. If we imagine an organisation
with two layers, core and supporting, membership of both may require the same
level of integration. Usually integration requires a process of several months
studying an educational curricular and working with established militants in a
particular front.

Once a prospective member thoroughly understands the concepts of the organisation
and proves their commitment they are considered full members.

Of course, any organisation will have external supporters. To the revolutionary
anarchist organisation these are the same as any other political organisation.
Militants relate to them through the mass organisations.

As we have noted, there is a level of division in the organisation that ensures
coherency and effectiveness. However, as touched upon in the section on
Federalism, the revolutionary organisation practices horizontal forms of
organisation as far as possible. All official roles, such as secretary, education
officer (or committee), international liaison etc are rotated as often as
effectively possible. This is a standard practice of anarchist organisation. The
logic is that everyone should be as trained and capable of running the
organisation as possible. This helps prevent unnecessary internal hierarchies and
divisions from developing, increases the skills of militants, and ensures that
should the organisation lose members it can continue to function.

Sometimes it is argued that mandated rotation of roles will remove people who are
effective at a particular job leaving the organisation weakened by not employing
their skills. However a revolutionary organisation is only as strong as its
weakest member. Unlike Leninist organisations a militant in an official position
(ie secretary) is delegated and mandated as far as possible, and not immediately
granted executive decision making powers over the mass of the membership. While
the formality of the positions ensures a militant is held to account, the
relative lack of hierarchy in the organisation also helps prevent the formal
accumulation of power or over reliance on a particular personality. The
development of political leadership is collectively exercised, not individually
concentrated.

All this being said, some Anarchist-Communist organisations do not employ the
concentric circle model. Militants are either members or they are not. Either
way, most organisations still employ the same general principles of internal
organisation. These being rights and responsibilities, educational integration,
formal accountability and the rotation of roles.

Education

It probably goes without saying, but education is an integral part of
Anarchist-Communist organisations. The development not only of individuals but of
the organisation as a whole depends on the integration of educational practices.
Militants are offered the opportunity to share and to develop their own knowledge
of politics, history, philosophy and even science in the pursuit of clarity and
development. The process of education in the specific anarchist organisation is a
collective project which contributes to the solidarity and theoretical
development of the entire organisation (Stroud, 2022).

Most organisations integrate educational practices into everyday branch activity.
For example, a set topic may be discussed at each branch meeting. An individual
or group of comrades may be tasked with choosing readings, presenting and hosting
the discussion. This helps keep education as a consistent practice and can help a
group of comrades stay on topic of current political developments.

Furthermore an organisation may run both internal and external reading groups on
books or on various topics. This can help produce the theoretical line in regards
to a position statement or the development of a strategy. A theoretical journal,
a paper, a podcast or a YouTube channel can all further contribute to both
internal and external educational practices.

Historically anarchists have placed great value in educational practices. So
called ateneos, or bourse travails, were schools established by anarchists
encouraging education for workers free from control by the bourgeoisie. Given the
emphasis on praxis and self development, anarchists are strong supporters of
self-educational practices (autodidacticism). Anarchist organisations with
sufficient resources still dedicate significant resources towards maintaining
radical public education.

The Revolutionary Programme

The sum of a political organisation, its philosophy, its history and its
practices are summarised in the revolutionary programme. The programme is
simultaneously a reflection of the insights, principles and goals of the
organisation. A programme helps steer an organisation towards its ultimate goal,
so its militants do not get lost during the ebbs and flows of class struggle
whilst building a link between the struggle for reforms and the end goal (Price,
2009). It forms the basis for developing strategy rather than a reliance upon
'prefiguration', and formalises adherence to a chosen strategy in a given time
and place (Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira, 2017).31

Therefore programmes are not unchangeable, but are reflected upon and adapted
towards as time goes on, integrating new insights, experiences and visions of the
future society. The programme is tested by the experience of class struggle
itself, and reflects the historical experience of workers as revolutionaries
(Federation Communiste Libertaire, 1953). The Anarchist-Communist programme
directs the organisation and its militants towards the goal, communism, following
its methodology, anarchism.

"Revolutions without theory fail to make progress. We of the "Friends of Durruti"
have outlined our thinking, which may be amended as appropriate in great social
upheavals but hinges upon two essential points which cannot be avoided. A
program, and rifles."

The Friends of Durruti in El Amigo del Pueblo, no. 5, July 20, 1937

Key Strategies
The following section is shorter than the previous, as hopefully the concepts and
organisational practices of the Anarchist-Communist organisation have become
clear. Strategies of course are never eternal nor appropriate to every time and
place. However those outlined in this section may be reasonably accepted as
fundamental to Anarchist-Communist practice in general.

Inside the Trade Unions, Against the Bureacracy

Amongst the broader tendencies of anarchists, there are a number of approaches to
the trade unions. Like anarcho-syndicalists, anarchist-communists see the labour
movement and class struggle as fundamental to revolutionary strategy. However
Anarchist-Communists have their own clear understanding of unions and strategies
for relating to them.

Unions are bodies of workers that combine to defend their economic interests
against employers. Anarchist recognise that unions exist both as bodies of
workers and as bureaucratic legal structures (Eko, 2019). In either form, unions
aim to win concrete, day to day improvements. For example increased wages, the 8
hour day, weekends, public holidays, overtime rates, sick leave etc are all
examples of things unions have won and continue to struggle for.

Unions as official institutions have an elected leadership whose job it is to
negotiate between labour and capital. Though leadership will endorse strikes and
workers activity, they often have an interest in perpetuating their own
positions. In Australia, they often co-manage superannuation firms, tying union
interests to the success of capitalist enterprises. In honouring the contracts
that unions make with capitalists, there is a pressure to ensure industrial peace
(Walmsley, 2020). At times, all these factors come into conflict with the demands
of workers, especially at times of advancing class consciousness and struggle.

In response to this contradiction, anarchists have developed a number of
responses. Usually, insurrectionist anarchists avoid working in unions. They
focus on the negative side, believing that unions are unreformable,
anti-revolutionary bodies. This position is virtually useless. By avoiding
engaging with the mass of organised workers the insurrectionists isolate
themselves and win no one to their ideas. They are thus absent from the most
critical of places during a revolutionary process, the point of production.

Other anarchists, known as anarcho-syndicalists advocate forming "anarchist" or
"revolutionary" unions. However, even radical unions face the problem of their
concrete purpose in capitalism. That is, negotiating between capital and labour.
Not even the most revolutionary of unions can keep up industrial struggle at all
times. They also suffer the problem that by defining themselves as purely
'anarchist' or 'revolutionary' they exclude the mass of workers, who identify
with neither. The revolutionary union thus becomes either a confused body of
revolutionary workers, which lacks the clarity of a political organisation, or
becomes a traditional union and loses its revolutionary impetus.

The third option however is the one advocated by anarchist-communists. This is to
be active, rank and file, militant members of the trade unions. By agitating
amongst the mass of workers, we can win them over to anarchist ideas. Anarchists
can also struggle against the reformist instincts of the bureaucracy. To abstain
from this would be to surrender the space where the mass of workers are organised
to the politics of social democrats, or worse. By activity inside the unions,
anarchist-communists believe that as class struggle intensifies, more and more
workers can be won to radical positions.

In Australia, a classic example is the NSW Builders Labourers Federation (BLF).
The BLF was once a rather conservative union. After years of patient, careful
work at the rank and file level by militants from the old Communist Party, the
left-wing factions of the Labor party and independent activists (they termed
their strategy the "militant minority") the base was eventually won to more
radical politics. With a stronger political base, more radical activists won
roles in the leadership of the union (the important part is that leadership means
nothing without a strong base) allowing the BLF to be reconstructed. The union
subsequently took on very federalist practices. Positions of leadership were paid
the same as workers, and they had limited tenure. Direct action was encouraged at
the base, where the job of organisers was to support the action workers were
taking themselves, not to dictate their direction. Democratic decisions were made
by mass meetings (Rashid, 2021).

Though the NSW BLF was eventually crushed, they were an illustration of the
radical potential within unions. Some of the achievements of the BLF, such as the
Green Bans, where workers refused to build projects that were harmful to the
environment were so radical they have never been achieved elsewhere in the world.

The United Front and the Grouping of Tendency

Revolutions are not made by anarchists alone. Nor is the struggle for social
reform a purely anarchist affair. These simple facts mean that
Anarchist-Communists must develop theoretical conceptions of how to shape their
alliances, and form them on what basis, with other political and social
organisations. There are always a number of factors to consider. The space of
intervention, the intermediacy of goals, the social and political context all
require different frameworks to articulate correct approaches towards political
work. In response to various contexts, anarchists of different tendencies have
articulated a number of approaches. The Italian Anarchist Unions United
Proletarian Front and Singular Revolutionary Front respectively, the
anarcho-syndicalist CNT's Workers Alliance, the Anarquista Federación Uruguaya's
Combative Tendency, and the modern Especifist Grouping of Tendency (Lawson,
2021). The two frameworks most commonly employed today are the 'United Front' and
the 'Grouping of Tendency.'

United Fronts involve alliances with other working class organisations on the
basis of their class composition and them having at the least social democratic
politics. It is a defensive strategy that is employed, providing the
Anarchist-Communist political organisation is capable of maintaining its
political independence in the Front.

The Grouping of Tendency concept can frame intervention into any situation where
any coalition of forces is gathered to achieve a particular aim. Unlike the
United Front this framework allows for campaign work, which may include
progressive bourgeois forces. In the Grouping of Tendency, Anarchist-Communists
attempt to establish an intermediate form of organisation based on a set of
coherent definitions of practice and ideological affinities between different
organisations and political tendencies. For example, Anarchist-Communists may
work alongside other anarchists, or Trotskyists who share a similar commitment to
working class politics, direct democracy and direct action.

What is important in all these models is that the Anarchist-Communist
organisation reflects and strategically decides who, in what context, and why to
make alliances. The United Front and the Grouping of Tendency do not apply in all
situations, but isolation from broader forces can also render the
Anarchist-Communist organisation isolated and useless. It also must be emphasised
that while political organisation is inevitable and thus there must be theory
around how it functions, the primary focus is on rank and file unity of workers
as a class regardless of their political affiliation. The United Front or
Grouping of Tendency is meaningless if it is a top down process agreed to by
political leaders rather than rooted in the practices of the class.

Parliamentary Abstensionism

Anarchist-Communists do not participate in parliamentary elections, nor endorse
particular political parties. This is a standard anarchist position. Anarchists
do not run for parliament or participate in parliamentary parties for a number of
reasons.

Firstly, parliament is disconnected from the everyday struggle of workers and the
oppressed for liberation. Social change comes from below, from the direct action
and organisation of working and poor people. This is where anarchists should be
focused, helping workers achieve their aims through direct action. Direct action,
in turn, helps workers realise their strength, that they can achieve things
themselves. It demonstrates that change does not come through getting people
elected (Lawson, 2022).

When someone enters parliament, even revolutionary socialists, they are subjected
to all sorts of conditions that limit their radicalism. These could be legal
pressures, or they could be the privileges that come with positions in the state.
Revolutionary parties that enter parliament become caught up in a cycle of trying
to get elected. Usually this involves watering down their politics to get elected
again. Even revolutionary parties who use parliament to denounce capitalism will
find themselves split over time, between those members invested in winning seats,
and those who still recognise it is only a tactic. Anarchists also abstain from
parliamentary participation to retain their revolutionary politics. While the
reasons listed are all in the negative, they are less important than the positive
aspect of direct action and self organisation. Anarchist-Communists argue that
power is built through independent social movements, not through elections
(Ascaso et al., 2018).

Anti-parliamentarianism is one of the fundamental practices of anarchism. People
who work inside, support, or run for election in parliamentary parties may be
revolutionary socialists, but they are not anarchists.

On a final note, Anarchist-Communists today are not so dogmatic as many
anarchists who go so far as to say voting is bad. Anti-voting abstention was more
relevant to a particular period of capitalist development that has passed.
Anti-voting rhetoric is rather useless today (Black Flag Sydney, 2022).

While there are many times when it is preferable to have a left-wing candidate
win over a right-wing one. Little reforms can mean big things for some people,
and can be vital in avoiding right-wing authoritarianism. However, what matters
is that people do not fall for the illusion that salvation comes from above. That
being said, Anarchist-Communists do not endorse candidates, they simply recognise
that "politics" cannot be avoided.

Mass Insurrection

Anarchist-Communists recognise that capitalism cannot be overthrown without
violent confrontation with the state and capitalists. This is not because we want
violence, but because the capitalists will never give up their power without a fight.

Before a social revolution there will be a long period where the oppressed
classes accumulate social force, transforming themselves through struggle.
Workers will learn to act on their own instincts, rather than relying upon legal
reforms granted by bourgeois politicians or the directions of revolutionary
minorities. Eventually, after long periods of conflict, there will come a moment
when a final confrontation between workers and capitalists will take place.

At the moment of revolution, the majority of workers must be involved. Mass
organisations lead the charge. The insurrection cannot be the action of a tiny
minority, although a smaller, advanced section of the working and poor classes
may act as the trigger (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, 1972). How this will
look, and the forms it will take of course depend on the context.

Anarchists have been active in many revolutionary moments. There were
anarchist-communists in the Military Revolutionary Soviet during the Russian
'October Revolution.' The Anarchist-Communist Federation of Bulgaria acted in
coordination with the Bulgarian Communist Party during the 1923 uprising
(Maximov, 1948). The anarcho-syndicalist rank and file led the resistance to the
fascist coup in Spain on the 19th of July, 1936, resulting instead in social
revolution and the greatest historical experiment in workers self-management
(Leval, 1975). Whatever the mistakes that occurred afterwards, the potential of
the mass of the working class to overthrow the state and capitalism by mass
insurrection was proven (Richards, 1953). A significant minority of the anarchist
movement attempted to reverse the mistakes in Spain, in particular the Friends of
Durruti group whose programme reflected the traditional values and strategies of
the anarchist movement (Evans, 2020, #67-100; Guillamòn, 2001).

In the most contemporary example, the Anarchist Federation of Uruguay, through
its strategic intervention in the country's trade union movement, led much of the
general strike and factory occupations that fought the military coup in 1974
(Sharkley, 2009; Lawson, 2022).

History teaches us that the overthrow of capitalism must be total, abolishing all
institutions that perpetuate exploitation. This involves the violent suppression
of parliament, of business, the police and the armed forces. The new workers
organisations must, from the bottom up, reconstruct society. Marxists say this is
an authoritarian act, but to anarchists this is the very negation of authority,
which results in the free association of producers the moment the capitalist
class is defeated.

Syndicates, Soviets, or something else?

To Anarchist-Communists, there are no 'absolute' or pre-ordained forms that
socialist society will take. What is important is that the revolutionary society
emerges from the working class in struggle. While we can give hesitant examples
of what that society might look like, based on the study of workers' revolutions
in the past, it is impossible to be exact (Mechoso & Corrêa, 2009). Of course,
there are many lessons to be drawn from the successes and failures of various
factory committees, syndicates and soviets that have appeared at revolutionary
moments that point towards preferential models.

The concrete forms of the future socialist revolution will depend on the organic
development of the revolution in a given context. This will in turn be shaped by
the modes of production, class composition and political traditions in the given
territory the revolution begins to unfold.

Undoubtedly, new, proletarian institutions will be mass democratic bodies,
attended by delegates of the workers and the poor. These will be based on
workplace, industry, locality, striving to represent the interests of everyone
except the bourgeoisie and the institutions of the capitalist state. From the
local, immediate level they will federate into regional, national, and eventually
international organisations. Production and distribution will be re-organised
along egalitarian, internationalist and libertarian principles (Leval, 1959).

The task of anarchists will be to put into practice their principles and
theories, encouraging the workers and oppressed to self-manage their struggle and
ensure reconstruction moves in a communist direction.

"Workers' councils" do not designate a form of organization whose lines are fixed
once and for all, and which only requires a subsequent elaboration of the
details. It means a principle - the principle of the workers' self-management of
enterprises and of production...the slogan of "workers' councils," does not mean
assembling fraternally to work in co-operation; it means class struggle - in
which fraternity plays its part - it means revolutionary action by the masses
against state power." - Anton Pannekoek (Pannekoek, 1952)

Conclusion
Through nearly two centuries of experience and struggle various revolutionary
working class ideologies have been smashed against a reality they failed to
anticipate and comprehend. Anarchist-Communism however has not only survived but
has been sharpened through a number of historic experiences. It remains today as
a coherent body of theory and strategy with the vision of a truly free society as
a beacon. Anarchist-Communism is a political ideology with a history deeply
rooted in the struggle of workers for emancipation.

The refinement of the practice of Anarchist-Communists and the specific anarchist
organisation through experience has meant learning from the mistakes and
successes of our own tendency, while also absorbing lessons from the failures and
successes of Marxism and syndicalism. Anarchist-Communist theories of
organisation attempt to balance freedom, democracy and collective responsibility
in a manner that is flexible, responsive and coherent. With the world facing
global challenges in a way it never has before, such as climate change and
pandemics, the vision of anarchist-communism and the strategies of the specific
anarchist organisation are more relevant than ever.

This pamphlet has attempted to make Anarchist-Communist organisational concepts
accessible and clear, in the hope of contributing to the growing relevance of
libertarian ideals. The hope is that the reader may be inspired to join anarchist
organisations, to start their own, or even that they take away some useful
theoretical concepts and reflections in their own journey. The revolution will
not be so limited that it will adopt only a single ideal or label. What matters
is that the struggle continues and we move forward, as ever, towards freedom.

https://www.redblacknotes.com/2022/07/30/foundational-concepts-of-the-specific-anarchist-organisation/

https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2022/10/15/spesifik-anarsist-orgutun-temel-kavramlari-1-tommy-lawson/
_________________________________________
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