This is a response to an article titled 'A Letter to the Libertarian
Left', published by the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA-LSC) in August of 2024. ---- Over the course
of several months, members of Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN) devoted time
to discussing and debating this letter internally, as well as with our
comrades abroad. After arriving at shared conclusions, some members of
BRRN were tasked with penning a response. The final draft, which you see
below, was endorsed as a federation statement via membership referendum.
We appreciate the patience of the comrades in DSA-LSC and as we state
below, welcome the opportunity for further dialogue on these topics.
Introduction
We'd like to thank the comrades of the Democratic Socialists of America
- Libertarian Socialist Caucus (DSA-LSC) for their statement, 'A Letter
to the Libertarian Left.' We want to briefly respond to LSC's "Letter"
(as we'll refer to it) while also addressing the wider anarchist and
libertarian socialist left to invite deeper dialogue and debate. We hope
to clarify some shared terminology as well as aspects of Black Rose/Rosa
Negra's (BRRN) general strategic orientation.
We're happy to see wider engagement with the politics and strategy of
especifismo. At the same time, we feel that LSC's Letter tends to
misunderstand or misrepresent core concepts of this growing current.
Social insertion and the mass, intermediate, and political levels are
frameworks for understanding our relationship to mass movements and
informing our practical activity as part of them. They also shape how we
strategically build popular power and forge political alliances to form
a front of dominated classes as the basis for our ultimate objectives:
social revolution and libertarian socialism. To misunderstand or
misapply these concepts has real consequences for our work.
Understanding Especifismo: On Social Insertion, Mass, Intermediate, and
Political Levels
"The level of the social, popular or mass organizations ... This level
is characterized by those organizations who bring together a single
actor of struggle, regardless of their political leanings (trade unions,
student unions, community associations, etc.)."
The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular
Organization, José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.
"[The]intermediate level, brings together members of a single popular
subject with a certain political leaning: this is what makes it
different from the above level. This leaning, though, cannot be as
defined as of one of a political group or party. Certain activists or
militants that share outlook ... come together to form a certain
tendency inside of a bigger movement or organization. A good example can
be a tendency in a trade union..."
The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular
Organization, José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.
"The political level of organization brings together anarchist militants
who share a common ideological perspective and political program. This
level requires a high degree of political and tactical unity and is
aimed at cultivating a 'militant minority' of revolutionaries to engage
in collective analysis and strategy, active involvement in movements,
and political education in and outside of the organization."
Tipping the Scales: Popular Power in an Age of Protest and Pandemic,
Enrique Guerrero-López and Cameron Pádraig, 2021.
LSC's Letter advocates "applying the strategy of social insertion to the
context of organizing within DSA." The idea of social insertion has
generated a lot of interest on the libertarian left in the US recently.
This has been accompanied by both misunderstandings and conceptual
contortions. Social insertion doesn't refer to just any political
activity or involvement within a larger organization. It refers to the
practice of anarchist militants, who are members of a political
organization, collectively implementing a strategy within mass
organizations and movements, e.g. unions and the workers' movement or
tenant unions and the tenants' movement, to "influence their everyday
practice and orientation in an anarchist direction."1
On the surface, this might seem to apply to LSC. On a deeper level,
though, it begins to warp especifismo's conceptual tools, undermining
the political practices they inform. While the Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA) is by far the largest left organization in the US, it
should not be mistaken for a social movement. In especifist terms, it is
a political organization.2 It may be, as the LSC Letter observes, a
political expression of a "variety of socialist tendencies[...]under the
banner of democratic socialism." It may allow for a "big tent" of ideas
and contain within it a number of more unified competing political poles
(i.e. caucuses), but above all DSA is a political organization with its
own political program rooted in the tradition of democratic socialism.3
The fact that a party or organization has caucuses and factions doesn't
change that it is a single political organization. BRRN itself has the
rights of caucuses, minority positions, and factions written into our
constitution. Caucuses within political organizations are just
that-groupings of like-minded members that try to influence the analysis
and strategy of the political organization and how it, in turn, relates
to mass movements. Calling these caucuses "political organizations"
within the "mass movement" of DSA or BRRN can only breed confusion.
We need to clarify the term "mass movement" as well. The concept is not
defined by mere numbers. From the point of view of the conceptions of
especifismo, it's a question of clear content and character based on
social sectors. Sectors are defined by identifiable "actors of struggle"
who are shaped by: "1. Problems that affect them immediately and their
immediate interests; 2. Traditions of struggle and organization
sprouting out from these sets of problems and interests;[and]3. A common
place or activity in society."4 Mass movements (or social movements)
"bring together particular actors of the dominated classes-workers,
tenants, students, immigrants, indigenous peoples, etc.-on the basis of
defending or improving their immediate conditions."5 In other words,
mass movements are made up of ordinary people, independent of political
affiliation, organizing where they live, work, study, and so on.
Democratic socialists-like anarchists-are not themselves a mass
movement. Instead, they are political organizers who try to create
and/or influence mass movements.
To be fair, LSC's Letter suggests that DSA is not so much a mass
movement as "an intermediate organization, also known[...]as a grouping
of tendency." But this only moves the conceptual problems down a level
and multiplies the confusion. For especifismo, a grouping of tendency or
intermediate organization exists in between the mass and the political
levels. Intermediate organization typically exists within a mass
organization or in the context of a larger movement. They bring together
people who share certain affinities around methods and goals but who
aren't united ideologically in the way members of a political
organization would be.6 Examples include caucuses within labor unions,
or formations that begin with dedicated activists organizing wider
layers on the basis of a shared strategy, such as the Labor for
Palestine network of union organizers, as well as the Koreatown Popular
Assembly and East Boston for Palestine neighborhood groups.
On the Front of Dominated Classes
"[The]Front of Dominated Classes seeks to unite the broad base of the
dominated classes in all their diversity, in all their organizational
expressions and demands. While the organized working class remains a
critical component of this front, our fundamental task is to build
bridges between the full range of organized social forces fighting
against the system of domination"
Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power, Black
Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 2023, p. 47.
"We understand the popular organisation[the front of oppressed
classes]as the result of a process of convergence of diverse social
organisations and different grassroots movements, which are fruit of the
class struggle."
Social Anarchism and Organisation, Federação Anarquista do Rio de
Janeiro, 2008, p. 34.
LSC's Letter argues that "DSA has the potential to be an organization
which can unite the socialist tendency of the entire struggle and
produce a force great enough to topple capitalism-what Black Rose
Anarchist Federation describes as the front of dominated classes."
Like other terms so far discussed, we feel that the concept of the
"front of dominated/oppressed classes" is being misapplied here.7 That
the LSC Letter posits that DSA-a political organization in especifist
terms-is, variously, a social/mass movement, an intermediate
organization, and now a possible "front of dominated classes" suggests
that we all need to be more grounded in our terminology. The latter
concept is borrowed from a Latin American context and could use greater
theoretical elaboration in English but nonetheless, at a basic level, it
refers to a coordination of independent social movement forces.8
Although political organizations may work towards the common end of
helping to create a front of dominated classes, neither Black Rose/Rosa
Negra nor any other political organization that works with this concept
should aspire to bring such a front under their own organization's
discipline and banner. The front of dominated classes is a coordination
of independent social movement forces-brought together by their common
social relationship to domination and united by a shared strategic
program. Crucially, by virtue of its democratic and federalist
structure, the front of dominated classes is fortified against
centralization under the solitary authority or leadership of one group
or organization.
On Popular Power and Dual Power
Much of the left (including anarchists) spends its energy caught in
rudderless cycles of protest mobilization, isolated spectacular actions,
inward-facing activist projects, and electoral efforts (either cynical
or sincere) that lead to predictable deadends. As BRRN we're attempting
to carve out an alternative path, focused on building and revitalizing a
certain kind of class power through mass movements, what we call popular
power. As we state in our program, "our general strategy stems from the
recognition that only social movements have the potential for
revolutionary transformation, for sowing the seeds of a new society."9
We are surprised and heartened to see references to popular power in
LSC's Letter. Surprised, because historically LSC has embraced the
notion of dual power-a concept that, while nominally similar, is
distinct from what BRRN and other especifista organizations mean by
popular power.10,11 While both strategies recognize the necessity of
accumulating the social force required to transform society, proponents
of dual power tend to emphasize counter-institutions like worker
cooperatives, community gardens, mutual aid groups, and even credit
unions as the means to achieve this transformation.12 These tactics have
their roots in mutualism, which can be traced back to Pierre
Joseph-Proudhon's vision for social transformation, one that does not
involve a violent revolutionary confrontation between contending
classes, but instead a gradual process of counter-institutions subsuming
and replacing existing state and capitalist structures.13
LSC makes clear in their caucus's founding documents that their own
understanding of dual power does not reject fighting organizations such
as militant labor or tenant unions, but that these mass organizations
are simply part of a wider tapestry that can generate a situation of
so-called dual power.
BRRN diverges from LSC on this strategic question in two ways. First, we
view strategies that center on counter-institutions like worker
cooperatives and credit unions as ineffective. These efforts are far too
tied to-and deformed by-capitalist social and economic relations, do not
build independent combative class power, and fail to confront the power
of capitalism and the state.14 Second, we think an "anything and
everything" approach that incorporates all manner of projects-from
tenant unions to alternative banking-forgos an analysis of conditions
that can clarify which tactics best serve a strategy aimed at building
and leveraging our power, instead placing qualitatively different modes
of struggle on an equal footing in a way that makes it difficult for us
to develop a clear and actionable strategy.
To be clear, we don't on the whole view projects like worker
cooperatives negatively, as they can serve discrete tactical goals. But
we also contend they are no substitute for fighting class organizations
that attend to the most immediate tasks of organizing the unorganized
and engaging in everyday conflicts that increase the confidence and
leverage of the dominated classes. Therefore, we disagree that such
counter-institution projects should be strategically prioritized by
revolutionary organizations. Instead, strategically concentrating our
efforts in specific sectors-workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and
sites of incarceration/policing-where we are building or participating
in fighting mass organizations, allows for a deliberate and calibrated
approach to focus our limited time and energy to advance and grow a
combative, and one day revolutionary, popular power.15
On Forging Alliances With Other Political Actors and Organizations
"The policy of alliances of an anarchist organization, of a tendency, or
of a social movement basically responds to two questions: with whom and
how we are going to unite to achieve a certain objective, be it short
(tactical objective), medium or long term (strategic line).[...]The
discussion of the program precedes the discussion of alliances."
Un Debate sobre la Política de Alianzas, Rafael V. da Silva,
Anarkismo.net, 2012,[Translated from the Spanish, original in
Portuguese; emphasis our own].
It's common for those on the left to form groups and organizations based
on ideological labels rather than political practices. This creates
fairly heterogeneous organizations under very broad banners, often with
little concrete agreement about practical details. In contrast, the
organizational dualist approach to which BRRN adheres doesn't seek unity
based solely on shared political ideology (much less shared labels), but
considers unity of strategy and tactics to be just as important.16
While we welcome the opportunity to dialogue with groups who share
similar principles, our approach to deeper collaboration is based
primarily on shared organizing work and strategic alignment. We tend to
concentrate, as our political program says, on "developing relationships
and alliances with individuals, organizations, and institutions that are
broadly in line with our general strategy."17 This means that we forge
alliances with groups who share an overlapping strategy in common sites
of struggle-i.e. where we are in the same workplace fights, tenant and
neighborhood struggles, anti-carceral campaigns, and beyond. In many
cases, this leads us to work with groups and members of political
organizations who do not emerge from the libertarian socialist
tradition, but who do share or have strong overlaps with our short-term
strategic priorities.
Conclusion
Again, we want to thank the comrades of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus
for opening this dialogue. Although there are differences in principles,
approach, and ideology between our organizations, we are encouraged by
the significant steps that LSC has taken recently to grapple with
important political and strategic questions.
Our above reflections are not meant to be pedantic or sectarian. LSC is
a unique historical formation: a libertarian socialist caucus within a
larger political organization. This being the case, we think that this
unique formation deserves its own novel theoretical and strategic
apparatus. Trying to shoehorn it into pre-existing especifista concepts
does both a disservice to the particularity of LSC's struggle within DSA
as well as confuses and dilutes the concepts of especifismo to a point
that renders them vague and imprecise.
Political debate and dialogue are critical for any robust revolutionary
movement. We hope to continue this discussion both in public and in
private, and we think LSC has usefully honed in on questions that are
crucial to organized anarchism and to a wider audience.
Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation
February 2025
Notes
"Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power," Black
Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 2023, p. 42.
For a discussion of the levels of organization framework which informs
our perspective, see: "The Problems Posed by the Concrete Struggle and
Popular Organization," José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005; "Tipping the
Scales: Popular Power in an Age of Protest and Pandemic," Enrique
Guerrero-López and Cameron Pádraig, Perspectives on Anarchist Theory
Journal no. 32, 2021.
"2024 DSA Program: Workers Deserve More," 2024.dsausa.org.
"The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular
Organization," José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.
"Turning the Tide," p. 40.; See also the definition for 'social
movement' offered on p. 34 of FARJ's "Social Anarchism and Organisation".
"Tendency Groups," Felipe Corrêa, 2010.
Black Rose/Rosa Negra refers to this formation as the "front of
dominated classes". Other organizations, such as the Federación
Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) and Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF)
have used the phrase "front of oppressed classes" to refer to the same
concept.
For the concept's historical roots see "The Strategy of Especifismo,"
Juan Carlos Mechoso and Felipe Corrêa, Anarkismo.net, 2009. For a
historical example of the Front of Dominated Classes, see Anarchist
Popular Power, Dissident Labor and Armed Struggle in Uruguay, 1956-76,
Troy Andreas Araiza Kokinis, AK Press 2023.
"Turning the Tide," p. 36.
It is important to note that the use of 'dual power' by anarchists,
particularly in North America, extends back at least three decades. Now
dissolved anarchist and other libertarian socialist formations-including
those which Black Rose/Rosa Negra directly descends from-such as Love
and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, Bring the Ruckus, and North
Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists deployed the concept of 'dual
power' at points in their history. Confusingly, each organization used
the concept somewhat differently, with some hewing closer to the
original definition as articulated by Lenin and others incorporating the
gradualism described in the body of this writing.
For more on the concept of popular power specifically, see: "Create a
Strong People: Discussions on Popular Power," Felipe Corrêa, 2010; "The
Strategy of Especifismo," Juan Carlos Mechoso and Felipe Corrêa,
Anarkismo.net, 2009.
"Our Principles," dsa-lsc.org.
See "The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era",
Vol. 2, Murray Bookchin, 1998, pp. 39-43; "What, if Anything, is a Dual
Power Strategy?," Wayne Price, The Northeastern Anarchist no. 5, 2002;
and "Anarchists and Dual Power: Situation or Strategy?," Matt Crossin,
Red and Black Notes, 2022.
For a more in depth discussion on dual power and the evolutionary
strategy of building alternative institutions, we would refer readers to
Overcoming Capitalism, Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st
Century, Tom Wetzel, 2022, pp. 214-221. Available online here.
"Going on the Offensive: Movements, Multisectorality, and Political
Strategy," Lusbert Garcia, Regeneración Libertaria, 2015.
For a discussion of organizational dualism, see: "Organizational Issues
within Anarchism," Felipe Corrêa, Institute for Anarchist Theory and
History, 2022; Anarchist Communist: A Question of Class, Federazione dei
Comunisti Anarchici, 2003.
"Turning the Tide," p. 46.
https://www.blackrosefed.org/clarifying-especifismo-lsc-response/
_________________________________________
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
Left', published by the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA-LSC) in August of 2024. ---- Over the course
of several months, members of Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN) devoted time
to discussing and debating this letter internally, as well as with our
comrades abroad. After arriving at shared conclusions, some members of
BRRN were tasked with penning a response. The final draft, which you see
below, was endorsed as a federation statement via membership referendum.
We appreciate the patience of the comrades in DSA-LSC and as we state
below, welcome the opportunity for further dialogue on these topics.
Introduction
We'd like to thank the comrades of the Democratic Socialists of America
- Libertarian Socialist Caucus (DSA-LSC) for their statement, 'A Letter
to the Libertarian Left.' We want to briefly respond to LSC's "Letter"
(as we'll refer to it) while also addressing the wider anarchist and
libertarian socialist left to invite deeper dialogue and debate. We hope
to clarify some shared terminology as well as aspects of Black Rose/Rosa
Negra's (BRRN) general strategic orientation.
We're happy to see wider engagement with the politics and strategy of
especifismo. At the same time, we feel that LSC's Letter tends to
misunderstand or misrepresent core concepts of this growing current.
Social insertion and the mass, intermediate, and political levels are
frameworks for understanding our relationship to mass movements and
informing our practical activity as part of them. They also shape how we
strategically build popular power and forge political alliances to form
a front of dominated classes as the basis for our ultimate objectives:
social revolution and libertarian socialism. To misunderstand or
misapply these concepts has real consequences for our work.
Understanding Especifismo: On Social Insertion, Mass, Intermediate, and
Political Levels
"The level of the social, popular or mass organizations ... This level
is characterized by those organizations who bring together a single
actor of struggle, regardless of their political leanings (trade unions,
student unions, community associations, etc.)."
The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular
Organization, José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.
"[The]intermediate level, brings together members of a single popular
subject with a certain political leaning: this is what makes it
different from the above level. This leaning, though, cannot be as
defined as of one of a political group or party. Certain activists or
militants that share outlook ... come together to form a certain
tendency inside of a bigger movement or organization. A good example can
be a tendency in a trade union..."
The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular
Organization, José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.
"The political level of organization brings together anarchist militants
who share a common ideological perspective and political program. This
level requires a high degree of political and tactical unity and is
aimed at cultivating a 'militant minority' of revolutionaries to engage
in collective analysis and strategy, active involvement in movements,
and political education in and outside of the organization."
Tipping the Scales: Popular Power in an Age of Protest and Pandemic,
Enrique Guerrero-López and Cameron Pádraig, 2021.
LSC's Letter advocates "applying the strategy of social insertion to the
context of organizing within DSA." The idea of social insertion has
generated a lot of interest on the libertarian left in the US recently.
This has been accompanied by both misunderstandings and conceptual
contortions. Social insertion doesn't refer to just any political
activity or involvement within a larger organization. It refers to the
practice of anarchist militants, who are members of a political
organization, collectively implementing a strategy within mass
organizations and movements, e.g. unions and the workers' movement or
tenant unions and the tenants' movement, to "influence their everyday
practice and orientation in an anarchist direction."1
On the surface, this might seem to apply to LSC. On a deeper level,
though, it begins to warp especifismo's conceptual tools, undermining
the political practices they inform. While the Democratic Socialists of
America (DSA) is by far the largest left organization in the US, it
should not be mistaken for a social movement. In especifist terms, it is
a political organization.2 It may be, as the LSC Letter observes, a
political expression of a "variety of socialist tendencies[...]under the
banner of democratic socialism." It may allow for a "big tent" of ideas
and contain within it a number of more unified competing political poles
(i.e. caucuses), but above all DSA is a political organization with its
own political program rooted in the tradition of democratic socialism.3
The fact that a party or organization has caucuses and factions doesn't
change that it is a single political organization. BRRN itself has the
rights of caucuses, minority positions, and factions written into our
constitution. Caucuses within political organizations are just
that-groupings of like-minded members that try to influence the analysis
and strategy of the political organization and how it, in turn, relates
to mass movements. Calling these caucuses "political organizations"
within the "mass movement" of DSA or BRRN can only breed confusion.
We need to clarify the term "mass movement" as well. The concept is not
defined by mere numbers. From the point of view of the conceptions of
especifismo, it's a question of clear content and character based on
social sectors. Sectors are defined by identifiable "actors of struggle"
who are shaped by: "1. Problems that affect them immediately and their
immediate interests; 2. Traditions of struggle and organization
sprouting out from these sets of problems and interests;[and]3. A common
place or activity in society."4 Mass movements (or social movements)
"bring together particular actors of the dominated classes-workers,
tenants, students, immigrants, indigenous peoples, etc.-on the basis of
defending or improving their immediate conditions."5 In other words,
mass movements are made up of ordinary people, independent of political
affiliation, organizing where they live, work, study, and so on.
Democratic socialists-like anarchists-are not themselves a mass
movement. Instead, they are political organizers who try to create
and/or influence mass movements.
To be fair, LSC's Letter suggests that DSA is not so much a mass
movement as "an intermediate organization, also known[...]as a grouping
of tendency." But this only moves the conceptual problems down a level
and multiplies the confusion. For especifismo, a grouping of tendency or
intermediate organization exists in between the mass and the political
levels. Intermediate organization typically exists within a mass
organization or in the context of a larger movement. They bring together
people who share certain affinities around methods and goals but who
aren't united ideologically in the way members of a political
organization would be.6 Examples include caucuses within labor unions,
or formations that begin with dedicated activists organizing wider
layers on the basis of a shared strategy, such as the Labor for
Palestine network of union organizers, as well as the Koreatown Popular
Assembly and East Boston for Palestine neighborhood groups.
On the Front of Dominated Classes
"[The]Front of Dominated Classes seeks to unite the broad base of the
dominated classes in all their diversity, in all their organizational
expressions and demands. While the organized working class remains a
critical component of this front, our fundamental task is to build
bridges between the full range of organized social forces fighting
against the system of domination"
Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power, Black
Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 2023, p. 47.
"We understand the popular organisation[the front of oppressed
classes]as the result of a process of convergence of diverse social
organisations and different grassroots movements, which are fruit of the
class struggle."
Social Anarchism and Organisation, Federação Anarquista do Rio de
Janeiro, 2008, p. 34.
LSC's Letter argues that "DSA has the potential to be an organization
which can unite the socialist tendency of the entire struggle and
produce a force great enough to topple capitalism-what Black Rose
Anarchist Federation describes as the front of dominated classes."
Like other terms so far discussed, we feel that the concept of the
"front of dominated/oppressed classes" is being misapplied here.7 That
the LSC Letter posits that DSA-a political organization in especifist
terms-is, variously, a social/mass movement, an intermediate
organization, and now a possible "front of dominated classes" suggests
that we all need to be more grounded in our terminology. The latter
concept is borrowed from a Latin American context and could use greater
theoretical elaboration in English but nonetheless, at a basic level, it
refers to a coordination of independent social movement forces.8
Although political organizations may work towards the common end of
helping to create a front of dominated classes, neither Black Rose/Rosa
Negra nor any other political organization that works with this concept
should aspire to bring such a front under their own organization's
discipline and banner. The front of dominated classes is a coordination
of independent social movement forces-brought together by their common
social relationship to domination and united by a shared strategic
program. Crucially, by virtue of its democratic and federalist
structure, the front of dominated classes is fortified against
centralization under the solitary authority or leadership of one group
or organization.
On Popular Power and Dual Power
Much of the left (including anarchists) spends its energy caught in
rudderless cycles of protest mobilization, isolated spectacular actions,
inward-facing activist projects, and electoral efforts (either cynical
or sincere) that lead to predictable deadends. As BRRN we're attempting
to carve out an alternative path, focused on building and revitalizing a
certain kind of class power through mass movements, what we call popular
power. As we state in our program, "our general strategy stems from the
recognition that only social movements have the potential for
revolutionary transformation, for sowing the seeds of a new society."9
We are surprised and heartened to see references to popular power in
LSC's Letter. Surprised, because historically LSC has embraced the
notion of dual power-a concept that, while nominally similar, is
distinct from what BRRN and other especifista organizations mean by
popular power.10,11 While both strategies recognize the necessity of
accumulating the social force required to transform society, proponents
of dual power tend to emphasize counter-institutions like worker
cooperatives, community gardens, mutual aid groups, and even credit
unions as the means to achieve this transformation.12 These tactics have
their roots in mutualism, which can be traced back to Pierre
Joseph-Proudhon's vision for social transformation, one that does not
involve a violent revolutionary confrontation between contending
classes, but instead a gradual process of counter-institutions subsuming
and replacing existing state and capitalist structures.13
LSC makes clear in their caucus's founding documents that their own
understanding of dual power does not reject fighting organizations such
as militant labor or tenant unions, but that these mass organizations
are simply part of a wider tapestry that can generate a situation of
so-called dual power.
BRRN diverges from LSC on this strategic question in two ways. First, we
view strategies that center on counter-institutions like worker
cooperatives and credit unions as ineffective. These efforts are far too
tied to-and deformed by-capitalist social and economic relations, do not
build independent combative class power, and fail to confront the power
of capitalism and the state.14 Second, we think an "anything and
everything" approach that incorporates all manner of projects-from
tenant unions to alternative banking-forgos an analysis of conditions
that can clarify which tactics best serve a strategy aimed at building
and leveraging our power, instead placing qualitatively different modes
of struggle on an equal footing in a way that makes it difficult for us
to develop a clear and actionable strategy.
To be clear, we don't on the whole view projects like worker
cooperatives negatively, as they can serve discrete tactical goals. But
we also contend they are no substitute for fighting class organizations
that attend to the most immediate tasks of organizing the unorganized
and engaging in everyday conflicts that increase the confidence and
leverage of the dominated classes. Therefore, we disagree that such
counter-institution projects should be strategically prioritized by
revolutionary organizations. Instead, strategically concentrating our
efforts in specific sectors-workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and
sites of incarceration/policing-where we are building or participating
in fighting mass organizations, allows for a deliberate and calibrated
approach to focus our limited time and energy to advance and grow a
combative, and one day revolutionary, popular power.15
On Forging Alliances With Other Political Actors and Organizations
"The policy of alliances of an anarchist organization, of a tendency, or
of a social movement basically responds to two questions: with whom and
how we are going to unite to achieve a certain objective, be it short
(tactical objective), medium or long term (strategic line).[...]The
discussion of the program precedes the discussion of alliances."
Un Debate sobre la Política de Alianzas, Rafael V. da Silva,
Anarkismo.net, 2012,[Translated from the Spanish, original in
Portuguese; emphasis our own].
It's common for those on the left to form groups and organizations based
on ideological labels rather than political practices. This creates
fairly heterogeneous organizations under very broad banners, often with
little concrete agreement about practical details. In contrast, the
organizational dualist approach to which BRRN adheres doesn't seek unity
based solely on shared political ideology (much less shared labels), but
considers unity of strategy and tactics to be just as important.16
While we welcome the opportunity to dialogue with groups who share
similar principles, our approach to deeper collaboration is based
primarily on shared organizing work and strategic alignment. We tend to
concentrate, as our political program says, on "developing relationships
and alliances with individuals, organizations, and institutions that are
broadly in line with our general strategy."17 This means that we forge
alliances with groups who share an overlapping strategy in common sites
of struggle-i.e. where we are in the same workplace fights, tenant and
neighborhood struggles, anti-carceral campaigns, and beyond. In many
cases, this leads us to work with groups and members of political
organizations who do not emerge from the libertarian socialist
tradition, but who do share or have strong overlaps with our short-term
strategic priorities.
Conclusion
Again, we want to thank the comrades of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus
for opening this dialogue. Although there are differences in principles,
approach, and ideology between our organizations, we are encouraged by
the significant steps that LSC has taken recently to grapple with
important political and strategic questions.
Our above reflections are not meant to be pedantic or sectarian. LSC is
a unique historical formation: a libertarian socialist caucus within a
larger political organization. This being the case, we think that this
unique formation deserves its own novel theoretical and strategic
apparatus. Trying to shoehorn it into pre-existing especifista concepts
does both a disservice to the particularity of LSC's struggle within DSA
as well as confuses and dilutes the concepts of especifismo to a point
that renders them vague and imprecise.
Political debate and dialogue are critical for any robust revolutionary
movement. We hope to continue this discussion both in public and in
private, and we think LSC has usefully honed in on questions that are
crucial to organized anarchism and to a wider audience.
Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation
February 2025
Notes
"Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power," Black
Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 2023, p. 42.
For a discussion of the levels of organization framework which informs
our perspective, see: "The Problems Posed by the Concrete Struggle and
Popular Organization," José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005; "Tipping the
Scales: Popular Power in an Age of Protest and Pandemic," Enrique
Guerrero-López and Cameron Pádraig, Perspectives on Anarchist Theory
Journal no. 32, 2021.
"2024 DSA Program: Workers Deserve More," 2024.dsausa.org.
"The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular
Organization," José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.
"Turning the Tide," p. 40.; See also the definition for 'social
movement' offered on p. 34 of FARJ's "Social Anarchism and Organisation".
"Tendency Groups," Felipe Corrêa, 2010.
Black Rose/Rosa Negra refers to this formation as the "front of
dominated classes". Other organizations, such as the Federación
Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) and Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF)
have used the phrase "front of oppressed classes" to refer to the same
concept.
For the concept's historical roots see "The Strategy of Especifismo,"
Juan Carlos Mechoso and Felipe Corrêa, Anarkismo.net, 2009. For a
historical example of the Front of Dominated Classes, see Anarchist
Popular Power, Dissident Labor and Armed Struggle in Uruguay, 1956-76,
Troy Andreas Araiza Kokinis, AK Press 2023.
"Turning the Tide," p. 36.
It is important to note that the use of 'dual power' by anarchists,
particularly in North America, extends back at least three decades. Now
dissolved anarchist and other libertarian socialist formations-including
those which Black Rose/Rosa Negra directly descends from-such as Love
and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, Bring the Ruckus, and North
Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists deployed the concept of 'dual
power' at points in their history. Confusingly, each organization used
the concept somewhat differently, with some hewing closer to the
original definition as articulated by Lenin and others incorporating the
gradualism described in the body of this writing.
For more on the concept of popular power specifically, see: "Create a
Strong People: Discussions on Popular Power," Felipe Corrêa, 2010; "The
Strategy of Especifismo," Juan Carlos Mechoso and Felipe Corrêa,
Anarkismo.net, 2009.
"Our Principles," dsa-lsc.org.
See "The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era",
Vol. 2, Murray Bookchin, 1998, pp. 39-43; "What, if Anything, is a Dual
Power Strategy?," Wayne Price, The Northeastern Anarchist no. 5, 2002;
and "Anarchists and Dual Power: Situation or Strategy?," Matt Crossin,
Red and Black Notes, 2022.
For a more in depth discussion on dual power and the evolutionary
strategy of building alternative institutions, we would refer readers to
Overcoming Capitalism, Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st
Century, Tom Wetzel, 2022, pp. 214-221. Available online here.
"Going on the Offensive: Movements, Multisectorality, and Political
Strategy," Lusbert Garcia, Regeneración Libertaria, 2015.
For a discussion of organizational dualism, see: "Organizational Issues
within Anarchism," Felipe Corrêa, Institute for Anarchist Theory and
History, 2022; Anarchist Communist: A Question of Class, Federazione dei
Comunisti Anarchici, 2003.
"Turning the Tide," p. 46.
https://www.blackrosefed.org/clarifying-especifismo-lsc-response/
_________________________________________
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
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten