"Revolutions without theory do not progress. We, the "Friends of
Durruti," have outlined our thinking, which can be modified asappropriate in major social upheavals, but which revolves around two
essential points that cannot be avoided: a program and rifles."[1]----
The anarchist organizations that subscribe to the Especifist strategy
have held our first Meeting of Especifist Anarchism. This has been the
next step in the journey of self-criticism and reformulation that we
began some time ago, separately but within the same context, and which
led us to affirm Especifism as the framework leading to the revolution
we pursue. Given the occasion, we wish, as militants, to put on the
table the qualitative contributions that the Especifist strategy
provides to the entire class struggle. This is equivalent to explaining
the reasons that lead us to organize in this way and not another, since
we have a militant commitment to our class that leads us to desire its
abolition, as part of the abolition of the class system, in the most
certain way.
The text is divided into four parts plus this introduction. We will
begin by explaining that, as revolutionaries, our actions are driven by
the balance of previous experiences. We will continue by explaining the
concept of dual militancy, a fundamental part of especifismo. In the
third episode, we develop the concept of especifista organization and,
finally, we conclude with the relationship of especifista organization
to strategy.
Before beginning the article, we believe it is appropriate to explain
that when we speak of the working class, we understand it in its
relationship, as a class, not as individuals, to the system that orders
the production and reproduction of our way of life, in its entirety.
That is, the working class cannot be understood without understanding
the totality of the concrete forms of oppression experienced in issues
such as gender, ethnic origin, etc. All of this leads us to
scientifically analyze reality to seek the material basis that generates
the particular conditions in which racist, misogynistic, and other
oppression manifests itself.
1. Balance as a Touchstone
We begin this article by reaffirming that we do not adhere to the
especifist strategy out of chance, attraction to an aesthetic, or the
circumstances that surround us, but rather we propel it forward by
maintaining that "the balance of one's own experience is the hallmark of
a revolutionary movement," as stated in the Path[2]. If we adopt the
especifist strategy and not another, it is because of the balance of the
previous political cycle, which we intend to overcome so as not to make
the same mistakes and, thus, be able to leave behind the burdens that
our ways of organizing carried. By the last cycle, we refer specifically
to the cycle of struggles that began around 2008 with the bursting of
the real estate bubble, took on a mass character with the 15M movement,
and began to peter out after the Marches for Dignity in 2014 and the
Independence Process in 2017. It was already showing itself to be
greatly weakened after the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020.
Specifically and in summary, this assessment takes place in three areas:
in the specific context of our organizational experience, in the
specific moment of the class struggle in Spain, and in general in the
class struggle internationally.[3]
In the first case, the specific organization was adopted to overcome the
limitations of insurrectionary, autonomist, and synthetic organizational
forms within anarchism.[4]At the same time, and sincerely, we positioned
anarchism as the seed of revolution and the abolition of class society.
In the second case, we adopt specificism to reject the interclass
strategy of the movements born under the 15-M movement and the national
liberation movements within grassroots organizations. That is, we
organize within specificist organizations and within the movements that
unite our class to fight for the political independence of the working
class.
We understand the political independence of the working class (or class
independence) as the capacity of the working class to maintain its own
strategy in the class struggle, without being directed by the programs
outlined by its enemy or acting in its favor. We contrast the concept of
class independence with that of interclassism, which is the declared
strategy of class collaboration for the accumulation of forces, and
which is also the current that has dominated the struggle of the last
political cycle. The affirmation of class independence is inseparable
from what we anarchists seek to express when we apply the unity between
means and ends.
In the third case, the historical analysis of the class struggle at the
international level leads us to affirm the need for a specific
organization, an organization with a marked political character that
specifically organizes anarchists who share a specific, collectively
agreed-upon program. This affirmation is not achieved by a mechanical
transfer of the self-criticisms born after the revolutionary defeats of
the Paris Commune, the Liberated Territory of Ukraine, Spain in 1936,
the FAU in the 1970s, etc., but by a comprehensive analysis of their
experiences. This contextualized historical analysis allows us to draw
valuable lessons applicable to the current situation. Therefore, due to
our material conditions, we do not uncritically adopt texts such as The
Organizational Platform for a General Union of Anarchists, COPEI[5], or
the publications of Friends of Durruti in Amigo del Pueblo. An example
of this balance, especially in the area of historical cataloging through
the correlation between theory and practice of the anarchist movement at
the global level, is seen in Felipe Corrêa's Black Flag.
This report is being published in our publication, Regeneración
Libertaria. Regeneración also arises from the reflection, integrated
into the report, on the need for a body that allows us to have our own
voice in the debates taking place within our class and its militant
organizations. We recognize, therefore, that the proletariat with
revolutionary aspirations is not organized exclusively within a single
organizational structure, and a good part of the revolutionary impulse
comes from the dialogue, invalidation, and accreditation of the multiple
revolutionary theses deployed by the organized proletariat in their
respective organizations.
2. Dual Militancy
As a result of the historical assessment we have discussed, we
understand that the specific organization must be in constant contact
with mass organizations, spontaneous forms, and potential organizations
of the working class. The relationship must be one of empowerment, once
again, within a strategic sense.
The need for this relationship stems primarily from the need to
empirically corroborate hypotheses about the revolution, seeing which
forms of organization are useful, which are not, what needs are widely
felt by broad strata of the working class, etc.
This leads us to adopt, at the organizational level, a dual militancy:
on the one hand, militancy within the specific organization and, on the
other, militancy on the multiple fronts arising from the contradictions
of capitalism.[6]
In the first instance, dual militancy gives us the assurance of
positively promoting a front, without co-opting it. Dual militancy
ensures that the specific organization is an organization of militant
cadres, who will work to make their front as useful as possible to the
general interest of the class struggle. In their militancy, in the
specific organization, the militants of the fronts seek to put the
particularity of their struggle at the service of a total strategy,
overcoming isolation within their own field.
This connection is not a tactic born out of nowhere or one that attempts
to dogmatically replicate other periods of struggle, but rather a
response to the independence and "autonomy for autonomy"[7]that has
emerged among the different organizations and sectors of the workers'
struggle. It attempts to overcome the variety of forms of coordination
of struggles in the past cycle, which have partly fostered compromises,
renunciations, and internal conflicts, leading them to serve the
petty-bourgeois program[8].
3. The Especifista Organization
We can say that, unlike "standard" partisan organizations, the
Especifista organization prioritizes the advancement of the fronts of
struggle in the most concrete struggle, positioning itself as a tool for
them. But this is not the distinctive element of the Especifista
organization. The distinctive element of the Especifista organization is
the capacity to generate a total strategy, participating in and drawing
lessons and wisdom from all the fronts of struggle of our class, to
address capitalism as a whole. As part of this overall strategy we wish
to build, we do not thoughtlessly accept the form of the current class
struggle, which we will call the front-form. It is organized around
fronts, de facto unconnected to each other, reflecting the current
fragmentation of the working class and the bourgeois conception of
reality as watertight compartments. If we organize ourselves as
anarchists on these fronts and, consequently, shape the specific
organization also based on these fronts, it is because reality is given
to us, and since we want it to be different, we must influence it to
change it and adapt our tools in the best possible way to transform it.
Consequently, and based on our materialist analysis, today we seek to
bring together and organize within the especifista organization those
who share the political positions we have publicly shared in this
medium. In order to build social strength, our activism in broader
spaces is not necessarily where there are more people for a specific
issue. Rather, adhering to the development of the especifista strategy,
we participate in spaces whose qualitative characteristics are conducive
to accumulating sufficient strength under a class program that generates
a structure with democratic foundations. In this way, we seek to avoid
reproducing the prevailing discourse, the fruit of bourgeois ideology,
in the spaces in which we participate.
Through the especifista organization, we aim to overcome the current
front-form, moving toward a unification of struggles that prefigures the
organic unity of the working class. This organic unity, as the
organization of the entire class, appears possible in different forms,
but it is the balance of militant experience, the current situation, and
the needs of the struggle that will determine what form it takes.
Regardless of this, we consider the content of this organic unity to be
more important than the form, understanding that form and content are
inseparable. The most powerful organizational form is inadequate to its
ultimate goal of abolishing class society if its content is not that of
the revolutionary struggle of the working class. For this reason, we
intervene on the current fronts of struggle to overcome partisan
struggles and conquer and defend the political independence of our
class. Following the doctrine of the unity of means and ends, only by
providing the fronts of struggle with a class program can they achieve
an organic unity of the working class that transcends their current form.
While the proletariat, in numbers, has been the protagonist of the
struggles waged since the beginning of this century, it has not been so
in terms of the interests it defended. Once again, it is evident that no
matter how much a social group is the main protagonist of a movement,
organization, etc., it does not necessarily defend the positions that
benefit it. That is to say, in this case, the class itself does not
intrinsically carry its own program for emancipation, and we must
recognize that, in the form of struggle framed within the "autonomous"
social struggle, some advances have been achieved that improve the
quality of life of our class, the working class. However, to overcome
ourselves as a class, the next struggles we wage must necessarily
develop toward the horizon of libertarian communism. To achieve this,
our main task as a specificist movement is the hegemony of class
discourse and the revolutionary program. This revolutionary program will
be the fruit of the collective effort of the class, of dialogue between
multiple sectors of the class, and of the necessary organic debate that
ends with democratic decision-making and only reopens in light of new
scientific advances that challenge agreed-upon positions.
4. A Strategy for Revolution
Specific-oriented organization is a catalyst for unifying the working
class around a revolutionary theory. The cornerstone that supports the
functions of specific-oriented organization mentioned above is the
specific-oriented organization's capacity to be a center for the
creation of discourse and strategy for the entire working class. This
means that, with dual militancy and social
integration,[9]specific-oriented organization allows the working class
to take stock of its position, its experiences of struggle, and its
enemies, and apply this information to continue advancing on its path
toward abolition.
"We propose that, rather than being led by common sense, the
revolutionary working class, at every moment of the class struggle, has
decided its direction in a rational and scientific manner; that is, at
every moment it has assessed its position, its possibilities, the
information and knowledge available to it, and has acted accordingly."[10]
One of the objectives of the especifista organization is, then, to be a
conscious organ of the revolutionary working class.
As explained in Senda, the lack of its own strategy has been one of the
factors in the victory of interclassism within the working class, and
the especifista organization was born in response to this defeat for our
class. It is logical, then, that the especifista organization wants to
be an organization that orders its actions through revolutionary strategy.
We believe that the especifist organization provides a coherent and
comprehensive response to the need for revolutionary organization in our
time, capable of assuming, promoting, and developing within itself all
fronts with revolutionary potential where our class can intervene. We
maintain that this framework of action can accumulate forces
qualitatively and quantitatively within a revolutionary theory,
embarking on the path that makes revolution possible. It is our militant
responsibility to continue forward, advancing the proletarian cause
until we abolish class society.
In short, we understand especifism as a theoretical framework, with its
concepts defined based on practice and the result of an assessment. This
framework is adaptable, and the specific way we organize ourselves will
respond to the specific situation in which we find ourselves. With
social integration, carried out through dual militancy, we can
contribute to the advancement of the class struggle, going beyond the
concrete and elevating it to the totality of the proletariat's political
struggle for the abolition of class society and, consequently, all
oppression.
T. Morago and Malfainer
[1]Balius, J. (s.f.). A revolutionary theory. The Friend of the People,
5.
https://www.grupgerminal.org/?q=system/files/Unateoriarevolucionaria-Balius-julio37.pdf
[2]https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/02/26/senda-balance-militante-de-la-experiencia-de-la-federacion-estudiantil-libertaria/
[3]For a deeper understanding of the concept of "balance," see
https://serhistorico.net/2023/06/06/la-historia-es-un-campo-de-batalla-mas-de-la-guerra-de-clases-en-curso/
[4]For an introduction to critiques of autonomist and synthesis forms,
read
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/05/29/poder-popular-y-anarquismo-especifista
or https://blackrosefed.org/especifismo-la-praxis-anarquista/. For an
introduction to the critique of the insurrectional conception of
anarchism, see
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2014/10/28/las-razones-del-anarquismo-social/
or
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2014/06/11/can-vies-poder-popular-o-insurreccionalismo/.
[5]Internal strategy documents of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation.
Available at
http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/copei-1a-parte-documentos-de-fau-1972/
and
http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/copei-2a-parte-documentos-de-fau-1972/.
Vía Libre, our sister organization in Colombia, expands on these
documents at
https://grupovialibre.org/2010/11/02/sesion-no-15-reflexiones-sobre-los-textos-copei-i-y-ii-de-la-federacion-anarquista-uruguaya-fau/
[6]https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2023/12/05/el-anarquismo-ante-el-nuevo-ciclo-politico
[7]"By 'autonomy for autonomy' we mean the enshrinement of the freedom
of each assembly, nucleus, or headquarters of a movement to decide on
its theory, strategy, discourse, positions, etc." This has been the norm
in the previous cycle. We oppose this autonomy with the discursive,
tactical, and strategic unity built through honest and effective debate:
"[The effects of autonomy for autonomy's sake]generate an organization
incapable of exercising its mandate: multiplying the anarchist forces
that comprise it, making the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
The will to be a general organization is not enough: mechanisms are
needed to unify positions, to conduct adequate analyses, and to resolve
conflicts." Quotes taken from Senda, cited above.
[8]We do not attribute these renunciations and compromises on the fronts
to autonomy for autonomy's sake or to the fact that a diversity of
agents intervene in these spaces, but rather to the renunciation of
class independence and the lack of a comprehensive and revolutionary
strategic program, symptoms that favor the emergence of reformism. Since
our class during this period lacked a clear vanguard figure capable of
challenging and challenging the hegemonic ideology, the demands that
arose for improved living conditions took shape within this
petty-bourgeois framework of thought with overtones of redistributive
social democracy, but which, by denying the existence of the
proletariat, we do not consider it social democratic.[9]For an
introduction to the concept of social integration and other key concepts
of the specific anarchist organization, see "Fundamental Concepts of the
Specific Anarchist Organization"
(https://mega.nz/file/9XBUHCBR#Ac_HvBd_MVf_q3SF2DX5wVcfv8YUoxse5P190VSDy4M)
translated from
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/tommy-lawson-foundational-concepts-of-the-specific-anarchist-organisation
[10]https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/06/04/el-programatismo-y-el-abolicionismo-en-el-recorrido-de-la-lucha-de-clases/
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/09/30/anarquia-y-cabeza-fria-el-especifismo-como-punta-de-lanza/
_________________________________________
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