This text is intended to place readers-militants or not-in a complex and
sometimes confusing ideology-partly due to a recent informality that weseek to curtail. Our objective is not to delve into the currents or to
unravel the ramifications that may arise from them. Its simplification
is therefore not exempt from interpretations or various disagreements,
which we invite you to share in the comments if they arise. Many of us
began to be active in anarchism without knowing exactly which current we
belonged to. What could be read as a demonstration of accessibility
often became a diffuse and complex amalgamation that distanced doubters,
if not frightened them off. Those of us who, out of conviction or ego
validation, remained in militant spaces ghettoized ourselves without
understanding the causes of this isolationism. We didn't know the
background of our militancy, nor its real implications, which prevented
us from understanding why we ran into an invisible wall whose wounds we
saw in the reflection in the mirror.
First of all, it is necessary to engage in an exercise in honesty-a
necessary path to begin building a revolutionary future. These lines are
written by someone who embraces the Especifista movement as a means to
an end without domination of any kind, be it class or dirigiste
vanguards. Furthermore, they are published in the publication of the
Especifista movement in Spain. Therefore, some readers may feel that
objectivity is conspicuous by its absence, and they would be right.
Objectivity is a fallacy learned in journalism school and purchased in
consumer showcases by equidistant freethinkers. Objectivity doesn't
exist, but honesty does, and we appeal to it so that readers know from
the subjective perspective each text is written, without secrecy or
restrictions.
The idea for this text arose after a training session led by Liza, which
some of us from the state had the pleasure of attending for the last
session. The session addressed current currents and trends in anarchism,
focusing the analysis primarily on the Spanish state. The comrades' work
was based on ethnographic studies and analyses, generating a discourse
on our anarchist praxis. I will draw on their work, as well as on notes
taken by a comrade from Embat. Therefore, this text, like any other
creation, is collective. I trust it will help situate readers within an
ideology that does not constitute a homogeneous whole, which implies
debates and divergences, but also intermediate points or hybrid positions.
Preliminary considerations
Anarchism was born out of revolutionary socialism in 19th-century
Europe. Therefore, it shares the same roots with communism, although
their paths soon diverged due to distinct analyses and methodologies
that remain-or have expanded-to this day. Although bridges or common
frameworks have also been built with tendencies such as libertarian
Marxism. To summarize in the most basic terms, communism of the
Marxist-Leninist tendency advocates a leading party that serves as the
vanguard of the revolution and, through the dictatorship of the
proletariat, empowers the working class to wrest from the bourgeoisie
the power it has held since the French Revolution. Anarchism, on the
other hand, believes that this would lead to a different type of
domination, repression, and immobilized bureaucratization. Therefore, it
advocates self-management, awareness of the inherent conflict,
decision-making within it, and breaking away from any type of oppression
through various tools. This is where debates and disagreements within
the anarchist movement arise, as well as strategies for achieving the
goal, as well as the type of self-management sought.
In the defense of self-management, we can differentiate between
self-managed markets and democratic planning, between collectivism and
communism, between territorial policy and sectoral policy within the
workplace, or between the cultural sphere as a secondary or priority area.
In the strategy to be followed, there are also differences between those
who defend the organization and those who oppose it, those who defend
reforms and those who oppose them, between specific violence and
violence that triggers social change, and between programmatic
organization and flexible organization.
The seemingly dichotomous positions presented in the preceding
paragraphs are not so in the theory and practice of the movement, which
often encompasses positions that fall somewhere between these general
debates, although, depending on the current, they show a greater
inclination toward one of them. Occasionally, we have found a deepening
of positions that has unfortunately bled the movement dry rather than
strengthening it at key moments.
It is important to note that anarcho-feminism, anarcho-environmentalism,
pacifist anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, spiritual anarchism,
philosophical anarchism, religious anarchism, mutualism, utilitarian
anarchism, or the amorphous oxymoron also called anarcho-capitalism,
enhanced by positions of individualist anarchism-the defense of
individual liberty is one of the anarchist values, which is part of a
broader ethical principle linked, at the same time, to collective
liberty, equality, and other values-are not in themselves a movement,
even if they influence broader movements transversally or, sectorally,
achieve resistance or advances in partial struggles. Therefore, none of
them will be analyzed in the following paragraphs. It is also important
to note that the criteria for defining currents can range from the
relationship with the product of labor in a future society, the modes of
intervention and organizational form, as well as
political-philosophical, spiritual, or quasi-religious issues.
1. Anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism
The easiest current of thought to understand at a glance. The capitalist
system is, above all, an economic system based on the labor exploitation
of one class by another. The anarcho-syndicalist approach considers that
work-whether one is a student or unemployed-is what permeates us as a
social class. Under this current of thought, the union would be the
necessary organization to reach the masses, facilitating defense
structures where the working class becomes systematically aware of its
oppression. These structures would serve both as tools of struggle and
as self-organizing bases for a libertarian socialist system. That is,
through improved working conditions, increased solidarity among workers,
and the acquired popular strength, new objectives would be achieved that
would translate into workers taking over businesses, a change in the
economic system, or social revolution.
Strengths
It has the ability to attract and organize large sectors of the
population, making them aware of the class power they harbor.
Furthermore, it has consolidated structures and organized elements
familiar with the structures of the system it seeks to overthrow. It
preserves history and memory as the foundation of its movement, which
can help it avoid repeating mistakes or learn from the past.
Limitations
Following systematic institutional propaganda and the historic defeat
that followed the oil crisis of the 1970s, the subsequent rise of
Thatcher and Reagan to the presidencies of the United Kingdom and the
United States, respectively, and the fall of the USSR in the 1990s,
trade unionism was discredited by many elements-some within the working
class itself. Combative trade unionism is a minority compared to service
unionism, which thrives on obeisance to the state and capital-the CC.OO.
and UGT, among others. The structure of any union can tend toward
bureaucratization and welfare. Its heterogeneous composition, as a mass
organization that seeks to unite the working class, makes it difficult
to build a revolutionary ideology capable of overcoming partial or
reformist struggles, even if its objective is social transformation and
a multistage revolutionary program among its members. Interclassism
within the union can lead to class conflicts, although these can also
occur between elements of the same class. Furthermore,
migrants-unrecognized by the state-will not join this movement due to
the legal problems that can arise in a labor case.
Historical references
Rudolf Rocker, Lucy Parsons, Anselmo Lorenzo, Georges Sorel or the
historical CNT.
Currently
CNT, CGT and Solidaridad Obrera in the Spanish state and, to name
others, the new Anglo-Saxon syndicalism or French revolutionary syndicalism.
2. Insurrectionalism
For the mainstream media, it is the only existing current within
anarchism. The state and capital use the militancy of this tendency to
instill fear in a population educated with values that hold that the
legitimacy of violence is exclusively the state's and that nonviolence
must be the only path for the working class to achieve its goals. In
other words, it is the complete opposite of the insurrectionist
postulates, which consider that through open and direct conflict,
dormant individuals will become aware of the systematic violence of
capitalism. By attempting to expose the violence and repression of the
state, they rely on a popular uprising, thus enabling the indoctrinated
working class to understand anarchist postulates. They understand that
affinity and action groups are the necessary organization to destroy
this system and that other long-lasting and broad-based groups can
replicate the structures of domination and exploitation. The latest
waves of this movement have been influenced by autonomism and, in some
places, by radicalized Maoism and Guevarism with a strong tendency
toward the avant-garde.
Strengths
These small organizations are expected to be agile and anonymous,
enabling rapid and effective operational capacity. In the event of a
violent escalation by the state, they are trained in self-defense and
combativeness against the class enemy and its repressive forces. In
times of heightened social unrest, their actions are more widely
accepted and are a catalyst for further stages of the social revolution.
Insurrectionism in the past aroused fear among the oppressors, which
translated-thanks also to the work of other currents with other types of
organizations-into improvements in the living conditions of our class.
Limitations
They are the greatest exponent of ultra-avant-garde. A small group,
through their actions, influences social dynamics without connecting
with them, influencing other models of struggle or organization. By
prioritizing practice over any theory, they tend to lack processes of
reflection and analysis-and there is no action without ideology, whether
conscious or not; when you act without awareness, you can achieve the
exact opposite of what you intend. With the shift toward a civic-minded
working-class mentality, they have proven incapable of understanding
this logic. Furthermore, they exhibit a shift toward individualism and
lifestyle due to the complacency of their actions and the lack of
self-criticism among the affinity groups that make up this movement.
Historical references
Alfredo M. Bonanno, Johann Most, Severino Di Giovanni, Sergei Nechayev
or John Zerzan.
Currently
Their groups appear and disappear frequently. This isn't the place to
showcase specific groups, so we'll discuss only their dynamics.
3. Autonomism
The majority of collectives, groups, and activist spaces in the state
are autonomist. These include social centers-squatted or not-free radio
stations, self-managed libraries, collective gardens, or libertarian
athenaeums-even those linked to unions-but also broader or experiential
spaces such as communes, Rojava, or the Zapatista Caracols. Most people
who begin to become active in the Spanish state do so within the
autonomist movement without understanding the background of this trend,
which aspires to free up spaces or create projects within the system
that break with its logic. The aspiration of this movement is to create
as many spaces as possible outside of state control in order to weaken
it-as if it were the holes in a Gruyère cheese-although it is more a
practice or unconscious inertia than a theory. In this way, by freeing
up spaces, an alternative system would be created without organization
or relations between the fronts of struggle. While capitalism attempts
to reach every facet of life and deactivate the entire working class,
autonomism's aim is to demonstrate that it cannot reach every place.
Strengths
They attract sectors of the population through diverse concerns that
would otherwise be more difficult to approach-although this often means
they only approach them out of utilitarian interest. They experiment
with critical forms of sociality and serve as support or refuge for
dissidents. They provide support or space for different struggles, even
if these are not framed within their current, which has allowed state
militancy to survive in the wilderness of previous decades. They can be
pleasant spaces for an initial militancy that leads to a more combative
one, although it is important to emphasize the word " can . "
Limitations
The fragility of autonomism is a constant, with groups breaking up due
to individual disputes or militant burnout. They are incapable of
generating a larger structure due to their own sectoral dynamics.
Informal power is a substantial part of their assemblies, and therefore,
they do not escape the logic of domination, although these are not named
and are therefore more diffuse and complex to analyze. They are very
self-satisfied, and the activists in such spaces link their personality
and ego to the collective in question, refusing to accept change or the
very fruitlessness of their struggle. They have very few elements of
initial control, which facilitates police infiltration, as we have seen
in recent years. Being interclassist, they cannot consolidate larger
revolutionary strategies and sometimes end up being more social
democrats than anarchists due to the integration into their structures
of a secretive reformism that they do not know how to or cannot curb.
Instead of creating a new framework for creating free social relations,
they create free social relations with the intention of creating a new
framework, confusing means with ends.
Historical references
Murray Bookchin, Gustav Landauer, Antonio Negri, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,
Hakim Bey or Carlos Taibo.
Currently
CSOs, athenaeums, worker and consumer cooperatives, support groups,
sectoral struggle groups, communes, or Rojava.
4. Specificism or platformism
A recent arrival in the state with the greatest experience in South
America-the differences between platformism and specificism are
beginning to become apparent between the two territories-it believes
that small, temporary, or synthetic organizations do not allow for the
generation of a tool capable of influencing processes of struggle. Thus,
they advocate for a specifically anarchist or dual militancy shared with
other militancy in a front of struggle or synthesis-housing unions,
environmental movements, autonomous spaces, etc.-reviving the
organizational dualism proposed by Bakunin. They consider the creation
of libertarian revolutionary organizations necessary for unified action,
since acting in isolation disperses forces and prevents the generation
of a revolutionary horizon, as the autonomist dynamics that permeate
anarchist militancy prevent addressing current or general class issues.
Each militant is responsible for the organization, and the organization
in turn is responsible for each militant. Within its militants, there
are those who defend cohesion within the organization and those who
defend respect for all individual initiatives. They understand the union
or liberated-autonomous-spaces as spaces in which to have an impact, so
that the libertarian perspective is not lost, without co-opting them.
They advocate militant discipline, self-managed democracy, federalism,
and conciliation between the individual and the collective. They
understand open conflict as inevitable between the dominant class and
the dominated, seeking to equip the working class with popular power
that will help break the chains of oppression, which have become rigid
and rusted over time.
Strengths
It can generate a platform from which to build shared analysis and
reflection. It facilitates the consolidation of a strategy that allows
for unity of action. It seeks to break with the informality and
immobilized disorganization characteristic of the libertarian movement
in recent years. It has the capacity to defend processes of struggle
against bureaucracies and authoritarian deviations. It can generate an
international and internationalist organization. It is under
construction, which is an initial strength due to the militant
motivation that translates into a moving force-in contrast to the walls
these same militants have encountered in other movements.
Limitations
Without a militant code of ethics, it can lead to avant-garde or
dirigiste dynamics. It can also fall into bureaucratization or
sectarianism if praxis and theory are not articulated dialogically. It
could also lead to cisheteropatriarchal power dynamics or violence-as
with other anarchist tendencies-if it does not have protocols for
action, critique, and self-criticism.
Historical references
European platformism-Ida Mett, Nestor Makhno, or Piotr Arshinov-,
Mikhail Bakunin's Democratic Alliance, Errico Malatesta, or Latin
American especifismo.
Currently
OSL (Brazil), FAU (Uruguay), FAR (Argentina), UCL (France), Die Platform
(Germany) and the organizations that make up this media in the Spanish
state.
5. Cultural anarchism
This fifth current is the most diffuse and complex of all; in fact,
doubts about its inclusion have been widespread. Several of the
postulates initially discarded as currents are part of it in a broader
and more abstract sense, such as philosophical and individualist
anarchism. Cultural anarchism permeates all of the previous currents,
although it lacks a clear theory beyond a superficial critique of the
established system or its governing bodies. It believes that by creating
a culture that breaks with the consumerist dogmas of capitalism, more
people will become aware of their lived reality. Its amalgamation ranges
from the aesthetic-clothing, looks , decor-to the artistic-music,
painting, literature, theater-and even the spiritual or religious. It
might not be a current at all and be simply a method of anarchist
propaganda or the creation of class hegemony. A certain type of
autonomism could also be considered the practical implementation of
cultural anarchism.
Strengths
It can bring together people who might not otherwise be drawn to
anarchist circles. It can be considered a counter-hegemonic or
class-hegemonic element that aids or propels a broader and more
inclusive struggle. Emotional or sensorial input is sometimes more
effective in initially creating consciousness in the working class.
Limitations
Capitalism integrates this perfectly by selling the desired emotional
product to this alternative consumer target . Lacking organization and
strong principles, it often results in people buying into the axioms of
capitalism-the young person with the anti-establishment aesthetic of the
1990s is today's landlord. Individuals-culture creators or consumers-see
culture as an end in itself, not a means of propaganda. It is extremely
weak and individualistic.
Historical references
Dissident singer-songwriters, punk groups like the Sex Pistols and Guy
Debord, and Situationism.
Currently
Music groups, writers, filmmakers, theater groups, art groups, cool bars
, and clothing stores, among many others.
Conclusion
While this analysis has attempted to be as meticulous and concise as
possible, I have certainly omitted elements or resorted to banal
simplifications. I therefore ask that criticism be conducted from the
perspective of constructing a shared narrative and seeking collective
improvement. Any notes made on the text will be taken into account and
corrected if the analysis is shared.
We must equip ourselves with a theorization that helps us understand the
historic defeat from which we have emerged in order to overcome it. We
must recognize that each of the militants-and I emphasize militants-who
are part of the previous currents have contributed their grain of sand
in the relentless struggle against a monster that learns from its
mistakes, that devours any disruption, and that has perfected its means
of torture and propaganda. Criticisms of tactics or strategies are made
from the limitations they demonstrate, understanding that they are
necessary-or have been-in emancipatory processes. It is our historical
duty to recognize the successes and failures of all anarchist fighters
and seek new tools that can finally put an end to the opulence and
privileges of our class enemies. We must take steps toward achieving our
goals. I ask readers not to associate themselves personally, as if they
were a political party, with any current or collective; these are merely
a means to a larger objective. No one will be free until we all are.
Thank you for reading.
Andrés Cabrera, Impulso activist.
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/05/08/corrientes-y-tendencias-del-anarquismo-un-breve-resumen/
_________________________________________
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