INTRODUCTION ---- The objective of this article is to illustrate the
debate between the Russians and Malatesta-primarily between Makhno and
Malatesta-regarding the Platform proposal. This proposal emerged in the
journal Dielo Truda[1]as an idea formulated by several Russian
anarchists who analyzed how the libertarian political force had a
disorganized and uncoordinated influence during the Russian Revolution,
which favored the revolution's fall into the hands of state
authoritarianism. It is important to understand the historical moment of
the proposal to understand its reception and meaning. Specifically, I
will focus on the underlying debate found in the exchange of opinions in
these letters: How can we anarchists provide a libertarian direction to
the social revolution?
This question, which I pose as the underlying idea motivating the
debate, presupposes two fundamental points. First, the necessity of a
social revolution-Bakunin's characterization of revolution as opposed to
a political revolution-to emancipate the working class from capitalism
and all domination. Second, the realization that a social revolution
will have a specific political direction. In this last phrase, direction
is used not as a command but as a path, framework, and orientation, that
is, answering the question: What society is building this revolution?
Therefore, what society is prefiguring the revolutionary processes in
which we intervene?
In this way, I position the debate between Malatesta's and Makhno's
letters as a debate that must be revived in the present because it
evokes the most important issue for a revolutionary organization: What
should be the role of the revolutionary organization and how does it
define itself? In this case, in the context of the proposed platform,
the debate about political direction and how we anarchists organize and
act to achieve the objective we set for ourselves. This debate, once
revived, allows us to formulate questions and define challenges
regarding the path that the recent especifist movement in Spain is
beginning to forge. And, as a debate more relevant than ever-also
international-about how to constitute a libertarian organization that
can develop and achieve its proposed objectives and how, specifically,
it intervenes in the spaces of self-organization of the class.
Furthermore, assessing the current Spanish and Catalan political
context, with recent years in which new strategic political bets are
emerging from certain sectors, it is necessary to assess what role
anarchists should have in this map and how we can carry out what we
propose: To be the direction - again in terms of path - that the
revolutionary processes take, since, and to conclude the brief
presentation of intentions, as Makhno said in the text of the platform:
"More than any other concept, anarchism must be the guiding concept of
the revolution, because it is only on the theoretical basis of anarchism
that the Social Revolution can triumph in the complete emancipation of
labor."
Thus, to further define the terms of the debate, one of the questions
about the direction the revolution is taking is, in our view, the
question of the role of the political organization that seeks to
intervene in the processes of class self-organization so that they take
a certain direction. This resonates with the following questions:
Why do we need to organize? Who organizes? How do we organize? And what
do we want to do? That is, how and what do we want to intervene in?
Influence - Direct
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES ARE BOTH STRATEGIC
As I explained at the beginning, the underlying question of the
Platform's proposal and the debate between Makhno and Malatesta is none
other than how anarchist political leadership articulates itself in
revolutionary processes and the construction of the workers' movement.
For this reason, organizational challenges are simultaneously strategic,
since the answers to how we organize ourselves simultaneously reflect
what we want to do.
To begin, I will point out a series of debates that arise regarding
Malatesta's criticisms of the Dielo Truda proposal, and to which Makhno
responds. These criticisms I classify primarily into two types: those
related to the internal organization and those related to the political
practice of the organization, both centralism and authoritarianism. Some
are directed toward the organizational proposal and its theoretical
construction, and others, conversely, are directed toward the
organization's managerial practice. Precisely for this reason, they are
interesting, as they illustrate how, fundamentally, deciding in
organizational terms implies deciding in political and strategic terms;
that is, how the organizational definition interpellates anarchist
political leadership in the processes of the working class.
On the one hand, regarding the entire series of criticisms surrounding
the organization's internal structure, we find two central themes that
Malatesta strongly questions: the organization's centralism and
authoritarianism. Malatesta's critiques focus on the indisputable
coherence between means and ends as the backbone of any liberating
practice, since the means determine the end achieved. Therefore, in line
with this position, it is necessary to establish means that truly allow
us to reach our horizons, which, in turn, are prefigured in the chosen
means. From this starting point, two central critiques are developed.
The first criticism of the internal organization argues that theoretical
homogenization and collective commitment-for Malatesta, collective
commitment and collective responsibility are very delicate issues on
which he never fully agrees with Makhno-of following a program,
strategy, and tactics together with collective responsibility
constitutes, for him, an authoritarian attitude toward the diverse-and
irreconcilable-anarchist tendencies. The second criticism maintains that
centralism is achieved through an executive committee of the
organization, which decides the theoretical line and, in addition,
mandates what the various spaces should do; that is, it exerts
ideological and tactical direction over the practice of the union's
members and organizations.
On the other hand, as a complement to these two organizational critiques
, the political critique of the organization's actions , the central
theme of this article: The organization's capacity for influence, that
is, the political direction that the organization proposes to the spaces
in which it intervenes. The critique is the following: How can an
anarchist organization like this one influence politically if not
through authoritarianism and direction? According to Malatesta, from
this organizational approach the influence will be authoritarian. This
illustrates that organizational issues are also strategic.
However, we cannot accept these criticisms as acceptable, since they are
completely wrong and the result of a lack of understanding rather than
political disagreement, as Correa also claims[2]. Even so, the
criticisms point to more than relevant issues that should be taken into
account by any organization of this current.
The common starting point and organizational debates
By pointing out that organizational issues are strategic, I intend to
point out, specifically, that every decision concerning both the
organizational structure and the political purposes of this organization
is, ultimately, a strategic response to a problem: capitalist
exploitation, domination, and the need to radically transform this
system with the advent of libertarian communism. Once the problem and
the need have been identified, it is necessary to consider what role
anarchism, that is, the libertarian political force, should play.
It is on this point, regarding the role that anarchist political force
should play, that in my opinion, Makhno and Malatesta ultimately
demonstrate, among several clarifications, that they agree. In
Malatesta's words: "On the contrary, I believe that we anarchists,
convinced of the validity of our program, must aim to acquire enormous
influence in order to lead the movement toward the realization of our
ideals." In other words, we must work to ensure that revolutionary
processes have an anarchist political direction .
The starting point is common, but the organizational disagreements are
so great that, at certain points, they can develop irreconcilable
approaches.
On the one hand, there are organizational issues: the debate over
centralism, the authority of the executive committee, Malatesta's need
for individual responsibility, and the homogenization of theoretical,
ideological, and strategic approaches. These organizational debates are
an expression of the underlying political debate between the need for
coordinated actions under common positions and the coherence between
means and ends so as not to reproduce the logic of domination, both
internally and in the organization's political practice-that is, the
debate over political practice . Therefore, these "organizational"
debates, at their core, directly impact an approach that comes later in
Malatesta's second letter: the debate over the "managerial role" of
anarchists and its content.
In this way, a clear map is drawn that shows the complexity of the
debate in its disagreements and agreements: a clear agreement regarding
the need for the revolution to assume a libertarian direction. However,
disagreements regarding how anarchists-that is, what concrete actions
anarchists take and how we organize ourselves-can achieve this goal. On
this point, Makhno seems to propose a theoretical and practical unity
that Malatesta interprets as authoritarian and centralist and, for these
reasons, precisely not anarchist. In this sense, Correa argues that
there is no agreement on the question of individual or collective
responsibility. In short, there are disagreements regarding the internal
organization and the role of anarchism in revolutionary processes.
In conclusion, regarding this first section of the article, I intended
to show that while Makhno and Malatesta's shared starting point is the
need for the revolution to have a libertarian direction in order to
achieve libertarian communism, there are disagreements about how to
accomplish this task and the role we anarchists should play. These
disagreements materialize in central issues for specific anarchist
organization. Illustrating, ultimately, that what is at stake is how
anarchists ensure that revolutionary processes have a libertarian
political direction and that, ultimately, all these organizational
debates are simultaneously strategic in clarifying how we accomplish
this task we assign ourselves.
INDETERMINATION LEADS TO MULTIFORM ACTION - THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL
DIRECTION
In this section, to continue developing the debate present in the
exchange of letters, I will delve more fully into the issue of political
leadership. To begin, I consider it appropriate to introduce a few
questions that reveal the doubts that determine the approach of this
second section of the article: Are influencing and leading the same
thing? Why? Do we want anarchism-and therefore anarchists-to assume a
leadership role? In what sense is it different from the communist
strategy followed by Marxism-Leninism? And between an active minority
and a vanguard? Which should we choose?
First of all, a necessary clarification: These rather biased questions
stem from concerns and a desire to fully develop the anarchist political
approach and push it to its limits, in order to understand and define it
collectively and be able to act accordingly. The need for a collectively
assumed definition is fundamental; indeterminacy leads to multiform
action; that is, what is not defined is filled with diverse forms that,
ultimately, can be irreconcilable or very little connected. For this
reason, it is necessary to pose all these questions and be able to
answer them in order to define our framework for intervention. In no
case, however, do these questions seek to be assimilated into a vanguard
specific to Marxism-Leninism. Thus, I will delve very briefly into these
issues with the intention of leaving more open questions than closed
answers, because the debate must be collective in order to translate
into an efficient and consolidated practice.
Generally speaking, I believe that when, from a specific perspective, we
assert that what we want is to influence, we fail to fully develop our
objectives: to ensure that the processes of class self-organization have
a libertarian direction. I wonder if this is the result of an aesthetic
fear that identifies individual action as anarchist militants as the
space where, par excellence, we must maintain purity between means and
ends and that, therefore, we do not allow ourselves to assume roles of
leadership, direction, or more active influence. I think that this is
often, unfortunately, the reason, and that, consequently, we must free
ourselves from this fear in order to analyze our intervention on a
collective rather than an individual scale, taking into account the
correlation of these two dimensions, but defining our role as an
organization, not as individuals.
So, what is the definition of influencing a grassroots space, a social
movement, a union branch, a trade union, or a leadership space of a
union organization or social movement? On the other hand, what would be
the definition of leading? I understand influencing as leaving a certain
mark on the space, throwing a stone, hiding one's hand and seeing what
happens, leaving a certain mark. On the other hand, I understand leading
as two possibilities: commanding and doing what one says, or, on the
other hand, convincing the space of the need for a direction-
organizational functioning and political aspirations-that one proposes
and defends. This second option is related to hegemonizing . That is,
making our positions hegemonic and, therefore, giving a specific
direction to the specific space.
For this specific issue I find it relevant to refer to two articles in
Regeneración, one on the avant-garde[3]and the other on
hegemonization[4]. Specifically, the issue of the avant-garde is not a
resolved debate, I will simply use the term as a way of explaining what
task we have to do as organized anarchists.
On the one hand, in dialogue with Regeneración's article on the
anarchist vanguard, it seems that the task of the so-called anarchist
vanguard is precisely this: to provide libertarian leadership in the
space of class self-organization in which it militates and intervenes.
On the other hand, in dialogue with Regeneración's other article on
hegemony, hegemony is defined as the capacity for our proposals to be
adopted by the working class, in line with what is presented here as the
leadership. In other words, to hegemonize is to provide a specific
political direction, since, fundamentally, our proposals are politically
charged.
For all these reasons, it makes sense to ask the following question: If,
as an organization, we must provide libertarian political leadership to
the processes of class self-organization-that is, all those
organizations that defend class interests and do so by developing a
strategy that allows them to fight for their interests- how do we direct
these spaces? What types of leadership do we provide, and how do we
participate in the spaces of activism in which we participate? In short:
what do we do to provide that leadership?
For all of the reasons mentioned above, we also urgently need to
consider: What role does anarchist organization play in revolutionary
processes? Therefore, how do we ensure that the revolution takes an
anarchist direction? The fact is that we must delve into this " how" and
define its content and the tasks to be carried out, both immediate and
medium- and long-term. This is necessary because indeterminacy leads to
multiform action; that is, everything that is not defined can be defined
in different ways that, ultimately, may be irreconcilable. Therefore, in
order to carry out collective action, a collective theoretical
definition is necessary to guide it.
CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, I want to begin by showing the questions Makhno asks
Malatesta when talking about the task of anarchists to give direction
and how we should do it.
1. Should anarchism bear any responsibility for the workers' struggle
against their oppressors, capitalism, and its servants of the state? If
not, explain why. If not, should anarchists work to enable their
movement to exert its influence on the very foundations of the existing
social order?
2. Can anarchism, in its current state of disorganization, exert any
ideological and practical influence on social events and the struggle of
the working class?
3. What are the means by which anarchism must serve outside of the
revolution and what are the means at its disposal to test and affirm its
constructive concepts?
4. Does anarchism need its own permanent, specific organizations,
closely linked by unity of purpose and action, to achieve its aspirations?
5. What should anarchists understand as the institutions to be
established in order to guarantee the free development of society?
6. Can anarchism be realized without social institutions in the
communist society you envision? If so, by what means? If not, what
institutions should it recognize and utilize, and in the name of what?
Should anarchists assume a leadership role, and consequently a
responsible one, or should they be limited to being irresponsible
auxiliaries?
These questions illustrate what I have wanted to present in this
article, which is, fundamentally, three things: First, to think about
political leadership as the objective of anarchist organization to
achieve libertarian communism; second, to point out that the development
of how to organize ourselves to take on this task is not only an
organizational debate but above all a strategic and political one; and
finally, third, to point out the need for the current debate to clarify
how we intervene in spaces and hegemonize our positions and proposals,
since what we do not define can take on a multitude of forms.
This is precisely the historical legacy of an unfinished debate, as
urgent as it was at the time this proposal impacted the anarchist world.
This proposal has a specific historical meaning, related to the process
of self-criticism by anarchist forces regarding their limited influence
and leadership in the Russian Revolution, and therefore opens the door
to the question I keep repeating in this article: How do we achieve this
position of leadership and influence? The historical legacy of an
unfinished debate like this is the path that those who came before us
have left for us to follow. We will surely not close this debate
ourselves; in fact, other organizations have surely had it and resolved
it. The fact is that now it is up to us, in a moment of unity, to be
able to ask ourselves precisely what our role is in the revolution that
will lead us to libertarian communism.
Marcel Minoves, activist of Batzac-Libertarian Youth
[1]Dielo Trouda (The Cause of the Women Workers), Organizational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists , 1926
[2]Felipe Corrêa and Rafael Viana de Silva, BAKUNIN, MALATESTA AND THE
PLATFORM DEBATE: THE QUESTION OF ANARCHIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, 2013
[3]T. Mora, Anarchism and Vanguard, Libertarian Regeneration, 2024.
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/03/13/anarquismo-y-vanguardia/
[4]Liza, Co-optation is not hegemonizing , Libertarian Regeneration,
2024.
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/02/24/cooptacion-no-es-hegemonizar/
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/09/18/lherencia-historica-lurgent-debat-sobre-el-rol-de-lorganitzacio/
_________________________________________
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
debate between the Russians and Malatesta-primarily between Makhno and
Malatesta-regarding the Platform proposal. This proposal emerged in the
journal Dielo Truda[1]as an idea formulated by several Russian
anarchists who analyzed how the libertarian political force had a
disorganized and uncoordinated influence during the Russian Revolution,
which favored the revolution's fall into the hands of state
authoritarianism. It is important to understand the historical moment of
the proposal to understand its reception and meaning. Specifically, I
will focus on the underlying debate found in the exchange of opinions in
these letters: How can we anarchists provide a libertarian direction to
the social revolution?
This question, which I pose as the underlying idea motivating the
debate, presupposes two fundamental points. First, the necessity of a
social revolution-Bakunin's characterization of revolution as opposed to
a political revolution-to emancipate the working class from capitalism
and all domination. Second, the realization that a social revolution
will have a specific political direction. In this last phrase, direction
is used not as a command but as a path, framework, and orientation, that
is, answering the question: What society is building this revolution?
Therefore, what society is prefiguring the revolutionary processes in
which we intervene?
In this way, I position the debate between Malatesta's and Makhno's
letters as a debate that must be revived in the present because it
evokes the most important issue for a revolutionary organization: What
should be the role of the revolutionary organization and how does it
define itself? In this case, in the context of the proposed platform,
the debate about political direction and how we anarchists organize and
act to achieve the objective we set for ourselves. This debate, once
revived, allows us to formulate questions and define challenges
regarding the path that the recent especifist movement in Spain is
beginning to forge. And, as a debate more relevant than ever-also
international-about how to constitute a libertarian organization that
can develop and achieve its proposed objectives and how, specifically,
it intervenes in the spaces of self-organization of the class.
Furthermore, assessing the current Spanish and Catalan political
context, with recent years in which new strategic political bets are
emerging from certain sectors, it is necessary to assess what role
anarchists should have in this map and how we can carry out what we
propose: To be the direction - again in terms of path - that the
revolutionary processes take, since, and to conclude the brief
presentation of intentions, as Makhno said in the text of the platform:
"More than any other concept, anarchism must be the guiding concept of
the revolution, because it is only on the theoretical basis of anarchism
that the Social Revolution can triumph in the complete emancipation of
labor."
Thus, to further define the terms of the debate, one of the questions
about the direction the revolution is taking is, in our view, the
question of the role of the political organization that seeks to
intervene in the processes of class self-organization so that they take
a certain direction. This resonates with the following questions:
Why do we need to organize? Who organizes? How do we organize? And what
do we want to do? That is, how and what do we want to intervene in?
Influence - Direct
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES ARE BOTH STRATEGIC
As I explained at the beginning, the underlying question of the
Platform's proposal and the debate between Makhno and Malatesta is none
other than how anarchist political leadership articulates itself in
revolutionary processes and the construction of the workers' movement.
For this reason, organizational challenges are simultaneously strategic,
since the answers to how we organize ourselves simultaneously reflect
what we want to do.
To begin, I will point out a series of debates that arise regarding
Malatesta's criticisms of the Dielo Truda proposal, and to which Makhno
responds. These criticisms I classify primarily into two types: those
related to the internal organization and those related to the political
practice of the organization, both centralism and authoritarianism. Some
are directed toward the organizational proposal and its theoretical
construction, and others, conversely, are directed toward the
organization's managerial practice. Precisely for this reason, they are
interesting, as they illustrate how, fundamentally, deciding in
organizational terms implies deciding in political and strategic terms;
that is, how the organizational definition interpellates anarchist
political leadership in the processes of the working class.
On the one hand, regarding the entire series of criticisms surrounding
the organization's internal structure, we find two central themes that
Malatesta strongly questions: the organization's centralism and
authoritarianism. Malatesta's critiques focus on the indisputable
coherence between means and ends as the backbone of any liberating
practice, since the means determine the end achieved. Therefore, in line
with this position, it is necessary to establish means that truly allow
us to reach our horizons, which, in turn, are prefigured in the chosen
means. From this starting point, two central critiques are developed.
The first criticism of the internal organization argues that theoretical
homogenization and collective commitment-for Malatesta, collective
commitment and collective responsibility are very delicate issues on
which he never fully agrees with Makhno-of following a program,
strategy, and tactics together with collective responsibility
constitutes, for him, an authoritarian attitude toward the diverse-and
irreconcilable-anarchist tendencies. The second criticism maintains that
centralism is achieved through an executive committee of the
organization, which decides the theoretical line and, in addition,
mandates what the various spaces should do; that is, it exerts
ideological and tactical direction over the practice of the union's
members and organizations.
On the other hand, as a complement to these two organizational critiques
, the political critique of the organization's actions , the central
theme of this article: The organization's capacity for influence, that
is, the political direction that the organization proposes to the spaces
in which it intervenes. The critique is the following: How can an
anarchist organization like this one influence politically if not
through authoritarianism and direction? According to Malatesta, from
this organizational approach the influence will be authoritarian. This
illustrates that organizational issues are also strategic.
However, we cannot accept these criticisms as acceptable, since they are
completely wrong and the result of a lack of understanding rather than
political disagreement, as Correa also claims[2]. Even so, the
criticisms point to more than relevant issues that should be taken into
account by any organization of this current.
The common starting point and organizational debates
By pointing out that organizational issues are strategic, I intend to
point out, specifically, that every decision concerning both the
organizational structure and the political purposes of this organization
is, ultimately, a strategic response to a problem: capitalist
exploitation, domination, and the need to radically transform this
system with the advent of libertarian communism. Once the problem and
the need have been identified, it is necessary to consider what role
anarchism, that is, the libertarian political force, should play.
It is on this point, regarding the role that anarchist political force
should play, that in my opinion, Makhno and Malatesta ultimately
demonstrate, among several clarifications, that they agree. In
Malatesta's words: "On the contrary, I believe that we anarchists,
convinced of the validity of our program, must aim to acquire enormous
influence in order to lead the movement toward the realization of our
ideals." In other words, we must work to ensure that revolutionary
processes have an anarchist political direction .
The starting point is common, but the organizational disagreements are
so great that, at certain points, they can develop irreconcilable
approaches.
On the one hand, there are organizational issues: the debate over
centralism, the authority of the executive committee, Malatesta's need
for individual responsibility, and the homogenization of theoretical,
ideological, and strategic approaches. These organizational debates are
an expression of the underlying political debate between the need for
coordinated actions under common positions and the coherence between
means and ends so as not to reproduce the logic of domination, both
internally and in the organization's political practice-that is, the
debate over political practice . Therefore, these "organizational"
debates, at their core, directly impact an approach that comes later in
Malatesta's second letter: the debate over the "managerial role" of
anarchists and its content.
In this way, a clear map is drawn that shows the complexity of the
debate in its disagreements and agreements: a clear agreement regarding
the need for the revolution to assume a libertarian direction. However,
disagreements regarding how anarchists-that is, what concrete actions
anarchists take and how we organize ourselves-can achieve this goal. On
this point, Makhno seems to propose a theoretical and practical unity
that Malatesta interprets as authoritarian and centralist and, for these
reasons, precisely not anarchist. In this sense, Correa argues that
there is no agreement on the question of individual or collective
responsibility. In short, there are disagreements regarding the internal
organization and the role of anarchism in revolutionary processes.
In conclusion, regarding this first section of the article, I intended
to show that while Makhno and Malatesta's shared starting point is the
need for the revolution to have a libertarian direction in order to
achieve libertarian communism, there are disagreements about how to
accomplish this task and the role we anarchists should play. These
disagreements materialize in central issues for specific anarchist
organization. Illustrating, ultimately, that what is at stake is how
anarchists ensure that revolutionary processes have a libertarian
political direction and that, ultimately, all these organizational
debates are simultaneously strategic in clarifying how we accomplish
this task we assign ourselves.
INDETERMINATION LEADS TO MULTIFORM ACTION - THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL
DIRECTION
In this section, to continue developing the debate present in the
exchange of letters, I will delve more fully into the issue of political
leadership. To begin, I consider it appropriate to introduce a few
questions that reveal the doubts that determine the approach of this
second section of the article: Are influencing and leading the same
thing? Why? Do we want anarchism-and therefore anarchists-to assume a
leadership role? In what sense is it different from the communist
strategy followed by Marxism-Leninism? And between an active minority
and a vanguard? Which should we choose?
First of all, a necessary clarification: These rather biased questions
stem from concerns and a desire to fully develop the anarchist political
approach and push it to its limits, in order to understand and define it
collectively and be able to act accordingly. The need for a collectively
assumed definition is fundamental; indeterminacy leads to multiform
action; that is, what is not defined is filled with diverse forms that,
ultimately, can be irreconcilable or very little connected. For this
reason, it is necessary to pose all these questions and be able to
answer them in order to define our framework for intervention. In no
case, however, do these questions seek to be assimilated into a vanguard
specific to Marxism-Leninism. Thus, I will delve very briefly into these
issues with the intention of leaving more open questions than closed
answers, because the debate must be collective in order to translate
into an efficient and consolidated practice.
Generally speaking, I believe that when, from a specific perspective, we
assert that what we want is to influence, we fail to fully develop our
objectives: to ensure that the processes of class self-organization have
a libertarian direction. I wonder if this is the result of an aesthetic
fear that identifies individual action as anarchist militants as the
space where, par excellence, we must maintain purity between means and
ends and that, therefore, we do not allow ourselves to assume roles of
leadership, direction, or more active influence. I think that this is
often, unfortunately, the reason, and that, consequently, we must free
ourselves from this fear in order to analyze our intervention on a
collective rather than an individual scale, taking into account the
correlation of these two dimensions, but defining our role as an
organization, not as individuals.
So, what is the definition of influencing a grassroots space, a social
movement, a union branch, a trade union, or a leadership space of a
union organization or social movement? On the other hand, what would be
the definition of leading? I understand influencing as leaving a certain
mark on the space, throwing a stone, hiding one's hand and seeing what
happens, leaving a certain mark. On the other hand, I understand leading
as two possibilities: commanding and doing what one says, or, on the
other hand, convincing the space of the need for a direction-
organizational functioning and political aspirations-that one proposes
and defends. This second option is related to hegemonizing . That is,
making our positions hegemonic and, therefore, giving a specific
direction to the specific space.
For this specific issue I find it relevant to refer to two articles in
Regeneración, one on the avant-garde[3]and the other on
hegemonization[4]. Specifically, the issue of the avant-garde is not a
resolved debate, I will simply use the term as a way of explaining what
task we have to do as organized anarchists.
On the one hand, in dialogue with Regeneración's article on the
anarchist vanguard, it seems that the task of the so-called anarchist
vanguard is precisely this: to provide libertarian leadership in the
space of class self-organization in which it militates and intervenes.
On the other hand, in dialogue with Regeneración's other article on
hegemony, hegemony is defined as the capacity for our proposals to be
adopted by the working class, in line with what is presented here as the
leadership. In other words, to hegemonize is to provide a specific
political direction, since, fundamentally, our proposals are politically
charged.
For all these reasons, it makes sense to ask the following question: If,
as an organization, we must provide libertarian political leadership to
the processes of class self-organization-that is, all those
organizations that defend class interests and do so by developing a
strategy that allows them to fight for their interests- how do we direct
these spaces? What types of leadership do we provide, and how do we
participate in the spaces of activism in which we participate? In short:
what do we do to provide that leadership?
For all of the reasons mentioned above, we also urgently need to
consider: What role does anarchist organization play in revolutionary
processes? Therefore, how do we ensure that the revolution takes an
anarchist direction? The fact is that we must delve into this " how" and
define its content and the tasks to be carried out, both immediate and
medium- and long-term. This is necessary because indeterminacy leads to
multiform action; that is, everything that is not defined can be defined
in different ways that, ultimately, may be irreconcilable. Therefore, in
order to carry out collective action, a collective theoretical
definition is necessary to guide it.
CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, I want to begin by showing the questions Makhno asks
Malatesta when talking about the task of anarchists to give direction
and how we should do it.
1. Should anarchism bear any responsibility for the workers' struggle
against their oppressors, capitalism, and its servants of the state? If
not, explain why. If not, should anarchists work to enable their
movement to exert its influence on the very foundations of the existing
social order?
2. Can anarchism, in its current state of disorganization, exert any
ideological and practical influence on social events and the struggle of
the working class?
3. What are the means by which anarchism must serve outside of the
revolution and what are the means at its disposal to test and affirm its
constructive concepts?
4. Does anarchism need its own permanent, specific organizations,
closely linked by unity of purpose and action, to achieve its aspirations?
5. What should anarchists understand as the institutions to be
established in order to guarantee the free development of society?
6. Can anarchism be realized without social institutions in the
communist society you envision? If so, by what means? If not, what
institutions should it recognize and utilize, and in the name of what?
Should anarchists assume a leadership role, and consequently a
responsible one, or should they be limited to being irresponsible
auxiliaries?
These questions illustrate what I have wanted to present in this
article, which is, fundamentally, three things: First, to think about
political leadership as the objective of anarchist organization to
achieve libertarian communism; second, to point out that the development
of how to organize ourselves to take on this task is not only an
organizational debate but above all a strategic and political one; and
finally, third, to point out the need for the current debate to clarify
how we intervene in spaces and hegemonize our positions and proposals,
since what we do not define can take on a multitude of forms.
This is precisely the historical legacy of an unfinished debate, as
urgent as it was at the time this proposal impacted the anarchist world.
This proposal has a specific historical meaning, related to the process
of self-criticism by anarchist forces regarding their limited influence
and leadership in the Russian Revolution, and therefore opens the door
to the question I keep repeating in this article: How do we achieve this
position of leadership and influence? The historical legacy of an
unfinished debate like this is the path that those who came before us
have left for us to follow. We will surely not close this debate
ourselves; in fact, other organizations have surely had it and resolved
it. The fact is that now it is up to us, in a moment of unity, to be
able to ask ourselves precisely what our role is in the revolution that
will lead us to libertarian communism.
Marcel Minoves, activist of Batzac-Libertarian Youth
[1]Dielo Trouda (The Cause of the Women Workers), Organizational
Platform of the Libertarian Communists , 1926
[2]Felipe Corrêa and Rafael Viana de Silva, BAKUNIN, MALATESTA AND THE
PLATFORM DEBATE: THE QUESTION OF ANARCHIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, 2013
[3]T. Mora, Anarchism and Vanguard, Libertarian Regeneration, 2024.
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/03/13/anarquismo-y-vanguardia/
[4]Liza, Co-optation is not hegemonizing , Libertarian Regeneration,
2024.
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/02/24/cooptacion-no-es-hegemonizar/
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/09/18/lherencia-historica-lurgent-debat-sobre-el-rol-de-lorganitzacio/
_________________________________________
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