WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE SPAIN - news journal UPDATE - (en) Spain, Regeneration: The Tyranny of the Lack of Theory - On Theory and Revolutionary Action by LIZA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 From Myth to Drama ---- In the 1970s, the feminist activist Jo Freeman

published her influential and controversial essay The Tyranny of
Structurelessness, a key text in debates on organization within social
and libertarian movements. Its relevance persists, especially where
disorganizing dynamics destabilize combative spaces and leave them
defenseless and powerless. ---- Freeman criticizes the tendency of many
activist groups to reject formal structures as hierarchical and
oppressive, hoping that the absence of organization guarantees equality
and horizontality. One of her main contributions is showing that this
idea is a myth: a simplistic narrative that avoids critical analysis and
reproduces common sense with disastrous political consequences.

In practice, the lack of structure does not eliminate power - it hides
it. The notion of the "structureless group" acts as a smoke screen,
concealing informal power relations and facilitating the rise of
unelected, unaccountable leadership. The absence of explicit
organizational forms does not prevent the creation of structures; it
only prevents them from being visible, formal, and democratic. Thus,
informal "elites" emerge - those with more time, education, resources,
or skills, i.e., those already favored by a deeply unequal system.

The myth of informality not only fosters the emergence of elites but
also leaves groups vulnerable to co-optation by larger, more structured
organizations. As Freeman notes, "the less structured a group is, the
more vulnerable it is to being directed by other political
organizations." Additionally, frustration with inefficiency and burnout
pushes many activists into traditional spaces that do provide
organizational coherence. We would benefit if, instead of expressing
moral outrage on Twitter, we analyzed why so many comrades have left
libertarian circles in favor of vertical organizations - organizations,
after all.

In response, Freeman defends the need for explicit structures with
clearly defined roles, mechanisms for evaluation and recall, equitable
distribution of work, transparent circulation of information, and an
intentional use of individual privilege in the service of the collective.

This clear and accessible approach should also be applied to strategic
theorizing. In some spaces, certain comrades - some out of naivety,
others out of self-interest - have propagated the myth that dispensing
with theory fosters a political practice free of outside influence.
Nothing could be further from the truth: without explicit, developed
political theory, dominant ideas, traditions, and dogmas impose
themselves unquestioned.

What Is a Theory of Struggle?
At its core, it is a strategic guide based on social and historical
analysis. Simple - and complex. A Theory of Struggle - and more so, a
Revolutionary Theory - is the result of a conscious understanding of the
capitalist system: its mechanisms of reproduction, its structural
weaknesses, and possible ways to subvert it. At the same time, it must
incorporate the lessons of past emancipatory struggles.

Its goal is to anticipate, as much as possible, the scenarios and
dynamics that any struggle will face if it seeks to advance social
transformation. This theorizing does not arise from erudite, personal
abstraction but from a historical and social understanding cultivated in
political action itself - in the collective practice of struggle and in
honest debate.

The ability of an organization to develop its own Theory of Struggle is
what truly gives it strategic autonomy. And if that theory is clear and
explicit, it enables new members to join consciously and voluntarily; it
facilitates debate and collective development; and it prevents desperate
actions or regression into conservative or reactionary dynamics in
decisive moments.

There is no political organization without structure. And there is no
political organization without theory.

If structure and theory are not formalized and made explicit - if they
are not visible and understandable to members - what arises is not a
structureless group or an absent theory. What prevails is an informal
structure and an implicit, unconscious, opaque theory.

Just as Freeman showed that organizational informality fosters hidden
leadership by unelected elites, the same happens with theory. If it is
not the result of a collective, conscious, voluntary process - born from
debate, education, and shared practice - what prevails is the
reproduction of an undisputed political line, imposed by those with
greater discursive, symbolic, or influential capacity. Or worse, by
common sense, which is rarely revolutionary. This leads to followerism,
acting by inertia or tradition, and losing militants - burned out by
political impotence or absorbed by organizations that do offer a defined
horizon.

The emergence of elites is not caused by theoretical development. On the
contrary, it is the logical effect of refusing to build a conscious,
collective line.

Who Criticizes Theorizing?
One could say only those with a condescending, experience-based attitude
- comfortable in their supposed ideological purity and uncritical
loyalty to static principles - reject political development. But the
reality is more troubling: anti-theoretical discourses are launched into
the "public" space by those unwilling to debate their positions and who
prefer to solidify them by making them invisible.

Within the organization I belong to, we remain alert to those who invite
us to act without thinking - as if action and reflection were opposites.
We defend the right - and the need - to theorize. We will not abandon
what we consider fundamental, even if threatened with sanctions, even if
told our stance does not fit "our tradition," or if we are branded as
pedantic. We know it's not our ego at stake, but our autonomy.

We do not want to be guided by traditional thought or end up repeating
others' formulas when common sense runs out. We want clarity about the
path we take.

We believe the best tribute to those who came before us in struggle is
to learn from their steps, extract the lessons of their memory, and
overcome the limits that hindered their advances. That is why we build
revolutionary theory.

Against the Anti-Theoretical Myth
We need an explicit, collectively built theory, born of rigorous
analysis of today's reality and also of the historical memory of our
class - a theory unearthed alongside the bones of those who fought
before us. It must not be transmitted informally or through tacit
socialization but through educational processes with spaces for debate,
critique, and honest confrontation. Only in this way can it avoid
sterile dogmatism and honor the true anarchist tradition: one that
reinvents itself and engages in discussion.

We affirm political struggle as a confrontation of theories. Within the
Libertarian Movement, this contest is also essential. Combating ideas
that drive militants and the masses into dead ends is part of
revolutionary work.

Those who say "now is not the time to theorize" are, in fact, taking a
political position. By dismissing reflection, they seek to steer
attention toward immediate action, shutting down the possibility of
broad, shared debate. This attitude gravely hinders collective analysis
and limits our ability to engage critically.

When we educate ourselves, debate, theorize, or polemicize, we are
building a revolutionary alternative. We reject the false dichotomy
between theory and action, between words and practice. We do not think
from a basement, isolated from reality. We think while acting and act
while thinking. Our praxis is reflective: we analyze, project, evaluate,
and correct.

Everyday political activity is not an obstacle to theory; it is its
source. Our theory is situated, born from below, from concrete practice,
from the ground we tread with others, and from the ground others have
trodden before us. The echo of those steps reaches us through their
stories, through reflections that survived the fire, and through the
generosity of those who still speak aloud so we may debate together.

We confront ideas not out of vanity but out of responsibility and
respect for the collective process. Far from being an egotistical
exercise, debating and criticizing is an act of political honesty and
real autonomy - of true humility. We do not fight for our initials; we
have no printed flags. We fight for the political development of the
working class in its struggle against those who exploit it. Our horizon
is a radically different world. We do not win unless we all win. Our
signature is not driven by bourgeois prestige; it is an act of
commitment. We take responsibility for what we say and do. We expose
ourselves to criticism and accept the duty to reconsider our positions
when necessary.

We are libertarian communists and uphold the Platformist theses - not
out of identity or tradition but out of strategic coherence.

Theory and Rootedness
The libertarian movement has never lacked will, dedication, or
commitment, but its strength has often been broken by the absence of a
strategy capable of consolidating advances. More than once we have ended
up as the spearhead serving other interests.

Of course, having a Revolutionary Theory is not enough. If ideas are not
embodied in collective subjects capable of advancing them, they become
sterile - mere rhetoric, empty talk, or poetry. Revolution is not made
by anarchists; it is made by the masses. And influencing their path is
impossible without credibility among them. That credibility cannot be
decreed; it is the result of mutual respect.

Revolutionary organizations are nothing outside the working class.
Rootedness means real and ongoing contact with the organizations of
struggle. It means revolutionary militants are known and recognized by
their comrades because they were there: because they defended ideas with
voice and body, because they took blows, succeeded and failed, planned
and corrected, shared joys and griefs. Because they are what they are -
a fighting working class.

Only this shared practice grants the recognition needed for comrades to
listen to our ideas when it matters most. And only thus is it possible
to achieve hegemony - that is, to push collectively in the most
appropriate direction when the class struggle accelerates.

Rootedness is built through sustained struggles consolidated in formal
structures, with coherence between words and deeds. It's not just about
talking but about being present, about doing. With honesty, constancy,
and consistency. What gives our words credibility is our example of
sacrifice and struggle. Knowledge and capability. Building and guiding.
Theory and rootedness - the two sides of the black wedge. The two tasks,
the two prerequisites, of a Libertarian Revolutionary Organization.
Neither building forces for others to lead nor throwing ourselves
headlong into the next assured defeat.

Miguel Brea, militant of Liza

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/10/01/la-tirania-de-la-falta-de-teoria/
_________________________________________
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