You can access the first part of the article through this link.
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/06/05/contra-toda-derrota-organizacion-revolucionaria/---- Table of Contents ---- For an Agile, Efficient, and
Internationalist Organizational Model: Global Strategy and Local
Tactical Autonomy ---- Overcoming Limits: The Organizational Problem in
Contemporary Anarchism ---- Throughout its history, anarchism has been
one of the political currents most committed to the radical
transformation of society. Its commitment to freedom, equality, direct
action, and popular self-organization has produced bold, prefigurative,
and profoundly democratic organizational forms. However, the libertarian
field has also faced recurring blockages stemming from insufficient or
contradictory conceptions of organization. Paralyzing informality,
sterile fragmentation, idealization of spontaneity, horizontalism as
dogma, rejection of planning, and resistance to the consolidation of
structures have been some of the constants that have weakened its
capacity for political accumulation.
Foundational critiques such as Jo Freeman's The Tyranny of
Structurelessness (1972) or Regue's-a member of Embat, the Libertarian
Organization of Catalonia-in The Trap of Horizontality (2024) insist
that the absence of organizational formalization is not "freer" or "less
hierarchical," but simply opaque. Without clear mechanisms for
decision-making, delegation, accountability, and evaluation, power
relations persist, but in an informal, concentrated, and unintentional
manner. In contexts of greater scale, complexity, or confrontation, this
lack becomes a weakness that fragments struggles, prevents the
sustainment of prolonged processes, and limits any possibility of
strategic accumulation.
Rodrigo Nunes (2021), in Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal[1], provides a
contemporary critique of the classic dichotomy between spontaneity and
hierarchy. His proposal of "organized networks" with differentiated
degrees of functional centrality offers a way to think about forms of
political coordination without falling into avant-garde logic. This
approach, compatible with anarchist principles, allows us to think of
organizations that are not exhausted in their formal structure, but that
do not renounce their capacity to act effectively and with shared direction.
Guiding principles of the organizational proposal
The proposal presented here is part of the tradition of organized
anarchism, recovering and projecting its historical principles:
federalism, direct action, building from below, autonomy, solidarity,
and prefiguration. Added to these is an urgent need of the present: to
build an organization that is not only faithful to its values but also
functional to prolonged struggle, effective in intervention, and capable
of generating popular power.
The basis of this proposal is a model of internationalist confederalism
, understood as an articulation of anarchist organizations from
different contexts that share a general political program and coordinate
strategically on a regional and global scale, without losing tactical
autonomy in their respective territories. Each organization, depending
on its size and degree of integration, can define its internal
structure, provided that it respects the common principles of direct
democracy, collective responsibility, and transformative action.
The goal is not to impose a single model, but to offer an organizational
architecture capable of combining:
Political clarity (unity of purpose),
Operational flexibility (media diversity),
Strategic coordination (planned common actions),
Militant participation (decision from the bottom up),
Continuous assessment (collective learning).
The criterion that structures this model is the ability to intervene
effectively without reproducing structures of domination, and to sustain
an organization over time that does not sacrifice either participation
or direct action.
Internal and external contributions to anarchism for an effective
organization
Organized anarchism has developed models that seek to respond coherently
to the challenges of revolutionary political construction. Experiences
such as those of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), the Brazilian
Anarchist Coordination (CAB), the Anarchist Federation of Rosario (FAR),
and the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL)[2]in France demonstrate that
it is possible to sustain federative, democratic, and functional
structures, embedded in the popular fabric, with the capacity for
strategic intervention. A common feature in these experiences is the
centrality of a collectively constructed political program , which not
only guides immediate action but also allows for an organic articulation
between theory, practice, and ongoing political training (Corrêa, 2018;
FAU, 2009).
Far from being a simple declaration of intent, the program serves a
structuring function. It acts as a tactical compass, an evaluation tool,
and a space for collective political synthesis. Its effectiveness
depends on three factors: its participatory development, its link to
concrete practice, and its periodic evaluation and update. Thus, it
allows for the unification of strategic criteria without uniformizing
thinking and strengthens activist commitment without eroding local autonomy.
Alongside these internal developments, certain contributions from other
fields-particularly contemporary organizational management-can enrich
the operational tools of anarchism, provided they are critically adapted
to its principles. Models such as Holacracy (Robertson, 2015) propose a
structure based on dynamic functional roles and the horizontal
distribution of power. In a related vein, Reinventing Organizations
(Laloux, 2014)[3]explores evolutionary forms of organization guided by
collective purpose and conscious self-organization.
For their part, methodologies such as Getting Things Done (Allen,
2001)[4], Program Management (Zeitoun, 2023)[5], The Art of Action
(Bungay, 2011)[6]or the approaches proposed by Bent Flyvbjerg in How Big
Things Get Done (2023)[7]allow us to rethink strategic planning, project
management and efficient execution in highly complex contexts. Jurgen
Appelo, in How to Change the World (2012)[8], offers agile tools for
participatory change processes that can be useful in strengthening
activist networks.
The challenge is not to import corporate models, but to critically
appropriate tools that enhance organizational capacity without
undermining libertarian principles. An effective organization is not one
that operates like a business, but one that is capable of sustaining a
transformative project, adapting to change, facing strategic challenges,
and cultivating a collective ethic of commitment, autonomy, and radical
political action.
Towards a global articulation with tactical autonomy and structural
efficiency
International confederal coordination
The cornerstone of this proposal is a confederal organization of
anarchist organizations at the international level. This coordination
does not imply a command center or unified leadership, but rather a
federated network of autonomous nodes that share political principles, a
common understanding of the global situation, and a desire for joint
action. This network is structured around general programmatic
agreements, international campaigns, rotating spokespersons, technical
committees by area (training, communication, strategy, translation), and
periodic coordination plenaries.
Internationalism here is not only an ethical principle, but a strategic
necessity: the accumulation of popular power must have a global
dimension if it is to confront transnational capitalism and a state
order that operates on a global scale. Anarchist international
articulation must allow for the coordination of struggles, the exchange
of experiences, the circulation of militant knowledge, and the
construction of a global response to the multiple crises of the present.
The political program is developed at the international level, as a
synthesis of the perspectives, diagnoses, and horizons shared by all
participating organizations. From this common foundation, each national
federation develops its own national program, articulating this
international framework with local specificities and the strategic tasks
specific to its context. Finally, each territorial
organization-grassroots groups, collectives, or local nuclei-enjoys
tactical autonomy to implement national strategic orientations within
its specific context. This structure guarantees overall coherence
without stifling activist creativity or the capacity for local adaptation.
Common strategy and functional delegation
Building a common strategy does not mean ideological homogenization, but
rather tactical coordination. Based on the shared political program, the
organizations agree on general lines of action, thematic priorities,
areas of intervention, and criteria for grassroots integration. To
implement these guidelines, a functional delegation, always revocable,
is proposed, to work teams that assume specific tasks for a limited
period of time.
This delegation is not permanent representation, but rather clear
mandates, with precise functions, collective responsibility, and
bottom-up oversight mechanisms. It allows for agility in implementation
without sacrificing internal democracy and prevents both
bureaucratization and operational chaos.
Local tactical autonomy with collective responsibility
Each local organization maintains full tactical autonomy to act
according to its immediate context. This autonomy translates into the
freedom to choose methodologies, forms of integration, temporary
alliances, or communication tactics. But this freedom is exercised
within the framework of collective responsibility: local actions must
respect the national agenda, which in turn must be aligned with the
international agenda. This layered logic-international, national,
local-allows for effective integration at scale, without sacrificing the
flexibility required by grassroots organizational processes.
This balance between flexibility and coherence allows for rapid response
to local conditions without losing strategic focus, and avoids both
dispersed localism and centralized rigidity.
Clear processes for decision-making, monitoring, evaluation and correction
An effective model requires defined processes that ensure participation
without sacrificing organizational rhythm. Decisions are made by
consensus where possible, or by qualified majority where not. Meetings
have rotating facilitation, defined agendas, public minutes, and
compliance schedules. Protocols for monitoring and periodic evaluation
are established, with indicators of political progress, campaign
reviews, and mechanisms for correcting errors or deviations.
A militant culture that embraces political education as a lifelong
process is also promoted. Therefore, Militancy Schools are proposed as
spaces for internal training, collective reflection, and
intergenerational knowledge transfer.
Structural flexibility according to organizational size
Organizational forms must be adapted to the size and level of
development of each organization. To this end, three reference
frameworks are proposed:
Small Organization (5-50 members, local reach): comprehensive assembly
operation, grassroots councils by affinity or sector, self-managed task
groups, mutual support networks and decision-making by broad consensus.
Medium Organization (51-500 members, national reach): federal structure
by regions or fronts, regional and national assemblies, rotating
coordination teams, permanent working committees, and regular training
and evaluation spaces.
Large Organization (500+ members, international reach): confederation of
federations, with a common political program, articulation by sectors
and regions, periodic congresses, international commissions, and
security and secure communication protocols.
Practical application: operation in real organizations
This model can be implemented progressively, building on each
organization's current capabilities. A local organization can begin by
adopting clear decision-making and evaluation processes, while
establishing horizontal links with other similar organizations. As it
grows, it can federate with others, establish technical committees,
develop its program, and connect with regional or international networks.
The model is modular: each component can be adapted according to the
organization's stage of development, without losing overall coherence.
Scenarios by scale and degree of development
Embryonic local scenario: grassroots collective builds its identity,
defines its political horizon, establishes basic operating rules, and
connects with immediate popular struggles.
Consolidated regional scenario: medium-sized organizations federate,
create a common coordination, develop a shared program, and sustain
coordinated campaigns.
Articulated international scenario: networks of established
organizations agree on political positions, global strategies, and
active solidarity protocols in the face of global challenges.
Illustrative example: The Revolutionary Anarchist International (RAI)
Let's imagine the creation of a Revolutionary Anarchist International
(RAI): an intercontinental articulation of revolutionary anarchist
federations active in Latin America, Europe, the Maghreb, the Middle
East, South Asia, and regions of North America and Oceania. This
international does not constitute a governing center or a single global
organization, but rather a confederal space for programmatic
construction, strategic coordination, and internationalist militant action.
Its structuring axis is a collectively developed international political
program that synthesizes shared principles and horizons:
anti-capitalism, anti-statism, anti-colonialism, anti-patriarchy, people
power, radical environmentalism, and social self-management. Based on
this program, each national federation develops its own political
strategy , linking international guidelines to its specific context.
Thus, one organization in Tunisia may focus on struggles for food
sovereignty and militant unionism, while another in the Philippines
works to defend ancestral territories and popular education.
Tactical autonomy is guaranteed at the local level: grassroots groups
are free to decide how to implement national strategies, according to
their conditions and resources. They can focus on mutual support
networks, territorial organization, self-defense, grassroots
communication, or cultural activism, always within the framework of
general principles and in ongoing dialogue with their federation.
The IAR holds an International Congress every three years , which brings
together spokespersons mandated from the grassroots. There are no
permanent structures or hierarchical positions: all positions are
temporary, rotating, and subject to collective control. Between
congresses, coordination is maintained through interregional thematic
committees responsible for areas such as political training,
communication, logistics, digital security, and international solidarity.
In addition, the IAR supports a Global Anarchist Solidarity Network ,
which responds to situations of repression, displacement, disasters, and
war. It also promotes a School of Internationalist Militancy , with
multilingual materials, training meetings, and shared methodologies that
foster the development of committed and prepared political cadres.
This example shows that a Revolutionary Anarchist International is not
only possible, but necessary. In the face of globalized capitalism and
expanding authoritarianism, anarchism needs to articulate itself with
strategic vision, a willingness to coordinate, and a revolutionary
ethic. Without hierarchical structures or compulsory homogeneity, but
with political clarity, collective commitment, and a vocation for global
transformation from below.
Sustaining the Flame: Continuity, Commitment, and Adaptation in
Anarchist Organizations
Organizations that endure: building long-term from the collective
One of the great historical weaknesses of the anarchist movement has
been organizational discontinuity. Many powerful initiatives are born
with strength, but dissolve after a few years due to exhaustion,
internal fractures, or an inability to adapt to change. How can we build
organizations that endure beyond specific circumstances or cycles of
mobilization? The key is to stop thinking of the organization as a mere
occasional tool for intervention and instead understand it as an
organized political community that extends over time.
The FAU (2009) maintains that the organization must be viewed as a
"cumulative instrument" where learning is accumulated, experiences are
synthesized, and a conscious long-term practice is developed. This
requires structures that do not depend on a small group of "strong
activists" but rather distribute functions, document processes, and
generate mechanisms for internal renewal. It also requires the
organization to have real social integration: without ties to grassroots
struggles, structures become self-referential and vulnerable to erosion.
Militant commitment: nurturing and sustaining political commitment
Activist commitment isn't imposed or assumed: it's built and nurtured.
Why do people join an organization, and why do they stay? Beyond
ideological convictions, people become committed when they find a space
that gives meaning to their actions, recognizes their contributions,
supports their processes, and allows them to develop politically.
In Myths and Experiences[9], it is stated that many organizations fail
by reproducing logics of overload, informality and burnout. Therefore,
it is essential to build a culture of militant care: establishing
sustainable rhythms, promoting co-responsibility, generating spaces for
listening and taking care of the balance between personal life and
political commitment. Continuous training, accompanying new militants
and rotating tasks are also key to avoiding stagnation or concentration
of knowledge.
Commitment also grows when people participate meaningfully in defining
strategy, not just in executing tasks. Direct democracy is not just a
way of making decisions, but a pedagogy that strengthens political
involvement.
Cross-cutting elements for a flexible organizational model
Structural rigidity can be as harmful as chaos. How can we build
organizations that are clear in their operation, yet capable of adapting
to different situations? The answer lies in defining cross-cutting
elements that ensure coherence without impeding flexibility.
The first is functional clarity: each role, committee, or structure must
have defined functions, deadlines, and accountability mechanisms.
Periodic rotation prevents bureaucratization, and revocable delegation
ensures that functions do not become power. Systematic documentation
(minutes, reports, balance sheets) ensures that knowledge is not
dependent on individuals but rather becomes part of the organizational
memory.
Another key element is dynamic federalism: the coordination between
different levels of the organization (local, regional, national,
international) must be fluid, with clear spaces for coordination but
without hierarchical impositions. Finally, a culture of self-assessment
and adjustment allows the organization to reinvent itself without losing
its essence.
Managing fluctuations and avoiding generational gaps
Every organization goes through cycles of increased or decreased
activity, periods of growth, and periods of decline. How can we survive
these fluctuations without becoming disorganized? A vibrant organization
must be able to modulate its rhythm without losing its basic structures.
In times of decline, it is necessary to maintain the essentials:
training, connections, structural integrity, and political memory. In
times of growth, it is necessary to avoid overflow and strengthen
organizational spaces.
A common risk is generational breakdown: when one militant generation
burns out and hasn't trained or incorporated the next. To avoid this,
it's essential to build pedagogical bridges between different
backgrounds, promote dialogue between experiences, and create specific
spaces for the transmission of knowledge. Training isn't just
"theoretical" but also organizational, emotional, and tactical.
Organizational assessment and adjustment: thinking about the present,
planning the future
No organization can improve if it doesn't stop to consider what it does,
how it does it, and why it does it. Organizational assessment should be
part of regular operations, not an exception. To achieve this,
qualitative indicators (level of participation, member satisfaction,
strategic clarity) and quantitative indicators (number of actions,
growth, social inclusion) can be combined. But beyond the data, the
essential thing is to create spaces for collective assessment that allow
for reviewing the strategy, recognizing errors, identifying
achievements, and correcting course.
An organization that doesn't evaluate becomes autistic; one that
evaluates without correction becomes cynical. A culture of collective
learning is what allows an organization not only to endure, but to grow
with purpose, passion, and the real capacity to transform reality.
This second part completes the proposed model: it's not enough to have a
good structure; we must know how to sustain it, care for it, grow it,
and adapt it to the conditions of the historical times in which we live.
Only in this way can we build an effective, rooted, and lasting
revolutionary anarchism.
Closing the circle, opening paths: for an effective, living and rooted
anarchist organization
Throughout this text, I have attempted to reflect, based on experience
and conviction, on how an anarchist organization can be built that not
only resists but also transforms. I set out to critically review the
organizational models that anarchism has produced-both within and
outside its historical boundaries-to extract its lessons and overcome
its obstacles. Because I deeply believe that without a solid, strategic,
and sustained organizational practice, our ideas remain trapped on the
margins, condemned to be repeated without real impact.
From there, I outlined a proposal based on internationalism, dynamic
federalism, and tactical autonomy, but also on militant commitment, the
collective management of attrition, and the need to sustain structures
over time. I'm not proposing a closed framework or a single recipe. What
I'm offering is a framework from which we can conceive together a
living, useful, and profoundly transformative libertarian organization.
Because if there's one thing I'm clear about, it's that anarchism cannot
be reduced to a personal ethic or a marginal aesthetic. For me, it's a
radical commitment to a society without hierarchies, built from the
bottom up, with patience, strategy, and revolutionary passion. And that
commitment requires organization: not just any organization, but one
that reflects our values while preparing us for the conflicts of the
present.
In a world crumbling under the weight of injustice, inequality, and
climate catastrophe, it's not enough to resist. We must build. And to
build, we need structures that not only sustain us, but also empower us.
We need to care for ourselves, educate ourselves, plan, evaluate, and
grow. Not because we believe in power for power's sake, but because we
believe in people's power, in the capacity of people to self-organize
their lives, to transform their realities, and to tear down the walls
that prevent us from living with dignity.
I write this not as a definitive truth, but as an invitation. To think,
to debate, to correct, to enrich. Because if I've learned anything, it's
that anarchist organization isn't imposed, it's built. And it's built
among comrades, with our feet firmly planted in the mud and our eyes on
the horizon. If this text can serve as another tool on that path, then
it will have fulfilled its purpose.
Don Diego de la Vega, Liza militant
[1]Nunes, R. (2021). Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal: A Theory of
Political Organization. Verse Books.
[2]Union Communiste Libertaire, Federação Anarquista de Rosario,
Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira. (sf). Programmatic and organizational
documents . Internal publications.
[3]Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating
Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness . Nelson
Parker.
[4]Allen, D. (2001). Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free
Productivity . Penguin.
[5]Zeitoun, A. (2023). Program Management: Going Beyond Project
Management to Enable Value-Driven Change . Wiley.
[6]Bungay, S. (2011). The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps
Between Plans, Actions and Results . Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
[7]Flyvbjerg, B., & Gardner, D. (2023). How Big Things Get Done: The
Surprising Factors Behind Every Successful Project, from Home
Renovations to Space Exploration . Penguin Press.
[8]Appelo, J. (2012). How to Change the World: Change Management 3.0 .
Leanpub.
[9]Neto. (2015-2016). Myths and experiences: Contributions to the
strategic reflection of organized anarchism . Libertarian Regeneration.
Part I:
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2015/06/09/los-mitos-y-las-experiencias-i/
Part II:
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2016/06/17/los-mitos-y-las-experiencias-ii/
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/06/19/contra-toda-derrota-organizacion-revolucionaria-parte-2/
_________________________________________
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