Interview conducted by the veteran Basque magazine Ekintza Zuzena with
Embat's comrade @BlackSpartak for its 2025 issue. By EMBAT, CATALONIALIBERTY ORGANIZATION ---- From Regeneración, we are publishing the
interview conducted by the magazine Ekintza Zuzena with a comrade for
its 2025 issue
(https://www.nodo50.org/ekintza/2025/numero-51-de-la-revista-ekintza-zuzena/),
as it reviews the fundamental threads of our movement. ---- A
preliminary question: How would you define and situate what has
historically been called platformist anarchism? And especifist anarchism?
I'll start with some historical notes. First, the Platform emerged in
France in the 1920s among anarchist militants who had come from Russia.
Finally at peace, after a long revolutionary war they couldn't win, they
were able to take stock of their journey as a movement during the
Russian Revolution. The Dielo Truda group (one of those exile groups
made up of prominent figures such as Nestor Makhno, Pyotr Arshinov, Ida
Mett, Gregori Maksimov, and so on) concluded that the cause of the
defeat by the Bolsheviks had been the lack of organization, program, and
discipline of the Russian anarchist movement. They acted differently in
each place. There were never any overall strategic plans or forums to
discuss them. The Bolsheviks were able to defeat them city by city,
region by region, without putting up a fight on any level except in Ukraine.
Dielo Truda proposed a new organizational model: the General Union of
Anarchists. This model sought to unify the most active elements of
anarchism into a single organization under the program outlined in The
Platform. I should emphasize that it was not a complete program, but
rather a partial one, as they recognized. The full program would have to
be debated within this General Union once it was established.
This new platformism was highly critical of the "anarchist synthesis,"
an organizational model that blended anarchists from all currents of
anarchism into a single organization. According to the platformists, the
lack of homogeneity of approaches "would inevitably lead to
disintegration when confronted with reality." That is, it would render
the organization ineffective in the face of the major challenges facing
any movement. They were extremely critical of anarchist individualism
and nihilism ("chaotic anarchism," they called it). They were also
unconvinced by anarcho-syndicalism, since in Russia it had been oriented
almost exclusively toward industrial workers, neglecting the peasantry,
which was the majority social component in Russia.
So, which anarchist militants were they addressing?
We base our hope on other militants: on those who remain faithful to
anarchism, having experienced and suffered the tragedy of the anarchist
movement, and painfully seek a solution.[1]
Therefore, they proposed an organization with tactical and strategic
unity and discipline. Militants shouldn't join an organization to do
whatever they wanted, but to fulfill its program. Dyelo Truda intended
the Platform to be the revolutionary backbone and rallying point of
Russian anarchism, given that at the time they were speaking to exiles,
although it would soon be extended to all territories.
These approaches were the reason why the Platform fell out of favor with
many activists in other countries at the time, and its development was
thus slowed. However, its ideas were the driving force behind the
Bulgarian Anarchist Communist Federation, which was prominent in the
resistance to the 1934 coup d'état, the partisan resistance of World War
II, and the postwar period against Soviet domination, until it was
finally dissolved in 1948. These ideas also took root in France, among a
sector of anarchism that maintained them from its beginnings until the
postwar period. They were later promoted again by the Libertarian
Communist Federation, with Georges Fontenis as its leading exponent.
This FCL greatly influenced European anarchism in the 1950s and 1960s,
with the French movement being one of the benchmark movements for
anarcho-communism today.
For their part, specificism arose directly from the Uruguayan FAU in
1956. Paradoxically, they didn't discover La Plafaforma until many years
later. Their starting point was Errico Malatesta, whose emphasis on
specific organization and his refutation of individualism caught their
attention. Another of their role models was Mikhail Bakunin, who was
enormously important in our movement, promoting specific organizations
like the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. Their other
role model was the previous specific organizations in Uruguay, organic
constructions of the 1920s and 1930s. Thanks to those veteran activists,
who had been active for years, it became clear that the task of
political organization wasn't philosophizing and holding meetings, but
rather the key was how to approach the tasks of the different fronts of
work: union, student, neighborhood, and internal.
Their first task was to create the Organic Charter, in which they
situated their organization in the Latin American context of the 1950s
and outlined short-, medium-, and long-term plans. The younger militants
were concerned about not automatically adopting other schemes and
formulas that had been used in other historical situations. Their
anarchism would have to be rooted in the country and its specific reality.
This specificism (of "specific" organization) was put into practice
alone for years by the FAU until it was also taken up by Argentine
groups in the 1970s. It must be said that they never considered the
anarchist synthesis because no one took this possibility of organization
into consideration.[2]The FAU had different stages and also strategic
bets that brought it closer to the Latin American popular national
movement of the 1970s, precisely at its stage of greatest visibility and
size, with quite numerous social fronts and even its own armed
organization, the OPR-33.
In the 1990s, Especifismo moved away from these perspectives and began
to spread to other countries such as Brazil and Chile. From there, in
the 2000s, it began to converge with the anarcho-communist movement
typical of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world, and today it has become
part of the same international movement.
In Latin America, these organizations do not publicly call themselves
"specificist," but rather "organized anarchism," which is also the name
given to the International Coordinator of organizations of our current.
Although we like these models of anarchism, which we understand as the
most capable of influencing reality through anarchism, we must clarify
that we are neither a Russian, French, nor Latin American organization,
so we will have to create a local anarchism, with the elements of local
anarchism, to operate in the 21st century.
What is your assessment of the current situation of the Iberian
libertarian movement, and what challenges and needs do you see in your
field?
A movement is a set of actions, ideas, and efforts organized by a group
of people who share common goals to influence society. Starting here,
you'll agree that there is no single, homogeneous libertarian movement,
given that there are no common goals across this amalgam of individuals,
collectives, initiatives, scenes, spaces, organizations, or unions that
claim to be anarchists.
Based on this premise, we could first identify a libertarian movement
that seeks to achieve libertarian communism. This movement would be
composed of anarcho-syndicalism and some anarchist collectives and
organizations, as well as their related social or cultural projects that
serve to reach a wider audience.
There are also other paradigms similar to libertarian communism but with
different characteristics. I'm talking about communalism, democratic
confederalism, the anti-capitalist branch of cooperativism, a part of
autonomy (whether Marxist or indigenous) and similar proposals, or the
radical environmental and anti-development movement. These people tend
to be fellow travelers of anarchism and, to some extent, even come from
its ranks or have passed through its collectives or organizations, but,
for whatever reason, they have disassociated themselves from the
libertarian movement as we understand it. Therefore, these initiatives
cannot be considered part of our movement; rather, they build and
participate in others.
Therefore, speaking of the libertarian movement itself, we have a
considerable union space-not reaching the strength of yesteryear, of
course-composed of the CGT and CNT and all their offshoots (Solidaridad
Obrera, CNT-AIT, SAS Madrid, STS-C, and other smaller union groups).
This movement has a considerable presence throughout Spain. It's true
that it's a divided union space, often at odds with one another, which
diminishes its potential and contributes to its discredit. It's also
true that for some unions, libertarian communism is such a far-reaching
aspiration that it's not even considered in their current strategy.
If anarcho-syndicalism is the spearhead, there are also organizations or
organic initiatives behind it that were founded to contribute to the
goal I mentioned earlier. These would be the anarchist synthesis
organizations and collectives (this includes what was once called
"neighborhood anarchism"), the anarcho-communist ones (currently called
"specific," which seems to be the most popular word at the moment), and
the insurrectionist ones. Their strength is limited to their own
militants, and their influence extends to the broader spaces in which
they operate. We're talking about some very specific neighborhoods in
which they operate. Their presence influences the anti-capitalist scene
in the places where they operate, and they are generally based in the
urban areas and cities of their metropolitan areas (Madrid, Barcelona,
Seville, Valencia, Zaragoza, Granada, A Coruña, etc.). And their real
impact comes from their militant capacity and commitment. That's why
they have influence.
Next, we had what we can understand as informal anarchism, autonomism,
or, as Murray Bookchin would say, "anarchism as a way of life." We could
almost consider it a subcultural scene rather than a political movement,
but I don't deny the interest of many of the people who participate in
it in transforming society at its roots. It inherited part of that
subcultural component from the Iberian Peninsula punk scene, which so
influenced the anarchism of the 1990s and 2000s.
This informal anarchism or autonomism organizes events that can
occasionally become massive, such as protests, protest camps, or
anarchist book fairs, but they generally remain spaces for socializing
and networking rather than for social intervention. As a criticism, they
run the risk of falling into inbreeding by living quite apart from the
social mainstream. In this sector, we can find both people whose goal is
libertarian communism and those who aren't interested and seek to live
as freely as possible in today's society.
However, from the informal organization, various networks and
coordinators of squatted social centers, libertarian athenaeums, media
outlets, and counter-information organizations were launched, and other
social movements such as anti-militarism, environmentalism, and the
fight against the globalization of capital were also involved.
In Spain during the 1990s and 2000s, a dualism prevailed:
anarcho-syndicalism, understood as a political organization, and
informal anarchism, generally anti-organization. This was almost
hegemonic, and there was little room for organizational attempts that
lasted rather short (the second Autonomous Struggle, Libertarian
Alternative, Galician Anarchist Federation, local and regional
libertarian assemblies, networks of libertarian athenaeums and CSOs,
etc.). During those years, no peninsular libertarian space was ever
articulated, beyond the FIJL, linked to insurrectionism, or the FAI,
which by 2000 already seemed focused exclusively on libertarian culture.
However, the movement gained momentum later on. The youth movement built
organizations: FIJA and the first FEL, as well as some local libertarian
youth organizations. The anarcho-independence movement was strengthened
with Negres Tempestes in Catalonia, which generated its own momentum.
This was a time of heightened anti-development struggles, attracting
hundreds of people. Anarchist book fairs proliferated. Anarchist
websites like Alasbarricadas and Klinamen, and more diverse ones like
Indymedia, LaHaine, and Kaosenlared, received thousands of visitors;
there were still various publications in the form of fanzines,
magazines, and newspapers...
From 2010-12, anarchism emerged, developing in neighborhood or
municipal and regional assemblies. This coincided with the period
following the 15M movement. In some cases, such as in Catalonia,
federations were formed between these groups. But all this lasted only a
short time, lasting two, three, or five years, with the exception of a
few groups that achieved generational change, such as Heura Negra in
Vallcarca (Barcelona). Those local libertarian assemblies were the
political school for many activists of our time, because they were truly
many groups.
The lack of consolidation of these groups paralleled the crisis of
insurrectionism following the repressive measures it suffered between
2011 and 2016. But it wasn't just a repressive issue, it was also a
political one. Whatever happened, all of this paralyzed the political
project of the Coordinated Anarchist Groups. This crisis demobilized
part of its membership or caused it to drift toward other, more
practical projects, and also prevented it from renewing itself
generationally.
The most political anarchism, so to speak, was also articulated during
that time. For example, Embat in Catalonia, Apoyo Mutuo in Madrid,
Aragon, and Seville, Aunar in Aragon, and the Libertarian Student
Federation. We're not going to lie to anyone: we're talking about a very
small scene that didn't even manage to become a proper movement, despite
our intentions.
Regarding Embat, our analysis of the post-15M era was that many
essentially libertarian ideas and practices had been seen, but they were
barely articulated by the libertarian movement. Proposals were brought
to the squares individually and embraced by a politically diverse
audience. We were aware-we saw them-that in those same squares there
were Marxist or social democratic political organizations that aimed to
do their part. So we understood the need for our own organization to
channel that spontaneous libertarian spirit toward a revolutionary
perspective. That's why Embat was born.
During this time, we were able to garner some sympathy, but we failed to
attract those libertarian people embedded in the social and popular
movements. Most of them preferred to continue without a specific
organization. This proved fatal when Podemos emerged in 2014. Many
people who should have been previously organized as anarchists ended up
joining the circles and candidacies of Podemos, Ganemos, Sí Se Puede,
Más Madrid, or the CUP in Catalonia. Without a strategic line of their
own, they adopted social democratic lines until they burned out and went
home, or until they completely converted to those positions.
Meanwhile, people from libertarian assemblies, insurrectionist
movements, and informal anarchism gradually entered anarcho-syndicalism.
This time not to turn it into a political organization as in the 1990s,
but rather for labor-related issues or to help develop some social and
cultural area within the unions. They also entered the housing struggle,
this time without the intention of "radicalizing the struggle," but
rather to become just one more. Something similar must have happened in
the 1980s with people who emerged from the libertarian athenaeums.
During those years, 2015-2020, we should highlight the influence of the
Federation of Anarchists of Gran Canaria in the libertarian field. Their
approach combined elements of social and insurrectionary anarchism under
an identitarian anarchist discourse that championed "neighborhood
anarchism." They were also the driving force behind the first Tenants'
Union in the entire state and, at the time, advocated for a rent strike.
They managed to bring anarchism to the most disadvantaged neighborhoods
of Gran Canaria, reaching a range of people who hadn't been reached in
decades. The FAGC attempted to replicate their neighborhood anarchism
elsewhere in the state, giving dozens of talks and writing numerous
texts. However, they failed, and no one on the Iberian Peninsula copied
their model, which was a shame, since we have always appreciated this
anarchism with such strong social roots.
Following the 2020 pandemic, we witnessed the rise of the GKS/Socialist
Movement and its significant impact among the youth of the revolutionary
left. Anarchism was literally out of the picture at that time, as we
have seen. The ambiguous discourse-half Leninist, half
autonomous-libertarian-that this socialist movement had in its early
days attracted groups of young militants to those areas. This included
people who had previously been active in social or insurrectionist
anarchism, which put a good part of our movement on guard.
Consequently, the need to offer an anarchist organizational alternative
became clear. Thus, Alternativa Libertaria and Liza were born in Madrid
in 2023 (the former later joined the latter), now Hedra in Alicante,
Impulso in Granada, the Seminario de Estudios Libertarios Galegos
(Galician Libertarian Studies Seminar), and, within synthetic anarchism,
the Horizontal network at the state level (although this did not have
much traction) and some new groups. There was even the incorporation of
Acción Libertaria of Zaragoza into the FAI, a group well established in
its neighborhood. Currently, some anarchist assemblies are being
re-established in various cities, such as Seville, with that plural or
synthetic character that we previously saw in other similar ones. All of
this occurs in a context of true growth of anarcho-syndicalism, which
has also opened new study centers and cultural entities.
In short, it has been necessary to offer strong organizations in
response to the need of working-class youth to organize. Right now, our
entire political space is under construction. Even so, many territories
remain with virtually no libertarian organization beyond
anarcho-syndicalism, a few distri, CSO, or music bands.
We are concerned that no assessment has been made of the 2010-2020
decade and that groups are emerging that uncritically copy the same
models that entered into crisis in those years. Because there are not
many spaces for interaction between currents, no collective learning is
being transmitted-a starting point that comrades starting out now can
draw upon. This could be the role of Ekintza Zuzena.
The First Meeting of Specific Anarchism was held in Catalonia in the
summer of 2024. What need did this initiative address, and what is your
assessment of it?
The meeting is a response to previous contacts between the various
organizations and groups that exist in Spain and claim to be part of the
specificist movement. We intended to draw the attention of this
unorganized, but still pro-organizational, libertarian milieu within the
state. That is, those people who now feel the need to have someone
behind them to work politically as anarchists without fearing other
currents of the socialist left.
At that time, about 80 people gathered at the Calafou factory (Vallbona
d'Anoia), exceeding our expectations. Many people came who didn't belong
to the organizing organizations (Batzac Embat, FEL, Liza, and
Regeneración Libertaria), and we had some very fruitful discussions with
like-minded people from Granada, Galicia, and elsewhere.
During the meeting, a greeting was recorded for the sister organization
in the United States, Black Rose, on the occasion of its Convention
(something like the annual congress they have there).
A strong point was the quality of the debate, with very solid arguments.
It was also clear that everyone was pulling in the same direction: the
need for political organization and social integration-which is to be
expected at a meeting of this tendency, but which is not common in
contemporary anarchism, and that's why it pleasantly surprised us.
And as a weak point, we note the limited communicative capacity our
movement still possesses, typically allergic to audiovisual media, with
no desire for prominence or desire to make a spectacle of its own
everyday life. Admittedly, this demonstrates a modicum of common sense,
but I think it's also positive to make a little noise, to be known and seen.
What groups or initiatives are currently driving this movement, and what
are their goals?
The initiatives that are currently driving this trend in the state are
the following in order of creation:
Libertarian Student Federation. Emerging in 2008 from several student
assemblies in Madrid, Catalonia, and Aragon, it was rebuilt in 2014
after a, let's say, generational hiatus, and has lasted until this year.
Its tendency was toward "social and organized anarchism" until recently,
when it began to define itself as specificist. As student groups come
and go quite quickly, it hasn't managed to consolidate in recent years
and now only existed in Catalonia. At the end of last year, it joined
Batzac, forming its student front.
Libertarian Regeneration . A website founded in 2012 as a space for
current analysis, theoretical articles, social studies, and libertarian
culture within social and organized anarchism. Last year, given that its
current members adhere to the Especifista movement, they decided to put
the platform at the service of a shared project. Today, it is the
official website of the Especifista movement, or organized anarchism, in
Spain. It serves as a link between the organizations that promote it and
as a point of debate and exchange of ideas.
Embat, Libertarian Organisation of Catalonia . Born in 2013 as Procés
Embat[3](like the previous ones, under the paradigm of "social and
organised anarchism") and since 2015 under its current name. It is an
organisation that has gone through different stages: one of
consolidation, acting as a network of militants (2013-15), another of
social insertion as an organisation (2015-19), another very active
during the Procés Independenceista (2017-18), the 2020 break in which we
took advantage to create our Political Line[4], and the current era. At
the moment we are active in the fields of housing, education, feminism,
eco-social and labour.
Batzac, Joventuts Llibertàries . Founded in 2017, it organizes young
people who, in most cases, have not previously participated in activism.
Until now, it had not declared itself a specificist movement, but rather
a social anarchist movement. This stems from its interest in achieving
specific social integration, such as those developed in housing, in the
student sphere, and in the workplace. It has recently incorporated the
FEL movement in Catalonia.
Liza, Madrid's Organizing Platform . Founded in 2023, it brought
together a group of people in need of organization who shared a
strategic and tactical vision somewhere between platformism and
specificism. Its emergence was combined with strong online communication
and intense activity, which enlivened the Iberian scene, resulting in
the current semblance of coordination. Its presence is particularly
prominent in housing and neighborhoods. Its interest in debating with
the rest of the anarchist movement, confronting autonomist and
anti-organization tendencies, is also worth highlighting. Liza absorbed
an organizing project called Alternativa Libertaria, which emerged from
FEL Madrid.
Impulso - Granada defines itself as a space for reflection on organized
anarchism . Created at the end of 2024, for now, it's precisely what
defines it: a space for debate and training around the ideas of
organized anarchism in Granada. Its intention is to move forward
gradually, without skipping a step, until it culminates in a political
organization.
Hedra, a Especifista Organization from Alicante . It's a recent arrival,
having been established in January 2025. It's the first to be created
under the Especifista umbrella, as its theoretical foundations draw
directly from the fundamental texts of this movement. Its presence is in
housing and in the neighborhood through a center.
I'd also like to mention Teima Publishing . They're currently working on
a book by Felipe Correa, called Bandera Negra . The publishing house
will publish texts from our movement in Spanish. However, there are some
publishing houses that publish books in our vein, such as Descontrol in
Barcelona or Ardora y Bastiana in Galicia.
In addition to these organizations, which are public, there are other
initiatives in other parts of the state that have not yet come to light,
and which I won't mention so as not to jinx them. Some of them come from
anarchist synthesis collectives or assemblies that are drifting toward
our style of anarchism. By the way, none of them come from the Basque
Country, so let's see if anyone is interested!
Regarding the stated objectives, the priority is to create a broader
anarchist movement with a greater impact on society, bringing anarchism
back to the forefront of social struggle.
It's worth mentioning that we're also coordinating with other European
organizations of our current movement and with those from around the
world. The current international coordination includes more than twenty
organizations, and several more are in the process of joining. The
best-known are the Union Communiste Libertaire (French-speaking European
countries), Die Plattform (Germany), Anarchist Communist Group (UK),
Black Rose Federation (USA), the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, the
Anarchist Federation of Rosario (Argentina), the Anarchist Coordinator
of Brazil, and Tekoshina Anarsist (Rojava). We're also in contact with
other new initiatives currently being formed. In some ways, it seems to
be a parallel process to that in Spain, which indicates that the
anarchist movement is seeking to become better organized.
The concept of popular power has been most widely disseminated in Latin
America, where it has generated significant debate. What is your
interpretation or definition of popular power? How would you
differentiate it from left-wing populism?
It was in the 1970s that the FAU opted to borrow this concept from the
Chilean MIR (Revolutionary Movement of the Revolution), the Tupamaros,
and other movements of the time that combined various forms of Marxism
(primarily Leninism and Guevarism), Liberation Theology, national
liberation, and Latin Americanism (which maintains that Latin America is
a single country). It should be added that anarchism also influenced
this amalgamation, something that is often overlooked. In the 1960s,
people's power replaced Leninism's concept of "dual power."
Latin American anarchists of the time understood this as logical, since
this dual power (those soviets that coexist with the bourgeois state in
an advanced phase of the class struggle, once the revolutionary stage
has been reached) in turn drew on Bakunin's ideas.
In the FAU of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a lively debate about the
historical subjects who should carry out the revolution. Given the
configuration of Uruguayan society at the time, it was necessary to
create a subject that would unite all the oppressed sectors of society.
The idea of "the people" was used. But the people were understood as
"those from below." They had nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. It was
somewhat like when the historical CNT-FAI spoke of "the working people"
in its newspapers and manifestos. They didn't refer solely to the
proletariat, since at that time, to ordinary people, it sounded like
talk of factories and little else.
In this relationship between ideology and the production of historical
subjects-a relationship that, if it did not exist, would mean neither
ideology nor subject-the moments of ideological validity are formed.
Historical subjects/agents expand and lead to the hegemony of social
bodies, based on the validity of ideologies.[5]
As the class struggle unfolded in Latin America, alliances came into
play between the organized labor movement, the student movement, the
first feminist associations, the peasantry, and grassroots collectives
centered on identity, such as Afro-Colombian, mestizo, and indigenous
peoples. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the social war received support from
the self-employed and small business owners expelled from industrial
manufacturing. The class struggle often moved to neighborhoods or
communities far from the city, and elements of counterpower were
generated from below in the midst of the struggle. This was popular
power: the people in motion, diffuse, anonymous, contradictory,
creative, festive, and combative. Land seizures, industrial cordons,
armed groups, occupation of universities-this was popular power in the
eyes of ordinary people. In no way should it be confused with
interclassism, with its conscious "from below" nature.
In the 2000s, criticism began. Especifist or organized anarchist
organizations used popular power in their political language. But
Marxist organizations did too. In Cuba and Venezuela, all ministries
carried the tagline "popular power." So the term was also linked to the
socialist state. Those critical of the concept of popular power also
pointed out that there had also been a shift away from anarchism within
the Especifist ranks toward Marxism or national populism. Some
anarchists even went further, denying our entire movement's adherence to
anarchism, viewing it as a crypto-Marxism as a whole. This is the origin
of the conflict.
With Embat, it was even comical to see that, during the first few years,
certain people would always come to all our talks and say that popular
power couldn't be anarchist in any way. Ironically, we had the opinion
that, in reality, everyone understood us perfectly, except for the "most
anarchist." No one seemed to have the slightest problem with the Black
Power of the Black Panthers in the United States, a concept roughly
equivalent to popular power.
In any case, the passing of the years has greatly mitigated those
debates. If some organizations or individuals have shifted toward other
ideological positions, the vast majority have not, contributing to the
libertarian movement as a whole, not just to our current in particular.
Today, in Spain, this concept has been largely accepted, even by people
who come from other currents, such as anarcho-syndicalism, or by
libertarians who are active in neighborhoods or housing without ever
having been on our wavelength.
Regarding left-wing populism, we must say that it engages in
interclassism, combining working-class demands with more bourgeois
middle-class ones. This would be the main difference. Especifismo
defends a "strong people" constructed as a front for the classes
oppressed by capitalism and the state. Although both currents speak of
popular power, there are substantial differences. Let's see what
Especifismo thinks:
We proclaim the most complete socialization of all spheres of social
activity. The socialization of the means of production exercised by the
organs of real representation of society and not by the State; the
socialization of education, the administration of justice, defense
organizations, the sources of knowledge and information, and most
especially the socialization of political power. In this last aspect, we
advocate the abolition of the State and governmental forms of power as
the only guarantee for the elimination of all forms of domination.
[...]
We are fully convinced that this is indeed possible through direct
democracy, exercised by grassroots organizations organized in a
self-managed manner and linked within a federalist framework, where
these same grassroots organizations express themselves in new
institutional forms. Today we know more firmly than ever that the model
of society we propose is not only possible but is practically, and in
accordance with the historical and revolutionary experience of different
peoples of the world, the only valid path for truly building socialism.[6]
It would be bold to say that this is not anarchism.
To what extent can the desire not to remain confined to the ghetto and
to participate (with a non-dogmatic discourse) in current social
struggles or processes lead to political contradictions with anarchist
or basic principles of the society for which you fight? Do you recall
any occasions when you experienced this dilemma?
Social processes are inherently complex. There are many forces at play
and many vested interests. The challenge is to build transformative
collective interests in a democratic, transparent, and fraternal
environment.
For Embat, the real test was 2017. We had to position ourselves in a
tremendously complex scenario. The Spanish state was in crisis, and
Catalan society demanded a response. This was the referendum. In just a
few months, we experienced a large-scale process of collective
empowerment. In just a few weeks, I'd say. The movement was already
underway, but the events encouraged many more people to join the
process. Counter-power structures were created, the committees for the
defense of the Republic. They operated as assemblies, calling for
actions and demonstrations. But they also had the opportunity to be
spaces of territorial counter-power. Another initiative worth
considering was the Constituent Process, which proposed a constituent
assembly for an independent Catalonia that would accommodate the most
advanced social aspects. Social and union movements also joined the
process in their own way. They joined and were responsible for the
famous general strike of October 3, one of the most widely followed in
Catalan history. The slogan of blocking transportation-trains, highways,
and, in 2019, the airport-naturally emerged. Something that had only
been theorized about in some anti-capitalist debate years before and was
dismissed due to a lack of momentum was put into practice.
Although we were perfectly aware that the leadership of this entire
process was in the hands of the long-standing Catalanist political
class, we also saw what was happening below. Our response was that we
had to be there. We always felt that much more could have been done if
all the social and union movements had acted unitedly and as a bloc. But
this would have required a much more organized anarchism, which is what
we were trying to build.
Another complex and conflictive moment in which we had to take a stand
was during the pandemic. Embat's position denounced the police state and
the state's militarization of public spaces, while workers in "essential
services" were forced to go to work without sufficient protective
measures. We also highlighted the devastating effects of the
privatization of healthcare and the management of nursing homes and
clinics by private entities. At the same time, we welcomed the
self-organized mutual support groups that emerged in many places, as
well as grassroots initiatives in which we participated, such as the
Social Shock Plan or the attempted rent strike that was proposed during
those months. I would add that we took advantage of the lockdown
internally to develop our political line, which required much debate.
And during that time, the International Coordination Committee, in which
we participated, was also strengthened.
The contradictions were clear within our libertarian movement. Some
focused on denouncing the police state and the infantilization of
people, while others preferred to focus on denouncing privatization and
self-organization. We didn't see a unified approach, and each person
waged a bit of their own war. Perhaps what united us most were those
proposals for a shock plan and similar ones.
[1]This fragment can be found in the Introduction of The Platform
https://www.nestormakhno.info/spanish/platform/introduccion.htm
[2]For more information see The Strategy of Specifism . Interview by
Felipe Correa to Juan Carlos Mechoso:
http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/La-Estrategia-del-Especifismo.pdf
[3]Embat in Catalan refers to the crash of a wave against a rock. It
sounded powerful and poetic to us, and it seemed a better name than the
typical acronyms of other libertarian organizations of our time.
[4]This was when specificity was adopted as one of the guiding
principles. The Political Line can be consulted at:
https://embat.info/programa-i-linia-politica/
[5]Popular Power from a libertarian perspective.
https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/poder-popular-desde-lo-libertario-fau/
[6]idem
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/06/03/entrevista-sobre-el-anarquismo-especifista-para-ekintza-zuzena/
_________________________________________
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