Category: Revolution, State, Reform , Articles , Organization ---- Foreword of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation ---- Huerta Grande, or "The Great Garden," was written in 1972 as an internal discussion document of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya) after the failure of the Tupamaros, a Guevarist group, in their armed strategy known as Focoism 1 , and immediately before the brutal military coup of June 1973. This text addresses the nature of theory and strategy, arguing that a fundamental aspect of revolutionary political organization is having a deep understanding of material reality, nourished by practical theory and political praxis. This may not seem like a new or original idea, but its implications have since had a profound impact on Latin American anarchism, and the text has become one of the foundational documents of the Especifismo movement.
The Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya), known as FAU, was founded in 1956 and was the first organization to advocate the organizational concept of Especifismo (for more information on Especifismo, see "Building a Revolutionary Anarchism" and "Especifismo: The Anarchist Praxis of Building Popular Movements and Revolutionary Organizations in South America"). The FAU saw the purpose of its organization as coordinating militants toward strategic "social articulation," meaning mobilizing militants to work together with a common strategy both within mass organizations and in building them. The medium-term goal was the construction of the social power of mass organizations; the ultimate goal was the creation of a broad-based libertarian movement capable of achieving a break with the state. In the 1960s, the organization played a significant role in the founding of the Uruguayan CNT, a national trade union confederation bringing together 90 percent of organized workers; the Workers-Students Resistance (ROE), a federation of militant workplace and student groups with approximately 12,000 members; and the FAU's armed wing, OPR-33. More recently, over the last two decades, the FAU has helped establish numerous similar anarchist organizations in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, and has inspired other anarchist organizations worldwide.
Note: The use of the term "party" here is consistent with Errico Malatesta's use of it synonymously with political organization: "By the word 'party,' we mean everyone who is on the same side, that is, who shares the same general aspirations and who in some way fights for the same goals against common enemies and adversaries."
Huerta Grande
To understand what is happening (the current situation), one needs to think correctly. Thinking correctly means organizing and appropriately handling the enormous amount of data being generated regarding reality.
Correct thinking is an indispensable condition for accurately analyzing what happened at a particular point in a country's history, or in the history of any other country. This requires tools. For our task, these tools are concepts, and to think coherently, a set of concepts expressed in a consistent manner is necessary. Therefore, a system of concepts, a theory, is necessary.
Without theory, there is a risk of examining each problem separately, in isolation, from perspectives that may differ in each case, or examining them based on subjectivity, assumptions, or what is presented to us.
The party managed to avoid serious mistakes because it was able to think on the basis of concepts possessing a significant level of consistency. However, it also made serious mistakes because our theoretical thinking as an organization was not sufficiently developed.
To propose a program, we must know the economic, political, and ideological realities of our country. The same is necessary to formulate a sufficiently clear and concrete political line. If we have insufficient or incorrect information, we cannot have a program; we will only have a very general line that is difficult to implement wherever the party is involved. If there is no clear line, there will be no effective political practice. Then the political will of the party risks being diluted; "voluntarism" in action results in doing everything based only on good intentions, but does not determine the outcome of events because it is based on false predictions. We are determined by events and act spontaneously according to them.
An organization without a theoretical working line, no matter how large, will be helpless in the face of conditions it cannot influence and comprehend. A political line requires a program conceived as goals to be achieved at every stage. The program shows which forces are friends, which are enemies, and which are merely temporary allies. But to know this, we need a deep understanding of the country's reality. Therefore, acquiring this knowledge now is the top priority. And to know, we need theory.
The party needs a clear picture to think coherently about the struggles of the national, regional, and international workers' movements throughout history. We must have an effective framework for organizing and categorizing the ever-increasing mass of data concerning our economic, political, and ideological reality.
We must have a method for analyzing this data, determining which is more important, which is prioritized, and which is secondary, so that we can correctly mobilize our forces on this front of intervention. A conceptual scheme that allows us to connect one thing to another in a systematic and coherent order is vital to our goals as militants of the party. Such a scheme should be able to offer examples of how to act using these concepts for others operating in different realities.
However, we must undertake this work of understanding our country ourselves, because no one else will do it for us.
We are not proposing to invent theoretical frameworks from scratch. We will not create a new theory and all its consequences. This is because of the general backwardness of the environment and its specialized institutions, and our lack of competence to undertake this task.
Therefore, we must accept theory as it is and analyze it critically. We cannot blindly accept any theory, devoid of criticism, as if it were a dogma.
We want to bring about a complete transformation of our country, and we will not adopt the theories produced by the bourgeoisie as a way of thinking. We will think with the bourgeoisie's concepts in the way the bourgeoisie wants us to.
We want to study and think about Uruguay and the region as revolutionaries. Therefore, among the elements that are part of different socialist currents, we will always adopt those that will help us to do precisely this: as revolutionaries, we will think about and analyze the country, the region, and other regions and experiences.
We will not adopt a theory simply because it is fashionable. Repeating "quotations" that others have said elsewhere, at other times, about other situations and problems is not theory. Only charlatans do that.
Theory is a tool that serves a purpose. Its existence is to produce the knowledge we need. The first thing we want to know is about our country. If theory cannot produce new and useful information for our political practice, it is absolutely useless; it then becomes merely the subject of empty talk and unproductive ideological debates.
Someone who buys a large, modern machine instead of working on it, and spends all day talking about it, is playing a bad role, he is a charlatan. Just like someone who, despite owning a machine, prefers to do his work by hand, saying, "That's how it used to be done"...
Some Differences Between Theory and Ideology
It is important to highlight some differences between the concepts commonly referred to as theory and ideology.
Theory aims at developing conceptual tools used to rigorously consider and deeply understand concrete reality. In this sense, we can characterize theory as equivalent to a science.
Ideology, on the other hand, consists of non-scientific elements that, while related to objective conditions, do not necessarily stem from them, but rather add dynamism to actions based on those conditions. Ideology is conditioned by objective conditions, but it is not mechanically determined by them.
A deep and rigorous analysis of a concrete situation, based on fact and objectivity, is, to the extent that it is scientific, a theoretical analysis. The expression of motivations, the articulation of goals, aspirations, and ideal aims - all of these belong to the realm of ideology.
While theory examines and defines the determining elements of political action, ideology motivates, mobilizes, and shapes its "ideal" goals and forms.
There is a very close connection between theory and ideology, since the propositions of ideology are based on and supported by the results of theoretical analysis. The effectiveness of an ideology as a driving force for political action is proportional to how firmly it is based on the results of theory.
Scope of Theoretical Studies
Theoretical work is always based on and supported by real processes, events in historical reality, and occurrences. However, because this work belongs entirely to the realm of thought, no concept is more real than another.
It is important to state two fundamental propositions:
On the one hand, there is the distinction between existing reality and real, historical processes, and on the other hand, between the processes derived from the knowledge and understanding of this reality. In other words, it is necessary to emphasize the difference between being and thought, between reality as it is and what we can know about it.
The supremacy of existence over thought, of reality over knowledge. In other words, the sequence of events is more importantit carries more weight as a determining factorin terms of what actually happened, rather than what we think or know about that reality.
Starting from these fundamental assumptions, it is important to understand the full scope of theoretical workthat is, the pursuit of knowledge driven by rigorous and scientific
methods of acquiring information. Theoretical work always relies on a predetermined raw material.[Theory]does not arise from concrete reality itself, but from information, data, and concepts about that reality. This primary material is processed in the process of theoretical work using specific useful concepts and specific tools of thought. The product of this processing is knowledge.
In other words, there are only real, concrete, and singular objects (determined by historical situations, specific societies, specific times). The process of theoretical work strives to know these.
Sometimes theoretical studies focus on abstract objects that do not actually exist, but only in thought; however, these are indispensable tools and a prerequisite for recognizing real objects (e.g., the concept of social classes, etc.). In the production of knowledge, raw material (a superficial perception of reality) is transformed into a product (rigorous scientific knowledge about reality).
The term "scientific knowledge" should be defined in relation to social reality. When applied to reality, this term refers to its comprehension through rigorous terminology, which is the closest approximation to reality.
It should be noted that, like all other objects of real inquiry, the process of comprehending social reality possesses infinite theoretical depth. Just as physics, chemistry, and other branches of science can infinitely deepen their knowledge of the realities that constitute their objects of study, so too can the social sciences infinitely deepen their knowledge of social reality. Therefore, waiting for "complete" knowledge of social reality is insufficient for taking action to change it. Trying to change it without a deep understanding of it is equally insufficient.
Sound scientific knowledge of social reality and social structure can only be obtained by working with information and statistical data, using more abstract conceptual tools that are formulated and shaped in theory. Through the practice of theoretical work, we aim to produce these conceptual tools, which become more precise and concrete each time; this leads us to knowledge of the concrete reality around us.
Only through a sufficient, deep, and scientific theoretical understanding can ideological elements (aspirations, values, ideals, etc.) be developed that constitute the appropriate tools for effectively transforming social reality into consistent principles and political practice.
Political Praxis and Knowing Reality
Therefore, effective political practice requires: knowledge of reality (theory), its integration with the objective values of transformation (ideology), and concrete political tools to carry out this transformation (political practice). These three elements unite in a dialectical whole that constitutes the transformative effort targeted by the party.
The question may be asked: Should we wait for the completion of theoretical development before taking action? No. Theoretical development is not an academic problem; it does not start from scratch. It is grounded, motivated, and developed by the existence of ideological values and political practice. Whether more or less correct, these elements historically precede theory and motivate its development.
Class struggle existed long before its theoretical conceptualization. The struggle of the exploited did not wait for the elaboration of a theoretical work. Its existence precedes knowledge about it; it was there before there was knowledge about it, before a theoretical analysis of its existence was made.
Therefore, starting from this fundamental observation, taking action, developing a political praxis, becomes a vital and indispensable necessity. Only through[praxis], that is, through the concrete existence of its development within the existing conditions, can we construct a useful theoretical framework. This framework should not be a worthless collection of abstract statements that, while possessing internal logic, have no consistency with the development of real processes. To theorize effectively, action is essential.
Can we set aside theory under the pretext of practical urgency? No. Let's say there can be a political praxis based solely on ideological criteria, and therefore lacking sufficient or inadequately based on theoretical analysis. This is a common situation around us.
No one can claim, or even come close to claiming, that in our reality, or in the reality of our[Latin]American region, there is sufficient theoretical analysis, that is, a sufficiently concrete understanding. This observation also applies to other parts of our reality. Theory is still in its infancy. However, struggles and conflicts have been going on for decades. This understanding should not lead us to underestimate the fundamental importance of theoretical work.
We must answer the previously asked question as follows: Primitive action is paramount, but the effectiveness of this praxis depends on a deeper understanding of reality.
In a reality similar to ours, in the social structure of our country, theoretical development, as everywhere else, must begin with a set of effective theoretical concepts that operate on the broadest possible data, forming the raw material of theoretical development.
When data is examined in isolation, without sufficient theoretical conceptual processing, it does not adequately reflect reality. This data only embellishes and conceals the ideologies it serves.
Abstract concepts, while providing sufficient background information on their own, do not reveal more about reality.
Theoretical studies in our country generally oscillate between these two false extremes.
1. Foquismo is a revolutionary strategy of Latin American origin that argues that a small and disciplined guerrilla group can incite the people to revolution through armed action and overthrow the regime.
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/04/08/buyuk-bahce-teori-ideoloji-ve-siyasi-uygulama-uruguay-anarsist-federasyonu/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten