We must understand that horizontality and cooperation do not imply that everyone must be present in every process. ---- It is very common, in various activist movements, to see people overwhelmed, overloaded with work and accumulated stress. At the same time, and conversely, there are scenes of inactivity and feelings of wasted time in long assemblies and meetings from which one emerges with the feeling of having made no progress, without reaching clear agreements, without defined tasks for the future, little space to intervene, or ineffective working groups. Throughout history, these phenomena have been repeated in revolutionary political organizations; situations that not only wear down and repel potential activists, but also hinder the progress of organizations in achieving their objectives.
These situations, and the emotions and pain they cause for members of the organization, are just as, if not more, concerning than when they occur in the workplace within the capitalist system (and perhaps we replicate them because we are part of the capitalist system). We must pay attention to the various areas for improvement that anarchism has experienced and continues to experience at the organizational level, in order to overcome these challenges and create strong, broad, and efficient organizations that achieve their objectives while always prioritizing the well-being of their members.
In 1972, the Organisation des Jeunes Travailleurs Révolutionnaires (ORG) published a scathing, self-critical, and even humorous pamphlet , translated by Ediciones Esfuerzo in 2016. The article in Spanish is titled "La militancia, etapa supremo de la alienación" (Militancy, the Supreme Stage of Alienation), although the literal translation would be "Militantism, the Supreme Stage of Alienation," a title chosen to emphasize the doctrinal aspect of militancy. This stark analysis of militancy in revolutionary and political organizations speaks frankly of a voluntary masochism among militants, since "the effort they compel themselves to make, and the doses of boredom they are capable of enduring, leave no room for doubt: these people are, first and foremost, masochists." Apart from the possible debates that could arise from a detailed reading of the article, we must not overlook the evidence that there are indeed dynamics that repel potential members and burn out current comrades, because a member should not be "the type of person for whom eight or nine hours of daily brutalization are not enough" nor should membership have a "doctrinal aspect" per se , as it often does and as the aforementioned article explains.
Overwork, with its resulting stress, and inactivity or a sense of wasted time are two of the main problems that can arise in an organization-so antagonistic, yet at times, so simultaneous. Dogmatic rigidity, a lack of dynamism, an inability to listen to and integrate new proposals, a top-down structure, and the view of the organization as immutable are characteristics that many activists reject and fear, and which a libertarian organization today must overcome if it doesn't want the burnout of its members to ultimately hinder its progress. It is urgent to find organizational formulas that foster flexibility, participation, and dynamism while simultaneously reaching consensus on objectives and actions to be carried out, with the necessary care, shared responsibility, and trust among its members to avoid falling into the aforementioned militant alienation.
These organizational deficiencies must be analyzed from a historical and scientific perspective in order to try to avoid them and clean up the organizations in order to build a cohesive membership that feels involved and cared for while advancing in positions and obtaining results, which increases motivation and encourages them to continue in the struggle.
To understand the atomization, lack of organization, and defeatism of the current anarchist struggle, I recommend reading the article "The Epidemic of Rabies in Spain (1996-2007)." Its authors analyze the failure of what was called "informal organization," which prevailed in the libertarian movement during the 1990s and 2000s, centered around insurrectionism and autonomism. At the same time, they state that they do not regret anything that was done, nor do they believe they wasted their time, which is interesting because it focuses on the errors of previous organizations while also acknowledging the limitations of their strategy. They assert that this "false criticism forgets, whether out of self-interest or ignorance, the conditions that were at work at the time." It is therefore vitally important to understand these "conditions that were at work at the time" and to identify the errors committed in the different periods of Iberian anarchism, which the aforementioned article sheds light on. They demonstrate how the sectarianism of "official anarchism" prior to these decades, its excessive bureaucracy, and its inability to actively include new members or broaden its activities, objectives, and strategies clashed head-on with what they call "youth antagonism." Outside of formal anarchist organizations, this antagonism deployed various practices such as squatting, fanzines, distribution networks, cultural activities, and participation in movements like the antimilitarist, anti-repression, antifascist, anti-bullfighting, and antisexist movements. In other words, "official anarchism," which "in its congresses stipulated with great exclusionary-inclusive delicacy that the Libertarian Movement was made up of the CNT, the FAI, the FIJL, and Mujeres Libres," failed to embrace the new and young anarchist forces that wanted to be protagonists in new struggles. There was no organized anarchist movement capable of welcoming these initiatives, these aspirations, and these new and broader ways of understanding the struggle for emancipation.
These young anarchists criticized bureaucratic dynamics, congresses, delegations, the frequency of meetings, and other organizational obligations, prioritizing concrete action without long-term aspirations or the pursuit of hegemony. They were based on and nourished by camaraderie, affinity, and the agility of discussion, by mutual support and practical collaboration. They allowed for a rethinking of organization as a means, not an end, conceived to fight, win, and disappear.
In informal organizations, there was no room for militant alienation, preventing a fetishization of the organization itself, as could occur with the aforementioned and mythologized organizations. However, there was also no room for a medium- and long-term strategy and objectives. At this point, we understand how traditional organizations, by failing to address the aforementioned inefficiencies, depleted their potential militancy, neglecting both individuals and objectives. This, along with other factors, led to the current state of affairs regarding the libertarian struggle. Therefore, our mission is to create organizations that embrace the dynamism demanded by "youthful antagonism" and avoid the pitfalls of "official anarchism," while simultaneously maintaining a long-term structure and strategy.
In the insightful article "Working to Live or Living to Be an Activist?" , written by Inés Kropo in this same journal, she states that "only activism that takes care of itself can last, and only that which lasts can transform," making it clear that our organizations cannot afford to reproduce a militant alienation that wears people down with an unbalanced distribution of labor. This same article examines activism and clearly explains why we must consider it work, albeit not in the mercantilist sense of the term.
«Structurally, militancy encaixa not reproductive work. It does not produce markets or exchange value, but it produces something fundamental: the conditions of possibility of politics itself. It produces collective tempo, it produces trust, it produces learning, it produces continuity. In short, it produces subjects capable of acting politically in a sustained manner. Produces power. Like all other reproductive work, it tends to be invisible when it works and only becomes evident when it fails.
Finally, the article discusses "the care of coexistence, limits, and the redistribution of work and power." While it does so from a sound feminist perspective, I am interested in shifting the focus, at this point, to analyzing what key aspects we must keep in mind to develop our organizations, and more specifically, organizations that seek to generate a strategy with dynamics that work and achieve results.
Work in our organizations should not be alienating (nor overloading, nor creating a sense of wasted time); it should be inclusive and practical, it should achieve objectives, and it should "last to transform." In other words, it should be organized so that everyone can contribute according to their abilities, and from these collective contributions, we can obtain the best results. It should be efficient work.
The optimal point, where organizational efficiency is achieved in productive terms, occurs when greater production is achieved with the fewest resources used, and we can extrapolate this to our political organization as the achievement of objectives or the achievement of greater strategic progress with the least wear and tear on the militants, always respecting the basic principles agreed upon.
We must understand the pursuit of efficiency not in a capitalist sense that seeks to increase productivity to achieve greater production, sales and profit margin, but in a libertarian sense that is aligned with an increase in freedom, capacity for development and enjoyment of people.
An organization that aims to build a better world should not be allowed to generate the same ills as the worst and most inhumane production lines or conventional hierarchical organizations, which exploit workers solely to steal the fruits of their labor and increase corporate profits. It is worrying that this phenomenon occurs in organizations striving for horizontal structures, without a supervisor demanding that you tighten 70 nuts per minute like Chaplin in Modern Times . And yet, one of the fundamental problems of militant alienation, of weariness, frustration, and apathy, stems precisely from the fact that sometimes there isn't just one supervisor demanding 70 nuts on an assembly line, but rather between five and twenty activists working together, nut by nut, supervising each other, "deciding" in assembly who tightens the next one, and, of course, debating whether it would be better to use an adjustable wrench, a socket wrench, a double-ended wrench, or an offset wrench. In other words, we may be generating the same or even more pressure among ourselves than the watchdog of the industrial boss, and, moreover, achieving the opposite effect to what the supervising dog seeks: to be much less productive.
When objectives (what to do) are agreed upon and action is guided by agreed principles and values (how to do it), all that should remain is trust in the colleagues who will carry out the tasks. In a healthy organization, members should act freely, confidently, and with good judgment, choosing their own tools, making mistakes, and learning from each other. The collective should support and contribute, avoiding fleeting arguments and debates that hinder progress rather than advance the work. The organization must be efficient to validate the argument that three people working together achieve more than the sum of three people working separately.
Conversely, while organizations that claim to be horizontal often replicate negative effects similar to those produced by hierarchical organizations within the capitalist production system, we can explore the path of understanding what leads to productivity and efficiency in these organizations and try to bring that understanding to our own field, based on our principles.
With the intention of provoking irritation in the intransigent anarchist sensibilities of some readers, I will quote the classical economist Adam Smith, who, in his book *The Wealth of Nations * (1776), was the first to analyze how the division of labor into distinct tasks increased worker productivity. Using pin-making workshops as an example, he explained how the various tasks were divided: some workers were responsible for smoothing the metal, others for cutting, another group for sharpening, and finally, there were those in charge of attaching the pin heads and polishing the pieces. Dividing work into different tasks fosters specialization among workers, allowing them to perform tasks better and faster, and enables better spatial and temporal organization, thus reducing overall time.
This reality, observed by the 18th-century liberal economist, led him to coin the term "division of labor" and defend it as a means to achieve greater productivity in organizations. As is often the case, it didn't take long for many business owners of the time to take Smith's words to heart and carry out disastrous transformations in their industries. We are talking about the emergence of industrial models based on seeking the maximum division of labor to increase productivity, production, and consequently, corporate profit. This division went so far that workers performed a single, precise, and measured movement repeatedly throughout their workday, every day of the year—in other words, perfect alienation by definition. All of this while ignoring Adam Smith's own warning, who clarified in the same book that "a man who spends his whole life performing a few simple operations has no occasion to exercise his intelligence or mobilize his inventiveness. He naturally loses the habit of exercising them and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as a human creature can become" ( The Wealth of Nations , p. 717).
Anarchist authors such as Emma Goldman and Piotr Kropotkin warned of the dangers and alienation inherent in this division of labor. On the one hand, it clearly generates hierarchies, placing intellectual and manual tasks at different levels and subordinating one to the other; on the other hand, it leads to the brutal alienation and intellectual, physical, and mental deterioration of the proletariat.
However, although critical, they are aware of the advantages of a good division of labor. Proudhon himself recognizes the benefits that can come from this division of labor in his 1846 book, * System of Economic Contradictions *, noting that "it is useful when the worker remains master of himself and his work." Kropotkin, in Chapter XV of *The Conquest of Bread*, dedicated to the division of labor, harshly criticizes the capitalist approach to it and the resulting brutalization and alienation. While not dismissing the pursuit of productivity itself, he focuses his criticism on the effects on the individual, asserting that greater productivity would come from a variety of occupations. This should not invalidate the process of analyzing and dividing tasks to increase efficiency; rather, it adds the rotation that allows for expanding knowledge, contributing to other areas, and eliminating alienation.
In the first chapter of Fields, Factories and Workshops (1899) he again attacks the consequences of the division of labor and in this case he does focus on its consequent specialization and states that "while a temporary division of functions remains the safest guarantee of success in each particular enterprise, the permanent division is doomed to disappear, being replaced by a variety of intellectual, industrial and agricultural occupations, corresponding to the different aptitudes of the individual, as well as to the variety of these within each aggregation of human beings" ( Fields, Factories and Workshops , p.14).
From this critical analysis, we must understand that many of the problems of burnout among activists stem from organizational structures that can be improved. These structures should be based on agreed-upon objectives, basic principles, and tasks, and then a division of labor or task allocation should be implemented, allowing each person or group to focus on specific and achievable actions. With well-defined, distributed, and agreed-upon work, there will be neither overburdened nor idle activists. Furthermore, by clearly defining roles and rotations, taking into account availability and capabilities, formal and informal hierarchies will be avoided, and the need for redistribution of the invisible workload analyzed in Inés Kropo's article will be addressed. However, all of this requires a thorough analysis of the organization and the precise creation of groups and tasks. The result will be a healthier and less burdened militancy, which should not curtail the freedom of action of each individual, since, as Emma Goldman argued, within organizations, individual will and initiative must be respected above all else ( Anarchism: What It Really Means , p. 9).
This division of labor should not serve to create a hierarchy within the organization; it should simply serve to organize, define roles and responsibilities, and prevent interference or the accumulation of work or power. It should serve to improve coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. It should serve to avoid the overloads and inefficiencies generated by the lack of prior discussion in the formulation of objectives and actions to be carried out. From there, in an organization that claims to be libertarian, trust and commitment should be sufficient to prevent significant failures or deviations. When a part of the organization must make an urgent decision due to a setback or unexpected event, simply referring to the previously established objectives and principles should be enough to guide that decision-making, which, even if it is possible to err, should be done with humility and trust. Finally, when the achievement of the objectives is reviewed, everything that happened will be evaluated as a group, and in most cases, there will be room for improvement. But giving freedom, reviewing and proposing improvements once progress has been made is always better than not moving forward due to a lack of defined objectives and actions or due to debates and bureaucracies that hinder action.
The phenomenon that occurs when more people than necessary perform a task in economics is well-studied. It's called the law of diminishing returns and it perfectly illustrates certain deficiencies that arise in activist circles. This law states, in productive terms, that as a factor (workers) is increased, if the workspace or machinery is not increased, the resulting output will initially increase, but this increase will gradually decrease until it begins to decline. A simple example would be to imagine preparing sandwiches. Let's say that, in one hour, a person is able to make ten sandwiches with all their ingredients. Two people cooperating, with a well-executed division of labor, can make 25 sandwiches, which is more than the sum of the two people working separately. In the case of three people, they can prepare up to 45 sandwiches, which is much more than three working separately. However, there will come a point when this increase in productivity decreases, for two reasons: first, there are not enough tasks to perform; Second, if space is limited, people will start to get in each other's way, so not only will there be idle people, but they may also hinder the good performance of others, even preventing the achievement of the objective. This fact demonstrates the lack of organization, of defined roles and responsibilities that hinder the good work of organizations, demotivate the membership and prevent advancement in positions.
In capitalist organizations, this phenomenon is studied down to the last detail with the aim of reducing costs and not paying workers who reduce productivity. In our case, we are not looking for that, and if inefficiencies occur due to the natural development of activities, so be it; however, we must be aware of the harm it can cause to colleagues who are held back in their tasks and colleagues who feel that they are not contributing and that they could well be performing other, more profitable tasks.
We must understand that horizontality and cooperation do not imply that everyone must be present in every process. Sometimes, both egos and fears of leadership and hierarchies drive activists to want to be involved in every decision, every activity, and every process of the organization, in some cases leaving "less fun" tasks to be done or to someone who takes them on behind the scenes.
Therefore, we can say that the specificism faces the difficult task of creating organizations that reject sectarianism and are open to all of society and new members, that do not stagnate in bureaucratic processes that erode motivation, that achieve agile and dynamic structures when it comes to reaching consensus on objectives and designing strategies, that are based on trust and camaraderie to create working groups and processes that do not overwhelm a few or prevent the participation of others, and that are mature and flexible enough to review these processes and achievements, modifying the strategy as many times as necessary without falling into a fatalistic defeatism—due to tactical complications—that frustrates and prevents further progress towards medium and long-term objectives. Only by achieving agile organizations with a good division of tasks, principles, structure, and strategy can we overcome the dichotomy between those who have become entrenched in the old, sectarian, and bureaucratic "official anarchism" and the practicality and fleeting nature of informal organizations, which also failed to consolidate their achievements at a social level, in addition to avoiding overloads and idleness. Rethinking the organizational formula, agreeing on principles and objectives that frame actions, and thus facilitating the division of tasks will allow us to have efficient, inclusive, and balanced activism, avoiding militant alienation and achieving efficiency in processes and effectiveness in reaching objectives.
c. Militant of Hedra
Literature:
Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations . Alianza Editorial (2004)
Emma Goldman. Anarchism: What It Really Means (2022) Ed. Edu Robsy Retrieved from:
https://www.textos.info/emma-goldman/anarquismo-lo-que-significa-realmente/pdf
Inés Kropo. “Work to live or live to work?” Libertarian Regeneration Magazine (2026)
The Tigers of Sutullena. "The Rabies Epidemic in Spain (1996-2007)." Resquicios Magazine , numbers 4 and 5 (2007-08). Retrieved from:
https://www.briega.org/es/historia/epidemia-rabia-espana-1996-2007
Organization of Revolutionary Young Workers. Militancy: Supreme Stage of Alienation . Esfuerzo Editions (2016) Retrieved from:
https://esfuerzo.noblogs.org/files/2017/11/OJTR-La-militancia-estadio-superior-de-la-alienaci%C3%B3n-FOLLETO.pdf
Pierre Joseph Proudhon. System of Economic Contradictions or Philosophy of Poverty (1870) Retrieved from:
https://www.marxists.org/espanol/proudhon/filosofia-de-la-miseria.pdf
Piotr Kropotkin. The Conquest of Bread (1900) B. Bauza Publishing House. Retrieved from:
https://www.marxists.org/espanol/kropotkin/kropotkin-la-conquista-del-pan.pdf
Piotr Kropotkin. Fields, Factories and Workshops (1898) Reissued by Solidaridad Obrera Retrieved from:
https://www.solidaridadobrera.org/ateneo_nacho/libros/Piotr%20Kropotkin%20-%20Campos,%20fabricas%20y%20talleres.pdf
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/05/05/la-organizacion-eficiencia-vs-alienacion-militantista/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten