1. The Uruguayan Anarchist Federation was formed in 1956 following the merger of several groups of activists in the labor movement, young anarchists, and the magazine Voluntad. Could you briefly explain why these groups came together and what the process of forming the federation was like?
fAu: Between 1955 and 1956, several anarchist groups that had been active in different spheres came together. On the one hand, there were worker activists linked to the labor movement and historical spaces of popular organization; on the other, libertarian youth and student sectors seeking to bring anarchist intervention up to date in the new social struggles; and there was also the magazine Voluntad, an organ for political and propaganda work. They were joined by militants from different generations, including comrades whose histories dated back to the early decades of the 20th century and to significant experiences like the Spanish Revolution.The unification was a response to a shared concern: the need to overcome the organizational fragmentation of anarchism and build a political tool capable of intervening more effectively in the Uruguayan and Latin American reality. There was a perception that anarchism was going through a period of weakness and that it was not enough to preserve traditions or affinity groups. It was necessary to rebuild a stable political organization with the capacity for analysis, strategic planning, and social engagement.
Throughout 1955, a Commission for a Uruguayan Libertarian Federation operated, promoting debates, circulating documents, and organizing plenary sessions where principles, organizational forms, and work perspectives were discussed. The goal was to reach basic political agreements prior to the formal founding. From that process emerged the Declaration of Principles, the Charter, and the first strategic definitions that would give rise to the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation in 1956. Even back then, the common theoretical denominator for the militants engaged in this political work was especifismo. This conception of anarchism was taken as a strong general reference, signifying that they were in the process of building an anarchist political organization. The most influential theoretical figures at that time were Errico Malatesta and Mikhail Bakunin.
These groups understood that it was necessary to move from an anarchism that was primarily symbolic or scattered to an organized anarchism, with a commitment to having a real impact on the class struggle and popular movements. This concern is one of the founding characteristics of the fAu and of especifismo.
The Organization was conceived as a federation of cells and activists linked through collective agreements, shared political responsibility, and federative operation. This organizational form drew both on the historical tradition of River Plate anarchism and the conviction that unity must be built on the basis of common political commitments.
Although members came from different activist backgrounds and diverse spheres, priority was given to a federal political organization centered on a common strategy to intervene in reality and build social and political power.
Therefore, theoretical discussion was neither tense nor extensive. There was a tacit agreement from the outset. The "old-timers" considered many of the controversies they had once passionately debated to be settled. Thus, the political character of the organization being founded lay more in how the task was to be approached across the different fronts of work-trade union, student, neighborhood, and internal-and in the conjunctural analysis of Uruguay in relation to the broader political landscape, trade union affairs, and student and neighborhood movements, with a special emphasis on Latin America.
2. The fAu has 70 years of experience in the struggle, including the armed struggle against the civil-military dictatorship in Uruguay. What were the most difficult obstacles you faced, and which ones remain challenges today? What lessons were learned from all these experiences?
fAu: It took deep humility to understand the new conditions in which the popular struggle was unfolding. It was necessary to rebuild organizational tools, reestablish social ties, and develop responses suited to a reality very different from the one that existed before the dictatorship.
We can also mention today's challenges, such as setting out to break with prevailing individualism to build practices of solidarity and defining how to confront the policies of destitution coming from above. We always do so with a perspective of class independence for those at the bottom, proposing and driving the struggle and organization in social spaces.
To a certain extent, this has always been one of the main challenges of the fAu: to interpret each historical moment without simplifications or dogmas, to identify the possibilities and limitations of each conjuncture, and to develop the capacity to sow organization, struggle, and popular accumulation of social force under the concrete conditions imposed by each era.
In that sense, our concern has been to keep alive a political tool capable of engaging with the real problems of each era, rather than preserving a doctrine and mechanically repeating past experiences. For the fAu, following anarchist principles does not imply immobility, but rather the capacity to produce responses to new challenges, always maintaining the horizon of social transformation.
3. In which mass movements are members of your organization active?
fAu: With regard to the concept of mass movements, in the fAu tradition we usually speak of organized popular movements or expressions of the organized people. In that sense, historically we have been active in both the student movement and the labor movement, and we have a long history of grassroots activism rooted primarily in the neighborhoods of western Montevideo, but also in other working-class neighborhoods.
Likewise, we have historically participated in campaigns to promote popular initiatives through plebiscites and referendums against regressive laws that harm those at the bottom. We have also participated in popular and mass campaigns in defense of the right to asylum, as well as campaigns to denounce human rights violations during the dictatorship, search for the disappeared, and condemn the oppressors.
Currently, the militants in our organization are primarily engaged in union and neighborhood organizing.
4. Today, 100 years after the publication of the Platform, we would like to ask about your relation to that document. Some theorists argue that especifismo has a history distinct from that of platformism, but together they constitute two currents of organized anarchism worldwide.
To what extent are the two similar or different? What lessons do you draw from the experience of the Russian and Ukrainian Revolution described by Dielo Truda? What did especifismo add to the organized current of anarchism that may not be found in the Platform? Is the Platform relevant to anarchists today?
fAu: During the formation of the fAu, the classic documents of platformism-such as Dielo Truda's Organizational Platform-did not have a direct influence, although it was likely known to several of the founding militants. Our main organizational reference, as we mentioned earlier, came from the Malatestian tradition, from local experiences of anarchism in the Río de la Plata region, and from the debates developed by generations of Uruguayan militants.
However, this does not imply an open opposition between the two currents; we can find some points of convergence between them, without forgetting that the Platform emerged at a specific historical moment that we understand cannot be mechanically transposed to the Latin American reality.
But we can say that both especifismo and platformism stem from a critique of the more diffuse forms of anarchist organization and affirm the need for a specifically anarchist political organization, with strategic unity, collective responsibility, social engagement, and a transformative vocation. Both currents understand that anarchism must actively intervene in popular struggles and not limit itself to propaganda or abstract criticism of the system.
The differences lie mainly in their historical trajectories and in certain political emphases. Platformism emerged in exile among militants linked to the Ukrainian revolutionary experience led by Nestor Makhno and Pyotr Arshinov, as an attempt to respond to the difficulties faced by the anarchist movement during the Russian Revolution. Specifism, on the other hand, developed within the Latin American and River Plate context, drawing on its own tradition that included Malatesta in the River Plate region, the FORA, the FORU, the specific Uruguayan groups of the 1910s and 1920s, Fosalba, local trade union and organizational debates incorporating the region's trade union, neighborhood, and student experiences, as well as an ongoing reflection on the particularities of Latin American social formations and imperialism.
While some historical platformist currents placed the emphasis on building an anarcho-communist organization, especifismo tended to emphasize the relationship between political organization and social integration, the building of popular power, and the need to develop strategies adapted to each concrete reality.
Ultimately, these are two expressions of the organizational tradition of revolutionary anarchism that developed in parallel. Both share the conviction that profound transformations require organization, the accumulation of forces, and active participation in the struggles of oppressed sectors, rejecting both spontaneism and authoritarian conceptions that subordinate popular movements to external leadership.
Beyond this digression on differences and similarities, we can recognize the value of the Platform, which, in its time, sought to resolve a common problem: preventing anarchism from being reduced to a sum of scattered initiatives without adopting the hierarchical and statist logic of authoritarian revolutionary parties, and developing a revolutionary alternative to the party model that was taking hold in the Soviet Union. They recognized the need for organization, strategy, and coordinated intervention in the class struggle, and they rejected the concentration of political power in a party elite and the subordination of popular organizations to the state.
5. How would you describe the fAu? How is it organized? How are decisions made at the different organizational levels (e.g., regional, federal, etc.)?
fAu: The fAu sees itself as a revolutionary, federalist, and especifista anarchist political organization, dedicated to building popular power by engaging in the struggles of the exploited and oppressed classes. Our goal is not to replace popular movements or act as a vanguard, but to contribute to their strengthening by articulating political organization, revolutionary strategy, and concrete social intervention. This conception is developed from an internationalist perspective, yet is deeply rooted in the historical and social realities of Uruguay and Latin America. In short: an anarchist political organization to build a strong people.
The Organization is composed of groups organized according to their areas of engagement, and its decision-making body is the Federal Council. Additionally, a Congress is held every two years when, in addition to analyzing the current situation and making decisions for the period, secretaries are appointed for the various specific internal tasks of the Organization.
6. The fAu is part of the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA), which includes organizations in Brazil, Argentina, and now Chile. Could you describe the campaigns and activities you have carried out together?
fAu: Fundamentally, we have shown solidarity with the peoples who are struggling and have shared some analyses of the reality in Latin America.
Likewise, one of the most important tasks is to advance the development of anarchist groups and organizations in other parts of Latin America, for which we hold regular meetings with comrades and organizations from various Latin American countries.
7. Anarchist organizations in the organizational dualist model, in the mold of either (or both) especifismo or platformism, are presently growing globally. Why do you believe accounts for this?
The expansion and relevance of the various strands of organized anarchism are linked, above all, to their ability to offer solutions to political and social problems that persist in the contemporary world.
Throughout the 20th century and into the early 21st, the experiences of the institutional left and authoritarian socialist projects revealed clear limitations. On the one hand, broad sectors of social democracy ended up integrating themselves into the administration of capitalism, abandoning prospects for profound transformation and restricting their horizon to partial reforms. On the other hand, experiences that placed the party above society reproduced new forms of domination, bureaucratization, and concentration of power, often in the name of popular emancipation itself. Faced with this reality, organized anarchism seeks to transform society without creating new structures of domination.
Recent decades have shown that major resistance to neoliberalism, imperialism, and various forms of exploitation did not emerge from political parties or state institutions. In many countries, it was popular movements, local organizations, indigenous communities, militant unions, student movements, and other forms of grassroots organization that led the struggles and resistance. This reality reinforced the importance of political approaches that recognize the oppressed sectors themselves as the protagonists of the struggle.
But, furthermore, historical experience has also shown that spontaneity and mere activism are not enough. Struggles require continuity, the accumulation of experience, strategic planning, and the capacity for coordination. The challenge lies in building long-term organization. It is precisely at this point where currents of organized anarchism, including especifismo, have sought to make their main contributions.
From this perspective, anarchist political organization does not seek to replace popular movements or act as a vanguard directing from above. Its role is to provide analysis, strategy, education, and the capacity for coordination, strengthening the organizing processes of the oppressed and exploited classes without supplanting their leading role. The transformative force does not lie in political organization itself, but in the organized people.
We might add that the forms of exploitation, domination, and social control are constantly changing. Transformations in the world of work, precariousness, economic concentration, the advance of authoritarian projects, and new forms of imperialist interference demand political tools capable of interpreting each specific situation. This implies avoiding both dogmatism and opportunism: maintaining firm principles without turning them into rigid formulas incapable of engaging with reality.
The challenge lies in linking historical principles to contemporary problems, drawing on past experiences without mechanically transferring them to different contexts. The current relevance of organized anarchism is undoubtedly
linked to the political need for those at the bottom to build collective strength, organization, and transformative capacity through class independence, without delegating power to political elites or bureaucracies; to build a genuine resistance to the inhumane conditions of the capitalist system.
https://www.blackrosefed.org/platform-100-interviews-vol-1/#federacion-anarquista-uruguaya-uruguayan-anarchist-federation
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten