These words actually come from FARJ's work, Social Anarchism and Organizing, but this edited and abridged version reflects our organizational understanding of that text, which has been vital to the development of the Centre for Spectistical Studies and the continuity of Militant Kindergarten . We have adapted the following paragraphs from our "Reading Guide," without using page numbers or ellipses, and have numbered and subheaded them to facilitate a more fluid read.
1. THE TWO AXES OF SPECIFICISM
By specificism, we are referring to an anarchist understanding of organization with two fundamental axes: organization and social work/social articulation. These two axes are based on the classic concept of differentiated anarchist action at the social and political levels (the Bakunin axis) and the specific concept of anarchist organization (the Malastian axis).
2. The Ideology of Specificism
Synthesistism advocates for an anarchist organizational model that includes all anarchists (anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-individualists, etc.). Therefore, it shares many of the characteristics we criticize. We know that even within synthesist organizations, there are serious militants committed to social anarchism, so we don't want our criticisms to appear generalizing. While we never question whether these organizations are anarchist (in our view, they are all anarchist), they often do not align with our understanding of anarchist organization. There are other anarchist organizations that do not originate from the tradition of essentialism. Therefore, essentialism represents much more than simply advocating for anarchist organization. We understand anarchism as an ideology; that is, "a whole of ideas, motivations, aspirations, values directly linked to action, a structure or system of concepts, what we call political practice." Specificism, as an ideology, advocates for an anarchism that seeks to establish a model of action to transform contemporary society into libertarian socialism through social revolution. Our aim here is to distinguish this understanding of anarchism from another purely abstract and theoretical understanding that only encourages free thinking and does not necessarily require the establishment of a model for social transformation. Anarchism, when considered solely from this model of critically observing life, offers aesthetic freedom and infinite possibilities. However, when conceived in this way, it does not offer the possibility of real social transformation because it is not put into practice, into action. It lacks a political practice that considers ultimate goals.
3. ORGANIZATION IS THE MAIN PRINCIPLE.
In the specificist model, this distinction necessarily exists between the political and social levels of activity. Thus, specific anarchist organization is the organization of anarchists who come together at the political and ideological level and carry out their main activities at the broader social level, aiming to be the catalyst of the struggle. In designing this distinction between the social and political levels, we do not mean to imply that we want to be ahead of social movements or that the political level has any hierarchy or dominance over the social level. Generally, in anarchism, this distinction between the social and political levels is not accepted by all currents; these currents understand anarchist organization vaguely, considering it to be a social movement, an organization, a group of associates, a working group, a community, a cooperative, etc. There are also anarchist currents that advocate "anti-organization" or even spontaneous attitudes, considering all forms of organization to be authoritarian or contrary to anarchism. Some anarchist individuals who advocate these views and are willing to engage in social work cannot cope with authoritarian forces and, without proper organization, become laborers and "arms" for authoritarian projects, or they become disillusioned and leave because they cannot find a place in social movements. In our understanding, these and similar attempts to ideologize social movements weaken both the social movements themselves-which no longer function around concrete issues such as land, housing, and employment-and anarchism itself, because it does not allow for the deepening of ideological struggles within the social movement. This also weakens it because the goal of these anarchists to make all the militants of social movements anarchists is impossible unless it seriously diminishes and weakens the movements. Thus, or seeing that it is natural to encounter people from different ideologies who will never be anarchists in social movements, these anarchists become disillusioned and generally withdraw from the struggles. As a result, this anarchism often becomes inward-looking.
4TH GRADE STRUGGLE
From our perspective, anarchism originated from the people and belongs there; it must take a clear stance in favor of the exploited classes, who are in constant conflict in the class struggle. Therefore, when we discuss "where to sow the seeds of anarchism," it is clear to us that it must be done within the class struggle, in the areas where the contradictions of capitalism are most evident. There are anarchists who do not support this class struggle tendency of anarchism; worse, some criticize it as an attempt at liberation or an "apology for the poor." Many of these anarchists who reject class struggle believe that the classic definition of bourgeois and proletarian classes is no longer valid because it does not take into account today's society, and therefore classes no longer exist or are an outdated concept. We are fundamentally opposed to these views, and we believe that however we define classes, and however much emphasis we place on the economic aspect, it is undeniable that there are contexts and conditions in which some people suffer more from the effects of capitalism than others. These are precisely the contexts and conditions we wish to prioritize in our work. When we attempt to apply anarchism to class struggle, we introduce social work, which we previously defined as "the activity that anarchist organization carries out in the midst of class struggle, bringing anarchism into interaction with the exploited classes." As we have said before, for us, social work should be the primary activity of specific anarchist organization. We argue that anarchist organization should aim for social articulation (insertion), which is "the process of influencing social movements through anarchist practice," through social work.
5. SECTARIAN ANARCHISM[1]
Some argue that as individuals within society, they already possess social articulation. These often become sectarian. For anarchists who believe that social work/articulation is not a priority, the view prevails that other activities will be more effective in the development of anarchism, but this is often not explicitly stated. Furthermore, since they lack a strategic formulation, at least ostensibly, what happens in practice is that these anarchists tend to focus on propaganda, which remains very limited to publications, events, and culture. Propaganda is central to us as well, but it is insufficient without the support of social work and articulation. With this support, propaganda becomes far more effective. Therefore, in specificism, propaganda should be conducted with these two tendencies: being educational/cultural and engaging in struggle alongside social movements.
6. BOURGEOIS ANARCHISTS
They either abandon their proposal for social transformation, or they form a group that fights for the people, but not alongside them, assuming a vanguard role and not an active minority position. Ultimately, they transform their own anarchism into a "movement in itself," primarily composed of middle-class and intellectual individuals, not seeking contact with social and popular struggles, and not communicating with people of different ideologies. In most cases, they advocate spontaneity because, in their view, "coming from the outside," "introducing anarchism into social movements," is authoritarian. They believe ideas should emerge spontaneously. They condemn debate, persuasion, deception, exchange, and influence as externally imposed and therefore authoritarian practices within social movements.
7. PRACTICE THAT INFORMS THE THEORY
As we have explained, in our view, anarchism should neither be inward-looking nor should it shy away from social movements and people of different ideologies. Because we understand that class is defined not by origin but by the position one defends in the struggle, we believe that supporting social movements and organizations different from one's own reality, assisting in mobilizations and organizations, is an ethical obligation for every militant aiming for the end of class society. Finally, we believe that social work brings the necessary practice to anarchism and that this makes a tremendous contribution to the development of the theoretical and ideological line of organization. Groups and organizations without social work tend to radicalize a discourse that lacks practical support.
8. UNITY OF THEORY AND IDEOLOGY
For us, there is no way to have effective practice, or even to establish an organization, without agreeing on some "founding questions." We must derive an ideological and theoretical line to be defended and developed by the organization. This political line is constructed collectively, and everyone in the organization is obliged to adhere to it. For anarchists who do not advocate this unity, anarchist organization can operate with different ideological and theoretical lines. Each anarchist or anarchist group can have its own interpretation and its own theory of anarchism. This is the reason for various conflicts and divisions within organizations that hold this understanding.
9. STRATEGIC UNION
We believe that a lack of strategy disperses efforts, leading to the loss of much of them. As we have seen, acting with strategy requires considering a plan of all practical actions undertaken by the organization, trying to validate where you are, where you want to go, and how you will get there. How do you design an organization where you are trying to reconcile a group that believes it should act as a specific organization within a social movement with another group that thinks the priority should be social interaction among friends, group therapy, or even the exaltation of the individual, viewing working with social movements as authoritarian (or even a Marxist or progressive form of philanthropy)? There are two ways to manage these differences: either you discuss the issues and live amidst quarrels and tensions that consume a large part of the time, or you don't touch the issues at all. Most such organizations choose the second path. The specificism model requires us to do things we don't particularly like, or to stop doing some things we do like very much. This is to ensure that the organization moves forward with a strategy where everyone is rowing in the same direction. Priorities and responsibilities mean that not everyone can do whatever they want, whenever they feel like it. Each person will have an obligation to the organization to fulfill what they have undertaken and defined as a priority.
10. DECISION MAKING
We keep in mind that the decision-making process is a means, not an end. Some organizations, seeking compromise at all costs and fearing division, allow one or a few individuals to have disproportionate weight in decisions simply to reach a compromise. Sometimes, they spend hours on trivial arguments just to seek a compromise. Ideological and theoretical unity, as well as strategic and tactical unity, are achieved through the collective decision-making process adopted by specific organizations: first, an attempt at compromise, and if that is not possible, voting, with the majority deciding. As we have emphasized before, in this case, the entire organization adopts the chosen decision. The obligation of everyone to follow the same path, which is a rule in specificism, is a commitment to the organization's own strategy, because if a group refuses to carry out the work every time a decision displeases some militants, the progress of the organization becomes impossible.
11. MILITANT COMMITMENT
Lack of commitment, responsibility, and self-discipline is a major problem in many anarchist groups and organizations. For us, militancy is essential in the struggle for a free and egalitarian society, so we don't believe it will always be "cool." If we had to choose between a more effective model of militancy and a more "cool" one, we would choose efficiency. The specificist model embodies a high level of militant commitment. Militant commitment establishes a bond between the militant and the organization, a reciprocal relationship where the organization is accountable to the militant, and the militant is accountable to the organization. In other words: the organization owes the militant a debt of satisfaction, and the militant owes the organization a debt of satisfaction. Specific anarchist organizations contain only militants who share an ideological affinity with the organization. Thus, there are well-defined entry criteria, both at the political and social levels, from the stages of supporter or tendency groupings to specific anarchist organization. The more they want to commit themselves, the more involved they become in the organization, and the greater their decision-making power.
12. ROOFTOP ORGANIZATION
We don't want to be that big "umbrella" encompassing all types of anarchism. These broad (vague) definitions seemingly bring together more anarchists in the organization. However, we believe we should prioritize the quality of militants over quantity. Unlike the specificist model, there are other organizations where the only criterion for militants' entry is that they identify as anarchists, regardless of their understanding of anarchism. Some people participate somewhat, some are more committed, some take on more responsibility than others, and all have equal decision-making power. Thus, many make decisions about activities they themselves will not carry out, i.e., they determine what others will do. When an organization allows someone to make a decision but not take responsibility, or to take responsibility but not carry it out, it allows a kind of authoritarianism among the decision-makers and the burden of work to fall on other comrades.
13. INDIVIDUALISM
For individualists, in most cases, being an anarchist means being an artist, a bohemian, advocating sexual freedom in the form of open relationships or having multiple partners, wearing different clothes, having a radical haircut, behaving extremistly, eating different foods, defining oneself personally, self-actualizing personally, being against revolution (?!), being against socialism (?!), enjoying the freedom of aesthetics and having a rhymeless and reasonless discourse, in short, becoming apolitical. Specificism means a complete and absolute rejection of anarchist individualism. A type that was more common in the past are people who prefer to work alone but keep the same project in mind as us. The only thing we need to criticize about these people is that, because they are unorganized, they cannot strengthen the results of their work. Another type, more prominent today, abandons the socialist project. Based on the anarchists' critique of the state, they have very little critique of capitalism and have no activity whatsoever in transforming the reality in which we live socially. By positioning themselves as mere critical observers of society, they construct an anarchism based on secondary thinkers and references, revolving solely around criticism. They have no social project, and certainly no coherent actions pointing to this new society. If we advocate for speciism as a form of anarchist organization, it is because we believe it is more suitable for the work we intend to do today. We understand that there are anarchists who do not subscribe to speciism, and we do not consider them any less anarchist because of that. We simply request that our preference be respected.
14. SOURCES OF INSPIRY FOR SPECULATISM
As we have seen, the term speciism was developed by the FAU and only reached Brazil in the late twentieth century. Rather than creating a new understanding of anarchist organization, speciism sought to bring together a number of already existing concepts of anarchist organization that had been taking shape since the nineteenth century. The FAU's speciism carries the influence of Bakunin and Malatesta, the class struggle of anarcho-syndicalism, and dispossessible anarchism; all within the Latin American context.
15. Bakunin
The first historical reference to espousiveness is Bakunin, with his organizational understanding that shaped anarchism and constituted the activity of libertarians within the International Workingmen's Association (IWA). Two tendencies developed within the IWA: one centralist, the other federalist. The Alliance was an effective minority organization composed of "the most reliable, most dedicated, most intelligent, and most energetic members-in short, those closest." It was established to secretly address issues that could not be discussed publicly and to act as a catalyst in the workers' movement. The Alliance defined the relationship between the social and political levels.
16. MALATESTA
According to Malatesta, the future was not necessarily predetermined and could only be changed through voluntary intervention in events-that is, through will-to achieve the desired social transformation. Following the collectivist anarchist tradition of Bakunin's time, which advocated for distribution to all according to their labor in the future society, the anarcho-communist current emerged, advocating for distribution to all according to their needs. At the political level, Malatesta developed a specific understanding of anarchist organization, which he called the anarchist party. This organization needed to operate within and influence the movements of the time, referred to as "mass movements"; trade unions were the preferred ground for anarchist activity. Today, we believe that this specific anarchist organization should operate within the class struggle, in the midst of social movements, and work alongside them to achieve social revolution and libertarian socialism.
17th MAGÓN
In our understanding, an important historical experience for speciation was that of Ricardo Flores Magón. Magonism was part of the radical phase of the Mexican Liberal Party (PLM). During the Mexican Revolution, the PLM became illegal and organized more than forty armed resistance groups throughout Mexico; it also had indigenous members known for their struggles for community rights and against capitalist property. They united in an anti-re-election front that granted each group a relative degree of autonomy and independence.
18th Russian Revolution
Another important historical reference for esotericism is the participation of anarchists in the Russian Revolution. In the field, in southern Ukraine, the peasants of the village of Gulyai Polye, which had a strong anarchist organization since the 1905 revolution, formed the Peasants' Union, deciding to fight for social revolution independently of the government and seek self-management of the means of production. Then a split emerged between authoritarian and libertarian revolutionary elements. The former favored seizing the state apparatus and moving towards a Party dictatorship (Bolshevik) ruled by an all-powerful central committee; the latter favored libertarian and self-managing communism in the form of councils of workers', peasants', and armed people's soviets. The Bolsheviks gradually began to deny, suppress, obstruct, and ultimately ban the spread of libertarian ideas and practices. They militarized labor, expelled elected leaders from the soviets, forced the soviets to submit to the central authority of the party, and banned strikes. This was the end of the self-governing socialization process in Ukraine; it was repressively reversed by the Bolsheviks in favor of statist and totalitarian forms of organization and social control under a new ruling class.
19th PLATFORM
This document laid out important views on the importance of anarchist participation in the class struggle, and the necessity of a violent social revolution that would overthrow capitalism and the state and establish libertarian communism. It also makes a significant contribution to the question of the transition from capitalism to libertarian communism and the defense of revolution. At the political level, the Platform advocates for an anarchist organization operating in the midst of social movements, that is, at the social level, and emphasizes the effective minority role of anarchist organization. It also makes significant contributions to the model of anarchist organization at the political level. During the Russian Revolutions, anarchists sinned by neglecting the issue of organization. In our view, the Platform draws both from Bakunin and Malatesta and brings new contributions. Therefore, it should be considered a contribution to speciation, but not the most important one. This is less a document discussing anarchist organization in all different contexts and more a contribution to the discussion on anarchist military action.
20th SPANISH REVOLUTION
Like the Russian Revolution, we see the 1936 Spanish Revolution as a point of reference. A social revolution was effectively carried out during those years. It was a revolution under fire, aiming to reach all areas, from unjust economic structures to the daily lives of the people, from rotten hierarchical concepts to historical inequalities between men and women. And all this was the work of anarchists. In the initial phase (from July 1936 to the beginning of 1937), anarchists were among the most prominent groups. The actions of militants in regions like Catalonia were exemplary. Republican structures transformed into popular organizations through an intense and successful process of collectivization. Factories were occupied, and urgent social measures were implemented, such as equal pay for men and women, free healthcare, permanent sick pay, reduced working hours, and increased wages. Metallurgy, timber industry, transportation, food, healthcare, media and entertainment services, and rural properties were collectivized. Militias were formed to fight against fascist forces, advancing on some fronts, particularly the column led by Buenaventura Durruti. In the second phase (1937-1939), the progress of the counter-revolution was devastating. The advances made by the CNT/FAI were destroyed by those seeking to rebuild the foundations of the state (moderate sections of the Republic, Communists and Socialists). The Communists began to gain key positions in the government. The anarchists were once again forced to submit to unfavorable conditions: some members of the CNT eventually joined the government.
21. BRAZIL
From the early years of the twentieth century, we understand that Brazilian anarchists, particularly followers of Malatesta, associated with "organisationalism," sought to organize comrades to establish an organization with shared strategy and tactics, based on tactical agreements and a clear group understanding. These anarchists, through the establishment of schools and theatre groups, as well as significant written output, created the conditions that enabled anarchists to fully participate in trade unions and social life.
22. FAU
One Latin influence on the specificism we advocate is the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya - FAU), founded in 1956, drawing from class struggle and anarcho-syndical influences, the organizational models of Bakunin and Malatesta, and the dispossessible anarchism of the Rio de la Plata region. In the late 1960s, parallel to mass organizing, the FAU developed its "armed wing," the Popular Revolutionary Organization-33 (Organización Popular Revolucionaria - 33, OPR-33); this organization carried out a series of sabotage actions, economic dispossession, kidnappings of politicians and/or bosses particularly hated by the people, armed support for strikes and workplace occupations, etc. The FAU rejected focoism as a paradigm of armed struggle and preferred social articulation among the people while avoiding militarization. FAU restructured itself and developed its work with three articulation fronts - union, student and community - on the model of specificism we advocate today.
23. HISTORICAL RESULTS
This whole set of concepts and experiences contributes to our understanding of specificism today. Specificism is currently championed by various Latin American organizations and, even if not under that name, is being developed in practice in other parts of the world. In short, our understanding of the historical references to specificism is not dogmatic. We have a broad range of ideas, beginning with the ideas of Bakunin and the Allianceists in the IWA, passing through Malatesta's concepts and practical experiences at the social and political levels, and extending to the experiences of Magón and the PLM in the Mexican Revolution. We are also influenced by the experiences of anarchists in the Russian Revolution, particularly the organizational assessments made by the Makhnovists in Ukraine and the Russians in exile, and by the experiences of anarchists in the Spanish Revolution around the CNT-FAI. In Brazil, we are influenced by anarchist "organizationalism," highlighting the experiences of the 1918 Rio de Janeiro Anarchist Alliance and the 1919 (libertarian) Communist Party. Finally, the FAU's influence is evident both in their struggles against the dictatorship and in their activities on the front lines with trade unions, community and student movements.
24. ORGANIZATION DISCUSSION
We wanted to reach more precise positions. Advancing and shaping the discussion, disseminating this information both internally and externally, was becoming increasingly necessary. Our actions aimed to provide every militant of our organization with the necessary structure, space, and support for this discussion to take place in the most desirable way possible. We aspired to develop a suitable theory, one that was not merely a repetition of other theories developed elsewhere and at other times. We sought to create our own concepts, aiming to give the theory we wanted to create an original character, and in this endeavor, we believe we have been quite successful in constructing and shaping a coherent theory by integrating classical and contemporary theories with our own concepts. We wanted to build this discussion and its shaping collectively. For us, it is not enough for one or a few comrades to write the entire theory of the organization while others merely observe and follow their positions.
25. ANARCHISM
We view anarchism as an ideology that, without any claim to scientific rigor or prophecy, directs action to replace capitalism, the state, and its institutions with libertarian socialism-a system based on self-governance and federalism. Anarchism is a conscious activity aimed at instilling in society the desire for social transformation.
26. HISTORY AND CONTEXT
In certain contexts, anarchism has acquired specific characteristics that have diminished its ideological character, transforming it into an abstract concept reduced to a mere critical observation of society. From this perspective, anarchism ceases to be a tool in the struggle for the liberation of the exploited and functions as a hobby, a subject of curiosity, a topic of intellectual debate, an academic niche, an identity, a group of friends, etc. For us, this viewpoint seriously threatens the original meaning of anarchism.
27. SOCIAL ANARCHISM AND LIFESTYLE ANARCHISM
Today, there is a social anarchism that returns to struggles for the purpose of social transformation, and a lifestyle anarchism that abandons the proposal for social transformation and participation in the social struggles of our time. We advocate for anarchism to regain its original ideological character, as we have previously defined it, as "a system of concepts directly linked to action,[...]political practice." For us, social anarchism, as an ideology, is a type of anarchism that seeks to be an instrument of social movements and popular organization aimed at overthrowing capitalism and the state and building self-governing and federalist libertarian socialism.
28. EXPLOITED CLASSES
By accepting this classification and being aware of its limitations, we define the category of exploited classes as peripheral areas dominated by the center. Therefore, all struggles of the exploited classes must have a revolutionary perspective so as not to attempt to transform parts of these peripheral areas into new centers.
29. AUTHORITARIAN VS. LIBERTARIAN
Authoritarians, including some who call themselves anarchists, view the center as a tool and direct their policies towards it. For them, the center-considering it as the state, party, army, and position of control-is a means to the liberation of society. Libertarians do not view the center as a tool and constantly struggle against it, building their revolutionary models and struggle strategies outwards to all peripheries. For anarchism to be able to seek a project of social transformation, it needs to be in constant contact with the periphery. Anarchists encourage social movements in the periphery from the grassroots level and strive to build a popular organization to fight in solidarity against the existing order and to create a new society based on equality and freedom where classes will no longer have meaning. That is, in its activity in the class struggle, anarchism sees traditional communities, peasants, the unemployed, the semi-unemployed, the homeless, and other categories often ignored by authoritarians as elements of the exploited classes.
30. THE SOCIAL VECTOR OF ANARCHISM
The emergence of what we call the "social vector of anarchism" began in the early 1890s with the growth of anarchist social articulation in trade unions and reached its peak in the second decade of the twentieth century. We call the social vector of anarchism those popular movements, primarily in their practical aspects, that have a significant anarchist influence, regardless of the sector in which they occur. These mobilizations, products of class struggle, are not anarchist because they are organized around specific demands. The mobilizations that constitute the social vector of anarchism are carried out within social movements that are seen not as a mass to be directed by us, but as preferred arenas for social work and accumulation.
31st Revolutionary Gymnastics
The means of struggle employed through mobilization around short-term issues function as a "revolutionary gymnastics" that prepares the proletariat for social revolution. Anarchism can present itself as an ideological instrument of struggle.
32nd STRIKE MOVEMENT
This entire mobilization conjuncture was driven by the extensive influence of anarchists who sought to conduct their propaganda within the unions; the unions existed for the workers, not for the anarchist workers, but by using them to spread their ideas, without confining the unions within anarchist ideology. There was also a significant cultural movement working alongside the union mobilizations: rationalist schools inspired by the principles of (Francisco) Ferrer y Guardia, social centers, workers' theater, and other initiatives that were fundamental in shaping a class culture that became an object of union action during times of struggle. In this rising conjuncture of struggle, there was also the formation of two politically and ideologically anarchist organizations that sought to work with the union movement. The first was the Rio de Janeiro Anarchist Alliance (Aliança Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro), founded in 1918 out of a need for an anarchist organization to work within the unions, and it was crucial to the 1918 uprising. However, under pressure, the Alliance disintegrated and reorganized in 1919 with the founding of the first Communist Party (with libertarian inspiration). Both the Alliance and the Communist Party brought together members of a segment of anarchism that, they called "organizers," saw the need for a distinction between levels of action: the ideologically anarchist political level and the social level of trade union mobilization. These militants considered the existence of specific anarchist organizations that would act in conjunction with trade unions necessary. It is important to emphasize that during this period, anarchists already had a concern about their own specific organizations.
33. END OF MOBILIZATION
The context of anarchism was primarily determined by the confusion between different levels of activity. Malatesta argued for the need for two levels of activity: one politically anarchist, and the other social within the union, which would serve as a means of articulation. On the one hand, a segment of anarchists argued for the need for specific anarchist organization seeking social articulation within unions. On the other hand, there were anarchists who understood militancy within unions as their sole task. Unionism, the social vector that should lead to an end expressed in social revolution and the establishment of libertarian socialism, became the end itself for many militants. The social vector of anarchism was on an upward curve until the early 1920s; then, parallel to unionism itself, the crisis of anarchism began to develop. This culminated in the end of mobilization in the 1930s and the loss of this social vector.
34. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LEVEL CRISIS
The crisis of trade unionism eventually extended to anarchism itself. Thus, a crisis at the social level condemned the political level as well, since at that time there was no real difference between the two. Without anarchist organizations, when the social level - or a part of it - is in crisis, anarchists cannot find another arena for social articulation.
35. IDEAL PERES[2]
FARJ claims to be a continuation of Ideal Peres' militancy and the work stemming from his history of struggle. In 2002, we initiated a working group to verify the possibility of building an anarchist organization in Rio de Janeiro; as a result, FARJ was founded on August 30, 2003. For us, there is a direct link between Ideal Peres' militancy, the construction and operation of CEL, its name change to CELIP, and subsequently the founding of FARJ. Ideal Peres was born in 1925 and began his militancy in the context of that crisis where the social vector of anarchism had already been lost. In the 1970s, after his release from prison, Ideal organized a working group at his home aimed at bringing together young people interested in anarchism, as well as connecting them with former militants and establishing links with other anarchists in Brazil. This working group would form the core of the Circle of Libertarian Studies (Círculo de Estudos Libertários - CEL). Following Ideal Peres' death in August 1995, CEL decided to rename it the Ideal Peres Circle for Libertarian Studies (Círculo de Estudos Libertários Ideal Peres - CELIP) in his honor.
36. ANARCHISM OF SPECIFICISM
For us, the path to regaining the social vector necessarily passes through a specifically organized anarchism that distinguishes levels of activity and exists within the class struggle. All our current thinking aims to conceive of a strategic organizational model that will enable the regaining of the social vector, insofar as it points to our goal of transcending capitalism and the state, and establishing libertarian socialism. In this context, what we seek is merely a stop in the struggle. Unlike the early twentieth century, when trade unions were the preferred arena of class struggle, we now consider that while trade unionism can be a means of articulation, there are others far more important. Broadly speaking, the existence of particularly exploited classes today allows for the social work and articulation of anarchists: the unemployed, peasants, landless, homeless, etc. For us, being well-organized at the political (ideological) level will enable us to find the best way to bring back this social vector of anarchism, wherever it may be.
37. CAPITALISM
As we have previously emphasized, the wage worker, the classic object of analysis in nineteenth-century socialist theses, constitutes for us today only one category of exploited classes. On the one hand, there are those called the "bourgeoisie," whom we will treat as "capitalists" in this text, who own the means of production and employ workers through wage labor. On the other hand, there are those called the "proletariat," whom we will treat as "workers" in this text, who possess nothing but their labor power and are forced to sell it for a wage. Furthermore, unemployment means that when capitalists go to the market, they encounter an abundance of workers because there is a greater supply than demand.
38. A COMPLEX MARKET SYSTEM
As a system that reproduces injustice, capitalism separates manual labor from intellectual labor. This separation is a consequence of both inheritance and education, as it represents a different education for the rich and the poor.
39. GLOBAL EXPLOITATION
Private businesses, motivated by profit motives, are responsible for transferring the entire hierarchy of classes to the relationship between people and the environment. In general, economic globalization is characterized by the integration of production, distribution, and exchange processes on a global scale. Production takes place in many countries, and goods are imported and exported in enormous quantities and over long distances. This system, on the one hand, leaves unemployment in regions with optimal conditions, while on the other hand, it enables exploitation that threatens the organization of workers who are increasingly controlled and pushed to the periphery, and leads to the acceptance of insecurity.
40. HISTORY OF THE STATE
The state, regardless of the prevailing mode of production, has always been an instrument that perpetuates inequality and an element that destroys freedom. We view the state as the totality of a nation's political powers, shaped through "political, legislative, judicial, military, and financial institutions, etc." In this way, the state is a broader concept than the government. The state has been characterized by a "double game," promising the rich to protect them from the poor, and the poor to protect them from the rich. After the Industrial Revolution, the so-called "social question" arose, forcing states to develop aid plans to minimize the effects of capital on labor. In the late nineteenth century, as an alternative to liberalism, a more interventionist conception of the state emerged, which on the one hand sought to create "social welfare" policies, and on the other hand implemented methods to halt the progress of socialist initiatives, which were already quite powerful at the time.
41. RELATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND CLASS
A state that openly defends the position of capitalists can intensify class struggle, so there is nothing better than giving it an appearance of neutrality from the capitalist point of view. Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the state, as a strong support of capitalism, seeks to maintain it, and if capitalism is a system of exploitation and domination, then the state can do nothing but perpetuate the class relations in which it exists. In this way, the state defends capitalists to the detriment of the worker. Since it has a monopoly on the use of violence in society, it always uses it to enforce the law, and since laws are made to maintain the privileges of capitalist society, repression and state control are always for the purpose of maintaining "order." That is, to protect the privileges of capitalism and to perpetuate the dominance of the ruling class. Today, the state has two main aims: firstly, to provide the conditions for the production and reproduction of capitalism; secondly, to secure its legitimacy and control. Therefore, today the state is a strong support pillar of capitalism. The state transcends the political sphere and functions as an economic actor in capitalism, attempting to prevent or minimize the role of its crises or declines in profit rates.
42. AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISTS
Contrary to what authoritarian socialists believed (and still believe), the state is not a neutral organism that can serve either capitalists or workers. If anarchists have written so much about the state, it is because the critique of capitalism was a point of agreement between libertarians and authoritarians; the point of divergence was the state. Authoritarians advocated for the seizure of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat as an intermediate stage between capitalism and communism, mistakenly called socialism. The libertarian position we advocate today is that for the construction of socialism, the state, along with capitalism, must be destroyed through social revolution. Any state, under the pretext of protecting the "citizen," creates relations of domination, exploitation, violence, war, slaughter, and torture.
43. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
By relinquishing our right to policymaking to a class of politicians who enter the state to represent us, we grant authority to someone who decides on our behalf without any oversight: there is an inevitable division between the policymaking class and the classes that follow it. "Politicians," both within and outside their parties, represent the hierarchy and separation between leaders and the governed. The less accountable politicians are for policy, the less the public participates in it, and the more alienated and distant they become from decision-making. This clearly condemns the public to the position of a spectator, not to the position of "master of their own destiny."
44. TODAY'S SPECIFIC CRITICISMS
If we can apply these criticisms to the present-day state, we must recognize that our reality is specific and that the direction of the world economy has a profound impact on the form of state in which we live. This critique of the state applies not to one or another form, but to all forms. Therefore, any project of social transformation pointing towards social revolution and libertarian socialism must aim at the end of both capitalism and the state. While we may argue that the state is one of the strongest pillars of capitalism, we do not believe that the end of capitalism will necessarily lead to the disappearance of the state.
45th Social Revolution
The aim of social revolution is to destroy the society of exploitation and domination. Libertarian socialism is what gives social revolution a constructive meaning. Destruction as a concept of negation and construction as a concept of proposal together constitute the possible and effective social transformation we propose. Social revolution is one of the possible outcomes of class struggle and signifies a violent transformation of the existing social order; it is seen by us as the only way to end domination and exploitation. It differs from the political revolutions of the Jacobins and Leninists, who advocated for changing the "order" by merely replacing one ruling minority with another through the state. Unlike political revolution, social revolution is carried out by the people of the cities and countryside, through popular organization, by pushing the class struggle and the power relationship with capitalism and the state to its limits. Social revolution occurs when the social power developed at the heart of popular organization is greater than the power of capitalism and the state, and when it is put into practice, establishing structures that support self-governance and federalism, eliminating private property and the state, and paving the way for a society of complete freedom and equality. Therefore, we understand social revolution neither as a simple evolution nor as a necessary consequence of the contradictions of capitalism, but rather as an event determined by the will of the organized exploited classes and representing a rupture. The construction of social organization will develop the spirit of struggle and organization in the exploited classes, seek the accumulation of social power, and incorporate within itself the means of struggle appropriate to the society we wish to build.
46. VIOLENCE
The violent action of social revolution must simultaneously dispossess the capitalists, immediately destroy the state, and replace it with self-governing and federated structures, tried and tested within social organization. Therefore, the authoritarian understanding of "socialism" as an interim period in which a dictatorship is established within the state is, for us, nothing more than another way of perpetuating the exploitation of the people and must be absolutely rejected under all circumstances.
47. LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM
Since social revolution should not be carried out solely by anarchists, it is crucial that we fully engage in the processes of class struggle to steer the revolution towards libertarian socialism. Libertarian socialism is, on the one hand, socialism-a system based on social, political, and economic equality-and, on the other hand, freedom. Therefore, for us, a project for a future society that promotes equality and freedom can only be libertarian socialism, shaped by the practices of self-governance and federalism. The culture of self-governance and federalism must already be well-developed in class struggles so that the people do not allow themselves to be oppressed by authoritarian opportunists in the revolutionary moment; this will be achieved through class-based autonomy, militancy, direct action, and direct democracy practices. The more these values are present in popular organization, the less likely new tyrannies are to emerge. We want to make it clear that when considering our understanding of social revolution, or even when thinking about a possible future society, we are not attempting to predetermine, absolutely, how the revolutionary process or libertarian socialism will unfold. We know there is no way to predict when this transformation will occur, so every thought should always consider the strategic projection of future possibilities, not in terms of absolute certainties, but in terms of probabilities and references.
48. SELF-GOVERNING AND FEDERALIST
Contemporary interpretations of self-management and federalism distinguish the former as the economic system of libertarian socialism and the latter as the political system. We do not understand the distinction between economic and political in this way when it comes to self-management and federalism. In the new society, everyone who is able to work will have to work; there will no longer be unemployment. Work will be based on personal ability and aptitude. People will no longer be forced to accept anything under the threat of deprivation and inability to achieve minimum living conditions. Children, the elderly, and those unable to work will be guaranteed a dignified life without deprivation, with all their needs met. For the most tedious or unwelcome tasks, rotations or changes may occur in some cases. Even in cases where production requires the coordination of certain specialists, rotations in functions and a commitment to training other workers with similar skills will be necessary for more complex tasks. In a system of collective ownership, rights, responsibilities, wages, and wealth are no longer linked to private property and the old class relations, and the old class relations based on private property must also disappear. Libertarian socialism is thus a classless society. The ruling class will no longer exist, and the entire system of inequality, domination, and exploitation will have disappeared. No one will own property, and the means of production will belong to the collectivity as a whole, or all members of the collectivity will own a portion of the means of production in exactly the same proportions as the others.
49. CITY AND COUNTRYSIDE
If individual ownership of the land by peasants who cultivate it themselves continues, it would be more appropriate to understand this not as ownership, but as possession (possession). Thus, ownership would always be collective, while possession would be individual. Possession, because the value of the land lies in its use, not its trade. And with this, relations would no longer be guided by the market, but by the needs of the producer. Such a situation changes everything, which is why it is necessary to create a new category.
50th Workers' and Consumers' Councils
The economy of libertarian socialism is run by workers and consumers. Workers create the social product, and consumers enjoy it. In these two functions, mediated by distribution, the people are responsible for economic and political life; they must decide what is produced, and consumers what they consume. The local structures in which workers and consumers organize themselves in libertarian socialism are worker and consumer councils. Profit will no longer be a necessity in production relations. The councils are social bodies and instruments in which the people express their political and economic preferences and implement self-governance and federalism. Daily political and economic activities are decided and carried out within them. The worker council organizes production, and the consumer council organizes consumption.
51. MENTAL AND MANUAL LABOR
Many tasks, especially those involving manual labor, are utterly unpleasant, arduous, and alienating, and it is unfair that some workers are entirely preoccupied with them while others are devoted to performing enjoyable, pleasant, stimulating, and intellectual tasks. If this were the case, the class system would certainly be rebuilt, no longer based on private property, but on a class of intellectuals to command and a class of manual laborers to carry out those commands. Workers' councils, seeking to end this division, could establish a balanced set of tasks, equivalent for all. Thus, each worker would be responsible for some pleasant and stimulating tasks involving intellectual work, and others more arduous and alienating tasks involving manual labor.
52. FUNCTIONING COLLECTIVISM
The aim of libertarian socialist wage system is to be guided by the communist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." However, we believe that in order to implement this principle, libertarian socialism must already be fully functioning, with abundant production. Until this is possible, wages can be based on labor or effort understood as personal sacrifice for the collective good. Thus, a functioning collectivism using the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor" will exist, and when it becomes possible to implement the communist principle, it will be given "to each according to his need."
53. TECHNOLOGY
Unlike some libertarian tendencies that believe technology inherently contains the seeds of domination, we believe that without it, libertarian socialism is impossible to develop. With the emergence of technology and its use in favor of labor rather than capital, there will inevitably be a gain in productivity and, consequently, a significant reduction in people's working hours, allowing them to use that time for other activities. It is worth emphasizing that our ecological proposals are radically different from "conservatism" and "primitivism." They differ because the former implies the continuation of class society and the complete commodification of nature. They differ because we view the "anti-civilization" proposal as utter nonsense, seeking a romantic return to a distant past, or worse, a kind of suicide for all of humanity and a denial of all our contributions to the preservation and well-being of nature. Ecological consciousness must be developed from the period of struggle preceding the revolutionary break and within the society of the future itself. Humans are distinguished from other natural elements and species by forming social relationships with everything around them, because they possess the capacity to think about themselves, to theorize about reality, and with this ability they have managed to fundamentally change the environment that constitutes them.
54. SELF-GOVERNING FEDERALISM
With the use and development of technology in favor of workers; with the end of capitalist exploitation and the full transfer of the fruits of labor to the workers; and with the establishment of full employment, workers will have more time that can be spent in three ways. First, with the natural loss of productivity that will result from a balanced set of tasks, somewhat "de-specializing" labor. Second, with political decisions that will require time for discussion and negotiation in the self-governing workplace and community. Finally, with the remaining time, which we expect will be much more leisure time than it is today with these changes, everyone will be able to choose what to do: rest, leisure, education, culture, etc. Both worker and consumer councils will use self-governance as a form of management and decision-making, both in workplaces and communities. We must keep in mind that the decision-making process is a means, not an end, and therefore we must pay attention to agility in this process. Clearly, consensus should not be used in most decisions, as it is very inefficient, especially if we consider large-scale decisions, and it also gives too much power to isolated actors who can obstruct consensus or have a great influence on a decision where they are in the minority. Society must develop its culture in a progressively libertarian direction, and this must happen not only during and after the social revolution, but already during the struggle, during the construction and development of popular organization. There will no longer be a distinction between those who engage in politics and those who do not, because under libertarian socialism, it will be the members of society themselves who will carry out politics on a daily basis.
55th RESISTANCE
Capitalism and the state exert pressure on other political forces that resist them. Therefore, to achieve our goals, we advocate for an effective and articulated resistance that seeks a continuous increase in social power through organization. Building this resistance requires alignment with those who agree with our proposal for social transformation. There is no way to conceive of this necessary transformation without the progressive growth of organization and social power. For us, the social transformation we wish to see necessarily depends on the construction of popular organization, on the progressive increase of its social power until it becomes possible to overthrow capitalism and the state through social revolution and pave the way for libertarian socialism. Furthermore, we argue that popular organization must be accompanied by a parallel development of specific anarchist organization that will influence it and give it the desired character.
56. THE CURRENT ORDER
Disorganization, poor organization, and isolation, in fact, result in supporting capitalism and the state because they prevent the construction of the necessary social power. By not participating appropriately in the power relations or perpetual conflict of society, you reproduce the "order." Disorganization and poor organization are reproduced at the social level, at the level of social movements, where popular organization must be built and developed, by the difficulty of accumulating social power, and this prevents the natural spontaneity of this level from achieving the desired totality of social transformations. Isolation and individualism lead to the absence of a desired existence at either the political or social level, and to the inability of either popular or anarchist organization to articulate itself. For popular organization, we must consider the ways and means to overthrow capitalism and the state and to build libertarian socialism, which is the goal, through social revolution. At the same time, for specific anarchist organization, we must also consider the ways and means by which it can build and influence popular organization, giving it the desired character, and achieve libertarian socialism - its goal - through social revolution.
57. SOCIAL POWER
We believe that every individual, as a social actor, possesses a social power-an energy they can naturally apply to achieve their goals. This power varies from person to person, and even within the same person over time. Individuals often utilize means that can increase their social power to achieve their goals. Organization, taking the form of free association, is indispensable for our project of social transformation, because when individuals work together, their social power is not merely the sum of individual powers, but much more. Organization can occur in an authoritarian form through domination or in a libertarian form through free association. Thus, we can conclude that unity is fundamental to realizing our project of social transformation, because only through it, and solely through it, can we accumulate the social power necessary to overthrow capitalism and the state. An increase in social power can be achieved through various means, but primarily through the organization of the exploited classes with the greatest possible number of people and a high level of organization, which necessarily requires self-discipline, commitment, and responsibility. To distinguish the discipline preached so loudly by authoritarians from the discipline we advocate, we prefer to use the term self-discipline; this, along with commitment and responsibility, is, in our view, indispensable for building an anti-authoritarian organization that aims to increase its social power. This self-discipline, in our view, is less prevalent in populist organizations and more prevalent in specific anarchist organizations, and it varies according to context. The need for this self-discipline increases during periods of greater social upheaval and may be less so during times of stagnation. Therefore, a specific organization must constitute itself as an effective anarchist minority organization with a high level of self-discipline, commitment, and responsibility.
58. ORGANIZING AS A FORM OF CONVERGENCE
We advocate a model for the creation and development of what we call popular organization. It is undeniable that there is a latent social force within the exploited classes, but we understand that this force can only emerge from the realm of possibilities and become a real social force through organization. The continuous increase in the social power of the organization of the exploited classes will be what can bring about the desired social transformation. We understand popular organization as the result of a convergence process of various social organizations and different grassroots movements that are the fruit of class struggle. Therefore, we believe that we should prefer to support all such types of organization and movement, understanding this support as a consequence of our most fundamental ideas. When organization has a class character, it stimulates and strengthens the class struggle. In this way, popular organization is built from bottom to top, "from the periphery to the center," and outside the power centers of the existing system. Authoritarians have approached mass movements from a hierarchical perspective, attempting to dominate them.
59. NECESSITY, NOT IDEOLOGY
We believe that social movements should not be confined to any ideology whatsoever, nor should they lock themselves into one. We do not believe in anarchist, Marxist, social democratic social movements, or any other specific ideology. For us, an anarchist social movement, or a movement belonging to any other ideology, would only tend to divide the exploited class, or even those interested in fighting for a particular cause. Therefore, the force that should guide the creation and development of social movements is not ideology, but necessity. While we believe that social movements should not be confined to anarchism, we also believe that anarchism should, as much as possible, permeate social movements. Social movements are the fruit of a three-legged stool: necessity, will, and organization. The social movements we advocate are not, and should not be, anarchist; on the contrary, they are fertile ground for anarchism.
60. AUTONOMY IN MOVEMENT
Political parties seek to manage and direct social movements, considering themselves superior to them and judging themselves as enlightened beings who will bring consciousness to the exploited classes. Often, their members are intellectuals who want to know what is best for them, better than the people themselves. Other control-seeking organizations, such as churches and bureaucratic unions, also do not help social movements. Social movements should not be dependent on politicians or any part of the state, because when they come to offer help, in the vast majority of cases they are looking for a "base" for their own party-political interests, or trying to appease the movements, to establish dialogue with state institutions. Therefore, those who want to manage, command, or make social movements serve their own goals should not have influence over them, because they do not fight for the common good of the movements, but rather use the principle that serving oneself is the best way to serve others. There is nothing wrong with people supporting social movements not being in exactly the same conditions as other militants. Therefore, we find it fair that workers support the struggle of unemployed workers, those with housing support the struggle of the homeless, etc. Furthermore, when discussing autonomy, we must keep in mind that for us, autonomy does not mean the absence of ideological struggle or even a lack of organization. When you frequently promote spontaneity, when you abandon the project and the revolutionary program-when you often call this autonomy-you open up space and provide fertile ground for the ruling class, the bureaucrats, and the authoritarians who will occupy these spaces.
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/08/01/sosyal-vektoru-kazanmak-icin-104-adim/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten