1.1. Terminologically, at least in English, the concept of "social articulation" in "especifism" may seem to refer to a practice similar to "entrism"; however, there is a theoretical difference, within a specific strategy and clear objectives .
1.2. The concept of social articulation differs in its understanding, application, and aims, but these differences are difficult to grasp superficially; this necessitates a didactic explanation of the organizational theory and strategy of speciism.2.1. In speciism, social work refers to the struggle for influence in social movements and mass organizations; social articulation, on the other hand, refers to the acceptance of revolutionary values and practices by these movements and organizations to a certain extent.
2.2. If an area is closed to grassroots decision-making or organized direct action, political organizing undertakes social work to introduce and familiarize participants with these methods; political organizing achieves social articulation when an effective number of these participants wish to defend their collective interests against reaction, abuse, and bureaucratic leadership.
3.1. While there is a clear effort to maintain the participation of radicalized individuals in political organization, the emphasis is always on the degree of unity and coordination, not the number of these militants; what needs to be increased is social organization, because the goal of social transformation cannot be achieved by gaining political positions, growing a party, or ideologically dividing pluralistic spaces.
3.2. As FARJ (Federation of Anarchists of Rio de Janeiro) says, "ideology must be within social movements, not social movements within ideology."
3.3. Organizational dualism is a matter of having multiple engagements and affiliations at the societal level and being ideologically organized at the political level; two separate, autonomous, and complementary movements within a single conception of effective action.
4.1. The difference between entryism and social articulation is further complicated by the mistranslation of "dualismo organizativo" as "dual organizationalism"; this term is very similar to "dual carding," which can be seen as a form of entryism practiced by some anarcho-syndicalists, where members of a revolutionary union are also, often secretly, members of other unions.
4.2. When translating into English, it is a mistake to alter the grammatical function of words in a precise term, as this can lead to bias; the qualifier "dual" implies something doubled or divided, and when applied to the noun "organizationalism," it can be read literally (but not theoretically) as meaning two branches of a single organizational practice or a single form of organization practiced in two places.
4.3. This becomes even more confusing with the literal meaning of the word "dual" in the phrase "dual power," leading some English speakers to develop a false sense of intellectual consistency, which is actually a result of a mistranslation.
4.4.1. In contrast, the term "dualism" refers to the situation of two things that are different but nevertheless exist within the same understanding; therefore, the marker "organizational" refers to the type of understanding that can theoretically connect and practically distinguish two constantly existing aspects.
4.4.2. Thus, in the theory of specificism, organizational dualism positions all possible manifestations of the struggle against the dominant class on a single plane, such that they can be understood in relation to each other and as a result of two fundamental organizational features: (1) social movement and (2) political movement, which in practice take the forms of social articulation and political organization, respectively.
4.4.3. By designing a single field of action, organizational dualism allows political organization to incorporate all kinds of new information and continue to shape itself and direct its actions in ways related to long-term goals.
4.4.4. This is not the same as a theory that, from a strictly political perspective, conceives of two "binary" possibilities and constantly raises the question: is this an example of articulation or an example of organization?
4.4.5. It also differs from a theory that conceives of social articulation and political organization as separate fields of action, like a crossroads separating the paths of revolutionary work, inevitably leading to reformist movements at the social level and sectarianism at the political level.
4.4.6. Organizational dualism, since it does not presuppose an organizational perspective outside this singular field of action, views political analysis itself as a form of action; it does not have a neutral, mediating, "external" perspective for producing political understanding. Therefore, when developing political analysis, political organization must recognize its own position as an already existing condition, which means that the anarchist revolutionary project must be a kind of movement.
5.1. Organizational dualism is a theoretical method of understanding revolutionary action along two different axes and should not be reduced to a simple ideological position opposed to "anti-organization," as the erroneous use of the term "organizationalism" might suggest.
5.2. Political organization develops a distinctly different perspective from social organization because it is part of an ideological movement (anarchism) rather than a social movement (class struggle). This is because both movements are part of the same common context and therefore must shape each other's actions.
5.3. Therefore, it is not the case that class struggle exists within anarchism, but rather that anarchism exists within class struggle; this requires social articulation, that is, a political practice that maintains the link between anarchist ideology at the political level and pluralistic movements at the social level.
6.1. As Juan Carlos Mechoso said when addressing the OAC (Córdoba Anarchist Organization), "political organization is the driving engine of social movement, never a vanguard glorified in itself."
6.2. "Political organization should encompass diverse perspectives that understand revolution as a process in which we develop new practices and new relationships among various components."
6.3. "Political organization must be meticulous in its analysis, knowing in detail where to incorporate its core ideas, the dynamics that produce its actions, and the rhythm of change in its relationships."
6.4. "Social articulation supported by political organization aims to develop a people's power that will emerge as a movement of rupture with the existing system."
7.1. In his article "Anarchism, Power, Class and Social Change," Felipe Corrêa states: "If the aims of anarchist social transformation are defined as overcoming a dominating power through a change in the power model of society and establishing a self-governing power, then the means used must also strengthen self-governance."
7.2. "Means incompatible with this goal must be abandoned: those that strengthen capitalism, the state, and the institutions that sustain them; those that deprive the masses of the leading role they should have in the process of social transformation; those that fuel a spirit of survival and obedience."
7.3. Popular leadership is not a matter of personal or political opportunism, and social articulation is not an exercise in brand building for a party or sect.
7.4. Popular leadership is not a series of individual efforts; its emphasis is on the oppressed classes, collectively, because "to engage and mobilize the oppressed classes will yield a significant gain in power."
7.5. To this end, social articulation must be mindful of and respectful of pluralism in two ways: (1) the multiplicity of ideologies and motivations in a particular struggle and (2) the multiplicity of struggles manifesting as different events.
8.1. Social articulation is not about chasing prestige or political "base building"; this strategy relies on the subjugated classes positioning themselves as revolutionary subjects, positioning the people's vanguard against the dominant class, and insisting on class independence as a defense against exploitation by capitalist interests, vanguard parties, and charismatic leaders.
8.2. Throughout this process, in order to be effective, but also for ethical reasons, militants of political organization must always know: (1) how they decide to work, (2) for whom they work and (3) what they do.
8.3. This reciprocity in the struggle and respect for the diverse demands of different areas is the "social" aspect that characterizes the name "social articulation"; it implies the possibility of an alternative "political articulation" that would emphasize a one-way movement of influence from the political to the social, making the political level the only true place for self-governance and leadership.
8.4. Therefore, the qualifier "political" can help distinguish the goals of entryism from the goals of social articulation; political entryism has political goals and political motivations because it is a practice of political leadership aimed at building political power.
9.1. As a revolutionary anarchist movement, speciism aims to establish popular power and political unity through social work and organizational means.
9.2. Social articulation is a social process; it is part of a social transformation strategy that will mean the liberation of the oppressed classes and the creation of a new egalitarian society.
9.3. Unlike various forms of (political) entrism, the goal of social work and social appropriation is not (1) a usurpation of power, (2) a form of covert manipulation, (3) a membership campaign, or (4) an attempt to force organizational divisions to the surface; instead, it aims to win over the subjugated classes to their struggles so that they see themselves as a social force capable of reshaping society in their interests.
10.1. This has not been an attempt to define entrenchment in any particular way; rather, it has been an attempt to present the theoretical background and strategic perspective of entrenchment in order to better understand the concept of social articulation.
10.2. In this endeavor, it has been necessary to explain the roles of various markers (binary, organizational, social, and political) as well as various nouns (organizationalism, dualism, social articulation, and entryism).
10.3. Having demonstrated the structural significance of terms composed of qualified nouns, English speakers should now be better equipped to continue distinguishing organizational dualism from binary organizationalism and social articulation from (political) entrism.
1. Entryism is the infiltration, usually clandestine, of a larger and different political organization (a party, trade union, or movement) by a political group or organization in order to impose its own ideology or agenda, or to take over the existing organization. A classic example is when Trotskyist groups join social democratic parties or trade unions and work from within to expand their ranks or steer the organization in a particular direction.
Kaynak: Social insertion vs. (political) entryism
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/08/30/toplumsal-eklenme-ile-politik-entrizm-arasindaki-fark/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten