1. Liza is a recent addition to the landscape of organized revolutionary forces in Spain. What motivated the formation of the organization? Were you in contact with other anarchist communist organizations already established in your area, such as Batzac and Embat in the region of Catalonia? --- Liza: Liza was founded in 2023 as the result of a collective process of reflection and self-criticism regarding the limitations of the previous political cycle. Many of us had participated in various spaces of struggle-the student movement, the labor movement, the housing movement, cultural collectives, or autonomous initiatives-and we shared the feeling that, despite the enormous capacity for mobilization that existed, anarchism had not managed to establish itself within our generation as an organized political force capable of gaining social influence and sustaining a long-term strategy.
Following the cycle initiated by the 15M Movement, we observed how many struggles ended up being absorbed by reformist projects or petering out as the mobilization faded. We also identified recurring problems within the anarchist movement itself: fragmentation, localism, a rejection of political organization, a lack of strategic planning, and, at times, a gap that was too wide between theory and practice. We did not view these limitations as individual failures, but rather as historical problems that had to be addressed collectively.
At the same time, the political context had changed profoundly. The consequences of the crisis from the previous cycle, the international rise of the far right, the worsening living conditions of the working class, and the relative "social peace" prevailing in Europe convinced us that it was necessary to rebuild a revolutionary organization capable of intervening consistently in social conflicts and preparing for future scenarios of greater confrontation.
In this quest, we found in the European platformist tradition a strategic reference point of particular interest to our process of debate. Not because we consider Dielo Truda's Organizational Platform to be a closed model or a text that must be applied mechanically a century later, but because it addresses some of the fundamental problems that continue to plague anarchism: the need for a specific political organization, theoretical and strategic unity, collective responsibility, and a militant practice capable of intervening continuously in mass movements without supplanting their leading role.
From the outset, we understood that this process could not unfold in isolation. Very soon, we established contact with Embat, whose experience was fundamental during our early stages. Their contributions helped us debate organizational issues, draft our first documents, and better understand the political tradition we were drawing closer to.
Over time, that relationship expanded into a much broader process of coordination with other organized anarchist organizations on the Iberian Peninsula-some that already existed and others that emerged almost alongside our own process-including Batzac, Xesta, and Hedra. Today we maintain stable spaces for joint work, shared political analyses, common campaigns, regular meetings, and projects such as the publication Regeneración and the Teima publishing house, convinced that the reconstruction of organized anarchism also requires rebuilding a shared political culture.
We do not view platformism as an identity or as a movement closed in on itself. We understand it as a strategy for building revolutionary organization, accumulating social power, and contributing to the development of class power capable of challenging capitalism's hegemony. In this sense, Liza does not aspire merely to build yet another organization, but to be part of a collective process of rebuilding social, class-based, and revolutionary anarchism in our region, learning both from our own history and from the international experiences of our current.
2. As a relatively new organization, what lessons can you share from your early days?
Liza: The main lesson we've learned is that building a revolutionary organization requires embracing a timeframe different from that of immediate action; we wanted to break away from acting just for the sake of acting. In a context marked by constant urgency and a militant culture heavily focused on the immediate, it's tempting to measure political activity solely by the number of mobilizations or initiatives launched in the short term. However, our experience has confirmed that without a solid organization-one with shared goals and the capacity to sustain itself over time-even the most intense struggles end up weakening when the political situation changes, unless we share the tools to analyze reality and chart tactical courses that are useful for the emancipation of our class.
That is why we decided to devote a significant portion of our early efforts to building a firm foundation. Rather than growing rapidly, we preferred to consolidate a common political culture based on theoretical education, strategic debate, and collective responsibility. We have invested a great deal of time in studying the history of the labor movement and anarchism, political economy, philosophy, and the revolutionary experiences of the past, contrasting them with the current political context. We understand that theory is not an academic exercise, but an essential tool for interpreting reality and guiding effective political practice. For this reason, from the very beginning, we sought to engage socially across various political fronts and movements of different orientations.
Another important lesson has been understanding that strategic unity does not mean uniformity or the absence of debate. On the contrary, we believe that a strong organization needs open spaces for discussion, where differences can be resolved collectively until agreements are reached that are then embraced by the entire membership. This combination of democratic deliberation and shared responsibility strengthens internal trust and allows us to act with greater coherence on the various fronts of struggle.
We have also paid special attention to building a healthy organizational culture. Criticism and self-criticism, the rotation of responsibilities, nurturing relationships among members, and the development of internal protocols are not secondary issues, but rather necessary conditions for developing an organization capable of enduring and facing political challenges without reproducing authoritarian or personality-driven dynamics.
Finally, we have learned the importance of not walking this path alone. In fact, it has been almost a year since Liza expanded beyond Madrid, and we now also have a core group in Granada, with contacts and outreach to other cities in Andalusia. Constant exchange with sister organizations, both within our region and in other countries, has allowed us to learn from experiences accumulated over decades, avoid well-known mistakes, and understand that the reconstruction of organized anarchism can only be understood as a collective and internationalist task. No organization starts from scratch; we are all part of a tradition that is enriched by sharing assessments, debates, and lessons learned. That conviction continues to guide our development and is, probably, one of the most valuable lessons we can pass on.
3. There is no doubt that the history of the anarchist movement in Spain is revered, above all, for its expression through the CNT's anarcho-syndicalism in the early 20th century. Platformism, by comparison, had a relatively minor presence in the country until recently. Why do you think this is, and what drew Liza's activists to the Platform's theoretical and organizational framework?
Liza: The history of organized anarchism in Spain was deeply shaped by the development of anarcho-syndicalism. The CNT became one of the largest workers' organizations in Europe and, for decades, channeled much of the anarchist movement's organizational, theoretical, and activist efforts. That immense strength meant that many debates about the need for a specifically anarchist political organization took a back seat-either because the union fulfilled that dual function or because forms of "synthesis anarchism" were established.
Anarchism had reached Spain thanks to the IWA, particularly through Giuseppe Fanelli. Fanelli was Bakunin's delegate to the IWA and conveyed Bakuninist ideas to many activists here. He forged the first networks of anarchist activists and thinkers within the Spanish state.
Anarchism found it easier to take root here than in northern Europe due to the relative weakness of the state. It was a very weak state that, out of necessity, could not concentrate power to the same extent as in the more industrialized countries of Europe. The concept of the state was more diffuse; the peasantry was much more receptive to notions of land collectivization and non-participation in politics than to Marxist ideas such as the industrial army or the conquest of the state.
All of this led anarchism to establish cultural centers, associations, and the like over a period of sixty or more years prior to 1936.
The experience of the FAI is probably the best example of this. Although it shared the concern for giving anarchism greater political cohesion, it did not adhere to the organizational model proposed by the Platform. The FAI was, above all, an umbrella organization that brought together very diverse sensibilities under a common anarchist identity, prioritizing ideological affinity over a fully developed theoretical and strategic unity. That formula responded to specific historical conditions and played a fundamental role, but it also left open many of the debates regarding how to structure a revolutionary organization with a shared strategy and sustained political intervention.
Furthermore, the experiences that inspired platformism also failed to fully take root. Both the revolutionary movement led by Nestor Makhno in Ukraine and the Mexican Magonism spearheaded by Ricardo Flores Magón were defeated before they could realize their full organizational potential. The Platform itself emerged, to a large extent, as a response to those defeats and as an attempt to draw lessons for the future. However, repression, the rise of fascism, and later the Cold War greatly hindered the international continuity of this current, with the exception of the Communist Anarchist Federation of Bulgaria.
Following the Spanish Transition, anarchism began to develop once again in a very different context. During the 1980s and 1990s, currents such as autonomism, insurrectionism, and certain expressions of anarchist counterculture gained significant influence. All of them made important contributions to keeping the resistance alive during a period of retreat for the labor movement and a neoliberal offensive. However, we believe that these trends eventually became the dominant mindset within much of anarchism, prioritizing forms of resistance, experimentation, and local intervention, but pushing the development of an offensive strategy capable of challenging capitalism's social power into the background. Specific political organization, the accumulation of social power, and strategic planning were issues that were, to a large extent, relegated to the background.
Meanwhile, this line of thought continued to develop with much greater force in Latin America, especially drawing on the experience of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation and the subsequent development of "especifismo" in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Paradoxically, many of these ideas were rooted in issues raised by the Platform itself, but they reached Spain several decades later.
What drew Liza to this tradition was not a desire to revive a historical document for the sake of identity, but the fact that many of the questions posed a hundred years ago remain extraordinarily relevant today. How can we build a revolutionary organization capable of enduring beyond cycles of mobilization? How can we combine strategic unity with internal democracy? How can we engage with popular movements without supplanting their leading role? How can we prevent anarchism from fragmenting into a collection of disconnected initiatives?
We do not view platformism as a closed doctrine or as a political identity. We understand it as a strategic tradition that must be constantly updated in light of new historical experiences and a rigorous analysis of contemporary society. Our point of reference is not only the Dielo Truda Platform, but also a century of subsequent revolutionary experiences, from the Spanish Revolution to Latin American especifismo, including debates on hegemony, social reproduction, feminism, political ecology, and popular organizations. We believe that remaining faithful to the spirit of the Platform does not mean literally repeating its formulations, but rather continuing the same exercise undertaken by its authors: critically analyzing the defeats of the revolutionary movement in order to build militant organizations capable of confronting the challenges of the present.
4. Liza has participated, along with other groups, in organizing the "Encuentro Especifista" in 2024 and 2025. What are the objectives of these gatherings? What kinds of topics do they address?
Liza: These meetings stem from a process of rapprochement that several libertarian organizations had been developing for some time. We shared similar assessments of the state of anarchism and social movements in Spain; we wanted to maintain stable bilateral relationships; and we collaborated on joint projects such as Regeneración Libertaria. However, we understood that it was necessary to take a step further and create a regular forum where we could debate collectively, share experiences, and move toward greater political coordination.
The first meeting, held in 2024, had precisely this foundational character. Its main objective was to bring together organizations and activists who shared the same strategic outlook so that we could get to know one another, compare our analyses, and assess the extent to which a common political foundation existed upon which to continue building. It also sought to create a space for training, the exchange of experiences, and the strengthening of personal bonds-something essential for any organizational project that aspires to endure.
A year later, the second meeting reflected the progress made. It was not merely a repeat of the previous one, but rather a confirmation that this process of coordination had matured. During that year, new organizations emerged, permanent spaces for coordination were consolidated, common tools were promoted, and deeper strategic debates began to take shape. For this reason, we moved beyond the name "Encuentro Especifista", and now refer to it as the "Meeting of Social and Organized Anarchism"-an expression we believe better describes the broad political space we are trying to build and that allows for dialogue with a libertarian tradition broader than organizational labels.
The content of these meetings combines different levels of work. On the one hand, we assess the current situation and analyze the political moment, both at the national and international levels. We also debate strategic issues related to revolutionary organization, the accumulation of social force, engagement with popular movements, political education, communication, internationalism, and the development of new shared tools. In addition, there are spaces for exchanging experiences among the various fronts of action-labor, housing, student, neighborhood, feminist, and anti-fascist-which allow us to learn from the practices developed in each region and enrich our collective work.
This summer we will hold our third meeting in the Basque Country, to which we have invited other organizations to continue our tradition of meeting annually to further weave this cohesion-as organizations, we advance through our joint and coordinated work each political year. We do not view these gatherings as conferences intended to unify organizations, nor as closed spaces for reaffirming identity. Their purpose is much more modest and, at the same time, more ambitious: to build a shared political culture based on fraternal debate, self-criticism, theoretical development, and mutual trust. We understand that the reconstruction of organized anarchism does not depend solely on creating new organizations, but also on generating stable spaces where common strategies, assessments, and perspectives can be developed collectively. In that sense, these meetings represent another step in a much broader process of reconstructing revolutionary anarchism in our region.
5. Which sectors or areas of mass organizing does Liza strategically prioritize?
Liza: Our approach is based on the idea that capitalism organizes exploitation and domination across multiple spheres of social life as a unified whole; therefore, the accumulation of social power must also be built across different fronts of struggle, understood as a unified whole. Our task as a political organization is not to replace these movements, but to strengthen their capacity for self-organization, facilitate their coordination, and help them develop a strategic perspective capable of transcending immediate demands.
Currently, the front to which we devote the most effort is the housing movement. We understand that housing has become one of the main contradictions of Spanish capitalism. The financialization of land, the concentration of property in the hands of large investment funds and real estate companies, rising rents, and the displacement of broad sectors of the working class from their neighborhoods have made this conflict a central issue for the working class.
Our members actively participate in various housing unions and neighborhood organizations in Madrid and Granada. In addition to our day-to-day work addressing evictions, negotiations, and specific conflicts, we have sought to develop our own program rooted in libertarian socialism to strengthen the housing movement. We believe that one of the main challenges is to overcome territorial fragmentation and move toward confederal forms of organization that allow us to strategically confront large landlords and real estate companies. We believe that only through stable coordination will it be possible to build sufficient social force to challenge the current housing model and question the very system of private home ownership.
At the same time, we believe that the limits of the current political cycle have become particularly evident in this area. The so-called progressive government has proven incapable of challenging the interests of large property owners. While it negotiates with the financial sector and keeps private home ownership as a commodity intact, it continues to send police forces to carry out evictions against working-class families. This contradiction reinforces our conviction that lasting solutions will not come from institutional agreements, but from strengthening grassroots organization.
The labor union front constitutes another strategic priority. Our members actively participate in the CNT in Madrid and Granada, while also maintaining a fraternal relationship with Solidaridad Obrera, with whom we have promoted educational initiatives such as a course on political economy from a libertarian socialist perspective. We view unionism as an essential tool for rebuilding the working class's capacity for organization, although we are aware of the difficulties it faces in the current context. In this regard, one of the projects of which we are most proud has been the consolidation of a united May Day in Madrid, capable of bringing together class-based unionism, social movements, and intersectional groups in a single mobilization. We believe that these kinds of experiences help rebuild a broader political subject and strengthen the possibilities for collective action.
Finally, we are devoting increasing attention to the anti-imperialist and internationalist front. We believe that the current global scenario-marked by rearmament, wars, and competition between imperialist blocs-requires us to reclaim a clear internationalist position from within revolutionary anarchism. We actively participated in the general strike called in solidarity with Palestine-a mobilization that required a significant organizational effort and for which several comrades were disciplined due to their participation in picket lines and demonstrations. We are also part of ongoing initiatives to denounce imperialism and build an anti-imperialist front in Madrid alongside other organizations and unions.
Our position in this area seeks to avoid the two extremes that typically dominate the debate. We unequivocally reject imperialism led by the United States, NATO, and the Western powers, but we also believe that libertarian internationalism cannot translate into uncritical support for other states simply because they are in opposition to those powers. We advocate a third position based on solidarity among peoples, self-determination, and the political autonomy of the working classes in the face of any imperialist bloc.
Alongside these three strategic areas, we are also active in other spaces that we consider fundamental for building social power, such as the movement against Foreigners' Detention Centers (CIE), where we have helped organize demonstrations in recent years. In the face of the rise of the far right, the tightening of European immigration policies, and the normalization of institutional racism, we believe that the defense of migrants is an inseparable part of any revolutionary and class-based project.
Overall, our approach is to connect these different fronts through a common strategy. We do not view each conflict as an isolated struggle, but rather as expressions of the same system of domination. The goal is for the grassroots organization built in neighborhoods, in the workplace, in the defense of housing, or through internationalist solidarity to converge into a social force capable of challenging capitalism's hegemony and opening up a horizon for revolutionary transformation.
6. We're conducting this interview to mark the Platform's centennial. Are the document and its recommendations still relevant today?
Liza: We believe the best way to answer this question is to avoid both idealizing it and completely dismissing it simply because of the passage of time. The Organizational Platform is neither a sacred text nor a document whose validity must be accepted in its entirety a century after its publication. Nor is it a mere historical anecdote. Its importance lies in having formulated with great clarity a set of strategic problems that the anarchist movement continues to face a hundred years later.
The activists of Dielo Truda wrote from an experience marked by the defeat of the Russian Revolution and by a fundamental question: Why had a movement with such capacity for sacrifice, creativity, and presence in the class struggle been unable to become a decisive political actor? Their answer was to highlight the need to build anarchist organizations with theoretical and strategic unity, collective responsibility, and the capacity to intervene continuously in popular struggles. We believe these questions remain fully relevant today. We, too, continue to debate how to avoid fragmentation, how to build a common strategy, how to relate political organization to mass movements, and how to build social power without ever supplanting the initiative of the oppressed class.
At the same time, it would be a mistake to turn the Platform into a finished program. It is a document written under very specific historical circumstances, prior to the Spanish Revolution, the development of Latin American "especifismo," the anti-colonial struggles, contemporary feminism, the ecological crisis, and the transformations capitalism has undergone over the last century. Its authors could not address problems that did not yet exist or were only just beginning to emerge. If we wish to keep that tradition alive, we must also take on the obligation to constantly expand and revise it in light of the practice of these struggles.
We also believe that the Platform itself has certain limitations. It was drafted at a time of enormous political urgency, which explains why certain issues are only briefly touched upon. It forcefully articulates organizational principles but offers fewer tools for understanding the workings of capitalism, the construction of hegemony, social reproduction, or the complex relationship between revolutionary organization and various political subjects. A century of subsequent experiences allows us today to address these issues with much greater depth.
That is why we understand platformism more as a tradition of strategic research than as a closed doctrinal body. The history of libertarian communism itself has greatly enriched that starting point. The Uruguayan Anarchist Federation and Latin American "especifismo" developed concepts such as social insertion and popular power; other experiences contributed reflections on colonialism, patriarchy, ecology, and the transformations of labor. Even the defeats of the labor movement and the new forms of organization that have emerged in recent decades are part of that collective heritage from which we continue to learn. Our task is not to choose between the Platform and subsequent contributions, but to critically integrate them into a revolutionary strategy adapted to our times.
Here in Europe, too, we believe it is necessary to engage in an exercise in historical humility. For far too long, the European anarchist movement tended to view itself as the center of anarchist theoretical development. However, many of the most fruitful contributions of recent decades have emerged from Latin America, where "especifista" organizations kept strategic reflection alive while other concerns predominated in much of Europe. Similarly, the experiences of Kurdistan, various African struggles, and other processes of popular and labor resistance in Southeast Asia have much to contribute to a truly internationalist tradition.
Commemorating the centennial of the Platform should serve precisely to strengthen that international dialogue-not to construct a new orthodoxy, but to continue doing what its authors did a hundred years ago: critically analyzing our defeats, learning from the experiences of diverse struggles, and equipping anarchism with the organizational tools it needs to intervene in the conflicts of our time. Remaining faithful to Dielo Truda does not mean repeating its answers, but rather keeping alive the will to formulate our own collectively.
https://www.blackrosefed.org/platform-interviews-vol-2/#liza-spain
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten