The following is the first part of a much longer interview Embat did with their sister organization OSL. This first part focuses on OSL and their conception of anarchism.*** [It was translated from Catalan by the Center for Especifismo Studies.]
1. What’s the origin of OSL?
Our organization, although new, has a history that goes back to the beginning of especifismo anarchism in Brazil (at least back to the 1990s). Even the name we’ve chosen is a reference to the old OSL which, between 1997 and 2000, was the first attempt to form a specific anarchist organization of national scope. The old OSL had its limits and ended up not being able to move forward. At the end of the experience, its militants realized that investing in a national organization, at that time, was like “starting to build the house from the roof”. They decided to take a few steps back to get refocused on the process.
On the one hand, this included strengthening the grassroots work, the construction and participation in popular movements and social struggles, which was done with the foundation of different Popular Resistance groupings of tendency (intermediate organizations between the political organization and the mass movements), and which aimed to gather libertarian sectors of workers and have an impact on these movements and struggles. On the other hand, it meant returning to the ideological and anarchist level of the debate, creating an organizational base that could point, in the medium-term, to a national anarchist organization. For this, the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO) was created in 2002. It sought to unite anarchists who agreed on two primary axes: the need for an organization of anarchists and the need for social work (with the grassroots of popular organizations and in mass movements).
This process allowed for the development of especifismo anarchism in Brazil. There were collectives and organizations that remained during this process and others that came out of or were added to it; but there were also those that got disconnected and ended up dissolving. However, in general, and particularly from 2008/9 onwards, the FAO was able to get more established and develop a lot, consolidating a series of organizational initiatives in different states in Brazil. This allowed considerable progress, which culminated in the founding of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination (CAB) in 2012.
The idea behind this coordination was specifically to take the organizational step of transforming the old forum (which was a space for the exchange of reports, experiences, etc.) into something with a little more organic development and affinity. The coordination was precisely this medium kind of step between the forum and political organization. We actively participated in this process during the 10 years that we were in CAB; with it we were able to advance some initial affinities in terms of theory and practice.
The OSL was born in July 2023, from a merger between the Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ, state of Rio de Janeiro), the Coletivo Mineiro Popular Anarquista (COMPA, state of Minas Gerais), the Rusga Libertária (RL, state of Mato Grosso), the Organização Anarquista Socialismo Libertário (OASL, state of São Paulo), as well as some individuals. The OSL was formed with about half the membership of CAB, after splitting from it on the basis that the coordination had fulfilled its role and that it was necessary to take a step forward.
2. So what makes this new libertarian communist organization an especifismo org?
There is a distinct process of growth that was adopted in Brazil (based on the constitution and articulation of «organic groups», as recommended by the process of Brazilian anarchist construction, since the 1990s). In our assessment, it was good for advancing organized anarchism in different regions geographically and also at adding lots of people, but it did end up having real limitations.
This growth, which occurred in the context of the FAO of the CAB, came from a pretty disorderly way of grouping together different orgs that, while all agreeing with anarchist and especifismo principles, still weren’t exactly on the same page. It ended up stimulating a certain local/regional autonomy of state agencies, making it increasingly difficult to align and homogenize theoretical and strategic positions to move towards unified lines and structures. It’s clear that the current conjuncture also influenced the process as a whole, including the uneven development that has occurred in the various regions. However, in our analysis we didn’t find this to be the most important thing.
While developing our national organization (which was always the objective of FAO and CAB) and during the internal conflicts around these discussions, it became clear to us, especially after 2019, that our coordination had created a complicated scenario. On the one hand, there were very different conceptions of the political line (of anarchism, especifismo, and theory) as well as the strategic-tactical line (the program and the political practice). But on the other hand, there was a whole sector of the org with little interest/intention of continuing a homogenizing and unifying political process, something essential for the formation of a political organization. In fact, even in the sectors advocating this advance, there were often very heterogeneous positions.
It was clear to us that we had to choose between the following: 1.) To maintain CAB at the stage it was in, without advancing towards a national organization, which after 10 years of CAB didn’t seem right to us. 2.) Insist on this process of homogenization and unification, creating an internal dispute inside of CAB, which in our reading of the situation would have raised the already high level of conflict in the org even more, something that definitely would have been received badly by some sections. 3.) Propose the closure of the CAB to be replaced with our organizational proposal; in this way, any members and any state-wide orgs that agreed could join us, and those that disagreed would be free to build other projects.
We went for the latter path because we didn’t think it was right to stay in an organization like that WITHOUT putting a lot of effort into an internal disagreement that, from our point of view, would have taken years to resolve, would have made us retreat into ourselves AND would have really intensified the internal disagreements (there would have been attrition, splits, expulsions, etc.). In our opinion, all this would have been really bad for the membership and for the social work (union, community, agricultural, etc.). Another thing that contributed to this decision was the fact that our regional chapter of CAB (Southeast – Midwest) had already been operating as an organization since 2021, including unifying processes with clear lines, etc., so we got to see in practice how this not only moved the whole thing forward but also facilitated the daily functions of the organization. So for us, it wasn’t only possible but also beneficial and totally worth it to put a lot of time into coordinating an organization.
When most of the regional chapters in CAB decided not to follow us on this path, we decided to split in 2022. FARJ, COMPA, RL, and OASL all split from CAB, while at the same time still trying to maintain a respectful public relationship. We started working on the new organization, which has been articulated in a number of sessions during our first congress (CONOSL). In very general terms, in addition to founding the OSL, we’ve oriented and unified our organization and our lines, and we’ve provided conditions for a national level project (with the aim of being present in every state in Brazil).
Our different cadres and state-wide sections are coming together to operate in a single national structure with the same degree of unity around advancing as an ideological, theoretical, strategic, and tactical unit. We’ve started with classical references to anarchism which are the basic foundation of organizational dualism (of which especifismo and platformism are historical expressions), and we’ve tried to deepen and update our conceptions. We’re starting to develop more significant structural and conjunctural analyses, as well as a maximum and minimum program, in addition to other things. We’ve already started expanding into the northeast and south of the country.
We’re very encouraged by this new organizational moment and by the progress that, although modest, seems very coherent so far, especially considering that OSL has only been around for a year. We’re also highly motivated by other important things, like getting to work in an ideal organizational environment and the growth of our social work, which we’ll talk about later. There’s no doubt we’re part of building a socialist and libertarian alternative in Brazil.
3. For those who don’t know, for OSL what is especifismo?
Especifismo is a historical expression of anarchist organizational dualism. We believe that since it first appeared in the late 1860s, anarchism has developed this organizational form. This kind of organizational dualism is exactly what was defended by Mikhail Bakunin who founded the Alliance, which was the first anarchist organization in history. Over the years, militants and anarchist organizations defended this way of organizing, based on the need for a unified organization of anarchists on two levels: on a political-ideological or anarchist level, and on a social, popular, mass level.
In its homogeneous and programmatic version of a specific anarchist organization, this tradition was defended by some of the classics. It had origins in the Alliance (or in “alliancism”) and had two more particularly relevant historical expressions. One of them, inspired by the “Organizing Platform of the General Union of Anarchists”, written by the Dielo Truda group, which came to be called “platformism”, whose impact was felt, between the 1920s and 1950s, mainly in Bulgaria, France and Italy, and that, between the 1980s and 1990s, spread to countries such as South Africa and Ireland. Another of these expressions, in which the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) played a leading role, was called “especifismo” and had an impact not only in Uruguay in the 1960s and 1970s, but also in other countries of South America, such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina, especially from the 1990s onwards.
The term “especifismo” and its variations were historically used in Uruguay and other countries to refer to anarchists who advocated the need for a specific anarchist organization. What FAU did was to give a more precise meaning to this term with their practical and theoretical conceptions. The FAU came to this conception based on references such as Bakunin, Errico Malatesta, revolutionary syndicalists and expropriator anarchists, together with a reflection on imperialism in Latin America stimulated, among others, by Abraham Guillén.
The OSL claims this homogeneous and programmatic organizational dualism of organizations that have unity of theoretical, ideological, strategic, and tactical positions. The main references are especifismo and platformism, which we understand as both legitimate descendants of the Alliance. We also have a reference in revolutionary syndicalism, in terms of mass strategy, because we identify similarities between it and our proposal to organize the oppressed classes AND to build a libertarian project of popular power. So, we differ from both anti-organizationalist and anarcho-syndicalist positions (which generally merge anarchist organization and mass organization) as well as from more heterogeneous forms of specific anarchist organization, such as anarchist “synthesis” (which are characterized by the plurality of political and programmatic positions).
Allow us to explain these positions a little better. We defend a conception of mass anarchism, having as a strategy a form of revolutionary syndicalism which is based on the construction and strengthening of popular movements based on a clear line of action. But at the same time, we defend the need for a specifically anarchist organization, which is based on the construction of a strategy and a unified program for intervention in the current reality as it is. For us, it’s only through organization that anarchists can utilize their ability to intervene in reality and get stronger through disputes with other political and ideological currents. The organizational dualism that guides our organization consists of exactly that, which is very far from libertarian, individualist, primitivist, insurrectionist or post-anarchist conceptions.
We conceive of the anarchist organization as a party based on some organizational principles: self-management and federalism; theoretical and ideological unity; strategic and tactical unity; collective responsibility and discipline. Of course, since it’s anarchist, this is not the kind of party with authoritarian characteristics that contests state power.
For us, the role of the specific anarchist organization is:
1.) Articulate anarchist militancy, avoiding the dispersion of forces, since on our own we’re not able to fight against other political currents and organizations and because of that aren’t able to influence popular movements with libertarian principles.
2.) Constantly promote class struggle and a revolutionary perspective since we believe that trade unions and social movements don’t spontaneously head in this direction. Anarchist organization is necessary for strengthening and radicalizing these struggles, as well as for defending and promoting our program among the oppressed classes.
3.) To accumulate experiences of the oppressed classes, since we’ve observed on several occasions the loss of force accumulated in movements and struggles, especially in periods of ebb; anarchist organization can ensure that this accumulation is preserved and overcome going forward.
4.) Build a self-management project of popular power, from the bottom up and from the periphery to the center, unifying the different sectors (movements, struggles, etc.) of the oppressed classes based on a structure of reciprocal and liberating relationships with the movements and the masses.
5.) Produce theory, so that we can properly interpret our past as well as our present AND produce a program capable of advancing our political project. For this, we have made progress in the development of a method of analysis that we call materialism or libertarian realism, as well as in a libertarian social theory of our own. Some of these ideas can be found in one of our organization’s documents called “Nossos Principios e Estratégia Geral”.
4. What differentiates especifismo/platformism from other branches of socialism?
Our socialism is libertarian, so it’s different from authoritarian currents that seek to conquer the State (through elections, reforms or revolution) and end up continuing the domination of the oppressed classes (following the bureaucracy, strategic alliances with the bourgeoisie, etc.). Our socialism is revolutionary and therefore differs from reformist currents that see reforms within capitalism-statism as ends in themselves or that believe it’s possible to reach socialism by a cumulative set of restricted reforms.
Our socialism is also deeply classist and internationalist. By that, we mean that it’s different from socialist conceptions that argue that it’s no longer relevant to talk about social classes or hold on to a class-struggle perspective. It’s also different from arguments that class is “just another oppression” or positions that treat class only in terms of identity. For us, the relationship between classes is structural, so we always operate from a class perspective when addressing nationality, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc. Our socialism also differs from the various forms of nationalism: ethnic-racial, religious, territorial, anti-colonial/imperialist, etc.
As we’ve said, we defend mass anarchism, so unlike anti-organizationalists, we argue that organization is necessary; unlike those who are against the struggle for reforms, we defend fighting for reforms that aim at a revolutionary project, and unlike those who consider acts of violence to be vehicles for mobilizing the masses, we see a need for more advanced forms of struggle to be linked to more massive struggles.
In the anarchist debate about organization, we’re organizational dualists which is different from those who organize themselves only at the mass level, from those who seek to circumscribe popular movements to anarchism, and from those who believe that an anarchist collective or organization is enough. We defend the homogeneous and programmatic model of the specific anarchist organization. This organizational form, based on homogeneous unity, was historically expressed by especifismo and platformism as contrasts to the heterogeneous model of anarchist synthesis. And we’re not the same as Leninist parties because we argue that anarchist organization is self-managed/federalist and must have a complementary and non-hierarchical relationship with popular movements.
In theoretical terms, our libertarian materialism/realism differs from Marxist, neopositivist, or postmodernist/poststructuralist approaches. Here are some counterpoints, but we recommend again to those interested to read the document “Our principles and general strategy”. You can say we’ve tried to avoid the contemporary temptation to fight Marxism with postmodernism and vice versa, but unfortunately this is something we’ve found in pretty much the whole left. We’re working on a libertarian social theory that draws from both classical authors as well as anarchism’s contemporary figures while avoiding these all-too-common trappings.
On the one hand, we think we have to push the limits and resolve the contradictions in Marxism. On the other hand, we also consider it important to avoid the huge problems and misunderstandings of postmodernism, which has spread around the world, including in the form of the left’s pervasive acceptance of progressive liberalism. We want to reaffirm the importance of critical science and reason, as well as get back to discussions about nationality, gender/sexuality, and race/ethnicity that are based on class analysis. In the near future, we want to publish material that will not only go into more details regarding our theoretical positions, but will also explain how they differ from Marxism and postmodernism.
5. Besides anarchism, what other historical experiences of the struggle of the peoples of Brazil and Latin America inspire the OSL?
First of all, it’s important to remember that we’re an internationalist organization. Insofar as capitalism-statism is a global system, our proposal also has to take up an international perspective. That’s why organized anarchism, both especifismo and platformism, is an international, world-wide project with theoretical and practical references that are also international, coming from all over the world.
But, having said that, we also want to say that because our organization is located in Latin America in general, and in Brazil in particular, means that we are without a doubt permanently inspired by mobilizations and resistance movements in our own region. Here, there is a great tradition of movements and struggles that have involved workers, enslaved people, peasants, indigenous people, quilombolas, women, etc. We have a wide-reaching history of oppressed classes which began from colonization and extends to the present. So now, we would like to mention some of these movements and struggles that inspire us on a daily basis.
In Brazil, there were several indigenous organizations and confederations that fought against the Portuguese Empire, such as the Confederation of the Tamoios (1557–1567) when the Tupinambás organized an insurrectionary movement against Portuguese occupation in the coastal region between Bertioga and Cape Frio. We should also mention the Quilombo dos Palmares (1597-1695), a self-managed territory in what is now the state of Alagoas. It contained more than 20,000 inhabitants among African freedmen, indigenous people, and white allies. They lasted nearly a hundred years there and liberated other enslaved and dominated peoples, and they fought against the great empires of the time (Portugal and Spain), inspiring other processes of resistance against slavery and colonization.
In general, indigenous uprisings across Latin America should also be mentioned. They can’t be easily characterized as a desire for national and statist independence since they aspired to the self-organization of various peoples. These examples include the resistance of Tupac Amaru in the sixteenth century and of his descendant, Tupac Amaru II, in the seventeenth century. The tradition born out of the Haitian Revolution (1791) inspired various indigenous, peasant, and abolitionist struggles against slavery in Brazil. One of these was Canudos (1896-1897), which was another self-organized territory in Brazil that fought against hunger and appalling living conditions in the backwoods of the state of Bahia. It was led by Antônio Conselheiro and certainly had its contradictions, with a messianic sort of leader and a religious discourse. Nevertheless, it organized a communal territory with more than 25,000 people, representing a threat to the order of the Empire and to the future republic.
Abolitionist struggles against black slavery, which culminated with its abolition in 1889, were and continue to be important for Brazilian anarchists. This is also true for more radicalized kinds of confrontations like the Mexican Revolution (1910-1913), the struggle for Cuban independence, and the fight against the Spanish occupation of Morocco.
The revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism of the early part of the twentieth century in Latin America are also fundamental sources of historical inspiration. Anarchists were really important in building these forms of syndicalism in countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. They aimed to organize rank-and-file workers, encouraging their direct action for immediate wins against capital and the state, while at the same time working on a path for the revolutionary transformation of society. Within this movement, women played a prominent role in various local struggles and class conflicts, especially those related to femininity and that were responsible for promoting the need for the emancipation of women in society and in the movement in particular.
In Brazil, this revolutionary syndicalism promoted three important strike cycles: 1906-1907, 1913-1914, and 1917-1920. Specifically: the São Paolo General Strike (1917), the general strike of Curitiba (1917), the strike of the workers at the Compañía Cantarera y Viación Fluminense (1918), the Anarchist Insurrection of Rio de Janeiro (1918), the mobilization of the Union of Civil Construction Workers (UOCC), as well as the wins gained after eight large mobilizations in Rio de Janeiro.
These mobilizations brought together thousands of workers and achieved the first labor rights in Brazil. At this time, several ports and factories were seized by insurrectionary means. The first national syndicalist organization was the Brazilian Workers’ Confederation (1906), with influence from anarchist and feminist organizations, such as the Anarchist Alliance (1916), the Anarchist Communist Party of Brazil (1919), and the Feminist Communist League (1920).
More recently, there are also some Latin American references to mention. This includes the fights against military dictatorships in various Latin American countries, especially in Uruguay with the significant influence of the FAU – which rooted itself in a radical process of struggle through an armed wing (Popular Revolutionary Organization 33 Orientals, OPR-33) and a mass arm (Tendencia Combativa / Convención Nacional de Trabajadores, CNT). But it also includes numerous mobilizations of peasants, as well as rural and urban workers, from the revolts of the Mapuche people to the Zapatistas of Chiapas, in Mexico.
6. Back in the 1990’s and 2000’s, anarchists in Brazil talked about a process of “democratic radicalization” and a “protracted popular struggle”. Are these concepts still in use today?
At that time, those concepts were very relevant and were incorporated into our theoretical proposal.
“Democratic radicalization” is a way of summarizing our understanding of socialism as a form of generalized socialization. This conception differs from the idea that socialism only requires the socialization of the private ownership of the means of production. Without getting into the weeds, throughout the twentieth century, a huge section of socialists “transformed” socialization into nationalization (which are actually completely different ideas). In our own socialist current, democratic radicalization is a process of socialization that involves the economic, political, and moral-intellectual (cultural) fields. This process of radicalizing democracy is about implementing self-management in the economic (the end of private property and the establishment of collective property), political (the end of the State, with new forms of political decision-making established by popular and grassroots bodies), and cultural (the end of the monopoly on the production and the free dissemination of knowledge and information, leading to even broader socialization) dimensions of society.
For us, it’s still very relevant to talk about “prolonged popular struggle” because a revolutionary social transformation like the one we’re facing is not going to be a short or even a medium-term project. We believe there are no shortcuts on this path. The revolutions of the twentieth century tried to shorten this process but didn’t do much more than replace bourgeois domination with bureaucratic domination, keeping class society alive, with its domination, exploitation, etc. The process of socialist and libertarian transformation that we want to promote is something that has to be built step by step, day by day. This is why revolutionary patience is absolutely essential. We tend to use a metaphor when talking about this: we’re running a marathon, so it’s not okay to just run a little bit and then give up when it gets hard. We have to be able to endure over time. It’s the only way to guarantee the victory of the oppressed classes in the end.
7. Today, there’s a lot of talk about colonialism and imperialism, but there’s less talk about National Liberation. Considering that the especifismo anarchism of the 60’s and 70’s spoke to the social and national revolutions occurring at that time, how does OSL approach these issues?
It’s an interesting topic. When we study anarchism coming from beyond just the North Atlantic (Western Europe and the US), which has been the almost exclusive focus of historians of anarchism, we find a long tradition of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and national liberation struggles. Anarchists in peripheral countries have always had to deal with the national question and in most cases have responded to it in pretty consistent ways. They’ve defended libertarian, revolutionary, classist, internationalist, theoretical, and practical lines.
This has happened in a number of different contexts. For example, in revolutionary Ukraine (1918-1921), when the Makhnovists were forced to confront Austro-German imperialism; in revolutionary Manchuria/Korea (1929-1932), when anarchists had to fight against Japanese imperialism; in Uruguay before the military dictatorship of 1973, when the FAU confronted the forces of US imperialism.
Today, there’s an interesting panorama. One part of anarchism (and of the left more broadly) in the North Atlantic context continues to minimize the national question and, especially in the case of anarchists, confuses national liberation with nationalism. There’s also a growing influence of decolonial, postcolonial, and other theoretical perspectives (strangely enough often due to the influence of the United States and western Europe). While these theories do make accurate criticisms of Eurocentrism, it’s also true that, in practice, they tend to fall into postmodernism or into various nationalisms without having any real influence on the ground.
For us, all this becomes clear when we analyze the genocide that the State of Israel is carrying out at the moment against the Palestinian population. Zionism, which subsidizes the Israeli government, is a colonialist and racist doctrine, and we’re witnessing in real time an unprecedented massacre that must be denounced and fought against in whatever ways are necessary. It’s clear this isn’t a criticism of the Jewish people or a form of anti-Semitism since there have been, and still are, other Jewish doctrines that are opposed to Zionism, just like how many Jewish people are against the genocide happening right now. The funny thing is that a lot of people who defend decolonial, postcolonial, etc. kinds of positions have remained silent and haven’t acted in response to what’s happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
We have to rekindle the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist anarchist tradition in all parts of the world. It’s not only important for combatting Israeli Zionism but US imperialism too. Among other things, it can get anarchists to improve their analyses and positions on the Russia-Ukraine war. For example, it’s been common for leftists around the world to take up the US imperialist position in the region and defend Ukraine in particular (this is even true for some anarchists), but there’s also uncritical support for Russia’s imperialist interests in the region, as a way of undermining US imperialism.
In short, it’s necessary to return to the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and national liberation anarchist tradition, making it possible to better understand reality and adopt forms of political intervention that are based on libertarian, revolutionary, classist, and internationalist positions.
*** Entrevista a OSL – Organització Socialista Llibertaria – de Brasil [Part 1]
CES 