The June Document from Militant Kindergarten

“By especifismo, we refer to a conception of anarchist organization that has two fundamental axes: organization and social work/insertion. These two axes are based on the classical concepts of differentiated actuation of anarchism in the social and political levels (Bakuninist concept) and specific anarchist organization (Malatestan concept). This whole set of conceptions and experiences contributes today to our conception of especifismo. Currently, especifismo is advocated by various Latin American organizations and developed in practice, even if not by this name, in other parts of the world. In short, our conception of the historical references of especifismo is not dogmatic.”

While these words originally come from Part 15 of Social Anarchism and Organization by the FARJ, this edited and abridged version represents our organizational understanding of this text which has been essential to the development of the Center for Especifismo Studies and the continuation of Militant Kindergarten. We have composed, numbered, and subtitled the following paragraphs by adapting our “Reading Guide” without page numbers or ellipsis to make for a smoother reading:

 

1. TWO AXES OF ESPECIFISMO

By especifismo, we refer to a conception of anarchist organization that has two fundamental axes: organization and social work/insertion. These two axes are based on the classical concepts of differentiated actuation of anarchism in the social and political levels (Bakuninist concept) and specific anarchist organization (Malatestan concept).

 

2. ESPECIFISMO IDEOLOGY

Synthesis advocates a model of anarchist organization in which are all the anarchists (anarcho-communists, anarchosyndicalists, anarcho-individualists etc.). So, it presents many of the characteristics that we criticize. We recognize that within synthesist organizations there are also serious militants committed to social anarchism, so we do not want the criticisms to seem generalized. Although we never question whether these organizations are anarchist (for us, they all are), they do not, in most cases, converge with our way of conceiving anarchist organization. There are diverse anarchist organizations that do not come out of the especifismo current. So, especifismo implies much more than to advocate anarchist organization. We understand anarchism as an ideology, that is, a “set of ideas, motivations, aspirations, values, a structure or system of concepts that have a direct connection with action – that which we call political practice”. Especifismo advocates an anarchism that, as an ideology, seeks to conceive a model of performance that transforms the society of today into libertarian socialism by means of the social revolution. In this case we seek to differentiate this understanding of anarchism from another, purely abstract and theoretical, which only encourages free thinking, without necessarily conceiving a model of social transformation. Anarchism, thought of only from this model of critical observation of life, offers an aesthetic freedom and endless possibilities. However, if so conceived, it does not offer real possibilities of social transformation, since it is not put into practice, into action. It does not have the political practice that seeks the final objectives.

 

3. ORGANIZATION IS ESSENTIAL

In the especifismo model there is necessarily this differentiation between the political and social levels of activity. So, the specific anarchist organization is an organization of anarchists that group themselves together at the political and ideological level and that carry out their main activity at the social level, which is broader, aiming to be the ferment of struggle. When we conceive this separation between the social and political level we do not mean to say by this that we wish to be in front of the social movements, nor that the political level has any hierarchy or domination in relation to the social level. In anarchism, broadly speaking, this division between the social and political levels is not accepted by all the currents, which understand the anarchist organization in a diffuse manner, it being able to be a social movement, an organization, an affinity group, a study group, a community, a co-operative etc. There are anarchist currents that support “anti-organizational” or even spontaneist positions and believe that any form of organization is authoritarian or averse to anarchism. Some anarchist individuals that defend these points of view and who are willing to do social work cannot deal with the authoritarian forces and, without the proper organization, end up being laborers and “sleeves” for authoritarian projects or they leave frustrated because they cannot obtain spaces in social movements. These and other attempts to ideologize social movements, in our understanding, weaken both the social movements – which no longer operate around concrete issues like land, housing, employment etc. – as well as anarchism itself, since it does not allow for the deepening of ideological struggles, which occur in the midst of the social movement. It also weakens, since the goal of these anarchists to turn all the militants of the social movements into anarchists is impossible, unless they significantly reduce and weaken the movements. In this way, or even on seeing that it is natural to find people of different ideologies in social movements that will never be anarchists, these anarchists get frustrated, and often shy away from struggles. As a consequence, this anarchism is often confined to itself.

 

4. CLASS STRUGGLE

For us, anarchism was born among the people and that’s where it should be, taking a clear position in favor of the exploited classes that are in permanent conflict in the class struggle. So, when we talk about “where to sow the seeds of anarchism”, for us it is clear that it has to be within the class struggle; in the spaces in which the contradictions of capitalism are most evident. There are anarchists that do not support this class struggle bias of anarchism and, what is worse, there are those that accuse it of acting trying to be a savior or of wanting “to apologize for the poor”. Denying the class struggle, most of these anarchists believe that as the classic definition of bourgeois and proletarian classes does not take today’s society into account, then one could say that classes no longer exist; or that this would be an anachronistic concept. We fundamentally disagree with these positions and believe that, regardless of how we define classes – whether we put more or less emphasis on the economic character etc. – it is undeniable that there are contexts and circumstances in which some people suffer more than others from the effects of capitalism. And it is in these contexts and these circumstances that we want to prioritize our work. When we seek to apply anarchism to the class struggle, we assert what we call social work, and which we defined earlier as “the activity that the anarchist organization performs in the midst of the class struggle, causing anarchism to interact with the exploited classes”. As we also said, for us, social work should be the main activity of the specific anarchist organization. We argue that, through social work, the anarchist organization should seek social insertion, “the process of influencing social movements through anarchist practice”.

 

5. SECTARIAN ANARCHISM

Some say that as members of society they already have social insertion. Often, they become sectarian. For anarchists who think that social work/ insertion is not a priority, it seems that other activities would be more effective in the development of anarchism – however it is often not stated. Besides, at least apparently, not having a strategic formulation, what happens in practice is that these anarchists seek to work with propaganda, very restricted to publications, events, and culture. Propaganda is also central for us, but it is not enough if done without the backing of social work and insertion. With this support propaganda is much more effective. So, propaganda, in especifismo, should be performed with these two biases: educational/ cultural and struggle with social movements.

 

6. BOURGEOIS ANARCHISTS

Either they abandon the proposal for social transformation or form a group that fights for the people, not with the people – assuming the position of vanguard and not of active minority. They end up making of their anarchism a “movement in itself”, which is characterized by being essentially of the middle class and intellectuals, by not seeking contact with social and popular struggles, by not being in contact with people of different ideology. In most cases they advocate spontaneity since “to come from outside”, “to put anarchism within social movements” is authoritarian. According to them ideas should arise spontaneously. They denounce discussion, persuasion, convincing, exchange, influence as external to social movements and, therefore, authoritarian.

 

 

7. PRACTICE TO INFORM THEORY

As we explained, for us anarchism should not be confined to itself, nor shy away from social movements and people of different ideologies. Since we understand that class is not defined by origin but by the position that you advocate in the struggle, we believe that to support social movements, to assist mobilisations and organizations different to the reality in which you are included is an ethical obligation for any militant committed to the end of class society. Finally, we believe that social work brings necessary practice to anarchism, which has an immense contribution in the development of the theoretical and ideological line of the organization. Groups and organizations that do not have social work tend to radicalize a discourse that does not have support in practice.

 

8. UNITY OF THEORY AND IDEOLOGY

For us, there is no way to have an effective practice or even constitute an organization without agreeing on some “initial questions”. We must extract an ideological and theoretical line to be advocated and developed by the organization. This political line is collectively constructed and everyone in the organization is obliged to follow it. For anarchists that do not advocate this unity the anarchist organization could work with different ideological and theoretical lines. Each anarchist or group of anarchists may have their interpretation of anarchism and their own theory. This is motive for various conflicts and splits in organizations with this conception.

 

9. UNITY OF STRATEGY

We believe that lack of strategy disperses efforts, causing many of them to be lost. Acting with strategy, as we have seen, implies taking into account a plan of all the practical actions performed by the organization, seeking to verify where you are, where you want to go and how. How do you conceive an organization in which you seek to reconcile a group that believes it should act as a specific organization in a social movement with a group that thinks that the priority should be social interaction among friends, group therapy or even the exaltation of the individual, considering work with social movements as authoritarian (or even Marxist or a progressive form of charity)? There are two ways of managing these differences: either you discuss the issues and live between fights and stress which consume a large part of the time; or you simply do not touch on the issues. Most organizations of this type opt for the second form. An especifismo model implies that we have to do things that we don’t like very much or to cease doing some things that we like a lot. This is to ensure that the organization proceeds with strategy, with everyone rowing the boat in the same direction. The priorities and responsibilities mean that everyone is not going to be able to do what passes through their head, whenever they want. Each one will have an obligation to the organization to accomplish that which they undertook and that which was defined as a priority.

 

10. DECISION-MAKING

We have in mind that the decision-making process is a means and not an end in itself. Seeking consensus at any cost, and afraid of splitting, some organizations allow one or another person to have a disproportionate weight in decisions, only in order to achieve consensus. Other times, they spend hours on discussions of little importance only to seek consensus. Ideological and theoretical unity and strategic and tactical unity are attained through the collective decision-making process adopted by specific organizations, which is an attempt at consensus and, if this is not possible, the vote – the majority winning. As we have also emphasized, in this case the whole organization adopts the winning decision. The obligation of everyone to follow the same path – which is a rule in especifismo – is a commitment that the organization has to its strategy, because, if every time a decision taken does not please some of the militants, and this party refuses to perform the work, it will be impossible for the organization to move forward.

 

11. MILITANT COMMITMENT

Lack of commitment, responsibility and self-discipline constitutes a major problem in many anarchist groups and organizations. As militancy, for us, is something necessary in the struggle for a free and egalitarian society we do not believe that it will always be “cool”. If we had to choose between a more effective model of militancy and another more “cool”, we would have to opt for effectiveness. In the especifismo model, there is a high level of this militant commitment. Militant commitment imprints a link between militant and organization, which is a mutual relationship in which the organization is responsible for the militant, as well as the militant being responsible for the organization. To put it another way: in addition to the organization owing satisfaction to the militant, the militant owes satisfaction to the organization. Only militants with ideological affinity with the organization are inside the specific anarchist organization. So, both at the political level as well as the social level there are well-defined entrance criteria, from the instances of supporter or groupings of tendency to the specific anarchist organization. The more they want to commit themselves, the more inside the organization they will be, and the greater will be their deliberating power.

 

12. UMBRELLA ORGANIZING

We do not want to be this great “umbrella” that covers all types of anarchists. These broad (in)definitions apparently group more anarchists in the organization. However, we believe that we should not opt for the criterion of quantity but the quality of militants. Contrary to the especifismo model, there are other organizations whose only criteria for the entrance of militants is their definition as anarchists, regardless of what conception of anarchism they have. Some people participate a bit in the organization, others are more committed; some assume more responsibilities than others and all have the same power of deliberation. So, many deliberate on activities that they are not going to perform, that is, they determine what others will do. When an organization allows for someone to deliberate something and not assume responsibilities, or that they assume responsibilities and do not meet them it allows for an authoritarianism of those who deliberate and put work on the backs of other comrades.

 

 

13. INDIVIDUALISM

For individualists, in most cases, to be an anarchist means to be an artist, a bohemian, to promote the sexual freedom of having open relationships or with more than one partner, to wear different clothes, to have a radical haircut, to behave extravagantly, to eat different foods, to define yourself personally, to fulfill yourself personally, to be against revolution (?!), to be against socialism (?!), to have a discourse without rhyme or reason – enjoying the freedom of aesthetics – in short, becoming apolitical. Especifismo means a complete and absolute rejection of anarchist individualism. One type, which was more common in the past, of people that prefer to work alone, but that have in mind the same project as us. In these people we only have to criticize the fact that, being disorganized, they cannot potentialize the results of their work. Another type, more in evidence today, renounces the socialist project. Based on the anarchist critique of the state they have little critique of capitalism, and no activity in the direction of socially transforming the reality in which we live. Putting themselves in the condition of simple critical observers of society, they construct an anarchism from secondary thinkers and references, simply around criticism. They don’t have any societal project, much less coherent action that points towards this new society. If we advocate especifismo, which is a form of anarchist organization, it is because we believe that it is today more suitable for the work we intend to perform. We understand that there are anarchists who do not agree with especifismo, and we do not think that they are less anarchist because of it. We only demand respect for our choice, such as we respect those who have made other choices.

 

 

14. INFLUENCES

As we have seen the term especifismo was developed by the FAU and only arrived in Brazil in the late twentieth century. Especifismo more than creating a new conception of anarchist organization sought to group a series of already existing anarchist organizational conceptions, which took shape starting from the nineteenth century.  The especifismo of the FAU asserts the influence of Bakunin and Malatesta, of the class struggle of anarcho-syndicalism, of expropriator anarchism; all this within a Latin American context.

 

15. BAKUNIN

Especifismo’s first historic reference is Bakunin, from the organizational conceptions that constituted the activity of the libertarians within the International Workers’ Association (IWA), and which gave body to anarchism. Two tendencies developed within the IWA: one centralist and one federalist. The Alliance was an organization of active minority composed of the “most secure, most dedicated, most intelligent and most energetic members, in a word, by the closest”. It was formed to act secretly in order to address the issues that one could not publicly address and to act as a catalyst in the labor movement. The Alliance defined the relation between the social and political levels.

 

16. MALATESTA

For Malatesta, the future would not be necessarily determined and could only be modified by will, by a voluntarist intervention in events in order to provide the desired social transformation. Following the collectivist tradition of the anarchism of Bakunin’s time – which advocated, in the future society, distribution to each according to their work – was born the anarchist communist current – which has since then advocated distribution to each according to their needs. At the political level, Malatesta developed his conception of the specific anarchist organization, which he called the anarchist party. This organization should act in the so-called “mass movements” of the time and influence them as much as possible, and the unions were the preferred terrain chosen for anarchist activity. Today, we believe that the specific anarchist organization should act within the class struggle, in the midst of the social movements and, with them, reach the social revolution and libertarian socialism.

 

17. MAGÓN

An important historical experience for especifismo, in our conception, was also that of Ricardo Flores Magón. Magonismo was part of the radical phase of the Mexican Liberal Party (PLM). During the Mexican Revolution, the PLM became clandestine and organized more than 40 armed resistance groups throughout Mexico and also had indigenous members, known for their struggle for community rights and against capitalist property. They were united in an anti-re-electionist front, which gave each group a relative degree of autonomy and independence.

 

18. RUSSIAN REVOLUTION

Another important historic reference to especifismo is the anarchist participation in the Russian Revolution. In the field, in southern Ukraine the peasants of Guliai Polie, a village that since the 1905 revolution had had strong anarchist organization, founded the Peasants Union, which decided to fight for the social revolution independent of the government, seeking self-management of the means of production. Then came a divide between the authoritarian and libertarian revolutionary elements. The former were for seizing the state apparatus and moving towards the dictatorship of the (Bolshevik) Party, directed by an all-powerful central committee, the latter for libertarian and self-managed communism in the form of councils of soviets of workers, peasants, and the people in arms. Progressively, the Bolsheviks began to deny, suppress, impede and, finally, prohibit the spread of libertarian ideas and practices. They militarized labor, expelled elected leaders from the soviets, forced the soviets to submit to the central power of the party and prohibited strikes. It was the end of the process of self-managed socialization in the Ukraine, repressively reversed by the Bolsheviks in favor of statist and totalitarian forms of organization and social control under a new ruling class.

 

19. THE PLATFORM

This document brought forward key insights about the importance of the involvement of anarchists in the class struggle, the need for a violent social revolution that overthrows capitalism and the state and that establishes libertarian communism. There is also an important contribution on the question of the transition from capitalism to libertarian communism and on the defense of the revolution. The Platform advocates an anarchist organization, at the political level, that acts in the midst of social movements, a social level, and emphasizes the role of active minority of the anarchist organization. Moreover, it makes important contributions to the model of organization of the political level of the anarchists. During the Russian Revolutions the anarchists sinned by omission on the matter of organization. For us, the Platform both draws from these authors Bakunin and Malatesta and brings new contributions. So, it should be considered as a contribution to especifismo but not the most important contribution. It is more a contribution to the discussion of anarchist military action than a document to discuss anarchist organization in all different contexts.

 

20. SPANISH REVOLUTION

As with the Russian Revolution, we also consider the Spanish Revolution of 1936 a reference. During those years a social revolution was effectively carried out. A revolution under fire that wanted to reach all sectors, from unjust economic structures to the daily life of the population, from the decrepit notions of hierarchy to the historic inequalities between men and women. And all this was the work of the anarchists. In the first phase (July 1936 to early 1937) the anarchists are among the most prominent groups. The action of militants in areas such as Catalonia was exemplary. The republican structures turned into popular organizations in an intense and successful process of collectivization. Factories were occupied and immediate social measures put into practice, such as: equal pay between men and women, free medical service, permanent salary in case of sickness, reduced working hours and increased pay. Metallurgical, timber industry, transport, food, health, media and entertainment services and rural properties were collectivized. In order to combat the fascist forces, they set up militias that advanced on some fronts, especially the column headed by Buenaventura Durruti. In the second phase (1937 to 1939) the progress of the counter-revolution was devastating. The advances made by the CNT/FAI were destroyed by those who sought to re-establish the foundations of the state (moderate sectors of the Republic, Communists and Socialists). The Communists began to gain key positions in the government. The anarchists had to give in once more to unfavorable circumstances: some members of the CNT ended up participating in the government.

 

21. BRAZIL

We understand that from the earliest years of the twentieth century anarchists in Brazil linked to “organizationalism”, in particular followers of Malatesta, struggled to organize comrades to forming an organization with common strategies and tactics, based on tactical agreements and clear group understanding. These anarchists prepared the conditions that allowed for the full insertion of anarchists in the unions and in social life, with the formation of schools and theatre groups, in addition to a significant written production.

 

22. FAU

A Latin influence on especifismo that we advocate is the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (Federación Anarquista Uruguyaya – FAU), formed in 1956 of class struggle and anarcho-syndicalist influences, of the organizational models of Bakunin and Malatesta, and of the expropriator anarchism from the Prata River region. At the end of the 1960s, parallel to the mass organization, the FAU developed the organization of its “armed wing”, the People’s Revolutionary Organization – 33 (Organización Popular Revolucionaria – 33, OPR-33), which realized a series of sabotage actions, economic expropriations, kidnappings of politicians and/ or bosses particularly hated by the people, armed support for strikes and workplace occupations etc. The FAU rejected focalism as a paradigm of armed struggle, avoiding militarization while possessing social insertion in the population. The FAU re-articulated itself and developed its work on the especifismo model which we advocate today, with three fronts of insertion: union, student, and community.

 

23. HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS

This whole set of conceptions and experiences contributes today to our conception of especifismo. Currently, especifismo is advocated by various Latin American organizations and developed in practice, even if not by this name, in other parts of the world. In short, our conception of the historical references of especifismo is not dogmatic. We have broad ideas that start with the ideas of Bakunin and the alliancists in the IWA, go through the conceptions of Malatesta and his practical experiences at the social and political levels, as well as the experiences of Magón and the PLM in the Mexican Revolution. We are also influenced by the experiences of the anarchists in the Russian Revolution, with emphasis on the Makhnovists in the Ukraine and the organizational reflections made by the Russians in exile, as well as the experiences of the anarchists in the Spanish Revolution around the CNT-FAI. In Brazil, we have influences from anarchist “organizationalism”, highlighting the experiences of the 1918 Anarchist Alliance of Rio de Janeiro and the 1919 (libertarian) Communist Party. Finally, the influences of the FAU, both in their struggle against the dictatorship, as in their activity in fronts with unions, community, and student movements.