The November Document from Militant Kindergarten

“The distinction between theory and ideology allows us to be less dogmatic, so while roles obviously need to be rotated, we shouldn’t be afraid of specialization. This goes back to the reoccurring point that the militants are responsible for the organization and the organization is responsible for the militants. Still, to prevent the establishment of hierarchies between the different kinds of work surrounding and supporting the project of building Popular Power, we believe the role of supporter should always be treated with a high level of seriousness and respect.”

In Militant Kindergarten, we work to better distinguish theory from ideology because this distinction allows us to be less dogmatic. We understand theory as a set or grouping of concepts, a toolbox used to produce and order knowledge for specific purposes, and we understand ideology as the ordering and prioritizing of our principles, values, opinions, feelings, and desires. With theory, we can ask questions about life today and how we can go about changing it into what we want it to be. This is different from ideological questions which are related to our ideals and what we’re fighting for.

Theory and ideology are themselves distinct from political practice. Political practice is a dynamic relationship between what we do, how we do it, and how we reflect on our actions. It’s a process of using the political line of the organization to determine a specific tactic in a specific place at a specific time, executing it, evaluating the effects, and continuing as necessary to keep progressing the political line. This relationship between action, analysis, and long-term vision is different from attempts to design a perfect ideology that is righteously presented to people as the obviously correct thing to do. Salesmanship like that doesn’t succeed in gaining the trust of committed people in social movements. For us, anarchism is a method for developing ideas and practices continually through a process of combining long-term objectives with accurate analysis of the current moment, including an understanding of the political forces that are relevant. This is achieved through a plurality of perspectives, coming to an affinity of objectives, and an agreement about how to act collectively towards those ends.

One reason for organizing activities that are open to many people is that it creates opportunities to build trust. There’s no denying the increasing degree of unity within our organization that comes from year after year of reproducing this space together. We’ve talked about the idea of “moving at the speed of trust” regardless of where you are or whether or not you can easily find political affinity. As an organization, we’ve done that through political formation and educational militancy. In our experience, educational projects for collective formation are more effective for developing theoretical unity than decision-making meetings that try to arrive at a painstaking consensus. Our organizational unity does not depend on a uniformity of ideas in the heads of participants. Instead, it’s the result of consistently creating a space where participants can move at the pace of their choosing, based on their own levels of commitment and curiosity. Militant Kindergarten is about encouraging and facilitating the development of various forms of affinity and, over time, theoretical and ideological unity.

We often point to the Center for Especifismo Studies and our own educational militancy as a concrete example of the strategy, structure, and organizational culture we’re describing. It’s possible, from the perspective of a political organization whose social work involves popular education, to see their participation in Militant Kindergarten and membership in the November Committee as part of an educational front. In our conception, the Center for Especifismo Studies is a grouping of tendency, with people from various ideological backgrounds that we aim to influence through our interactions. This depends on our shared affinity for studying and learning about especifismo through collective and rigorous methods. This is what we mean when we say that we share a practical and strategic unity. So, while it’s true that our organization has its own concentric circles of commitment/engagement, we don’t understand our actions using the concept of “fronts”. We do, however, conceive of participation in Militant Kindergarten as moving through increasing degrees of proficiency and production, in relation both to the theory of especifismo and to our project in general. After weeks of group study, we’re all inevitably influenced and formed by this collective undertaking. As we’ve already said, it’s our commitment to the lasting influence of Militant Kindergarten, as a station in the struggle where we come together during a certain part of the year, that serves as the basis for our unity as an organization.

If everyone in Militant Kindergarten has been influenced by especifismo theory, what separates the militants from the participants?

As Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN) says, we’ve lost “the muscle memory of how to use our own power” [See: “Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power”]. We’ve discussed how it can be difficult on our own to understand what it means to be “combative”, so being up front with others about our educational militancy and our commitment to Militant Kindergarten can be a way of creating opportunities for deeper conversations about politics and organization. The militants of the Center for Especifismo Studies are the most committed to continuing to being influenced by especifismo, and they’re the most committed to “imprinting” their own experiences on the international flow of militants through their educational militancy. Through modeling stamina and endurance both individually and collectively, and by emphasizing a long-term commitment, we aim to play a dependable part in the development of a new organizing culture.

Propaganda work consists of the actions taken to propagate certain ideas. It’s a way of combatting the isolation of anarchism. It occurs through persuasive activity that manifests itself in many different forms of social work and direct action. The aim of anarchist propaganda is to influence social movements to adopt revolutionary practices and defend popular protagonism. This starts by consistently articulating what the current goals are and which tactics are most useful for the moment and why. Our actions must always present a distinct model of militant performance, a way of participating that can be promoted and spread through propaganda. The objective behind this constant and organized promotion of our militancy is to show the effectiveness of anarchism because we want social movements to have access to the most relevant tools for their struggles.

Of course, this means we’re not dogmatically attached to ideas just because they’re labeled “anarchist”. We believe there’s another distinction to be made between programmatic and dogmatic forms of political practice. Programmatic political practice is related to practical steps to be taken in pursuit of a goal, but dogmatic political practice employs an entirely different methodology that begins by insisting on ideal forms of action regardless of the most immediate circumstances. It’s easy for organizations to be tricked by the shortest solution to a problem, but systemic problems require long-term solutions. This is why we call reformism and electoralism dogmatic. While we aren’t against reforms in general since we defend the struggle for improvements in the conditions of the oppressed classes today, as anarchists, we must always concern ourselves with how reforms are won, ensuring that it’s through the most popular means possible. When articulating demands and organizing to fight for them, continuity is a fundamental feature. It allows for the extension of the organization through short-term wins into long-term struggle. This prevents reforms from becoming ends in themselves. It also demands a kind of learning that only occurs in the process of organizing around need in mass movements. So, in campaigns for reforms, our posture should always be one of openness with others and readiness to learn from within social movements. This isn’t just an ethical or strategic stance; it’s also about militant commitment and how we handle defeat. If we know how to teach ourselves and each other, we will not only learn from wins but also from losses.

As FARJ says, “conversion” to revolutionary militancy is only possible for people who already have a certain inclination and commitment to long-term objectives. Nevertheless, we believe struggling is itself transformative. At the front lines of occupations and strikes, in the study circles and regular meetings, in the one-on-ones, and through regular correspondence, the political organization comes in contact with radicalizing people, both activists and social-level militants. And as we’ve said, these interactions are a form of propaganda because they are means of promoting our ideas. As a model of performance that is resolutely present, our actions can have an effect on a-political and depoliticized people, making them acknowledge the existence of political forces in their lives while allowing them to determine their own relationship to our project. This relates to discussions we’ve had about the difference between creating new, independent social spaces versus taking or occupying space from the ruling class through class struggle. While there are certainly advantages to alternative spaces that foster principled and inclusive community culture, when people take space together through struggle in their workplaces, schools, or apartment complexes, they become more invested in defending the space. This is what we mean when we refer to popular protagonism. It’s about the dominated and exploited classes being the leaders of their own struggles, but it’s also about overcoming the fear of fighting for contested space and defending our presence in the places where we live and work.

The specific forms the political organization takes and the structures it builds should be decided by the militants themselves and should be based on their actual circumstances, not their ideal conditions. In our experience, groups with less unity tend to need more structure, but the more unity and commitment people have, the less need there is for prescriptive or prefabricated structures. We argue that unity of strategy is more important than any formal or rigid organizational structure. In our experience, even building unity requires strategy. That’s how essential it is for effective organization.

Certainly, issues of safety, security, and trust require that some things are internal to the political organization. Not airing dirty laundry outside allows for more disagreement inside. Still, the specific anarchist organization will need to organize itself in such a way that parents, full-time workers, disabled people, and others who are committed to the revolutionary movement are able to offer support in some form. This goes back to our discussions about the necessary inclusion of militants with disabilities as well as the reoccurring point that the militants are responsible for the organization and the organization is responsible for the militants. While roles obviously need to be rotated, we shouldn’t be afraid of specialization. This means the tasks and responsibilities of a particular individual could be determined on a case-by-case basis following from the organization’s strategic objectives. Still, some tactics are inherently ableist, and since they’ll be necessary, it’s a very real possibility that we’ll sometimes find ourselves in a supporter position of an organization realizing those tactics. In such a situation, we would want to treat the role of supporter with a high level of seriousness and respect. This means that it’s not necessary for everyone to gravitate to the center of the specific anarchist organization. Instead, we should try to prevent the establishment of hierarchies between the various different kinds of work surrounding and supporting the project of building Popular Power.