We see revolutionary militants as having the confusing task of being both rigid (ideologically) and flexible (tactically), so we consider strategy to be a way of navigating this contradiction collectively, instead of on our own.
We understand strategy as a framework with a specific content. It makes general guidelines within a broad context. These are parameters for action at different fronts and between different camps. This is why strategy, for us, is fundamentally about coordination over time.
Tactics, by contrast, are the steps toward the realization of strategy. In especifismo, this “zigzagging” is understood from within a strategic framework. In this way, tactics are subordinate to strategy because only strategy can sketch out a project for change. However, it’s always through tactics that we make strategy a reality and not just an abstract plan. So, the application of tactics needs to be flexible and able to change depending on the situation which points back to strategy again, as a relevant map of the situation and as the best way of inserting our long-term objectives into the current situation.
To be more concise, only tactics and objectives that fit within a strategic framework are relevant to a revolutionary project. If our tactics and our final objectives don’t fit into the current context, not only will they be ineffective, but they won’t even be understood as part of the larger project.
CES 