From Regeneración, we're publishing the interview conducted by the magazine Ekintza Zuzena with a comrade for its 2025 issue (https://www.nodo50.org/ekintza/2025/numero-51-de-la-revista-ekintza-zuzena/), as it reviews the fundamental threads of our movement.

A preliminary question: How would you define and situate the historically known platformist anarchism? And what about specificist anarchism?

I'll start with some historical notes. First, the Platform emerged in France in the 1920s among anarchist militants who came from Russia. Finally at peace, after a long revolutionary war they couldn't win, they were able to take stock of their journey as a movement during the Russian Revolution. The Dyelo Truda group (one of those exile groups composed of prominent figures such as Nestor Makhno, Pyotr Arshinov, Ida Mett, Gregori Maksimov, and others) concluded that the cause of the defeat by the Bolsheviks was the lack of organization, program, and discipline of the Russian anarchist movement. They had acted differently in each place. There were never any overall strategic plans or forums to discuss them. The Bolsheviks were able to defeat them city by city, region by region, without putting up a fight on any level other than in Ukraine.

Dyelo Truda proposed a new organizational model: the General Union of Anarchists. This model sought to unify the most active elements of anarchism into a single organization under the program outlined in The Platform. I will clarify that it was not a complete program, but a partial one, as they recognized. The full program would have to be debated within this General Union once it was underway.

This new platformism was highly critical of the "anarchist synthesis," an organizational model that blended anarchists from all currents of anarchism into a single organization. According to the platformists, the lack of homogeneity of approaches "would inevitably lead to disintegration when confronted with reality." In other words, it would render the organization ineffective in the face of the major challenges facing any movement. They were extremely critical of anarchist individualism and nihilism ("chaotic anarchism," they called it). They were also unconvinced by anarcho-syndicalism, since in Russia it had been oriented almost exclusively toward industrial workers, neglecting the peasantry, which was the majority social component in Russia.

So, which anarchist militants were they addressing?

We base our hope on other militants: on those who remain faithful to anarchism, having experienced and suffered the tragedy of the anarchist movement, and painfully seek a solution.[1]

Therefore, they proposed an organization with tactical and strategic unity and discipline. Militants should not join an organization to do whatever they wished, but to fulfill its program. Dyelo Truda intended the Platform to be the revolutionary backbone and meeting point of Russian anarchism, given that at the time they were speaking to exiles, although it would soon be extended to all territories.

These approaches were the reason why the Platform fell out of favor with many militants in other countries at the time, and its development was thus slowed. However, its ideas were the driving force behind the Bulgarian Anarchist Communist Federation, which was strongly present in the resistance to the 1934 coup d'état, in the partisan resistance of World War II, and in the postwar period against Soviet domination, until it was finally liquidated in 1948. These ideas also took root in France, among a sector of anarchism that maintained them from its beginnings until the postwar period. And later, they were promoted again by the Libertarian Communist Federation, with Georges Fontenis as its leading exponent. This FCL greatly influenced European anarchism in the 1950s and 1960s, with the French movement being one of the key movements for anarcho-communism today.

Especifismo, for its part, arose directly from the Uruguayan FAU in 1956. Paradoxically, they didn't discover The Plafaform until many years later. Their starting point was Errico Malatesta, whose emphasis on specific organization and refutation of individualism caught their attention. Another of their role models was Mikhail Bakunin, who was enormously important to our movement, promoting specific organizations such as the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. And their other reference point was Uruguay's earlier specific organizations, organic constructions from the 1920s and 1930s. Thanks to those older militants, who had been in the fray for years, it became clear that the task of political organization wasn't philosophizing and holding meetings, but rather how to approach the tasks of the different work fronts: union, student, neighborhood, and internal.

Their first task was to create the Organic Charter, in which they situated their organization in the Latin American context of the 1950s and outlined short-, medium-, and long-term plans. The younger militants sought to avoid automatically transferring other plans and formulas that had been used in other historical situations. Their anarchism would have to be rooted in the country and its concrete reality.

This especificism (from “specific” organization) was put into practice alone for years by the FAU until it was also taken up by Argentine groups in the 70s. It must be said that they never contemplated anarchist synthesis because nobody really took this avenue of organization into consideration.[2] The FAU went through different stages and even strategic objectives that brought it closer to the Latin American popular national movement of the 70s, which was in its stage of greatest visibility and size, with numerous social fronts and even its own armed organization, the OPR-33.

In the 1990s, especifismo moved away from these perspectives and began to spread to other countries such as Brazil and Chile. From there, in the 2000s, it began to converge with the anarcho-communist movement typical of Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world, and today it is part of the same international movement.

In Latin America, these organizations do not publicly call themselves Especifistas, but rather "organized anarchism," which is also the name given to the International Coordinator of the organizations of our movement.

Although we like these models of anarchism, which we understand as the most capable of influencing reality through anarchism, we must clarify that we are neither a Russian, French, nor Latin American organization, so we will have to create a local anarchism, with the makeup of that local anarchism, to operate in the 21st century.

What is your assessment of the current state of the Iberian libertarian movement, and what challenges and needs do you see in your field?

A movement is a set of actions, ideas and efforts organized by a group of people who share common goals to influence society. Starting from this perspective, you will agree that there is no single homogeneous libertarian movement, given that there are no common objectives across this amalgam of individuals, collectives, initiatives, scenes, spaces, organizations, or unions that claim to be anarchists.

Based on this premise, we could first identify a libertarian movement that seeks to achieve libertarian communism. This would be composed of anarcho-syndicalism and some anarchist collectives and organizations, as well as their related social or cultural projects that help them reach a wider audience.

There are also other paradigms similar to libertarian communism but with different characteristics. I'm talking about communalism, democratic confederalism, the anti-capitalist side of cooperativism, a part of autonomy (whether Marxist or indigenist) and similar proposals, or the radical environmental and anti-development movement. These people tend to be fellow travelers of anarchism and, to some extent, even come from its ranks or have passed through its collectives or organizations, but, for whatever reason, they have disassociated themselves from the libertarian movement as we understand it. Therefore, these initiatives cannot be considered part of our movement; rather, they build and participate in others.

Therefore, speaking of the libertarian movement itself, we have a considerable union space—without achieving the strength of yesteryear, of course—made up of the CGT and CNT and all their offshoots (Solidaridad Obrera, CNT-AIT, SAS Madrid, STS-C, and other smaller union groups). This movement has a considerable presence throughout Spain. It's true that it's a divided and often inter-struggle union space, which diminishes its potential and contributes to its discredit. It's also true that for some unions, libertarian communism is such a far-reaching aspiration that it's not even considered in their current strategy.

If anarcho-syndicalism is the spearhead, there are also organizations or organic initiatives behind it that were founded to contribute to the goal I mentioned earlier. These would be the anarchist synthesis organizations and collectives (this includes what was once called "neighborhood anarchism"), the anarcho-communist ones (currently called "specific," which seems to be the most popular word right now), and the insurrectionist ones. Their strength is limited to their own members, and their influence extends to the broader spaces in which they operate. We're talking about some very specific neighborhoods where they operate. Their presence influences the anti-capitalist scene in the places where they operate, and they are generally based in the urban areas and cities of their metropolitan areas (Madrid, Barcelona, ​​Seville, Valencia, Zaragoza, Granada, A Coruña, etc.). And their real impact comes from their militant capacity and commitment. That's why they have influence.

Next, we have what we can understand as informal anarchism, autonomism, or, as Murray Bookchin would say, "lifestyle anarchism". We could almost consider it a subcultural scene rather than a political movement, but I don't deny the interest of many of the people who participate in it in transforming society at its roots. It inherited part of that subcultural component from the Iberian Peninsula punk scene, which so influenced the anarchism of the 1990s and 2000s.

This informal anarchism or autonomism organizes events that can occasionally become massive, such as protests, protest camps or anarchist book fairs, but they generally remain spaces for socializing and networking rather than for social intervention. As a criticism, they run the risk of falling into inbreeding by residing solely on the margins of the social mainstream. In this sector, we can find both people whose goal is libertarian communism and also those who are not interested and seek to live as freely as possible in today's society.

However, through informal organizations, various networks and coordinators of squatted social centers, libertarian athenaeums, media outlets and counter-information organizations have been launched, and they have participated in other social movements such as anti-militarism, environmentalism and the fight against the globalization of capital.

In Spain, during the 1990s and 2000s, a dualism prevailed: anarcho-syndicalism, understood as a political organization, and informal anarchism, generally anti-organization. This was almost hegemonic, and there was little room for organizational attempts that lasted rather short (the second Autonomous Struggle, Libertarian Alternative, Galician Anarchist Federation, local and regional libertarian assemblies, networks of libertarian athenaeums, and CSOs, etc.). During those years, a peninsular-wide libertarian space was never established, beyond the FIJL linked to insurrectionalism or the FAI, which by 2000 already seemed focused exclusively on libertarian culture.

However, the movement later gained momentum. The youth movement built organizations: the FIJA and the first FEL, as well as some local libertarian youth organizations. Anarcho-independence movements were strengthened with Negres Tempestes in Catalonia, which generated their own momentum. This was a time of heightened anti-development struggles, attracting hundreds of people. Anarchist book fairs proliferated. Anarchist websites such as Alasbarricadas and Klinamen, and other more diverse ones such as Indymedia, LaHaine and Kaosenlared, received thousands of visits; there were still various publications in the form of fanzines, magazines, and newspapers.

From 2010-12, anarchism began to unite, developing in neighborhood or municipal and regional assemblies. This coincided with the period following the 15M movement. In some cases, such as in Catalonia, federations were formed between these groups. But all this lasted only a short time, lasting two, three, or five years, with the exception of some groups that achieved generational change, as was the case with Heura Negra in Vallcarca (Barcelona). Those local libertarian assemblies were the political school for most activists of our time, because there were truly that many groups.

The lack of consolidation of these collectives paralleled the crisis of insurrectionalism as a result of the repressive measures it suffered between 2011 and 2016. But it wasn't just a repressive issue, it was also a political one. Whatever happened, all of this paralyzed their political project of the Coordinated Anarchist Groups. This crisis demobilized part of their militancy or caused it to drift toward other, more practical projects, and also prevented it from renewing itself generationally.

The most political anarchism, so to speak, was also articulated during that time. For example, Embat in Catalonia, Apoyo Mutuo in Madrid, Aragon, and Seville, Aunar in Aragon, and the Libertarian Student Federation (FEL). We're not going to lie to anyone: we're talking about a very small scene that didn't even manage to become a proper movement, despite our intentions.

Regarding Embat, our analysis of the period after the 15M was that many essentially libertarian ideas and practices had been seen, but they were barely articulated by the libertarian movement. Proposals were taken to town squares individually and embraced by a politically diverse audience. We were aware—we saw them—that in those same squares there were Marxist or social democratic political organizations that had the goal of increasing their own membership. So we understood that it was necessary to have our very own organization to channel that spontaneous libertarian spirit toward a revolutionary perspective. That's why Embat was born.

During this period, we were able to garner some sympathy, but we failed to attract those libertarian people who were embedded in the social and popular movements. Most of them preferred to continue without a specific organization. This proved fatal with the emergence of Podemos in 2014. Many people who should have been previously organized as anarchists ended up joining the circles and candidacies of Podemos, Ganemos, Sí Se Puede, Más Madrid, or the CUP in Catalonia. Without a strategic line of their own, they adopted social democratic lines until they burned out and went home or until they completely converted to those positions.

Meanwhile, people from libertarian assemblies, insurrectionalist movements or informal anarchism gradually entered anarcho-syndicalism. This time not to turn it into a political organization as in the 1990s, but rather because of labor issues or to help develop some social and cultural area within the unions. They also entered the housing struggle, this time without the intention of "radicalizing the struggle," but rather as just another actor. Something similar must have occurred in the 1980s with people emerging from libertarian athenaeums.

During those years, 2015-2020, we should highlight the influence of the Federation of Anarchists of Gran Canaria in the libertarian field. Their approach combined elements of social and insurrectionary anarchism under an identitarian anarchist discourse that championed "neighborhood anarchism." They were also the driving force behind the first Tenants' Union in the entire state and, at the time, advocated for a rent strike. They managed to bring anarchism to the most disadvantaged neighborhoods of Gran Canaria, reaching a range of people who hadn't been reached in decades. The FAGC attempted to replicate their neighborhood anarchism elsewhere in the state, giving dozens of talks and writing numerous texts. However, this didn't succeed and no one on the Peninsula copied his model, which was a shame, since we have always loved anarchism with such strong social roots.

After the 2020 pandemic, we experienced the rise of the GKS/Socialist Movement and its great impact among the youth of the revolutionary left. Anarchism was literally out of the picture at that time, as we have seen. The ambiguous discourse—half Leninist, half autonomous-libertarian—that this socialist movement had in its early days attracted groups of young militants to those areas. Even people who had previously been active in social or insurrectionalist anarchism, which put a good part of our movement on guard.

Consequently, the need to offer an anarchist organizational alternative became clear. Thus, Alternativa Libertaria and Liza were born in Madrid in 2023 (the former later joined the latter), now Hedra in Alicante, Impulso in Granada, the Seminario de Estudios Libertarios Galegos (Galician Libertarian Studies Seminar), and, within synthetic anarchism, the Horizontal network at the state level (although it hasn't made much headway so far) and some new groups. Libertarian Action of Zaragoza even joined the FAI, a group well established in its neighborhood. Currently, some anarchist assemblies are being re-established in various cities, such as Seville, with that plural or synthetic character that we previously saw in other similar ones. All of this occurs in a context of true growth of anarcho-syndicalism, which has also opened new study centers and cultural organizations.

In short, it has been necessary to offer strong organizations in response to the need of working-class youth to organize. Right now, our entire political space is under construction. Even so, many territories remain with virtually no libertarian entity beyond anarcho-syndicalism, a few propaganda orgs, okupied social centres or music bands.

We are concerned that no assessment has been made of the 2010-2020 decade and that collectives are emerging that uncritically copy the same models that entered into crisis in those years. Because there are not many spaces for interrelation between currents, no kind of collective teaching is being transmitted, a starting point that comrades starting out now can take as a reference. This could be the role of Ekintza Zuzena.

In the summer of 2024, the First Meeting of Especifist Anarchism was held in Catalonia. What need did this initiative respond to, and what is your assessment of it?

The Meeting was a response to previous contacts between the various organizations and groups that exist in Spain and claim to be part of the especifist movement. We intended to draw the attention of this unorganized, but still pro-organizational, libertarian community in the state. That is, those people who now feel the need to have someone supporting them to work politically as anarchists without fearing the other currents of the socialist left.

At that time, about 80 people gathered at the Calafou factory (Vallbona d'Anoia), exceeding our expectations. Many people came who did not belong to the organizing organizations (Batzac, Embat, FEL, Liza and Regeneración Libertaria), and we had some very fruitful discussions with like-minded people from Granada, Galicia, and elsewhere.

During the meeting, a greeting was recorded for Black Rose, our sister organization in the United States, on the occasion of its Convention (something like the annual congress they hold there).

A strong point was the quality of the debate, with very solid arguments. It was also clear that everyone was pulling in the same direction: the need for political organization and social integration—which is to be expected at a meeting of this tendency, but which is not a common occurrence in current anarchism, and that's why it pleasantly surprised us.

And a weak point was the lack of communicative capacity our movement still has, usually allergic to audiovisual media and with no desire to be the center of attention or make a spectacle of its own everyday life. Admittedly, this demonstrates a modicum of common sense, but I think it's also positive to make a little noise, to be known and seen.

What groups or initiatives are currently promoting this movement, and what are their goals?

The initiatives currently promoting this movement in Spain are as follows, in order of creation:

- Federación Estudiantil Libertaria (FEL). Emerging in 2008 from several student assemblies in Madrid, Catalonia and Aragon, it was rebuilt in 2014 after a, let's say, generational hiatus, and has lasted until this year. Its tendency was oriented toward "social and organized anarchism" until recently, when it began to define itself as specific. As student groups come and go quite quickly, it hasn't managed to consolidate in recent years and now only existed in Catalonia. At the end of last year, it joined Batzac, forming its student front.

- Regeneración Libertaria. A web portal created in 2012 as a space for current analysis, theoretical articles, social studies, and libertarian culture within social and organized anarchism. Last year, given that its current members adhere to the Especifista movement, they decided to put the medium at the service of a common project. So today it is the official portal of the Especifist movement or organized anarchism in the Spanish state. It serves as a link between the organizations that promote it and as a point of debate and exchange of ideas.

- Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya. Founded in 2013 as Procés Embat[3] (like the previous ones, under the paradigm of "social and organized anarchism") and since 2015 under its current name. It is an organization that has gone through different stages: one of consolidation, acting as a network of activists (2013-15); another of social integration as an organization (2015-19); another very active during the Independence Procés (2017-18), the 2020 hiatus, which was used to create our Political Line[4], and the current era. We are currently active in the areas of housing, education, feminism, eco-social issues, and labor.

- Batzac, Libertarian Youth . Founded in 2017, it organizes young people who, in most cases, have not previously participated in activism. Until now, it had not declared itself a specialist organization, but rather a social anarchist organization. This is due to its interest in achieving specific social integration, as it does in housing, in the student sphere, and in the workplace. It has recently embraced the FEL (Libertarian Student Federation) in Catalonia.

-Liza, Plataforma Organizativa de Madrid. Founded in 2023, it brought together a group of people in need of organization who shared a strategic and tactical vision halfway between platformism and especifism. Its emergence was combined with good online communication and great activity, which enlivened the Iberian scene, resulting in the current semblance of coordination. Its integration is primarily in housing and neighborhoods. It's also worth highlighting their interest in debating with the rest of the anarchist movement, confronting autonomist and anti-organizational tendencies. Liza absorbed an organizational project called Alternativa Libertaria, which emerged from FEL Madrid.

- Impulso – Granada defines itself as a space for reflection on organized anarchism. Created at the end of 2024, for now, it's precisely that which defines them: a space for debate and training around the ideas of organized anarchism in Granada. Their intention is to move forward gradually, without skipping steps, until culminating in a political organization.

- Hedra, Organización Especifista de Alicante. This is a recent arrival, having been created in January 2025. It is the first to be created under the label of especifismo, as its theoretical foundations draw directly from the primary texts of this movement. Its integration is in housing and in the neighborhood through a group of associations.

I will also mention the publishing house Teima. Currently working on publishing a book by Felipe Correa, called Black Flag. The publisher will publish texts from our movement in Spanish. However, there are some publishers that publish books in our vein, such as Descontrol in Barcelona or Ardora y Bastiana in Galicia.

In addition to these organizations, which are public, there are other initiatives in other parts of the country that have not yet come to light, and which I won't mention so as not to jinx them. Some of them come from anarchist synthesis collectives or assemblies that are drifting toward our style of anarchism. By the way, none of them come from Euskal Herria, so let's see if anyone is interested!

Regarding the stated objectives, the priority is to create a broader anarchist movement with a greater impact on society, bringing anarchism back to the forefront of social struggle.

It's worth mentioning that we are also coordinating with other European organizations of our same current and with those from the rest of the world. The current international coordination brings together more than twenty organizations, and several more are in the process of joining. The best-known are the Union Communiste Libertaire (French-speaking European countries), Die Plattform (Germany), Anarchist Communist Group (UK), Black Rose Federation (USA), Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, Federación Anarquista de Rosario (Argentina), Coordinadora Anarquista de Brasil (Anarchist Coordinator of Brazil) and Tekoshina Anarsist (Rojava). We are also in contact with other new initiatives currently being created. In some ways, it seems to be a parallel process to that in Spain, which indicates that the anarchist movement is seeking to be better organized.

The concept of popular power has had its greatest diffusion in Latin America, where it has generated significant debate. What is your interpretation or definition of the issue of popular power? How would you differentiate it from left-wing populism?

It was in the 1960-70s that the FAU opted to borrow this concept from the Chilean MIR, the Tupamaros, and other movements of the time that combined various forms of Marxism (primarily Leninism and Guevarism), Liberation Theology, national liberation, and Latin Americanism (those who maintain that Latin America is one country). It should be added that anarchism also influenced this amalgamation, something that is often overlooked. In the 1960s, people's power replaced Leninist concept of "dual power."

The Latin American anarchists of the time understood this as logical, since this dual power (those soviets that coexist with the bourgeois state in an advanced phase of the class struggle, once the revolutionary stage has been reached) in turn drew on the ideas of Bakunin.

In the FAU of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a lively debate about the historical subjects who should carry out the revolution. Given the configuration of Uruguayan society at the time, it was necessary to create a subject that would unite all the oppressed sectors of society. The idea of ​​"the people" was used, but the people were understood as those "below". They had nothing to do with the bourgeoisie. It was somewhat like when the historical CNT-FAI spoke of "the working people" in their newspapers and manifestos. They didn't refer solely to the proletariat, since at that time, to ordinary people, it sounded like talk of factories and little else.

In this relationship between ideology and the production of historical subjects—a relationship that, if it didn't exist, would mean neither ideology nor subject—moments of ideological validity are formed. Historical subjects/agents expand and lead to the hegemony of social bodies, based on the validity of ideologies.[5]

As the class struggle unfolded in Latin America, alliances between the organized labor movement, the student movement, the first feminist associations, the peasantry, and grassroots collectives centered on identity, such as Afros, mestizo, and indigenous peoples, came into play. Furthermore, in the 1970s, the social war received support from the self-employed and small business owners expelled from industrial production. The class struggle often moved to neighborhoods or communities far from the city, and elements of counterpower were generated from below in the midst of the struggle. This was popular power: the people in motion, diffuse, anonymous, contradictory, creative, festive, and combative. Land seizures, industrial cordons, armed groups, occupation of universities—this was popular power in the eyes of ordinary people. In no way should it be confused with interclassism, with its conscious "from below" nature.

In the 2000s, the critique began. The especifist or organized anarchist organizations used popular power in their political language. But Marxist organizations did too. In Cuba and Venezuela, all ministries carried the tagline "popular power." So the term was also linked to the socialist state. Comrades critical of the concept of popular power also pointed out that anarchism was being abandoned within the especifist ranks toward Marxism or national populism. Some anarchists even went further, denying the adherence to anarchism of our entire movement, viewing it as a crypto-Marxism as a whole. This is the origin of the conflict.

With Embat, it was even comical to see that, during the first few years, certain people would always come to all our talks and say that popular power couldn't be anarchist in any way. Ironically, we held the opinion that, in reality, everyone understood us perfectly, except for the "most anarchist" ones. No one seemed to have the slightest problem with the Black Power movement of the American Black Panthers, a concept roughly equivalent to popular power.

However, the passing of the years has largely mitigated those debates. If some organizations or individuals drifted toward other ideological positions, the vast majority did not, contributing to the libertarian movement as a whole, and not just to our current in particular. Today, in Spain, this concept has been largely accepted, even by people who come from other currents, such as anarcho-syndicalism or by libertarians who are active in neighborhoods or housing projects without ever having been on our wavelength.

Regarding left-wing populism, we must say that it engages in interclassism, mixing working-class demands with more bourgeois middle-class ones. This would be the main difference. Specificism defends a "strong people" [Pueblo Fuerte] built as a front for the classes oppressed by capitalism and the state. Although we speak of both currents of popular power, there are substantial differences. Let's see what the specificist view is:

We proclaim the most complete socialization of all spheres of social activity. The socialization of the means of production exercised by the organs of real representation of society and not by the State; the socialization of education, the administration of justice, defense organizations, the sources of knowledge and information, and most especially the socialization of political power. In this last aspect, we advocate the abolition of the State and governmental forms of power as the only guarantee of eliminating all forms of domination. […]

We are fully convinced that this is effectively possible through direct democracy, exercised by grassroots popular organizations organized in a self-managed manner and linked within a federalist framework, where these same popular organizations are expressed in new institutional forms. Today we know more firmly than ever that the model of society we propose is not only possible but is practically, and in accordance with the historical and revolutionary experience of different peoples of the world, the only valid path to truly building socialism.[6]

It would be bold to say this isn't anarchism.

To what extent can the desire not to remain locked in the [activist/anarchist] ghetto and to participate (with a non-dogmatic discourse) in current social struggles or processes lead to political contradictions with anarchist or basic principles of the society for which you fight? Do you remember any occasions when you experienced this dilemma?

Social processes are complex by nature. There are many forces at play and many vested interests. The challenge is to build transformative collective interests in a democratic, transparent, and fraternal environment.

For Embat, the crucible was 2017. We had to position ourselves in a tremendously complex scenario. The Spanish state was in crisis and Catalan society demanded a response. This was the referendum. In just a few months, we experienced a large-scale process of collective empowerment. In just a few weeks, I'd say. The movement was already underway, but the events encouraged many more people to join the process. Counter-power structures were created, the committees for the defense of the Republic. They operated as assemblies, calling for actions and demonstrations. But they also had the opportunity to be spaces for territorial counter-power. Another initiative worth considering was the Constituent Procés, which proposed a constituent assembly for an independent Catalonia that would accommodate the most advanced social aspects. Social and union movements also joined the process in their own way. They joined and were responsible for the famous general strike of October 3rd, one of the most widely followed in Catalan history. The slogan of blocking transportation—trains, roads, and in 2019, the airport—naturally emerged. Something that had only been theorized about in anti-capitalist debate years before and was dismissed due to a lack of strength was put into practice.

Although we were perfectly aware that the leadership of this entire process was in the hands of the "traditional" Catalan political class, we also saw what was happening below. Our response was that we had to be there. We always felt that much more could have been done if all the social and union movements had acted unitedly and as a bloc. But this would have required a much greater organized anarchism, which is what we are trying to build.

Another complex and conflictive moment in which we had to take a stand was during the pandemic. Embat's position denounced the police state and the state's militarization of public spaces, while workers in "essential services" were forced to go to work without sufficient protective measures. We also highlighted the devastating effects of the privatization of healthcare and the management of nursing homes and clinics by private entities. At the same time, we welcomed the self-organized mutual support groups that emerged in many places, as well as the grassroots initiatives in which we participated, such as the Social Shock Plan or the attempted rent strike that was proposed during those months. I would add that we took advantage of the lockdown internally to develop our political line, which required much debate. And during that time, the International Coordination, in which we participated, was also strengthened.

The contradictions were clear within our libertarian movement: some focused on denouncing the police state and the infantilization of people, while others preferred to focus on denouncing privatization and self-organization. We didn't see a unified approach, and each of us fought a bit of our own battle. Perhaps what united us most was those proposed shock plans and similar ones.

NOTES

[1] This excerpt can be found in the Introduction to The Platform https://www.nestormakhno.info/spanish/platform/introduccion.htm

[2] For more information, see The Strategy of Especifismo. Interview by Felipe Correa with Juan Carlos Mechoso: http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/La-Estrategia-del-Especifismo.pdf

[3] Embat in Catalan refers to the crash of a wave against a rock. It sounded powerful and poetic to us, and it seemed a better name than the typical acronyms of other libertarian organizations of our time.

[4] This was when Especifismo was adopted as one of the guiding principles. The Political Line can be consulted at: https://embat.info/programa-i-linia-politica/

[5] Popular Power from a Libertarian Perspective. https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/poder-popular-desde-lo-libertario-fau/

[6]Ibid.

Miguel G. Gómez (@BlackSpartak)

Alternative unionism and the first contact

The first "black thread" in our entire history. In the 1990s, several anarcho-communist organizations existed: Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL, Switzerland), OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire (France),[1] Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchistici (FdCA, Italy),[2] Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU),[3] among others. They had been operating since the previous decade and maintained contact with each other.

Of this series of organizations, it is worth highlighting French anarcho-communism, which emerged in the 1950s. At that time, it featured the Libertarian Communist Federation and prominent theorists such as Georges Fontenis and later Daniel Guérin, as well as organizations such as the Moviment Communiste Libertaire, the Organisation Revolutionaire Anarchiste and the Organisation Communiste Libertaire (OCL). Organizations and journals of this movement had emerged over time, reaching the 1990s with great prestige in the European anarchist movement. Similarly, we can highlight Swiss and Italian anarcho-communism, which ran parallel, but without the same strength as their French counterpart.

In Latin America, the Uruguayan FAU was the most prominent organization due to its revolutionary trajectory and its resistance to the dictatorship. We again find an organization born in the 1950s, which achieved great importance in the 1960s and 1970s. After a few years of being swept away by repression, it managed to reorganize itself in the mid-1980s. Not only that, but due to its political work, it influenced other Latin American groups, as we will see later.

Returning to the main story, in the early 1990s, European organizations also had militants in the so-called "alternative unionism," some holding organizational positions. Therefore, some militants had the opportunity to meet each other personally through alternative union meetings. One of those militants in Spain was José María Olaizola. Throughout the 1990s, he served as Secretary of International Relations for the CGT-E and, between 1993 and 2001, as its Secretary General. At that time, the CGT's goal was to build an international. In his own words: [4]

“This intervention had the purpose of creating both an anarcho-syndicalist and alternative international and a libertarian, anarchist international, and for the two to form an international libertarian movement. In this endeavor, the CGT initiated and participated in many initiatives. There was a lot of travel, a lot of personal contact.”

In specific organizations, it is necessary to differentiate between the political and social or union components (often referred to as "fronts"). In the case of trade unionism, specific militants acted through social or union fronts and, because they were strong militants, they often obtained organizational positions in the unions in which they participated.

The first meeting of alternative unionism was organized in Barcelona by the CGT-E in November 1991. From that moment on, contacts developed with the French SUD-Solidaires union,[5] Unicobas Italy,[6] the Swedish SAC,[7] and other grassroots unions, all of them quite small.

“We organized the first meeting of alternative unionism in Barcelona on November 29, 30, and December 1, 1991, with French SUD unions, in which AL militants participated, such as Patrice Spadoni, a well-known platformist militant with whom we had an ongoing relationship, and then Laurent Esquerre of AL as well. I knew French anarchists due to my exile in Paris. Also present were the CGT of Correcteurs, a very powerful French union run by anarchists of different branches, in which Jacky Toublet was a very prominent militant member of the FA; the CRT of Switzerland [8], where Arístides Pedraza of the Swiss OSL was present; Italian and Basque unions, one English and one Russian, both very small; and the Swedish SAC, which was always reluctant to let anyone want to create a new international; and among the Italians was Unicobas (Stefano D'Errico, its general secretary). Incidentally, both Emili Cortavitarte and Chema Berro played an important role in this meeting. acting as coordinators of the meeting, representing the CGT.”[9]

In 1995, an international libertarian meeting was held in Ruesta, a town in Aragon ceded to the CGT-E. French, Italian, Swiss, Polish, and other anarchist militants attended. Ruesta was important for establishing personal ties internationally.

Ruesta saw significant participation from members of Alternative Libertaire and OSL (Switzerland), perhaps because they viewed it as the French organization's summer camp. In smaller numbers also attended a few members from the FdCA, the Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon; its name in Arabic means Libertarian Alternative), and the Polish Anarchist Federation.[10] Regarding trade unionism, the majority of participants were from the CGT and SUD, although there were also people from Solidaridad Obrera (Spain) and SAC (Sweden).

From then on, these organisations and their delegates met at other international events such as the European marches against unemployment, counter-summits and alter-globalisation protests, such as those in Nice (2000), Barcelona (2001) or Genoa (2001), as well as at other meetings promoted by alternative trade unionism – that is, CGT-E, SUD-Solidaires, Unicobas, SAC, Solidaridad Obrera… – where they formed libertarian blocks. Olaizola continues:

“From here, a group emerged in practice, not just on paper, and we worked together because we had a common strategic vision, moving away from sectarianism. Jacky, Aristides, Stefano, then Gerard Mêlinand (French CNT from OCL...) joined, and later Juan Carlos Mechoso (FAU): all of them great friends and mentors for me. […]”

“We had an excellent relationship with the Italian platformist FdCA: Saberio Craparo, Donato Romito, Adriana Dadá, and Gianni Cimbalo, all great friends. I was involved in all this turmoil, and we met periodically.”

The Uruguayans add that these contacts were not at all casual. Many of the trips abroad were organic: they were decided by the organization. “If personal trips were appropriate, connections were sought more organically rather than spontaneously.”[11] Some of these trips could last months, turning into long stays for political exchange.

On May 1, 2000, the French CNT (also known as “Vignoles”) organized the “Un Autre Futur” days. The events were supported by Alternative Libertaire and the Federation Anarchiste and served to unite French anarchism. Some 6,000 people attended the demonstration behind the CNT banner, a near-historical milestone.

But those events also served as a meeting point for libertarian syndicalist organizations: CNT-F, SAC, Unicobas, Industrial Workers of the World, FAU (Germany), RKAS (Ukraine), Democratic Confederation of Labor (Morocco) and SKT (Siberia)[12] and other countries.[13] And again, they were also a place of socialization for French, Italian, and Irish anarcho-communist militants.

In all these cases, when we talk about making contact at the political level, it's not just a matter of coincidentally meeting at an event or exchanging messages online. In many cases, it was about traveling to a place, living together, and establishing personal connections, absorbing what was happening there and debating—especially debating—and learning to transfer it back to one's place of origin... and then debating again. Personal connections were central to this entire process.

Platformism on the Internet

The second "black thread" is related to the greater connectivity provided by technology. At the dawn of the internet, several anarchist-leaning websites emerged: A-infos, Infoshop, Spunk, and a few others, which emerged in the 1990s. One of those websites was that of the Irish platformist organization Workers Solidarity Movement (WSM) [14]. In just a few years, hundreds of classic texts on the history of anarchism and the anarcho-communist or platformist movement and theory were uploaded to the internet. This movement gained a significant following around the world. Later, they redesigned the website and put it online under the domain struggle.ws, leaving the WSM website for texts related to the organization itself. This dissemination and training work would soon bear fruit with the creation of a South African organization, the Workers Solidarity Front (WSF), inspired by its Irish sister organization.

Shortly before 2000, both organizations (or members of both) created the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list. In their presentation, they clearly identified the type of members they were addressing:[15]

We identify as anarchists and with the "Platformist" tradition within anarchism, which includes groups and publications such as "The Organizational Platform of Libertarian Communists," the "Friends of Durruti," and the "Manifesto of Libertarian Communism." We broadly identify with the organizational practices defended by this tradition, though not necessarily with everything they did or said. In other words, it is a starting point for our politics, not an end point.

The mailing list's opening document bears a strong resemblance to the one that would later be published by anarkismo.net. It is typical for political organizations to issue a "points of unity" document or a "mission statement" that explains the organization's basic policies.

We can also see that they considered their references to be the 1926 Platform of the Delo Truda group; the Friends of Durruti of the Spanish Revolution; and the Manifesto written by Georges Fontenis in 1953. These three texts emphasize the need for a powerful, specific anarchist organization that will articulate the anarchist militancy that intervenes in mass organizations. Ultimately, these social organizations are the ones that will bring the Social Revolution. These are the same texts that FdCA claimed on its 30th anniversary, celebrated in 2016. [16]

The South African ZACF (also known as Zabalaza) [17] (created shortly after the dissolution of the WSF) was also inspired by the same texts, which it considered its fundamental references. Years later, it would add to the list the text "Social Anarchism and Organization," published by the Brazilian organization FARJ after its first congress in 2008. [18]

The mailing list, as we can see, brought together activists from all over the world, although predominantly from the English-speaking world. The list was used to convene an in-person meeting of platformist organizations held in Genoa in 2001, during the alterglobalization counter-summit, at the initiative of the Italian organization. [19]

We should add that in April 2001, the summit of heads of state of the countries of the American continent was held in Quebec, Canada. For the occasion, an "International Declaration of Libertarian Communists" was published, which attacked capitalist globalization and concluded its statement by calling for the construction of a libertarian socialist society. Among the signatories were several platformist organizations (NEFAC, WSM, ORA-S Czech Republic, OCL-France, OSL Argentina, Alternative Libertaire of France and its Lebanese counterpart) along with anarcho-syndicalist organizations from the IWA and specific synthesis organizations. This was an exception, as these currents would rarely come together again. [20]

International Libertarian Solidarity

As we have seen previously, some activists had in mind the creation of an alternative syndicalist international and a libertarian international. The definitive and stable connection between Europe and Latin America occurred around 1994, although contacts had existed before then. The Spanish-Swiss Arístides Pedraza was one of those links and put Juan Carlos Mechoso in touch with the Barcelona militants.[21] From then on, a very good relationship was established. The Spanish, French, and Swiss activists paid for their Latin American comrades' travels, organized talks, press conferences, and meetings. In this way, within the CGT-E, they met "Juan Carlos and Juan Pilo from the FAU, the Brazilians Eduardo, "el Bocha," "el Gaucho," and Verónica from the Argentine OSL. At that time, we helped cover the costs of three ‘ateneos’ in Uruguay, Cerro, Colón, and Acacias." (Olaizola) [22]

The formalization of this network of contacts and organizations would give rise to International Libertarian Solidarity (SIL). This may be our third thread. It was driven by diverse organizations with libertarian communist and anarcho-syndicalist tendencies, while other groups had a less politically defined social anarchism. [23] Its first meeting was held in Madrid on April 1, 2001, at the initiative of the CGT-E.[24] The founding text was written by Juan Carlos Mechoso (Montevideo), Pepe García Rey, alias "Ramón Germinal" (Granada), and Paco Marcellán (Madrid): [25]

Today, as a first step, we support the establishment of a global libertarian network in which all affinity groups that so wish can find their space, open to libertarian organizations, associations, athenaeums, unions, and other libertarian collectives. This network will serve to spread mutual support and solidarity in the struggles, it will function as a source of information and debate for the libertarian world, it will organize international meetings, it will create training schools, it will use videoconferences, the Internet and all kinds of available tools to articulate strategies that allow the introduction and guidance of the libertarian idea in the various social struggles. [26]

Regarding the list of organizations, we have the OSL (Switzerland), Alternative Libertaire (France), Al-Badil al-Tahriri (Lebanon), FAU (Uruguay), the Gaucha Anarchist Federation (FAG, Brazil),[27] the ORA-Solidarita of the Czech Republic,[28] all of them anarcho-communist tendencies, and also the French anti-fascist network No Pasarán, the Magonista[29] organization, CIPO-RFM (Mexico)[30], and the anarcho-syndicalist organizations CGT-E, SAC (Sweden), Unicobas (Italy) and CNT-F (Vignoles, France). The latter participated just in the first meeting, but withdrew from the SIL network. Meanwhile, FdCA (Italy), ZACF (South Africa)[31], AUCA (Argentina)[32], NEFAC (North America)[33], and the newly created Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo (Spain) soon joined the network. This attempt at a specific organization in Spain didn't achieve much success.

A couple more international meetings were held in the following years. Their context was that of the resistance movement against capitalist globalization, which in Europe was characterized by counter-summits against meetings of the big Capital (such as those of the World Bank, the G8, or the European Union), which were accompanied by mass protests.

Thanks to their existence, several projects were funded, such as the "Aragón" printing press and an athenaeum in Uruguay, a community center, a cooperative, and a printing press in Brazil, a local office in Cuba, and support for the newspaper of the Argentine NGO. The most important thing is that the SIL brought together various European and Latin American activists, funded trips, published books, published newspapers, funded public events for the organizations, and much more.

As we can imagine, these contacts led to many joint workshops, conferences, debates, and interviews between several of these particular activists that continued well into the 2010s.[34]

However, this initiative of internationalist solidarity didn't last long either. The SIL was created during the period of decline in the alterglobalization movement. Furthermore, the CGT (Spain) changed its secretariat, and these contacts were no longer developed.

ELAOPA, the Porto Alegre Anarchist Conference, and the first CALA

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, we find the fourth thread of international construction. Meetings between the FAU, the Brazilian FAG, and Argentine groups had been common in the 1990s. This work had borne fruit, as by the beginning of the new century, other groups of this movement already existed in other countries. Now it was time to articulate them.

On the national level, on the one hand, Brazilian groups and organizations created the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FAO), established in 2002. It was a space for ideological, theoretical, and strategic debate, taking the scale of the event to a new level in Brazil. On the other hand, similar processes had taken place in Chile (1999), with the Anarcho-Communist Unification Congress (CUAC). Not exactly from the CUAC, but certainly influenced by that process, the Chilean Libertarian Communist Organization (OCL) was created in 2002.[35]

Within the framework of the World Social Forum (WSF), held in Porto Alegre in 2003, the so-called Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) emerged.[36] The meeting proposed a space separate from the WSF, which was comprised of NGOs, political parties, and even business initiatives. The radical sector of popular movements called for class autonomy and the creation of an alliance of social movements outside of institutions. ELAOPA had the following principles:

1. The Construction of Popular Power.

2. An Anti-patriarchal and Anti-colonial Perspective.

3. Popular Protagonism and Direct Action.

4. Class Solidarity, Mutual Aid, and Internationalism.

In subsequent events, ELAOPA disassociated itself from the WSF and moved to another city, holding meetings approximately every two years. In 2025, the 15th meeting was held in Santiago, Chile, with more than 400 people representing numerous grassroots organizations.[37]

ELAOPA is a meeting of social and popular organizations, and rarely do any of them claim to be libertarian; at most, they claim to be "autonomous," "classist," "popular," or claim to have "libertarian influences." However, the militancy of so-called "anarquismo especifista" was present in many of those organizations. We are talking about the unionist, social and neighborhood militancy of the aforementioned FAU, FAG, and others, who were active in these popular movements and took advantage of the ELAOPA meetings to meet as well.

With ELAOPA, an opportunity arose for face-to-face encounters among libertarian militancy. Therefore, a separate event was created, typically held the day after the Popular Meeting ended: the Jornadas Anarquistas (Anarchist Days). They were (and are) a space not only for propaganda or libertarian culture, but also for strategic debate focused on intervention in social struggles and the promotion of the movement.[38]

The efforts were very successful. By the 2007-2008 period, several new libertarian communist organizations had been created, some with the aim of being national in scope:

The situation of "platformist" specificism is considerably more varied and complex. We already saw at the appropriate time that the Organización Comunista Libertaria, Rojo y Negro, Comunismo Libertario, the Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista, and the Colectivo Comunista Libertario in Argentina should be considered as such; the Organización Poder Popular Libertario in Bolivia; to the groups that revolve around the Forum of Organized Anarchism and the Uniâo Popular Anarquista [Unipa] in Brazil; to the Organización Comunista Libertaria, the Agitación Libertaria Collective, and the Movimiento Libertario Joaquín Murieta in Chile; to the Alianza Comunista Libertaria in Mexico; to Qhispikay Llaqta in Peru; and finally, to the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation, the Cimarrón Libertarian Organization, the Libertarian Federation, and Bandera Negra in Uruguay.[39]

Along with this array of groups, naturally, larger-scale initiatives for coordination also emerged. The largest attempt of the era was the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA), created in 2004 by the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil), AUCA (Argentina), Lucha Libertaria, and UNIPA (Brazil).[40] However, this UNIPA broke with the current to create its own political space, "Bakuninism," prioritizing alliances with the Libertarian Communist Alliance (ALC) of Mexico and the Anarchist Revolutionary Organization (ORA) of Argentina. Later, the Forum of Organized Anarchism (FOR) of Brazil was added to CALA. This first CALA lasted only a few years.

CALA adhered to especifist anarchism. They defended a strategy of democratic and disruptive popular power, but they never attempted to define the characteristics of a post-revolutionary society. They understood especifism as anarchist political organization. Therefore, they differed from platformism only in their particular Latin American anarchist tradition and the time in which both proposals emerged. Consequently, their vocation is identical, despite some distinctive developments.

The Creation of the anarkismo.net Website

As we have seen before, the SIL had already managed to connect some 11 anarcho-communist organizations, with another 3 that did not define themselves as such, but, with a little political work, could have adopt it without much difficulty. The disappearance of the SIL network left an organizational void that anarkismo.net would fill.

In the words of José Antonio Gutiérrez:[41]

The idea for Anarkismo.net was initially born as the idea of ​​creating an international magazine. Around 1999, we began talking with a comrade from Alternative Libertaire and myself, who was then in charge of international relations at CUAC [Chile], to discuss the need to get to know each other better as libertarian organizations that were on the platformist wing. There was then an email list where we exchanged discussions and experiences, but we felt we needed more in-depth articles to better understand our politics from our contexts and practices. Our idea was to create an annual international almanac of anarcho-communism, with information on the countries where we were present and their organizations, a highly reflective and critical annual review.

So we began to discuss this idea, and in February 2002, we met Nestor McNabb of the FdCA [Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici] in Dublin, along with Andrew Flood of the WSM. The three of us met at a pub in downtown Dublin, on South William Street. The pub is called Grogan's. There we discussed the idea of ​​an annual almanac, and the idea grew. We took it to our organizations, and with the growth of the internet, we decided that, for reasons of budget, ease of distribution, etc., it was much better to have an international site on anarcho-communism.

Thus, the idea of ​​Anarkismo was born, an anarcho-communist and multilingual site, hence the name, which is "anarchism" in Esperanto. The site, after much work, was launched on May 1, 2005, a very symbolic date. The idea began as a website, but the goal from the outset was to facilitate exchanges between organizations and better understand each other, with the aim of bringing us closer together politically and generating a trend. We didn't want to propose an international organization in name only; rather, we wanted international work and the exchange of experiences to develop gradually and organically, giving way to greater cohesion as a trend, as a movement, with a view to creating an international federation with solid foundations. That was the intention from the beginning.

Militants such as Nestor McNab (Irishman living in Rome), Paul Bowman, Andrew Flood, and Ian McKay (Ireland), Jonathan Payn (South Africa), Dimitris Troaditis (first in Athens and later in Melbourne), Adam Weaver (Miami), Nicolas Phoebus (Quebec), Wayne Price (New York) and the Chilean José Antonio Gutierrez, among others, were key figures in the political, technical, and editorial development of the new portal. They had met through the "Anarchist Platform" mailing list and other in-person meetings. They had read each other's articles and disseminated or translated them in their respective territories and languages.

Among the founding organizations of anarkismo.net were the aforementioned FAU, FAG, FdCA, and Alternative Libertaire (France). Not all of them joined at the same time, but some had been in contact from the beginning but took some time to decide (for example, FAU and OSL). Together with the organizations to which the aforementioned comrades belonged, the foundations were laid for a project that made possible the international articulation of the entire anarcho-communist or platformist movement.[42]

By then, in the first half of the 2000s, several new organizations already existed with some relevance to the libertarian communist movement. To name a few: NEFAC (Northwestern United States and Eastern Canada), CUAC and OCL (Chile), OSL and FACA (Argentina), in addition to the already well-known ZACF (South Africa), Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), and WSM (Ireland).

As we can see, the anarchist groups were predominantly male, and therefore, practically all the international delegates were men. Women attended the meetings most often when the delegations from their organizations were composed of several people.

It is equally important to mention that the roles played by the organizations' militancy in the international meetings were made possible thanks to the work of numerous comrades who, in one way or another, influenced the development and dynamism of their organizations. This occurred in multiple ways: creating theoretical, strategic, or debate contributions; meeting in different settings; disseminating experiences; or contributing to strengthening ties. Each person contributed their own grain of sand.

The movement framed within anarcho-communism understood that anarchism, if it wanted to have any relevance, should be well organized and, of course, take seriously its participation in collective struggles, seeking to empower them, and politically and strategically coordinating all the libertarian people within it.

We define ourselves as Communist Anarchists because we belong to the anarchist tradition that recognizes the need for a dual organization: a "specific" anarchist organization that works within and alongside the mass organizations of the working class.

[43]

Each organization had its own website and journals from which they projected their strategy. The most widely distributed were the monthly magazines Alternative Libertaire and Courant Alternatif [44] in France, and Alternativa Libertaria in Italy, which dated back to the 1970s and already had a readership.

On the internet, in addition to anarkismo.net, the most prolific anarcho-communist sites were the British website libcom.org, which published dozens of biographies related to Makhnovism, usually written by Nick Heath [45]; Nestor McNab's website nestormakhno.info; makhno.ru, in Russian; the Anarchist and the Platformist Tradition website[46]; and A-Infos itself, whose editorial team included the Israeli anarchist Ilan Shalif, a staunch anarcho-communist. [47] These websites contributed to spreading the movement, as struggle.ws and zabalaza.net had done before them.

A Coordination, Not an International

Anarkismo.net did not aspire to be an international, but rather a tool for sharing information about local struggles, theory, and strategies. It operated through a Collective of Delegates and an Editorial Collective, with the former taking on a political role and the latter a technical one.

Some preferred a more defined structure—moving towards an International—like Alternative Libertaire, while others preferred to maintain it as an open space. Despite this difference, some solidarity campaigns were carried out, such as the one in support of the Oaxaca uprising (2005-06).

Over the years, this movement grew stronger in Latin America, especially in Chile (OCL, FEL), Argentina (Joaquín Penina Libertarian Column [48], Red Libertaria, and Brazil (FARJ), where numerous groups, websites, and blogs emerged. And its way of interpreting anarcho-communism, called "specificism," became consolidated. Several Brazilian authors, such as Bruno Lima, Rafael Viana, and Felipe Correa, who founded the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA) along with South Africans Lucien van der Walt, Michael Schmidt and Jonathan Payn, contributed to this. Other activists, such as the aforementioned Dimitris Troaditis and the Argentine Emilio Crisi, among others, also contributed to this. The ITHA has almost served as a think tank for academic texts within the movement.

Correa defined especifismo as:[50]

It is a movement that upholds a set of positions regarding the major strategic debates of anarchism. First, in relation to the organizational debate, Especifistas maintain the need for an organizational dualism, based on which anarchists articulate themselves within a political organization, as anarchists, and within social organizations (unions and social movements), as workers. Second, regarding the debate on the role of reforms, Especifistas believe that, depending on how they are sought and achieved, they can contribute to a revolutionary process. Third, regarding the debate on violence, Especifistas believe that it must always be carried out in the context of and concomitant with the construction of mass movements. On the social level, of mass movements, Especifismo promotes a program that has numerous affinities with revolutionary syndicalism.

In Latin America, this movement launched initiatives and trends within labor unions, as well as within the student and neighborhood movements, such as the FEL (libertarian student fronts, present in several countries, although initially emerged in Chile), Resistência Popular in Brazil, and the Federation of Base Organizations (FOB) in Argentina, among others.

To avoid referring to specificism or platformism, which are difficult for the general public to understand, the movement preferred to use the concept of organized anarchism. Elsewhere, the term "social and organized anarchism" was used to further narrow its target audience.

Anarcho-communist groups also emerged elsewhere in the world, most notably in Russia (Autonomous Action [51] – and also in its sphere of influence: Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Israel), Ukraine (RKAS-Makhno), Turkey (AKI, KaraKizil, Liberter), Australia (MAGC)[52], Greece (Western Greece Anarchist Federation), and with influence in other territories. In the former cases, anarcho-communism was mixed with insurrectionalism, while in the latter, their paths were distinct.

In November 2008, the first G20 summit was held in Washington. For this occasion, the "Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting" was issued. It was the beginning of the crisis. The real estate and financial bubbles had burst a few months earlier, and there was talk of collapse. States had to bail out banks to avoid further damage. Eleven organizations signed the declaration. Several organizations already mentioned on other occasions signed the agreement. The new ones were Common Cause (Ontario, Canada), Union Communiste Libertaire (Quebec, Canada), Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru), Liberty & Solidarity (L&S, Great Britain) [53] and two synthesis organizations: the Asociación Obrera Canaria and the Anarchist Federation of Berlin. [54]

Sometime later, in February 2010, six organizations from the current met in Paris: the FdCA (Italy), L&S (Great Britain)[53], WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Motmakt ("Counterpower", Norway), and Alternative libertaire (France). Their objective was to assess the state of the libertarian communist movement in Europe and promote continental coordination. They created working groups to maintain relations and advance coordination.[55]

The Maturity of the Network

Around the period 2010-2013, the various groups and organizations that claimed to be anarcho-communists and that were already in mutual contact, as we have seen, consolidated the network. It was then that the Anarkismo Editorial Collective was stabilized, which, as we have already seen, was composed of a delegate from each of the organizations. Here is a table showing the organizations that comprised Anarkismo in 2010 and 2015:

2010
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Buffalo Class Action (USA)
Chasqui Anarquista (Ecuador)
Colectivo Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Common Action (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Convergencia Juvenil Clasista "Hijos del Pueblo" (Ecuador)
Estrategia Libertaria (Chile)
Federação Anarquista de São Paulo (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Foro del Anarquismo Organizado (Brazil)
Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (Italy)
Four Star Anarchist Organization (USA)
"Hombre y Sociedad" (Chile)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Liberty & Solidarity (UK)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Miami Autonomy & Solidarity (USA)
Motmakt (Norway)
North-Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists (USA)
Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Voz Negra (Chile)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Red Libertaria de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Red Libertaria Popular Mateo Kramer (Colombia)
Solidarity & Defense (USA)
Union Communiste Libertaire (Canada)
Unión Socialista Libertaria (Peru)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)

2015
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (Italy)
Alternative Libertaire (France)
Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (USA)
Common Cause (Canada)
Coordination des Groupes Anarchistes (France)
Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Federação Anarquista Gaúcha / Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazil)
Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uruguay)
Grupo Anarquista Bifurcación (Colombia)
Grupo Libertario Vía Libre (Colombia)
Humboldt Grassroots (USA)
Libertäre Aktion Winterthur (Switzerland)
Libertarian Communist Group / Grwp Gomiwnyddol Libertaraidd (Wales/Cymru)
Libertære Socialister (Denmark)
Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia)
Motmakt (Norway)
Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (Switzerland)
Organização Anarquista Socialismo Libertário (Brazil)
Organización Socialista Libertaria (Uruguay)
Prairie Struggle Organization (Canada)
Workers Solidarity Movement (Ireland)
Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (South Africa)

In this list, we can already see the disappearance of NEFAC from North America, which was reduced to a few groups in New England (Buffalo and New York) and Canada (e.g., Common Cause and UCL). Eventually, in 2014, the US groups created a federation, Black Rose. [56] We can also see the founding, in 2012, of the Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (Brazilian Anarchist Coordination), based on pre-existing groups (such as FAG, FARJ, OASL, CAZP, and others) [57] that were organized around the FAO forum and already belonged to the Anarkismo network.

The remaining organizations continued the libertarian communist or anarcho-communist tradition dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, such as Alternative Libertaire (France), FdCA (Italy), OSL (Switzerland, joined Anarkismo in 2010), the FAU (Uruguay) and WSM (Ireland).

The French CGA was a split from the Francophone Anarchist Federation following its call to support Jacques Chirac in the presidential elections to prevent Le Pen from winning. Over time, the CGA shifted towards anarcho-communism and eventually merged with Alternative Libertaire in 2019, creating the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL), which is currently the largest organization of its kind in the world.

Each organization has its own history, and it would take too long to describe them all here. What is obvious is that this movement was articulated on a global scale and was able to take advantage of the rise of radicalism that swept the planet in 2011, in the same way that the SIL developed during the alterglobalization movement.

2011 saw the Arab Spring, the Indignados movement, and the square occupations. It was also the moment when a new generation entered activism. The Rojava Revolution emerged with force. Anarcho-communist organizations emerged in Egypt (the Libertarian Socialist Movement, MSL), Israel (Unity), and Tunisia, which had only existed for a short time, as well as new attempts in Iran, Lebanon, and Jordan.

That year, a statement of solidarity was issued with 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. It was signed by 11 libertarian communist organizations. [58] That same year, the declaration of solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, whose people had just overthrown the Mubarak regime, was signed. [59] This time, 23 organizations signed. New initiatives included organizations from Egypt (MSL), Colombia (Vía Libre and CELIP), Chile (Libertarian Communist Federation and the magazine "Política y Sociedad"), and the United States (Autonomy and Solidarity of Miami). A number of anarcho-syndicalist groups, such as the CGT-E, Solidaridad Obrera, WSA (United States), and the ICEA (Spain), also signed the agreement. [60]

Once again, the Anarkismo network declined to formalize itself as a more solid structure—as an international federation—to avoid falling into rivalries and competition with the other libertarian internationals, the IWA and IFA at the time. However, it is undeniable that it was functioning in a fairly coordinated manner.

In 2012, eight European organizations met again in London. [61] In addition to talking about improving coordination, they launched a campaign against sovereign debt. That same year, Jornadas Anarquistas were held in Sao Paulo, convened by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) and the Forum of Organized Anarchism of Brazil (FAO) [62] to develop especifist anarchism on the continent. On that occasion, they approved strategic documents around the concepts of popular power and federalism.

To speak of "popular" means to imbue the project of power with an eminently classist character, although we must emphasize that we speak of power from a libertarian perspective. A project of the oppressed that arises from popular movements and that accumulates the social force necessary for a long-term confrontation, with firm, strong, and well-defined steps, which we believe are necessary from an ideological point of view.

[63]

It was from then on that the anarchist movement would more decisively adopt this theoretical conception, more typical of the development of the class struggle in Latin America, and it would soon also reach Europe through Embat (Catalonia) and Libertäre Aktion (Bern).

In August 2012, the largest in-person meeting of the movement took place: in Saint Imier (Switzerland). Taking advantage of the International Anarchist Meeting, a tent called "Anarkismo" was set up as a meeting point for the movement's international militants and sympathizers. Approximately half of the 30 organizations that were in contact with anarkismo.net at the time sent delegates to the International Meeting, and a conference of delegates was held. The enormous growth of this movement in Latin America was evident, and a significant development was seen since the beginning of the website.

From the perspective of the WSM delegation, the various Anarkismo meetings held during the week were a valuable opportunity to meet comrades we might never have crossed paths with and to revitalize our involvement in the Anarkismo network. The network itself continues to expand since its very modest beginnings in 2005, both in terms of the number of organizations involved, the geographical dispersion of these organizations, and, most importantly, increased cooperation between them. When each organization presented its work during the morning of the global meeting, it was striking to see the common political and organizational approach we share, despite operating in very different contexts. It also became clear that South American organizations in particular have experienced significant growth in number and influence in recent years.

[64]

As a positive measure: Swiss and French synthesist and platformist organizations, which did not always enjoy good relations, collaborated in the preparation of the Meeting. But not everyone was under the same illusions. The organizational problems were numerous, and what the Meeting lacked most was precisely programmatic clarity:

It would have been a very different matter if, for three or two years in advance, a debate had been prepared and carried out around a common analysis of the situation, a real coordination and federation of organizations and struggles had been promoted, and progress had been made toward establishing a common program... we would be able to reflect and we would have real elements to evaluate, that the fruit of this work in St. Imier or elsewhere would have culminated, and the logic of this culmination would not be a meeting but the creation of an anarchist international.

[65]

In 2014, a joint May Day communiqué was signed by several organizations: [66] ZACF (South Africa), WSM (Ireland), OSL (Switzerland), Collectife Communiste Libertaire (Bienne, Switzerland), FdCA (Italy), WSA (United States), Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (Australia), and Prairie Struggle (United States). Months later, 14 organizations from the movement signed another communiqué in support of the Kurdish resistance. [67] This was the last joint communiqué of this era.

On November 18 and 19, 2017, several European organizations met in Genoa to exchange analyses and establish a European action plan. The Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (the new name of the veteran Italian organization), Alternative Libertaire (France), CGA (France), the Libertarian Socialist Federation (Wales, Great Britain), OSL (Switzerland), and WSM (Ireland) met.[68] Embat (Catalonia) sent his greetings to the meeting, and from then on, he became much more closely involved with this movement.

By 2020, the Union Communiste Libertaire of France was doing an extensive mapping of the movement:[69]

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?reseau-international-8794

Over the years, a tradition developed of sending greetings to each organization of the current that held a congress. This helped to forge an international movement and made all activists aware that they belonged to a movement much larger than their own organization or local context. [70]

Time Ebb

It wasn't all good news for the movement. In addition to the thorny Chilean issue, which we will soon discuss, between 2018 and 2021, WSM [71] and Zabalaza dissolved, as did other local and regional groups in North America, due to a failure to achieve generational change. Furthermore, other organizations also entered into crisis, without dissolving, such as Motmakt (Norway),[72] with whom contact was lost. Several European organizations disappeared (in Denmark, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Turkey) or their movements were unable to achieve stability (Great Britain or Russia). In the Americas, organizations in Bolivia and Peru were lost, and there were splits in Argentina, Chile, and the United States.

Another split during this period was that suffered by the Anarchist Federation (Great Britain). This organization, created in 1986 as an anarcho-communist, had long been a synthetist federation. In 2018, there was an internal conflict in AF, and a sector emerged from it that would form the Anarchist Communist Group (ACG),[73] already with a marked libertarian communist tendency. The ACG succeeded British platformist organizations that never managed to take root, such as L&S or the LSF. Even so, several anarcho-communist groups remained that have not yet considered joining the ACG.

The causes of these crises are diverse. For example, various social and political situations arose in several states that made it impossible to cultivate international relations. These relations were also interrupted in the event of internal crises and ruptures within the organizations. Another problem for maintaining stable international relations was the rapid change of delegates, with several organizations having delegates who did not speak English, while other comrades who had managed these relations moved on to other functions within their organizations. FdCA fared worse, as in just four months of 2018, they lost Donato Romito and Monia Andreani to pass away. In other cases, a more internal approach was prioritized, improving integration at the social and territorial levels, but relegating the international arena to a secondary level. Finally, the case of Michael Schmidt and his expulsion from anarkismo.net and ITHA was not without damage. [74]

The Chilean Case

At this point, we should talk about the movement in Chile. Its origins date back to 1999, with the celebration of the CUAC, initiating a process that would later give rise to the OCL in 2002. The following year, a Libertarian Student Front (FEL) was launched, and in 2006, following the so-called "Penguin Revolt" (high school students), the FEL grew exponentially. It managed to attract numerous activists, and when that generation of students went to university, they came to lead the student movement, usually controlled by communists and autonomists. Activists such as Felipe Ramírez, Fabián Araneda, and Melissa Sepúlveda held important elected positions in the Chilean Student Federation (FECH, which is unitary and semi-institutional), which at the time was one of the most powerful popular movements in Chile. Among their most notable initiatives was their highly colorful and recognizable graphic style, which was copied and adapted by many collectives elsewhere. They filled Chile with murals through their Ernesto Miranda muralist units. [75]

Some time later, this entire political space merged into the Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left). This new organization adopted strategic lines different from the libertarian communist magma that had driven the movement up to that point, shifting toward a much less defined libertarian socialism, more in line with libertarian Marxism. At the same time, they achieved a scale never seen before for a libertarian organization in recent decades, rivaling other political parties and organizations much more established in the Chilean scene.

In this context, a sector of libertarians—which I would venture to say is the majority—has made a series of reflections that have shaped the political approach known as "Democratic Rupture" in various articles and public documents, as well as in internal discussion processes. Despite this, there is still some confusion regarding the implications of this wager, which we will try to clarify to some extent with this article.

[76]

Chilean libertarian communist sectors began supporting leftist electoral options in 2013. At first, they did so tactically, without intervening in the campaigns, but calling for a vote for a democratic rupture to overthrow the reactionary democratic regime that ruled the country. Later, in the 2018 electoral process, the Izquierda Libertaria the Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which was running in the parliamentary elections. Due to its participation, libertarian activist Gael Yeomans was elected as a deputy.[77] Since then, the Izquierda Libertaria has had more regional and national deputies, as well as senators. These efforts culminated in a progressive government in the country led by Gabriel Boric, a former autonomist student leader from the same era as the FEL. However, this has not produced the expected radicalization of society to build revolutionary alternatives in a socialist sense through popular power and constituent power. Chile continues to be a capitalist state—of a progressive nature, admittedly—without the slightest hint of socializing policies.

As can be seen, the Izquierda Libertaria [78] had abandoned traditional libertarian communist postulates and was pointed out by rivals and opponents of the anarchist communist current within anarchism as a logical derivation of all especifist anarchism. For this reason, and for other reasons as well, it suffered some splits,[79] such as Solidaridad FCL,[80] some of which in turn followed the parliamentary path, resulting in further splits.

At the Latin American level, the especifist movement distanced itself from all these Chilean groups until the Santiago Anarchist Federation (FAS)[81] emerged in 2019, once again aligned with the rest of the international movement. This FAS, therefore, emerges as a break with the imprint taken by Chilean libertarian communism, returning to Latin American especifism.

From Network to Coordination

Between 2015 and 2019, the movement experienced a setback caused by issues we have already seen, causing divisions in some organizations within the movement, hindering understanding, fostering disorientation, or directly leading to the dissolution of some organizations and the destruction of entire movements, as we have seen.

Not everything was disappointing, of course. While a national British organization (the ACG) had emerged in 2018, in 2019 Die Plattform was founded in Germany, the largest European state that until then had lacked organizations of the movement.

At the 2019 Jornadas Anarquistas, Latin American organizations spoke of the need to relaunch the movement.[82] At this time, they championed especifism, or, in other words, politically organized anarchism, and sought to consolidate it in all regions. Their communiqué defined the role of the anarchist political organization, which should be responsible for developing the theory and analytical tools to understand reality and better operate within it. They emphasized the internal political work of each organization to avoid confusion and dead ends.

Our lives depend on [our social] insertions, but the Political Organization, that small engine that drives the popular movement, is necessary alongside it. The Anarchist Political Organization, in the especifist conception, is not avant-garde, but rather one of militant self-denial, with the aim of incentivizing and guiding a process of revolutionary rupture with broad participation of the organized people. We deeply respect the specific nature of that level. We have called this process Popular Power, a process of building the organizations of popular power that will replace the bourgeois power structures. Thus, social insertion and political organization go hand in hand and are articulated horizontally in a very different way than that proposed and developed by all the vanguardist movements of the left to date, which have done nothing more than limit the development of popular organizations and instrumentalize them as "apparatuses" useful to their parties. For this reason, Especifist Anarchism speaks of a Strong People [Pueblo Fuerte] and not a "strong party," as all currents of Marxism have proposed. We advocate a Strong People, a people who construct their destiny and their own opportunities and degrees of freedom according to their experience of struggle, development, and progress in the process of rupture.

As a result of this initiative, the foundations for new international work began to be laid. In December 2019, the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) was re-established, formed by the CAB (Brazil),[84] the FAR (Argentina),[85] and the FAU (Uruguay). These organizations served as a focal point for the entire movement and took over from the European organizations, which had been leading the way until then.

“…We are convinced that Anarchism must be operational, agile, and in tune with new social realities in order to confront the harshness that this ruthless system imposes on those at the bottom. But to do so, we reiterate, Anarchism must be politically organized. It is Political Organization that allows militants to process the necessary discussions and debates, make pertinent analyses of the conjuncture, define action and development plans, fine-tune tactics, and also design a final strategy and adapt that strategy to each period of action, to each conjuncture…”

[85]

With CALA, the entire international libertarian communist movement was extraordinarily energized, starting with the notable efforts of Nathaniel Clavijo (Uruguay), who enlisted the help of Dimitris Troaditis (now based in Melbourne, Australia), Jonathan Payn (now in Istanbul), Johnny Rumpf (Bern, Switzerland), and Gio (France) to reorganize the movement. As always, the veterans pull the younger ones until they understand how it works.

In 2020, the year of the global pandemic, the foundations were laid for a more articulated international coordination than before. From then on, meetings became much more stable, as they could be held online. Meetings were held every month or two, and a fairly natural coordination took shape.

The reason for so many meetings was the movement's need to publish international statements. The first was to support the Chilean uprising and demand the freedom of those arrested during the December 2019 protests.[86] Later, it was signed jointly on May Day, then on June 28th, Stonewall Day, then to support the American people after the police murder of George Floyd, also on July 19th, against the repression in Turkey, on March 8th, to commemorate the anniversary of Krondstadt, the Paris Commune, on the pandemic, against the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Gaza, and many others. On each occasion, between 12 and 25 organizations from around the world signed.

Another project was to support anarchist comrades in Sudan,[87] who needed financial assistance to leave the country. These days, some of those people are returning. Other coordinating initiatives have been the summer camps and schools, organized by each organization independently, such as those organized by Embat and UCL since 2018 and 2020, respectively. In the case of the former, in 2024 it helped organize the first especifist meeting in Spain, together with the organizations Liza (Madrid) and Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries (Catalonia), which was attended by people from other places and other organizations. Similarly, the French camps are attended by British, German, Swiss, Spanish, or Italian activists, depending on the occasion. Die Plattform has also organized such camps, while an Anarchist Political School was held in Australia, which has helped articulate the tendency until an anarchist federation has been formed there. Finally, this summer the first camp of the British ACG will be held.

To an outside audience, the development of organized anarchism might seem quite informal. However, it has been an organic process. There was a prior praxis dating back to the 1990s. Initially, there was a personal level, comprised of activists who sometimes met without a mandate from their organizations. Then came the level of formal meetings of the organizations, represented by delegates. The third level would be joint working groups between activists from different countries that carry out specific projects. It is necessary to know how to read the process and understand the rhythms, which are sometimes fast and other times slow. The fact is that, starting in 2020, the dynamic accelerated.

In short, the Coordination towards 2022 was composed of the following organizations:

• Alternativa Libertaria (AL/FdCA) – Italy
• Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – Great Britain
• Federación Anarquista – Greece
• Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/New Zealand
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brazil
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (FAR) – Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Switzerland
• Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group (MACG) – Australia
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba (OAC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz (OASC) – Argentina
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán (OAT) – Argentina
• Roja y Negra – Organización Politica Anarquista (Buenos Aires) – Argentina
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Switzerland
• Tekoşina Anarşist (TA) – Rojava
• Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France, Belgium y Switzerland
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia

Some organizations from Turkey, such as DAF[88] and Karala, which have since dissolved, also participated. In these cases, these organizations did not define themselves as libertarian communists or anarcho-communists, but simply anarchists, but there was always mutual understanding. Similarly, relations have always been maintained with Tekoşîna Anarşîst,[89] an organization composed of international anarchist militants in Rojava.

In some of the early meetings, contacts were also made with organizations from Iran and the Philippines, although it was clear that they did not share the basic foundations of the movement, and their paths diverged. Nevertheless, starting in 2020, a growth in the number of groups and militants worldwide was noted. In some countries, this growth has led to the establishment of national organizations with several local groups, such as in Australia, Germany, and Argentina.

Most organizations during this period focused on approving and working on their own programs, moving beyond the model of those anarchist groups that had only a vague understanding of reality and whose militancy was united only by principles, the distant goal of libertarian communism and little else.

The International Coordination of Organized Anarchism

The result of the above has been the formal construction of the Coordination at the end of 2024. This Coordination does not have the form of an International, but rather a network. It has continental sections in Europe and the Americas, and perhaps something similar will be done in the Asia-Pacific in the medium term, but it is primarily articulated at a global level.

One of its projects is the website anarkismo.net, which now acts as a speaker for the entire movement internationally.

Since the time of the communiqués, a South Korean organization and the Black Rose Federation of the United States have joined. Several more have appeared throughout, creating an increasingly complex and difficult-to-follow map.

What is worth highlighting is CALA's insistence on the theoretical and strategic unity of all the Coordination's organizations. This has allowed almost all organizations to self-evaluate and conduct their ideological, theoretical, and strategic debates, leading to current situation analyses, programs, and political lines. At that time, several non-Latin American organizations also began to call themselves "especifist," and new ones emerged elsewhere with that definition, ignoring more traditional constructs in their regions.

Regarding the currently coordinated organizations, they are:

America
• Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra – United States
• Grupo Libertario Vía Libre - Colombia
• Federación Anarquista Santiago - Chile
• Roja y Negra, Organización Política Anarquista - Buenos Aires, Argentina
• Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (CALA)
• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CALA):
• Federação Anarquista Gaúcha - Rio Grande do Sul
• Federação Anarquista Cabana - Belem do Pará
• Organização Resistência Libertária - Ceará
• Federação Anarquista Quilombo de Resistência - Bahia
• Federação Anarquista dos Palmares - Alagoas
• Coletivo Anarquista Luta de Classe - Paraná
• Coletivo Anarquista Bandeira Negra - Santa Catarina
• Organização Anarquista Maria Iêda - Pernambuco
• También hay una construcción anarquista en la Argentina formada por:
• Federación Anarquista de Rosario (CALA)
• Organización Anarquista de Tucumán
• Organización Anarquista de Córdoba
• Organización Anarquista de Santa Cruz
• Organización Revolucionaria Anarquista - Buenos Aires

Europe
• Anarchist Communist Group – Great Britain
• Die Plattform - Germany
• Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya
• Midada, Libertär, Sozialistisch, Organisiert - Switzerland
• Organisation Socialiste Libertaire - Switzerland
• Union Communiste Libertaire - France, Belgium y Switzerland

Middle East
• Tekoşîna Anarşîst - Rojava

Pacific Asia
• Anarchist Worker Solidarity Movement – New Zealand
• Anarchist Solidarity / Anarchist Yondae / 아나키스트 연대 – South Korea
• Anarchist Communist Federation - Australia:
• ACF-Brisbaine - Anarchist Communists Meanjin
• ACF-Melbourne - Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group
• ACF-Geelong - Geelong Anarchist Communists

Currently, there are other libertarian communist groups and organizations in the United States, Canada, Brazil (the new OSL is noteworthy due to its size), Italy, Spain, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Indonesia, and New Zealand. These groups do not belong to the International Coordination, but maintain contact with one or more of the current's organizations, which now number several dozens altogether. Of course, they are also an active part of the entire movement, as the Coordination is by no means the entire movement, nor does it claim to be. In any case, these hundreds (or thousands already) of international militants are building a solid libertarian alternative that has already positioned itself within the broader anarchist movement.

Overview

We will conclude by reviewing the current's periods:

• The anarcho-communist current of anarchism dates back to its very beginnings with the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy. Its tradition can be traced over the decades. After World War II, this current was reduced to very few countries. Of these, France, Italy, and Uruguay had the most prominent movements, surviving into the 1980s despite all kinds of difficulties.

• In the 1980s, several solid organizations were created that would last for many years: OSL (founded in 1982 in Switzerland), WSM (founded in 1984, Ireland), FdCA (1986, Italy), Union des Travailleurs Communistes Libertaires (1986, France), FAG (1985, Brazil), FAU (reorganized in 1986, Uruguay), and Anarchist Federation (1986, Great Britain, which was initially anarcho-communist). These organizations maintained contact with each other, but the synthesist and anarcho-syndicalist currents predominated by far within the anarchist movement.

• In the 1990s, new organizations began to emerge. Alternative Libertaire (1991, France; derived from previous organizations), FAG (1995), and OSL (1997) in Brazil; OSL (1996), ORA (Rosario), and AUCA (La Plata) in Argentina; CUAC in Chile (1999), among others; various groups in the United States and Canada; ORA (1996, Czech Republic); WSF (1995, South Africa)… Forming an organic relationship, on the one hand, in Latin America through the FAU and FAG, and on the other, in Europe through Alternative Libertaire, OSL, and FdCA, whose union fronts are approaching the CGT-E, and the latter invites them to its meetings. In parallel, the Anarchist Platform mailing list emerged, bringing Anglo-Saxon platformism into contact.

• In the years 1999-2003, the articulation of the movement accelerated through the resistance movement against capitalist globalization. Groups and organizations emerged in many places (too many to list here), creating spaces for interaction, such as ELAOPA, the Jornadas Anarquistas, and CALA in Latin America, and SIL in Europe, although the latter also provided solidarity with initiatives in the South. The entire anarcho-communist movement expanded.

• 2004-2009 period. These were years of ebb and flow in social struggles. Yet, the movement already maintained political relations. This resulted in the creation of anarkismo.net (2005), the signing of solidarity declarations and the first international meetings. The global economic and financial crisis of 2008 erupted.

• In the years 2010-2014, there was again a strong expansion and coordination. Initiatives multiplied: the anarchism network consolidated, new declarations were signed, the Saint Imier meeting was held (2012), and new groups and organizations emerged, and the anarchist movement reached new countries where it had no presence in Asia and Africa.

• 2015-2019 Period. Once again, a period of ebb and flow. Some veteran organizations disbanded, others entered into crisis and stagnation, and others suffered from splits or changed their ideological line. However, the previous inertia continued to produce new organizations.

• Finally, the period from 2020 to the present has given rise to greater international coordination and a climate conducive to the creation of new organizations, aided by the crisis experienced by other currents of anarchism. At this point, the libertarian communist movement is no longer unknown. It is not large, of course, but it appears much more solid than other currents of anarchism.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

CAB (2012). Principles and Practices of Especifismo.

Programmatic Declaration of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination. CAB Link.

FAU (2003). Huerta Grande: Organizational Document.

Founding Text of Uruguayan Especifismo. Available at: FAU Digital.

FAU (2003). Anarchism in the Anti-Globalization Movement.

SIL (2001). Madrid Declaration.

Founding Document of the Network. Available at: FDCA Archives.

WSM (2000). The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists.

English translation of the 1926 Platform. Libcom.org.

ZACF (2010). Towards a Fresh Revolution.

Strategic Analysis of the South African Federation. Zabalaza.net.

WSM (2001). Report from the Genoa Counter-Summit. Account of the Genoa protests. Libcom.org.

Online Resources

Libertarian Communist Manifesto (Fontenis):

Full text in Spanish

SIL Archives:

FDCA Historical Documents

The Organizational Platform for a General Union of Anarchists

Nestor Makhno Archive

Publications

Corrêa, F. (2012). Social Anarchism and Organization. AK Press.

Corrêa, F. (2015). Social Anarchism and Organization: The Specific Proposal. Eleuterio Press.

Corrêa, F. (2022). Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy [Interview by M. Walmsley]. Anarkismo.net.

Fontenis, G. (1954/2013). Libertarian Communist Manifesto. Critical edition with foreword by Frank Mintz. Anselmo Lorenzo Foundation.

García, V. (2017). The Libertarian Left in Chile: From resistance to institutional politics. LOM Editions.

Gutiérrez, J.A. (2015). Anarchism in Latin America: The libertarian utopia south of the Rio Grande. Eleutherius.

Lima Rocha, B. (2013). Anarchism and class struggle: A view from Latin America. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana Magazine, 18(60), 13-28.

Lima Rocha, B. (2017). Political militancy and revolutionary strategy: The case of the Gaúcha Anarchist Federation. In Anarchism & Education (pp. 77-94). Editor Fi.

Méndez, N. & Vallota, A. (2018). Anarchism in Latin America: Networks, practices and militancy. CEHIPOL.

Olaizola Albéniz, J. M. (2013). The need to organize anarchists (II). Anarquia.cat. https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/

Payn, J. (2018). Building Counter-Power: The ZACF and the South African Left. Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements.

Rugai, R. (2020). Specificism: The construction of popular power in Latin America. Faísca Editor.

Troaditis, D. (2020). From Delo Truda to Anarkismo.net: A Century of Anarchist Organizing. Anarchist Studies.

Van der Walt, L. & Schmidt, M. (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. AK Press.

--------

NOTES

1 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/

2 https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/

3 https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/

4 Mail communication with José María Olaizola, 05/20/2025

5 This French trade union organization dates back to 1981 as a grouping of 10 autonomous federations and independent national unions. It was significantly influenced by Trotskyist and, in some cases, libertarian currents. In the 1990s, it had around 50,000-60,000 members.

6 Known as CIB Unicobas, it is an organization of Italian grassroots trade unionism, part of the "Cobas" (grassroots committees) phenomenon. Unicobas was founded in 1991 and quickly came into contact with alternative trade unionism. It had 5,000 members.

7. An anarcho-syndicalist organization founded in Sweden in 1910 under the name Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation. In the 1950s it was excluded from the IWA, entering into conflict with the exiled Spanish CNT. A rivalry existed ever since. When the Spanish CNT split in the 1980s, giving rise to the CGT, this new organization resumed contact with the Swedish union.

8. The Confédération Romande du Travail (CRT) was founded in the early 1970s by Christian syndicalism. Several years later, due to the influence of militant trade unionists, it changed direction and became part of the sector of unions and tendencies of that time that sought to develop an alternative unionism. It dissolved in 1996. Its legacy of militant unionism would later be taken up by the SUD of the canton of Vaud.

9. Ibid.

10 In English, see “International Libertarian Meeting.” https://web.archive.org/web/20080223130405/http://flag.blackened.net/rev…

In French, see Alternative Libertaire, no. 36, October 1995, pp. 14-15:

https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…

11 Conversation with Nathaniel Clavijo, 05/23/2025.

12 [Sibersakaya Konfederatsia Truda] The Siberian Confederation of Labor (SKT) was founded in March 1995 by Siberian anarcho-syndicalists, who until then had been grouped in a "Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists" that operated from 1989 to 2000. It grew to around 5,000 members, according to its own source.

13 Lucien Van der Walt, "Report on Le Autre Futur" (Report on the Other Future), Paris summit, August 26, 2015

https://lucienvanderwalt.com/2015/08/26/lucien-van-der-walt-2000-report-...

14 https://www.wsm.ie/

15 Announcing Anarchist Platform Email List

https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/announcing-anarchist-platform-email-list…

16 Thirty Years of Life… 11/01/2016

https://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/wpAL/blog/2016/11/01/1986-2016-30-...

17 https://zabalaza.net/

18 The text can be read in its original language here:

https://www.cabn.libertar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FARJ_-_ANARQUIS…

19 Interview with the FdCA by NEFAC, 2003

https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...

20 Against Capitalist Globalization! Alternative Libertaire #96, May 2001, p. 11

https://www.archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/communismelib/alternative-lib…

21 A written reference can be found on the back page of the newspaper of the XVII CGT Congress in A Coruña, October 20, 2013. Juan Pilo indicates that Mechoso's trip to Europe accelerated contacts. Among others, they contacted Olaizola, then Secretary General of the CGT.

https://cgt.org.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/diario3.qxd_.pdf

22 Olaizola, 05/20/2025

23 See some RL statements on the Radio Klara website:

https://www.radioklara.org/radioklara/?tag=red-libertaria-apoyo-mutuo

24 Naissance d'un réseau international libertaire. Extrait de mai number from Alternative Libertaire (France):

https://www.ainfos.ca/01/jun/ainfos00171.html

25 Consultation with José María Olaizola. 05/18/2025

26 Declaration of the International Libertarian Meeting. March 31, 2001

https://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_madrid.htm

27 https://www.instagram.com/fag.cab/

28 Interview with ORA by NEFAC, 2003:

https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/the-global-influence-...

29 "Magonism" is considered a type of libertarian communism native to Mexico. It takes into account the influence of indigenous peoples and draws on their traditional customs and forms of community organization. These ideas became popular in the 1990s. The concept of "Magonism" comes from Ricardo Flores Magón, one of the driving forces of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, who was an anarchist.

The Ricardo Flores Magón Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca (CIPO-RFM) was active between approximately 1997 and 2006. It coordinated various local indigenous organizations in the state of Oaxaca. It moved internationally within libertarian circles. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consejo_Ind%C3%ADgena_Popular_de_Oaxaca_%2…

31 The acronym stands for Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Federation.

32 https://www.nodo50.org/auca/menu%20que%20es%20auca.html

33 NEFAC stands for North Eastern Anarchist Federation. It united groups from New England and Quebec. Their texts can be found here:

https://libcom.org/tags/nefac

34 For example, the 2008 conference organized by the CGT in Madrid, "A Libertarian Critique of the Current Situation"

https://info.nodo50.org/Jornadas-Una-critica-libertaria-de.html

35 For more information, read José Antonio Gutiérrez, "Reflections on Twenty Years of Anarcho-Communism in Chile," February 24, 2020.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31737

36 To see photos of the first meeting:

https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/fotos.htm

To see some initial ELAOPA documents:

https://www.nodo50.org/rprj/elaopa/forum.htm

37 Latin American Meeting of Autonomous Popular Organizations (ELAOPA) in Santiago, Chile. Rojo y Negro No. 397, February 2025.

https://rojoynegro.info/articulo/encuentro-latinoamericano-de-organizaci…

38 Final Declaration of the 2003 Anarchist Conference:

https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/declaracion-final-de-las-jornada…

39 List published by Daniel Barret, The Seditious Awakenings of Anarchy. Buenos Aires: Libros de Anarres, 2011. pp. 153-154

40 https://uniaoanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/el-anar…

41 Anarkismo.net. Interview with one of the founders

https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/jose-anto…

42 When an anarcho-communist network was formed, anarcho-syndicalist organizations, such as the CGT, the SAC, or the CNT-Vignoles, and grassroots trade unionists, such as Unicobas or the SUD, joined together in new networks, such as FESAL, the International Trade Union Network of Solidarity and Struggle, or the Coordinadora Rojinegra.

43 Excerpt from the interview Autonomous Action of Russia conducted with the ZACF in 2010. The interview can be read at:

https://zabalaza.net/2010/12/07/autonomous-action-russia-interviews-the-...

44 http://oclibertaire.free.fr/

45 Nick Heath is currently a member of the Anarchist Communist Group. He publishes under the pseudonym BattleScarred.

46 https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/

47 Ilan was interviewed extensively in 2025:

https://alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/57055

48 https://columnalibertaria.blogspot.com/

49 http://www.farj.org/

50 Felipe Corrêa. Interview with Mya Walmsey. Elements of Anarchist Theory and Strategy. An interview with Felipe Corrêa. March 2022.

51 https://avtonom.org/en

52 https://melbacg.au/

53 https://libcom.org/tags/liberty-solidarity

54 Anarcho-Communist Declaration on the Global Economic Crisis and the G20 Meeting, 11/17/2008. https://www.anarkismo.net/article/10681

55 Europe: Libertarian Communists Resist Liaisons. 02/03/2010 https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Europe-Les-communistes-libert…

The agreements can be read here: https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Rencontre-europeenne-de-group…

56 https://www.blackrosefed.org/about/

57 The CAB would not dissolve the international secretariats of each regional or local organization of the Coordinator until 2016, with each participating independently in international coordination until then.

58 Declaration of international solidarity with the 46 activists detained in Zimbabwe. 02/28/2011

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/18895?search_text=declaraci%F3n+intern…

59 International Libertarian Declaration in solidarity with the popular struggle in Egypt, 11/25/2011

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/21228

60 http://www.iceautogestion.org/index.php/es/

61 WSM takes part in Conference of European Anarchist Organizations in London. March 31, 2011 https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/c/wsm-conference-european-anarkismo-london…

62 The FAO forum was a precursor to the CAB. It was the space where Brazilian organizations met for debate.

63 Anarchist Conference January 2011. Sao Paulo. April 27, 2011

https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/jornadas-anarquistas-enero-janei…

64 Delegation returns from International Anarchist Gathering at St. Imier. August 21, 2012

https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…

65 José María Olaizola Albéniz. The Need for Anarchists to Organize (II). Hernani, January 27, 2013

https://www.anarquia.cat/la-necesidad-de-organizarse-los-anarquistas-ii/

66 May Day. Building a New Workers' Movement. https://www.struggle.ws/exwsm/sites/default/files/MaydayAnarchistStateme…

67 International Libertarian Declaration of Solidarity with the Kurdish Resistance, 10/22/2014

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/27505

68 We Anarchist/Liberal Communists in the Classroom, in the Europe of Capital, 12/11/2017

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30713

69 The map has not been updated, so it serves to show the state of the libertarian communist movement that year.

70 Consider, for example, these messages received by UCL in 2015:

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Messages-internationaux

71 WSM Closing Statement

https://libcom.org/article/workers-solidarity-movement-closing-statement

72 https://www.motmakt.no/

73 https://www.anarchistcommunism.org/

74 2017 Statement on Michael Schmidt Case / Declaração sobre o caso Michael Schmidt

https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/2017-statement-on-michael…

75 Interview with UMLEM, 04/03/2008:

https://www.alasbarricadas.org/noticias/node/7092

76 Felipe Ramírez, A Bet Revolutionary movement of the Libertarian Left. 03/11/2013

https://periodico-solidaridad.blogspot.com/2013/11/declaracion-nacional-...

77 See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izquierda_Libertaria

78 https://www.instagram.com/izqlibertaria/?hl=es

79 Regarding the breakup of the Libertarian Left, some activists issued this statement:

https://www.tercerainformacion.es/articulo/internacional/30/03/2017/chil…

80 https://solidaridadfcl.org

81 https://fasanarquista7.wordpress.com/

82 Anarchist Conference 2019, 03/20/2019.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31339

83 https://www.instagram.com/cabanarquista/

84 https://www.instagram.com/far_rosario/

85 CALA Launch Statement. December 15, 2019

https://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/comunicado-de-lanzamiento-de-la-...

86 Joint Internationalist Declaration for the Freedom of the Political Prisoners of the Social Uprising in the Chilean Region, December 12, 2019

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32109

87 Update on the Campaign for the Sudanese Anarchists. April 18, 2024

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32877?search_text=Sudan

88 https://www.facebook.com/DAFederasyon/

89 https://tekosinaanarsist.noblogs.org/

Dear comrades,
In recent months, our Organization has been engaged in an intense and difficult debate during which different visions of priorities and areas of political intervention emerged, as well as different ways of interpreting the organization and its functioning.
At the end of this debate, some comrades gradually decided to take different paths from ours.
The Council of Delegates and the National Secretariat of our Organization have endeavored in every way to prevent this, proposing a unified political solution and a new Congress to be built together.
We are deeply saddened by the choice of these comrades, with whom we have shared many years of militancy and political battles.
We consider this matter even more serious and painful at a historical moment when the bourgeoisie's attack on the lives and rights of workers is intensifying; when reactionary forces are re-emerging and asserting themselves in many countries; when imperialist wars are making more and more victims among the proletarians forced to fight each other.
The unity of the workers' movement, of revolutionary forces, and of the organizations of anarchist and libertarian communists is now more indispensable than ever, and we will continue to pursue it as an absolute priority of our Organization.
Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA therefore intends to strengthen relationships with the organizations adhering to the Anarkismo network by contributing to the common political elaboration and intervention for the strengthening of international Anarchist Communism.
We do not consider it appropriate at this time to detail the different positions taken in the political debate that led to the aforementioned departure.
The documents that have been produced are, however, available to the comrades of our sister Organizations adhering to the Anarkismo network.

July 21, 2024

118th Council of Delegates of Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA

Michael Lowy and Oliver Besancenot, two Marxists from the Trotskyist tradition, have made an effort to discuss possible convergences and interactions between Marxism and anarchism. (The little book has been well translated from the French by David Campbell, an anarchist who did most of the work while in jail in New York City.)

At first it might seem absurd to seek overlaps between these two schools of socialism. Anarchism stands for freedom and self-management, but in spite of some achievements its movement has failed to successfully create anarchism in any country. Meanwhile whatever Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels originally intended, Marxism became the ideology of repressive, mass-murdering, state-capitalisms (that is, Stalinism). Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, authoritarian Marxist governments persist in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and especially in the great nation of China. Marxism and anarchism would seem to have little in common. Yet we live in the looming catastrophes of industrial capitalism. People are drawn to its radical alternatives. In this context, it is the failures of each which has drawn some anarchists and Marxists to dialogue, to learn the strengths of the alternate trend. (Although, for all their failures, anarchists never murdered tens of millions of workers, peasants, and others.)

Along with anarchism’s vision of freedom, there is a rising interest in Marxism, particularly in its analysis of how capitalism works and what might be done to end it. Some radicals focus on the humanistic, working class, and ecological aspects of Marx’s Marxism, rather than its statist, centralist, and determinist aspects. This looks to libertarian-democratic and “ultra-left” trends in Marxism, such as William Morris, the council communists, Luxemburgists, autonomists, the Johnson-Forrest Tendency, Socialisme ou Barbarie, and unorthodox and dissident Trotskyists. Unlike Stalinism, these trends in Marxism might be partners in a dialogue with revolutionary anarchists. (See Price 2017.)

Che

The authors claim to be libertarian Marxists, in opposition to both Stalinism and to social democracy (reformist “democratic socialism”). They want to see what they can learn from anarchism—and what revolutionary anarchism can learn from their view of Marxism. I am all for a Marxist-anarchist dialogue and have written some material seeking to advance it (e.g., Price 2022).

A lot depends on what one means by “Marxism” (as well as “anarchism”). The authors are admirers of Che Guevara. They have written books about him and his “revolutionary legacy” (Lowy 2007; Besancenot & Lowy 2009). In the text, they claim that the struggle of the Mexican Zapatistas show “traces of the revolutionary ethic that lead directly back to Che.” (p. 76) They do not note that the founders of the Zapatistas had abandoned the elitist guerrilla strategy of Che. They further declare that “Marx’s writings…form the political basis of the revolutionary humanism of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara.” (p. 124)

Actually Che Guevara was an admirer of Joseph Stalin. Che played a major role in turning the Cuban revolution into a one-party, one-man, dictatorship, with a state-capitalist economy, allied with Soviet Russian imperialism. Within the upper circles of the Castroite regime, Che was a strong proponent of increasing centralization and of repression of the workers. He sincerely sought to spread the revolution (as he understood the revolution), but his efforts were failures both in Africa and in Bolivia. While he wrote some high-falutin’ philosophical language about socialism, his actual conception was of a totalitarian society. (See Price 2016.)

It may seem unfair to point to the authors’ admiration of Guevara, which is only briefly referred to twice in the text. Yet it is difficult to integrate anarchism with advocacy of a Stalinist-type dictatorship, however well-meaning you might be. (Of course, many of the Trotskyist groupings have been admirers of Fidel Castro and Che; but these don’t advocate “solidarity” with anarchism.) Besancenot and Lowy may misinterpret Che as a “revolutionary humanist,” but how can they ignore his support of the Cuban dictatorship? And then seek a dialogue with anarchism?

Positive Aspects of the Book

And yet, despite this confusing contradiction, some of this book is worthwhile. Besancenot and Lowy are concerned to show “another side of history…that of the alliances and active solidarity between anarchists and Marxists.” (p. 1)

They have brief sections on events in revolutionary history when anarchists and Marxists worked together. This includes the First International, in which anarchists cooperated with Marx for years—until Marx organized the expulsion of Michael Bakunin and forced a split with the anarchists. They cover the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs of 1886. These were anarchists who came out of a Marxist background and who still used the Marxist analysis of capitalism.

They briefly cover the development of anarcho-syndicalism, which shared a revolutionary working class orientation with Marxism. They discuss the Spanish Revolution of the thirties. That revolution was betrayed by most of the Marxist and anarchist leaders, both of which joined the capitalist government together with liberal parties. Their partner, the Communist Party, tried to set up a totalitarian state. A minority of revolutionary anarchists and Marxists did try to advance the revolution, but were overwhelmed. There are brief sections (they can hardly be called “chapters”) on the May-June ’68 almost-revolution in France, on the international demonstrations against “globalization,” and on the Occupy movement.

The little book also has nine brief biographical sections on significant revolutionaries. This includes the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg. She had little use for anarchism, but her vision of revolutionary socialist democracy-from-below was compatible with anarchism. Similarly, they discuss Buenaventura Durruti. As an anarchist, he played an important role in the Spanish Revolution. He had little use for Marxism but has been respected by Marxists. The same may be said of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman. In Russia, she originally supported the Revolution and was willing to work with the Leninists—until their authoritarianism drove her into opposition.

Their little biographies include “A Few Libertarian Marxist Thinkers.” Of the three they cite, the most interesting may be Daniel Guerin. His books on anarchism are widely read. In France during World War II, he cooperated with the Trotskyist underground. Working with syndicalists, anarchists, and Trotskyists, he was a prominent opponent of French imperialism in Algeria and an early Gay liberationist. Admiring J.P. Proudhon and Bakunin, but also Luxemburg, he sought a “synthesis” of revolutionary anarchism and libertarian Marxism. (See Guerin 2017)

The Russian Revolution

The part covering the 1917 Russian Revolution is titled, “Points of Conflict,” including a section, “The Split Between Red and Black.” This is where the book’s difficulties show most clearly.

“Initially, there was a convergence between many anarchists—not only Russian but also from around the world—and the Marxist revolutionaries. Soon after, the convergence had become a dramatic clash between the two.…” (p. 80)

The “October” (Soviet) Revolution was organized by the Communists in alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (peasant-populists) and with anarchists. The initial government was a coalition of the Communists and Left SRs, generally supported by anarchists in the soviets. (“Soviet” means “council.” It originally referred to the popularly elected councils which were rooted in factory committees, village assemblies, and military units.)

But by 1920, the Leninists had banned all alternate parties, including those which had fought on their side in the Russian Civil War. These included the Left SRs and the Left Mensheviks. Anarchists were arrested, jailed, and shot. Not long after, even opposition caucuses in the one legal party were outlawed.

Essentially, the writers favor the rule of the soviets, supported by the revolutionary parties including the Communists—but criticize what happened instead: the rule of the Communist Party, with supposed support by the soviets. This went together with economic changes, “prioritizing centralized nationalization over the local collectivization of the means of production….” (p. 87) They mildly comment, “This choice, like so many others, is questionable.” (same) This is quite the understatement.

Despite this (soft) criticism of the Leninists, Besancenot and Lowy insist that the problem does not lie with Marx. “It is pointless, however, to seek a manufacturing defect in Marxism…on the question of whether to abolish the state immediately or not.” (p. 87) Similarly, they oppose “…drawing a connection between the Lenin years and the Stalin years.” (p. 89) Granted that Marx would have been horrified by what Stalin made out of Marxism—and that V.I. Lenin was no Stalin. Lenin did not aim for a totalitarian state, nor want one. This was unlike Mao Tse-tung, say, who already had Stalinist Russia as a model and goal—as did Che and Fidel.

Yet it is a bit much to deny that Marx’s strategy of working through the state was not a cause of Lenin’s building a party-state, one which laid the basis for Stalinist state-capitalism. And, like Marx, Lenin believed that he and his party knew the truth better than anyone else. This justified the one-party party-state. Believing that his party—and only his party—knew the full truth—and since only his party spoke for the proletariat—Lenin felt justified in suppressing all other points of view, including the anarchists.

In 1921, the sailors at the Kronstadt naval base rebelled. The Kronstadt fortress overlooked the capitol at Petrograd. Influenced by anarchists, the rebels demanded an end to the political monopoly of the Communists, recognition of other left political tendencies, and free elections to the soviets, as well as economic reforms. Emma Goldman urged negotiation with the rebels. Instead, the Communists crushed them militarily, and then shot the captured sailors in batches. To anarchists this was a counterrevolutionary crime. It was comparable to the 1956 crushing of the Hungarian revolution.

The two authors regard this opinion as “one-sided.” “In our view, the conflict between Kronstadt and the Bolshevik government was…a tragic and fraternal confrontation between two revolutionary currents. The responsibility for this tragedy is shared, but falls primarily on those who held power.” (p. 95) “The crushing of the sailors of Kronstadt was not a ‘tragic necessity,’ but an error and a wrong.” (p. 97)

In other words, the anarchist-influenced rebel sailors are partially to blame (they dared to demand socialist democracy) even if the “primary” fault lies with the Communist regime (which chose to massacre the sailors). This choice was a bad mistake, not a counterrevolutionary crime (no one is perfect). Still, both sides were “revolutionary currents.”

It has been argued that the Russian Communists dared not permit several political tendencies to compete in free elections. Given the poverty and destruction which followed World War I and the Civil War, the workers and peasants were unhappy with the Communists. They would likely have voted them out, supposedly with disastrous consequences. The authors quote the Trotskyist (and ex-anarchist) Victor Serge: “If the Bolshevik dictatorship fell, it was only a short step to chaos, and through chaos to a peasant uprising, the massacre of the Communists…and, in the end…another dictatorship, this time anti-proletarian.” (p. 97) They agree with this view. “A Bolshevik defeat would have opened the path to counterrevolution.” (same)

Whether this is true or not, the Bolshevik victory opened the path to (internal) counterrevolution. The one-party Communist dictatorship (assuming it ever was a “proletarian dictatorship”) led to the “anti-proletarian” dictatorship of Stalin and the Stalinist bureaucracy. Along with the super-exploitation of the workers and peasants, it engaged in “the massacre of the Communists” in the purge trials of the ‘thirties—not to mention the massacre of millions of workers and peasants. Somewhat contradicting themselves, Lowy and Besancenot agree. For “the apparatchiks in the Kremlin…the crushing of the marines at Kronstadt was a service…to their ascension to power, a power that from then on could not be contested.” (p. 100) A somewhat similar view is given of the Ukrainian independent revolutionary army organized by the anarchist Nestor Makhno—allied with, and then betrayed by, the Communists.

Policy Issues

The final part of the book is titled “Policy Issues.” It covers more theoretical, strategic, and programmatic topics. Its first section is on the “Individual and [the] Collective.” The authors declare, “the anarchist movement has held the flag of individual emancipation much higher than the Marxist family.” (p. 122)

They then go on to criticize the anarchists for being too much individualistic. They cite Max Stirner, the early-19th century German philosopher of extreme egoist-individualism. Actually Stirner had no influence in the development of anarchist theory or movement, so citing him is irrelevant. Even so, the authors admit, “he foresaw the threat that the specter of the state could potentially hang over the project of individual rights in Germany.” (p. 123) They note that Guerin referred positively to Stirner. As a gay man, Guerin liked Stirner’s opposition to moralism and puritanism, without accepting his extreme individualism.

Similarly, the writers claim that “the old tenets of anarchism [are] poorly suited to such a level of overarching political organization” as was needed in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. (p. 103) Actually the anarchist-led Makhnovist movement did a good job of organizing in the Ukraine, in the brief time allowed it. This was despite the need to fight off the Austrian, Polish, Ukrainian nationalist, White counterrevolutionary, and Russian Communist armies.

In any case, Michael Bakunin, among the first revolutionary anarchist-socialists, had a view of liberated individuality as social, productive, and interactive. (So did Marx, especially expressed in his earliest writings.) They summarize, “If it is essential to ‘re-individualize’ the communist project, it is just as necessary to ‘collectivize’ anarchist ideas.” (p. 125) They believe “a revolutionary humanist path remains open,” which they think (bizarrely) is exemplified by “Che Guevara”! (same)

Besancenot and Lowy have a section titled “Making Revolution without Taking Power?” In effect they argue that it is wrong for a revolution to establish a new state (to take state power) but necessary to establish the self-organization of the workers and oppressed (to empower the people). Their examples are the 1871 Paris Commune and the early soviets. They call the Commune “a new form of power that was no longer a state, in the conventional sense, but was nonetheless a government, democratically elected….” (p. 131) Without quibbling over terms (Kropotkin sometimes made the same distinction between “state” and “government”), anarchists can mostly agree, I think.

In a section on “Autonomy and Federalism,” the writers say that their vision of “Communism…intends to entrust as many powers as possible to the base and foster local initiatives.” (p. 132) This is the anarchist conception of decentralized federalism. “From the idea of federalism developed by the anarchists, we can retain the focus on power to the base and voluntary solidarity between collectives.” (p. 135)

There is a section on “Democratic Economic Planning and Self-Management.” Their proposal ”does not correspond in the least to what is often described as ‘central economic planning,’ for the economic and social decisions are not made by any kind of ‘center,’ but determined democratically by the populations concerned.” (p. 139) Like Michael Albert’s “participatory economy” or “Parecon,” their “democratic socialist economic planning…[includes] opposition to the capitalist market and to bureaucratic economic planning, confidence in workers’ self-organization, and anti-authoritarianism.” (p. 140) However, they have some valid criticisms of the Parecon program. They also give credit to Anton Pannekoek of the “council communists”/ libertarian Marxists “for opting for the socialization of the means of production under the control of the producers themselves, rather than for their nationalization from above.” (p. 150)

The theme of decentralist federalism is continued in “Direct and Representative Democracy.” In this section, the authors recognize that anarchists and Marxists have had important differences on these topics. But they claim that “some significant convergences can still be found. For example, both are favorable to forms of direct democracy in social struggles: general assemblies, self-organized strikes and pickets, etc.” (p. 142)

This may be true. But it covers-over an important difference. Anarchists can accept election of delegates to higher federal councils, but they insist that the base assemblies must have face-to-face direct democracy. Marx and Engels, even in their most radically democratic writings (for example, on the Paris Commune) advocated an extremely democratic form of representative democracy. They had no conception of basing this in face-to-face direct democracy. This is the anarchist tradition.

There is also a very brief discussion of whether revolutionary socialists should run and/or vote in bourgeois elections. They accept the view of both traditions that socialism cannot be achieved through elections. However, they still believe that it may be useful to run and vote, for various reasons. “Our point of view in this debate is closer to the Marxist tradition” than to the anarchist tradition of anti-electoralism. (p. 143) They do not mention that council communists and other “ultra-left” libertarian Marxists have been opposed to participation in elections. Anarchists would argue that history has demonstrated the failures of an electoralist/parliamentary strategy.

In “Union and Party,” Besancenot and Lowy summarize the lessons of the Russian Revolution and other revolutions and near-revolutions. They argue that the struggle needs radical parties and organizations (including anarchist federations) as well as mass organizations, such as labor unions and also popular councils. Parties are formed on agreements about particular programs. They are necessary to fight for a revolutionary program against reformists, liberals, conservatives, and fascists (for these will certainly have their parties). There is a historical tendency among anarchists of revolutionary federations. This includes Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” Makhno and others’ advocacy of the “Platform,” the Spanish FAI, and the current especifismo of Latin Americans.

The mass organizations provide “the framework of regular and sovereign general assemblies, open to all workers who want to mobilize…[in] the natural organ of the struggle….They can also…elect delegates, also dismissible, to participate in a coordination where the delegates from different assemblies meet to unify their activities….The power to make decisions belongs to the base…. This democratic option for organization prefigures today the way society could function tomorrow.” (p. 151)

A number of important topics are not covered in this book. These include feminism and the dominance of straight males. Also issues of white supremacy and racism, colonialism, imperialism, and national self-determination. Economic developments of world capitalism are not discussed. The writers themselves mention that they have not covered education of children, nor the vital issue of opposing fascism.

But there is consideration of the very important topic of environmentalism. This is in the section, “Ecosocialism and Anarchist Ecology.” The authors base much of their ecosocialism on the anarchist writings of Murray Bookchin, although they note that Bookchin also used concepts from Marx. Bookchin analyzed capitalist commodification, competition, and, above all, its drive to accumulate, as destroying the ecology. Bookchin wrote about the need for a new, noncapitalist, society, decentralized and directly democratic, with a liberatory transformation of technology. “…We can only admire Murray Bookchin’s coherence and clear-sightedness.” (p. 154)

They make some criticisms of Bookchin. They deny his view that there is a “post-scarcity” world. While agreeing with Bookchin on the need for economic, technological, and political decentralization, they insist on federalist coordination and planning on regional, continental, and world levels. Considering their proletarian perspective, it is odd that they do not express disagreement with Bookchin’s rejection of the major role of the working class in a revolution. Also, surprisingly, there is no reference to research about ecological themes in Marx’s works by ecological Marxist theorists. This includes John Bellamy Foster and others. (See Foster 2009.)

Revolutionary Conclusion

Besancenot and Lowy conclude with “Toward a Libertarian Marxism.” They state that “Our point of departure…is Marxism.” (p. 158) That is where they come from. They do not believe that there can be a final definition of “libertarian Marxism.” They do believe that “Marxists have much to learn from…the anarchists.” (p. 158)

Their aim, they declare, is not to create a better Marxism, with tips from anarchism. (Similarly, my goal is not to replace anarchism with a nicer version of Marxism.) Instead, “The future emancipatory battles of our century will also see this convergence, in both action and thought, of the two great revolutionary currents of the past, of the present, and of the future—Marxism and anarchism, the red flag and the black flag.” (p. 159)

The basis of this convergence is that both revolutionary class-struggle anarchism and libertarian (autonomist) Marxism share a goal. This is an international revolution by the working class and its allies among all oppressed—to overthrow the state, capitalism, and all oppressions, and to replace them with the self-organization of the workers and oppressed.

The issue is not an immediate merger of anarchism and Marxism. This is especially true when there is so much variation within each school. As I pointed out in the beginning, Lowy and Besancenot and many others see an authoritarian such as Che Guevara as within their “libertarian” version of Marxism. They may find the Communist suppression of the Kronstadt rebels as justifiable, or perhaps a tragic if understandable error. Such views must limit their dialogue with anarchism. As a revolutionary anarchist, I still find matters of interest in this book. But its limitations are also real.

References

Besancenot, Oliver, & Lowy, Michael (2009). Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Foster, John Bellamy (2009). The Ecological Revolution; Making Peace with the Planet. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Guerin, Daniel (2017). For a Libertarian Communism. (Ed.: David Berry; Trans.: Mitchell Abidor) Oakland CA: PM Press.

Lowy, Michael (2007). The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare. Rowman and Littlefield.

Lowy, Michael, & Besancenot, Oliver (2023; originally in French, 2014). Revolutionary Affinities: Toward a Marxist-Anarchist Solidarity. (Trans.: David Campbell). Oakland CA: PM Press.

Price, Wayne (2016). “The Authoritarian Vision of Che Guevara; Review of Samuel Farber, The Politics of Che Guevara”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29795
search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2017). “What is Libertarian Socialism? An Anarchist-Marxist Dialogue; Review of A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (Eds.). Libertarian Socialism; Politics in Black and Red”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30411?search_text=Wayne

Price, Wayne (2022). “An Anarchist Guide to The Communist Manifesto of Marx & Engels.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32578?search_text=Wayne

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

Michael Lowy and Oliver Besancenot, two Marxists from the Trotskyist tradition, have made an effort to discuss possible convergences and interactions between Marxism and anarchism. (The little book has been well translated from the French by David Campbell, an anarchist who did most of the work while in jail in New York City.)

At first it might seem absurd to seek overlaps between these two schools of socialism. Anarchism stands for freedom and self-management, but in spite of some achievements its movement has failed to successfully create anarchism in any country. Meanwhile whatever Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels originally intended, Marxism became the ideology of repressive, mass-murdering, state-capitalisms (that is, Stalinism). Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, authoritarian Marxist governments persist in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and especially in the great nation of China. Marxism and anarchism would seem to have little in common. Yet we live in the looming catastrophes of industrial capitalism. People are drawn to its radical alternatives. In this context, it is the failures of each which has drawn some anarchists and Marxists to dialogue, to learn the strengths of the alternate trend. (Although, for all their failures, anarchists never murdered tens of millions of workers, peasants, and others.)

Along with anarchism’s vision of freedom, there is a rising interest in Marxism, particularly in its analysis of how capitalism works and what might be done to end it. Some radicals focus on the humanistic, working class, and ecological aspects of Marx’s Marxism, rather than its statist, centralist, and determinist aspects. This looks to libertarian-democratic and “ultra-left” trends in Marxism, such as William Morris, the council communists, Luxemburgists, autonomists, the Johnson-Forrest Tendency, Socialisme ou Barbarie, and unorthodox and dissident Trotskyists. Unlike Stalinism, these trends in Marxism might be partners in a dialogue with revolutionary anarchists. (See Price 2017.)

Che

The authors claim to be libertarian Marxists, in opposition to both Stalinism and to social democracy (reformist “democratic socialism”). They want to see what they can learn from anarchism—and what revolutionary anarchism can learn from their view of Marxism. I am all for a Marxist-anarchist dialogue and have written some material seeking to advance it (e.g., Price 2022).

A lot depends on what one means by “Marxism” (as well as “anarchism”). The authors are admirers of Che Guevara. They have written books about him and his “revolutionary legacy” (Lowy 2007; Besancenot & Lowy 2009). In the text, they claim that the struggle of the Mexican Zapatistas show “traces of the revolutionary ethic that lead directly back to Che.” (p. 76) They do not note that the founders of the Zapatistas had abandoned the elitist guerrilla strategy of Che. They further declare that “Marx’s writings…form the political basis of the revolutionary humanism of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara.” (p. 124)

Actually Che Guevara was an admirer of Joseph Stalin. Che played a major role in turning the Cuban revolution into a one-party, one-man, dictatorship, with a state-capitalist economy, allied with Soviet Russian imperialism. Within the upper circles of the Castroite regime, Che was a strong proponent of increasing centralization and of repression of the workers. He sincerely sought to spread the revolution (as he understood the revolution), but his efforts were failures both in Africa and in Bolivia. While he wrote some high-falutin’ philosophical language about socialism, his actual conception was of a totalitarian society. (See Price 2016.)

It may seem unfair to point to the authors’ admiration of Guevara, which is only briefly referred to twice in the text. Yet it is difficult to integrate anarchism with advocacy of a Stalinist-type dictatorship, however well-meaning you might be. (Of course, many of the Trotskyist groupings have been admirers of Fidel Castro and Che; but these don’t advocate “solidarity” with anarchism.) Besancenot and Lowy may misinterpret Che as a “revolutionary humanist,” but how can they ignore his support of the Cuban dictatorship? And then seek a dialogue with anarchism?

Positive Aspects of the Book

And yet, despite this confusing contradiction, some of this book is worthwhile. Besancenot and Lowy are concerned to show “another side of history…that of the alliances and active solidarity between anarchists and Marxists.” (p. 1)

They have brief sections on events in revolutionary history when anarchists and Marxists worked together. This includes the First International, in which anarchists cooperated with Marx for years—until Marx organized the expulsion of Michael Bakunin and forced a split with the anarchists. They cover the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs of 1886. These were anarchists who came out of a Marxist background and who still used the Marxist analysis of capitalism.

They briefly cover the development of anarcho-syndicalism, which shared a revolutionary working class orientation with Marxism. They discuss the Spanish Revolution of the thirties. That revolution was betrayed by most of the Marxist and anarchist leaders, both of which joined the capitalist government together with liberal parties. Their partner, the Communist Party, tried to set up a totalitarian state. A minority of revolutionary anarchists and Marxists did try to advance the revolution, but were overwhelmed. There are brief sections (they can hardly be called “chapters”) on the May-June ’68 almost-revolution in France, on the international demonstrations against “globalization,” and on the Occupy movement.

The little book also has nine brief biographical sections on significant revolutionaries. This includes the Marxist Rosa Luxemburg. She had little use for anarchism, but her vision of revolutionary socialist democracy-from-below was compatible with anarchism. Similarly, they discuss Buenaventura Durruti. As an anarchist, he played an important role in the Spanish Revolution. He had little use for Marxism but has been respected by Marxists. The same may be said of the famous anarchist Emma Goldman. In Russia, she originally supported the Revolution and was willing to work with the Leninists—until their authoritarianism drove her into opposition.

Their little biographies include “A Few Libertarian Marxist Thinkers.” Of the three they cite, the most interesting may be Daniel Guerin. His books on anarchism are widely read. In France during World War II, he cooperated with the Trotskyist underground. Working with syndicalists, anarchists, and Trotskyists, he was a prominent opponent of French imperialism in Algeria and an early Gay liberationist. Admiring J.P. Proudhon and Bakunin, but also Luxemburg, he sought a “synthesis” of revolutionary anarchism and libertarian Marxism. (See Guerin 2017)

The Russian Revolution

The part covering the 1917 Russian Revolution is titled, “Points of Conflict,” including a section, “The Split Between Red and Black.” This is where the book’s difficulties show most clearly.

“Initially, there was a convergence between many anarchists—not only Russian but also from around the world—and the Marxist revolutionaries. Soon after, the convergence had become a dramatic clash between the two.…” (p. 80)

The “October” (Soviet) Revolution was organized by the Communists in alliance with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries (peasant-populists) and with anarchists. The initial government was a coalition of the Communists and Left SRs, generally supported by anarchists in the soviets. (“Soviet” means “council.” It originally referred to the popularly elected councils which were rooted in factory committees, village assemblies, and military units.)

But by 1920, the Leninists had banned all alternate parties, including those which had fought on their side in the Russian Civil War. These included the Left SRs and the Left Mensheviks. Anarchists were arrested, jailed, and shot. Not long after, even opposition caucuses in the one legal party were outlawed.

Essentially, the writers favor the rule of the soviets, supported by the revolutionary parties including the Communists—but criticize what happened instead: the rule of the Communist Party, with supposed support by the soviets. This went together with economic changes, “prioritizing centralized nationalization over the local collectivization of the means of production….” (p. 87) They mildly comment, “This choice, like so many others, is questionable.” (same) This is quite the understatement.

Despite this (soft) criticism of the Leninists, Besancenot and Lowy insist that the problem does not lie with Marx. “It is pointless, however, to seek a manufacturing defect in Marxism…on the question of whether to abolish the state immediately or not.” (p. 87) Similarly, they oppose “…drawing a connection between the Lenin years and the Stalin years.” (p. 89) Granted that Marx would have been horrified by what Stalin made out of Marxism—and that V.I. Lenin was no Stalin. Lenin did not aim for a totalitarian state, nor want one. This was unlike Mao Tse-tung, say, who already had Stalinist Russia as a model and goal—as did Che and Fidel.

Yet it is a bit much to deny that Marx’s strategy of working through the state was not a cause of Lenin’s building a party-state, one which laid the basis for Stalinist state-capitalism. And, like Marx, Lenin believed that he and his party knew the truth better than anyone else. This justified the one-party party-state. Believing that his party—and only his party—knew the full truth—and since only his party spoke for the proletariat—Lenin felt justified in suppressing all other points of view, including the anarchists.

In 1921, the sailors at the Kronstadt naval base rebelled. The Kronstadt fortress overlooked the capitol at Petrograd. Influenced by anarchists, the rebels demanded an end to the political monopoly of the Communists, recognition of other left political tendencies, and free elections to the soviets, as well as economic reforms. Emma Goldman urged negotiation with the rebels. Instead, the Communists crushed them militarily, and then shot the captured sailors in batches. To anarchists this was a counterrevolutionary crime. It was comparable to the 1956 crushing of the Hungarian revolution.

The two authors regard this opinion as “one-sided.” “In our view, the conflict between Kronstadt and the Bolshevik government was…a tragic and fraternal confrontation between two revolutionary currents. The responsibility for this tragedy is shared, but falls primarily on those who held power.” (p. 95) “The crushing of the sailors of Kronstadt was not a ‘tragic necessity,’ but an error and a wrong.” (p. 97)

In other words, the anarchist-influenced rebel sailors are partially to blame (they dared to demand socialist democracy) even if the “primary” fault lies with the Communist regime (which chose to massacre the sailors). This choice was a bad mistake, not a counterrevolutionary crime (no one is perfect). Still, both sides were “revolutionary currents.”

It has been argued that the Russian Communists dared not permit several political tendencies to compete in free elections. Given the poverty and destruction which followed World War I and the Civil War, the workers and peasants were unhappy with the Communists. They would likely have voted them out, supposedly with disastrous consequences. The authors quote the Trotskyist (and ex-anarchist) Victor Serge: “If the Bolshevik dictatorship fell, it was only a short step to chaos, and through chaos to a peasant uprising, the massacre of the Communists…and, in the end…another dictatorship, this time anti-proletarian.” (p. 97) They agree with this view. “A Bolshevik defeat would have opened the path to counterrevolution.” (same)

Whether this is true or not, the Bolshevik victory opened the path to (internal) counterrevolution. The one-party Communist dictatorship (assuming it ever was a “proletarian dictatorship”) led to the “anti-proletarian” dictatorship of Stalin and the Stalinist bureaucracy. Along with the super-exploitation of the workers and peasants, it engaged in “the massacre of the Communists” in the purge trials of the ‘thirties—not to mention the massacre of millions of workers and peasants. Somewhat contradicting themselves, Lowy and Besancenot agree. For “the apparatchiks in the Kremlin…the crushing of the marines at Kronstadt was a service…to their ascension to power, a power that from then on could not be contested.” (p. 100) A somewhat similar view is given of the Ukrainian independent revolutionary army organized by the anarchist Nestor Makhno—allied with, and then betrayed by, the Communists.

Policy Issues

The final part of the book is titled “Policy Issues.” It covers more theoretical, strategic, and programmatic topics. Its first section is on the “Individual and [the] Collective.” The authors declare, “the anarchist movement has held the flag of individual emancipation much higher than the Marxist family.” (p. 122)

They then go on to criticize the anarchists for being too much individualistic. They cite Max Stirner, the early-19th century German philosopher of extreme egoist-individualism. Actually Stirner had no influence in the development of anarchist theory or movement, so citing him is irrelevant. Even so, the authors admit, “he foresaw the threat that the specter of the state could potentially hang over the project of individual rights in Germany.” (p. 123) They note that Guerin referred positively to Stirner. As a gay man, Guerin liked Stirner’s opposition to moralism and puritanism, without accepting his extreme individualism.

Similarly, the writers claim that “the old tenets of anarchism [are] poorly suited to such a level of overarching political organization” as was needed in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. (p. 103) Actually the anarchist-led Makhnovist movement did a good job of organizing in the Ukraine, in the brief time allowed it. This was despite the need to fight off the Austrian, Polish, Ukrainian nationalist, White counterrevolutionary, and Russian Communist armies.

In any case, Michael Bakunin, among the first revolutionary anarchist-socialists, had a view of liberated individuality as social, productive, and interactive. (So did Marx, especially expressed in his earliest writings.) They summarize, “If it is essential to ‘re-individualize’ the communist project, it is just as necessary to ‘collectivize’ anarchist ideas.” (p. 125) They believe “a revolutionary humanist path remains open,” which they think (bizarrely) is exemplified by “Che Guevara”! (same)

Besancenot and Lowy have a section titled “Making Revolution without Taking Power?” In effect they argue that it is wrong for a revolution to establish a new state (to take state power) but necessary to establish the self-organization of the workers and oppressed (to empower the people). Their examples are the 1871 Paris Commune and the early soviets. They call the Commune “a new form of power that was no longer a state, in the conventional sense, but was nonetheless a government, democratically elected….” (p. 131) Without quibbling over terms (Kropotkin sometimes made the same distinction between “state” and “government”), anarchists can mostly agree, I think.

In a section on “Autonomy and Federalism,” the writers say that their vision of “Communism…intends to entrust as many powers as possible to the base and foster local initiatives.” (p. 132) This is the anarchist conception of decentralized federalism. “From the idea of federalism developed by the anarchists, we can retain the focus on power to the base and voluntary solidarity between collectives.” (p. 135)

There is a section on “Democratic Economic Planning and Self-Management.” Their proposal ”does not correspond in the least to what is often described as ‘central economic planning,’ for the economic and social decisions are not made by any kind of ‘center,’ but determined democratically by the populations concerned.” (p. 139) Like Michael Albert’s “participatory economy” or “Parecon,” their “democratic socialist economic planning…[includes] opposition to the capitalist market and to bureaucratic economic planning, confidence in workers’ self-organization, and anti-authoritarianism.” (p. 140) However, they have some valid criticisms of the Parecon program. They also give credit to Anton Pannekoek of the “council communists”/ libertarian Marxists “for opting for the socialization of the means of production under the control of the producers themselves, rather than for their nationalization from above.” (p. 150)

The theme of decentralist federalism is continued in “Direct and Representative Democracy.” In this section, the authors recognize that anarchists and Marxists have had important differences on these topics. But they claim that “some significant convergences can still be found. For example, both are favorable to forms of direct democracy in social struggles: general assemblies, self-organized strikes and pickets, etc.” (p. 142)

This may be true. But it covers-over an important difference. Anarchists can accept election of delegates to higher federal councils, but they insist that the base assemblies must have face-to-face direct democracy. Marx and Engels, even in their most radically democratic writings (for example, on the Paris Commune) advocated an extremely democratic form of representative democracy. They had no conception of basing this in face-to-face direct democracy. This is the anarchist tradition.

There is also a very brief discussion of whether revolutionary socialists should run and/or vote in bourgeois elections. They accept the view of both traditions that socialism cannot be achieved through elections. However, they still believe that it may be useful to run and vote, for various reasons. “Our point of view in this debate is closer to the Marxist tradition” than to the anarchist tradition of anti-electoralism. (p. 143) They do not mention that council communists and other “ultra-left” libertarian Marxists have been opposed to participation in elections. Anarchists would argue that history has demonstrated the failures of an electoralist/parliamentary strategy.

In “Union and Party,” Besancenot and Lowy summarize the lessons of the Russian Revolution and other revolutions and near-revolutions. They argue that the struggle needs radical parties and organizations (including anarchist federations) as well as mass organizations, such as labor unions and also popular councils. Parties are formed on agreements about particular programs. They are necessary to fight for a revolutionary program against reformists, liberals, conservatives, and fascists (for these will certainly have their parties). There is a historical tendency among anarchists of revolutionary federations. This includes Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” Makhno and others’ advocacy of the “Platform,” the Spanish FAI, and the current especifismo of Latin Americans.

The mass organizations provide “the framework of regular and sovereign general assemblies, open to all workers who want to mobilize…[in] the natural organ of the struggle….They can also…elect delegates, also dismissible, to participate in a coordination where the delegates from different assemblies meet to unify their activities….The power to make decisions belongs to the base…. This democratic option for organization prefigures today the way society could function tomorrow.” (p. 151)

A number of important topics are not covered in this book. These include feminism and the dominance of straight males. Also issues of white supremacy and racism, colonialism, imperialism, and national self-determination. Economic developments of world capitalism are not discussed. The writers themselves mention that they have not covered education of children, nor the vital issue of opposing fascism.

But there is consideration of the very important topic of environmentalism. This is in the section, “Ecosocialism and Anarchist Ecology.” The authors base much of their ecosocialism on the anarchist writings of Murray Bookchin, although they note that Bookchin also used concepts from Marx. Bookchin analyzed capitalist commodification, competition, and, above all, its drive to accumulate, as destroying the ecology. Bookchin wrote about the need for a new, noncapitalist, society, decentralized and directly democratic, with a liberatory transformation of technology. “…We can only admire Murray Bookchin’s coherence and clear-sightedness.” (p. 154)

They make some criticisms of Bookchin. They deny his view that there is a “post-scarcity” world. While agreeing with Bookchin on the need for economic, technological, and political decentralization, they insist on federalist coordination and planning on regional, continental, and world levels. Considering their proletarian perspective, it is odd that they do not express disagreement with Bookchin’s rejection of the major role of the working class in a revolution. Also, surprisingly, there is no reference to research about ecological themes in Marx’s works by ecological Marxist theorists. This includes John Bellamy Foster and others. (See Foster 2009.)

Revolutionary Conclusion

Besancenot and Lowy conclude with “Toward a Libertarian Marxism.” They state that “Our point of departure…is Marxism.” (p. 158) That is where they come from. They do not believe that there can be a final definition of “libertarian Marxism.” They do believe that “Marxists have much to learn from…the anarchists.” (p. 158)

Their aim, they declare, is not to create a better Marxism, with tips from anarchism. (Similarly, my goal is not to replace anarchism with a nicer version of Marxism.) Instead, “The future emancipatory battles of our century will also see this convergence, in both action and thought, of the two great revolutionary currents of the past, of the present, and of the future—Marxism and anarchism, the red flag and the black flag.” (p. 159)

The basis of this convergence is that both revolutionary class-struggle anarchism and libertarian (autonomist) Marxism share a goal. This is an international revolution by the working class and its allies among all oppressed—to overthrow the state, capitalism, and all oppressions, and to replace them with the self-organization of the workers and oppressed.

The issue is not an immediate merger of anarchism and Marxism. This is especially true when there is so much variation within each school. As I pointed out in the beginning, Lowy and Besancenot and many others see an authoritarian such as Che Guevara as within their “libertarian” version of Marxism. They may find the Communist suppression of the Kronstadt rebels as justifiable, or perhaps a tragic if understandable error. Such views must limit their dialogue with anarchism. As a revolutionary anarchist, I still find matters of interest in this book. But its limitations are also real.

References

Besancenot, Oliver, & Lowy, Michael (2009). Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Foster, John Bellamy (2009). The Ecological Revolution; Making Peace with the Planet. NY: Monthly Review Press.

Guerin, Daniel (2017). For a Libertarian Communism. (Ed.: David Berry; Trans.: Mitchell Abidor) Oakland CA: PM Press.

Lowy, Michael (2007). The Marxism of Che Guevara: Philosophy, Economics, Revolutionary Warfare. Rowman and Littlefield.

Lowy, Michael, & Besancenot, Oliver (2023; originally in French, 2014). Revolutionary Affinities: Toward a Marxist-Anarchist Solidarity. (Trans.: David Campbell). Oakland CA: PM Press.

Price, Wayne (2016). “The Authoritarian Vision of Che Guevara; Review of Samuel Farber, The Politics of Che Guevara”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/29795
search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2017). “What is Libertarian Socialism? An Anarchist-Marxist Dialogue; Review of A. Prichard, R. Kinna, S. Pinta, & D. Berry (Eds.). Libertarian Socialism; Politics in Black and Red”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30411?search_text=Wayne

Price, Wayne (2022). “An Anarchist Guide to The Communist Manifesto of Marx & Engels.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32578?search_text=Wayne

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

1 – We have seen statements about the work of TA outside of the battlefield, from medical support to education. This second one is of great interest to us, could you please clarify a bit on how you proceed with educational campaigns, not only amongst yourselves but also with local communities? Are there any lessons you wish to share about the role (and process) of revolutionary education? How do you see pedagogy as not only a tool, but also a space within the struggles you must face?

Education is what builds the foundations of a new society. It is often our best tool to defend ourselves and our communities. The kurdish liberation movement values education a lot, and this also brought us to reflect on our approach. In rojava it is a common practice to join educations of several months, where militants from different places have no other work than learn and develop. This is not a new practice from rojava, the kurdish movement has been working on their educational methods for decades. Joining some of those educations, we also noticed how much our understanding of education is connected to school, university and other state systems. And how much we should develop our own educational programs, shaped by our own political views and values. In this, the pedagogy of the oppressed of Paulo Freire can give very important perspectives.

Revolutionary education can be everything we do, if we learn from it in an organized way. Closed educations allow us to work deeper on one topic, like learning about the philosophy and political views of Abdullah Ocalan, study the proposals of Makhno or Malatesta about organized anarchism and the different attempts to put it in practice, or learn about first aid and medical care during war situations. But this also has to come with practice, which is often the best education, like when we work in society with our kurdish, arab and other comrades, when we build our organization day to day, or when we work as combat medics in the front lines. Theory brings knowledge and helps to build understanding and confidence, but is practical work what builds our experience.

Some knowledge we carry with us, is scarce here, and is important to collectivize it. We have been running educations of first aid and tactical field care to kurdish, arab and armenian comrades. We also shared our knowledge and experiences among ourselves, sometimes in short seminar formats sometimes in longer closed educations. This helped us to build our capacities and a common frame as organization, practically as well as ideologically. With time, our methods and systems of education are getting more adapted to our needs, reflecting not only of what we want to teach and learn but also how we want to do it. For some comrades it is helpful to read or listen a seminar for several ours, for others is better to do things and learn on practice. We try to keep this in mind but also challenge ourselves, like by encouraging comrades that are more familiar with academic areas to work on the ground, and push for ideological development and theoretical works with those more oriented to field work.

2- In previous statements you have discussed the need for revolutionaries to disengage from individualistic, selfish mindsets, as well as issues of ego when dealing with comrades and organization. How have you within TA managed to deal with such mindsets? We recognize this view, where anarchism and revolutionary struggle continuously straddle a difficult line between lifestyle and commodity, not allowing us to build meaningful relations on the march to liberation. Are there any lessons or warnings from your own activities that can be parted?

That is a very difficult question, because it is one of the main challenges we face. Anarchism has always discussed the contradictions between individual militants and the need revolutionary organizations. We are working to balance those points, because we see very important arguments to be made on both sides. As many anarchists before us, we reached the conclusion that organization is a necessity, not as an aim in itself but as a means to an end. We don’t accept unnecessary hierarchies and we value the individuality of our militants, often referring to the idea that “there is no organization without militants, there is no militant without organization”. With this we also want to point out the importance of individual responsibility towards the organization, as well as collective responsibility of the organization towards the individuals.

Becoming a militant of a revolutionary organization comes with individual and collective contradictions. The main aspects of our personalities have been shaped by the societies we have grown up in. Life in capitalist modernity relies on individualization. In school, in the work place, in the media we consume, we are told that individual freedom is everything that matters. “Your freedom ends where the freedom of other starts” is often the main idea running our societies. It denies collective belonging and it promotes individualist mindset and values. Is therefore no surprise that individualist anarchism manage to thrive in those capitalist societies we come from, because it connects with those individualist values that liberalism promotes. We want to challenge that. We believe our only way out is solidarity and mutual aid, and for this we have to challenge the deeply rooted individualism that we all carry with us.

Individualism can take many forms. Some are more obvious, like selfishness, elitism, or narcissism; but more subtle forms can take more time to notice, like refusing help when needed, not sharing information or knowledge with comrades, not listening or considering others proposals and ideas. We all have traces of individualism, and they are often connected with our ego and the image we have and we project of ourselves. Overcoming this requires that we are able to evaluate ourselves and others as well as our ways of relating. Criticism and self-criticism go hand in hand, we need to be able to acknowledge our shortcomings to meaningfully engage with the shortcomings of others. Admitting to ourselves that there is a difference between how we perceive ourselves/how we want to be perceived and how other perceive us can be painful. However acknowledging that gap opens the door for us to develop. Everyone has this gap, for some it is wider, for some it is more narrow, and to challenge it can create space to grow and learn. Keeping this in mind, we can build better relations that are founded in honesty and trust.

Trust is scarce in our societies. It is much easier to learn to suspect, to be afraid of your neighbor, to step on your co-workers to get upper hand and get a better piece of the cake. Capitalism relies on competition, and lying and selling yourself, on the society of spectacle. There is no place for honesty and trust in a system that is based on performance, on appearance of what you are not, on faking it and believing that one day you will make it. To be honest and transparent with our comrades necessitates vulnerability. We had been told to hide those things, to not let others see our weak points, to present ourself as the all-capable person that can do anything that is needed. All those individualist traits play against us, specially in difficult moments when stress and hardships reveal the things we try to hide.

We have been working on these issues by putting into practice tools like tekmil and platform, which we learned from the kurdish movement. We also explored other methods, and lately we have been deepening our knowledge on conflict resolution, with restorative circles and transformative justice. Transformative justice provides a good approach, connected to our ideological values and oriented towards topics like responsibility and accountability, that should always be the base of our organizing. We learned that organization is a struggle in itself, and that contradictions, conflicts and challenges will always arise in our organizing. In absence of hierarchical structures, how we take decisions and how we solve conflicts is a very important part of our organizing.

3- Maybe related to above, how is inter-personal conflict resolved at large in NES? We have seen several abstract perspectives, but little of actual accounts on the processes of justice and equity, how are such issues dealth with? Do the several autonomous groups have the freedom to deal with them “in-house”? Are all conflict resolutions centralized?

There are currently two justice systems at play in NES. One similar to state justice and one more based on communitarian justice. The communitarian system consists of peasant consensus committees and local councils that are often composed of religious leaders and community elders. These encourage people to take responsibility and agency over their own problems. However this system is not working so well, unfortunately. Because of this many conflicts are still settled through the state-like legal justice system that is half inherited from the Al-Assad regime and half reorganized by the Autonomous Administration. It is an awkward mix that works with the tools at hand in a difficult situation. The union of lawyers played an important role, as well as the effort to write the “social contract” of AANES, some kind of constitution that is revisited every few years in discussions with different political and social organizations.

The reasons that lead the Autonomous Administration to put more efforts to reorganize the general legal system instead of promoting the communitarian justice councils is not so clear to us. We suggest you talk to justice committee of the AANES directly, they will be better able to answer that. Besides these, there are also the women’s autonomous structures such as the women’s houses (mala jin) and women’s law. These have played and are playing an important role in addressing problems around gender as well as finding solutions around family conflict concerning women (marriage, divorce, abuse, etc.).

Councils, committees, communes, and autonomous organizations have some degree of freedom to deal with conflict “in-house”. How exactly it is approached and if people involve the state-like legal system depends on the nature and size of the conflict as well as the people and groups involved. With crimes that have big social impact, like brutal murders or organized treason (giving intelligence to Turkey that is used to assassinate revolutionaries, helping ISIS to plan and carry out attacks), there have been popular trials. Those trials gather different representatives of the social community, especially those more affected by the crime judged, and function as popular jury to decide the penalty.

For our organization and for organizations in europe we think it is important we come to understand the value of transformative justice, and that we build capacity to start offering alternatives to the legal ‘justice’ system, which is a racist ableist punitive lie and deeply connected to nation-state power. The topic on transformative justice has been on the table in leftist circles in europe for a while. We see it is slowly moving into a more practical phase now. Let us start with small practical adjustments, once we start gaining some experiences from the daily life, we can and should supplement them with some reading/study/theory. Conflict resolution cannot be learned from books, its fundaments can only be learned in practice, books will be very helpful to improve us but only if we are already putting it in practice. We will have to make many mistakes, and that is fine. We have a lot to unlearn from the state imposed systems of ‘justice’. We are making an imperfect start by using tools like tekmil, restorative circles and autonomous women’s structures to build on this.

4- What is the current status of art and self-expression within rojava? Has there been the chance and space for people to be able to perform, create, or show artistic creation? How is such received? How has the changing facets of the conflict affected it?

Tevgera Çand û Hûner (Tev-çand, the organization of art and culture) is a coordination of all the art and culture centers, present in every city. Most of those centers have different groups, like dance, music, theater, cinema, paint, literature, sculpture, etc. They mainly promote art connected to kurdish culture, language and identity. Every ethnic group is encouraged to promote its own traditional art and culture while also making space for other forms of art outside folkloric tradition. Tev-çand has a political approach to art, seeing it as a vehicle to share and spread the values of the revolution. A couple of successful examples are Hunergeha Welat - with their youtube channel publishing new songs and videoclips made in rojava - or the Komina Film a Rojava - the cinema commune that produced several movies, shorts, clips. Komina Film a Rojava recently published a series about rojava called “Evina Kurd” (kurdish love).

The local groups often perform in local celebrations, festive days and other cultural events. In the last years some of those groups and artists are gaining experience and getting more professional, and we start to see their art in different theaters, expositions and events. Art is seen as popular and cultural wealth, and there is no process of commodification around it. Theater, cinema and music are performed and shared for free, and we have never seen any cultural event with entrance fee. This is part of the political approach on ethics and aesthetics that is promoted. To keep it short, we can simply point the efforts to connect aesthetics to political and ethical revolutionary values. This approach challenges the standards of beauty that capitalist modernity tries to impose, seeing art as a vehicle of expression of the people, of the society and its values. A lot of art is connected to the resistance against ISIS and turkish fascism, with special focus on women’s resistances and YPJ, but also about the historical roots and struggles of the kurdish people.

In that approach to art we can see a shift that the revolution brought, that maybe started even before rojava. Kurdish cinema from the 20th century is often tragic, about the massacres and the exile that kurdish people suffered. Dengbêj, a traditional music/poetry, is also infused with stories of destroyed villages, murdered families and orphaned children. It is in this new century that kurdish art has started to reflect a new image. One not so focused on kurds just as victims of inhumane tragedies, but also as actors of change. The songs of YPG and YPJ defeating ISIS or the guerrillas fighting in the mountains, the new movies of the resistance in Sur or in Kobane, the big celebrations of NewRoz (kurdish new year) are examples of a rebirth of the kurdish people and their will to resist. They are not just a people whose faith is suffering, they are a stateless nation whose land has been occupied and whose villages burned down. They learned from other anticolonial struggles and from revolutionary movements of national liberation and they will take their destiny in their hands. They will defend their land and their culture, building a future for next generations, with weapons but also with music, with dance, with cinema.

5- What is TA’s view on the role of religion, and how has it affected their capacity to connect and relate to local communities? Have there been challenges, or chanegs in attitude of the militants? In the west we struggle to separate anti-clericalism from base islamophobia nad eurocentrism, what lessons have you gained from your insertion in Kurdish and Arab societies?

Religion is not the problem for us when it is connected to the people and ethics, it is a problem when religion is connected to power and rule. It is this wielding of authority that we are against, as you also touching with anti-clericalism. Some anarchists came here with atheist backgrounds, and when asked about our religion is easy for us to answer we have no religion. But this answer is often understood as if we have no ethics, and also made us reflect how most of us, even if not practitioners, had been raised in a christian culture.

We agree with you that we in the west can do a bad job at separating anti-clericalism from islamophobia and eurocentrism. The society we are in is overwhelmingly muslim (with small minorities of other belief), nearly everyone has belief in the Quran, even if not everyone describes themselves as practicing muslims. This reality grounds our work with people here. We should understand the importance religion holds to the people and local comrades. Knowing a little, or a lot, about islam is very helpful when we discuss with local comrades. Arguing from religion for a revolutionary perspective is a tactic that has proven successful. It is necessary to respect peoples religious conviction, but at the same time we also critique or question comrades when this leads them to take actions that are not in line with the revolutionary values in NES. There are efforts to build a democratic islam, looking at the ethical side of islamic religion and not so much at the Sharia law. This is a necessary process to come to terms with the aftermath of islamist fundamentalism carried out as theocratic fascism by ISIS. Though from the outside it might seem like ISIS is no more, the fight against its ideology very much continues here. In some regions of NES, ISIS ideology is still widespread and it will take time and effort for everyone to move towards a democratic islam.

6- Anarchist and so-called revolutionary movements in Europe have struggled for decades find something which can overcame our own weaknesses and smallness, looking at methods old and new. What is your perspective on this? Do you also agree or feel the movements are limiting themselves, and if so why? Lack of use of insurrectionary violence, lack of structures directing the struggle, lack of resources, lack of conviction?

This is a very important point and question you bring up here. We agree that movements are limiting themselves. We see the issue at the core as a lack of organizations that can create and promote long term aims perspectives, as currently we mostly see affinity based groups with short term thinking.

The wave of insurrectionism in the 90’s, especially in italy, brought a short term struggle perspective that seemed to promote effectivity. In some ways, it worked, however it did so at the cost of undermining organizational capacity. Organization capacity is crucial. By becoming an organization, we as TA, now have the ability to accumulate experience, we do not constantly have to start anew. We can also build lasting projects and relations, we can deepen our understanding and learning of other organizations that have struggled and are struggling. Not only on an individual level, but on an organizational one. Meaning that such knowledge and experiences cease to become merely tied to one person or one cell or affinity group, but that the whole organization takes ownership of it. This greatly grows our capacity as an organization.

To develop as a revolutionary organization is not easy, we already talked about this. We have to break with the liberal individualist mindset that is so deeply ingrained with capitalist socialization. Our societies are organized around those capitalist values, and to change it we have to develop our own values and social institutions, to anticipate the society we want. The things you mention lacking in anarchist movements (structures to direct the struggle, resources, conviction, action) can often be connected to the lack of organization. If we find ourselves isolated, as individuals or in small groups, our capacity to influence and change the society around us diminish. As we can learn many things in rojava, there are also many lessons we can take from the anarchist organizations in latin america. The ideas of “especifismo” (english: specifism), a theoretical frame oriented to develop specific anarchist organizations, are the result of decades of struggle. We can track them back to platformist proposal of Peter Arshinov and Nestor Maknho, but developed in practice by the Federacion Anarquista de Uruguay (FAU). As portugese anarchists, you have easy access to the materials and texts developed by brazilian anarchist organizations.

7- There was critique recently of the focus and resources given by western leftists towards nascent anarchist movements in Ukraine, who, without true autonomous structures and being inserted in statist armies, have received generous support and funds, while non-white movements have struggled for a fraction of this support. Do you agree with this critique?

We assume you are referring to the article “Anarchist who Fought in rojava: Response to ‘No War But Class War’ Debate”, that can be found on Abolition Media. We agree with the article that the amount of resources sent to Ukraine from western leftist is very disproportional with the amount of material support comrades in NES have gotten, especially given that the revolution here is so explicitly rooted in libertarian revolutionary ideology and praxis, where this is more debatable for Ukraine as the article pointed out. “Solidarity is something you can hold in your hands”, a slogan popularized by the anti-imperialist group KAK, active in Denmark in the 70s, is a statement we can very much find ourselves in. While NES has gotten an alright amount of solidarity pictures, awareness campaigns, diplomatics campaigns, etc. on the side of material, financial or other support that we can “hold in our hands” the western left has absolutely not given it serious effort.

That being said, the war in Ukraine has been going on for a bit over a year now, the war in rojava for over 10 years. Of course these timescales also have an effect. Ukraine is on the news and we aren’t, we won’t be either, until a new invasion, and even then we will only receive a fraction of the media attention that Ukraine is getting. When we look broader than Ukraine and rojava, we ask: who has been looking at the genocidal warfare in Tigray or the recent war unfolding in Sudan? Who has been organizing material support for those conflicts? The Tigray peoples self-defense forces have a long revolutionary tradition, with a project similar to the ideas of democratic confederalism. In Sudan we have recently see a military escalation after big mobilizations and uprisings shook the country, that had a remarkable anarchist organized movement not common to find in most of African countries. But few articles are written about it, and even less anarchist book-fairs discussions about those conflicts. It is not fair either that those movements received little to no media coverage, let alone material support. This is part of the colonialism that we are trying to fight against. For us this is also a reason to stay with rojava, where values of anticolonialism are very much alive.

Coming back to Ukraine, Anarchists have been struggling since the beginning of the recent conflict, they were there at Maidan square and tried to organize form there. Probably this is not the place to discuss how much this movement is rooted in the historical anarchist movement in Ukraine, with the Black Liberation Peasants Army and the Makhnovist revolution, but nowadays the presence of anarchists is crucial to question the nationalist narrative of the far-right, that has been a dominating presence in the protest in Ukraine from the start. We have a responsibility as anarchists to take our place in such times, we cannot leave all the space to the far-right, because if we do they will take it. Now the current situation in Ukraine is not a revolution aligned with our principles, but it is our task to push our principles to the forefront and make them known. We can quote Malatesta when saying that “We are in any case one of the forces acting in the society, and history will advance, as always, in the directions resultant of all the forces”.

Historically war and revolution have an important connection. War environments see state authority stumble and authority diffuse in some places. The state isn’t always there anymore to provide people with infrastructure and resources. This means there are often windows of opportunity to assist in the self organization and management of the people, initially primarily along lines of mutual aid and solidarity. This is a situation in which bringing our ideology and applying it in practice with the people can be a useful way of strengthening our tendency, as Malatesta says.

We support our anarchist comrades fighting in Ukraine, we have an approach of critical solidarity to the people of Ukraine and aim to engage the contradictions that it brings up and not devolve into a binary and dogmatic approach. We would also like to draw your attention to comrade Leshiy and comrade Ciya, they have both spend time in NES and fell on the Ukrainian front lines together with other anarchist comrades in Ukrainan front lines. We grieve this loss, and aim to learn from their lives and decisions, they also show us a way of nuanced analysis and consideration that has space for the contradictions that inevitably come up when we get our hands dirty in revolution. We agreed with the comrade who wrote the article that it is very easy to be purist and judgmental about decisions made in Ukraine and rojava from a comfortable armchair. Participating in an actual revolution or armed conflict will quickly make it clear that there are often no “clean” or clear-cut solutions and being a revolutionary in action, not just in words, means gaining a deep understanding of nuanced analysis and contradictions.

8 - How can we assist you in TA; materially or otherwise?

The main points in which we can see your assistance to be help us are; a) ideological development b) engaged network c) resist repression d) militants e) resources

a) Ideological development of anarchist struggle is the basis for us to move forward. We see that we have come to a point where we realize as european anarchists that affinity based organizing alone is not sufficient. We need anarchist organization or structures that keep us together not just based on personal affinity, but in an organized way, to be able to think long term and develop a wider strategy. By further developing anarchist ideology and praxis in our current context, we strengthen each other.

b) Engaged networks are a foundation to exchange discussion, projects, resources and experiences. We see this in the form of building long term relations with solid organizations, and such exchange can take place through visits and exchange of militants as well as other forms of communication. Related to the point about ideological development, this includes reading and discussing each other statements and letters, learning from each other experience and giving feedback, proposals and critique on them.

c) Networks also leads into resisting repression. In the past years, militants who have been to rojava and the kurdish movement in general have been increasingly criminalized. Quite a few comrades are spending time in prison or are in other kinds of legal problems. We need anarchists everywhere to push back against this criminalization.

d) We need more militants to join us in rojava to fight and struggle here. There is also opportunity for comrades are already organized in europe to join us here while remaining connected to their european organization. We would like this actually. We see this as a potential way to strengthen ties between our organization and anarchist organizations in europe.

e) On the directly material side, we need money. Since exactly what materials we need changes from time to time, sending materials directly can be a little tricky, though we can talk about this if there is a desire to do something like that. With money directly we can allocate it to the most pressing needs and make adjustments when necessary in this every changing situation we are in.

المنفى ليس قرارًا سهلاً أبدًا. إنه ليس خيارًا أبدًا. وبدون الموارد، يمكن أن يصبح الأمر محنة حقيقية. التضامن هو المفتاح للتغلب على هذه الأوقات الصعبة

تواصلنا مع مجموعة من الاناركيين السودانيين في فبراير 2022، في خضم الاضطرابات الثورية التي تهز البلاد منذ 2018. وعلى الرغم من حواجز اللغة، تعلمنا منهم كيفية فهم هذه الثورة ولجان المقاومة بشكل أفضل. قلب. هذه المجموعة، المكونة بشكل رئيسي من الطلاب الشباب، تمت محاكاتها من قبل مجموعة فوضوية في شمال البلاد

مثل العديد من البلدان خلال "الربيع العربي" عام 2011، انزلق السودان إلى حرب أهلية في أبريل من هذا العام. وشن الفريق أول حميدتي، قائد مليشيا "قوات الدعم السريع"، تمردا ضد الجيش الوطني السوداني. لقد رفضت القوى التقدمية والثورية في البلاد بالإجماع دعم طرف ضد الآخر، وهكذا تجد نفسها عالقة في رذيلة بين هذين الفصيلين الرجعيين العسكريين. لقد قُتل ما يقرب من 5000 شخص في هذا الصراع الذي لا طائل من ورائه. واضطر مليونان ونصف المليون شخص إلى مغادرة منازلهم، وفر 500 ألف منهم من البلاد. وتتزايد أعمال النهب والاغتصاب، وتشكل جزءاً من ترسانة أسلحة الحرب المستخدمة ضد المدنيين

لا يزال رفاقنا الاناركيين في السودان يأملون أن يتمكنوا من مواصلة أنشطتهم بي ادوات التعبير السلمية المجربة والغير مجربة هناك سراً. لقد قدمنا ​​مساعدات مالية قبل الحرب وحتى في بدايتها. لكن الوضع أصبح غير محتمل ولم يعد يسمح بأي نشاط اجتماعي أو سياسي. وقرر بعض أعضاء المجموعة مغادرة البلاد في أسرع وقت ممكن بعد أن تعرضت منازلهم للنهب والتدمير والإرهاب المستمر من قبل قوات الدعم السريع. وقد قرر آخرون البقاء في الوقت الحالي، ونحن نحاول مساعدتهم أيضًا

وبالتعاون مع رفاقنا المقيمين في هذا الجزء من العالم، نعمل على توفير أفضل الظروف الممكنة للبقاء على قيد الحياة في هذا السياق للجميع. بالنسبة لأولئك الذين ينوون البقاء، نحتاج إلى مساعدتهم على تلبية احتياجاتهم وتوفير المال جانبًا إذا كانوا بحاجة إليه من أجل المغادرة الطارئة. بالنسبة لأولئك الذين يذهبون إلى المنفى الآن، نحتاج إلى إخراجهم من البلاد، وتجنب المخاطر التي ينطوي عليها هذا النوع من الرحلات ذات الاتجاه الواحد قدر الإمكان، وتمكينهم من مواصلة نشاطهم مع الشعب السوداني في المنفى والطبقات المستغلة. في البلد المضيف لهم. ومع ذلك، فإن المنطقة غير مستقرة إلى حد كبير (الحروب الأهلية والانقلابات والأنظمة الاستبدادية الأخرى) وليس من الممكن حاليًا مغادرة البلاد

وللقيام بذلك، نحتاج إلى المال، وصناديق التضامن التي تقدمها منظماتنا وحدها لا تكفي. فيما يلي النفقات المقدرة (بالدولار الأمريكي)

- التأشيرات: 400 دولار
- السفر: 800 دولار (هذا الرقم غير مؤكد، لأن التكاليف غير مستقرة إلى حد كبير)
- الإيجار الأول في البلد المضيف: 200 دولار
- الغذاء لمدة شهر في البلد المضيف: 300 دولار
- تكاليف (الإقامة، الطعام، الإنترنت) لوقت الانتظار في السودان : 1000 دولار
الحد الأدنى: 2700 دولار

ولا تزال هذه الميزانية المؤقتة غير مستقرة في سياق اقتصادي وأمني سريع التغير. يغطي فقط النفقات لمدة شهر واحد على الأقل. لكن الوضع هو أن رفاقنا لن يتمكنوا من تلبية احتياجاتهم خلال شهر واحد فقط. من المحتمل أن نحتاج إلى المزيد من المال في النهاية. سيتم استخدام أي مبالغ يتم التبرع بها، حتى لو تجاوزت هذا المبلغ الأدنى، لتوفير الاحتياجات اليومية للرفاق حتى يتمكنوا من إعالة أنفسهم

يتم جمع التبرعات من قبل رفاقنا في سويسرا الذين لديهم بالفعل هيكل تضامن دولي

لا تنس أن تذكر "Solidarity Sudan" عند التبرع

: أرسلوا تبرعاتكم إلى

Association pour la Promotion de la Solidarité Internationale (APSI)
Place Chauderon 5
1003 Lausanne
Switzerland سويسرا

CH84 0900 0000 1469 7613 8 : (IBAN) رقم الحساب الدولي
POFICHBEXXX :(SWIFT/BIC) سويفت/بيك
PostFinance SA; Mingerstrasse 20; 3030 Bern; Switzerland :اسم البنك

Paypal

: (سويسرا) TWINT

الموقعون

☆Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – البرازيل
☆Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – سويسرا
☆Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – أوروغواي
☆Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya – كاتالونيا، الدولة الإسبانية
☆Federación Anarquista Santiago (FAS) – شيلي
☆Karala – تركيا
☆Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) – الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية
☆Libertäre Aktion (LA) – سويسرا
☆Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – فرنسا سويسرا و بلجيكا
☆Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – كولومبيا
☆Die Plattform – ألمانيا
☆Roja y Negra Organización Politíca Anarquista – الأرجنتين
☆Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) – بريطانيا العظمى
☆Tekoşîna Anarşîst (TA) – غرب كوردستان/شمال وشرق سوريا / روج آفا
☆Anarchist Yondae – كوريا الجنوبية
☆Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (AL/FdCA) – إيطاليا
☆Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – زيلاندا الجديدة / أوتياروا

Our anarchist comrades are still in sudan and were hoping to be able to continue their agitation activities there clandestinely. We provided financial aid before the war and even at the beginning. But the situation has become untenable and no longer allows for any social or political activity. Some members of the group decided to leave the country as quickly as possible after their house was ransacked by the rsf. Others have decided to stay for the time being, and we are trying to help them too.

[عربي] [Castellano] [Deutsch] [Eλληνικά] [Français] [Italiano] [한국어] [Português] [Türkçe]

---

International anarchist solidarity call

Support Sudanese anarchists in exile

Exile is never an easy decision. It's never a choice. Without resources, it can become a real ordeal. Solidarity is the key to overcoming these difficult times.

We entered into contact with a group of Sudanese anarchists in February 2022, in the midst of the revolutionary unrest that had been shaking the country since 2018. Despite language barriers, we learned from them how to better understand this revolution and the resistance committees at its heart. This group, made up mainly of young students, has even been emulated by an anarchist group in the north of the country.

Like several countries during the "Arab Spring" of 2011, Sudan plunged into civil war in April this year. General Hemetti, commander of the "Rapid Support Forces" militia, launched a rebellion against the Sudanese national army. The country's progressive and revolutionary forces have unanimously refused to support one side against the other, and so find themselves caught in the vice between these two militarized reactionary factions. Nearly 5,000 people have died in this pointless conflict. Two and a half million people have been forced to leave their homes, 500,000 of whom have fled the country. Looting and rape are on the increase and form part of the arsenal of weapons of war used against civilians.

Our anarchist comrades are still in Sudan and were hoping to be able to continue their agitation activities there clandestinely. We provided financial aid before the war and even at the beginning. But the situation has become untenable and no longer allows for any social or political activity. Some members of the group decided to leave the country as quickly as possible after their house was ransacked by the RSF. Others have decided to stay for the time being, and we are trying to help them too.

In conjunction with comrades based in this part of the world, we are working to provide everyone with the best possible conditions for survival in this context. For those who intend to stay, we need to help them address their needs and put money aside if they need it for an emergency departure. For those who go into exile now, we need to exfiltrate them from the country, avoiding as far as possible the dangers that this type of one-way journey entails, and enable them to continue their activism with Sudanese people in exile and the exploited classes in their host country. However, the region is highly unstable (civil wars, coups d'état and other authoritarian regimes) and it is not currently possible to leave the country.

To do this, we need money, and our organisations' solidarity funds alone are not enough. Below are the estimated expenses (in US Dollars):

• Visas: $400
• Travel: $800 (this figure is uncertain, as costs are highly unstable)
• First rent in host country: $200
• Food for one month in host country: $300
• Costs (accommodation, food, Internet) for waiting time in Sudan: $1000
Minimum: $2700

This provisional budget remains unstable in a fast-changing economic and security context. It only covers expenses for a minimum of one month. But the situation is such that our comrades will not be able to meet their needs in just one month. We're likely to need a lot more money in the end. Any sums donated, even in excess of this minimum amount, will be used to provide for the comrades' day-to-day needs until they can provide for themselves.

The donations are collected by our comrades in Switzerland who already have an international solidarity structure.

Don't forget to mention "Solidarity Sudan" when doing your donation

Send your donations to:

Association pour la Promotion de la Solidarité Internationale (APSI)
Place Chauderon 5
1003 Lausanne
Switzerland

IBAN: CH84 0900 0000 1469 7613 8
SWIFT/BIC: POFICHBEXXX
Name of the Bank: PostFinance SA; Mingerstrasse 20; 3030 Bern; Switzerland

Also with Paypal

And with TWINT (only Switzerland):

Signed by:

☆Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira (CAB) – Brazil
☆Organisation Socialiste Libertaire (OSL) – Switzerland
☆Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) – Uruguay
☆Embat, Organització Llibertària de Catalunya – Catalonia, Spanish State
☆Federación Anarquista Santiago (FAS) – Chile
☆Karala – Turkey
☆Black Rose Anarchist Federation / Federación Anarquista Rosa Negra (BRRN) – United States
☆Libertäre Aktion (LA) – Switzerland
☆Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL) – France
☆Grupo Libertario Vía Libre – Colombia
☆Die Plattform – Germany
☆Roja y Negra Organización Politíca Anarquista - Argentina
☆Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) Great Britain
☆Tekoşîna Anarşîst (TA) – Rojava
☆Anarchist Yondae – South Korea
☆Alternativa Libertaria/FdCA (AL/FdCA) – Italy
☆Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement (AWSM) – Aotearoa/New Zealand

Just like Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN) in their recently released political program “Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power”, in our own regional organization – the I-5AF – we have often compared general strategy to a compass. Strategy serves as our north star. It helps us get to where we’re going, but it isn’t the actual destination, just a tool to help us triangulate our position and approximate our heading. A long-term political project on the international level is not at all in opposition to establishing anarchism as an influential force in the US and, concerning our own project, more specifically along the I-5 corridor. Because of this, we are in full agreement with BRRN that our longest-term strategies must be oriented by our ends and that our shortest-term, most immediately relevant strategy must always be framed by time and place. As organized anarchism continues to grow internationally, it becomes even more necessary for political organizations to have methods for adapting general strategies to current conditions locally. It is this flexibility and dynamism to respond to specific demands which allows an org to stay focused on its final objectives and long-term strategy. Because periods of upheaval and deadly crises will continue, our movements need to be supported by dependable organizations, the kind of orgs capable of maintaining a revolutionary perspective during both ebbs and flows.

Today, most leftist organizations are limited by capacity, both of membership and of stamina. The countless repetitions of protests, followed by burnout and fatigue, have erased not only the know-how but also our desire to "move together". And activists are only propagating individualism when they don’t concern themselves with chronicling and promoting the collective history of struggle. Like BRRN, we too see flaws in this endless cycle of activism motivated by nothing more than moral outrage, and we completely agree that the coordination of militants involved in social struggle is essential for the development of effective political strategy. Beyond mobilizing, for popular movements to effectively confront the ruling class, there is a need to organize the active minority. This means a steady flow of militants from various orgs towards a unified perspective, in the form of a grouping of tendency or a social-political organization. This is with the medium-term goal of unifying different sectors of society into a broader movement by politically and strategically connecting real sites of struggle. We see this as the role of theory, and it is why we think that theory must be developed in context, while doing politics, not idealistically, and definitely not just online.

In our own especifismo current of anarchism, of which BRRN is currently the largest org in the US, the political organization assists in bringing movements together, forging solidarity through struggle amongst a broad spectrum of organized, emancipatory social forces. For this reason, we support non-ideological mass movements. Autonomous movements that employ direct action instead of representation and direct democracy of the rank-and-file, not cults of personality or demagoguery. Movements that are militant, self-managed, and federalist. Movements that are engaged in struggle and reach beyond both localism and nationalism.

We want to see anarchism plant its seeds and grow its politics in rural, suburban, and urban locales across the entire continent. But the limited strategies necessary in these contexts will have to be based on immediate, specific conditions. And as things stand, while the two-party system continues, unthreatened by the ebbing tides of “progressive” candidates, the socialist movement in the US has stalled. The democratic socialism of the Bernie Sanders movement and the DSA never sufficiently grappled with the fact that it is impossible for elected representatives to change the State's policies enough to avert catastrophes that are already occurring globally. We need a revolution! Nevertheless, we must admit that libertarian socialism is itself entirely overshadowed by the pervasiveness of dem soc rhetoric in the US left. Today, anarchists are rarely organized politically. This is why anarchism doesn't usually have an explicit presence in leftist spaces, unions, or community organizations. In most of the country, there is no political organization raising the strategic question: how do we popularize social movements that produce grassroots organizations and militant culture that endures beyond mobilizations and protests?

As BRRN says, our movements lack the “muscle memory” required to work together and develop political lines through open debate. And though this is an ever-increasing problem given the multiple systemic crises whose effects are already overlapping in our daily lives, like BRRN, we see new possibilities arising for the development of Popular Power. But it will only be possible by combining the organized forces of the exploited, dominated, and oppressed classes together. A counter power protagonized by the social movements themselves depends on broad social influence, not on opportunistic leadership from a party, a church, a corporation, or the State.

¡PROTAGONISMO POPULAR!
¡POPULAR POWER!

A Guide to Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism

Review of Tom Wetzel, Overcoming Capitalism: Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st Century

This is an important book. Tom Wetzel presents a vision of a free, equal, and cooperative society, without classes, states, or other forms of oppression. It would be directly managed from below in all areas, including the economy and community. He refers to this program, alternately, as “revolutionary syndicalism” or “libertarian socialism.”

Traditionally “libertarian socialism” is a synonym for “anarchist-socialism” and other views similar to anarchism, such as council-communist Marxism or guild socialism. Yet, although Wetzel occasionally refers to anarchism, he does not identify his program as “anarchist” or “anarcho-syndicalist.” He had done so previously—see his essays in the Anarchist Library—but not now, for reasons he does not explain. In my opinion, this book is an exposition of revolutionary class-struggle anarchism and an expansion of anarcho-syndicalism.

The book covers many topics, mainly divided into three sections. The first analyzes how our society works (chapters 1 through 5). The second, which is the heart of the work, covers strategies for “overcoming capitalism” (chapters 6 to 10). The last considers what a new society (“libertarian ecosocialism”) could be like (chapter 11).

Class Conflict

His view of present day society is based on a class analysis. Capitalist society is divided into layers related to the production and accumulation of profit. Holding up society is primarily the working class. It produces society’s goods and services through its labor “by hand and brain.” The capitalist class owns the means of production—capital—and is therefore able to squeeze a surplus—profits—out of the workers’ labor. The key evil of capitalism is not so much poverty (although there is plenty of poverty) but domination. People do not get to control the social forces which rule their lives. Capitalism is an immoral system to be “overcome” and replaced.

This class analysis is influenced, at least, by classical Marxism. While I am a revolutionary anarchist-socialist, I mostly agree with Karl Marx’s analysis of how capitalism works, as does Wetzel, to a certain degree. “A major contribution of Marx to the socialist movement was his analysis of the structure and dynamics of the capitalist regime….The whole capital accumulation process is built on a framework of oppression and exploitation. Thus far, libertarian socialists generally agree with these aspects of Marx’s analysis.” (pp. 312–314)

However, Wetzel criticizes Marxism for what he regards as an overly simplistic view, its main division of society into capitalists and workers. Wetzel agrees with this, but adds a middle layer of minions which directly serves the capitalists: supervisors, managers, overseers, bureaucrats, lawyers, and other better-off professionals, in both private enterprises and public services. (This does not include “white collar” workers, such as teachers or clerks, who are part of the working class.) Others have called this the “professional-managerial class” or the “coordinator class,” but Wetzel prefers “bureaucratic control class.”

The charge, repeated by Wetzel, that Marx did not expect the rise of middle management bureaucrats under capitalism is often stated but is factually untrue. (For example, see Capital, vol. 3, chapter XXIII, or Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.) Wetzel uses the concept to argue that it is not enough to oppose the capitalist owning class. It is also necessary to oppose the bureaucratic control class. It is necessary to organize so that working people can directly control their own lives without a bureaucratic elite over them, telling them what to do, and exploiting them as much as do the capitalist owners. (This continues the historical insight of anarchism at least since Michael Bakunin.)

Wetzel is well aware that class conflict is not the only social division. He feels that capitalism promotes other conflicts—such as race or gender. They overlap with—and interact with—class. For example, he sees the oppression of African-Americans as having two class functions. First, most of them are in a super-exploited, impoverished, section of the working class. Capitalists make superprofits from paying them very low wages. Secondly, racism serves to divide the working class as a whole. White workers can feel superior to workers of color and refuse to work together with them for common goals—even goals which would be to their mutual benefit. (This is a major reason the U.S. does not have universal health care unlike every other industrialized/imperialist country). Therefore racism hurts white workers, even if not as much as it does People of Color.

He explains ecological disaster as being caused by capital’s drive for accumulation of profits, as expressed by “cost shifting.” The capitalists do not pay the whole cost of what they make. Side “costs” of pollution, or disturbing the world’s climate, are “paid” by the whole of society, or just by the workers—or no one at all. They are not taken out of the profits of the specific businesses and their owners.

The author discusses specific problems of U.S. and world capitalism, including its decline in the last decades. But he does not lay out the fundamental systemic weaknesses of capitalism: its instability, its business cycles, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, its trend toward monopolization, and its trend toward stagnation. This limited analysis weakens his overall presentation.

Revolutionary Unionism and Anti-Electoralism

The basis of Wetzel’s strategy is to build a mass movement—or alliance of movements—which is organized on the same principles of the society we want to see (“prefiguration”). It needs to be actively managed by the people involved in it, horizontally associated, and committed to the concept that an injury to one is an injury to all (solidarity). Central to this strategy are radically democratic and militant unions, moving in a revolutionary direction. They may be formed by organizing new unions in the majority of (unorganized) workplaces in the U.S. Workers may also organize themselves within the existing unions, in radically democratic groupings, counter to the unions’ ruling bureaucrats.

This is distinct from a strategy of seeking to get a group of militants elected to take over the unions and run them better than the bureaucrats did, but still top down. He refers to “the two souls of unionism,” the bureaucratic, centralized, top-down organization, and the solidarity-based, democratic, self-organization of the workers who really make up the union.

While emphasizing the strategic power workers have in the economy, he does not limit his approach to radical unionism. Wetzel advocates community organizing, tenant organizing, associations of African Americans, of women, of LGBTQ people, and so on. Their methods would include mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, rent strikes, general strikes, and occupations of schools and of workplaces. As such hell-raising advances, and popular struggles win gains, he hopes that people will become more enthusiastic, they will improve their class consciousness, they will be more open to ideas from revolutionaries, and they will become ready for a revolution to replace capitalism with libertarian socialism.

This approach puts him in opposition to the strategies which dominate on the left. The main left strategy is electoralism, seeking to change society through votes. (This goes back to the electoral party-building advocated by Marx.) This is the dominant approach of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest socialist organization in the U.S.A.

Most “electoral socialists” are for working within the Democratic Party, despite its history as the graveyard of popular movements—and despite Marx’s opposition to building capitalist parties. Unlike left parties in Europe, the Democrats have never claimed to be “socialist” of any sort, but have always been pro-capitalist (and, in their earliest history, pro-slavery).

Some “democratic socialists” are critical of the Democrats—for good reasons—but advocate the formation of a new, “third,” party of the left, possibly based in the labor unions and other progressive forces. However, such a new party is only likely to be formed (by union bureaucrats, liberal Democrats, and various opportunists) if there are massive upheavals in society—formed in order to misdirect the popular upheavals back into electoral reformism.

Wetzel argues that the state is made to serve the interests of the ruling capitalist class and cannot be used to serve the working class and oppressed. Reforms may be won, for a time through elections, but not the transformation of society. And the state is likely to give reforms and benefits to the people only if pressured from below by mass struggles. New Deal benefits were won through large-scale union struggles, and civil rights legislation was won through massive African-American “civil disobedience” demonstrations as well as “riots.” Now the unions have been beaten back to a small minority of the work force, and African-American rights are under attack. Elections did not win lasting solutions.

He gives a history and analysis of the U.S. government machinery, demonstrating the severe limits built into its “democracy.” Of course, it is easier for working people and radicals to live under liberal democracy than under fascist or Stalinist totalitarianism. But even the most “democratic” of bourgeois representative democracies cannot be anything but top-down, capitalist-dominated, machines. They exist so that factions of the capitalist class can settle their differences without much bloodshed, and for keeping the people passive while believing they are “free”.

He writes, “A strategy for change that is focused on elections and political parties tends to focus on electing leaders to gain power in the State, to make gains for us….An electoralist strategy leads to the development of political machines in which mass organizations look to professional politicians and party operatives.” (p. 231)

Electoralist socialists may also engage in other activities, such as strike support work or community organizing. Wetzel is for working with them in such activities, forming united fronts where it is possible.

Two Forms of Prefigurative Politics

Wetzel also criticizes the program advocated by many anarchists which is sometimes called “dual power” or “counter institutions”and which he calls “evolutionary anarchism.” The idea is to build communities, small businesses, and local associations which are non-capitalist and non-statist. They could be consumer cooperatives, worker-managed enterprises (producer cooperatives), farmer-consumer associations, land trusts, credit unions, cooperative housing, independent progressive schools, and so on. These would expand until they overwhelmed capitalism and the state. (I call this the “kudzu strategy.”) There is nothing new about this. P.J. Proudhon, the first person to call himself an “anarchist,” proposed just such an approach. Today it is advocated, Wetzel notes, by the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the DSA, among others.

He is not against forming food coops or worker-run companies. These can be good in themselves. But he rejects this as a strategy for overcoming capitalism. The market is even more of a capitalist institution than the state! Various sorts of cooperatives have been built and thrived under capitalism, mainly at the periphery of the economy. They are no threat to capitalism as a whole.

Coops rarely have the capital necessary to compete with the giant corporations at the heart of the system. They are dominated by the cycles of the market. And if they did become a threat, the government would step in. You may ignore the state, but it will not ignore you. If coops became dangerous to the system, they would be outlawed and crushed by the government.

Wetzel makes “a distinction between two different kinds of organizations: (a) mass organizations of struggle (such as worker unions, tenant organizations, etc. (b) organizations that manage a social resource (such as a worker cooperative, social center, child care cooperative, land trust, and so on).” (p. 214) In his view, “the syndicalist strategy of building worker-controlled unions (and other grassroots democratic organizations) that operate through rank-and-file participation and direct collective action is indeed a strategy to build counter-power.” (pp. 218-219) And to prepare for revolution.

Anti-Leninism and the Militant Minority

The heirs of Lenin have many variations of Leninism. They range from advocates of Stalinist and Maoist totalitarianism to the many varieties of Trotskyism to the libertarian-autonomous Marxism of C.L.R. James and Raya Dunayeskaya.

Wetzel focuses on Leninism as the strategy of building a top-down centralized homogeneous party, one which aims at overthrowing the capitalist state in a revolution. It would replace it with a new state, ruled by the party. The centralized party would rule the centralized state which would control the centralized economy—eventually on a world scale. That such a party, whatever its original working class democratic ideals, would end up completely authoritarian, should not be surprising.

Wetzel is aware that the population does not spontaneously become revolutionary all at once in a homogenous wave. Instead, individuals, groups, layers, become radicalized, separately over time, as radicalization spreads through the mass of people. Syndicalists have long recognized the existence of a “militant minority” among the working class. Wetzel seeks to organize networks of militant workers (and militant community organizers, militant African-American activists, etc.). And among these to build revolutionary libertarian socialist political organizations, to be active in broader mass organizations. This has been called (awkwardly) “dual-organizationalism.”

Like the Leninist vanguard party, the libertarian socialist organization is formed to advance a program, develop its ideas, and coordinate the activities of its militants. Unlike the Leninist vanguard party, it does not aim to take power for itself, to take over mass organizations, or to rule a new state. It exists only to encourage the workers and oppressed people to organize themselves and fight for their own liberation. Naturally its internal organization must be democratic and federated, rather than the “democratic centralism” of Leninism.

Besides giving an excellent brief history of the Russian Revolution, Wetzel provides an analysis of the Stalinist social system which existed in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Maoist China, and elsewhere. He sees the “bureaucratic control class” as taking over and collectively establishing a system of exploitation of the workers and peasants. It needed an extremely authoritarian state. In my opinion this is accurate. Unfortunately he regards this as a new system of exploitation, as unlike capitalism as it is unlike feudalism. He does not name the system, but various theorists have called it “bureaucratic collectivism” or “coordinatorism.”

In my opinion, Stalinist Russia was a variant of capitalism, best called “state capitalism.” The state (composed of the bureaucratic ruling class) was an instrument of capital accumulation, the “personified agent of capital” as Marx called the bourgeoisie. It was pressured by competition on the world market with other national states and international corporations, as well as internal competition among internal agencies. The workers are bought on the labor market (selling their commodity of labor power), hired to work for money wages or salaries, produce goods for sale (commodities) which are worth more than their pay, and buy back consumer goods with their money. This realizes a surplus (profit) for the rulers. Officially it had a “planned economy,” but it never fulfilled its plans! And finally, after years of stagnation, it broke down and devolved into traditional capitalism. A similar process happened in China, but it kept its Communist Party dictatorship and state domination of the now openly capitalist market.

However, in practice there is little political difference between new system theories and state capitalist theories (although “state capitalism” gives a better explanation of how Soviet Russia could transform into traditional capitalism). The basic point is that Leninist-type parties in power create authoritarian, exploitative, systems.

The New Society

Wetzel’s presents a program for a post-revolutionary, post-capitalist, society, after the capitalists have been expropriated and their state dismantled. He believes in a new system composed of self-managed associations and communities, organized into directly democratic councils and assemblies. They would be associated horizontally through chosen delegates. These would be from the ranks of the people, for limited periods, and recallable at any time.

A stateless society would need means for settling disputes, coordinating activities (“planning”), as well as protecting people from antisocial actors (protection is not the same as seeking revenge or punishment). But this must not be a socially-alienated bureaucratic institution which stands over the rest of society, enforcing the interests of an exploiting minority—that is, a state. A workers’ or popular militia could replace the established police and army—so long as is necessary. A federation of communes and self-managed industries might be called a “polity” or even, he says, a “government” but it is not a state. (I would not use “government.” although Peter Kropotkin did at times.)

The “economy” of a free society would not be distinct from other aspects of society. In particular, Wetzel rejects the notion of centralized top-down economic planning. He cites the bad example of the Soviet Union, but would oppose it even under planners appointed by an elected government. Society is too complicated to be understood and managed by a small central group, no matter how brilliant they may be. A few top planners would tend to be corrupted by the power accumulated by their position. A centrally planned economy must have a centrally organized state. Instead, it is necessary for everyone to be involved in organizing, planning and decision making, at every level and in every way.

Similarly Wetzel rejects “market socialism.” This originally meant using central planning to imitate the market. By now it usually means worker-managed enterprises competing on the market. Democratically run by the workers, they would compete just like capitalist businesses except that there are no capitalists. (A system like this existed in Yugoslavia under Tito’s reign, with competing companies, socially owned, directed by their workers’ councils. For decades, it worked as well as traditional capitalism or the Stalinist system.)

Such an economy cannot be regarded as democratic, despite the workers councils in each enterprise. The overall system is “managed” by the uncontrolled marketplace, not the working people. The business cycle of booms and busts would dominate the worker’s cooperatives. Some would do well and others would do poorly, as businesses do in the U.S.A. The poorer enterprises would have to fire workers in bad times. In order to regulate the market, there would have to be a centralized state (Yugoslavia had a dictatorship). The workers’ councils of each enterprise might hire professional managers, as they did in Yugoslavia. These would crystallize into a “bureaucratic control” class. Over time, the system would devolve toward traditional capitalism.

For a positive program, Wetzel has been influenced by several sources, especially Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel’s program of Parecon (“Participatory Economics”). Factories, offices, and other workplaces would be managed by the workers’ involved. If the workers do not govern themselves, then some other class will govern them. Work would be reorganized so there would be an end to order-givers standing over order-takers. An ecological technology would be created. But there would not be independent, competing, enterprises. They would be federated and networked—coordinated by recallable delegates and group decisions.

In turn, communities, neighborhoods, and consumer groups would also be organized into assemblies, federated together. The two federations, community and producer, are composed of the same people but organized differently, in a “dual governance” or “bi-cameral” system. By dialogue and negotiation they would coordinate economic and political decisions. There would be many “distributive” centers of initiative and cooperation.

I will not go into detail about Wetzel’s proposed libertarian socialist economy. He does not support Kropotkin’s communist-anarchist approach, which was similar to Marx’s vision of the “final stage” of full communism, governed by “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” Rather he proposes to motivate workers by “paying” them, usually according to the time they work—plus “allowances” for those not able yet to work. He proposes a “non-market pricing system” so goods and services may be produced according to need and availability.

I will not evaluate Wetzel’s proposals. I am not against them but neither would I endorse them—beyond the general conception of a decentralized federation of self-governing, collectivized, industries and communities. In the tradition of Errico Malatesta, I expect that different communities, regions, and countries will experiment. They will likely try out various methods of social production, distribution of goods, ways of self-government, education, social defense, techniques of federating, types of technology, and so on. They will choose what they think is best. While it is good to speculate, it is too soon to propose a specific system.

Conclusion: The Revolutionary Strategy

Tom Wetzel advocates an approach to achieve syndicalist libertarian ecosocialism. He is not necessarily opposed to individuals voting in elections or building food cooperatives, but he does not think either is a strategy for overcoming capitalism. He proposes a strategy of non- electoral independent movements and organizations, democratically organized from below, with popular participation and active engagement. The axis of these movements must be labor, because of its centrality in production and the economy. But every sector of the population which is oppressed and exploited has to be included and mobilized. A militant minority, political organizations of revolutionary libertarian socialists, committed to this strategy, needs to be organized as part of the popular mobilization. This is a strategy for revolution. Without using the label, Wetzel has produced a major work of anarchism.

References

Wetzel, Tom (2022). Overcoming Capitalism: Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st Century. Chico CA: AK Press.

*Firstly written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review (UK) virtual journal

This is an outstanding overview of the anarchist movement. It covers the period from 1868 (the approximate beginning of revolutionary anarchism as a movement) to 1939 (the defeat of the Spanish Revolution and the beginning of World War II). While anarchism has been a world movement, this book only covers European and U.S. anarchism, which has inherent limitations (also, the author admits to only reading English). Further, the text does not discuss all tendencies which have been regarded as anarchist. It does not deal with individualist or market-oriented anarchisms, nor with anarchist-pacifism nor some other trends.

Instead it focuses on what has been referred to as revolutionary class-struggle anarchism, also called libertarian socialism or communism. Today some advocate anarchisms without revolution or the working class. However, Lucien van der Walt considers that “the broad anarchist tradition.” (van der Walt & Schmidt 2009; p. 19) Baker might agree with this, but would probably not go as far as van der Walt when he writes, “‘Class struggle’ anarchism, sometimes called revolutionary or communist anarchism, is not a type of anarchism; in our view it is the only anarchism.” (same; emphasis in original) In any case, this is the anarchism that Baker concentrates on, which in itself contains a host of internal conflicts and controversies.

Unlike some other books on this subject, Baker does not report on the lives and works of the most influential anarchists. Instead she is interested in the ideas and practices of the movement as such. This involves an effort to research what members of the movement—influential writers but also ordinary militants—were doing and saying. She tries to reconstruct the basic trends within anarchism during this period (in Europe and the U.S.), to draw them out and rationally discuss them.

Anarchism does not have an official, orthodox, philosophy, comparable to the “dialectical materialism” of Marxism. But, as Baker summarizes, “The central argument of this book is that…anarchists…were grounded in a theoretical framework—the theory of practice—which maintained that, as people engage in activity, they simultaneously change the world and themselves…the anarchist commitment to the unity of means and ends.” (p. 10)

In philosophy this is often called “praxis,” a Greek word meaning practice-integrated-with-theory, as opposed to superficially empirical practice. As Baker knows, this was a fundamental aspect of Karl Marx’s method, developed out of the dialectical theory of G.W.F. Hegel. Michael Bakunin, a “founder” of revolutionary anarchism, also studied Hegel’s philosophy. A number of philosophers have considered the implications of focusing on humanity as actively productive, consciously interacting with objective reality, simultaneously changing the world and themselves. (Bernstein 1971; Price 2014)

Controversies Among Anarchists

The book begins with the origins of the anarchist movement as an anti-statist wing of working class socialism. It reviews the values and basic strategies of anarchist anti-capitalism. This focuses on “direct action” by workers and the oppressed against the bosses and the state. Direct action included strikes, boycotts, tenant strikes, and civil disobedience. But anarchists also established schools for children and adults, community libraries, popular theaters, and sports clubs.
“Anarchism…emerged in parallel with, and opposition to, various forms of state socialism.” (p. 141) Baker goes through anarchists’ reasons for rejecting parliamentarianism as well as Leninist revolutionary replacement of the existing state with a new (dictatorial) one. The state is a centralized, bureaucratic, hierarchical institution, standing over and above the rest of society, serving the interests of an exploitive minority. It cannot be used to build a classless, stateless, and non-oppressive society, whatever Marxists may think. She points out, correctly, that the program of state socialism in practice can only end in state capitalism.

While revolutionary anarchists agreed on certain fundamental commitments, they also had a number of disagreements. “Broadly speaking the anarchist movement can be divided into two main strategic schools of thought: insurrectionist anarchism and mass anarchism.” (p. 171) (These were not terms used at the time, but were later assigned by van der Walt.) There was a great deal of overlapping of the schools in actual practice by individuals and groups; these are “pure types.” (“Insurrectionism” has also been called “terrorism” by some, “guerrilla warfare” by others.)

The “insurrectionists” built little groups, which fluctuated in composition, and were associated—if at all—in loose networks. They were regarded as “anti-organizationalists,” although they put out newspapers and had networks. They engaged in violent actions by individuals or small groups against the government or capitalist enterprises, sometimes against individual politicians or businesspeople or just random citizens (eventually called “propaganda of the deed”). By such methods they hoped to trigger social revolution.

The “mass anarchists” (I would have preferred “mass struggle anarchists”) wanted big associations, such as labor unions, community groups, anti-war organizations. These would be radically democratic, militant, and independent of capitalist institutions. This type of anarchist was often “dual-organizationalist,” being for specific organizations of anarchists which would work inside and out of larger mass organizations. Their goal was to build popular struggles by workers and every other oppressed group, initially around immediate reform issues, but eventually leading to a social revolution.

Baker clearly comes down against insurrectionist anarchism due to its 150 years of failure. It is true that mass struggle anarchism also has not succeeded in making the revolution. But it has led to large unions in a number of countries, big anarchist federations, and significant military struggles. This is not enough—nothing short of a successful revolution is enough—but it has been more than insurrectionism has done.

Baker is fully aware that anarchist-socialist revolution must include all the oppressed and exploited, with concerns which overlap with class issues but also are distinct. This includes women, African-Americans, and so on. (But she does not discuss ecological issues.) “We must…struggle against all forms of oppression simultaneously. The self-emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved through intersectional class struggle.” (p. 359)

This included support for national liberation struggles against imperialist domination (which is very different from taking sides in wars in which both sides are imperialists). “For anarchists, this commitment to universal human solidarity entailed an opposition to imperialism and colonialism and the support of anti-colonial national liberation movements….According to Maximoff, ‘the anarchists demand the liberation of all colonies and support every struggle for national independence….’ The main goal of national liberation movements—emancipation—could only be achieved through the methods of anarchism, rather than the establishment of a new state.” (pp. 109—110) That is quite contrary to the belief of many ignorant anarchists today that anarchism is opposed to national self-determination. (Many anarchists reject support for the Ukrainian people against Russian imperialist aggression on this false ground.)

Syndicalist Anarchism

However, for Baker, this “intersectionality” does not deny the importance of the working class. This class has a central role in the total process of production and therefore has potentially great strategic power. This leads to her discussion of syndicalism. “All forms of syndicalist anarchism argued that workers should form federally structured trade unions that engaged in direct action and were independent of political parties….to pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present and overthrowing capitalism…in the long term.” (p. 279)

She divides “syndicalist anarchism” into three types: “revolutionary syndicalism,” “syndicalism-plus,” and “anarcho-syndicalism.” In her categorizing, revolutionary syndicalism would be open to all workers in their shop or industry, regardless of whether they were anarchists. Anarchist militants would seek to make the union as worker-run and militant as possible, with no association with any political party or tendency.

Syndicalism-plus (a term she took from Iain McKay) also had an “open” membership and would be non-affiliated to any political grouping. While anarchists would not try to take over the unions, they would not dissolve in them either. They would still form their own specific anarchist organization, to work inside and outside the syndicalist union. Anarcho-syndicalism, in her conception, would explicitly commit its unions to anarchist revolution. Probably this would be written into their constitutions. Baker reviews the arguments pro and con for the different versions of syndicalist anarchism. She notes that the distinction between revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho-syndicalism has become blurred (which she largely blames on Rudolf Rocker).

As mentioned, Baker says that syndicalist anarchists (in contrast to insurrectionist anarchists) “pursue the double aim of winning immediate improvements in the present….” However, she makes one exception: “One reform that mass anarchists consistently opposed was universal suffrage within existing capitalist states…included women’s suffrage….” (p. 237) I don’t doubt her accuracy but I think this is as aspect of anarchist sectarian over-purity.

I am thinking of the struggle for the right to vote for African Americans in the early ‘60s. Undoubtedly, there was the conscious aim of the liberal wing of the U.S. capitalist class to co-opt the mass movement and channel it into the Democratic Party . And the Black leadership was agreeable to this. On the other hand, the actual struggle involved massive civil disobedience (law-breaking) and independent organizing. The goal of being allowed to vote was also a valid goal. It meant that Black people would no longer be second class citizens. It is better to live under a bourgeois democracy than under a racist and semi-fascist tyranny (which is what the segregationist South was). This does not deny the need for anarchists to point out the limitations of bourgeois representative democracy, which would not really free the Black population from the bottom of society. (Another example of sectarian inflexibility is the syndicalist anarchists rejection of “joining reformist unions.” [p. 273] Carried out consistently, it would limit their ability to reach the mass of workers.)

Baker’s last chapter before concluding is about organizational dualism. This is the idea that anarchists should organize themselves, or at least those with whom they are in substantial agreement. And this organized minority should become part of broader organizations and movements, including but not limited to, unions. She reviews the history from Bakunin’s “Brotherhoods,” to the syndicalists’ concept of the “militant minority,” to the “Platform” of Makhno and Arshinov, to Malatesta’s ideas, and so on. Such political organization would be different from the Leninist concept of the centralized vanguard party. It would not aim at taking power for itself or establishing its own state. Its only aim was to encourage the workers and oppressed to organize themselves and reorganize society by themselves. To help people change the world as they change themselves.

References

Baker, Zoe (2023). Means & Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States. Chico CA: AK Press.

Bernstein, Richard J. (1971). Praxis and Action; Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activity. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Price, Wayne (2014) “Anarchism and the Philosophy of Pragmatism.” https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-anarchism-and-the-philosophy-of-pragmatism

van der Walt, Lucien, & Schmidt, Michael (2009). Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.
Oakland CA: AK Press.

*written for Workers Solidarity: A Green Syndicalist Webzine