💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › tommy-lawson-an-organisation-of-militants.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:20:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: “An Organisation of Militants”
Author: Tommy Lawson
Date: January 10, 2022
Language: en
Topics: Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, Uruguay, interview, history, especifismo
Source: Retrieved on from https://www.redblacknotes.com/2022/01/10/an-organisation-of-militants-the-federacion-anarquista-uruguaya/

Tommy Lawson

“An Organisation of Militants”

Author’s Note

A number of years ago I chanced upon a pamphlet, The Federación

Anarquista Uruguaya; Crisis, Armed Struggle and Dictatorship 1967–1985,

compiled by Paul Sharkey, at an anarchist bookfair. The contents were

fairly interesting. Presented was an anecdotal, inconsistent history of

an anarchist organisation in a small South American country. By all

accounts the group had been involved in some intense periods of

struggle, both in the labour movement and with guns in hand. There are

impressive anecdotes about strikes amongst meat workers, the

expropriation of a historic monument (a flag), and a number of tales of

torture and loss. Uruguay may be a small nation, but it attracted the

attention of US imperialism and fell foul of Operation Condor. I shelved

the information in the back of my mind, curious but at the time too

focused on other issues to dig deeper into the history.

A few years later, I came across the name Abraham Guillén in Scott

Napalos’ pamphlet critiquing Democratic Centralism. Guillén sounded like

an interesting theorist. Born in rural Spain, he fought in the Spanish

civil war as part of the CNT and FAI militias, before a dramatic escape

to South America. Here he became a journalist and economist, even

influencing the Argentine government’s resistance to US imperialism at

one point. But far more dramatically, Guillén became the most prominent

theorist of urban guerrilla warfare. I subsequently wrote an

introduction to his life and ideas, based on the one book and two

pamphlets available in English, plus a little shoddy translation. It

seems Guillén as a theorist, almost unknown in the anglosphere, had a

rather dramatic impact upon Latin American politics. Why this is

relevant is that Guillén expressed clear admiration of the FAU and their

input into the Uruguayan armed struggle. He was, however, critical of

the other groups he is usually associated with; the Uruguayan pan-lefist

Tupamaros, the Argentine Peronist Uturuncos and Tacuaras, and the

Brazilian Action for National Liberation. The FAU, and its armed wing

the OPR (Organizatcion Popular Revolucionaria-33 or Popular

Revolutionary Organisation), had a very different way of doing armed

struggle. (Lawson, 2020) The few notes presented by Guillén further

piqued my interest.

The third time that the FAU caught my attention was when I put two and

two together, and realised that they are responsible for the development

of Especifist (or, “Specific”) anarchism. In the time since Guillén and

the Uruguayan struggle against the dictatorship, Especifist anarchism

has become relatively popularised across the globe. As a branch of

anarchism it is extremely similar to what is more commonly known in the

anglosphere as Platformism or Dual Organisationalism. However, it

clearly developed in its own context, and bears such stamps as a

political philosophy.

The most popular work of Especifist anarchism is the pamphlet Social

Anarchism and Organisation by the Anarchist Federation of Rio de Janeiro

(FARJ). It lays out clear lessons about how, and why, to organise a

specific anarchist organisation. The FARJ is quite successful, as is the

federation they are part of, the Anarchist Coordination of Brazil. While

their active involvement in social struggle is strong, it does not have

the depth of history of the FAU. Wanting to understand the context of

how Especifismo and a pamphlet like Social Anarchism and Organisation

developed, I began to look deeper into the history of the FAU. I had

hoped to present a sizeable pamphlet presenting not only the FAU’s ideas

but putting them into the context in which they developed.

Furthermore, in 2021, an anarchist group formed in Brisbane, Australia.

Immediately after making themselves public, the FAU reached out to

Anarchist Communists Meanjin (ACM), offering solidarity and to assist in

their development. The FAU is extremely committed to sharing the lessons

of their history across the globe and seeing the spread of an

international movement. They sent ACM more translations of historic FAU

works. Since the start of 2021, more anarchist groups have appeared in

Australia, including the one I am a member of, Geelong Anarchist

Communists. All of our groups have held discussions with various

anarchist groups across the globe, including the FAU. 2021 was also the

65^(th) Anniversary of the FAU, and as such a comrade from ACM published

a brief article introducing their history. It is by far the most

accessible text in English on the history of the organisation.

In 2021 I also contacted the FAU on a personal basis, hoping to fill in

gaps in my knowledge about their history, looking for clearer answers on

certain matters of theory and information regarding their practice

today. Our comrades willingly obliged. Given that a comprehensive and

far more detailed book will be released by AK Press soon enough, my

ideas for a pamphlet, as I already mentioned, had been rendered

obsolete. Nor was a very introductory article now needed. So the idea

struck me to release the interview, more or less as it stands. However I

thought that by tying in information I have already gleaned from all the

texts available in English and adding further context to some of the

questions I asked it may still be enjoyable and of use. I add context in

between questions as some might seem quite or not quite linked; after

all I was asking questions specifically to fill in gaps in my own

research.

The interview is broken into three sections: history, theory and

contemporary. I hope that I have managed to accurately portray the words

of our Uruguayan comrades, that the interview is enjoyable to read, and

that I have managed to tie the information together appropriately for

the reader. Though the timeline skips around a little due to the nature

of the questions, by the time the reader has finished I hope they will

have formed a fairly coherent picture of events discussed.

Questions I have asked will be in Bold and Italic plus marked by “TL”,

answers will be marked by “FAU:” All plain text between questions will

be my notes. The lessons that can be drawn from the history of the FAU

are not only incredibly relevant today, but will possibly be more so as

the world enters new stages of crisis. The struggles of our comrades in

the FAU have been nothing short of inspirational, and we remember those

who gave their lives in the struggle for socialism and liberty.

Thankyou to Nathaniel from the FAU for taking the time to answer my

questions, and to Troy for sharing his works and knowledge of the FAU

with me.

Arriba los que luchan! Up with those who fight!

History

There are a few basic facts that should be understood about Uruguay to

help understand the context of Uruguayan anarchism. Uruguay is a small

country of several million citizens, located on the Rio de la Plata

(river of silver) which includes parts of Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil.

It was one of the last countries to be colonised by the Spanish. Its

capital, Montevideo was established by the Spanish, and an overwhelming

majority of Uruguayans live in cities. Historically, the country has

been far more urban than its neighbours. In the early 1800s, the Spanish

were overthrown by forces led by Jose Artigas, who established a

federalist Republic. In a broad sense, the Republic has been considered

fairly progressive and liberal. Uruguay was one of the first countries

in the world to grant universal suffrage and the 8 hour day. An early

president,José Batlle y Ordóñez, established broad social safety nets

between 1903–1915, including lifting the literacy level to 95% and

making university free (Fairbanks, 2015). Even in contemporary sense,

Uruguay was also one of the first countries in the world to legalise gay

marriage and marijuana (Andavolu, 2014). Today the nation even draws 97%

of its energy from renewable sources (Bertram, 2020). Through the Second

World War, Uruguay sold large quantities of meat and wool to the Allies,

and to the Americans during the Korean war, succeeding as a strong

export based economy. The economic success paid for a strong welfare

state, nicknamed the “Switzerland of Latin America” (Zuzenko, 2021).

Uruguay then has long been (relatively speaking) composed of a well

educated, highly unionised working class.

It should be no surprise then that in such a country, radical ideologies

have found a solid basis. This includes anarchism, which has a long

history in Uruguay. As early as 1872 there was a section of the First

International established in Montevideo. It considered itself

“federalist” and “anti-authoritarian”, and was comprised of roughly 2000

members. By 1875 the section published a pamphlet declaring itself

inspired by Bakunin and anarchist ideas. By 1876, the section was

influential in establishing the FORU (Federación Obrera Regional

Uruguaya – Regional Workers Federation of Uruguay) which published its

own paper. By 1882, specifically anarchist newspapers were in

circulation. These would continue over the coming decades, largely

focused on labour struggle and internationalism. Uruguay was home not

only to descendents of Spanish colonialism, but a large Italian migrant

population. Some anarchist periodicals even appeared in both Spanish and

Italian. (Cappelletti, 2017) While the majority of Uruguayan anarchists

focused their attentions on the labour movement, this period after all

being the heyday of anarcho-syndicalism, Uruguay also felt the impact of

so called ‘expropriator anarchism.’ Though it was a much larger

phenomenon in Argentina, expropriation tactics spread across the Rio de

la Plata into Montevideo. Infamous ‘expropriators’ such as Roscigna, hid

in Montevideo, bringing their ideas around violent direct action with

them (Bayer, 2015). Sometimes this resulted in bloody conflict within

the anarchist movement between the syndicalists and the expropriators.

But lines also blurred and unionists found themselves involved in direct

action, such as members of the “Sociedad de Resistencia de Obreros

Panaderos” or Bakers Union, who were involved in a violent attack on the

owners of the Estrella del Norte bakery in 1927 (Cuesta, 2020).[1]

Some lessons from the expropriators were carried forward into the new

Uruguayan anarchist movement post-Second World War. In 1956, a number of

anarchist groups came together for a national conference. These included

anarcho-syndicalist groups from a number of industries, students from a

university Fine Arts faculty plus an anarchist workers collective in a

Faculty of Medicine, the Comunidad del Sur (an experimental community),

and a few educationalists gathered around Luce Fabbri.[2] The subsequent

result was the establishment of the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya.

(Sharkey, 2009) Within a few years the FAU would split, with the more

programmatic, labour-oriented anarchists retaining the name. But that

will be dealt with later.

Since the establishment of the FORU, there have been a number of splits

in the labour movement. Several mass union bodies were formed on a

largely ideological basis. These included anarcho-syndicalist unions,

Christian unions, and a body controlled by a pro-Moscow Communist Party.

During a wave of strikes in the 1950s the labour movement found itself

fractured. Conferences were held establishing a new, unitary labour

federation (Kokinis, Forthcoming).

[TL]: In the early 1950s there were a number of Uruguayan union

federations; FORU, USU, UGT, CSU and the conservative unions. These were

succeeded in the 60s by a new Federation – the CNT. As I understand the

history, the FAU played a significant role in the establishment of the

CNT. Can you explain what the “autonomous unions” that existed before

the CNT were, how they came to be, and why they cohered into a new union

body. Why did the FAU choose to help establish new unions rather than

fight “from inside”?

[FAU]: No, FAU does not create new unions. FAU makes a proposal and

works to generate in the union, unity of all unions in a “coordinating

center”. This proposal was made in 1956 from the Meat Federation (union

of workers in the refrigeration industry), where FAU had an impact, but

was not a majority in that union, most of the union leadership were

“Batllistas”, as was the unions base also (sector of the Colorado

Party[3] of a certain “progressive” tendency in those years). But there

was a strong experience and fighting spirit. For more than a decade

there were important strikes (of the meat in 1943, of the seafarers in

1947, of the public companies in 1951) and in each of them the support

and solidarity of other unions was deployed.

We can say that in those years there were three tendencies or currents

within the labor movement: 1) the autonomous unions, many of those who

came from the anarcho-syndicalist tradition or the FORU, both already in

decline; 2) “yellow” or pro-employer unions and 3) the current of the

Communist Party with its “central” under the aegis of Moscow.

The FAU shared the proposal by various militants in the trade union

movement about the need to unite to face the coming crisis and

repression. This [the crisis and subsequent repression] was already

manifesting and a strong and developing trade union movement was needed.

When the CNT was formed in 1964 it took place within the framework of a

broad process of debate in the union bases; it was not a discussion of

leadership, but factory by factory and workplace by workplace. That is

why at the same time it was decided that if a coup d’état were to take

place, the trade union movement would respond with the General Strike

with occupation of the workplaces, as happened in 1973.[4]

The unions adhering to the Communist Party only joined the CNT in 1966,

when the union unification congress was held. It should be noted that

the pro-employer unions ceased to exist, after extensive work by

anarchists and a combative militancy in general.

Within the new CNT, the FAU played a leading role by establishing the

so-called “Combative Tendency”, which united radical unions, far-left

political organisations and rank and file workers around a functional

shared platform. Anti-capitalism, direct action and rank and file

control were the core principles.

[TL]: The FAU was key in establishing the “Combative Tendency” inside

the CNT, made up of minority factions that supported more radical forms

of worker democracy and direct action. What other organisations made up

the bulk of the Tendency and how did the FAU relate with them?

[FAU]: The Tendency not only brought together small minorities or

factions, but entire unions and federations such as the Federation of

Meat, Textiles and FUNSA (tire manufacturing). Groups of those unions

where the majority orientation was the Communist Party also

participated.

Practically three political groups participated within the Tendency: 1)

FAU and our public expression from 1968, the ROE; 2) the GAU (unifying

action groups), Christian and Marxist grassroots groups, combative at

the time; 3) the militants linked to the MLN Tupamaros, with little

organic relationship among themselves but who coordinated in the

Tendency.

The relationship was normal, natural let’s say. Not without controversy,

but fraternal. The Tendency actually worked for general things of the

trade union movement, but the agitation and daily task of supporting

conflicts and mobilizations were made by ROE.

Above, the ROE is mentioned for the first time. The Resistencia Obrero

Estudiantil (Workers-Student Resistance) was founded in 1968, as a means

to bring together disparate militant groups in Uruguayan society and

channel them towards combative struggle. Furthermore, the FAU, along

with other groups associated with the journal Epocha, had been declared

illegal in 1967. The existence of ROE gave the FAU space to do

above-ground work. The ROE was simultaneously based amongst secondary

(high school) teachers, arts and medical students, and a number of rank

and file unions also affiliated to the Tendencia Combativa. It also

published its own journal, Rojo y Negro (Schmidt, 2020).

[TL] In the 1960s the FAU established a mass organisation – the

Student-Worker Resistance (ROE). Can you explain the reasons for

building a mass worker-student organisation? What was it’s role?

[FAU]: For this there are two reasons:

• FAU is outlawed at the end of 1967 and a “legal” or public face was

needed that could issue an opinion, propaganda be on the street with a

political line.

• Bring together the growth that was taking place at that time and the

great social explosion that meant the year 1968, both at the union and

student level. A whole generation of young (very young) militants of

Secondary and Technical Schools appears who join the struggle and it was

necessary to bring that together, organize it and carry out a whole

political-ideological work with that militancy. It is a time of great

growth. A new stage was opening.

It is worth expanding a little here. While at one level, the much larger

ROE (at its peak roughly 10,000 members) developed its own theory and

culture outside of FAU bounds, on the other it really was an expression

of class struggle and solidarity. The ROE was effectively a “rearguard”

to the “vanguard” that was the CNT, and in particular the Tendencia. The

ROE recognised that its function as a social movement was to help those

not involved in the union movement find a way to fight. In Kokinas’

article An Anarchy for the South, he quotes from a 1970 ROE communique:

“There are many people… who do not belong to unions but who are prepared

to fight… We should develop the coordination of activities amongst

groups who share our tendencies within the same zone or neighbourhood…

non-unionised factory or shop workers, students, the unemployed, and

housewives all deserve the chance to participate in the fight.”

(Kokinis, Forthcoming)

And fight they did. In 1969, during a meatpackers strike, the ROE

established roadblocks and ‘toll booths’ to collect money from drivers

to fund the strike. Students carried out raids on supermarkets to feed

families. Unions from the Tendencia (with significant ROE caucuses)

established donation boxes and refused to transport goods on trains that

would undermine the efforts. When trucks were used to help shift produce

instead, they were set on fire. The entire struggle escalated into near

insurrectionary proportions, with children in the neighbourhoods pelting

police with slingshots from the rooftop as the workers faced the police

down in the street (Kokinis, 2020).

[TL] Did the ROE act as a “legal” or “above ground” organisation for the

FAU to pursue it’s politics while the FAU could remain clandestine?

[FAU]: The FAU was outlawed and therefore operated underground. ROE is

broader than FAU; it includes a lot of non-FAU militancy. There are

libertarian militants, others who are not decidedly so. But there were

an interesting number of colleagues who are going to join FAU over time.

They train and make their first weapons in ROE, especially the younger

ones.

The FAU-ROE-OPR 33 triad can be said to be an articulated set, with

different levels and responsibilities of the militants, but where all

the tasks were relevant to the joint development of the tasks of

revolutionary intention.

The OPR-33, or Popular Revolutionary Organisation, was the militant

complement to the FAU’s strategy. The strategy known as the Las Dos

Patos (two feet), aimed to escalate the class conflict via means of

direct action, creating a revolutionary subject amongst the workers and

challenging US imperialism along the way. With FAU at the political

core, the OPR-33 was subjected to the anarchist party’s political line

and use as an auxiliary support for social struggles. Unlike Che

Guevara’s focoism,[5] so popular in Latin America at the time, the armed

apparatus was never considered a vanguard.

[TL]: I have read that the ROE was directed by a “clandestine… technical

support and liaison committee” of FAU militants named Alejandra. How did

this function, or is it a misrepresentation? Isn’t it anti-democratic to

have a mass organisation directed by a secret minority?

[FAU]: Alejandra was the part of FAU in charge of the task of ROE and

everything strictly popular (union, student and neighborhood). It was

not directed vertically, or from the “party to the masses” as in Marxist

logic, but a collective construction where FAU had weight because its

militancy was present one hundred percent in ROE. In addition, FAU had

militants in the union leadership of important unions such as FUNSA.

ROE was an area of turmoil, that was its main task. Support for

conflicts, propaganda, sale of the newspaper (“Companion”) and tasks

related to the agile and dynamic situation of the moment. ROE worked

through groups of each place of insertion (factory, high schools, union

or guild, neighborhood) and there was debate about the tasks to be

carried out and also about the policy to be developed. Some general

plenaries were held from time to time, where the line of action for the

moment was marked and then debated. The meeting places of ROE were often

the FUNSA union and the bakers’ union.

Everyone who participated in ROE knew that it was a FAU project and that

it was in turn linked to OPR33. No one considered the operation

undemocratic because ROE had its own life, its own dynamics.

Returning to the answer about Alejandra: it was the part of FAU,

composed of various groups, which was in charge of ROE and all the

social and public activity in those planes. And Alejandra’s activity was

coordinated in the Federal Board of FAU through its managers with the

other activities (armed activity of OPR and general policy of FAU).

Let’s say, FAU was an organization with two “legs”: the armed OPR and

the social-political, ROE.

After this first discussion of the OPR, ROE, and Alejandra I asked the

comrades a number of specific questions about the armed struggle. This

is related to some of my research on Abraham Guillén (who will come up

in the discussion) and trying to discern both some of the technical

aspects of the struggle, and the differences between the FAUs approach

to armed struggle and that of other Marxist and anti-imperialist groups

at the time. The FAU was, of course, influenced by the wave of armed

struggle that swept the continent during the period. In its formative

years the FAU had expressed “critical support” for the Cuban Revolution.

Not so much for the regime, but for the process and the opportunities it

opened up in Latin America. The world had entered a stalemate between

the USA and the Soviet Union. On a continent oppressed by American

imperialism, the breakthrough of the Cuban Revolution had a huge impact

on popular consciousness. Despite the ambiguity around Cuba, the FAU was

immediately critical of the foco strategy. This did not, however, stop

them from participating in pan-revolutionary-left efforts. They joined a

coalition named El Coordinador, Uruguay’s first armed struggle group. It

included the Peasant Support Movement (MAC), Revolutionary Left Movement

(MIR), the Artigas Union of Sugarcane Workers (UTAA) and the FAU. The

FAU participated in the infamous raid on the Swiss Rifle Club, where the

armed struggle began in earnest.[6] The FAU left shortly thereafter,

arguing that the foco theory would fail. The other organisations went on

to form the basis of Uruguay’s famous Tupamaros (Kokinis, Forthcoming).

[TL]: Next I want to ask about the OPR-33 and Violencia-FAI. Anarchism

has a history of mass armed struggle – such as the Insurrectionary Army

in the Ukraine, the armed struggle of the Bulgarian

Anarchist-Communists, and the Defense Committees of the CNT. However,

the armed struggle of the FAU is quite unique. For a start, the OPR &

V-FAI were subordinate to the political organisation (which was also at

odds with focoist theory at the time), unlike the RIAU. The CNT defense

committees were theoretically subordinate to a mass trade union. In

terms of theory and history the OPR-33-/V-FAI experience has also been

analysed more clearly than the prior struggles. During the formation of

its armed wing, did the FAU reference previous attempts at mass armed

struggle by Anarchists?

[FAU]: Of course. The reference was always in the CNT, the Spanish

Revolution, the Machnovistchina, the anarchist expropriators of the Río

de la Plata… Anarchism here has a long tradition of direct action. All

this was part of it and we can say that there is a continuity in that

sense.

It is true that the organizational form and conception is different,

since we are Especifists. Therefore, armed action depended on the

Political Organization. OPR only had tactical autonomy to carry out

equipment operations, but in reality, all operations (bank

expropriations, kidnappings, etc.) were carried out according to

political criteria, that is, at the decision of the Organization. OPR

was in charge of their planning and carrying it out, but the political

decision to carry them out was made by FAU.

An attempt was even made to avoid any militaristic deviation, which was

very common at the time in the other guerrillas. The comrade of OPR was

not a soldier, he was a fellow anarchist committed to the revolutionary

struggle. There were no military degrees but “responsible”. The term

“commander” was not used, only in jest. This whole question of a

militaristic sign was avoided. Periodic evaluations of the militants

were carried out and work was carried out on their political formation.

Each group of OPRs discussed the same thing as the groups of

“Alejandra”, of course, perhaps with more emphasis on armed tasks and

everything that this concerns because of their specificity, but they

also discussed general politics and the struggles of the moment.

In the same way the comrades of “Alejandra” discussed the armed

activity.

What was the difference between the OPR-33 and the V-FAI?

The FAI Violence groups were part of an intermediate level, between ROE

and FAU-OPR, since they were dedicated to a type of agile action and

allowed the fogueo of militants to later join OPR.

Aspects of the answers above led immediately into what I wanted to ask

next; I wanted to know about the relationship between Abraham Guillén

and the OPR-33. Guillén had also advocated that armed groups make

efforts to undermine the ‘militarisation’ of the organisation. In his

time, Guillén identified as an anarchist, but had more to do with

Marxist groups in Latin America. (Lawson, 2020) So did Guillén merely

observe the FAU and comment upon their activity? Or did he directly

advise the FAU and were their military activities based upon his ideas?

Or were the points of convergence in their practice and ideas the

results of a shared anarchist ideology?

[TL]: In his “El pueblo en armas: estrategia revolucionaria”, Abraham

Guillén recommends that guerrillas delegate and rotate command, that all

efforts should be made to avoid a cult of personality. All actions

should be discussed by the fighters before undertaking them. That

guerrillas do not take hostages unless demands can be met by the enemy

and that they always aim to arouse public sympathy, and avoid

assassinations unless absolutely necessary. Also he advocates the

organisation is made up of proletarians rather than peasants or

petty-bourgeois revolutionaries. Did the OPR-33 operate by these

principles? Did they help avoid authoritarian degeneration?

[FAU]: Guillén gave talks here in Uruguay and made contributions to

various groups. But in addition to Guillén’s concern, these problems

were always a concern of anarchist militancy, also of FAU.

As we said, military grades were not used, there were managers of the

Teams, which could be changed. In addition, [there were] periodic

evaluations of militants, [we wanted those who] prioritized solidarity,

modesty and ability to deliver first; then the technical-operational

aspects.

OPR was first formed with militants from the working class. When the OPR

work was established, only students entered. Other guerrillas in

Uruguay, such as the MLN, were formed mainly on the basis of students

and the petty-bourgeoisie, which gave it not only another social

component, but also ideological.[7] The task was not simple or romantic,

but arduous, complex and full of sacrifices, among other things, passing

through the hands of the enemy and suffering torture and prisons. We had

to keep fighting in each of these situations, even. It was far from

believing that the revolution was just around the corner.

For a fascinating case study on the everyday activities of OPR-33

guerrillas, see The Women of Casa Emma: Social Subversion and the Lives

of Armed Anarchist Militants in Uruguay, 1967–1974, by Troy Kokinis in

Vol 108 of Histoire Social.

[TL]: Can you tell me about Abraham Guillén’s relationship with the FAU?

He gave military advice, but just how close was he to the organisation?

[FAU]: In the period he was here in Uruguay he collaborated with various

tasks, but he did not give courses, he did do some talk. I consulted

comrade Juan Carlos Mechoso and he tells us about Guillén: “With Guillén

there was a good fraternal relationship, he came to the FAU premises

almost every day, he lived near the premises. He told us about many

general topics, his time in the Uturuncos in Argentina etc. He had no

collaboration with the OPR. What he did do was a kind of course on

strategy with Fomento (Federal Board of FAU at that time). This same

course he did with the Tupamaros. We believe that it was a good course,

in addition its proposals in aspects that mattered a lot to us were

related, urban guerrilla issues and work at the level of “masses”.

About “Guerrilla Urbana” he then made a brochure that we put together

and printed ourselves in the Coopograf cooperative that we had at that

time. Then he brought a volume like 500 pages that we couldn’t do right

away and left the original with us. When an Argentine historian came,

some time ago, who is currently writing about the history of Guillen, we

gave it to him to see.[8] He thought he had read everything published by

Guillén, but in another booklet we had here he found the reference to a

couple of books he didn’t know.”

During the period of armed struggle, militants moved back and forth

between Uruguay and Argentina. Argentina did not fall to its military

dictatorship until after Uruguay, meaning that many OPR-33 and FAU

militants escaped across the borders. During the US Operation Condor,

dozens of militants were rounded up, kidnapped, tortured and executed.

An example is Gerado Gatti. Gerado had been a popular leader in the FAU

and in Uruguay’s trade union movement. He was the first secretary of the

CNT when it was established in 1964.[9] After the coup, he escaped to

Argentina where he and his daughter were kidnapped and taken back to

Uruguay. Gerado at least, was seen at the Orletti motor factory, where

he was tortured. The military kidnapped another FAU militant, Washington

Perez, who they brought to the factory to see Gerado. They thought they

could extort the FAU for several million dollars that they had

expropriated from banks. Gatti told Perez that it was a trap, and not to

return with the money. Perez was released, but Gatti was never seen

again.

In Argentina, a number of anarcho-syndicalists established a clandestine

organisation called Libertarian Resistance. They had a base in the

textile, rubber, dockworkers, woodworkers, graphics and teachers trade

unions, where they worked to prepare workers for resistance to the

imminent dictatorship. Libertarian Resistance activists also helped

smuggle FAU and OPR militants across the border.

[TL]: Libertarian Resistance in Argentina also had armed sections. I’ve

seen references to them as “syndicalist cells” and that they were tasked

with “defending factories” but I haven’t come across any more details in

English.[10] Could you explain that period of armed struggle in

Argentina and how it was also connected to the FAU?

[FAU]: Libertarian Resistance was a clandestine organization, due to the

very context in which it arises. There was a very close bond with FAU,

but also a good level of compartmentalization. All the work of FAU

failed in Argentina in 1976, within the framework of the Condor Plan,

and Libertarian Resistance was dismantled in 1978.

Libertarian Resistance was an organization with important insertion in

some union sectors and armed action similar to that of FAU. They were

also critics of foquismo. It should be borne in mind that their actions

were very small compared to larger armed groups such as Montoneros and

the PRT-ERP.

[TL] The OPR period is long past. In the past the FAU has been very

critical of the focoist strategy, as evidenced by documents like COPEI.

How does the FAU today analyse the successes and failures of the armed

struggle, especially having been through the experience itself?

[FAU]: COPEI sums up this analysis in a very good way. It presents the

condensed criticisms of foquismo and everything that generated that way

of acting, or the import of pre-established models, which had worked in

other places. It was about elaborating theory for the here and now of

Uruguay. And Cuba was not Uruguay, nor was Argentina Uruguay.

The role of the armed struggle was clearly delineated by the FAU. The

apparatus was not expected to make the revolution; it was only useful to

complete certain tasks in relation to it. The expropriations and

kidnappings were only undertaken to further the class struggle. OPR

activists intervened in a number of strikes after they had reached a

standstill. For example, a dispute at the Seral shoe factory in 1971

dragged out for months. The boss ignored all the workers demands and

actions, and even called in local fascists to intimidate the workers.

After the ROE caucus in the workplace requested assistance, OPR

militants kidnapped the boss’s son and issued a list of demands

including backpay, school supplies for local school children, clothing

for children in a local slum and publishing the agreed upon terms in the

national press. All conditions were agreed to and the strike was won.

The FAU-ROE-OPR connection meant that a solid basis in the working class

was the priority, only undertaking action that assisted popular

struggle.

Despite the existence of a small armed section under the control of the

anarchist organisation, it was never doubted the insurrection would be

made by the mass of workers. As the eve of the dictatorship approached,

the Tendencia became even more popular amongst the workers, and the FAU

escalated it’s work in preparation for the confrontation.

[TL]: In 1972 the FAU and ROE called a mass meeting of CNT “base

committees” circumventing the CNTs bureaucracy. How much power and

autonomy did the unions’ base committees have? Are the unions still

structured this way today?

[FAU]: Yes, that organizational form is maintained, although there is

always the struggle against the centralism of the reformist and

bureaucratic currents. The Combative Tendency as a whole had influence

on a third of the trade union movement. It was no minor influence. But

above all, each conflict was somehow a concrete experience of struggle

and solidarity and the possibility of expanding the margins of political

positions.

[TL]: In June, 1973 Bordaberry launched his coup and established a

dictatorship. In response the CNT launched a 15 day general strike,

including factory occupations. Can you tell us more about this strike?

How broad was it amongst the class? Did workers restart production under

their own control? Why did it fall apart?

[FAU]: The general strike against the coup d’état was decided by the

whole trade union movement in 1964, nine years before it took place. In

1964 the coup d’état took place in Brazil and there were already rumors

of a coup in Uruguay. Therefore, the workers’ movement, while the

formation of the CNT is ending, debates the need for a general strike

with occupation of the workplaces if there is a coup d’état.

This previous debate is what allows the massiveness of it and that the

whole country is paralyzed for 15 days. The strike was important even in

some cities in the north of the country. Let us take into account the

great concentration of population – and of industries at that time – in

Montevideo, the capital of the country. They even occupied and organized

workers from factories that had not been unionized until that time.

The repression was very harsh and it evicted several factories during

the strike, but the next day they were occupied again. Some factories

were occupied up to 7 times after the evictions.

Of course, the reformist sectors linked to the Communist Party did not

want the development of the strike, they tried to stop or minimize it,

but they could not face the decision of the workers. The strike was

extended and developed while there was a conviction that this was the

resolution taken to confront the coup d’état.

Essential services (health, energy) were kept functioning but only as

necessary and obviously with busy work premises. The oil refinery was

paralyzed.

If there is no doubt that the general strike was a massive and

unprecedented phenomenon, it was made possible by the degree of

development of the workers’ movement and because there was a strong

sector within it that promoted class independence and practiced it.

Logically, within the framework of a trade union and student movement

that fought daily and resisted the repressive policy harshly.

Undoubtedly, the general strike was possible due to the process of union

unity that allowed all the unions to be brought together in a

“Convention”.

The strike fell because it was becoming very difficult to sustain it,

the continuous evictions of the repressive forces were maintained, and

also some sectors began to lift the strike gradually such as transport.

There are also several debates in that regard about what to do with

fuels before the strike is lifted, for example.

Some sectors of reformism (some leaders of the Communist Party) were

negotiating with the military, in turn. And in turn, the general strike

only had the workers’ and popular forces, there were no levels of armed

action of a massive nature that could turn that strike into an

insurrection or move on to another stage of struggle with such

characteristics.

When the CNT decided to lift the strike, two unions (FUNSA workers and

drink workers) voted against it, and the federation of private health

workers abstained. These three unions draft the 3F Document (it was

three trade union federations that proposed it) and in it a strong

criticism of the method of reformism was made, and it [reformism] was

pointed out as responsible for having lost the strike. This method,

which operated in the long term and accustomed a large part of the trade

union movement to a struggle within the frameworks established by law

and the political system, meant that the workers’ unions did not develop

previous experiences of advanced struggle.

Let us say that just as [we were] critical of foquismo at the level of

armed action, so it was with reformism in trade union and political

action.

There are two important documents available in English regarding the

FAUs intervention into the trade union struggle before the coup. These

are titled “7 FAU Letters and Two Trade Union documents”, available on

the Anarkismo website. As we know, the entire country was aware that a

military coup was on the way. The question was how to prepare for that.

While other left organsiations put their hope in the electoral Frente

Ampilio (Broad Font), the FAU focused on preparing the mass of workers,

through a culture of direct action, to immediately challenge the state.

The Tendencia was their means of doing this. (Lawson, 2021)

The dictatorship eventually gave way to democratic elections in 1984.

But in the years between 1972–84, thousands were jailed and tortured,

and hundreds executed. Usually in torture camps in Argentina. This

included a disproportionate number of FAU activists. After the return to

democracy, the CNT was re-established, though it is now the PIT-CNT.

Syndicalist influences can still be seen, particularly in unions that

had strong ROE and FAU influence. In particular amongst teachers and the

FUNSA tire factory union.

Theory

“Theory is an instrument, a tool, that serves a purpose. It exists to

produce the knowledge that we need to produce. The first thing that we

care about knowing is our country. If theory is not capable of producing

new helpful knowledge for our political practice, [the] theory is

absolutely useless, it is only a theme for idle babble, for sterile

ideological polemics.” (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya, 1972)

Since Uruguay returned to bourgeois democracy, the FAU has rebuilt

itself. By all accounts it still maintains several premises, a printing

press, and radio stations. (Sharkey, 2009) The ROE also still exists,

although it is not as large as it was during the 60’s-70’s. Given that

any organisation will reflect on its past, I wanted to ask a few

questions about theoretical developments the FAU has made in the last

few generations. While core documents like Huerta Grande have been

translated, contemporary ones have not. The impressions I get however,

are that the organisation once dubbed as “anarcho-marxist” or

“neo-anarchist”, for their rejection of all individualist tendencies in

anarchism have moved towards a more subjectivist analysis of the world,

closer to strands of autonomist Marxism (at least in terms of

conceptualisation, if not in terms of organisation) than their previous

Bakuninist roots.

It should be stated however that questions of theory were not the core

focus of my interview, so there are less questions and less elaboration

than in other sections. I was well aware that theoretical concepts can

be the most difficult to translate correctly, and I think that’s better

left to people more fluent in both languages. If comrades want to know

more about the FAUs theoretical conceptions, I suggest that it can be

best gleaned from reading all the texts in English, including Felipe

Correas interview with Juan Carlos Mechoso, “The Strategy of

Especifismo.”

[TL]: The FARJ document “Social Anarchism and Organisation” has been

studied in Australia by all the anarchist-communist groups over the last

few years. In it the FARJ propose a model of “center-periphery”

relations that steps away from the traditional Marxist and anarchist

understanding of class, and places equal importance on peripheral social

groups as opposed to the traditional conception of the proletariat in a

revolutionary process. Given the FAU has been such an influential source

for the Brazilian anarchists, does the FAU propose a similar model of

Society?

[FAU]: Usually the concept center-periphery was used in the economic

theory of dependence, a current of Latin American economists to explain

the relations between poor or dependent countries and the first world.

FAU used this concept in that sense, it still uses it today, although it

requires some adaptation according to the new world reality.

As far as social classes are concerned, we escape from any consideration

based on the economic seat of the class or on an economistic

interpretation. We define not only social classes by their place in

production but by their ideology and social practices. We understand

those essential elements to understand classes and their relationships.

By ideology we mean a set of notions, worldview, concepts, feelings,

belonging, that social groups develop and that are a substantial part of

their group life as a class. The working class, for example, is not only

an economic situation but a set of practices and notions that make these

workers live in a certain way, and this includes their organizations and

their struggles, their concrete experiences in that sense.

That is why FAU focuses its attention on the set of oppressed classes,

including within them the unemployed, part-time and temporary workers,

peasants, indigenous people, etc. All these organized sectors should be

articulated as we understand in a Front of Oppressed Classes, which

articulates their experiences and struggles and advances in a process of

rupture.

In short, we no longer use the classic concept of “proletariat” as a

global concept that points to the whole class, but we understand that

the proletariat is a part of the working class.

How does this translate into militant terms? We organise both at the

union and neighborhood level, developing a task as global as possible in

the set of oppressed classes in all those places where they are. We also

organise at the level of the student movement, housing cooperatives,

etc.

In the case of Uruguay, the historical and current weight of the trade

union movement in the popular movement is undeniable, but we do not

neglect tasks on other fronts of insertion that allow us to organize

with other oppressed sectors, ones that are not framed in union work.

[TL]: Documents like Social Anarchism and Organisation (by the FARJ)

also give the impression that Especifist groups consider “Marxism” (as a

whole) as it’s more crude Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) forms. (Federação

Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro, 2008) But what is the FAUs relationship

with the ideas of Marx himself? Or tendencies like the Council

Communists and so called Left Communists?

[FAU]: We reject the categories of Marxist analysis, its mode of

analysis and its militant methods. Stalinism was not a deviation, it is

implicit in the Marxist-Leninist conception, therefore, we do not try to

rescue Marx and his conceptual body because he about thinks the world,

capitalist society and revolutionary processes from a purely economistic

conception. The history of humanity is more than just the history of the

class struggle and it is a fantasy to believe that the capitalist system

itself is marching towards its destruction by creating its own

gravediggers. A revolutionary process requires the organization and will

of the people, it is not a scientific process but a political and social

one. Marx believes he does science when what he does is ideology or

doctrine, he makes an ideological proposal for the interpretation of

society. For us the sphere of theory refers to the theoretical tools of

analysis, the field of theory is the field of science in our conception.

Councilist ideas have not had much influence here, although they were

known about in the 60’s and we read them, but their proposals arise from

Marxist conceptions. They have also been a concrete influence on certain

processes. We are moving away from attempts to synthesise between

Anarchism and Marxism. We debated this in the organisation in the 60’s

and rejected it. They are two different ideologies that start from a

different basis. There was a reason for the debates between Bakunin and

Marx. As for the FAU, we take much of our theory from Bakunin and

Malatesta.

[TL]: Juan Carlos Mechoso makes several references to Michel Foucault in

interviews. This is somewhat surprising as most anarchist [communists]

don’t use Foucault’s ideas for analysis, given the often ambiguous

nature of his theories. What did the FAU gain from studying him?

[FAU]: We gain an infinite number of things. Foucault is one of the most

important thinkers and theorists of the twentieth century. His analysis

of power allows us to place it in a series of relationships and

understand power not merely as something that is imposed but as

something that is built and disseminated throughout the set of social

relations. This allows us to speak of the Construction of People’s Power

as a capacity for action and organization of the people in their

different grassroots organizations and their articulation from the

bottom up, in a federalist way.

On the other hand, we take from Foucault a good part of his tools of

analysis that have helped us to think and interpret capitalist society

and power relations, precisely quieting the centrality of economic

processes and placing the emphasis on other spheres of domination. It

has allowed us to better ground this concept of Domination, which also

refers to our interpretation of capitalism and classes in this society.

We do not consider his theories to be ambiguous, but have been taken

ambiguously by some of his followers. Foucault works on power,

knowledge-power relations and the processes of subjectivation (formation

of the subject, let’s say) and on the construction of theoretical tools

and analysis of a scientific nature. He is one of the most interesting

structuralist and poststructuralist authors and precisely his structural

analysis seems appropriate, inscribing the contributions of this current

as important for our theoretical analyses since the ’60s.

That is, in FAU we not only study or read the classics of Anarchism or

the left in general, but we pay fundamental attention to authors of

these currents from which we can take concrete elements. This does not

mean that we become faithful reproducers of an author or a current, but

that we take those concepts that we consider to be inscribed within our

conception and conceptual framework and collaborate in the development

of theoretical tools for our analysis of reality and political

proposals.

The pointed question about Foucault relates to part of a modern text

jointly produced by the FAU and the Argentine FAG where the

organisations address issues of domination, power and ideology. They

state:

“The ideological-cultural aspect presents its own problems. First of

all, how does one establish the relationship between body and ideology

or ideologies, domination and ideology, practice-ideology? Here

Foucault’s concept of the social construction of the subject seems to be

of primary importance. In other words, the subject as a historical

construction. By ideology we mean, as we have already pointed out, not

only ideas, representations and behaviour. If ideology is composed of

internal systems which also have their “relative autonomy”,

ideas-practices, technologies of power, representations and behaviours,

it would be necessary to see how the concept of disciplining can be

articulated for the more direct functioning of the system in general and

for specific behaviours.” (Galazara & Tavarez, 2019)

While by no means abandoning an analysis of class society, the FAU

appear to be interested in asking deeper questions around the

construction of a revolutionary subject, unsatisfied by answers

previously supplied by Marxist thinkers. The construction of

revolutionary subjects is linked to the means of practicing direct

action on a mass scale, as in the days of the FAU-OPR-ROE-CNT

connection. This is what Especifists mean by the slogan “build Popular

Power.” For more on the concept of Popular Power see Felipe Corrêa’s

essays Create a Strong People and Anarchism, Class, Power and Social

Change.

[TL]: What is the FAUs general view of the revolutionary transition? The

establishment of “Soviets”, or of “factory councils”, or are the unions

the basis of the new organs of workers power? Or is it something else?

[FAU]: We have developed this theme in our Declaration of Principles, we

have dedicated an entire chapter to it, which shows the importance of

the subject for us. This does not mean that we have a “manual” or

“recipe book” to follow faithfully about popular organizational forms.

We understand that it is a complex process, that it is not passed from

one day to the next to Libertarian Socialism, that the social revolution

enables a “leap” but that leap is not magical and definitive, that many

political forces will be operating and the class enemy too, the same

imperial foreign forces.

The bodies that are created at the popular level in the run-up to the

final insurrection will be the ones that will have to be organized in a

federative way. We do not have an a priori about these organisms,

whether they are councils, collectivities or whatever they are called,

but it will be the organisms that take into their hands certain

functions of society. There must also be a general political body, of a

federal nature as we said. There should also be territorial bodies that

guarantee services and distribution of goods, for example, as well as

the use of the territory. Revolution is not merely an economic fact, it

encompasses all spheres of human life.

Of course, the history of revolutionary processes marks the creation of

councils or similar organs, but in general we prefer to speak of

grassroots popular organizations, leaving open the possibility of

creation and experimentation in this sense throughout the long journey

towards social revolution.

[TL]: Your organisation has a sophisticated understanding of the

relationship and differences between theory and ideology. Could you

explain how the FAU understands each and how they relate?

Yes, theory refers to the field of science, of the categories of

analysis. Ideology refers on the one hand to our doctrine (Anarchism),

on the other to the set of social values and notions that the people can

build in a long process of struggle and that many of them already exist

today because they have a long historical journey. The role of the

Political Organization is to enhance the positive values of the

oppressed classes and to support the ideological struggle against the

values of contrary ideologies, especially the one produced by the

system.

Theory is a specific field of Political Organization. It is the study

and elaboration of concepts to apply them to the interpretation of

reality and, obviously, linked to the militant activity of the

Organization.

We can say that theory and ideology are separate but articulated fields.

Only Marxism can claim to build a “scientific socialism.” Socialism is

not science, it is the will to change the people, to destroy an unjust

society in order to implement a just and egalitarian society. Socialism

is an aspiration, a utopia in the clearest and best sense of the word.

Science is the construction of concepts. Marxism has sold its ideology

as a science to validate it against other ideologies that it revalued,

debated with them from contempt, not from polemics.

We reiterate, the theoretical task carried out by the Organization is

not for intellectual dalliation, but out of militant necessity and

analysis of our concrete social reality, of the conjunctures and certain

issues or problems that we find in a process of revolutionary intention.

When it comes to understanding the question of theory and ideology, so

far as it relates to the FAU, it is worth quoting at length from Juan

Mechoso in his interview with Felipe Corrêa:

“Theory points to the development of conceptual instruments that think

about all that can be known, in a rigorous and profound way, of a

concrete social conjecture…. In this sense one can speak of theory as

the equivalent of science, and this is how it should be understood.

Ideology on the other hand, has elements of an unscientific nature that

contribute to dynamising and motivating action based on circumstances

that, although related to the existing social conditions, do not derive

from them in a strict sense; action is not determined by what… has been

called objectivity… the expression of motivations… Aspirations, ideal

goals, utopias, hopes, hatred and desires also belong to the ideological

domain.

Rigorous analysis of a concrete situation is thus a theoretical

analysis, which should be as scientific as possible. Theory needs and

conditions the circumstances of political action… An ideology is more

effective as a motor for political action, the more firmly it is

supported by contributions of theory.” (Mechoso & Corrêa, 2020)

Contemporary

In this final section of the interview, I took into account the FAUs

history and theory, and the global spread of Especifist ideas. On the

basis of what I had already come to understand about the organisation I

wanted to ask the FAU about their internal processes, relations with

other tendencies and organisations, and what concrete undertakings the

organisation is involved in today.

[TL]: Especifist organisations are known to require a high level of

theoretical and practical development before someone can become a

member. What does the process of joining the FAU look like?

[FAU]: FAU is an organization of militants, not the “masses.” It is not

in our interest to affiliate people as the Communist Party does, for

example. But it is in our interest that the comrade who joins FAU has

the minimum theoretical and political elements to develop their

militancy within the framework of the Organization and develop their

political project. Obviously, militants are being formed in the

Organization day by day.

At the same time, FAU works permanently on theory, the tools necessary

for analysis, to read and interpret reality and to be able to develop

our political proposals. It is not a finished work, it is done over

time. The same as the training of militants.

The entry process takes a few meetings of reading and discussing

documents and materials of the Organization, so that the colleague who

enters does so understanding what we are talking about and the

Organization also has the guarantees that the comrade joins in good

faith and is prepared for the political project.

A long process of study and working with the organisation before

becoming a fully committed member is standard for Especist groups. The

logic is that the Especifist group is not a vanguard, it is simply one

of many groups of working class militants dedicated to socialism

organising together. This makes us stronger and more effective, however

Especifists realise that it is the mass organizations of the class that

make the revolution, not the party.

[TL]: The FAU has been accused of being “democratic centralist” by other

anarchists in the past. In Ricardo Rugai’s article “Anarchism and the

Question of the Party” he describes a secretariat and a federal council

with executive powers. (Rugai, 2014)This sounds surprising. The nature

of executive power was one of the key points in the debate between

Malatesta and Makhno over the platform. It also sounds like a departure

from Federalism, one of the key defining features of anarchism. Of

course, I believe the FAU reformed and changed its structures after the

PVP split – so perhaps it operates differently. How do the broad

structures of the FAU function today?

[FAU]: The Secretariat or the Secretariat of the organization or the

body was never conceived as an executive power outside the decisions of

the Organization. There are agencies in charge of complying with

specific resolutions in the day to day of the Organization, but the

maximum body for resolutions is the Congress, and of course then the

federal agencies.

Yes, there may be specific responsibilities, but they are subject to the

control of the federal and grassroots agencies of the Organization.

The Federal Council is the highest instance between Congress and

Congress and there the entire Organization is represented. There the

most relevant political decisions of the organization are made,

including work plans.

A few notes are worth adding for context here: I actually had the notion

of a PVP split wrong. Around 1974, in exile, the FAU absorbed a number

of other far-left organisations, almost all exclusively Marxist. This

included several small factions of the Tupamaros. The majority of the

new organisation however was still Bakuninist, and maintained their

roles in the ROE and OPR-33. With the dropping the tight Especifist

program, they renamed the organisation the Peoples Victory Party. PVP

cells in exile were established as far abroad as São Paulo, Paris and

Stockholme. Within a year of its founding, every leading member of the

PVP except one was kidnapped and murdered. (Partido por la Victoria del

Pueblo, n.d.) When the country returned to bourgeois democracy,

surviving members re-established the PVP. However, when the PVP began

running in elections, the anarchists left and reestablished the FAU as

an Especifist organisation. (Schmidt, 2020)

Secondly, the debate around the nature of the executive has been a long

one in anarchism. Misunderstanding of the related language and intention

was the source of the debate between Malatesta and Makhno following the

publishing of The Platform. Especifist and Platformist organisations

will appoint a small body of members to undertake certain mandated and

strictly limited roles. These are quite different to the central

committee established in Marxist Leninist parties, as they retain no

executive power. Power resides in organisational congresses, and in

exceptional situations with small committees delegated to fulfil a

particular task.

[TL]: In Australia the percentage of union membership has dramatically

declined over the last few decades. Some Anarchist-Communists here place

a specific emphasis on social insertion into the unions in the hope of

rebuilding them, while other tendencies of anarchists focus almost

exclusively on social movements. What does the union movement in Uruguay

look like today? How does the PIT-CNT differ to the pre-dictatorship

CNT? What is the FAUs relationship to it?

[FAU]: FAU maintains its union insertion and here all the unions are in

the PIT-CNT. There are differences between PIT-CNT and CNT, different

generations, different perspectives, even some renewing of older ultra

reformist currents from the ’80s and ’90s, even more reformist than the

most classic Stalinism of the currents of the Communist Party. But

inside the body both class-struggle and combative sectors, and on the

other hand, reformists or other sectors that have no interest in

developing the capacity of organized workers.

Within the unions in which we are inserted, we try to form militant

groups of tendency, which bring together the most class conscious and

combative militants of the sector. There we try to develop a political

line towards that guild, a political line that does not call itself

anarchist, but tries to operate on the basis of solidarity, direct

action, direct and grassroots democracy, etc., that is, with the

principles that anarchist militancy promotes and to make a style and a

method of these characteristics, but does not place a [singular

political] label on the struggle of the oppressed.

[TL]: Does the FAU retain strong influence in any unions? What

strategies does the FAU employ to strengthen the union movement today?

Are there any particular sectors of industry that have maintained

militant unionism?

[FAU]: Yes, there is an impact on the trade union movement. In general,

labor unions have had a “renaissance” after the crisis of 2002, when the

country was literally bankrupt. The industrial dismantling of the ’90s

was very hard and hit the unions hard as well. But today several

industrial unions have a strong presence and prominence. We must bear in

mind that the economic structure [creates] dependence in Uruguay,

therefore, the industrial apparatus is not very extensive. It was

greater until the ’70s. The dismantling was completed in the ’90s with

the implementation of neoliberal policies, through the dictatorship and

the subsequent governments.

[TL]: In the past, FAU militants took on leadership roles in the CNT.

Does the organisation still allow militants to be elected to official

roles by the workers or does the organisation focus on rank and file

activism?

[FAU]: This depends on the moment and our strength. It is desirable to

have a powerful militant body to face general responsibilities in the

trade union movement and towards that work we tend. The question is not

to have a union leader who “lines” or makes beautiful speeches, but that

this line and those speeches are an expression of a concrete

construction and development of organizational forces of their own, of a

tendency of their own in the labor movement.[11] In the ’60s this was

viable, but all this was built during decades of anarchism’s incidence

in the trade union movement.

As we have already seen, the FAU had significant influence on sectors of

Uruguay’s trade union movement. Leon Duarte, a militant from an

anarcho-syndicalist background and leader of the militant FUNSA, was a

particularly prominent figure. When the military took power, they

offered to negotiate with Tendencia unions, namely the FUNSA. This was a

clear attempt to win over a militant sector of the class. A meeting was

held that was broadcast live on radio between the Generals and the FUNSA

leadership. However the anarchists accepted on a false premise, during

the meeting Miguel Gromaz shouted “what you want is a central [union

body] of scabs! But you will not get us, we belong to the CNT!” the

broadcast and the meeting were cut off. Miraculously, the military did

not execute the leaders then and there. A few months later they offered

Duarte the position of Minister of Labour, which he turned down. Within

a few years he was caught and executed in Argentina.

[TL]: In the 1969 Cartas de FAU it is advised that when working in

unions militants must “avoid isolation… this requires a stable and

functional, broad and non-sectarian co-ordination of all those willing

to fight.” What organisations do the FAU work alongside today? For

example, are there particular Trotskyists groups or anarcho-syndicalist

organisations that you work closely with?

[FAU]: We work in the same way, with those criteria. Here

anarcho-syndicalism lost its footing (ceased to exist) practically in

the 1950s, when it was already extremely weakened. That is, today it

does not exist as a current.

There are several Trotskyist parties, the most relevant is the Workers’

Party (PT), along the lines of the Argentine Workers’ Party (altamira),

with a very sectarian line, very reformist (focused on the electoral

performance of its party, which is insignificant), and linked to quite

bureaucratic sectors of the trade union movement, and its practice also

has this bureaucratic component. It is very difficult to be able to

coordinate with this sector. In addition, they have had a historical

practice of singling out everyone as reformists and other epithets when

they themselves develop those practices.

[TL]: Where does the FAU place its main emphasis on social insertion

today? What are the largest social movements in Uruguay now?

[FAU]:The trade union movement is still the most important. Also at the

neighborhood level, of work in the neighborhoods, with different tasks:

popular pots, cultural tasks, talks, work with children, women and

neighborhood organizations in general, etc.

[TL]: Historically the FAU has been well known for its anti-imperialist

politics. In the past the USA directly intervened in South America, and

many popular movements were united against the US. How does the FAU

understand the modern dynamics of imperialism? What does today’s

anti-imperialism look like?

[FAU]: The United States remains the relevant imperialist power towards

Latin America. Of course, today it is no longer the only capitalist

power with imperialist pretensions and that generates changes in the

situation and international alignment. We see it today in Afghanistan,

clearly. But Latin America remains “the backyard” of the United States

according to its conception, its area of influence, “natural” and

closer. Here the US has operated in these last 20 years very

aggressively. We can mention his participation in the coup d’état of

Venezuela in 2002, the constant coup attempts in that same country or

destabilization and economic bloc; the coup d’état in Honduras in 2009,

in Paraguay in 2012 and Brazil in 2016 (parliamentary and judicial

coups), the coup d’état in Bolivia in 2019.

All of them without counting the criminal blockade of Cuba that has been

going on for 50 years. The U.S. finances different armies such as the

Colombian, which has been massacring the people of that country for

decades, and also finances different collateral institutions that

amplify and develop the U.S. policy for the area. China, Russia and the

European Union do not have the capacity to impose this type of policies

in Latin America, but to develop important investments.

[TL]:The anarchist movement has historically placed huge emphasis on

education. At one point, Luce Fabbri, who wrote a study on workers

autodidactism, was a member of the FAU. I believe FAU also still runs

ateneos. Given most countries have a more integrated state-run education

system, do these still play a vital role in the Uruguayan anarchist

movement and the workers movement in general?

[FAU]: In Uruguay, the education system is currently widespread.

Activities Educational today are not so central in that sense, but

cultural ones in general. The Athenaeums continue to function,

developing various neighborhood tasks. We can say that in terms of the

“educational” there is no specific task, except school support or in

times of strikes, teachers develop counter-courses to accompany students

and in turn be able to keep them informed of the progress of the

conflict.

Luce Fabbri left the FAU in 1963 with a group of colleagues due to

debates of the moment. She held a pacifist position and opposed direct

action at all levels as it had been proposed that gave rise to OPR-33.

Her group will have almost no impact on social events and struggles from

that date.

[TL]: What is the situation in Uruguay with the COVID-19 crisis? How has

the FAU responded? Do anarchists focus on demands around safety at work,

social provisions etc or are they focused on mutual aid efforts?

[FAU]: COVID 19 has had a very strong surge from the end of 2020 to June

2021. The vaccination campaign has made it possible to reduce the number

of deaths and seriously ill people, the same as contagions. Here

everything came a little later. That was our first wave, while Europe

and Australia were already going through the third wave. Here it has

cost the life of a little more than 6000 people today. While there was

no mandatory confinement, the government called for “staying at home”

and reducing mobility. This occurred in different ways according to

different moments. In 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, the

movement of people was greatly reduced; not so in 2021 when the peak was

higher in terms of infections and deaths.

Mobilizations were not suspended, although there were few [participants]

for fear of the contagion. Likewise, FAU called for the realization of

its act prior to May Day and from our social spaces we call to

commemorate May 20, the day of the missing detainees.[12] On the other

hand, unions and different guilds mobilized throughout this period. All

these activities were carried out under sanitary measures, of course.

Our main action was in the development of Popular Pots in the

neighborhoods and unions. Providing a plate of food to the sectors that

were left without jobs or without the possibility to continue performing

their tasks. Informal work in Uruguay is very vast. A total of 400,000

people perform tasks informally (without legal protection) or are

monotributistas.[13] These are the sectors that were directly affected

by the crisis when many economic activities were paralyzed. In various

private areas, claiming unemployment insurance was massive, as was the

loss of employment by many workers. It is estimated that there are

currently 100,000 more poor people.

This whole situation is not only because of the pandemic, but also

because of the recessive adjustments imposed by the government. We are

facing the application of a fierce neoliberal policy in these moments,

with a tendency towards deepening.

The demand for sanitary measures in the workplace also occupied part of

the trade union activity, but usually such measures were taken by

agreement with companies and the state, implemented something [together]

in that regard, although it was not always adequate.

Returning to the experiences of the Popular Pots, we developed two

things: one in the neighborhoods of the West of Montevideo (Cerro and La

Teja). There the pot of the Ateneo del Cerro lasted a few months, then

moved to a snack system for neighborhood children. In the case of La

Teja the pot continues with a very good level of activity, in a

sustainable manner.

Our coordination inside the unions has also managed to sustain something

very concrete; a continued supply of several pots to various

neighbourhoods.

[TL]: In Australia there has been a rapid growth of groups influenced by

Platformism, especifismo etc. There is something of a debate about how

we identify our particular tendency. At the moment, we use the title

“Anarchist-Communist.” Most of us think that the idea of formally

organised anarchist groupings goes back to Bakunin and Malatesta – in

fact, we think that alongside Anarcho-Syndicalism, these ideas are the

original forms of anarchism. What do you think? Does the FAU publicly

identify as especifist, Anarchist-Communist or anarchist? Do you think

individualist ideas have a place in anarchist history?

[FAU]: FAU claims to be Especifist. We are in fact the creators of the

term. This recognizes the need for anarchist political organization as a

specific space of anarchist militancy. Logically, this tradition goes

back to Bakunin and Malatesta. FAU puts this proposal into operation and

places it in tune with the Latin American reality.

For us, there is no difference with the Platformist current. The text by

Dielo Truda had not arrived before the FAU was formed, nor during the

process of its formation. However, the text of the Bulgarian Federation

did arrive, derived in some way from that experience.[14] There is a lot

of confusion with the text of the Platform from its circulation on the

Internet of some analyses that are not consistent with reality. We do

not find major differences between the Platform and Especifismo, they

are two experiences that occurred in different places and at different

times, but in which the comrades had the same concern: to politically

organize the anarchist militancy to achieve progress in the struggle for

Socialism and Freedom.

FAU maintains contacts with platformist and anarcho-communist

organizations without any problems and works together. There are many

things that unite us and are [held in] common. Of course, each

organization and group of people has its own particular history and

experiences and this is totally understandable and respectable. Nor do

we sell a “recipe” about how the political organization should work or

how it should be, if we can transfer a concrete experience.

We do believe that all organizations must advance in the theoretical

development and analysis tools to interpret reality, a task that FAU has

carried out since its inception and it is desirable that all anarchist

organizations share and develop together.

In general we have no affinity with individualism. We try to take

decisions collectively and to develop as militants collectively. We

understand the Organization as a school of life. It is far from us to

claim individual positions or individualistic proposals that do not

build anything in the collective or promote the social struggle.

Recommended Readings

Introductions to Especifsmo:

• Collective Action – Specifism Explained

• Adam Weaver – Especifismo

• Eugene Stroud – How do you say Especifismo in English?

Central Texts:

• FARJ – Social Anarchism and Organisation

• Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici – Anarchist Communism

• FAU – Huerta Grande

Strategy:

• Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira – For a Theory of Strategy

• José Antonio Gutiérrez D – About the problems posed by the concrete

class struggle and popular organisation

• Pabo Barbanegra – Towards Mass Movements

• FAU – COPEI

• FdCA – Anarchist Communist and the Mass Organisation

• FdCA – On the Transitional Period

Internal Debates:

• Charlotte Murphy – Reading FARjs Social Anarchism and Organsation

• Felipe Corrêa – Especifismo and Synthesism

References

Andavolu, K. (2014). Meet Uruguays Charismatic ‘Robin Hood’ President.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz5xyy/meet-uruguays-charismatic-robin-hood-president

Bayer, O. (2015). The Anarchist Expropriators Buenaventura Durruti and

Argentina’s Working-Class Robin Hoods. AK Press.

Bertram, R. (2020, 1 27). Uruguay, Latin America’s Renewable Champion.

Energy Transition.

https://energytransition.org/2020/01/uruguay-latin-americas-renewable-champion/

Cappelletti, Á. J. (2017). Anarchism in Latin America. AK Press.

Cuesta, F. O. (2020). Direct Action in Montevideo: Uruguayan Anarchism,

1927–1937. AK Press.

Fairbanks, E. (2015, 2 6). Jose Mujica Was Every Liberal’s Dream

President. He Was Too Good to Be True. The New Republic.

https://newrepublic.com/article/120912/uruguays-jose-mujica-was-liberals-dream-too-good-be-true

Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. (2008). Social Anarchism and

Organisation. Libcom.

https://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism-organisation

Federación Anarquista Uruguaya. (1972). Huerta Grande. Anarchist

Library.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/federacion-anarquista-uruguaya-huerta-grande

Galazara, W., & Tavarez, M. (2019). Trabajo de Estructuras. Federación

Anarquista Uruguaya.

http://federacionanarquistauruguaya.uy/documento-wellington-galarza-y-malvina-tavarez-fau-fag-trabajo-de-estructuras/

Kokinis, T. A. (2020). The Women of Casa Emma: Social Subversion and the

Lives of Armed Anarchist Militants in Uruguay, 1967–1974 (108^(th) ed.,

Vol. LIII). Histoire Social/Social History.

Kokinis, T. A. (Forthcoming). An Anarchy for the South: Third Worldism,

Popular Power and the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation. Transatlantic

Uruguay.

Lawson, T. (2020). Abraham Guillén, Between Bakunin and Marx: Anarchism,

Socialism and the Economics of Self-Management. Libcom.

https://libcom.org/library/abraham-guill-n-between-bakunin-marx-anarchism-socialism-economics-self-management

Lawson, T. (2020). Abraham Guillén, Between Bakunin and Marx: Anarchism,

Socialism and the Economics of Self-Management. Libcom.

https://libcom.org/library/abraham-guill-n-between-bakunin-marx-anarchism-socialism-economics-self-management

Lawson, T. (2021). Anarchy and its Allies: The United Front and

Groupings of Tendency. Libcom.

https://libcom.org/library/anarchy-its-allies-united-front-groupings-tendency

Mechoso, J. C., & Corrêa, F. (2020). The Strategy of Especifismo.

Zabalaza Books.

https://zabalazabooks.net/2020/03/05/the-strategy-of-especifismo/

Partido por la Victoria del Pueblo. (n.d.). About Us. PVP.

PVP.org.uy/quienes-somos/

Rugai, R. R. (2014). Anarchism and the question of the party: a

reflection from the historical references of the Uruguayan Anarchist

Federation. Biblioteca Anarquista.

https://bibliotecaanarquista.org/library/ricardo-ramos-rugai-o-anarquismo-e-a-questao-do-partido-uma-reflexao-a-partir-dos-referenciais

Schmidt, M. (2020). Southern Citadel: A Case Study of Mass-Line

Anarchism After the Spanish Revolution. Privately published.

https://www.academia.edu/42237932/Southern_Citadel_A_Case_Study_of_Mass_line_Anarchism_After_the_Spanish_Revolution

Sharkey, P. (2009). The Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU): Crisis,

Armed Struggle and Dictatorship, 1967–1985. Kate Sharpley Library.

Zuzenko, O. (2021, 11 29). 65 Years of Revolution – the Anarchist

Federation of Uruguay. Libcom.

https://libcom.org/history/65-years-revolution-anarchist-federation-uruguay

[1] A number of these anarchists were arrested, and ended up jailed in

Punta Carretas, Montevideo. They made a miraculous escape using a tunnel

dug by other comrades. In the 1970s, members of the FAU and Tupamaros

made an escape from the same prison using a new tunnel dug by OPR

members. The old and new tunnels intersected, where the escaping FAU

members left a note pinned to the wall “Two generations, one struggle:

FREEDOM.” At the time, the escape was the largest jail break in history.

[2] Luce was the daughter of the famous Italian anarchist Luigi Fabbri.

The family escaped fascism in Italy to live in Montevideo, where Luigi

died in 1935. Italian anarchism had a huge influence across the Rio de

la Plata. A small example; Errico Malatesta drafted the statutes for the

first union in Argentina. That union was the Bakers Union, and the

influence of anarchists is still evident culturally. Many sweet treats

sold at bakers in Argentina are still nicknamed after anarchist themes.

[3] Uruguay has two historically dominant parties. For a period, the

dominance of the parties was even part of the constitution. The Colorado

party is the more ‘liberal’ of the two.

[4] In 1973, the military finally overthrew civilian rules and

established a dictatorship. This had been threatened for quite a few

years beforehand, but a ‘civilian dictatorship’ (i.e. authoritarian

democracy) had been uneasily maintained.

[5] See Guerrilla Warfare, Che Guevara.

[6] For an enjoyable history of the armed struggle in Uruguay, see the

episode “Christmas non-Bastard: The Tupamaros of Uruguay” of the Behind

the Bastards podcast.

[7] The Tupamaros for example were established by middle class

intellectuals.

[8] A biography of Abraham Guillen was recently published in Spanish.

[9] Leon Duarte, another FAU militant, was also on the CNT secretariat

when it was established.

[10] Besides a number of very small personal biographies, I still

haven’t found a comprehensive history of Libertarian Resistance. If

anyone reading this text knows of such a work, please get in contact.

[11] I believe what the FAU mean by this is that a leader creates a

political ‘line’ and gives it to the workers. Rather than a leader who

represents the bottom-up construction of a political position or line of

struggle.

[12] A memorial for comrades and civilians killed during the

dictatorship

[13] I believe this means self-employed.

[14] The Federation of Anarchist Communists of Bulgaria (FAKB) was the

first organisation to formally adopt the model of the Platform. Formed

in 1925, the FAKB played a substantial role in both the resistance to

the right-wing dictatorship in the early 20s and the fight against

fascism during the Second World War. In 1945, they adopted a modified

version of the Platform as their own program. After WWII, the Communists

broke the United Front and rapidly persecuted anarchists, sending many

of them to labour camps. FAKB exiles ended up in Uruguay. Some also

moved to Australia.