💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › collective-action-specifism-explained.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 22:42:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Specifism Explained
Author: Collective Action
Language: en
Topics: especifismo, platformism, organizational dualism, organization, strategy, anarchist organization

Collective Action

Specifism Explained

In discussing the platform of Collective Action some individuals have

expressed confusion at our use of the label “specifism” to describe the

tradition of social anarchism we associate with. The following is a

short introduction to what we consider to be the most essential concepts

within the specifist model. This text is an adaptation of a forthcoming

interview with Shift Magazine on anti-capitalist regroupment.

---

“Specifism” refers to an organisationalist current within the anarchist

tradition which, in contemporary terms, is principally elaborated by the

Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro (FARJ) but has its historical

roots in the writings of Bakunin, Malatesta and Makhno (among others).

Many associate these ideas solely with Makhno’s “Organisational Platform

of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)” but they actually date from

one of the first organisational documents of social anarchism —

Bakunin’s programme for the International Alliance of Socialist

Democracy. At the core of the specifist framework is an understanding of

the division of anarchist activity into the social and political

level.[1] Specifists argue that a lot of the organisational errors of

anarchist militants result from a confusion of the social and political

level.

The social level is understood as those struggles that exist within the

material and ideological framework of capitalism (bread-and-butter

issues in layman terms). These will be heavily determined by the

ideology of capitalist society and situated principally within the logic

of capitalism, for example the demand for increased wages in exchange

for labour or the desire for social reforms from the state. These will

also be structured by a wider cultural, economic and political framework

that will both shape their character, as well as causing their level of

combativity and consciousness to ebb and flow, one example being the way

in which the ongoing financial crisis has provoked an acceleration of

working class resistance in certain sectors and geographical areas.

Anarchists need to find a way of engaging with these struggles in a way

that relates directly to the existing composition and level of

consciousness present within the class. Successful engagement requires

both a relationship of study, in terms of the need to understand and

critically evaluate the existing composition and ideas of the class, and

a relationship of intervention, to practically shape anarchist ideas and

methods so they appear as sensible and useful tools for those engaged at

the social level.

Anarchists also need to maintain their own coherent vision of an

alternative society — anarchist communism. This is the political level.

The political level represents the idea (theory) expressed by

revolutionary minorities as visions for social transformation and

alternative societies. This political line is obviously not static and

exists relationally to the social level. The political level cannot be

purely the expression of propaganda of the ideal. Anarchist communism is

a tradition developed from the lessons drawn from the struggles of the

popular classes. Work at the political level is cultivated through the

study, self-criticism and organisational activity of anarchist communist

militants and expressed through the unity and organisational discipline

of the specific anarchist organisation (SAO). While the social level

acts at as the “compass”, as Magon puts is, that steers the theory of

revolutionary militants, the political level is also distinct from the

social level in that the ideas here are held irrespective of the general

social framework and therefore not subject to the mediations of

capitalism and the state. The political level, therefore, while

expressing clarity in revolutionary ideas does this in the form of

minority organisations that are independent and not representative of

those held by the class-as-a-whole.

What results from this understanding of the political and social levels

is the practice of “organisational dualism”. Specifically anarchist

groups (hence the term “specifism”) with well defined positions of

principle and operating under conditions of political unity at the

political level intervene, participate within or seek to build popular

movements at the social level. The objective of this intervention is not

to “capture” or establish anarchist fronts but to create the correct

conditions, by arguing for anarchist methods and ideas, for the

flourishing of working class autonomy. It is this autonomy that is the

basis for working class counter-power and revolutionary change, as

Malatesta (1897) famously stated, “We anarchists do not want to

emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves”.

As the Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici (FdCA) (2005) argue, work at

the social level should not be a carbon copy of the organisations of the

political level. Intervention at the social level has to arise within

the context of the immediate needs of the proletariat and their current

state of ideological and technical composition. In this sense work at

the social level intervenes within and aims to accelerate the process

of, as Marx expressed it, the class acting “in itself”, subject to a

common condition under capitalism, towards a class-for-itself, a

self-conscious grouping acting to its own material interests –

communism.

Specifism is a praxis that seeks to strike the balance between a healthy

relationship of influence within the class and an ideologically coherent

communist organisation, while rejecting the vanguardist approaches of

Leninist groups. Whereas Marxists will traditionally look to the

fluctuating struggles of the social level and argue the need for a

revolutionary leadership from without, specifists argue that anarchist

communists fight by acting as a critical conscience from within.

For this reason specifism is fundamentally organisationalist in

character rejecting the idea that anarchism can be developed purely

through the propagandistic activity of discussion circles, groups or

federations. Rather the SAO needs to form unified tactics and a strategy

as the basis of its programme that it carries through in its activity

within the class.

Specifism represents both an alternative to anarchist activism, which

does not compose itself formally at the political level, and certain

models of anarcho-syndicalism, which attempt to unify the practice of

the social and political level in the formation of revolutionary unions.

In criticism of anarchist activism, specifists stress the need for an

educated and self-critical practice at the political level to build

sustainable long-term interventions at the social level. The alternative

is sporadic, reactive political work that doesn’t incorporate a cycle of

review and re-evaluation. Likewise, as Fabbri notes, the lack of

“visible organisations” on the part of anarchist militants, i.e. clear

and accessible lines of participation, creates space for the

“establishment of arbitrary, less libertarian organisations”.

In response to anarcho-syndicalism, specifists argue that the formation

of social-level organisations — unions — with revolutionary principles,

does not resolve the problems created by capitalist mediation at the

social level. Rather, as the FdCA argue, what result often is, “a

strange mix of mass organisation and political organisation which is

basically an organisation of anarchists who set themselves up to do

union work”. This situation usually resolves either in the actual

existence of a revolutionary minority within the union itself that seeks

to preserve the line in the face of fluctuations at the social level,

often being forced to act undemocratically or necessarily preserving a

minority membership for the union, or a flexibility in anarchist

principles which leaves open the question of where the radicalisation

between the political and social level will occur. Likewise the FARJ

make a historical point that the dissolution of anarchist activity into

the social level has meant in many cases the complete loss of any

political reference point following the collapse or repression of these

organisations. The SAO, in this sense, can act as a vital line of

continuity for anarchist communist ideas.

Collective Action argues that the lessons and guides derived from

specifist theory are a critical tool in the process of anarchist

regroupment. The only way there can be a future for anarchist politics

in the UK in the 21^(st) Century is in making anarchist communist ideas

and methods a practical and coherent tool for organising workplaces,

intervening in social struggles and empowering working class

communities. Anarchism needs to recapture its traditional terrain of

organising, what Bakunin referred to as, the “popular classes” and

abandon the dead-end of activism. This means a fundamental re-assessment

of what we do and what we hope to achieve. It also means returning, as

Vaneigem would call it, to the politics of “everyday life”. This means

reorientation of our practice to both the social and political level and

utilising the richness of our own political tradition to clarify and

improve our own organising efforts.

---

References

Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici (2005) Anarchist Communists: A

Question of Class. Studies for a Libertarian Alternative: FdCA

Malatesta, E. (1897) “Anarchism and Organisation” Available at:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1897/xx/anarchorg.htm

---

Collective Action is an association of anarchist communists based in

Britain. We see anarchist communism as an engaged tradition of working

class socialism and our theory is informed by both our experience and

our continuing participation in social struggles. Our project is to

re-visit our political tradition, re-group and re-kindle our political

action.

[1] A certain elasticity must be allowed with these terms and the labels

should by no means be considered exclusive. The “social” level, for

example, is of course at the same time “political” in that it is a

sphere for both the contestation and birth of ideas. Likewise the

“political” level is simultaneously “social” in respect to the fact that

anarchist communist ideas are derived from a historical and materialist

analysis of society, and composed of the experiences and lessons of

social struggle (for more commentary on the historical materialist

character of anarchist communism see “Appendix 1: Historical Materialism

and Dialectical Materialism” In: Federazione dei Communisti Anarchici

(2005) Anarchist Communists: A Question of Class. Studies for a

Libertarian Alternative: FdCA).