A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion: Revolutionary Organization - An Organic Model for 21st-Century Anarchism. Part 2 - By LIZA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

You can access the first part of the article through this link. 
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/06/05/contra-toda-derrota-organizacion-revolucionaria/ 
---- Table of Contents ---- For an Agile, Efficient, and 
Internationalist Organizational Model: Global Strategy and Local 
Tactical Autonomy ---- Overcoming Limits: The Organizational Problem in 
Contemporary Anarchism ---- Throughout its history, anarchism has been 
one of the political currents most committed to the radical 
transformation of society. Its commitment to freedom, equality, direct 
action, and popular self-organization has produced bold, prefigurative, 
and profoundly democratic organizational forms. However, the libertarian 
field has also faced recurring blockages stemming from insufficient or 
contradictory conceptions of organization. Paralyzing informality, 
sterile fragmentation, idealization of spontaneity, horizontalism as 
dogma, rejection of planning, and resistance to the consolidation of 
structures have been some of the constants that have weakened its 
capacity for political accumulation.

Foundational critiques such as Jo Freeman's The Tyranny of 
Structurelessness (1972) or Regue's-a member of Embat, the Libertarian 
Organization of Catalonia-in The Trap of Horizontality (2024) insist 
that the absence of organizational formalization is not "freer" or "less 
hierarchical," but simply opaque. Without clear mechanisms for 
decision-making, delegation, accountability, and evaluation, power 
relations persist, but in an informal, concentrated, and unintentional 
manner. In contexts of greater scale, complexity, or confrontation, this 
lack becomes a weakness that fragments struggles, prevents the 
sustainment of prolonged processes, and limits any possibility of 
strategic accumulation.

Rodrigo Nunes (2021), in Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal[1], provides a 
contemporary critique of the classic dichotomy between spontaneity and 
hierarchy. His proposal of "organized networks" with differentiated 
degrees of functional centrality offers a way to think about forms of 
political coordination without falling into avant-garde logic. This 
approach, compatible with anarchist principles, allows us to think of 
organizations that are not exhausted in their formal structure, but that 
do not renounce their capacity to act effectively and with shared direction.

Guiding principles of the organizational proposal
The proposal presented here is part of the tradition of organized 
anarchism, recovering and projecting its historical principles: 
federalism, direct action, building from below, autonomy, solidarity, 
and prefiguration. Added to these is an urgent need of the present: to 
build an organization that is not only faithful to its values but also 
functional to prolonged struggle, effective in intervention, and capable 
of generating popular power.

The basis of this proposal is a model of internationalist confederalism 
, understood as an articulation of anarchist organizations from 
different contexts that share a general political program and coordinate 
strategically on a regional and global scale, without losing tactical 
autonomy in their respective territories. Each organization, depending 
on its size and degree of integration, can define its internal 
structure, provided that it respects the common principles of direct 
democracy, collective responsibility, and transformative action.

The goal is not to impose a single model, but to offer an organizational 
architecture capable of combining:

Political clarity (unity of purpose),
Operational flexibility (media diversity),
Strategic coordination (planned common actions),
Militant participation (decision from the bottom up),
Continuous assessment (collective learning).
The criterion that structures this model is the ability to intervene 
effectively without reproducing structures of domination, and to sustain 
an organization over time that does not sacrifice either participation 
or direct action.

Internal and external contributions to anarchism for an effective 
organization
Organized anarchism has developed models that seek to respond coherently 
to the challenges of revolutionary political construction. Experiences 
such as those of the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), the Brazilian 
Anarchist Coordination (CAB), the Anarchist Federation of Rosario (FAR), 
and the Union Communiste Libertaire (UCL)[2]in France demonstrate that 
it is possible to sustain federative, democratic, and functional 
structures, embedded in the popular fabric, with the capacity for 
strategic intervention. A common feature in these experiences is the 
centrality of a collectively constructed political program , which not 
only guides immediate action but also allows for an organic articulation 
between theory, practice, and ongoing political training (Corrêa, 2018; 
FAU, 2009).

Far from being a simple declaration of intent, the program serves a 
structuring function. It acts as a tactical compass, an evaluation tool, 
and a space for collective political synthesis. Its effectiveness 
depends on three factors: its participatory development, its link to 
concrete practice, and its periodic evaluation and update. Thus, it 
allows for the unification of strategic criteria without uniformizing 
thinking and strengthens activist commitment without eroding local autonomy.

Alongside these internal developments, certain contributions from other 
fields-particularly contemporary organizational management-can enrich 
the operational tools of anarchism, provided they are critically adapted 
to its principles. Models such as Holacracy (Robertson, 2015) propose a 
structure based on dynamic functional roles and the horizontal 
distribution of power. In a related vein, Reinventing Organizations 
(Laloux, 2014)[3]explores evolutionary forms of organization guided by 
collective purpose and conscious self-organization.

For their part, methodologies such as Getting Things Done (Allen, 
2001)[4], Program Management (Zeitoun, 2023)[5], The Art of Action 
(Bungay, 2011)[6]or the approaches proposed by Bent Flyvbjerg in How Big 
Things Get Done (2023)[7]allow us to rethink strategic planning, project 
management and efficient execution in highly complex contexts. Jurgen 
Appelo, in How to Change the World (2012)[8], offers agile tools for 
participatory change processes that can be useful in strengthening 
activist networks.

The challenge is not to import corporate models, but to critically 
appropriate tools that enhance organizational capacity without 
undermining libertarian principles. An effective organization is not one 
that operates like a business, but one that is capable of sustaining a 
transformative project, adapting to change, facing strategic challenges, 
and cultivating a collective ethic of commitment, autonomy, and radical 
political action.

Towards a global articulation with tactical autonomy and structural 
efficiency
International confederal coordination
The cornerstone of this proposal is a confederal organization of 
anarchist organizations at the international level. This coordination 
does not imply a command center or unified leadership, but rather a 
federated network of autonomous nodes that share political principles, a 
common understanding of the global situation, and a desire for joint 
action. This network is structured around general programmatic 
agreements, international campaigns, rotating spokespersons, technical 
committees by area (training, communication, strategy, translation), and 
periodic coordination plenaries.

Internationalism here is not only an ethical principle, but a strategic 
necessity: the accumulation of popular power must have a global 
dimension if it is to confront transnational capitalism and a state 
order that operates on a global scale. Anarchist international 
articulation must allow for the coordination of struggles, the exchange 
of experiences, the circulation of militant knowledge, and the 
construction of a global response to the multiple crises of the present.

The political program is developed at the international level, as a 
synthesis of the perspectives, diagnoses, and horizons shared by all 
participating organizations. From this common foundation, each national 
federation develops its own national program, articulating this 
international framework with local specificities and the strategic tasks 
specific to its context. Finally, each territorial 
organization-grassroots groups, collectives, or local nuclei-enjoys 
tactical autonomy to implement national strategic orientations within 
its specific context. This structure guarantees overall coherence 
without stifling activist creativity or the capacity for local adaptation.

Common strategy and functional delegation
Building a common strategy does not mean ideological homogenization, but 
rather tactical coordination. Based on the shared political program, the 
organizations agree on general lines of action, thematic priorities, 
areas of intervention, and criteria for grassroots integration. To 
implement these guidelines, a functional delegation, always revocable, 
is proposed, to work teams that assume specific tasks for a limited 
period of time.

This delegation is not permanent representation, but rather clear 
mandates, with precise functions, collective responsibility, and 
bottom-up oversight mechanisms. It allows for agility in implementation 
without sacrificing internal democracy and prevents both 
bureaucratization and operational chaos.

Local tactical autonomy with collective responsibility
Each local organization maintains full tactical autonomy to act 
according to its immediate context. This autonomy translates into the 
freedom to choose methodologies, forms of integration, temporary 
alliances, or communication tactics. But this freedom is exercised 
within the framework of collective responsibility: local actions must 
respect the national agenda, which in turn must be aligned with the 
international agenda. This layered logic-international, national, 
local-allows for effective integration at scale, without sacrificing the 
flexibility required by grassroots organizational processes.

This balance between flexibility and coherence allows for rapid response 
to local conditions without losing strategic focus, and avoids both 
dispersed localism and centralized rigidity.

Clear processes for decision-making, monitoring, evaluation and correction
An effective model requires defined processes that ensure participation 
without sacrificing organizational rhythm. Decisions are made by 
consensus where possible, or by qualified majority where not. Meetings 
have rotating facilitation, defined agendas, public minutes, and 
compliance schedules. Protocols for monitoring and periodic evaluation 
are established, with indicators of political progress, campaign 
reviews, and mechanisms for correcting errors or deviations.

A militant culture that embraces political education as a lifelong 
process is also promoted. Therefore, Militancy Schools are proposed as 
spaces for internal training, collective reflection, and 
intergenerational knowledge transfer.

Structural flexibility according to organizational size
Organizational forms must be adapted to the size and level of 
development of each organization. To this end, three reference 
frameworks are proposed:

Small Organization (5-50 members, local reach): comprehensive assembly 
operation, grassroots councils by affinity or sector, self-managed task 
groups, mutual support networks and decision-making by broad consensus.
Medium Organization (51-500 members, national reach): federal structure 
by regions or fronts, regional and national assemblies, rotating 
coordination teams, permanent working committees, and regular training 
and evaluation spaces.
Large Organization (500+ members, international reach): confederation of 
federations, with a common political program, articulation by sectors 
and regions, periodic congresses, international commissions, and 
security and secure communication protocols.
Practical application: operation in real organizations
This model can be implemented progressively, building on each 
organization's current capabilities. A local organization can begin by 
adopting clear decision-making and evaluation processes, while 
establishing horizontal links with other similar organizations. As it 
grows, it can federate with others, establish technical committees, 
develop its program, and connect with regional or international networks.

The model is modular: each component can be adapted according to the 
organization's stage of development, without losing overall coherence.

Scenarios by scale and degree of development
Embryonic local scenario: grassroots collective builds its identity, 
defines its political horizon, establishes basic operating rules, and 
connects with immediate popular struggles.
Consolidated regional scenario: medium-sized organizations federate, 
create a common coordination, develop a shared program, and sustain 
coordinated campaigns.
Articulated international scenario: networks of established 
organizations agree on political positions, global strategies, and 
active solidarity protocols in the face of global challenges.
Illustrative example: The Revolutionary Anarchist International (RAI)
Let's imagine the creation of a Revolutionary Anarchist International 
(RAI): an intercontinental articulation of revolutionary anarchist 
federations active in Latin America, Europe, the Maghreb, the Middle 
East, South Asia, and regions of North America and Oceania. This 
international does not constitute a governing center or a single global 
organization, but rather a confederal space for programmatic 
construction, strategic coordination, and internationalist militant action.

Its structuring axis is a collectively developed international political 
program that synthesizes shared principles and horizons: 
anti-capitalism, anti-statism, anti-colonialism, anti-patriarchy, people 
power, radical environmentalism, and social self-management. Based on 
this program, each national federation develops its own political 
strategy , linking international guidelines to its specific context. 
Thus, one organization in Tunisia may focus on struggles for food 
sovereignty and militant unionism, while another in the Philippines 
works to defend ancestral territories and popular education.

Tactical autonomy is guaranteed at the local level: grassroots groups 
are free to decide how to implement national strategies, according to 
their conditions and resources. They can focus on mutual support 
networks, territorial organization, self-defense, grassroots 
communication, or cultural activism, always within the framework of 
general principles and in ongoing dialogue with their federation.

The IAR holds an International Congress every three years , which brings 
together spokespersons mandated from the grassroots. There are no 
permanent structures or hierarchical positions: all positions are 
temporary, rotating, and subject to collective control. Between 
congresses, coordination is maintained through interregional thematic 
committees responsible for areas such as political training, 
communication, logistics, digital security, and international solidarity.

In addition, the IAR supports a Global Anarchist Solidarity Network , 
which responds to situations of repression, displacement, disasters, and 
war. It also promotes a School of Internationalist Militancy , with 
multilingual materials, training meetings, and shared methodologies that 
foster the development of committed and prepared political cadres.

This example shows that a Revolutionary Anarchist International is not 
only possible, but necessary. In the face of globalized capitalism and 
expanding authoritarianism, anarchism needs to articulate itself with 
strategic vision, a willingness to coordinate, and a revolutionary 
ethic. Without hierarchical structures or compulsory homogeneity, but 
with political clarity, collective commitment, and a vocation for global 
transformation from below.

Sustaining the Flame: Continuity, Commitment, and Adaptation in 
Anarchist Organizations
Organizations that endure: building long-term from the collective
One of the great historical weaknesses of the anarchist movement has 
been organizational discontinuity. Many powerful initiatives are born 
with strength, but dissolve after a few years due to exhaustion, 
internal fractures, or an inability to adapt to change. How can we build 
organizations that endure beyond specific circumstances or cycles of 
mobilization? The key is to stop thinking of the organization as a mere 
occasional tool for intervention and instead understand it as an 
organized political community that extends over time.

The FAU (2009) maintains that the organization must be viewed as a 
"cumulative instrument" where learning is accumulated, experiences are 
synthesized, and a conscious long-term practice is developed. This 
requires structures that do not depend on a small group of "strong 
activists" but rather distribute functions, document processes, and 
generate mechanisms for internal renewal. It also requires the 
organization to have real social integration: without ties to grassroots 
struggles, structures become self-referential and vulnerable to erosion.

Militant commitment: nurturing and sustaining political commitment
Activist commitment isn't imposed or assumed: it's built and nurtured. 
Why do people join an organization, and why do they stay? Beyond 
ideological convictions, people become committed when they find a space 
that gives meaning to their actions, recognizes their contributions, 
supports their processes, and allows them to develop politically.

In Myths and Experiences[9], it is stated that many organizations fail 
by reproducing logics of overload, informality and burnout. Therefore, 
it is essential to build a culture of militant care: establishing 
sustainable rhythms, promoting co-responsibility, generating spaces for 
listening and taking care of the balance between personal life and 
political commitment. Continuous training, accompanying new militants 
and rotating tasks are also key to avoiding stagnation or concentration 
of knowledge.

Commitment also grows when people participate meaningfully in defining 
strategy, not just in executing tasks. Direct democracy is not just a 
way of making decisions, but a pedagogy that strengthens political 
involvement.

Cross-cutting elements for a flexible organizational model
Structural rigidity can be as harmful as chaos. How can we build 
organizations that are clear in their operation, yet capable of adapting 
to different situations? The answer lies in defining cross-cutting 
elements that ensure coherence without impeding flexibility.

The first is functional clarity: each role, committee, or structure must 
have defined functions, deadlines, and accountability mechanisms. 
Periodic rotation prevents bureaucratization, and revocable delegation 
ensures that functions do not become power. Systematic documentation 
(minutes, reports, balance sheets) ensures that knowledge is not 
dependent on individuals but rather becomes part of the organizational 
memory.

Another key element is dynamic federalism: the coordination between 
different levels of the organization (local, regional, national, 
international) must be fluid, with clear spaces for coordination but 
without hierarchical impositions. Finally, a culture of self-assessment 
and adjustment allows the organization to reinvent itself without losing 
its essence.

Managing fluctuations and avoiding generational gaps
Every organization goes through cycles of increased or decreased 
activity, periods of growth, and periods of decline. How can we survive 
these fluctuations without becoming disorganized? A vibrant organization 
must be able to modulate its rhythm without losing its basic structures. 
In times of decline, it is necessary to maintain the essentials: 
training, connections, structural integrity, and political memory. In 
times of growth, it is necessary to avoid overflow and strengthen 
organizational spaces.

A common risk is generational breakdown: when one militant generation 
burns out and hasn't trained or incorporated the next. To avoid this, 
it's essential to build pedagogical bridges between different 
backgrounds, promote dialogue between experiences, and create specific 
spaces for the transmission of knowledge. Training isn't just 
"theoretical" but also organizational, emotional, and tactical.

Organizational assessment and adjustment: thinking about the present, 
planning the future
No organization can improve if it doesn't stop to consider what it does, 
how it does it, and why it does it. Organizational assessment should be 
part of regular operations, not an exception. To achieve this, 
qualitative indicators (level of participation, member satisfaction, 
strategic clarity) and quantitative indicators (number of actions, 
growth, social inclusion) can be combined. But beyond the data, the 
essential thing is to create spaces for collective assessment that allow 
for reviewing the strategy, recognizing errors, identifying 
achievements, and correcting course.

An organization that doesn't evaluate becomes autistic; one that 
evaluates without correction becomes cynical. A culture of collective 
learning is what allows an organization not only to endure, but to grow 
with purpose, passion, and the real capacity to transform reality.

This second part completes the proposed model: it's not enough to have a 
good structure; we must know how to sustain it, care for it, grow it, 
and adapt it to the conditions of the historical times in which we live. 
Only in this way can we build an effective, rooted, and lasting 
revolutionary anarchism.

Closing the circle, opening paths: for an effective, living and rooted 
anarchist organization
Throughout this text, I have attempted to reflect, based on experience 
and conviction, on how an anarchist organization can be built that not 
only resists but also transforms. I set out to critically review the 
organizational models that anarchism has produced-both within and 
outside its historical boundaries-to extract its lessons and overcome 
its obstacles. Because I deeply believe that without a solid, strategic, 
and sustained organizational practice, our ideas remain trapped on the 
margins, condemned to be repeated without real impact.

From there, I outlined a proposal based on internationalism, dynamic 
federalism, and tactical autonomy, but also on militant commitment, the 
collective management of attrition, and the need to sustain structures 
over time. I'm not proposing a closed framework or a single recipe. What 
I'm offering is a framework from which we can conceive together a 
living, useful, and profoundly transformative libertarian organization.

Because if there's one thing I'm clear about, it's that anarchism cannot 
be reduced to a personal ethic or a marginal aesthetic. For me, it's a 
radical commitment to a society without hierarchies, built from the 
bottom up, with patience, strategy, and revolutionary passion. And that 
commitment requires organization: not just any organization, but one 
that reflects our values while preparing us for the conflicts of the 
present.

In a world crumbling under the weight of injustice, inequality, and 
climate catastrophe, it's not enough to resist. We must build. And to 
build, we need structures that not only sustain us, but also empower us. 
We need to care for ourselves, educate ourselves, plan, evaluate, and 
grow. Not because we believe in power for power's sake, but because we 
believe in people's power, in the capacity of people to self-organize 
their lives, to transform their realities, and to tear down the walls 
that prevent us from living with dignity.

I write this not as a definitive truth, but as an invitation. To think, 
to debate, to correct, to enrich. Because if I've learned anything, it's 
that anarchist organization isn't imposed, it's built. And it's built 
among comrades, with our feet firmly planted in the mud and our eyes on 
the horizon. If this text can serve as another tool on that path, then 
it will have fulfilled its purpose.

Don Diego de la Vega, Liza militant

[1]Nunes, R. (2021). Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal: A Theory of 
Political Organization. Verse Books.

[2]Union Communiste Libertaire, Federação Anarquista de Rosario, 
Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira. (sf). Programmatic and organizational 
documents . Internal publications.

[3]Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating 
Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness . Nelson 
Parker.

[4]Allen, D. (2001). Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free 
Productivity . Penguin.

[5]Zeitoun, A. (2023). Program Management: Going Beyond Project 
Management to Enable Value-Driven Change . Wiley.

[6]Bungay, S. (2011). The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps 
Between Plans, Actions and Results . Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

[7]Flyvbjerg, B., & Gardner, D. (2023). How Big Things Get Done: The 
Surprising Factors Behind Every Successful Project, from Home 
Renovations to Space Exploration . Penguin Press.

[8]Appelo, J. (2012). How to Change the World: Change Management 3.0 . 
Leanpub.

[9]Neto. (2015-2016). Myths and experiences: Contributions to the 
strategic reflection of organized anarchism . Libertarian Regeneration.
Part I: 
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2015/06/09/los-mitos-y-las-experiencias-i/
Part II: 
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2016/06/17/los-mitos-y-las-experiencias-ii/

https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/06/19/contra-toda-derrota-organizacion-revolucionaria-parte-2/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en