A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion: What should federation mean for organized revolutionary anarchism? By LIZA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The federative model is a political organizational model based on the 
free association of individuals, entities, and communities, who join 
together voluntarily and horizontally to coordinate efforts without 
losing their autonomy. It could represent a radical political 
alternative to the organizational forms of the hierarchical and 
centralized structures of the state and capitalism, if intrinsically 
linked to a socialist economy and the common redistribution of needs.

A federation is an institutionalized grouping of autonomous entities 
united by a common purpose. In anarchism, it has historically served the 
purpose of strengthening coordinated social action and avoiding the 
concentration of power. Unlike centralism, a federation seeks to 
distribute power equitably among its members. In a federalist model, 
local groups elect their representatives to defend their positions on 
the federal board. Furthermore, these positions are revocable and 
non-representative, assuming a form of direct democracy with delegates.

Grassroots participation and collective action from below are given 
prominence as a foundation for ensuring that people's power is exercised 
directly. This decision-making process entails a shared commitment to 
social justice, freedom, and self-management, which grants collective 
political autonomy. From the generation of proposals, through their 
deliberation, agreement or ratification, and implementation, it fosters 
a culture of active participation, mutual support, and shared 
responsibility.

Origins and development of Anarchist Federalism

The concept of federation has roots in popular struggles and 
19th-century socialist thought, but it was anarchism that first 
developed it as an alternative to the state and capitalism.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first theorist to systematize the concept 
of federalism as an organization of society. In his work The Federative 
Principle (1863), he described federalism as an alternative to state 
centralism and chaos. For Proudhon, in a federation, power emanates from 
the grassroots and not from a central authority. His proposal was based 
on the creation of a network of voluntary associations that would 
guarantee self-management and mutual cooperation without the need for a 
state.

Mikhail Bakunin was the one who took the concept of anarchist federalism 
further and defended the principle of federation as an organic form for 
the organization of the working class based on the free association of 
unions and local groups.

Other renowned revolutionaries have historically defended the federal 
and confederal model as an organizing principle for autonomous 
communities, unions, and libertarian collectives. Among them are Rocker, 
Lucy Parsons, Bookchin, and Malatesta himself.

Furthermore, this organizational system has far surpassed the 
theoretical framework and has been historically tested in the 
organization of territories, unions, collective coordinating bodies, and 
even popular militias. But it is not only a truly anarchist form of 
organization; it is the fundamental principle of democracy, established 
in historical experiences such as the Paris Commune, the Russian 
Soviets, the Krushevo Commune and the Strandzha Commune in Macedonia and 
Bulgaria, the insurrectionary Ukraine of the Black Army, or the CNT 
itself or the German FAU. Contemporary anarchist federations such as 
Black Rose in the United States or the UCL in France maintain local 
autonomy within a shared structure, promoting direct action and 
self-management.

Debates on Collective Responsibility and Individual Freedom

Historically, anarchism has contained a tension represented by two 
poles: on the one hand, organized anarchism, and on the other, 
individualist anarchism. We are not interested in simplifying either 
position, but rather in introducing some of the debates that have taken 
place between these currents around issues such as individual autonomy, 
the risk of bureaucratization, and the nature of collective organization.

Although the federative principle ensures that agreements are voluntary 
and non-coercive, some anarchists understand joint decision-making with 
the commitment to compliance by the signatories as a threat to their 
individual freedom. If compliance with agreements is voluntary, what is 
the point of a federation? And here we find one of the main limitations 
of the federative model, which relates to autonomy or freedom to comply 
with the agreement. If a group of entities or groups decide to create a 
territorial organization, it is ratified through joint experiences, 
actions, and the realization of its objectives. This organization does 
not diminish the autonomy of the community since it starts from the 
bottom up, and the entire process is a reflection of that direct 
democracy. Therefore, it expands and improves that community as its 
agreements are conceived and implemented collectively.

Another major criticism of the federal model is the tendency of every 
organization to become bureaucratized and generate positions of relative 
authoritarian power. Despite implementing different methodologies to try 
to counteract these measures, the risk is always present. The 
alternative is the simple, punctual unity of affinity or mere 
coordination, although, as we well know, even the most lax, flexible, 
and temporary forms of organization can produce or replicate forms of 
domination, what has come to be called the "tyranny of 
structurelessness," which generates positions of power that exist de 
facto but are ignored or made invisible.

Are these positions irreconcilable? For some comrades, not necessarily. 
Although tensions exist, many anarchists have attempted to synthesize 
the best of both currents. The anarchist synthesis model, proposed by 
Volin and Sébastien Faure, seeks to unite individualists, communists, 
and syndicalists in a plural and diverse movement. Criticisms of this 
model have been pointed out with great precision by the Hedra comrades .

The debate on the federal model for Especifista and Plataforma organizations

In the 19th century, the main currents of modern anarchism were defined 
by the organizational model of the economy within an emancipated 
socialist model; thus, individualism, collectivism, and libertarian 
communism were born. In the years prior to the First International, when 
capitalism was not yet as developed and had not yet fully occupied all 
economic spaces in the territories, the question of economic and social 
organization seemed much more fundamental because the balance of forces 
had not yet been decisively defined. However, at the same time as 
discussions about an economic theory of revolution were taking place, in 
the 20th century, discussions around the political question, and 
specifically how to organize the social power of our class, gained 
considerable weight. Capitalism was now fully understood as not only an 
economic system but also a political and cultural one; and therefore, 
revolutionary programs had to include political strategies. This is how 
anarcho-syndicalism, insurrectionalism, autonomism, and 
platformism/specificism were born, each of these currents with a 
particular historical context, often intertwining with each other and 
sometimes ending in a practice of synthesis.

Platformism and especifism are very similar currents that we currently 
classify within organizational, social, and revolutionary anarchism. 
However, they come from very different political contexts. Platformism 
was born in the European revolutionary context and was theorized with 
the publication Dielo Truda and the proposal for an Organizational 
Platform for the Union of Libertarian Communists, presented in Paris by 
Ukrainian and Russian anarchist exiles (Nestor Makhno, Ida Mett, Pyotr 
Arshinov, etc.) after the defeat of the Ukrainian Revolution at the 
hands of the Red Army. However, especifism particularly emerged in the 
mid-20th century in the Latin American context of social upheaval, 
dictatorial coups d'état, North American imperialism, and a multitude of 
subjects similar to those developing the platform, but not identical, 
which we have come to call popular classes to overcome the limitations 
of workerist positions.

Another key difference lies in the closest experiences of each of the 
two currents, their direct political rivals and adversaries. While 
platformism argues with an anarchism incapable of providing a unified 
response to European revolutionary processes and completely powerless 
against the hegemony of authoritarian communist parties in the workers' 
movement, especifismo responds to Latin American populism, focoism, 
Maoism, and nationalist and postcolonial movements.

Furthermore, and this is another fundamental difference, platformism 
never really took root or developed in practice-except to a limited 
extent with the Bulgarian Anarchist Communist Federation-so comparing 
the two approaches is somewhat artificial. Specificism, on the other 
hand, has been around for more than half a century and, with its 
successes and contradictions, has evolved, as is to be expected.

Both positions agree that any attempt to emancipate the working class 
from the yoke of capitalist exploitation requires a mass revolution. It 
is the working and dispossessed class as a whole that must rise up and 
build the alternative to this reign of suffering and misery. 
Furthermore, they also agree that anarchism, as an ideology and 
political proposal, has much to offer the revolutionary masses on a 
political and strategic level. It can provide strategic vision, 
experiences of organization and struggle, theory drawn from historical 
analysis... in other words, anarchism can be a revolutionary agent that 
helps processes of struggle develop and reach a successful conclusion, 
far from defeats caused by lack of preparation, authoritarian 
co-optation, or reformist diversions.

Furthermore, with respect to other currents of anarchism, it is argued 
that to make this contribution to the processes of forming a combative 
social mass, anarchists work best when they organize themselves into 
specifically anarchist collectives where they consolidate a strategic 
and tactical line. That is, ideological, strategic, and action-oriented 
unity allows libertarian revolutionary organizations to intervene more 
effectively and further the development of struggles.

The debates and challenges facing our current revolutionary reality

Many anarchists, including us, have had to bash our libertarian heads a 
thousand times over mistaken tactics and completely ineffective 
strategies to accept this, which, seen from this perspective, seems 
obvious. Although almost a hundred years have passed since Dielo Truda 
and Latin American Especifismo has been around for more than fifty 
years, this current remains a minority within anarchism. Despite 
speaking of decades and decades of struggle, this current, that of 
organized anarchism, remains rather young. It has much to develop, much 
to think about, mistakes to make, and assessments to draw up. It would 
be quite arrogant and very dogmatic to think that everything has already 
been said, everything proposed, and everything resolved.

The 2008 global crisis, which materialized in the Arab Spring, the 
occupations of public squares in parts of Europe and the United States, 
the open return of imperialist policies, the massive mobilizations that 
shook Latin America, and the widespread defeat of those who mobilized 
across the planet and who have seen how neo-reformist deviations or 
authoritarian and repressive policies have, at least temporarily, put 
all this social unrest back on track, have represented an impasse in the 
recent history of the labor movement.

After the astonishing accumulation of social strength and widespread 
discontent that plunged the bourgeois democracies at the service of 
capital into a genuine organic crisis, the anarchist movement witnessed 
the evaporation of all that political tension and a systemic 
restoration, if not a shift to the right that had not occurred for more 
than eighty years.

Anarchists, many of whom were educated in the end of history and the 
supposed disappearance of the proletariat as a political subject, saw 
social conflict grow and die, with little ability to make a difference. 
For all those whose desire to change this world of misery is not 
overcome by condescension and self-satisfaction, self-criticism and 
drawing conclusions has been imperative these past few years.

Platformism and specificism have received the attention they deserve 
from those who want to change everything and are not satisfied with 
bubbles of freedom. The proliferation of organizations at the state and 
international levels is impressive, so much so that some comrades fear, 
with some reason, that it is a fad that fails to take seriously the 
proposals of organized revolutionary anarchism.

This proliferation of groups has opened many debates that we must 
address with depth and honesty in the coming years if we want to 
transform anarchism into an agent capable of contributing to processes 
of social struggle everything we know it can contribute to a 
revolutionary path.

One of these essential debates is the organizational model at the 
regional and international levels. On the one hand, platformism and 
specificism advocate the construction of ideological, theoretical, and 
action unity, while on the other, we only have the federal model as a 
reference, and we must accept that, in many cases, this format is 
completely insufficient to achieve such theoretical and action unity.

This depends on how local autonomy is conceived, how consensus is built, 
and what communication and coordination tools we equip ourselves with. 
In other words, we have the task of giving meaning to a term, 
federalism, which has been hollowed out into an empty signifier, a 
synonym for coordination, or a model incapable of surpassing the minimum 
limits of statutory agreements, always open to interpretation, always 
forced in an internal battle.

It would be paradoxical if, while we critique synthesis at the local 
level, our proposal for organization at the state or international level 
adopted that model. Obviously, organizations with a high level of 
affinity will always find their main allies among the others, and we 
should take coordination for granted. The question to be resolved is 
what federation means for organized revolutionary anarchism, for 
Platformists, and for Especifistas.

From our perspective, collective construction with comrades from other 
parts of the Iberian Peninsula or the world is not a threat to our 
freedom or autonomy; quite the opposite. Thinking about, evaluating, and 
planning our political action alongside other comrades in other 
locations is the solution to the dogmatic or sectarian tendencies into 
which, like any local organization, we can fall.

Evidently, situated analysis always has the advantage of understanding 
nuances at a level that distance doesn't allow. A truly strategic 
positioning undoubtedly understands that activists on the ground always 
have a privileged position that must be taken into account and 
prioritized when deciding on action proposals.

Furthermore, a libertarian socialist revolutionary project that does not 
understand and adopt internationalist positions from the outset is 
doomed to be defeated or to prove impotent in contributing to the 
struggles that will undoubtedly come. Coordination is essential, along 
with communication with our comrades and joint and shared training. The 
question is whether this coordination is sufficient to carry out a task 
of an international nature and massive scope. The question is, what 
should federation mean for the Especifista and Plataformar projects of 
organized revolutionary anarchism?

Miguel Brea, member of Liza, the Anarchist Platform of Madrid.

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/08/26/que-debe-significar-federacion-para-el-anarquismo-revolucionario-organizado/
_________________________________________
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