A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneracion: The Historical Legacy: The Urgent Debate on the Role of Organization (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

INTRODUCTION ---- The objective of this article is to illustrate the 
debate between the Russians and Malatesta-primarily between Makhno and 
Malatesta-regarding the Platform proposal. This proposal emerged in the 
journal Dielo Truda[1]as an idea formulated by several Russian 
anarchists who analyzed how the libertarian political force had a 
disorganized and uncoordinated influence during the Russian Revolution, 
which favored the revolution's fall into the hands of state 
authoritarianism. It is important to understand the historical moment of 
the proposal to understand its reception and meaning. Specifically, I 
will focus on the underlying debate found in the exchange of opinions in 
these letters: How can we anarchists provide a libertarian direction to 
the social revolution?

This question, which I pose as the underlying idea motivating the 
debate, presupposes two fundamental points. First, the necessity of a 
social revolution-Bakunin's characterization of revolution as opposed to 
a political revolution-to emancipate the working class from capitalism 
and all domination. Second, the realization that a social revolution 
will have a specific political direction. In this last phrase, direction 
is used not as a command but as a path, framework, and orientation, that 
is, answering the question: What society is building this revolution? 
Therefore, what society is prefiguring the revolutionary processes in 
which we intervene?

In this way, I position the debate between Malatesta's and Makhno's 
letters as a debate that must be revived in the present because it 
evokes the most important issue for a revolutionary organization: What 
should be the role of the revolutionary organization and how does it 
define itself? In this case, in the context of the proposed platform, 
the debate about political direction and how we anarchists organize and 
act to achieve the objective we set for ourselves. This debate, once 
revived, allows us to formulate questions and define challenges 
regarding the path that the recent especifist movement in Spain is 
beginning to forge. And, as a debate more relevant than ever-also 
international-about how to constitute a libertarian organization that 
can develop and achieve its proposed objectives and how, specifically, 
it intervenes in the spaces of self-organization of the class.

Furthermore, assessing the current Spanish and Catalan political 
context, with recent years in which new strategic political bets are 
emerging from certain sectors, it is necessary to assess what role 
anarchists should have in this map and how we can carry out what we 
propose: To be the direction - again in terms of path - that the 
revolutionary processes take, since, and to conclude the brief 
presentation of intentions, as Makhno said in the text of the platform:

"More than any other concept, anarchism must be the guiding concept of 
the revolution, because it is only on the theoretical basis of anarchism 
that the Social Revolution can triumph in the complete emancipation of 
labor."

Thus, to further define the terms of the debate, one of the questions 
about the direction the revolution is taking is, in our view, the 
question of the role of the political organization that seeks to 
intervene in the processes of class self-organization so that they take 
a certain direction. This resonates with the following questions:

Why do we need to organize? Who organizes? How do we organize? And what 
do we want to do? That is, how and what do we want to intervene in? 
Influence - Direct

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES ARE BOTH STRATEGIC
As I explained at the beginning, the underlying question of the 
Platform's proposal and the debate between Makhno and Malatesta is none 
other than how anarchist political leadership articulates itself in 
revolutionary processes and the construction of the workers' movement. 
For this reason, organizational challenges are simultaneously strategic, 
since the answers to how we organize ourselves simultaneously reflect 
what we want to do.

To begin, I will point out a series of debates that arise regarding 
Malatesta's criticisms of the Dielo Truda proposal, and to which Makhno 
responds. These criticisms I classify primarily into two types: those 
related to the internal organization and those related to the political 
practice of the organization, both centralism and authoritarianism. Some 
are directed toward the organizational proposal and its theoretical 
construction, and others, conversely, are directed toward the 
organization's managerial practice. Precisely for this reason, they are 
interesting, as they illustrate how, fundamentally, deciding in 
organizational terms implies deciding in political and strategic terms; 
that is, how the organizational definition interpellates anarchist 
political leadership in the processes of the working class.

On the one hand, regarding the entire series of criticisms surrounding 
the organization's internal structure, we find two central themes that 
Malatesta strongly questions: the organization's centralism and 
authoritarianism. Malatesta's critiques focus on the indisputable 
coherence between means and ends as the backbone of any liberating 
practice, since the means determine the end achieved. Therefore, in line 
with this position, it is necessary to establish means that truly allow 
us to reach our horizons, which, in turn, are prefigured in the chosen 
means. From this starting point, two central critiques are developed.

The first criticism of the internal organization argues that theoretical 
homogenization and collective commitment-for Malatesta, collective 
commitment and collective responsibility are very delicate issues on 
which he never fully agrees with Makhno-of following a program, 
strategy, and tactics together with collective responsibility 
constitutes, for him, an authoritarian attitude toward the diverse-and 
irreconcilable-anarchist tendencies. The second criticism maintains that 
centralism is achieved through an executive committee of the 
organization, which decides the theoretical line and, in addition, 
mandates what the various spaces should do; that is, it exerts 
ideological and tactical direction over the practice of the union's 
members and organizations.

On the other hand, as a complement to these two organizational critiques 
, the political critique of the organization's actions , the central 
theme of this article: The organization's capacity for influence, that 
is, the political direction that the organization proposes to the spaces 
in which it intervenes. The critique is the following: How can an 
anarchist organization like this one influence politically if not 
through authoritarianism and direction? According to Malatesta, from 
this organizational approach the influence will be authoritarian. This 
illustrates that organizational issues are also strategic.

However, we cannot accept these criticisms as acceptable, since they are 
completely wrong and the result of a lack of understanding rather than 
political disagreement, as Correa also claims[2]. Even so, the 
criticisms point to more than relevant issues that should be taken into 
account by any organization of this current.

The common starting point and organizational debates

By pointing out that organizational issues are strategic, I intend to 
point out, specifically, that every decision concerning both the 
organizational structure and the political purposes of this organization 
is, ultimately, a strategic response to a problem: capitalist 
exploitation, domination, and the need to radically transform this 
system with the advent of libertarian communism. Once the problem and 
the need have been identified, it is necessary to consider what role 
anarchism, that is, the libertarian political force, should play.

It is on this point, regarding the role that anarchist political force 
should play, that in my opinion, Makhno and Malatesta ultimately 
demonstrate, among several clarifications, that they agree. In 
Malatesta's words: "On the contrary, I believe that we anarchists, 
convinced of the validity of our program, must aim to acquire enormous 
influence in order to lead the movement toward the realization of our 
ideals." In other words, we must work to ensure that revolutionary 
processes have an anarchist political direction .

The starting point is common, but the organizational disagreements are 
so great that, at certain points, they can develop irreconcilable 
approaches.

On the one hand, there are organizational issues: the debate over 
centralism, the authority of the executive committee, Malatesta's need 
for individual responsibility, and the homogenization of theoretical, 
ideological, and strategic approaches. These organizational debates are 
an expression of the underlying political debate between the need for 
coordinated actions under common positions and the coherence between 
means and ends so as not to reproduce the logic of domination, both 
internally and in the organization's political practice-that is, the 
debate over political practice . Therefore, these "organizational" 
debates, at their core, directly impact an approach that comes later in 
Malatesta's second letter: the debate over the "managerial role" of 
anarchists and its content.

In this way, a clear map is drawn that shows the complexity of the 
debate in its disagreements and agreements: a clear agreement regarding 
the need for the revolution to assume a libertarian direction. However, 
disagreements regarding how anarchists-that is, what concrete actions 
anarchists take and how we organize ourselves-can achieve this goal. On 
this point, Makhno seems to propose a theoretical and practical unity 
that Malatesta interprets as authoritarian and centralist and, for these 
reasons, precisely not anarchist. In this sense, Correa argues that 
there is no agreement on the question of individual or collective 
responsibility. In short, there are disagreements regarding the internal 
organization and the role of anarchism in revolutionary processes.

In conclusion, regarding this first section of the article, I intended 
to show that while Makhno and Malatesta's shared starting point is the 
need for the revolution to have a libertarian direction in order to 
achieve libertarian communism, there are disagreements about how to 
accomplish this task and the role we anarchists should play. These 
disagreements materialize in central issues for specific anarchist 
organization. Illustrating, ultimately, that what is at stake is how 
anarchists ensure that revolutionary processes have a libertarian 
political direction and that, ultimately, all these organizational 
debates are simultaneously strategic in clarifying how we accomplish 
this task we assign ourselves.

INDETERMINATION LEADS TO MULTIFORM ACTION - THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL 
DIRECTION
In this section, to continue developing the debate present in the 
exchange of letters, I will delve more fully into the issue of political 
leadership. To begin, I consider it appropriate to introduce a few 
questions that reveal the doubts that determine the approach of this 
second section of the article: Are influencing and leading the same 
thing? Why? Do we want anarchism-and therefore anarchists-to assume a 
leadership role? In what sense is it different from the communist 
strategy followed by Marxism-Leninism? And between an active minority 
and a vanguard? Which should we choose?

First of all, a necessary clarification: These rather biased questions 
stem from concerns and a desire to fully develop the anarchist political 
approach and push it to its limits, in order to understand and define it 
collectively and be able to act accordingly. The need for a collectively 
assumed definition is fundamental; indeterminacy leads to multiform 
action; that is, what is not defined is filled with diverse forms that, 
ultimately, can be irreconcilable or very little connected. For this 
reason, it is necessary to pose all these questions and be able to 
answer them in order to define our framework for intervention. In no 
case, however, do these questions seek to be assimilated into a vanguard 
specific to Marxism-Leninism. Thus, I will delve very briefly into these 
issues with the intention of leaving more open questions than closed 
answers, because the debate must be collective in order to translate 
into an efficient and consolidated practice.

Generally speaking, I believe that when, from a specific perspective, we 
assert that what we want is to influence, we fail to fully develop our 
objectives: to ensure that the processes of class self-organization have 
a libertarian direction. I wonder if this is the result of an aesthetic 
fear that identifies individual action as anarchist militants as the 
space where, par excellence, we must maintain purity between means and 
ends and that, therefore, we do not allow ourselves to assume roles of 
leadership, direction, or more active influence. I think that this is 
often, unfortunately, the reason, and that, consequently, we must free 
ourselves from this fear in order to analyze our intervention on a 
collective rather than an individual scale, taking into account the 
correlation of these two dimensions, but defining our role as an 
organization, not as individuals.

So, what is the definition of influencing a grassroots space, a social 
movement, a union branch, a trade union, or a leadership space of a 
union organization or social movement? On the other hand, what would be 
the definition of leading? I understand influencing as leaving a certain 
mark on the space, throwing a stone, hiding one's hand and seeing what 
happens, leaving a certain mark. On the other hand, I understand leading 
as two possibilities: commanding and doing what one says, or, on the 
other hand, convincing the space of the need for a direction- 
organizational functioning and political aspirations-that one proposes 
and defends. This second option is related to hegemonizing . That is, 
making our positions hegemonic and, therefore, giving a specific 
direction to the specific space.

For this specific issue I find it relevant to refer to two articles in 
Regeneración, one on the avant-garde[3]and the other on 
hegemonization[4]. Specifically, the issue of the avant-garde is not a 
resolved debate, I will simply use the term as a way of explaining what 
task we have to do as organized anarchists.

On the one hand, in dialogue with Regeneración's article on the 
anarchist vanguard, it seems that the task of the so-called anarchist 
vanguard is precisely this: to provide libertarian leadership in the 
space of class self-organization in which it militates and intervenes. 
On the other hand, in dialogue with Regeneración's other article on 
hegemony, hegemony is defined as the capacity for our proposals to be 
adopted by the working class, in line with what is presented here as the 
leadership. In other words, to hegemonize is to provide a specific 
political direction, since, fundamentally, our proposals are politically 
charged.

For all these reasons, it makes sense to ask the following question: If, 
as an organization, we must provide libertarian political leadership to 
the processes of class self-organization-that is, all those 
organizations that defend class interests and do so by developing a 
strategy that allows them to fight for their interests- how do we direct 
these spaces? What types of leadership do we provide, and how do we 
participate in the spaces of activism in which we participate? In short: 
what do we do to provide that leadership?

For all of the reasons mentioned above, we also urgently need to 
consider: What role does anarchist organization play in revolutionary 
processes? Therefore, how do we ensure that the revolution takes an 
anarchist direction? The fact is that we must delve into this " how" and 
define its content and the tasks to be carried out, both immediate and 
medium- and long-term. This is necessary because indeterminacy leads to 
multiform action; that is, everything that is not defined can be defined 
in different ways that, ultimately, may be irreconcilable. Therefore, in 
order to carry out collective action, a collective theoretical 
definition is necessary to guide it.

CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, I want to begin by showing the questions Makhno asks 
Malatesta when talking about the task of anarchists to give direction 
and how we should do it.

1. Should anarchism bear any responsibility for the workers' struggle 
against their oppressors, capitalism, and its servants of the state? If 
not, explain why. If not, should anarchists work to enable their 
movement to exert its influence on the very foundations of the existing 
social order?

2. Can anarchism, in its current state of disorganization, exert any 
ideological and practical influence on social events and the struggle of 
the working class?

3. What are the means by which anarchism must serve outside of the 
revolution and what are the means at its disposal to test and affirm its 
constructive concepts?

4. Does anarchism need its own permanent, specific organizations, 
closely linked by unity of purpose and action, to achieve its aspirations?

5. What should anarchists understand as the institutions to be 
established in order to guarantee the free development of society?

6. Can anarchism be realized without social institutions in the 
communist society you envision? If so, by what means? If not, what 
institutions should it recognize and utilize, and in the name of what? 
Should anarchists assume a leadership role, and consequently a 
responsible one, or should they be limited to being irresponsible 
auxiliaries?

These questions illustrate what I have wanted to present in this 
article, which is, fundamentally, three things: First, to think about 
political leadership as the objective of anarchist organization to 
achieve libertarian communism; second, to point out that the development 
of how to organize ourselves to take on this task is not only an 
organizational debate but above all a strategic and political one; and 
finally, third, to point out the need for the current debate to clarify 
how we intervene in spaces and hegemonize our positions and proposals, 
since what we do not define can take on a multitude of forms.

This is precisely the historical legacy of an unfinished debate, as 
urgent as it was at the time this proposal impacted the anarchist world. 
This proposal has a specific historical meaning, related to the process 
of self-criticism by anarchist forces regarding their limited influence 
and leadership in the Russian Revolution, and therefore opens the door 
to the question I keep repeating in this article: How do we achieve this 
position of leadership and influence? The historical legacy of an 
unfinished debate like this is the path that those who came before us 
have left for us to follow. We will surely not close this debate 
ourselves; in fact, other organizations have surely had it and resolved 
it. The fact is that now it is up to us, in a moment of unity, to be 
able to ask ourselves precisely what our role is in the revolution that 
will lead us to libertarian communism.

Marcel Minoves, activist of Batzac-Libertarian Youth

[1]Dielo Trouda (The Cause of the Women Workers), Organizational 
Platform of the Libertarian Communists , 1926

[2]Felipe Corrêa and Rafael Viana de Silva, BAKUNIN, MALATESTA AND THE 
PLATFORM DEBATE: THE QUESTION OF ANARCHIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, 2013

[3]T. Mora, Anarchism and Vanguard, Libertarian Regeneration, 2024. 
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/03/13/anarquismo-y-vanguardia/

[4]Liza, Co-optation is not hegemonizing , Libertarian Regeneration, 
2024. 
https://www.regeneracionlibertaria.org/2024/02/24/cooptacion-no-es-hegemonizar/

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/09/18/lherencia-historica-lurgent-debat-sobre-el-rol-de-lorganitzacio/
_________________________________________
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