A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneration: The Tyranny of the Lack of Theory - On Theory and Revolutionary Action by LIZA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

From Myth to Drama ---- In the 1970s, the feminist activist Jo Freeman 
published her influential and controversial essay The Tyranny of 
Structurelessness, a key text in debates on organization within social 
and libertarian movements. Its relevance persists, especially where 
disorganizing dynamics destabilize combative spaces and leave them 
defenseless and powerless. ---- Freeman criticizes the tendency of many 
activist groups to reject formal structures as hierarchical and 
oppressive, hoping that the absence of organization guarantees equality 
and horizontality. One of her main contributions is showing that this 
idea is a myth: a simplistic narrative that avoids critical analysis and 
reproduces common sense with disastrous political consequences.

In practice, the lack of structure does not eliminate power - it hides 
it. The notion of the "structureless group" acts as a smoke screen, 
concealing informal power relations and facilitating the rise of 
unelected, unaccountable leadership. The absence of explicit 
organizational forms does not prevent the creation of structures; it 
only prevents them from being visible, formal, and democratic. Thus, 
informal "elites" emerge - those with more time, education, resources, 
or skills, i.e., those already favored by a deeply unequal system.

The myth of informality not only fosters the emergence of elites but 
also leaves groups vulnerable to co-optation by larger, more structured 
organizations. As Freeman notes, "the less structured a group is, the 
more vulnerable it is to being directed by other political 
organizations." Additionally, frustration with inefficiency and burnout 
pushes many activists into traditional spaces that do provide 
organizational coherence. We would benefit if, instead of expressing 
moral outrage on Twitter, we analyzed why so many comrades have left 
libertarian circles in favor of vertical organizations - organizations, 
after all.

In response, Freeman defends the need for explicit structures with 
clearly defined roles, mechanisms for evaluation and recall, equitable 
distribution of work, transparent circulation of information, and an 
intentional use of individual privilege in the service of the collective.

This clear and accessible approach should also be applied to strategic 
theorizing. In some spaces, certain comrades - some out of naivety, 
others out of self-interest - have propagated the myth that dispensing 
with theory fosters a political practice free of outside influence. 
Nothing could be further from the truth: without explicit, developed 
political theory, dominant ideas, traditions, and dogmas impose 
themselves unquestioned.

What Is a Theory of Struggle?
At its core, it is a strategic guide based on social and historical 
analysis. Simple - and complex. A Theory of Struggle - and more so, a 
Revolutionary Theory - is the result of a conscious understanding of the 
capitalist system: its mechanisms of reproduction, its structural 
weaknesses, and possible ways to subvert it. At the same time, it must 
incorporate the lessons of past emancipatory struggles.

Its goal is to anticipate, as much as possible, the scenarios and 
dynamics that any struggle will face if it seeks to advance social 
transformation. This theorizing does not arise from erudite, personal 
abstraction but from a historical and social understanding cultivated in 
political action itself - in the collective practice of struggle and in 
honest debate.

The ability of an organization to develop its own Theory of Struggle is 
what truly gives it strategic autonomy. And if that theory is clear and 
explicit, it enables new members to join consciously and voluntarily; it 
facilitates debate and collective development; and it prevents desperate 
actions or regression into conservative or reactionary dynamics in 
decisive moments.

There is no political organization without structure. And there is no 
political organization without theory.

If structure and theory are not formalized and made explicit - if they 
are not visible and understandable to members - what arises is not a 
structureless group or an absent theory. What prevails is an informal 
structure and an implicit, unconscious, opaque theory.

Just as Freeman showed that organizational informality fosters hidden 
leadership by unelected elites, the same happens with theory. If it is 
not the result of a collective, conscious, voluntary process - born from 
debate, education, and shared practice - what prevails is the 
reproduction of an undisputed political line, imposed by those with 
greater discursive, symbolic, or influential capacity. Or worse, by 
common sense, which is rarely revolutionary. This leads to followerism, 
acting by inertia or tradition, and losing militants - burned out by 
political impotence or absorbed by organizations that do offer a defined 
horizon.

The emergence of elites is not caused by theoretical development. On the 
contrary, it is the logical effect of refusing to build a conscious, 
collective line.

Who Criticizes Theorizing?
One could say only those with a condescending, experience-based attitude 
- comfortable in their supposed ideological purity and uncritical 
loyalty to static principles - reject political development. But the 
reality is more troubling: anti-theoretical discourses are launched into 
the "public" space by those unwilling to debate their positions and who 
prefer to solidify them by making them invisible.

Within the organization I belong to, we remain alert to those who invite 
us to act without thinking - as if action and reflection were opposites. 
We defend the right - and the need - to theorize. We will not abandon 
what we consider fundamental, even if threatened with sanctions, even if 
told our stance does not fit "our tradition," or if we are branded as 
pedantic. We know it's not our ego at stake, but our autonomy.

We do not want to be guided by traditional thought or end up repeating 
others' formulas when common sense runs out. We want clarity about the 
path we take.

We believe the best tribute to those who came before us in struggle is 
to learn from their steps, extract the lessons of their memory, and 
overcome the limits that hindered their advances. That is why we build 
revolutionary theory.

Against the Anti-Theoretical Myth
We need an explicit, collectively built theory, born of rigorous 
analysis of today's reality and also of the historical memory of our 
class - a theory unearthed alongside the bones of those who fought 
before us. It must not be transmitted informally or through tacit 
socialization but through educational processes with spaces for debate, 
critique, and honest confrontation. Only in this way can it avoid 
sterile dogmatism and honor the true anarchist tradition: one that 
reinvents itself and engages in discussion.

We affirm political struggle as a confrontation of theories. Within the 
Libertarian Movement, this contest is also essential. Combating ideas 
that drive militants and the masses into dead ends is part of 
revolutionary work.

Those who say "now is not the time to theorize" are, in fact, taking a 
political position. By dismissing reflection, they seek to steer 
attention toward immediate action, shutting down the possibility of 
broad, shared debate. This attitude gravely hinders collective analysis 
and limits our ability to engage critically.

When we educate ourselves, debate, theorize, or polemicize, we are 
building a revolutionary alternative. We reject the false dichotomy 
between theory and action, between words and practice. We do not think 
from a basement, isolated from reality. We think while acting and act 
while thinking. Our praxis is reflective: we analyze, project, evaluate, 
and correct.

Everyday political activity is not an obstacle to theory; it is its 
source. Our theory is situated, born from below, from concrete practice, 
from the ground we tread with others, and from the ground others have 
trodden before us. The echo of those steps reaches us through their 
stories, through reflections that survived the fire, and through the 
generosity of those who still speak aloud so we may debate together.

We confront ideas not out of vanity but out of responsibility and 
respect for the collective process. Far from being an egotistical 
exercise, debating and criticizing is an act of political honesty and 
real autonomy - of true humility. We do not fight for our initials; we 
have no printed flags. We fight for the political development of the 
working class in its struggle against those who exploit it. Our horizon 
is a radically different world. We do not win unless we all win. Our 
signature is not driven by bourgeois prestige; it is an act of 
commitment. We take responsibility for what we say and do. We expose 
ourselves to criticism and accept the duty to reconsider our positions 
when necessary.

We are libertarian communists and uphold the Platformist theses - not 
out of identity or tradition but out of strategic coherence.

Theory and Rootedness
The libertarian movement has never lacked will, dedication, or 
commitment, but its strength has often been broken by the absence of a 
strategy capable of consolidating advances. More than once we have ended 
up as the spearhead serving other interests.

Of course, having a Revolutionary Theory is not enough. If ideas are not 
embodied in collective subjects capable of advancing them, they become 
sterile - mere rhetoric, empty talk, or poetry. Revolution is not made 
by anarchists; it is made by the masses. And influencing their path is 
impossible without credibility among them. That credibility cannot be 
decreed; it is the result of mutual respect.

Revolutionary organizations are nothing outside the working class. 
Rootedness means real and ongoing contact with the organizations of 
struggle. It means revolutionary militants are known and recognized by 
their comrades because they were there: because they defended ideas with 
voice and body, because they took blows, succeeded and failed, planned 
and corrected, shared joys and griefs. Because they are what they are - 
a fighting working class.

Only this shared practice grants the recognition needed for comrades to 
listen to our ideas when it matters most. And only thus is it possible 
to achieve hegemony - that is, to push collectively in the most 
appropriate direction when the class struggle accelerates.

Rootedness is built through sustained struggles consolidated in formal 
structures, with coherence between words and deeds. It's not just about 
talking but about being present, about doing. With honesty, constancy, 
and consistency. What gives our words credibility is our example of 
sacrifice and struggle. Knowledge and capability. Building and guiding. 
Theory and rootedness - the two sides of the black wedge. The two tasks, 
the two prerequisites, of a Libertarian Revolutionary Organization. 
Neither building forces for others to lead nor throwing ourselves 
headlong into the next assured defeat.

Miguel Brea, militant of Liza

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/10/01/la-tirania-de-la-falta-de-teoria/
_________________________________________
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