A-Infos (en) US, BRRN: The Platform at 100: Voices of Organized Anarchists Around the Globe (Vol. 2) VI. LIZA - Spain (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

1. Liza is a recent addition to the landscape of organized revolutionary 
forces in Spain. What motivated the formation of the organization? Were 
you in contact with other anarchist communist organizations already 
established in your area, such as Batzac and Embat in the region of 
Catalonia? --- Liza: Liza was founded in 2023 as the result of a 
collective process of reflection and self-criticism regarding the 
limitations of the previous political cycle. Many of us had participated 
in various spaces of struggle-the student movement, the labor movement, 
the housing movement, cultural collectives, or autonomous 
initiatives-and we shared the feeling that, despite the enormous 
capacity for mobilization that existed, anarchism had not managed to 
establish itself within our generation as an organized political force 
capable of gaining social influence and sustaining a long-term strategy.

Following the cycle initiated by the 15M Movement, we observed how many 
struggles ended up being absorbed by reformist projects or petering out 
as the mobilization faded. We also identified recurring problems within 
the anarchist movement itself: fragmentation, localism, a rejection of 
political organization, a lack of strategic planning, and, at times, a 
gap that was too wide between theory and practice. We did not view these 
limitations as individual failures, but rather as historical problems 
that had to be addressed collectively.

At the same time, the political context had changed profoundly. The 
consequences of the crisis from the previous cycle, the international 
rise of the far right, the worsening living conditions of the working 
class, and the relative "social peace" prevailing in Europe convinced us 
that it was necessary to rebuild a revolutionary organization capable of 
intervening consistently in social conflicts and preparing for future 
scenarios of greater confrontation.

In this quest, we found in the European platformist tradition a 
strategic reference point of particular interest to our process of 
debate. Not because we consider Dielo Truda's Organizational Platform to 
be a closed model or a text that must be applied mechanically a century 
later, but because it addresses some of the fundamental problems that 
continue to plague anarchism: the need for a specific political 
organization, theoretical and strategic unity, collective 
responsibility, and a militant practice capable of intervening 
continuously in mass movements without supplanting their leading role.

From the outset, we understood that this process could not unfold in 
isolation. Very soon, we established contact with Embat, whose 
experience was fundamental during our early stages. Their contributions 
helped us debate organizational issues, draft our first documents, and 
better understand the political tradition we were drawing closer to.

Over time, that relationship expanded into a much broader process of 
coordination with other organized anarchist organizations on the Iberian 
Peninsula-some that already existed and others that emerged almost 
alongside our own process-including Batzac, Xesta, and Hedra. Today we 
maintain stable spaces for joint work, shared political analyses, common 
campaigns, regular meetings, and projects such as the publication 
Regeneración and the Teima publishing house, convinced that the 
reconstruction of organized anarchism also requires rebuilding a shared 
political culture.

We do not view platformism as an identity or as a movement closed in on 
itself. We understand it as a strategy for building revolutionary 
organization, accumulating social power, and contributing to the 
development of class power capable of challenging capitalism's hegemony. 
In this sense, Liza does not aspire merely to build yet another 
organization, but to be part of a collective process of rebuilding 
social, class-based, and revolutionary anarchism in our region, learning 
both from our own history and from the international experiences of our 
current.

2. As a relatively new organization, what lessons can you share from 
your early days?

Liza: The main lesson we've learned is that building a revolutionary 
organization requires embracing a timeframe different from that of 
immediate action; we wanted to break away from acting just for the sake 
of acting. In a context marked by constant urgency and a militant 
culture heavily focused on the immediate, it's tempting to measure 
political activity solely by the number of mobilizations or initiatives 
launched in the short term. However, our experience has confirmed that 
without a solid organization-one with shared goals and the capacity to 
sustain itself over time-even the most intense struggles end up 
weakening when the political situation changes, unless we share the 
tools to analyze reality and chart tactical courses that are useful for 
the emancipation of our class.

That is why we decided to devote a significant portion of our early 
efforts to building a firm foundation. Rather than growing rapidly, we 
preferred to consolidate a common political culture based on theoretical 
education, strategic debate, and collective responsibility. We have 
invested a great deal of time in studying the history of the labor 
movement and anarchism, political economy, philosophy, and the 
revolutionary experiences of the past, contrasting them with the current 
political context. We understand that theory is not an academic 
exercise, but an essential tool for interpreting reality and guiding 
effective political practice. For this reason, from the very beginning, 
we sought to engage socially across various political fronts and 
movements of different orientations.

Another important lesson has been understanding that strategic unity 
does not mean uniformity or the absence of debate. On the contrary, we 
believe that a strong organization needs open spaces for discussion, 
where differences can be resolved collectively until agreements are 
reached that are then embraced by the entire membership. This 
combination of democratic deliberation and shared responsibility 
strengthens internal trust and allows us to act with greater coherence 
on the various fronts of struggle.

We have also paid special attention to building a healthy organizational 
culture. Criticism and self-criticism, the rotation of responsibilities, 
nurturing relationships among members, and the development of internal 
protocols are not secondary issues, but rather necessary conditions for 
developing an organization capable of enduring and facing political 
challenges without reproducing authoritarian or personality-driven dynamics.

Finally, we have learned the importance of not walking this path alone. 
In fact, it has been almost a year since Liza expanded beyond Madrid, 
and we now also have a core group in Granada, with contacts and outreach 
to other cities in Andalusia. Constant exchange with sister 
organizations, both within our region and in other countries, has 
allowed us to learn from experiences accumulated over decades, avoid 
well-known mistakes, and understand that the reconstruction of organized 
anarchism can only be understood as a collective and internationalist 
task. No organization starts from scratch; we are all part of a 
tradition that is enriched by sharing assessments, debates, and lessons 
learned. That conviction continues to guide our development and is, 
probably, one of the most valuable lessons we can pass on.

3. There is no doubt that the history of the anarchist movement in Spain 
is revered, above all, for its expression through the CNT's 
anarcho-syndicalism in the early 20th century. Platformism, by 
comparison, had a relatively minor presence in the country until 
recently. Why do you think this is, and what drew Liza's activists to 
the Platform's theoretical and organizational framework?

Liza: The history of organized anarchism in Spain was deeply shaped by 
the development of anarcho-syndicalism. The CNT became one of the 
largest workers' organizations in Europe and, for decades, channeled 
much of the anarchist movement's organizational, theoretical, and 
activist efforts. That immense strength meant that many debates about 
the need for a specifically anarchist political organization took a back 
seat-either because the union fulfilled that dual function or because 
forms of "synthesis anarchism" were established.

Anarchism had reached Spain thanks to the IWA, particularly through 
Giuseppe Fanelli. Fanelli was Bakunin's delegate to the IWA and conveyed 
Bakuninist ideas to many activists here. He forged the first networks of 
anarchist activists and thinkers within the Spanish state.

Anarchism found it easier to take root here than in northern Europe due 
to the relative weakness of the state. It was a very weak state that, 
out of necessity, could not concentrate power to the same extent as in 
the more industrialized countries of Europe. The concept of the state 
was more diffuse; the peasantry was much more receptive to notions of 
land collectivization and non-participation in politics than to Marxist 
ideas such as the industrial army or the conquest of the state.

All of this led anarchism to establish cultural centers, associations, 
and the like over a period of sixty or more years prior to 1936.

The experience of the FAI is probably the best example of this. Although 
it shared the concern for giving anarchism greater political cohesion, 
it did not adhere to the organizational model proposed by the Platform. 
The FAI was, above all, an umbrella organization that brought together 
very diverse sensibilities under a common anarchist identity, 
prioritizing ideological affinity over a fully developed theoretical and 
strategic unity. That formula responded to specific historical 
conditions and played a fundamental role, but it also left open many of 
the debates regarding how to structure a revolutionary organization with 
a shared strategy and sustained political intervention.

Furthermore, the experiences that inspired platformism also failed to 
fully take root. Both the revolutionary movement led by Nestor Makhno in 
Ukraine and the Mexican Magonism spearheaded by Ricardo Flores Magón 
were defeated before they could realize their full organizational 
potential. The Platform itself emerged, to a large extent, as a response 
to those defeats and as an attempt to draw lessons for the future. 
However, repression, the rise of fascism, and later the Cold War greatly 
hindered the international continuity of this current, with the 
exception of the Communist Anarchist Federation of Bulgaria.

Following the Spanish Transition, anarchism began to develop once again 
in a very different context. During the 1980s and 1990s, currents such 
as autonomism, insurrectionism, and certain expressions of anarchist 
counterculture gained significant influence. All of them made important 
contributions to keeping the resistance alive during a period of retreat 
for the labor movement and a neoliberal offensive. However, we believe 
that these trends eventually became the dominant mindset within much of 
anarchism, prioritizing forms of resistance, experimentation, and local 
intervention, but pushing the development of an offensive strategy 
capable of challenging capitalism's social power into the background. 
Specific political organization, the accumulation of social power, and 
strategic planning were issues that were, to a large extent, relegated 
to the background.

Meanwhile, this line of thought continued to develop with much greater 
force in Latin America, especially drawing on the experience of the 
Uruguayan Anarchist Federation and the subsequent development of 
"especifismo" in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Paradoxically, many of 
these ideas were rooted in issues raised by the Platform itself, but 
they reached Spain several decades later.

What drew Liza to this tradition was not a desire to revive a historical 
document for the sake of identity, but the fact that many of the 
questions posed a hundred years ago remain extraordinarily relevant 
today. How can we build a revolutionary organization capable of enduring 
beyond cycles of mobilization? How can we combine strategic unity with 
internal democracy? How can we engage with popular movements without 
supplanting their leading role? How can we prevent anarchism from 
fragmenting into a collection of disconnected initiatives?

We do not view platformism as a closed doctrine or as a political 
identity. We understand it as a strategic tradition that must be 
constantly updated in light of new historical experiences and a rigorous 
analysis of contemporary society. Our point of reference is not only the 
Dielo Truda Platform, but also a century of subsequent revolutionary 
experiences, from the Spanish Revolution to Latin American especifismo, 
including debates on hegemony, social reproduction, feminism, political 
ecology, and popular organizations. We believe that remaining faithful 
to the spirit of the Platform does not mean literally repeating its 
formulations, but rather continuing the same exercise undertaken by its 
authors: critically analyzing the defeats of the revolutionary movement 
in order to build militant organizations capable of confronting the 
challenges of the present.

4. Liza has participated, along with other groups, in organizing the 
"Encuentro Especifista" in 2024 and 2025. What are the objectives of 
these gatherings? What kinds of topics do they address?

Liza: These meetings stem from a process of rapprochement that several 
libertarian organizations had been developing for some time. We shared 
similar assessments of the state of anarchism and social movements in 
Spain; we wanted to maintain stable bilateral relationships; and we 
collaborated on joint projects such as Regeneración Libertaria. However, 
we understood that it was necessary to take a step further and create a 
regular forum where we could debate collectively, share experiences, and 
move toward greater political coordination.

The first meeting, held in 2024, had precisely this foundational 
character. Its main objective was to bring together organizations and 
activists who shared the same strategic outlook so that we could get to 
know one another, compare our analyses, and assess the extent to which a 
common political foundation existed upon which to continue building. It 
also sought to create a space for training, the exchange of experiences, 
and the strengthening of personal bonds-something essential for any 
organizational project that aspires to endure.

A year later, the second meeting reflected the progress made. It was not 
merely a repeat of the previous one, but rather a confirmation that this 
process of coordination had matured. During that year, new organizations 
emerged, permanent spaces for coordination were consolidated, common 
tools were promoted, and deeper strategic debates began to take shape. 
For this reason, we moved beyond the name "Encuentro Especifista", and 
now refer to it as the "Meeting of Social and Organized Anarchism"-an 
expression we believe better describes the broad political space we are 
trying to build and that allows for dialogue with a libertarian 
tradition broader than organizational labels.

The content of these meetings combines different levels of work. On the 
one hand, we assess the current situation and analyze the political 
moment, both at the national and international levels. We also debate 
strategic issues related to revolutionary organization, the accumulation 
of social force, engagement with popular movements, political education, 
communication, internationalism, and the development of new shared 
tools. In addition, there are spaces for exchanging experiences among 
the various fronts of action-labor, housing, student, neighborhood, 
feminist, and anti-fascist-which allow us to learn from the practices 
developed in each region and enrich our collective work.

This summer we will hold our third meeting in the Basque Country, to 
which we have invited other organizations to continue our tradition of 
meeting annually to further weave this cohesion-as organizations, we 
advance through our joint and coordinated work each political year. We 
do not view these gatherings as conferences intended to unify 
organizations, nor as closed spaces for reaffirming identity. Their 
purpose is much more modest and, at the same time, more ambitious: to 
build a shared political culture based on fraternal debate, 
self-criticism, theoretical development, and mutual trust. We understand 
that the reconstruction of organized anarchism does not depend solely on 
creating new organizations, but also on generating stable spaces where 
common strategies, assessments, and perspectives can be developed 
collectively. In that sense, these meetings represent another step in a 
much broader process of reconstructing revolutionary anarchism in our 
region.

5. Which sectors or areas of mass organizing does Liza strategically 
prioritize?

Liza: Our approach is based on the idea that capitalism organizes 
exploitation and domination across multiple spheres of social life as a 
unified whole; therefore, the accumulation of social power must also be 
built across different fronts of struggle, understood as a unified 
whole. Our task as a political organization is not to replace these 
movements, but to strengthen their capacity for self-organization, 
facilitate their coordination, and help them develop a strategic 
perspective capable of transcending immediate demands.

Currently, the front to which we devote the most effort is the housing 
movement. We understand that housing has become one of the main 
contradictions of Spanish capitalism. The financialization of land, the 
concentration of property in the hands of large investment funds and 
real estate companies, rising rents, and the displacement of broad 
sectors of the working class from their neighborhoods have made this 
conflict a central issue for the working class.

Our members actively participate in various housing unions and 
neighborhood organizations in Madrid and Granada. In addition to our 
day-to-day work addressing evictions, negotiations, and specific 
conflicts, we have sought to develop our own program rooted in 
libertarian socialism to strengthen the housing movement. We believe 
that one of the main challenges is to overcome territorial fragmentation 
and move toward confederal forms of organization that allow us to 
strategically confront large landlords and real estate companies. We 
believe that only through stable coordination will it be possible to 
build sufficient social force to challenge the current housing model and 
question the very system of private home ownership.

At the same time, we believe that the limits of the current political 
cycle have become particularly evident in this area. The so-called 
progressive government has proven incapable of challenging the interests 
of large property owners. While it negotiates with the financial sector 
and keeps private home ownership as a commodity intact, it continues to 
send police forces to carry out evictions against working-class 
families. This contradiction reinforces our conviction that lasting 
solutions will not come from institutional agreements, but from 
strengthening grassroots organization.

The labor union front constitutes another strategic priority. Our 
members actively participate in the CNT in Madrid and Granada, while 
also maintaining a fraternal relationship with Solidaridad Obrera, with 
whom we have promoted educational initiatives such as a course on 
political economy from a libertarian socialist perspective. We view 
unionism as an essential tool for rebuilding the working class's 
capacity for organization, although we are aware of the difficulties it 
faces in the current context. In this regard, one of the projects of 
which we are most proud has been the consolidation of a united May Day 
in Madrid, capable of bringing together class-based unionism, social 
movements, and intersectional groups in a single mobilization. We 
believe that these kinds of experiences help rebuild a broader political 
subject and strengthen the possibilities for collective action.

Finally, we are devoting increasing attention to the anti-imperialist 
and internationalist front. We believe that the current global 
scenario-marked by rearmament, wars, and competition between imperialist 
blocs-requires us to reclaim a clear internationalist position from 
within revolutionary anarchism. We actively participated in the general 
strike called in solidarity with Palestine-a mobilization that required 
a significant organizational effort and for which several comrades were 
disciplined due to their participation in picket lines and 
demonstrations. We are also part of ongoing initiatives to denounce 
imperialism and build an anti-imperialist front in Madrid alongside 
other organizations and unions.

Our position in this area seeks to avoid the two extremes that typically 
dominate the debate. We unequivocally reject imperialism led by the 
United States, NATO, and the Western powers, but we also believe that 
libertarian internationalism cannot translate into uncritical support 
for other states simply because they are in opposition to those powers. 
We advocate a third position based on solidarity among peoples, 
self-determination, and the political autonomy of the working classes in 
the face of any imperialist bloc.

Alongside these three strategic areas, we are also active in other 
spaces that we consider fundamental for building social power, such as 
the movement against Foreigners' Detention Centers (CIE), where we have 
helped organize demonstrations in recent years. In the face of the rise 
of the far right, the tightening of European immigration policies, and 
the normalization of institutional racism, we believe that the defense 
of migrants is an inseparable part of any revolutionary and class-based 
project.

Overall, our approach is to connect these different fronts through a 
common strategy. We do not view each conflict as an isolated struggle, 
but rather as expressions of the same system of domination. The goal is 
for the grassroots organization built in neighborhoods, in the 
workplace, in the defense of housing, or through internationalist 
solidarity to converge into a social force capable of challenging 
capitalism's hegemony and opening up a horizon for revolutionary 
transformation.

6. We're conducting this interview to mark the Platform's centennial. 
Are the document and its recommendations still relevant today?

Liza: We believe the best way to answer this question is to avoid both 
idealizing it and completely dismissing it simply because of the passage 
of time. The Organizational Platform is neither a sacred text nor a 
document whose validity must be accepted in its entirety a century after 
its publication. Nor is it a mere historical anecdote. Its importance 
lies in having formulated with great clarity a set of strategic problems 
that the anarchist movement continues to face a hundred years later.

The activists of Dielo Truda wrote from an experience marked by the 
defeat of the Russian Revolution and by a fundamental question: Why had 
a movement with such capacity for sacrifice, creativity, and presence in 
the class struggle been unable to become a decisive political actor? 
Their answer was to highlight the need to build anarchist organizations 
with theoretical and strategic unity, collective responsibility, and the 
capacity to intervene continuously in popular struggles. We believe 
these questions remain fully relevant today. We, too, continue to debate 
how to avoid fragmentation, how to build a common strategy, how to 
relate political organization to mass movements, and how to build social 
power without ever supplanting the initiative of the oppressed class.

At the same time, it would be a mistake to turn the Platform into a 
finished program. It is a document written under very specific 
historical circumstances, prior to the Spanish Revolution, the 
development of Latin American "especifismo," the anti-colonial 
struggles, contemporary feminism, the ecological crisis, and the 
transformations capitalism has undergone over the last century. Its 
authors could not address problems that did not yet exist or were only 
just beginning to emerge. If we wish to keep that tradition alive, we 
must also take on the obligation to constantly expand and revise it in 
light of the practice of these struggles.

We also believe that the Platform itself has certain limitations. It was 
drafted at a time of enormous political urgency, which explains why 
certain issues are only briefly touched upon. It forcefully articulates 
organizational principles but offers fewer tools for understanding the 
workings of capitalism, the construction of hegemony, social 
reproduction, or the complex relationship between revolutionary 
organization and various political subjects. A century of subsequent 
experiences allows us today to address these issues with much greater depth.

That is why we understand platformism more as a tradition of strategic 
research than as a closed doctrinal body. The history of libertarian 
communism itself has greatly enriched that starting point. The Uruguayan 
Anarchist Federation and Latin American "especifismo" developed concepts 
such as social insertion and popular power; other experiences 
contributed reflections on colonialism, patriarchy, ecology, and the 
transformations of labor. Even the defeats of the labor movement and the 
new forms of organization that have emerged in recent decades are part 
of that collective heritage from which we continue to learn. Our task is 
not to choose between the Platform and subsequent contributions, but to 
critically integrate them into a revolutionary strategy adapted to our 
times.

Here in Europe, too, we believe it is necessary to engage in an exercise 
in historical humility. For far too long, the European anarchist 
movement tended to view itself as the center of anarchist theoretical 
development. However, many of the most fruitful contributions of recent 
decades have emerged from Latin America, where "especifista" 
organizations kept strategic reflection alive while other concerns 
predominated in much of Europe. Similarly, the experiences of Kurdistan, 
various African struggles, and other processes of popular and labor 
resistance in Southeast Asia have much to contribute to a truly 
internationalist tradition.

Commemorating the centennial of the Platform should serve precisely to 
strengthen that international dialogue-not to construct a new orthodoxy, 
but to continue doing what its authors did a hundred years ago: 
critically analyzing our defeats, learning from the experiences of 
diverse struggles, and equipping anarchism with the organizational tools 
it needs to intervene in the conflicts of our time. Remaining faithful 
to Dielo Truda does not mean repeating its answers, but rather keeping 
alive the will to formulate our own collectively.

https://www.blackrosefed.org/platform-interviews-vol-2/#liza-spain
_________________________________________
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