A-Infos (en) Turkey, Yeryuzu Postasi: 104 Steps to Earning the Social Vector I. (1/2)(ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

These words actually come from FARJ's work, Social Anarchism and 
Organizing, but this edited and abridged version reflects our 
organizational understanding of that text, which has been vital to the 
development of the Centre for Spectistical Studies and  the continuity 
of Militant Kindergarten . We have adapted the following paragraphs from 
our "Reading Guide," without using page numbers or ellipses, and have 
numbered and subheaded them to facilitate a more fluid read.

1. THE TWO AXES OF SPECIFICISM

By specificism, we are referring to an anarchist understanding of 
organization with two fundamental axes: organization and social 
work/social articulation. These two axes are based on the classic 
concept of differentiated anarchist action at the social and political 
levels (the Bakunin axis) and the specific concept of anarchist 
organization (the Malastian axis).

2. The Ideology of Specificism

Synthesistism advocates for an anarchist organizational model that 
includes all anarchists (anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, 
anarcho-individualists, etc.). Therefore, it shares many of the 
characteristics we criticize. We know that even within synthesist 
organizations, there are serious militants committed to social 
anarchism, so we don't want our criticisms to appear generalizing. While 
we never question whether these organizations are anarchist (in our 
view, they are all anarchist), they often do not align with our 
understanding of anarchist organization. There are other anarchist 
organizations that do not originate from the tradition of essentialism. 
Therefore, essentialism represents much more than simply advocating for 
anarchist organization. We understand anarchism as an ideology; that is, 
"a whole of ideas, motivations, aspirations, values directly linked to 
action, a structure or system of concepts, what we call political 
practice." Specificism, as an ideology, advocates for an anarchism that 
seeks to establish a model of action to transform contemporary society 
into libertarian socialism through social revolution. Our aim here is to 
distinguish this understanding of anarchism from another purely abstract 
and theoretical understanding that only encourages free thinking and 
does not necessarily require the establishment of a model for social 
transformation. Anarchism, when considered solely from this model of 
critically observing life, offers aesthetic freedom and infinite 
possibilities. However, when conceived in this way, it does not offer 
the possibility of real social transformation because it is not put into 
practice, into action. It lacks a political practice that considers 
ultimate goals.

3. ORGANIZATION IS THE MAIN PRINCIPLE.

In the specificist model, this distinction necessarily exists between 
the political and social levels of activity. Thus, specific anarchist 
organization is the organization of anarchists who come together at the 
political and ideological level and carry out their main activities at 
the broader social level, aiming to be the catalyst of the struggle. In 
designing this distinction between the social and political levels, we 
do not mean to imply that we want to be ahead of social movements or 
that the political level has any hierarchy or dominance over the social 
level. Generally, in anarchism, this distinction between the social and 
political levels is not accepted by all currents; these currents 
understand anarchist organization vaguely, considering it to be a social 
movement, an organization, a group of associates, a working group, a 
community, a cooperative, etc. There are also anarchist currents that 
advocate "anti-organization" or even spontaneous attitudes, considering 
all forms of organization to be authoritarian or contrary to anarchism. 
Some anarchist individuals who advocate these views and are willing to 
engage in social work cannot cope with authoritarian forces and, without 
proper organization, become laborers and "arms" for authoritarian 
projects, or they become disillusioned and leave because they cannot 
find a place in social movements. In our understanding, these and 
similar attempts to ideologize social movements weaken both the social 
movements themselves-which no longer function around concrete issues 
such as land, housing, and employment-and anarchism itself, because it 
does not allow for the deepening of ideological struggles within the 
social movement. This also weakens it because the goal of these 
anarchists to make all the militants of social movements anarchists is 
impossible unless it seriously diminishes and weakens the movements. 
Thus, or seeing that it is natural to encounter people from different 
ideologies who will never be anarchists in social movements, these 
anarchists become disillusioned and generally withdraw from the 
struggles. As a result, this anarchism often becomes inward-looking.

4TH GRADE STRUGGLE

From our perspective, anarchism originated from the people and belongs 
there; it must take a clear stance in favor of the exploited classes, 
who are in constant conflict in the class struggle. Therefore, when we 
discuss "where to sow the seeds of anarchism," it is clear to us that it 
must be done within the class struggle, in the areas where the 
contradictions of capitalism are most evident. There are anarchists who 
do not support this class struggle tendency of anarchism; worse, some 
criticize it as an attempt at liberation or an "apology for the poor." 
Many of these anarchists who reject class struggle believe that the 
classic definition of bourgeois and proletarian classes is no longer 
valid because it does not take into account today's society, and 
therefore classes no longer exist or are an outdated concept. We are 
fundamentally opposed to these views, and we believe that however we 
define classes, and however much emphasis we place on the economic 
aspect, it is undeniable that there are contexts and conditions in which 
some people suffer more from the effects of capitalism than others. 
These are precisely the contexts and conditions we wish to prioritize in 
our work. When we attempt to apply anarchism to class struggle, we 
introduce social work, which we previously defined as "the activity that 
anarchist organization carries out in the midst of class struggle, 
bringing anarchism into interaction with the exploited classes." As we 
have said before, for us, social work should be the primary activity of 
specific anarchist organization. We argue that anarchist organization 
should aim for social articulation (insertion), which is "the process of 
influencing social movements through anarchist practice," through social 
work.

5. SECTARIAN ANARCHISM[1]

Some argue that as individuals within society, they already possess 
social articulation. These often become sectarian. For anarchists who 
believe that social work/articulation is not a priority, the view 
prevails that other activities will be more effective in the development 
of anarchism, but this is often not explicitly stated. Furthermore, 
since they lack a strategic formulation, at least ostensibly, what 
happens in practice is that these anarchists tend to focus on 
propaganda, which remains very limited to publications, events, and 
culture. Propaganda is central to us as well, but it is insufficient 
without the support of social work and articulation. With this support, 
propaganda becomes far more effective. Therefore, in specificism, 
propaganda should be conducted with these two tendencies: being 
educational/cultural and engaging in struggle alongside social movements.

6. BOURGEOIS ANARCHISTS

They either abandon their proposal for social transformation, or they 
form a group that fights for the people, but not alongside them, 
assuming a vanguard role and not an active minority position. 
Ultimately, they transform their own anarchism into a "movement in 
itself," primarily composed of middle-class and intellectual 
individuals, not seeking contact with social and popular struggles, and 
not communicating with people of different ideologies. In most cases, 
they advocate spontaneity because, in their view, "coming from the 
outside," "introducing anarchism into social movements," is 
authoritarian. They believe ideas should emerge spontaneously. They 
condemn debate, persuasion, deception, exchange, and influence as 
externally imposed and therefore authoritarian practices within social 
movements.

7. PRACTICE THAT INFORMS THE THEORY

As we have explained, in our view, anarchism should neither be 
inward-looking nor should it shy away from social movements and people 
of different ideologies. Because we understand that class is defined not 
by origin but by the position one defends in the struggle, we believe 
that supporting social movements and organizations different from one's 
own reality, assisting in mobilizations and organizations, is an ethical 
obligation for every militant aiming for the end of class society. 
Finally, we believe that social work brings the necessary practice to 
anarchism and that this makes a tremendous contribution to the 
development of the theoretical and ideological line of organization. 
Groups and organizations without social work tend to radicalize a 
discourse that lacks practical support.

8. UNITY OF THEORY AND IDEOLOGY

For us, there is no way to have effective practice, or even to establish 
an organization, without agreeing on some "founding questions." We must 
derive an ideological and theoretical line to be defended and developed 
by the organization. This political line is constructed collectively, 
and everyone in the organization is obliged to adhere to it. For 
anarchists who do not advocate this unity, anarchist organization can 
operate with different ideological and theoretical lines. Each anarchist 
or anarchist group can have its own interpretation and its own theory of 
anarchism. This is the reason for various conflicts and divisions within 
organizations that hold this understanding.

9. STRATEGIC UNION

We believe that a lack of strategy disperses efforts, leading to the 
loss of much of them. As we have seen, acting with strategy requires 
considering a plan of all practical actions undertaken by the 
organization, trying to validate where you are, where you want to go, 
and how you will get there. How do you design an organization where you 
are trying to reconcile a group that believes it should act as a 
specific organization within a social movement with another group that 
thinks the priority should be social interaction among friends, group 
therapy, or even the exaltation of the individual, viewing working with 
social movements as authoritarian (or even a Marxist or progressive form 
of philanthropy)? There are two ways to manage these differences: either 
you discuss the issues and live amidst quarrels and tensions that 
consume a large part of the time, or you don't touch the issues at all. 
Most such organizations choose the second path. The specificism model 
requires us to do things we don't particularly like, or to stop doing 
some things we do like very much. This is to ensure that the 
organization moves forward with a strategy where everyone is rowing in 
the same direction. Priorities and responsibilities mean that not 
everyone can do whatever they want, whenever they feel like it. Each 
person will have an obligation to the organization to fulfill what they 
have undertaken and defined as a priority.

10. DECISION MAKING

We keep in mind that the decision-making process is a means, not an end. 
Some organizations, seeking compromise at all costs and fearing 
division, allow one or a few individuals to have disproportionate weight 
in decisions simply to reach a compromise. Sometimes, they spend hours 
on trivial arguments just to seek a compromise. Ideological and 
theoretical unity, as well as strategic and tactical unity, are achieved 
through the collective decision-making process adopted by specific 
organizations: first, an attempt at compromise, and if that is not 
possible, voting, with the majority deciding. As we have emphasized 
before, in this case, the entire organization adopts the chosen 
decision. The obligation of everyone to follow the same path, which is a 
rule in specificism, is a commitment to the organization's own strategy, 
because if a group refuses to carry out the work every time a decision 
displeases some militants, the progress of the organization becomes 
impossible.

11. MILITANT COMMITMENT

Lack of commitment, responsibility, and self-discipline is a major 
problem in many anarchist groups and organizations. For us, militancy is 
essential in the struggle for a free and egalitarian society, so we 
don't believe it will always be "cool." If we had to choose between a 
more effective model of militancy and a more "cool" one, we would choose 
efficiency. The specificist model embodies a high level of militant 
commitment. Militant commitment establishes a bond between the militant 
and the organization, a reciprocal relationship where the organization 
is accountable to the militant, and the militant is accountable to the 
organization. In other words: the organization owes the militant a debt 
of satisfaction, and the militant owes the organization a debt of 
satisfaction. Specific anarchist organizations contain only militants 
who share an ideological affinity with the organization. Thus, there are 
well-defined entry criteria, both at the political and social levels, 
from the stages of supporter or tendency groupings to specific anarchist 
organization. The more they want to commit themselves, the more involved 
they become in the organization, and the greater their decision-making 
power.

12. ROOFTOP ORGANIZATION

We don't want to be that big "umbrella" encompassing all types of 
anarchism. These broad (vague) definitions seemingly bring together more 
anarchists in the organization. However, we believe we should prioritize 
the quality of militants over quantity. Unlike the specificist model, 
there are other organizations where the only criterion for militants' 
entry is that they identify as anarchists, regardless of their 
understanding of anarchism. Some people participate somewhat, some are 
more committed, some take on more responsibility than others, and all 
have equal decision-making power. Thus, many make decisions about 
activities they themselves will not carry out, i.e., they determine what 
others will do. When an organization allows someone to make a decision 
but not take responsibility, or to take responsibility but not carry it 
out, it allows a kind of authoritarianism among the decision-makers and 
the burden of work to fall on other comrades.

13. INDIVIDUALISM

For individualists, in most cases, being an anarchist means being an 
artist, a bohemian, advocating sexual freedom in the form of open 
relationships or having multiple partners, wearing different clothes, 
having a radical haircut, behaving extremistly, eating different foods, 
defining oneself personally, self-actualizing personally, being against 
revolution (?!), being against socialism (?!), enjoying the freedom of 
aesthetics and having a rhymeless and reasonless discourse, in short, 
becoming apolitical. Specificism means a complete and absolute rejection 
of anarchist individualism. A type that was more common in the past are 
people who prefer to work alone but keep the same project in mind as us. 
The only thing we need to criticize about these people is that, because 
they are unorganized, they cannot strengthen the results of their work. 
Another type, more prominent today, abandons the socialist project. 
Based on the anarchists' critique of the state, they have very little 
critique of capitalism and have no activity whatsoever in transforming 
the reality in which we live socially. By positioning themselves as mere 
critical observers of society, they construct an anarchism based on 
secondary thinkers and references, revolving solely around criticism. 
They have no social project, and certainly no coherent actions pointing 
to this new society. If we advocate for speciism as a form of anarchist 
organization, it is because we believe it is more suitable for the work 
we intend to do today. We understand that there are anarchists who do 
not subscribe to speciism, and we do not consider them any less 
anarchist because of that. We simply request that our preference be 
respected.

14. SOURCES OF INSPIRY FOR SPECULATISM

As we have seen, the term speciism was developed by the FAU and only 
reached Brazil in the late twentieth century. Rather than creating a new 
understanding of anarchist organization, speciism sought to bring 
together a number of already existing concepts of anarchist organization 
that had been taking shape since the nineteenth century. The FAU's 
speciism carries the influence of Bakunin and Malatesta, the class 
struggle of anarcho-syndicalism, and dispossessible anarchism; all 
within the Latin American context.

15. Bakunin

The first historical reference to espousiveness is Bakunin, with his 
organizational understanding that shaped anarchism and constituted the 
activity of libertarians within the International Workingmen's 
Association (IWA). Two tendencies developed within the IWA: one 
centralist, the other federalist. The Alliance was an effective minority 
organization composed of "the most reliable, most dedicated, most 
intelligent, and most energetic members-in short, those closest." It was 
established to secretly address issues that could not be discussed 
publicly and to act as a catalyst in the workers' movement. The Alliance 
defined the relationship between the social and political levels.

16. MALATESTA

According to Malatesta, the future was not necessarily predetermined and 
could only be changed through voluntary intervention in events-that is, 
through will-to achieve the desired social transformation. Following the 
collectivist anarchist tradition of Bakunin's time, which advocated for 
distribution to all according to their labor in the future society, the 
anarcho-communist current emerged, advocating for distribution to all 
according to their needs. At the political level, Malatesta developed a 
specific understanding of anarchist organization, which he called the 
anarchist party. This organization needed to operate within and 
influence the movements of the time, referred to as "mass movements"; 
trade unions were the preferred ground for anarchist activity. Today, we 
believe that this specific anarchist organization should operate within 
the class struggle, in the midst of social movements, and work alongside 
them to achieve social revolution and libertarian socialism.

17th MAGÓN

In our understanding, an important historical experience for speciation 
was that of Ricardo Flores Magón. Magonism was part of the radical phase 
of the Mexican Liberal Party (PLM). During the Mexican Revolution, the 
PLM became illegal and organized more than forty armed resistance groups 
throughout Mexico; it also had indigenous members known for their 
struggles for community rights and against capitalist property. They 
united in an anti-re-election front that granted each group a relative 
degree of autonomy and independence.

18th Russian Revolution

Another important historical reference for esotericism is the 
participation of anarchists in the Russian Revolution. In the field, in 
southern Ukraine, the peasants of the village of Gulyai Polye, which had 
a strong anarchist organization since the 1905 revolution, formed the 
Peasants' Union, deciding to fight for social revolution independently 
of the government and seek self-management of the means of production. 
Then a split emerged between authoritarian and libertarian revolutionary 
elements. The former favored seizing the state apparatus and moving 
towards a Party dictatorship (Bolshevik) ruled by an all-powerful 
central committee; the latter favored libertarian and self-managing 
communism in the form of councils of workers', peasants', and armed 
people's soviets. The Bolsheviks gradually began to deny, suppress, 
obstruct, and ultimately ban the spread of libertarian ideas and 
practices. They militarized labor, expelled elected leaders from the 
soviets, forced the soviets to submit to the central authority of the 
party, and banned strikes. This was the end of the self-governing 
socialization process in Ukraine; it was repressively reversed by the 
Bolsheviks in favor of statist and totalitarian forms of organization 
and social control under a new ruling class.

19th PLATFORM

This document laid out important views on the importance of anarchist 
participation in the class struggle, and the necessity of a violent 
social revolution that would overthrow capitalism and the state and 
establish libertarian communism. It also makes a significant 
contribution to the question of the transition from capitalism to 
libertarian communism and the defense of revolution. At the political 
level, the Platform advocates for an anarchist organization operating in 
the midst of social movements, that is, at the social level, and 
emphasizes the effective minority role of anarchist organization. It 
also makes significant contributions to the model of anarchist 
organization at the political level. During the Russian Revolutions, 
anarchists sinned by neglecting the issue of organization. In our view, 
the Platform draws both from Bakunin and Malatesta and brings new 
contributions. Therefore, it should be considered a contribution to 
speciation, but not the most important one. This is less a document 
discussing anarchist organization in all different contexts and more a 
contribution to the discussion on anarchist military action.

20th SPANISH REVOLUTION

Like the Russian Revolution, we see the 1936 Spanish Revolution as a 
point of reference. A social revolution was effectively carried out 
during those years. It was a revolution under fire, aiming to reach all 
areas, from unjust economic structures to the daily lives of the people, 
from rotten hierarchical concepts to historical inequalities between men 
and women. And all this was the work of anarchists. In the initial phase 
(from July 1936 to the beginning of 1937), anarchists were among the 
most prominent groups. The actions of militants in regions like 
Catalonia were exemplary. Republican structures transformed into popular 
organizations through an intense and successful process of 
collectivization. Factories were occupied, and urgent social measures 
were implemented, such as equal pay for men and women, free healthcare, 
permanent sick pay, reduced working hours, and increased wages. 
Metallurgy, timber industry, transportation, food, healthcare, media and 
entertainment services, and rural properties were collectivized. 
Militias were formed to fight against fascist forces, advancing on some 
fronts, particularly the column led by Buenaventura Durruti. In the 
second phase (1937-1939), the progress of the counter-revolution was 
devastating. The advances made by the CNT/FAI were destroyed by those 
seeking to rebuild the foundations of the state (moderate sections of 
the Republic, Communists and Socialists). The Communists began to gain 
key positions in the government. The anarchists were once again forced 
to submit to unfavorable conditions: some members of the CNT eventually 
joined the government.

21. BRAZIL

From the early years of the twentieth century, we understand that 
Brazilian anarchists, particularly followers of Malatesta, associated 
with "organisationalism," sought to organize comrades to establish an 
organization with shared strategy and tactics, based on tactical 
agreements and a clear group understanding. These anarchists, through 
the establishment of schools and theatre groups, as well as significant 
written output, created the conditions that enabled anarchists to fully 
participate in trade unions and social life.

22. FAU

One Latin influence on the specificism we advocate is the Uruguayan 
Anarchist Federation (Federación Anarquista Uruguaya - FAU), founded in 
1956, drawing from class struggle and anarcho-syndical influences, the 
organizational models of Bakunin and Malatesta, and the dispossessible 
anarchism of the Rio de la Plata region. In the late 1960s, parallel to 
mass organizing, the FAU developed its "armed wing," the Popular 
Revolutionary Organization-33 (Organización Popular Revolucionaria - 33, 
OPR-33); this organization carried out a series of sabotage actions, 
economic dispossession, kidnappings of politicians and/or bosses 
particularly hated by the people, armed support for strikes and 
workplace occupations, etc. The FAU rejected focoism as a paradigm of 
armed struggle and preferred social articulation among the people while 
avoiding militarization. FAU restructured itself and developed its work 
with three articulation fronts - union, student and community - on the 
model of specificism we advocate today.

23. HISTORICAL RESULTS

This whole set of concepts and experiences contributes to our 
understanding of specificism today. Specificism is currently championed 
by various Latin American organizations and, even if not under that 
name, is being developed in practice in other parts of the world. In 
short, our understanding of the historical references to specificism is 
not dogmatic. We have a broad range of ideas, beginning with the ideas 
of Bakunin and the Allianceists in the IWA, passing through Malatesta's 
concepts and practical experiences at the social and political levels, 
and extending to the experiences of Magón and the PLM in the Mexican 
Revolution. We are also influenced by the experiences of anarchists in 
the Russian Revolution, particularly the organizational assessments made 
by the Makhnovists in Ukraine and the Russians in exile, and by the 
experiences of anarchists in the Spanish Revolution around the CNT-FAI. 
In Brazil, we are influenced by anarchist "organizationalism," 
highlighting the experiences of the 1918 Rio de Janeiro Anarchist 
Alliance and the 1919 (libertarian) Communist Party. Finally, the FAU's 
influence is evident both in their struggles against the dictatorship 
and in their activities on the front lines with trade unions, community 
and student movements.

24. ORGANIZATION DISCUSSION

We wanted to reach more precise positions. Advancing and shaping the 
discussion, disseminating this information both internally and 
externally, was becoming increasingly necessary. Our actions aimed to 
provide every militant of our organization with the necessary structure, 
space, and support for this discussion to take place in the most 
desirable way possible. We aspired to develop a suitable theory, one 
that was not merely a repetition of other theories developed elsewhere 
and at other times. We sought to create our own concepts, aiming to give 
the theory we wanted to create an original character, and in this 
endeavor, we believe we have been quite successful in constructing and 
shaping a coherent theory by integrating classical and contemporary 
theories with our own concepts. We wanted to build this discussion and 
its shaping collectively. For us, it is not enough for one or a few 
comrades to write the entire theory of the organization while others 
merely observe and follow their positions.

25. ANARCHISM

We view anarchism as an ideology that, without any claim to scientific 
rigor or prophecy, directs action to replace capitalism, the state, and 
its institutions with libertarian socialism-a system based on 
self-governance and federalism. Anarchism is a conscious activity aimed 
at instilling in society the desire for social transformation.

26. HISTORY AND CONTEXT

In certain contexts, anarchism has acquired specific characteristics 
that have diminished its ideological character, transforming it into an 
abstract concept reduced to a mere critical observation of society. From 
this perspective, anarchism ceases to be a tool in the struggle for the 
liberation of the exploited and functions as a hobby, a subject of 
curiosity, a topic of intellectual debate, an academic niche, an 
identity, a group of friends, etc. For us, this viewpoint seriously 
threatens the original meaning of anarchism.

27. SOCIAL ANARCHISM AND LIFESTYLE ANARCHISM

Today, there is a social anarchism that returns to struggles for the 
purpose of social transformation, and a lifestyle anarchism that 
abandons the proposal for social transformation and participation in the 
social struggles of our time. We advocate for anarchism to regain its 
original ideological character, as we have previously defined it, as "a 
system of concepts directly linked to action,[...]political practice." 
For us, social anarchism, as an ideology, is a type of anarchism that 
seeks to be an instrument of social movements and popular organization 
aimed at overthrowing capitalism and the state and building 
self-governing and federalist libertarian socialism.

28. EXPLOITED CLASSES

By accepting this classification and being aware of its limitations, we 
define the category of exploited classes as peripheral areas dominated 
by the center. Therefore, all struggles of the exploited classes must 
have a revolutionary perspective so as not to attempt to transform parts 
of these peripheral areas into new centers.

29. AUTHORITARIAN VS. LIBERTARIAN

Authoritarians, including some who call themselves anarchists, view the 
center as a tool and direct their policies towards it. For them, the 
center-considering it as the state, party, army, and position of 
control-is a means to the liberation of society. Libertarians do not 
view the center as a tool and constantly struggle against it, building 
their revolutionary models and struggle strategies outwards to all 
peripheries. For anarchism to be able to seek a project of social 
transformation, it needs to be in constant contact with the periphery. 
Anarchists encourage social movements in the periphery from the 
grassroots level and strive to build a popular organization to fight in 
solidarity against the existing order and to create a new society based 
on equality and freedom where classes will no longer have meaning. That 
is, in its activity in the class struggle, anarchism sees traditional 
communities, peasants, the unemployed, the semi-unemployed, the 
homeless, and other categories often ignored by authoritarians as 
elements of the exploited classes.

30. THE SOCIAL VECTOR OF ANARCHISM

The emergence of what we call the "social vector of anarchism" began in 
the early 1890s with the growth of anarchist social articulation in 
trade unions and reached its peak in the second decade of the twentieth 
century. We call the social vector of anarchism those popular movements, 
primarily in their practical aspects, that have a significant anarchist 
influence, regardless of the sector in which they occur. These 
mobilizations, products of class struggle, are not anarchist because 
they are organized around specific demands. The mobilizations that 
constitute the social vector of anarchism are carried out within social 
movements that are seen not as a mass to be directed by us, but as 
preferred arenas for social work and accumulation.

31st Revolutionary Gymnastics

The means of struggle employed through mobilization around short-term 
issues function as a "revolutionary gymnastics" that prepares the 
proletariat for social revolution. Anarchism can present itself as an 
ideological instrument of struggle.

32nd STRIKE MOVEMENT

This entire mobilization conjuncture was driven by the extensive 
influence of anarchists who sought to conduct their propaganda within 
the unions; the unions existed for the workers, not for the anarchist 
workers, but by using them to spread their ideas, without confining the 
unions within anarchist ideology. There was also a significant cultural 
movement working alongside the union mobilizations: rationalist schools 
inspired by the principles of (Francisco) Ferrer y Guardia, social 
centers, workers' theater, and other initiatives that were fundamental 
in shaping a class culture that became an object of union action during 
times of struggle. In this rising conjuncture of struggle, there was 
also the formation of two politically and ideologically anarchist 
organizations that sought to work with the union movement. The first was 
the Rio de Janeiro Anarchist Alliance (Aliança Anarquista do Rio de 
Janeiro), founded in 1918 out of a need for an anarchist organization to 
work within the unions, and it was crucial to the 1918 uprising. 
However, under pressure, the Alliance disintegrated and reorganized in 
1919 with the founding of the first Communist Party (with libertarian 
inspiration). Both the Alliance and the Communist Party brought together 
members of a segment of anarchism that, they called "organizers," saw 
the need for a distinction between levels of action: the ideologically 
anarchist political level and the social level of trade union 
mobilization. These militants considered the existence of specific 
anarchist organizations that would act in conjunction with trade unions 
necessary. It is important to emphasize that during this period, 
anarchists already had a concern about their own specific organizations.

33. END OF MOBILIZATION

The context of anarchism was primarily determined by the confusion 
between different levels of activity. Malatesta argued for the need for 
two levels of activity: one politically anarchist, and the other social 
within the union, which would serve as a means of articulation. On the 
one hand, a segment of anarchists argued for the need for specific 
anarchist organization seeking social articulation within unions. On the 
other hand, there were anarchists who understood militancy within unions 
as their sole task. Unionism, the social vector that should lead to an 
end expressed in social revolution and the establishment of libertarian 
socialism, became the end itself for many militants. The social vector 
of anarchism was on an upward curve until the early 1920s; then, 
parallel to unionism itself, the crisis of anarchism began to develop. 
This culminated in the end of mobilization in the 1930s and the loss of 
this social vector.

34. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LEVEL CRISIS

The crisis of trade unionism eventually extended to anarchism itself. 
Thus, a crisis at the social level condemned the political level as 
well, since at that time there was no real difference between the two. 
Without anarchist organizations, when the social level - or a part of it 
- is in crisis, anarchists cannot find another arena for social 
articulation.

35. IDEAL PERES[2]

FARJ claims to be a continuation of Ideal Peres' militancy and the work 
stemming from his history of struggle. In 2002, we initiated a working 
group to verify the possibility of building an anarchist organization in 
Rio de Janeiro; as a result, FARJ was founded on August 30, 2003. For 
us, there is a direct link between Ideal Peres' militancy, the 
construction and operation of CEL, its name change to CELIP, and 
subsequently the founding of FARJ. Ideal Peres was born in 1925 and 
began his militancy in the context of that crisis where the social 
vector of anarchism had already been lost. In the 1970s, after his 
release from prison, Ideal organized a working group at his home aimed 
at bringing together young people interested in anarchism, as well as 
connecting them with former militants and establishing links with other 
anarchists in Brazil. This working group would form the core of the 
Circle of Libertarian Studies (Círculo de Estudos Libertários - CEL). 
Following Ideal Peres' death in August 1995, CEL decided to rename it 
the Ideal Peres Circle for Libertarian Studies (Círculo de Estudos 
Libertários Ideal Peres - CELIP) in his honor.

36. ANARCHISM OF SPECIFICISM

For us, the path to regaining the social vector necessarily passes 
through a specifically organized anarchism that distinguishes levels of 
activity and exists within the class struggle. All our current thinking 
aims to conceive of a strategic organizational model that will enable 
the regaining of the social vector, insofar as it points to our goal of 
transcending capitalism and the state, and establishing libertarian 
socialism. In this context, what we seek is merely a stop in the 
struggle. Unlike the early twentieth century, when trade unions were the 
preferred arena of class struggle, we now consider that while trade 
unionism can be a means of articulation, there are others far more 
important. Broadly speaking, the existence of particularly exploited 
classes today allows for the social work and articulation of anarchists: 
the unemployed, peasants, landless, homeless, etc. For us, being 
well-organized at the political (ideological) level will enable us to 
find the best way to bring back this social vector of anarchism, 
wherever it may be.

37. CAPITALISM

As we have previously emphasized, the wage worker, the classic object of 
analysis in nineteenth-century socialist theses, constitutes for us 
today only one category of exploited classes. On the one hand, there are 
those called the "bourgeoisie," whom we will treat as "capitalists" in 
this text, who own the means of production and employ workers through 
wage labor. On the other hand, there are those called the "proletariat," 
whom we will treat as "workers" in this text, who possess nothing but 
their labor power and are forced to sell it for a wage. Furthermore, 
unemployment means that when capitalists go to the market, they 
encounter an abundance of workers because there is a greater supply than 
demand.

38. A COMPLEX MARKET SYSTEM

As a system that reproduces injustice, capitalism separates manual labor 
from intellectual labor. This separation is a consequence of both 
inheritance and education, as it represents a different education for 
the rich and the poor.

39. GLOBAL EXPLOITATION

Private businesses, motivated by profit motives, are responsible for 
transferring the entire hierarchy of classes to the relationship between 
people and the environment. In general, economic globalization is 
characterized by the integration of production, distribution, and 
exchange processes on a global scale. Production takes place in many 
countries, and goods are imported and exported in enormous quantities 
and over long distances. This system, on the one hand, leaves 
unemployment in regions with optimal conditions, while on the other 
hand, it enables exploitation that threatens the organization of workers 
who are increasingly controlled and pushed to the periphery, and leads 
to the acceptance of insecurity.

40. HISTORY OF THE STATE

The state, regardless of the prevailing mode of production, has always 
been an instrument that perpetuates inequality and an element that 
destroys freedom. We view the state as the totality of a nation's 
political powers, shaped through "political, legislative, judicial, 
military, and financial institutions, etc." In this way, the state is a 
broader concept than the government. The state has been characterized by 
a "double game," promising the rich to protect them from the poor, and 
the poor to protect them from the rich. After the Industrial Revolution, 
the so-called "social question" arose, forcing states to develop aid 
plans to minimize the effects of capital on labor. In the late 
nineteenth century, as an alternative to liberalism, a more 
interventionist conception of the state emerged, which on the one hand 
sought to create "social welfare" policies, and on the other hand 
implemented methods to halt the progress of socialist initiatives, which 
were already quite powerful at the time.

41. RELATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND CLASS

A state that openly defends the position of capitalists can intensify 
class struggle, so there is nothing better than giving it an appearance 
of neutrality from the capitalist point of view. Nevertheless, it must 
be kept in mind that the state, as a strong support of capitalism, seeks 
to maintain it, and if capitalism is a system of exploitation and 
domination, then the state can do nothing but perpetuate the class 
relations in which it exists. In this way, the state defends capitalists 
to the detriment of the worker. Since it has a monopoly on the use of 
violence in society, it always uses it to enforce the law, and since 
laws are made to maintain the privileges of capitalist society, 
repression and state control are always for the purpose of maintaining 
"order." That is, to protect the privileges of capitalism and to 
perpetuate the dominance of the ruling class. Today, the state has two 
main aims: firstly, to provide the conditions for the production and 
reproduction of capitalism; secondly, to secure its legitimacy and 
control. Therefore, today the state is a strong support pillar of 
capitalism. The state transcends the political sphere and functions as 
an economic actor in capitalism, attempting to prevent or minimize the 
role of its crises or declines in profit rates.

42. AUTHORITARIAN SOCIALISTS

Contrary to what authoritarian socialists believed (and still believe), 
the state is not a neutral organism that can serve either capitalists or 
workers. If anarchists have written so much about the state, it is 
because the critique of capitalism was a point of agreement between 
libertarians and authoritarians; the point of divergence was the state. 
Authoritarians advocated for the seizure of the state and the 
dictatorship of the proletariat as an intermediate stage between 
capitalism and communism, mistakenly called socialism. The libertarian 
position we advocate today is that for the construction of socialism, 
the state, along with capitalism, must be destroyed through social 
revolution. Any state, under the pretext of protecting the "citizen," 
creates relations of domination, exploitation, violence, war, slaughter, 
and torture.

43. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

By relinquishing our right to policymaking to a class of politicians who 
enter the state to represent us, we grant authority to someone who 
decides on our behalf without any oversight: there is an inevitable 
division between the policymaking class and the classes that follow it. 
"Politicians," both within and outside their parties, represent the 
hierarchy and separation between leaders and the governed. The less 
accountable politicians are for policy, the less the public participates 
in it, and the more alienated and distant they become from 
decision-making. This clearly condemns the public to the position of a 
spectator, not to the position of "master of their own destiny."

44. TODAY'S SPECIFIC CRITICISMS

If we can apply these criticisms to the present-day state, we must 
recognize that our reality is specific and that the direction of the 
world economy has a profound impact on the form of state in which we 
live. This critique of the state applies not to one or another form, but 
to all forms. Therefore, any project of social transformation pointing 
towards social revolution and libertarian socialism must aim at the end 
of both capitalism and the state. While we may argue that the state is 
one of the strongest pillars of capitalism, we do not believe that the 
end of capitalism will necessarily lead to the disappearance of the state.

45th Social Revolution

The aim of social revolution is to destroy the society of exploitation 
and domination. Libertarian socialism is what gives social revolution a 
constructive meaning. Destruction as a concept of negation and 
construction as a concept of proposal together constitute the possible 
and effective social transformation we propose. Social revolution is one 
of the possible outcomes of class struggle and signifies a violent 
transformation of the existing social order; it is seen by us as the 
only way to end domination and exploitation. It differs from the 
political revolutions of the Jacobins and Leninists, who advocated for 
changing the "order" by merely replacing one ruling minority with 
another through the state. Unlike political revolution, social 
revolution is carried out by the people of the cities and countryside, 
through popular organization, by pushing the class struggle and the 
power relationship with capitalism and the state to its limits. Social 
revolution occurs when the social power developed at the heart of 
popular organization is greater than the power of capitalism and the 
state, and when it is put into practice, establishing structures that 
support self-governance and federalism, eliminating private property and 
the state, and paving the way for a society of complete freedom and 
equality. Therefore, we understand social revolution neither as a simple 
evolution nor as a necessary consequence of the contradictions of 
capitalism, but rather as an event determined by the will of the 
organized exploited classes and representing a rupture. The construction 
of social organization will develop the spirit of struggle and 
organization in the exploited classes, seek the accumulation of social 
power, and incorporate within itself the means of struggle appropriate 
to the society we wish to build.

46. VIOLENCE

The violent action of social revolution must simultaneously dispossess 
the capitalists, immediately destroy the state, and replace it with 
self-governing and federated structures, tried and tested within social 
organization. Therefore, the authoritarian understanding of "socialism" 
as an interim period in which a dictatorship is established within the 
state is, for us, nothing more than another way of perpetuating the 
exploitation of the people and must be absolutely rejected under all 
circumstances.

47. LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM

Since social revolution should not be carried out solely by anarchists, 
it is crucial that we fully engage in the processes of class struggle to 
steer the revolution towards libertarian socialism. Libertarian 
socialism is, on the one hand, socialism-a system based on social, 
political, and economic equality-and, on the other hand, freedom. 
Therefore, for us, a project for a future society that promotes equality 
and freedom can only be libertarian socialism, shaped by the practices 
of self-governance and federalism. The culture of self-governance and 
federalism must already be well-developed in class struggles so that the 
people do not allow themselves to be oppressed by authoritarian 
opportunists in the revolutionary moment; this will be achieved through 
class-based autonomy, militancy, direct action, and direct democracy 
practices. The more these values are present in popular organization, 
the less likely new tyrannies are to emerge. We want to make it clear 
that when considering our understanding of social revolution, or even 
when thinking about a possible future society, we are not attempting to 
predetermine, absolutely, how the revolutionary process or libertarian 
socialism will unfold. We know there is no way to predict when this 
transformation will occur, so every thought should always consider the 
strategic projection of future possibilities, not in terms of absolute 
certainties, but in terms of probabilities and references.

48. SELF-GOVERNING AND FEDERALIST

Contemporary interpretations of self-management and federalism 
distinguish the former as the economic system of libertarian socialism 
and the latter as the political system. We do not understand the 
distinction between economic and political in this way when it comes to 
self-management and federalism. In the new society, everyone who is able 
to work will have to work; there will no longer be unemployment. Work 
will be based on personal ability and aptitude. People will no longer be 
forced to accept anything under the threat of deprivation and inability 
to achieve minimum living conditions. Children, the elderly, and those 
unable to work will be guaranteed a dignified life without deprivation, 
with all their needs met. For the most tedious or unwelcome tasks, 
rotations or changes may occur in some cases. Even in cases where 
production requires the coordination of certain specialists, rotations 
in functions and a commitment to training other workers with similar 
skills will be necessary for more complex tasks. In a system of 
collective ownership, rights, responsibilities, wages, and wealth are no 
longer linked to private property and the old class relations, and the 
old class relations based on private property must also disappear. 
Libertarian socialism is thus a classless society. The ruling class will 
no longer exist, and the entire system of inequality, domination, and 
exploitation will have disappeared. No one will own property, and the 
means of production will belong to the collectivity as a whole, or all 
members of the collectivity will own a portion of the means of 
production in exactly the same proportions as the others.

49. CITY AND COUNTRYSIDE

If individual ownership of the land by peasants who cultivate it 
themselves continues, it would be more appropriate to understand this 
not as ownership, but as possession (possession). Thus, ownership would 
always be collective, while possession would be individual. Possession, 
because the value of the land lies in its use, not its trade. And with 
this, relations would no longer be guided by the market, but by the 
needs of the producer. Such a situation changes everything, which is why 
it is necessary to create a new category.

50th Workers' and Consumers' Councils

The economy of libertarian socialism is run by workers and consumers. 
Workers create the social product, and consumers enjoy it. In these two 
functions, mediated by distribution, the people are responsible for 
economic and political life; they must decide what is produced, and 
consumers what they consume. The local structures in which workers and 
consumers organize themselves in libertarian socialism are worker and 
consumer councils. Profit will no longer be a necessity in production 
relations. The councils are social bodies and instruments in which the 
people express their political and economic preferences and implement 
self-governance and federalism. Daily political and economic activities 
are decided and carried out within them. The worker council organizes 
production, and the consumer council organizes consumption.

51. MENTAL AND MANUAL LABOR

Many tasks, especially those involving manual labor, are utterly 
unpleasant, arduous, and alienating, and it is unfair that some workers 
are entirely preoccupied with them while others are devoted to 
performing enjoyable, pleasant, stimulating, and intellectual tasks. If 
this were the case, the class system would certainly be rebuilt, no 
longer based on private property, but on a class of intellectuals to 
command and a class of manual laborers to carry out those commands. 
Workers' councils, seeking to end this division, could establish a 
balanced set of tasks, equivalent for all. Thus, each worker would be 
responsible for some pleasant and stimulating tasks involving 
intellectual work, and others more arduous and alienating tasks 
involving manual labor.

52. FUNCTIONING COLLECTIVISM

The aim of libertarian socialist wage system is to be guided by the 
communist principle of "from each according to his ability, to each 
according to his need." However, we believe that in order to implement 
this principle, libertarian socialism must already be fully functioning, 
with abundant production. Until this is possible, wages can be based on 
labor or effort understood as personal sacrifice for the collective 
good. Thus, a functioning collectivism using the principle of "from each 
according to his ability, to each according to his labor" will exist, 
and when it becomes possible to implement the communist principle, it 
will be given "to each according to his need."

53. TECHNOLOGY

Unlike some libertarian tendencies that believe technology inherently 
contains the seeds of domination, we believe that without it, 
libertarian socialism is impossible to develop. With the emergence of 
technology and its use in favor of labor rather than capital, there will 
inevitably be a gain in productivity and, consequently, a significant 
reduction in people's working hours, allowing them to use that time for 
other activities. It is worth emphasizing that our ecological proposals 
are radically different from "conservatism" and "primitivism." They 
differ because the former implies the continuation of class society and 
the complete commodification of nature. They differ because we view the 
"anti-civilization" proposal as utter nonsense, seeking a romantic 
return to a distant past, or worse, a kind of suicide for all of 
humanity and a denial of all our contributions to the preservation and 
well-being of nature. Ecological consciousness must be developed from 
the period of struggle preceding the revolutionary break and within the 
society of the future itself. Humans are distinguished from other 
natural elements and species by forming social relationships with 
everything around them, because they possess the capacity to think about 
themselves, to theorize about reality, and with this ability they have 
managed to fundamentally change the environment that constitutes them.

54. SELF-GOVERNING FEDERALISM

With the use and development of technology in favor of workers; with the 
end of capitalist exploitation and the full transfer of the fruits of 
labor to the workers; and with the establishment of full employment, 
workers will have more time that can be spent in three ways. First, with 
the natural loss of productivity that will result from a balanced set of 
tasks, somewhat "de-specializing" labor. Second, with political 
decisions that will require time for discussion and negotiation in the 
self-governing workplace and community. Finally, with the remaining 
time, which we expect will be much more leisure time than it is today 
with these changes, everyone will be able to choose what to do: rest, 
leisure, education, culture, etc. Both worker and consumer councils will 
use self-governance as a form of management and decision-making, both in 
workplaces and communities. We must keep in mind that the 
decision-making process is a means, not an end, and therefore we must 
pay attention to agility in this process. Clearly, consensus should not 
be used in most decisions, as it is very inefficient, especially if we 
consider large-scale decisions, and it also gives too much power to 
isolated actors who can obstruct consensus or have a great influence on 
a decision where they are in the minority. Society must develop its 
culture in a progressively libertarian direction, and this must happen 
not only during and after the social revolution, but already during the 
struggle, during the construction and development of popular 
organization. There will no longer be a distinction between those who 
engage in politics and those who do not, because under libertarian 
socialism, it will be the members of society themselves who will carry 
out politics on a daily basis.

55th RESISTANCE

Capitalism and the state exert pressure on other political forces that 
resist them. Therefore, to achieve our goals, we advocate for an 
effective and articulated resistance that seeks a continuous increase in 
social power through organization. Building this resistance requires 
alignment with those who agree with our proposal for social 
transformation. There is no way to conceive of this necessary 
transformation without the progressive growth of organization and social 
power. For us, the social transformation we wish to see necessarily 
depends on the construction of popular organization, on the progressive 
increase of its social power until it becomes possible to overthrow 
capitalism and the state through social revolution and pave the way for 
libertarian socialism. Furthermore, we argue that popular organization 
must be accompanied by a parallel development of specific anarchist 
organization that will influence it and give it the desired character.

56. THE CURRENT ORDER

Disorganization, poor organization, and isolation, in fact, result in 
supporting capitalism and the state because they prevent the 
construction of the necessary social power. By not participating 
appropriately in the power relations or perpetual conflict of society, 
you reproduce the "order." Disorganization and poor organization are 
reproduced at the social level, at the level of social movements, where 
popular organization must be built and developed, by the difficulty of 
accumulating social power, and this prevents the natural spontaneity of 
this level from achieving the desired totality of social 
transformations. Isolation and individualism lead to the absence of a 
desired existence at either the political or social level, and to the 
inability of either popular or anarchist organization to articulate 
itself. For popular organization, we must consider the ways and means to 
overthrow capitalism and the state and to build libertarian socialism, 
which is the goal, through social revolution. At the same time, for 
specific anarchist organization, we must also consider the ways and 
means by which it can build and influence popular organization, giving 
it the desired character, and achieve libertarian socialism - its goal - 
through social revolution.

57. SOCIAL POWER

We believe that every individual, as a social actor, possesses a social 
power-an energy they can naturally apply to achieve their goals. This 
power varies from person to person, and even within the same person over 
time. Individuals often utilize means that can increase their social 
power to achieve their goals. Organization, taking the form of free 
association, is indispensable for our project of social transformation, 
because when individuals work together, their social power is not merely 
the sum of individual powers, but much more. Organization can occur in 
an authoritarian form through domination or in a libertarian form 
through free association. Thus, we can conclude that unity is 
fundamental to realizing our project of social transformation, because 
only through it, and solely through it, can we accumulate the social 
power necessary to overthrow capitalism and the state. An increase in 
social power can be achieved through various means, but primarily 
through the organization of the exploited classes with the greatest 
possible number of people and a high level of organization, which 
necessarily requires self-discipline, commitment, and responsibility. To 
distinguish the discipline preached so loudly by authoritarians from the 
discipline we advocate, we prefer to use the term self-discipline; this, 
along with commitment and responsibility, is, in our view, indispensable 
for building an anti-authoritarian organization that aims to increase 
its social power. This self-discipline, in our view, is less prevalent 
in populist organizations and more prevalent in specific anarchist 
organizations, and it varies according to context. The need for this 
self-discipline increases during periods of greater social upheaval and 
may be less so during times of stagnation. Therefore, a specific 
organization must constitute itself as an effective anarchist minority 
organization with a high level of self-discipline, commitment, and 
responsibility.

58. ORGANIZING AS A FORM OF CONVERGENCE

We advocate a model for the creation and development of what we call 
popular organization. It is undeniable that there is a latent social 
force within the exploited classes, but we understand that this force 
can only emerge from the realm of possibilities and become a real social 
force through organization. The continuous increase in the social power 
of the organization of the exploited classes will be what can bring 
about the desired social transformation. We understand popular 
organization as the result of a convergence process of various social 
organizations and different grassroots movements that are the fruit of 
class struggle. Therefore, we believe that we should prefer to support 
all such types of organization and movement, understanding this support 
as a consequence of our most fundamental ideas. When organization has a 
class character, it stimulates and strengthens the class struggle. In 
this way, popular organization is built from bottom to top, "from the 
periphery to the center," and outside the power centers of the existing 
system. Authoritarians have approached mass movements from a 
hierarchical perspective, attempting to dominate them.

59. NECESSITY, NOT IDEOLOGY

We believe that social movements should not be confined to any ideology 
whatsoever, nor should they lock themselves into one. We do not believe 
in anarchist, Marxist, social democratic social movements, or any other 
specific ideology. For us, an anarchist social movement, or a movement 
belonging to any other ideology, would only tend to divide the exploited 
class, or even those interested in fighting for a particular cause. 
Therefore, the force that should guide the creation and development of 
social movements is not ideology, but necessity. While we believe that 
social movements should not be confined to anarchism, we also believe 
that anarchism should, as much as possible, permeate social movements. 
Social movements are the fruit of a three-legged stool: necessity, will, 
and organization. The social movements we advocate are not, and should 
not be, anarchist; on the contrary, they are fertile ground for anarchism.

60. AUTONOMY IN MOVEMENT

Political parties seek to manage and direct social movements, 
considering themselves superior to them and judging themselves as 
enlightened beings who will bring consciousness to the exploited 
classes. Often, their members are intellectuals who want to know what is 
best for them, better than the people themselves. Other control-seeking 
organizations, such as churches and bureaucratic unions, also do not 
help social movements. Social movements should not be dependent on 
politicians or any part of the state, because when they come to offer 
help, in the vast majority of cases they are looking for a "base" for 
their own party-political interests, or trying to appease the movements, 
to establish dialogue with state institutions. Therefore, those who want 
to manage, command, or make social movements serve their own goals 
should not have influence over them, because they do not fight for the 
common good of the movements, but rather use the principle that serving 
oneself is the best way to serve others. There is nothing wrong with 
people supporting social movements not being in exactly the same 
conditions as other militants. Therefore, we find it fair that workers 
support the struggle of unemployed workers, those with housing support 
the struggle of the homeless, etc. Furthermore, when discussing 
autonomy, we must keep in mind that for us, autonomy does not mean the 
absence of ideological struggle or even a lack of organization. When you 
frequently promote spontaneity, when you abandon the project and the 
revolutionary program-when you often call this autonomy-you open up 
space and provide fertile ground for the ruling class, the bureaucrats, 
and the authoritarians who will occupy these spaces.

https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/08/01/sosyal-vektoru-kazanmak-icin-104-adim/
_________________________________________
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