A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneration: From Disagreement to Dialogue: Clarifications on Specifism By EMBAT (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

In issue number 4 of the magazine Redes Libertarias 
(https://redeslibertarias.com/2025/12/01/redes-libertarias-no-4/), Laura 
Vicente published the article "Anarchisms. Specifism." As a member of an 
organization within the Especifist current, I would like to begin by 
thanking her for her time, the reflections presented in the article, and 
her willingness to consider anarchism from its pluralistic perspective, 
as well as her interest in our current. I believe that only dialogue and 
the fraternal exchange of ideas can allow us (and even compel us) to 
better develop our ideology and strategies. We start from the same 
point: anarchism is not a single entity, but rather a constellation of 
practices, sensibilities, and traditions that engage in dialogue with 
one another. From there, I would like to offer some clarifications and 
nuances, with a constructive spirit.

First, the opening premise of the text, which somehow links specifism 
and platformism as if they were the same thing or as if one derived 
directly from the other, deserves historical and conceptual 
clarification. When the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) formulated 
the specifist proposal, they did not do so by reading or emulating 
Archinov's Platform; in fact, they themselves mention that they were 
initially unaware of its existence. It is true that there are 
terminological and strategic coincidences-such as the emphasis on the 
need for organization, internal cohesion, and militant 
responsibility-but asserting a direct lineage risks obscuring the local 
conditions that gave rise to these proposals: trade union traditions, 
their own revolutionary experience, specific crises within the 
movements, and internal debates that followed their own distinct paths. 
In other words, we are often talking about a similarity of conclusions 
rather than textual transmission or a linear genealogy. Recognizing this 
conceptual convergence allows us to listen to criticism without turning 
it into a genetic condemnation: often different experiences arrive at 
common diagnoses because they face similar problems, not because one 
copies the other.

The case of Malatesta perfectly illustrates this complexity. His initial 
objections to the Platform have been a source of confusion. The 
epistolary debate with Makhno shows the extent to which controversies 
can depend on linguistic nuances and the mediation of third parties (in 
this case, on the translation of the Platform's text by Volin, one of 
its greatest detractors). But if we carefully read the correspondence 
with Makhno (at the end of which they reach common ground) and other 
texts by Malatesta, we see that we are not dealing with a total 
rejection of any form of discipline or coherent organization; rather, 
his criticism is directed at any form of discipline that becomes 
uncritical submission to leaders and apparatuses. When we revisit his 
formulations on responsibility and coordination, we discover a core of 
convergence with some of the principles later defended by those who 
spoke of an "active minority": not a vanguard that replaces the class, 
but organized groups that, from the grassroots, seek to increase the 
effectiveness of collective action. This nuance is crucial: we are not 
talking about an elite that knows for everyone, but about colleagues who 
are committed and trained to intervene better in social processes.

Regarding the criticism of internal training and strategic planning, 
it's worth remembering that the history of social and revolutionary 
movements is full of heroic improvisations that tragically ended up 
being ineffective. To suggest that preparation equates to 
authoritarianism is, in part, a misrepresentation of the problem. 
Training is not a mechanism for shutting down discussion but a space for 
clarifying analyses, sharing tools, and articulating practices. Clearly, 
there's no guarantee that planning will make us infallible, but acting 
without prior reflection, wherever possible, is often a way of 
reproducing avoidable errors. Thinking (not as dogma but as a collective 
practice) also allows us to develop more humble and adaptive responses. 
Criticism of "messianism" is legitimate when theory is presented as a 
definitive statement: the danger arises when organization is confused 
with unquestionable doctrine. But denying the need for training simply 
because some use it to impose their will is a reductionist approach that 
doesn't help us. Without training and democratization of knowledge, 
debates end up polarizing (at best) around elevated academic figures 
above the rest. The healthy approach is to insist on open, critical 
training that is permeable to discussion. Furthermore, we also run the 
risk of overlooking the fact that precisely when decisions need to be 
made spontaneously and quickly, it is usually the most "authoritative" 
voices that prevail. Therefore, from our point of view, prior 
conversation and preparation allow for a much more horizontal 
deliberative process .

On the other hand, the way the article interprets the figure of the 
"active minority" as synonymous with the vanguard seems to me to be 
oversimplifying. Therefore, it is important to discuss with conceptual 
precision what we are talking about: a vanguard, understood as an elite 
that directs from the outside, is incompatible with anarchist 
principles; an active minority organized from affection, humility, and 
responsibility, which forms and works within mass movements, is not. The 
central discussion is not whether we organize outside of broader spaces, 
but how we do it. Is it about creating militant ghettos that deploy 
their line vertically "towards the masses," or about articulating 
simultaneously internal and public practices that accompany, strengthen, 
and learn from broader processes? Specificism proposes the latter: 
organizations that do not isolate themselves, but rather insert 
themselves with political clarity and coherence of means and ends. If 
that is called "authoritarianism" by default, we lose the opportunity to 
debate concrete forms of relationship between the ways of organizing 
ourselves among anarchists and the ways of organizing ourselves with the 
rest.

The article's interpretation of the Spanish Revolution of 1936 also 
warrants some commentary. On the one hand, it seems to imply (and I 
apologize in advance if this is not the intention) that the "specifism" 
(a term referring to the specificist faction of the Spanish Communist 
Party/Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia) would converge with the 
positions of the PCE/PSUC (Communist Party of Spain/Unified Socialist 
Party of Catalonia):

"The 1936 revolution is an example of a modeled revolution and an 
example of how it was interpreted in light of a teleology in which both 
sides considered that it was not the right time for revolution."

If that's the meaning, it would be a completely incorrect analysis. I'm 
not aware of any text on the Especifismo movement that suggests such a 
thing; in fact, I generally believe our approach goes in the opposite 
direction. Even the quote from Fontenis that's used points in that 
direction: that the leadership of the CNT and FAI failed the movement by 
not daring to take the famous "go for broke" advocated by García Oliver.

But, in any case, the 1936 revolution can serve as an example . It 
combined elements of spontaneity with planned processes. It was 
precisely organized anarchist sectors that had the capacity to raise 
collectives, militias, and defense structures under urgent conditions. 
They did not do so out of absolute spontaneity. They had spent years, if 
not decades, preparing and accumulating (non-linear) forces. The 
existence of defense cadres and the prior preparation of support 
networks does not automatically make those who developed them 
authoritarian. Nor does it imply that doing the same thing guarantees 
the same result.

I agree that it is absolutely essential to avoid the teleological 
interpretation that reduces everything to the supposed political 
superiority of a single leadership. But at the same time, denying that 
there was preparation and that this preparation played a key role in the 
capacity for resistance impoverishes history. Recognizing that there was 
planning within a mass movement is not the same as celebrating the 
party, but simply understanding the plurality of resources that allowed 
collective action to be sustained.

It is also important to clarify the supposed omission or insufficient 
emphasis on the role of Mujeres Libres. If we claim that the "specifist" 
movement ignores these experiences, we risk projecting onto a political 
category an incapacity that reality contradicts. Embat is a "specifist" 
organization, and we recognize and reclaim the important role of this 
experience. We also appreciate the efforts of historians and researchers 
who have dedicated time and effort to making it visible and known. For 
us, it is a clear example of the type of anarchist organizations we 
defend: an organization of anarchist militants who meet among 
themselves, hold their debates and training sessions, and participate in 
mass movements. And, evidently, their praxis was not an authoritarian 
vanguard formula; rather, it was the construction of collective 
capacities to intervene in social and political life with sufficient 
autonomy to confront obstacles (which in many cases were placed by their 
own libertarian comrades). Denying that experience as part of the legacy 
of organized anarchism is to lose a valuable reference point for 
thinking about how specificity and mass movement converge in an 
anarcho-feminist key.

Regarding the relationship between action and theory, the article states 
that "no theory has ever transformed reality" and argues, rightly in my 
view, that praxis has crucial weight. However, presenting this idea as 
an excuse to dismiss theoretical work in its organizational dimension 
impoverishes collective reflection. Theory, when understood as an 
instrument for understanding conditions and articulating tactics, is not 
a dogma but rather another tool in the transformative arsenal. The real 
danger arises when theory is instrumentalized to justify impositions. 
Conversely, a critical and situated theory can multiply the capacity of 
social forces to act with a sense of collective purpose without losing 
respect for the autonomy of concrete practices. Criticizing a 
theorization detached from practice is legitimate and necessary; doing 
so in a totalizing way makes it impossible to conceive of minimal 
strategies for coordination and self-education, which are often 
essential for sustaining prolonged struggles .

Regarding social integration, I also believe there are some conceptual 
differences. When specificism speaks of "integration," it's not a 
gesture of intellectual or moral superiority. It's about recognizing 
that specific organizations must coexist and interact within broader 
spaces and cannot act in isolation. Organizational dualism-their own 
anarchist structures and active participation in broader movements-is a 
commitment to complementarity: specific organizations don't replace or 
lead, but rather contribute organizational capacities, solidarity 
practices, and shared analyses that can make a social process more 
coherent and robust. The alternative, a diffuse organization that 
renounces any strategic coherence, also carries risks: invisibility, 
loss of resources, and difficulty sustaining collective commitments over 
time. The key question isn't "to organize or not?" but "how do we 
organize ourselves to empower, not to stifle or direct, popular struggles?"

The treatment of the experience of the Organisation Pensée Bataille and 
the critique by the Kronstand Group also requires a contextualized 
reading. On the one hand, the fact that this is precisely the only 
practical experience of especifism analyzed in the article seems to me 
to preclude an honest discussion of the issue. I don't believe it's 
something that should be swept under the rug. Any practical development 
must be analyzed and critically evaluated. But the fact that the OPB 
carried out authoritarian practices does not invalidate the analytical 
and strategic elements of especifism. Does any example of authoritarian 
practices in anarcho-syndicalism (of which, unfortunately, we have 
numerous examples) lead us to reject its validity and value? It is 
dangerous and dishonest to use particular cases as a synonym for the 
entire theory; it is more useful to examine what conditions favor these 
deviations and how to build mechanisms that preserve horizontality and 
openness without abandoning the ethical discipline that allows 
collective projects to be sustained. And, above all, if we have to 
analyze practical cases, it would be interesting to do so based on a 
broad sample of them, not just those that justify our positions.

Therefore, I think it's very appropriate to mention the issue of ethics. 
I believe we can agree that, whatever the type of organization, without 
the development of a shared ethic among its members, there will always 
be oppressive attitudes. There is no single form of organization that 
automatically "liberates" us from everything the system of domination 
has instilled in us. There may be ways of organizing that allow us to 
rid ourselves of it with varying degrees of ease. I think that's the 
direction in which the debate should be focused.

On the other hand, regarding the "discipline" mentioned as problematic 
in the article, we believe it is appropriate to revisit Malatesta's 
formulation from over a century ago:

"Discipline: this is the powerful word they use to paralyze the will of 
conscious workers. We, too, demand discipline, because without 
understanding, without coordinating everyone's efforts toward a common 
and simultaneous action, victory is not materially possible. But 
discipline must not be servile discipline, blind devotion to the 
leaders, obedience to those who always talk so they don't have to move. 
Revolutionary discipline is consistency with accepted ideas, fidelity to 
commitments made, feeling obligated to share the work and the risks with 
comrades in struggle not as uncritical obedience, but as fidelity to 
commitments, co-responsibility, and solidarity in action."

This type of discipline is ethical and political: it demands 
reciprocity, shared exposure to risk, and coherence between means and 
ends. We must criticize any discipline that becomes coercion; and at the 
same time, we must strive to devise norms and practices that are freely 
adopted but that allow us to sustain collective projects that do not 
depend on constant improvisation or individual fickleness (especially in 
a context of liquid society and libidinal capitalism like the one we 
live in).

Finally, returning to the heart of the text, if specificism is defined 
as the need for organizations of anarchist militants who share 
objectives and strategies, and who also participate side-by-side in 
social movements, the discussion should focus on the concrete forms of 
that relationship. From my point of view, the article is right to raise 
questions about programmatic uniformity and the temptation to 
homogenize, but it falls short if it doesn't propose plausible 
organizational alternatives. If, as the article argues, "action always 
comes first," then I find a lack of proposals that would allow us to 
continue the debate constructively.

Should we reduce ourselves to grassroots assemblies without any 
coordination? To coordinated affinity groups? To a purely ad-hoc policy 
dependent on ephemeral circumstances? None of these alternatives is 
without its costs. Therefore, the political task before us is not to 
choose between organization and spontaneity, but to invent flexible and 
democratic forms that allow us to accumulate social power, to prefigure 
in the present the society we want, that respect the autonomy of 
concrete struggles at the same time, and that allow us to sustain 
processes of education, memory, and mutual care that are indispensable 
for long-term resistance.

In short, I believe the article offers valuable critiques because it 
forces us to reflect and better articulate our positions. But for this 
reflection to be productive, it must begin with more nuanced readings of 
history and precise definitions of the terms we use, without remaining 
superficial. I think it's necessary to stop automatically equating 
organization with authoritarianism and, instead, open a practical 
dialogue on how to build organizations that are consistent with 
anarchist ethics: supportive, responsible, critical, and open to change. 
That's the goal: an organization that is formed, that is committed, and 
that learns to relinquish the spotlight in order to support the power of 
shared struggles. Not because we have the definitive solution, but 
because we believe that this concrete articulation-between the specific 
and the collective, between theory and practice, between education and 
action-is one of the most honest ways to continue practicing anarchism 
today.

Hector. Embassy Militant .

Grades:

1 I also think it is important to point out that identifying specifism 
(a current that develops mainly in Latin America) as a "so Western 
approach", and doing so precisely from Europe, is problematic at the 
very least.

2 Although not unique. Many other experiences lead us to the same 
conclusions. For a historical review from a specificist perspective, see 
the recently published book Black Flag .

3 I also think it's worth reflecting on what the point would be of 
carrying out theoretical reflection or even publishing theoretical 
libertarian journals, if their value is zero.

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/12/24/del-desencuentro-al-dialogo-aclaraciones-sobre-el-especifismo/
_________________________________________
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