A-Infos (en) Brazil, OSL, Libera #183 - ELEMENTS OF ANARCHIST THEORY AND STRATEGY - Felipe Corrêa In an interview with Mya Walmsley 1 (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The constant renewal of organized anarchism in the Anglophone world has 
led to a re-engagement with the fundamental strategic questions of 
anarchism. How should a revolutionary organization be structured? How 
should a revolutionary organization fight for reforms? What is the role 
of the revolutionary organization in the revolutionary process? In 
addressing these questions, contemporary insights have undoubtedly come 
from the anarchist movement in Latin America, where the tradition of 
organized and class-based anarchism has been growing and achieving good 
results in the struggle, while in the Anglophone world this tradition 
has been in decline for a long time.

Despite its influence, much of the ideas and history that motivated this 
movement is largely inaccessible to the English-speaking public. The 
explosive introduction of this tradition - called especifismo - to the 
Anglophone world was a broad introduction to the central aspects of this 
trend, written in 2006 by Adam Weaver, which was followed by the 
complete translation of the 2008 platform of the Anarchist Federation of 
Rio de Janeiro (FARJ), which summarized many of the movement's 
theoretical conclusions in that region. Although especifismo has not 
been unanimously adopted in Latin America, and debates among 
organizations about its exact meaning and mode of implementation 
continue, this platform produced, for the first time, an opening of the 
English-speaking public to this new theoretical development that 
occurred in that region.

Perhaps the most important book translated after that was Ángel 
Cappelletti's *Anarquismo Latinoamericano*[Anarchism in Latin America], 
published in 2018, not only a fantastic history of the movement in Latin 
America, but also an important text for the emergence of especifismo. 
However, relevant to this interview is the fact that, in recent years, 
the translation of several important texts by Felipe Corrêa, carried out 
by Enrique Guerrero-López, has served to clarify and complement the work 
presented in * Anarquismo Social e Organização *[Social Anarchism and 
Organization], published by FARJ. As a militant and theorist of the 
Libertarian Socialist Anarchist Organization / Brazilian Anarchist 
Coordination (OASL/CAB) in São Paulo, Corrêa provides, with these texts, 
access to the strategic debate and certain agreements of Latin American 
anarchism. In doing so, he has revealed theoretical and strategic 
debates that, uncomfortably, were unavailable to the English-speaking 
public.

In the spirit of clarifying and disseminating the debates of Latin 
American anarchism to the Anglophone world, I contacted Felipe Corrêa in 
early 2022 and posed him a series of questions that several comrades had 
raised in reading groups and informal discussions about especifismo - 
questions that could not be easily answered by the texts available to 
us. His extensive responses to my questions - which address topics such 
as the concept of power, the role of organizations, and the relationship 
between anarchism and class politics - offer valuable and unique 
insights into this contemporary trend.

I am grateful to my colleague Felipe Corrêa for his patience in 
answering my questions, and also to Enrique Guerrero-López for his help 
in translating this text into English.

Mya Walmsley

Mya Walmsley (MW): Thank you for agreeing to this interview, Felipe! I 
appreciate you taking the time to answer these questions, and I hope 
they are interesting and helpful. For those who don't know you, could 
you tell us a little about yourself, your activist work, and the 
specificist trend?

Felipe Corrêa (FC): Hello Mya! Thank you for your interest. It's a 
pleasure for me to give this interview. I'm Felipe Corrêa, and for over 
two decades I've been involved in anarchist activism and other 
anarchist-related activities, such as research and publishing.

In the field of activism, I am part of the Libertarian Socialist 
Anarchist Organization / Brazilian Anarchist Coordination (OASL/CAB), in 
São Paulo. I have been building specificism in Brazil for almost 20 
years. At the state and national levels, I am currently involved in 
union activism - I am part of a teachers' union (SINPRO), I am a 
university professor, mainly linked to the area of Social Sciences and 
research activities - and also with resource management and political 
education.

The CAB is part of an anarchist current called especifista - especifista 
anarchism or simply especifism - which is a Latin American expression of 
the historical anarchist organizational dualism that has existed from 
Bakunin and the Alliance to the present. In Latin America, this term has 
been used to refer to the theoretical and practical conceptions of the 
Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU), which, founded in 1956, played a 
central role in the struggle against the military dictatorship in the 
1960s and 1970s. Through organizational instruments that it built and/or 
strengthened, the FAU became the second largest force of the Uruguayan 
left in this struggle. At the trade union and mass level, it was second 
only to the Uruguayan Communist Party; at the armed level, it was second 
only to the Tupamaros. However, it was the only force that operated in 
both fields .

With the end of Latin American dictatorships, specificist anarchism was 
re-articulated. First in Uruguay, in the mid-1980s, and then in other 
countries. Brazil was important in this process and had its first 
specificist experiences in the mid-1990s. It developed in different 
Brazilian regions and, in 2002, was articulated in the Forum of 
Organized Anarchism (FAO). With the expansion of its presence and the 
increase in organizational ties, the conditions were created for the 
founding of the Brazilian Anarchist Coordination (CAB) in 2012, whose 
objective is to constitute itself as a national political organization, 
with nuclei throughout the country.

In terms of political line, especifismo is an anarchist current inspired 
by the positions of Bakunin and Malatesta; it shares similarities with 
the perspectives of the Dielo Truda group and other historical classics 
of anarchism.

This is a current of thought that supports a set of positions regarding 
the major strategic debates within anarchism. First, concerning the 
organizational debate, the especifists argue for the need for an 
organizational dualism, based on which anarchists are articulated within 
a political organization, as anarchists, and within social organizations 
(unions and social movements), as workers.

Secondly, regarding the debate on the role of reforms, those who 
advocate specific movements believe that these reforms, depending on how 
they are pursued and achieved, can contribute to a revolutionary 
process. Thirdly, concerning the debate on violence, those who advocate 
specific movements believe that it should always be carried out within 
the context of and concurrently with the construction of mass movements. 
At the social level, within mass movements, specific movements promote a 
program that shares numerous affinities with revolutionary syndicalism.

In the field of intellectual production, I have coordinated the 
Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA), an international 
project that aims to deepen and disseminate research on anarchism. I 
have been producing research linked to ITHA, mainly in the field of 
anarchist political theory; and research linked to the university. I am 
also the editor of Faísca Libertarian Publications, an anarchist 
publishing house with about 40 published books, ranging from militant 
propaganda to academic studies .

MW: I'll start with a rather abstract question. In "Anarchism, Power, 
Class and Social Transformation" 5 , you define anarchism as an ideology 
, and you make a distinction between ideology and theory . You state 
that ideology makes political contributions and supports practical 
strategic interventions, while theory makes methodological contributions 
and helps explain reality. Why is this distinction so important, and 
what relationship does it imply between anarchist theory, anarchist 
ideology, and anarchist practice?

FC: For us anarchists who uphold the organizational need for theoretical 
and ideological unity, it is important to have a precise answer to what 
anarchism is. And, in this discussion, Latin American especifism largely 
references a 1972 text by the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation entitled 
"Huerta Grande: the importance of theory." This text is based on 
Malatesta's reflections on the distinction between the scientific and 
ideological-doctrinal fields. 6

According to this notion, which appears in "Huerta Grande" and 
Malatesta, it is necessary to distinguish between the field of science 
and the field of ideology-doctrine. Science supports the investigation 
of the past, the present, and, at most, indicates what is likely to 
happen in the future. Ideology-doctrine offers evaluative elements for 
judging reality and, primarily, for establishing objectives and lines of 
action.

This distinction is very important for two reasons. On the one hand, it 
seeks to prevent the interpretation of reality (the scientific field) 
from being distorted by doctrinaire-ideological elements - or, as we 
sometimes say, from replacing what was and is with what we would have 
liked it to have been or to be. A consistent strategy for anarchism must 
start from a precise (theoretically and scientifically rigorous) reading 
of reality. On the other hand, it aims to prevent a perspective of the 
future that abandons transformation in the name of reformist or even 
conservative pragmatism. A consistent strategy for anarchism needs to 
contain elements that we could call utopian or finalistic and seek to 
realize them through revolutionary means. I believe this position was 
well summarized in the slogan propagated by the Japanese anarchist Osugi 
Sakae, when he recommended "acting like a believer, thinking like a 
skeptic". 7

This position also highlights, within these elements, which ones are 
more and less flexible. The scientific field must be more flexible 
(open) than the doctrinaire-ideological field. We need to take advantage 
of developments in the scientific field to improve our understanding of 
social reality. This does not imply, nor can it imply, the defense of an 
inconsistent theoretical pluralism or a senseless anything-goes 
approach. It is merely an openness that ensures we are not trapped by 
erroneous, inaccurate, or outdated methods, theories, and studies simply 
because they are anarchist.

Comparatively, the ideological doctrinal field is much less flexible, 
especially when we talk about anarchist principles. We are not open and 
flexible ("anti-dogmatic") regarding our principles. Those who treat 
principles in this way fall into a pragmatism incapable of social change 
or transformation. With respect to strategy, we can say that the general 
strategy is more fixed, followed by the time-limited strategy, which is 
somewhat less fixed and more flexible, and finally, by the tactics, 
which are more flexible.

This position should not be confused with a certain positivism, which 
advocates - and believes to be possible - some neutrality in the face of 
analyses of reality. It recognizes that such neutrality is impossible, 
but that, in conducting science, anarchists must pay attention to 
whether they are being betrayed by their ideological-doctrinal 
positions. Something that is very common in the field of the left in 
general, including Marxism and anarchism.

The relationship this implies between theory, ideology, and practice is 
as follows. We can say that, by operating with these assumptions of the 
FAU (Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism) and Malatesta, anarchists 
defend: the need for a precise theoretical (scientific) perspective to 
analyze reality and know, precisely, "where we are"; the need for an 
ideological (anarchist) perspective to support our judgments of this 
reality, to establish the final objectives and the possible and 
desirable lines of action for the period in question - that is, 
anarchism, based on its critique of domination, defense of 
self-management, and strategic vision, proposes, in broad strokes, 
"where we intend to go" and "how"; which leads us to a third need, for a 
strategic political practice that can lead us from where we are to where 
we intend to go - a practice based on a general strategy, a time-limited 
strategy, and a set of tactics.

In summary, anarchist theory supports the interpretation of reality, 
anarchist ideology supports the judgment of that reality, the 
establishment of strategic objectives and strategic lines of action, and 
anarchist practice concretely carries out actions aimed at transforming 
that reality socially and revolutionarily.

MW: What seems unique to me in your writings (and, in general, in the 
anarchist tradition in Latin America) - and I speak as an activist from 
the Anglophone world - is that they focus quite a bit on the concept of 
"power." In "Anarchism, Power, Class and Social Transformation" you 
state that classical anarchists tended to imprecisely mix, treating 
power, domination, and authority as the same concept. This theoretical 
imprecision made it difficult to see which form of power anarchists 
should combat (domination) and which form of power anarchists should 
build (popular). Why do you think the concept of power is so central to 
anarchism, and what are the implications of a correct understanding of 
power in our practice and our doctrines?

FC: We have indeed been delving quite deeply into the concept of power. 
We have emphasized that it is important for anarchists, not only in 
terms of criticism, but also constructively and proactively.

First of all, it is important to emphasize that, like all great 
concepts, power is a polysemous concept (it has many meanings) and can 
be defined in different ways. Historically, and in different schools of 
thought, it is possible to say - as Tomás Ibáñez observed - that power 
has been defined in three distinct ways: 1.) As capacity (possibility of 
doing something), for example, when we say that we have the power to do 
this or that; 2.) As structures and mechanisms of regulation and control 
(concrete thing), for example, when we say that someone or some group 
has seized power; 3.) As asymmetry in power relations (temporary 
relationship of imposition), for example, when we say that a class - at 
a given moment , and for a given time - established a power relationship 
(imposed itself) in relation to another.

When we talk about classical anarchists, they also engage with these 
approaches, as I argued in "Anarchism, Power, Class and Social 
Transformation." And, not infrequently, they address relations of 
domination through terms such as domination, power, and authority. When 
we take the case of classical anarchists, most of the time when they use 
these terms (domination, power, authority), they have in mind what we 
refer to, in our anarchist current, as relations of domination .

Some comments are necessary regarding these statements. First, despite 
this majority approach, to some extent all classical anarchists offer 
elements for the establishment of an anarchist theory of power. It is 
true that this was not something they prioritized during their lives, 
but there is no doubt that their writings contain many elements on this 
topic. Second, when I make these statements about the "classical 
anarchists," I am not including Proudhon among them - who, for me and 
other researchers, is more of a father of anarchism than an anarchist 
himself, since we consider that anarchism only emerged within the First 
International in the second half of the 1860s.[9]Among the libertarian 
classics of socialism, Proudhon stands out with significant 
contributions to this discussion on power. Third, both Proudhon and the 
classical anarchists, even if in most cases they treat domination, 
power, and authority in an equivalent way, also open possibilities for 
other approaches.

Proudhon claims a "social power" as the collective force of the workers 
( De la Justice dans la Révolution et dans l'Église ). Bakunin 
emphasizes that he does not reject all forms of authority ( God and the 
State ) and even claims the power of the "allies," members of the 
Alliance, in relation to the workers ("Letter to A. Richard"). Malatesta 
speaks of an "effective power of all workers" ("La Dittatura del 
Proletariato e l'Anarchia"). Berneri defends the "use of political power 
by the proletariat" ("La Dittatura del Proletariato e il Socialismo di 
Stato"). Many other references could be mentioned. What I want to show 
with this is not that these figures permanently claimed the term power 
to refer to their proactive and constructive strategies, but that, even 
in their works, there are moments when these references appear.

What I argue in "Anarchism, Power, Class and Social Transformation" is 
that, if we detach ourselves from the term and delve into the content of 
this discussion, we will find that, in general, all anarchists identify 
in workers a certain capacity for achievement; these anarchists normally 
discuss and put into practice actions to transform this capacity for 
achievement into a social force capable of intervening in social reality 
and, finally, intend to contribute to workers asserting themselves, 
prevailing over the bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy, their class enemies in 
general, through a social revolution that leads to a socialism supported 
by self-managed and federalist structures and mechanisms of regulation 
and control .

As I will detail a little later in this interview, these elements - 
capacity for achievement, social force, relationship of 
imposition/preponderance, and structures and mechanisms of regulation 
and control - are at the heart of the theory of power that the 
especifists have defended and that I, in particular, have been 
developing in theoretical terms.

I believe that, depending on how it is defined, the concept of power can 
play a very important role in anarchism. First, in explaining what 
anarchism itself is. For example, I use the concept of power as the 
basis for my explanation of anarchism in my book Black Flag: Rethinking 
Anarchism , which is nothing more than a renewed "What is Anarchism?" 
that aims to solve the problems of previous studies that address this topic.

When I define anarchism in this book, I highlight, among other things, 
that "anarchism[...]aims to transform the capacity for achievement of 
the dominated classes into social force and, through social conflict 
characterized by class struggle, to replace the dominating power that 
arises as a vector resulting from social relations with a self-managing 
power, consolidated in the three structured spheres of society." Thus, 
the anarchist project is considered by me to be a "project of power ."[10]

Secondly, the concept of power can underpin the analyses of reality 
developed by anarchists. Through it (and a consistent theory of power) 
it is possible to understand, in history or in the present (in 
conjunctural terms), what forces are at play in a given context, which 
of them are imposing themselves/preponderant in relation to others, what 
power relations are established in these contexts and what forms such 
relations assume (dominating, self-managing, with greater or lesser 
participation).

Third, and perhaps this is the main reason, for anarchists to have 
clarity about their political project and where/how they intend to 
arrive. In my view, we constantly witness anarchists who do not 
understand what actions they can/should undertake to advance their 
project. They cannot concretely assess reality nor develop an adequately 
strategic program.

The most serious problem, however, arises when anarchists fail to 
understand that it is not enough for them to simply exist in the world, 
or to carry out their actions without achieving certain gains and 
conquests. Nor is it sufficient, in cases where they do achieve such 
gains and conquests, to not know where/how they want to go. Let me 
explain. Either anarchists devise ways to maximize their social power 
and, more importantly, the social power of the workers, so that this can 
point towards a revolutionary and self-managed/federalist 
transformation, or they have no reason to exist. And more.

Either the anarchists understand that, on various occasions, they will 
have to impose themselves on others, prevail over others (landowners, 
bosses, bureaucrats, and even other leftist, socialist, revolutionary 
forces), or they will also be unable to realize their project. Even if 
this imposition/preponderance is done in an anti-authoritarian way.

Many examples could be cited. But I will focus on one of them when, in 
the context of the Spanish Revolution, several influential members of 
the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT) - an anarcho-syndicalist 
organization that represented, at the time, approximately one and a half 
million workers - understood that establishing popular and self-managed 
power in regions where the social force of 
anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists was overwhelmingly dominant would be 
equivalent to establishing an "anarchist dictatorship".

This is a conceptually flawed interpretation that, in my view, 
demonstrates a lack of understanding that the anarchist project is, in 
reality, a project of power. A project opposed to domination and 
exploitation, based on self-management and federalism, it is true, but 
still a project of power. Fearing to assert itself and prevail against 
enemy and adversarial forces, the CNT preferred to integrate the 
collaborationist project with the republican government...

This relationship, which I consider poorly resolved, between anarchists 
and the question of power causes problems of this kind. Not only in 
revolutionary and insurrectionary situations, but also in everyday 
circumstances, such as in trade union, social, student, community 
movements and struggles, etc.

In short, adopting this understanding of power that I advocate here has 
multiple implications. It allows for a more adequate understanding of 
anarchism, a strengthening of analyses of reality, and, above all, of 
the anarchist political project. In particular, this understanding of 
power enables anarchists to broaden their intervention in reality and 
become increasingly influential.

MW: For many Western anarchists, the conceptual focus on the question of 
power is associated with the writings of Michel Foucault. For some, this 
association is positive, but for many who advocate mass anarchism, this 
association implies abandoning the class struggle. What impact, if any, 
has Foucault had on Latin American debates? Do people read Foucault, and 
if so, what contributions do they believe he makes?

FC: It is true that "for many Western anarchists, the conceptual focus 
on the question of power is associated with the writings of Michel 
Foucault." But this, in my view, says more about "Western anarchists" 
than about the debate on power within anarchism.

Foucault is undoubtedly one of the great thinkers of the 20th century 
and is widely studied in universities. My impression - and this has been 
one of my major criticisms of the anarchist universe in general - is 
that many anarchists, perhaps out of intellectual convenience, or even 
to follow academic trends, end up appropriating authors from other 
traditions, from other political-ideological currents, instead of 
seeking the contributions that exist within our own field. The worst 
part is that this appropriation is done, in most cases, uncritically, 
not to complement anarchist contributions, but to replace them.

What I consider to be, in various parts of the world, a trend 
surrounding Foucault among anarchists reflects, for me, a certain 
"anarchism without anarchists," which unfortunately we find in many 
places at this moment. Today there are numerous "anarchist studies" 
without any relation to anarchism and historical anarchists.

What I mean is that, among anarchists - and anarcho-syndicalists, 
revolutionary syndicalists, and libertarian/anti-authoritarian 
socialists more broadly - there are countless contributions to this 
discussion of power and many others. But studying them often means 
"breaking rocks": the texts are not very easy to find, many of them are 
not translated, there are practically no commentators, no manuals, 
nobody studies them at university... In other words, we have to 
recognize that it is not easy to study Bakunin, Malatesta, Kropotkin, 
Proudhon, etc.

I consider it more than necessary to dedicate ourselves to the study of 
our expanded tradition (anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary 
syndicalist, libertarian/anti-authoritarian socialist) and to produce, 
elaborate, and offer our critical contributions to it. At this moment I 
am working on a book that reconstructs Malatesta's theoretical 
contributions on power relations. There is no doubt that, even though 
these contributions are incredible, it is extremely laborious to 
recover, reconstruct, and complement them.

Returning to Foucault. Yes, our tradition of specificist anarchism was 
somewhat influenced by Foucault (in Uruguay and in some regions of 
Brazil, especially in the south), who was and is an author read by some 
activists. It's worth noting that this isn't limited to him, but also 
applies to non-anarchists. I am well acquainted with Foucault's 
discussion of power; I have taught and written on this topic. However, 
as you very rightly point out, Foucault has his complexities and 
ambiguities.

What I can say, as someone familiar with this discussion about power in 
Foucault, is that what we, the specifists, did, more than conducting a 
rigorous academic reading of this author, was to propose a critical 
appropriation of some of his concepts and theoretical perspectives, and 
adapt them to the general frame of reference of our anarchism - so that 
elements such as social classes and classism remained present. In my 
assessment, this specifist reading of Foucault was done by the left, 
very much by the left.

In any case, I understand that there is a certain risk in procedures of 
this type. Because, despite the distinction we make between theory and 
ideology, and despite having a more flexible and open stance towards the 
former than the latter, it is undeniable that theoretical contributions 
possess ideological elements and, sometimes without realizing it, by 
drawing from certain theoretical material, we can end up incorporating 
certain ideologically complicated elements into anarchism.

I have seen this happen in the anarchist field at different times and in 
different regions, both with the incorporation of Marxist theory - which 
later ended up becoming "Marxist" ideological elements - and with the 
incorporation of postmodern theory - which, similarly, generated very 
complicated ideological perspectives far removed from anarchism.

When I say that Foucault has complications and ambiguities, I'm 
referring to a few points in particular. He was never an anarchist 
thinker, nor did he have major programmatic or strategic concerns. If 
his ideas can be interpreted in this way, more to the left, as done by 
the especifists, they can also be taken from a quite liberal perspective 
and even from one of complete resignation - in the latter case, pointing 
to readings such as: if there is power in all relationships, then there 
is not much to be done, since we are all, at the same time, oppressed 
and oppressors. There are indeed significant risks in this regard.

It is worth noting that, after thoroughly studying various classic 
anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary syndicalist, and 
libertarian/anti-authoritarian socialist works, I can affirm that 
everything our current has used from Foucault is present in "our" 
authors. There is nothing we have appropriated from Foucault that is 
not, for example, in Malatesta and/or Proudhon.

I believe we need to avoid at all costs this procedure (unfortunately 
quite present in anarchism) of uncritically adopting and incorporating 
everything that seems interesting, that is fashionable (academic or 
militant), that we study at university or discuss in movements. 
Historically, anarchism has certain lines (and each anarchist current 
has more specific lines within anarchism). Therefore, it is important to 
keep in mind that contributions should complement these lines and not 
discard them, question them, or distort them.

MW: Another term that seems to have a lot of focus in the trend of 
specificity is "social force." Social force is the "realized" force of a 
dominated class when it is organized and channeled using correct means 
for the ends that are in its interests. Thus, the concept of social 
force values the organization - both practical and ideological - of the 
dominated classes, since greater organization equates to a greater 
capacity for social transformation. Could you elaborate on how this 
"social force" is realized? And further, and this may be a translation 
issue: What is the difference between power and social force? From my 
readings of your translated texts, there are apparently distinct layers 
of implicit social force that are not explicitly described. First, 
starting with Proudhon, there is a type of potential force that workers 
obtain by working cooperatively. Then, there is a type of force obtained 
through cooperative work in a political-ideological sense: working 
collectively towards a common goal and program. Finally, there is social 
force in the sense you discuss most, at the level of social classes, 
where the dominated classes, by virtue of their class position, can 
build popular power. Can you talk about the relationship between these 
layers (regardless of whether you agree with my expansion of the term)? 
To rephrase this question in more practical terms: What is the role of 
anarchist organization in organizing the power of the dominated classes?

FC: There are many elements to this issue that I believe are important 
to detail and organize. I have been gradually writing other materials on 
this topic of power, which encompass everything you ask. I will try to 
systematize it in a more didactic way to facilitate understanding. And 
everything I say below is based on classic authors (mainly Bakunin, 
Malatesta, Proudhon) and contemporary authors (Alfredo Errandonea, Tomás 
Ibáñez, Fábio López, Bruno L. Rocha), including specificist anarchist 
organizations and my own work. 11

First of all, it is important to remember, as I said before, that power 
has historically been defined in three ways: 1.) As capacity; 2.) As 
structures and mechanisms of regulation and control; 3.) As asymmetry in 
power relations. These three elements are important and are present in 
the theory of power that I have been developing. Not necessarily as part 
of the concept of power itself, but they are related to it.

Let's take as a starting point a definition of power that I consider 
adequate: power is a concrete and dynamic social relationship between 
different asymmetrical forces, in which one or more forces are 
preponderant over others . There are some important aspects to this 
definition.

First, when I state that power is a social relation, I am saying that 
power means a power relationship, and that it involves at least two 
parties (people, groups, classes, etc.).

Secondly, when I speak of a concrete and dynamic relationship, I am 
excluding that notion of power as capacity, which is placed in the realm 
of possibilities, of something that may or may not materialize; I am 
referring, more specifically, to a relationship that actually occurs.

This relationship is never permanent - it is always situated within a 
context (time and space) and is temporary; no one holds power eternally, 
but only for a certain period. Therefore, power relations are in 
constant flux and can be transformed at any moment.

Third, when I speak of the relationship between different asymmetrical 
forces, it is necessary to define precisely this accessory concept or 
sub-concept: social force. Social force can be defined as the energy 
applied by agents in social conflicts to achieve certain objectives . 
Such force can be individual, group, or class-based and signifies the 
materialization of the capacity for achievement. Here we have the first 
aspect that organizes those three historical ways of conceptualizing 
power; I make a distinction between capacity for achievement and social 
force .

The capacity for achievement is the possibility of doing something in 
the future, that potential becoming that may or may not materialize. We 
refer to the capacity for achievement when, for example, we say that 
workers have the power to transform the world. According to the concepts 
I have adopted, this phrase would be better formulated as follows: 
workers have the capacity (possibility) to transform the world. This is 
because, even with this capacity, they may or may not transform the 
world; it is not something concrete that actually happens.

The capacity for achievement becomes a social force when it moves beyond 
the realm of potential future accomplishment and is actually put into 
practice, becoming part of the power dynamics that constitute a social 
reality. Let's return to our example: Workers have the capacity to 
transform the world. But they may all be going about their daily lives, 
going to work, taking care of their families, living a life that has no 
impact on the course of development of capitalist society. In that case, 
they remain only with this potential capacity.

Now, when these workers begin to apply their energy to social conflicts 
with certain objectives in mind, they constitute a social force. For 
example, when they begin to organize, when they engage in struggles, 
make demands, etc. Notice that here that capacity has been transformed 
into social force. This force may be quite small - and thus incapable of 
changing the course of reality; but it may be medium-sized or even large 
and, in this way, be the protagonist of changes and transformations.

When I talk about social force, it's important to keep two things in 
mind. The first is that we are all born with the physical strength of 
our own bodies, which can be mobilized in certain conflicts. For 
example, a man's physical strength can be used to impose himself on a 
woman in a given conflict. The second is that social force can be 
individual or collective, and in the latter case, we must always 
consider that collective force is greater than the sum of individual 
forces. For example, the collective force of one hundred workers 
protesting in front of a city hall for one hour is much greater than if 
those workers remained there individually for one hour, one after the 
other. Even if the number of hours of protest per person is the same, 
without a doubt the social force of the collective (people together) is 
much greater than the social force of the individuals (separate people).

Furthermore, we must keep in mind that there are numerous ways to expand 
social power. Let's look at some of the well-known ones.

People can: 1.) Increase their physical strength and improve their 
techniques for using that strength through exercise and martial arts. In 
a conflict between organized fan groups, for example, physical strength 
can be a determining factor. Or even in the case of military combat that 
requires physical capabilities and effort. 2.) Gather and mobilize 
people with a common purpose . For a petition, an election, or a march 
in the streets, for example, the number of people gathered and mobilized 
is a fundamental element. 3.) Possess money, property, machinery, and 
natural resources . This is what we see, for example, when we see that 
it is much easier for the rich to impose themselves on the poor than the 
other way around; that a country with a large amount of oil has greater 
weight in international geopolitical relations than a country without 
oil; that, in capitalist competition, the large tend to subdue the small.

4.) To gain positions of power and decision-making , because those who 
occupy them have a much greater chance of imposing themselves on those 
who do not. When we say, for example, that there is no free negotiation 
of wages between employer and employee, it is precisely for this reason. 
Because they occupy a position of power and decision-making, or even 
because they own the company, managers and owners will almost always 
have much greater social power than the worker in labor disputes. This 
explains why, in a bureaucratized popular movement, positions of power 
and decision-making are fiercely contested by entities and political 
parties.

5.) Developing the capacity for influence and persuasion , where 
individuals, through arguments or charisma, in conversations, speeches, 
etc., convince and bring others to their side. 6.) Possessing weapons 
and war technologies , fundamental elements for, for example, 
determining the outcomes of a war. 7.) Having information and knowledge 
, which allows not only for better intervention in conflicts, but also 
for knowing in advance the steps of adversaries and enemies. Many other 
ways of expanding social power could be mentioned.

It is important to note that, in each case, there is a set of "rules" 
regarding the possible and legitimate ways to invest in increasing 
social power. Let's see. For physical conflicts between organized fan 
groups, attending a gym and practicing a martial art is much more 
acceptable ("normal") than for labor disputes involving salary 
negotiations in a company. For competitive conflicts between companies, 
owning property and money - investing to acquire more and more, and 
using this as a mechanism to assert oneself - is much more 
acceptable/normal than in social conflicts led by popular movements and 
revolutionary socialist organizations.

I mean that each form of conflict has a certain set of rules regarding 
what is most acceptable, normal, and usual for investing in the increase 
of social strength. This doesn't mean that other paths can't be taken. 
For example, weapons are generally not part of the norm in a union 
election, but in Brazil we know that, depending on the union, this is a 
reality.

Another important aspect of this discussion is that the relationships 
between social forces always occur within a specific scenario - a 
certain structure or order with regulations, controls, norms, and 
institutions. This scenario is also formed by power relations, but these 
are more enduring, persisting in time and space and becoming 
institutionalized, causing the scenario itself to have its own rules 
and, therefore, exert force in the game. The social forces that play in 
favor of the structure/order have much more ease (are maximized) than 
the forces that oppose it (are minimized).

This explains why, in social terms, continuing something that already 
happens is generally easier than changing it; movements that affirm the 
order generally have an easier time than movements that challenge it. 
Let's imagine, for example, two movements with the same number of people 
and resources: one defending capitalism and the other anti-capitalist. 
What I'm arguing is that, in such a circumstance, even with the same 
resources/people, the capitalist movement will have an easier time, 
because it will be playing within a capitalist scenario and structure, 
benefiting from the inertia that such relationships possess.

As can be seen, this notion of social force is useful for thinking about 
different issues, especially conflicts between certain forces at the 
micro, meso, and macro-social levels. This aforementioned dynamic of 
asymmetrical force correlation can be used to understand the 
relationships between people, gangs, companies, countries, parties, 
media, classes, etc.

We can conceive of social reality as the result of a confrontation 
between distinct social forces, which, in most cases, are not limited to 
just two (force A vs. force B). They are frequently multiple forces, 
which affect reality in different ways, which have similarities and 
differences with others, which ally themselves and cooperate with each 
other.

I now arrive at the more specific concept of power, previously 
mentioned. Power occurs precisely when one or more forces prevail 
(override, impose themselves) over another(s). And here the difference 
between social force and power becomes evident. To constitute a social 
force means to be influencing reality, to have some role in conflicts; 
to have power means to make one's own social force a force that prevails 
over others, that has prevailed, that has imposed itself.

In this sense, we can say, for example, that since their resurgence in 
the 1990s onwards, anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, and revolutionary 
syndicalists have globally constituted a social force. This is because, 
in different countries, they have an impact on reality, whether in 
struggles and protests in general, or in trade union, community, 
student, agrarian movements, or even in the field of ideas more broadly.

This does not mean, in any way, that anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and 
revolutionary syndicalism possess power. Currently, it constitutes a 
minority social force within the left in general, and almost 
insignificant when we consider the social forces that are disputing the 
global direction of society. 12

When we argue for the need for an anarchism that seeks power, this 
necessarily implies conceiving and implementing ways to maximize the 
strength of anarchism and, especially, of the popular classes, so that 
they become powerful agents not only on the left, but also in local, 
regional, national, and even international scenarios.

Power is present in all fields and levels of society. It provides the 
basis for regulations, controls, content, norms, etc. In this way, it 
has a direct relationship with decision-making.

We have, up to now, certain theoretical aspects capable of supporting 
analyses of reality, whether past or present. These theoretical aspects 
allow us to develop historical reflections and analyses of the current 
situation, through answers to a precise set of questions. In a given 
scenario (moment/territory):

What social forces are at play? How do they affect the social field? 
Which one(s) predominate? What are the results of this relationship? 
Mapping the forces at play, their impact on reality, the predominance 
and results of this confrontation is fundamental to understanding a 
given social scenario.

Both power relations and the regulations and controls that occur in 
society may or may not imply domination. This means that, as I and other 
specifists have argued, power and domination are not synonymous; nor are 
regulation/control and domination. That is, a power relation can be a 
relation of domination, but it may also not be. A set of regulatory and 
control mechanisms can be dominating, but it may also not be.

What allows us to make this statement is another accessory concept or 
sub-concept: participation . In general terms, participation is the act 
of taking part in or contributing to collective decisions; it relates to 
the entire process discussed of the constitution of social forces, 
confrontations/disputes, and the establishment of power relations. Power 
relations and mechanisms of regulation and control can be analyzed and 
conceived in relation to the greater or lesser degree of participation 
they involve.

Thus, power, regulation, and control can be dominating (and therefore 
involve less participation) or self-managing (and therefore involve 
greater participation). Power can thus be conceived as a relationship 
that oscillates between these two extremes: domination and self-management.

Domination is a hierarchical social relationship in which one or a few 
decide what concerns everyone; it explains inequalities and involves 
relationships of exploitation, coercion, alienation, etc. Domination 
explains social classes, even though there are other forms of domination 
beyond class domination. Self-management is the antithesis of 
domination; it is a non-hierarchical (egalitarian) social relationship 
in which people participate in the planning and decisions that affect 
them personally and collectively. Self-management underpins the project 
of a classless society without other forms of domination.

Several notions derive from this. First, that domination is a form of 
power, as is self-management. We can say that, historically, the vast 
majority of power relations established at the macro-social level were 
relations of domination (dominating power, therefore). But it is also 
possible to affirm that, in parallel, numerous other power relations, at 
the meso- and macro-social levels, were relations of self-management 
(self-managing power, therefore). We notice this both in movements and 
struggles, and in certain moments of insurrectionary and revolutionary 
experiences.

When proponents of specificities claim it is necessary to "build popular 
power," what they are actually advocating is nothing more than the 
construction of a popular social force capable of promoting a social 
revolution and, thereby, establishing a power relationship with the 
dominant classes and major agents of domination in general. Obviously, 
this is not about building just any power, but a self-managed power that 
implies a direct struggle against relations of domination and that 
points towards a classless society free from other forms of domination. 
Therefore, our conception of popular power is a conception of 
self-managed power.

The role of the anarchist organization goes precisely in this direction. 
Its objective is, firstly, to contribute to transforming the workers' 
capacity for achievement into a social force. Secondly, to collaborate 
in the permanent increase of this social force of the workers. Thirdly, 
to reinforce leftist, socialist, revolutionary, and 
libertarian/anti-authoritarian positions against the rightist, 
capitalist, reformist, and authoritarian positions present among the 
workers and their movements. Fourthly, to stimulate the construction of 
self-managed power relations that point towards a revolutionary process 
of social transformation, establishing egalitarian and libertarian 
regulatory and control institutions, and allowing the expansion of this 
project in regional, national, and international terms.

MW: From a more practical perspective, the definition of power and 
domination in especifism has been used to theoretically explain the 
strategy of building a "front of oppressed classes." Some of our 
comrades are concerned that this strategy leads to an abandonment of the 
leadership of the working class and its unique relationship with 
production during the socialist revolution. We are also concerned that 
this could lead to a "voluntarist" analysis of social transformation. 
That is, it seems that the relationship of domination is being 
prioritized over the relationship with the means of production, in 
understanding the role that a class will have in the social revolution 
and, thus, potentially, a prioritization of awareness over political 
confrontation in production. I would like you to respond to these 
concerns. Do they represent an accurate understanding of your positions?

FC: I want to begin by emphasizing that the concept of social classes 
with which we generally operate is very close to that defended by 
various classical anarchists, such as Bakunin and Malatesta. The problem 
here, again, seems to be the aforementioned importation of theoretical 
elements (in this case, from Marxism) into anarchism, something that 
prevents us from knowing and benefiting from our own contributions.

These and other anarchists have important reflections for this 
discussion on social classes. First of all, for Bakunin, Malatesta, and 
others, social classes were never an exclusively economic concept. 
Undoubtedly, classes encompass (often primarily) elements of an economic 
nature, such as the ownership of the means of production and 
distribution, and the consequent economic privileges. One could say 
that, in this sense, there is economic power.

But classes also encompass other elements of a political nature, such as 
ownership of the means of administration and coercion, and the 
consequent political privileges. In this sense, one could say that there 
is political power. Finally, classes also encompass elements of an 
intellectual/moral nature, such as ownership of the means of 
communication and instruction, and the consequent intellectual 
privileges. In this sense, one could say that there is intellectual power.

In the capitalist-statist system - and therefore in contemporary society 
- it is possible to affirm that there is a set of dominant classes and a 
set of oppressed classes. Economically, we can speak of property owners 
(bourgeoisie and landowners), who subjugate proletarians (in the 
strictest sense, of wage laborers) and peasants. Politically, we can 
speak of a bureaucracy (governors, judges, police), which subjugates a 
large contingent of the governed. Intellectually, we can speak of 
religious, communicational, and educational authorities, who subjugate 
those who have little or no impact on the production of ideas in society 
as a whole.

Therefore, in our society, when we talk about social classes, we can 
identify these three broad social conflicts: owners vs. proletarians and 
peasants (economic); bureaucrats vs. governed (political); 
religious/communicational/educational authorities vs. people with little 
or no influence on the production of macrosocial ideas (intellectual).

It is important to note that these conflicts are always articulated in 
systemic terms. Therefore, this distinction between the three fields or 
spheres (economic, political, and intellectual) and the three conflicts 
related to them is merely analytical. In reality, these three parts 
comprise a structural whole that functions as a system. The articulation 
of these three conflicts points precisely to what I mentioned earlier. 
There is not only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; there are not 
only two classes in conflict.

As stated, there is a set of dominant classes and a set of oppressed 
classes. Exercising domination in our society is this set of classes 
composed of: owners + bureaucracy + religious/communication/educational 
authorities (emphasizing that I am obviously referring here to the major 
religions, communication and education companies, that is, those who 
actually dictate the production of ideas in contemporary society). This 
group simultaneously owns the means of production and distribution, 
administration and coercion, communication and instruction; and 
simultaneously enjoys economic, political, and intellectual privileges.

Suffering from domination in our society, we have another set of classes 
composed of: proletarians + peasants (and traditional peoples) + 
marginalized groups, who are, together and simultaneously, victims of 
economic exploitation, political-bureaucratic domination, physical 
coercion, and intellectual alienation. There is also an intermediate 
sector, less relevant, between these two broad sets of classes.

Therefore, when we talk about class struggle, it's necessary to 
understand that it can manifest itself (and indeed does manifest itself) 
in two distinct ways. One, particular, for example, when salaried 
workers in a company confront a particular boss. The other, more 
general, involves both of the aforementioned groups: dominant classes 
versus oppressed classes.

If you and other colleagues are interested, we can share a study that 
uses these theoretical assumptions to analyze social classes in 
contemporary Brazil. It is quite comprehensive and very interesting.

This conception of social classes has implications that highlight the 
differences between our positions and those normally associated with 
Marxism. This is especially true when we consider the bureaucracy a 
dominant class and, therefore, as much a class enemy of the workers as 
the bourgeoisie or landowners; the same applies to major religious 
leaders, the owners of large media and education conglomerates - they 
are all class enemies of the workers and must be equally combated for 
socialism to be possible.

This socialism also encompasses these three fields or spheres: we seek a 
comprehensive socialism that is not restricted to the economy. We 
advocate the socialization (and not the nationalization or state 
control) of the means of production and distribution (of economic 
power), but also of the ownership of the means of administration and 
coercion (of political power), and of the ownership of the means of 
communication and instruction (of intellectual power). This is what we 
understand as the end of capitalism, of the State, of social classes. 
That is, the complete socialization of social power.

Regarding the proposal for a "front of oppressed classes," I can say 
that, in our conception, it simply means, as it generally meant for 
numerous classical anarchists, the understanding that all those "from 
below"-wage laborers, both urban and rural, from industry and services, 
precarious workers, the self-employed, the marginalized, as well as 
peasants-must be taken into account when it comes to conceiving a broad 
project of revolutionary transformation such as the one we propose.

In this respect, it is possible to identify other divergences, now with 
certain historical sectors of Marxism and even anarchism. It was common 
among these sectors to conceive of capitalism as an economic mode of 
production and to understand that its base is urban and industrial. 
There is no doubt that the economy is a central field/sphere in 
capitalist society, that cities and industries play a very important 
role in capitalism. But capitalism is much more than a historical form 
of economy. It is, as I mentioned before, a system that, in addition to 
the economy, includes the State and the ideas that are fundamental to 
legitimizing capitalist social relations.

Therefore, there is no doubt that urban and industrial workers are 
fundamental to the struggle and to a social revolution. Now, when one 
affirms the "leadership of the working class and its unique relationship 
with production during the socialist revolution," this has different 
possibilities for interpretation. "Working class" can mean exclusively 
the urban and industrial proletariat - and there, certainly, that is not 
our position - but it can also mean the working class in a broad sense, 
a term we sometimes use, and which encompasses all the subjects 
previously mentioned.

While it's true that the sectors most directly involved in production 
need to be involved in any revolutionary project, when discussing this 
topic from a global perspective, or even when considering our reality in 
Latin America, an anarchist revolutionary project that doesn't account 
for the rural proletariat, peasants, informal workers, and even the 
marginalized seems inconceivable.

I believe that at this point it is necessary to elaborate a little more 
on the terms we use, as we may be talking about the same thing or have 
major disagreements.

This brings us to another point addressed in the question, regarding 
analytical voluntarism. Our position, as can be seen, is neither 
voluntarist nor structuralist. It understands that structures play a 
fundamental role in our society, constructing an important part of 
social reality. But it also understands that will, human action, plays a 
relevant role. Although it may be crude, I like to think of social 
reality as 70%-80% structurally determined, and 30%-20% determined by 
voluntary human actions.

It seems to me that this position is in line with most contemporary 
social theories (from the Social Sciences or History) that seek to 
reconcile structure and action, giving the former more weight than the 
latter, but simultaneously avoiding deterministic structuralism and 
voluntarism.

The 20th century made it clear that the arguments of a certain sector of 
Marxism were mistaken, and that the position of a significant group of 
historical anarchists was, in fact, the most accurate. During this 
period, observing the distinct socio-economic realities in the world, we 
noticed that the structure of advanced capitalism was not sufficient to 
produce, by itself and automatically, revolutionary subjects and processes.

Even when we observe the countries that have and have not experienced 
revolutions, what we find is that the development of productive forces 
has not created more radicalized or potentially more revolutionary 
environments than in the so-called "backward" countries where such 
revolutions occurred. At the same time, we observe that there is no 
gradual progression, according to which revolutions can only happen 
after an advanced development of capitalism.

It should be noted, however, that these revolutions, most of which ended 
up building what would be known as "real socialism," did not even 
socialize or initiate a consistent socialization of economic power, let 
alone political or intellectual power. They did not even come close to 
the emancipation of the workers, nor did they even move in that 
direction. Therefore, they cannot be taken as successful revolutionary 
models.

The position of a class fraction, group, or individual within the 
structure of society is not enough to make them more or less 
revolutionary. For that, action and awareness (class action, class 
consciousness) are essential, which, together with structural 
determinants, will produce the new revolutionary subject we need. For a 
transformation towards the self-managed socialism we advocate, it is not 
enough to be part of an unequal structure. It is necessary that this 
structure be perceived as unjust, that there be a belief in the 
possibility of change. It is fundamental that actions move in a specific 
direction - we need a consistent project. Workers do not become 
revolutionary subjects without engagement in struggles and awareness.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that I am not "prioritizing the 
relationship of domination over the relationship with the means of 
production." As I pointed out, relations of domination, as I understand 
them, involve and encompass relations with the means of production (in 
the Marxist sense); exploitation, in this sense, is a form of 
domination, as are the others I mentioned (political-bureaucratic 
domination, physical coercion, and cultural alienation). But it is worth 
remembering that when I speak of class domination, I am not restricting 
myself to economic means, but also to political and intellectual means.

I should also note that this position does not confuse class domination 
with other forms of domination, such as national domination 
(colonialism/imperialism), ethnic-racial domination (racism), and gender 
domination (patriarchy). Domination has many forms; class domination is 
one of them - undoubtedly very important in capitalist society - and it 
is related to all the other forms mentioned above. This relationship 
allows us to explain capitalist society in its multiple relations of 
domination.

There is also no "prioritization of awareness-raising over political 
confrontation in production" in the strategy of specificity. Our 
strategy has always focused on building and strengthening popular 
movements based on a specific program that, historically, as I have 
already mentioned, is very close to revolutionary syndicalism. We are 
not educationalists, nor do we advocate prioritizing propaganda. Our 
focus is on regular and daily grassroots work, on building union, 
community, agrarian, student, women's, LGBT, Black, Indigenous, etc. 
struggles based on our program. The struggle in industrial and urban 
workplaces is included in our strategy, but it goes beyond that. Not 
only because of the Brazilian socio-economic scenario, but also from a 
global perspective.

March, 2022

1. Activist affiliated with the platformist/specificist group Black Flag 
Sydney (Australia), currently living in Montreal (Canada).

2. OASL website: https://anarquismosp.wordpress.com/ . CAB website: 
https://cabanarquista.org/ . CAB Declaration of Principles (in English): 
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/23028 .

3 Regarding the history of the FAU (in English), see: 
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32515 . Regarding the strategy of 
especifist anarchism, see the long interview I conducted with Juan 
Carlos Mechoso, a historical militant of the FAU (in English): 
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/juan-carlos-mechoso-uruguayan-anarchist-federation-fau-the-strategy-of-especifismo 
.

4. ITHA website: https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/ . Faísca website: 
http://editorafaisca.net/ .

5 In: https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32540 .

6 "Huerta Grande" (in English) can be read at: 
https://blackrosefed.org/huerta-grande/ . Regarding Malatesta's 
positions on this matter, see the chapter "Anarchism and Science" in the 
compilation Errico Malatesta: Life and Ideas , organized by Vernon 
Richards: https://libcom.org/files/Malatesta%20-%20Life%20and%20Ideas.pdf .

7 The text in which Osugi Sakae makes this statement is partially 
available (in English) in the anthology "Anarchism: a documentary 
history of libertarian ideas ", vol. 1, edited by Robert Graham (Black 
Rose Books, 2005).

8 Regarding this and other arguments by Ibáñez, see my review of his 
article "Por un Poder Político Libertario" (in English): 
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/19736 .

9 Regarding this argument, see my article "Anarchist Theory and History 
in Global Perspective" (in English): 
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/felipe-correa-anarchist-theory-and-history-in-global-perspective/ 
.

10 The aforementioned article "Anarchist Theory and History in Global 
Perspective" (in English) provides a summary of this book.

11 Unfortunately, there are few writings in English by these 
contemporary authors.

12 These are some of the conclusions of a two-year research project I 
conducted on the global resurgence of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, 
and revolutionary syndicalism between 1990 and 2019. The results of this 
research can be found in the chapter "The Global Revival of Anarchism 
and Syndicalism (1990-2019)" in the book The Cambridge History of 
Socialism: a global history in two volumes, edited by Marcel Van der 
Linden (Cambridge, 2022) and in the "Dossier Contemporary Anarchism: 
anarchism and syndicalism in the whole world (1990-2019)": 
https://ithanarquista.wordpress.com/contemporary-anarchism/ .

https://socialismolibertario.net/
_________________________________________
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