A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneration: Being the Ashes of That Fire (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Index: 1) The Lack of Role Models in Anarchist Activism | 2) Defeat | 3) 
The Void Filled | 4) Our Own Militant Culture
1) The Lack of Role Models in Anarchist Activism
Recently, a comrade from Galicia wrote and published an article[1]about 
our heritage as militants of social and organized anarchism, and how we 
are nothing more than the ashes of that fire that our predecessors kept 
alive. The article argues that it is neither effective nor respectful to 
exist as a political current within the anarchist spectrum through 
arrogance, disrespect towards other anarchist comrades, and the denial 
of their existence as a self-affirmation. However, in reading the 
article, one also glimpses one of the shortcomings that most affects us 
as anarchist militants: the lack of current role models.

By role models, I mean the organizations, activists, and political 
movements in which we could see ourselves reflected, both in terms of 
political practice, the definition of theory and ideology, public 
action, and other aspects where we would benefit from having a point of 
reference. Without such a figure, we lack an example situated in our 
current circumstances that would allow us to envision what our 
capabilities as an organized movement might be.

On the other hand, by "current" role models, I mean political figures 
situated both in our own era and within our approximate geographical and 
historical context. We might well consider the Friends of Durruti and 
the Iberian Anarchist Federation as historical role models, but the 
context and framework of action of these genuinely revolutionary 
organizations is far removed from our own. And we might well consider 
the Uruguayan and Brazilian Especifistas, or the growing Anarchist 
Communist Federation of Australia, or even the relatively broad and 
strong French-speaking Union Communiste Libertaire, but we are neither 
sufficiently familiar with their activities nor do we share the same 
local context (although we can approximate it).

While our anarcho-syndicalist, autonomist, and insurrectionist 
comrades-the libertarian family-have kept alive the flame of this dream 
that shook the foundations of capitalist society in the last century, 
this journey through the desert has left the space of anarchist 
political organization empty, a void that the FAI (Iberian Anarchist 
Federation) once filled in our territory. We, the activists who have 
emerged and aligned ourselves with the anarchist project in this last 
decade, have not had an anarchist political organization in which to see 
ourselves reflected; instead, our aspirations have been subordinated to 
existing rival organizations. Understanding this situation requires 
understanding the context in which we find ourselves as anarchist 
political organizations, while also explaining the past cycle that we 
want to overcome.

The Defeat
The current context of revolutionary defeat is foreshadowed by a series 
of specific defeats of the workers' movement and the anarchist 
organization. Without intending to construct a historiography of the 
Cycles of Struggle (since that is not the objective of this article), I 
will define three particular defeats that shape the current 
organizational and social context in the local area.

First, the defeat of the Social Revolution in Spain and the Catalan 
Countries between 1936 and 1939. Originating from a cycle that includes 
the Paris Commune and a strengthening of revolutionary fervor with the 
Russian Revolution, in this context we see the working class organized 
around the anarcho-syndicalist CNT, alongside an organization with its 
own culture, practice, and strength in the FAI. This great revolutionary 
force of our class has been subjected to deadly repression by the State 
since 1936, with this persecution intensifying from May 1937 onward. The 
State dissolved the existing libertarian communism of the Aragonese 
communes that same year and militarily defeated them in 1939. From this 
period, we are left with a revolutionary myth and the practical 
application of libertarian communism, but also the discrediting of the 
project through government collaboration, the physical destruction and 
bloodshed of its militants.

Second, we have the defeat of the cycle that began with May 1968 and 
ended with the post-transition period, approximately with the Moncloa 
Pacts. This period saw the reorganization of the CNT, the establishment 
of specific anarchist groups to influence this process, a context of 
armed struggle, and the formation of what is now called the Regime of 
'78. From this period, we have the formation of the trade union models 
of the CNT's successors, but also a profound social legitimization of 
parliamentary democracy under the constitutional monarchy and a 
weakening of anarchist forces that could not stop the replacement of 
class consciousness with the current liberal apathy.

The most recent defeat is the electoral failure of Podemos and the 
conclusion of the Catalan independence movement in recent years. This 
period saw the emergence of numerous libertarian assemblies and a 
resurgence of activism, along with a diversity of struggles. This defeat 
cannot be pinpointed to a specific date; rather, it is characterized by 
the gradual decline of mobilization over time and the subsequent 
abandonment of the objectives for which the movement had fought. The 
social paralysis caused by Covid-19 effectively buried this cycle. Many 
current activists draw upon the political and organizational experience 
they possess today from this era.

These three defeats are framed within the respective formal models of 
workers' organizations of their time. Specifically, the first defeat, 
from 1936 to 1939, corresponds to the fortress-like organizational 
model: a large, structured organization that sought to direct the forces 
of the entire working class. The third defeat, the 15M-Process cycle, 
corresponds to the movement-based, horizontal, and informal model, which 
distrusts large structures. The second defeat, the Transition, 
corresponds to the moment of transition and confluence between the two 
models; specifically, the coexistence of the CNT as the large union 
structure of the historical "old militants" and exiles, and the informal 
practices of the "young militants" in the new generations when organizing.

The Void Filled
These defeats generated, as I have tried to explain and as my comrade 
also wrote, a lack of role models who could teach and guide us. The 
elements that could tend to be reference points within the anarchist 
current itself came either from a distant past, from another continent, 
or were simply great individual names in anarchism.

In the recent past, specifically, the following duality existed. On the 
one hand, there were grassroots organizations and movements that 
proposed demands and contested the streets, where we participated; This 
was part of a political process with ultimate goals with which we 
disagreed or did not accept as they were presented. Furthermore, there 
was a lack of a sufficiently large organized anarchist current within 
the movement that had emerged, a space occupied by a rival political 
current.

This resulted, on the one hand, in a lack of anarchist representation 
within that context of struggle-that is, a lack of demonstration of 
strength and self-recognition that affected our morale and prospects. On 
the other hand, lacking an anarchist political organization to look to 
for inspiration, our awareness of what we could achieve as an organized 
force was defined by the actions of the leftist organizations that were 
leading that period. Just as a vacuum of political leadership and 
defense of class independence can arise in a grassroots organization, 
allowing non-revolutionary practices to flourish, or a lack of 
understanding of power roles within an assembly to give rise to informal 
hierarchies, the vacuum of anarchist organizational reference points can 
be filled by non-anarchist political tendencies.

This appropriation of reference points poses a problem: an anarchist 
political organization is not the same as a left-wing political party or 
a national liberation organization. It operates on different 
assumptions, has different objectives, and has a different relationship 
with the working class. In a moment of a lack of anarchist reference 
points, it becomes much more difficult to answer what we must do to 
achieve Social Revolution, especially if all we have seen around us are 
actions that lead to other, fruitless objectives, such as the conquest 
of political power.

The anarchist political organization is not a political party: it is a 
revolutionary organization. The actions it undertakes, the discourse it 
produces, its relationship with the working masses, and its form and 
structure are, and must be, qualitatively different from these other 
political formations. It is a problem, then, if we see ourselves 
reflected in their actions, capabilities, or slogans, because they lead 
toward an objective we do not pursue.

It is necessary, therefore, to fill this void of reference points with 
our own organization: the anarchist political organization. We must fill 
the political space with our actions, our activity, our theoretical and 
ideological contributions, our perspective in the debates that take 
place, and our own strength.

Our own militant culture
We are being born in the 21st century as a weak, dispersed, organized 
movement, with a broken memory, but with the will to piece together the 
fabric of this puzzle.

To rebuild the organized strength of anarchism and become a political 
force worthy of our times, we must strengthen and expand our militant 
culture, distinguishing it from other groups and claiming it as our own. 
Currently, we have built, to a certain extent, an internal militant 
culture by structuring our political intervention within a Militant 
Code. Following this path, we must demonstrate our political actions to 
the working masses through political communication, dare to broaden our 
militant base both qualitatively and quantitatively, and establish a 
territorially grounded militant network capable of confronting the 
struggles toward the horizon of libertarian communism. Building together 
leads us toward organizational unity, toward the unity of anarchists in 
a common general organization that we have longed for during these times 
of wandering in the wilderness.

In this article, I want to invite anarchists everywhere to rebuild this 
militant culture, to recreate our days of remembrance and our 
commemorative dates, our cultural touchstones, our projects for building 
popular power, our own militant aesthetic, and a positive commitment to 
building revolutionary strength.

Let us unite in social and organized anarchism so that in this new 
cycle, anarchism can be a political agent capable of intervening in the 
direction of the Social Revolution!

Malfainer, member of Batzac - Joventuts Llibertàries

1. 
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/07/29/non-somos-mais-que-a-cinza-dese-lume

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/11/18/ser-cendra-daquell-foc/
_________________________________________
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