“Organizational responsibility and discipline should not be controversial: they are the traveling companions of the practice of social anarchism.”

(Nestor Ivanovich Makhno and Alexandre Skirda)

The Organizational Debate

In 1926 a group of anarchists in Paris, France wrote a document called “Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists”. In it, they attempted to give a description of how an anarchist movement could be built to successfully overcome the state and capitalism. This group of anarchists were called the ‘Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad’ (“About the Platform”). Their membership was made up of anarchist revolutionaries exiled from Russia and Ukraine in the aftermath of the Russian revolution and civil war, including the effective leader of the anarchist militants in Ukraine, Nestor Makhno. Despite their heroic actions in fighting Tsarists and other reactionaries in Ukraine, they were betrayed and crushed militarily by the influential Bolshevik Trotsky’s red army. The experience of this defeat is what influenced the most challenging conclusions of the ‘organizational platform’ (Bookchin, The Third Revolution / 3.).

In this document the authors argue that anarchists must construct a well-organized, disciplined body in order to effectively propagate their ideas among the working classes. This general union of anarchists would play a driving role in organizing the working classes to carry out social revolution and constructing a libertarian communist society. The general union would have four defining characteristics: theoretical unity, unified collective action, collective responsibility, and federation (Makhno et al.). The origins of this analysis in the organizational platform very clearly find their roots in Makhno’s takeaway from the Russian Revolution. In his essay “On Revolutionary Discipline” he wrote about the defeat of the anarchists by the Bolsheviks, saying “Had anarchists been closely connected in organizational terms and had they in their actions abided strictly by a well-defined discipline, they would never have suffered such a rout” (Nestor Ivanovich Makhno and Alexandre Skirda). The ‘organizational platform’, particularly its stated principles, were the source of intense debate among anarchists.

Errico Malatesta, another influential anarchist from Italy, exchanged critical letters with Makhno about the contents of this document. Malatesta suspected this concept of what has come to be called ‘platformism’ would lead to a replication of the same problems as those brought about by the Bolsheviks in Russia, saying “Would what happened to socialism and communism in Russia not happen to anarchism?” (“About the Platform”). Nestor Makhno argued back that the typical heterogenous nature of social movements meant that they had to be given clarity and explicit form if they were to effectively achieve liberatory ends. In his view “Only ideological groups with clearly-defined policies are capable of driving this process, particularly towards the beginning of the revolution.” (“About the Platform”). This back and forth between the two anarchist militants spanned from 1927 to 1930, but the actual arguments have carried on into the modern day. Despite his criticisms of the platform, Malatesta was decidedly pro-organization, arguing that as anarchists “we organize ourselves and seek to become as numerous and as strong as possible.” (Malatesta). Among anarchists, there are others that eschew organization all together.

The question of how a movement for lasting freedom, a movement which calls for the abolition of the state and capitalism can and should function has been ongoing between libertarian radicals. On one end, you have the highly organizational segments of the left libertarian movement saying that structured organizations with trained cadres, branches, and defined modes of conduct are necessary to bind together revolutionaries and create grassroots institutions of the popular power in accordance with an agreed upon revolutionary strategy. On the other end, there are anarchists who argue that this type of organization and any type of social institutionalization is hardly better than the state, favoring ad hoc associations of affinity groups, rebellious individuals, and spontaneous popular insurrections as harbingers of social change. A wide spectrum of beliefs on social organization can be found between these poles, further complicating the debate. This discourse is nonetheless frequently framed as a binary between ‘organizationalists’ and ‘anti-organizationalists’. Communalism, as described by Murray Bookchin, lands squarely on the highly organizational end of the debate. This first article on communalism and organization will be comparing it theoretically to one of the most significant organizational tendencies among modern anarchists.

Communalism and Especifismo

“Therefore, in order to attain our objectives we advocate active and articulated resistance which seeks in organisation the permanent increase of social force. For the construction of this resistance it is necessary to align with those that are in agreement with our proposal for social transformation.”

(FARJ)

The anarchist tendency which best embodies its historic organizational elements adapted to modern conditions, taking valuable lessons from the past, is called ‘especifismo’. First described explicitly by the ‘anarchist federation of Uruguay’ (FAU), it has spread throughout Latin America and been adopted by anarchist organizations throughout the world. The name especifismo refers to its emphasis on the creation of a specifically anarchist organization which would play an active and consistent role in aiding and advancing liberatory social movements, centered around class struggle (FARJ). Communalism as described by Bookchin, despite developing in different contexts and using different language to describe its ideas, shares many key features with especifismo.

The first and principal similarity is the shared emphasis on creating a decentralized web of grassroots organizations to carry out social transformation. In the terminology of especifismo, the revolutionary force at the base of society is called the “popular organization” which would “overthrow capitalism and the state, and, by means of the social revolution build libertarian socialism” (FARJ). This popular organisation would be forged from the disparate grassroots movements among the exploited classes in society. These are the movements that are turned into necessities by the conditions of capitalism and the state. As they write, the binding of “one social movement to another in pursuit of building the popular organisation and the overcoming of capitalism and the state” (FARJ) is a fundamental element of especifismo. This popular organization, if constructed in the right fashion, would be directly democratic and decentralized in its structure. As they write “social movements are co-ordinated internally by the principles of self-management and are joined, in cases of necessity, through federalism” where “self-management and federalism imply direct democracy” (FARJ).

By comparison, the communalist image of a popular organization is based on the democratization and confederation of municipalities through the creation and interlinking of popular assemblies. In a similar fashion to the especifist idea of a popular organization, this image of a revolutionary body would “oppose the nation-state and ultimately dispense with it and with the economic forces that underpin statism as such” (Bookchin et al.). The directly democratic popular assemblies at the base of such an organization would be formed around the “concerns about environment, education, transportation, childcare, and the local economy, among many others” (Biehl). The concrete nature of such demands is consistent with the basis of the tangible social movements identified by the FARJ as being potential domains for the interlinking of a popular organization. Both tendencies emphasize issues that are brought about as necessities by the nature of capitalism and the state.

A more detailed look into the features of the communalist and especifist conceptions of popular organization point to more similarities. In both tendencies these popular organizations would use “delegates that would have imperative mandates” (FARJ) or “mandated and recallable delegates” (Bookchin, Urbanization without Cities) to interlink its base structures. Both bodies would “replace the state and all its functions” (FARJ) or “demand the outright institutional power to replace the state” (Bookchin et al.). These types of one-to-one comparisons can be made with increasing degrees of specificity. For example, on the question of majority decision making versus consensus, the FARJ argues “consensus should not be used in the majority of decisions” (FARJ). Bookchin similarly writes “That consensual forms of agreement where possible would be the most desirable decision-making procedure does not mean that majority decision-making should not be adopted if a confederation risks the prospect of being tyrannized by the few at the expense of the many” (Bookchin, Urbanization without Cities). This sort of similarity in the advocacy for popular democratic organizations taking over state functions is unremarkable among libertarian socialists. It reflects the long history of participatory democracy, confederalism, and delegation that can be found in movements for freedom throughout history. These ideas have found some of their highest expressions in historical anarchist movements and carry on basically intact in the desires of modern social anarchists. Of greater significance is their similar views on the specific organization of ideological militants.

The second similarity between especifismo and communalism is in their conviction that a resolute, educated, and unified organization of libertarian communists is essential for the success of a liberatory movement. In both tendencies, this conclusion is drawn from the question of how the aforementioned popular organization would be created. As stated in “Social Anarchism and Organisation” the specific anarchist organization (SAO) is needed to “build the popular organisation and influence it, giving it the desired character, and to reach libertarian socialism by means of the social revolution.” In a similar fashion, Murray Bookchin makes the argument that “The formation of communalist political institutions depends on the formation of a communalist organization.” (Bookchin, Free Cities). This conclusion was reached by both tendencies as a consequence of both historical analysis and firsthand movement experience. Essentially, each perspective shares a conclusion that the lack of a well-organized ideological body has been the source of the consistent defeats of libertarian movements. As the FARJ writes “the lack of anarchist organisations that could lend support to the class struggle, expressed most notably at that time by the unions, was also largely responsible for the loss of the social vector of anarchism” (FARJ). This position was derived from FARJ’s analysis of the revolutionary syndicalist movement in Brazil and abroad. Similarly, when discussing the history of directly democratic movements during the revolutionary era of Europe and the United States, Bookchin argues “What often impeded the success of the popular movement was its failure to form a vanguard organization in the best sense of the term” (Bookchin, The Third Revolution. Volume One). These diagnoses very clearly echo those of Nestor Makhno discussed earlier in the article.

The question of how the specifically anarchist organization conducts itself internally and with respect to the popular social organization is where we see the most significant points of convergence and divergence between especifismo and communalism. Internally, the SAO largely reflects the desired structures of the popular organization. It is non-hierarchical, decentralized and democratic, requiring solidarity and commitment to deliberated decisions while respecting the ability of local branches to act in ways corresponding to their conditions. Upon making a decision, the SAO is expected to divide up roles in a conscious manner among its members. An ethos of mutual aid and collective responsibility must permeate the organization. As such, a defining internal feature of the SAO is the discipline its members are expected to exhibit. As the FARJ writes “the specific organisation must constitute itself as an organisation of active anarchist minority with a high level of self-discipline, commitment and responsibility.” (FARJ). This firm resolute character is meant to hold the SAO together even as social movements rise and fall in response to evolving situations.

The defining traits of the SAO as something distinct to the popular organization are the sorts of tasks it is responsible for. While the popular organization is not expected to be ideological in its character, ultimately binding together people with a high degree of political heterogeneity, the opposite is true for the SAO. The SAO, if it is to carry out its necessary actions in a coherent fashion, must have a shared ideology. It is this shared ideology that is, along with experience, the basis of the organization’s overarching analysis, program, strategy, and tactics. As the FARJ puts it “it is essential that the anarchist organisation has well-determined strategic-tactical and political lines – which occur through theoretical and ideological unity”. (FARJ). It is this shared analysis that allows the SAO to advance a coherent political concept to the social movements it generates and cooperates with. This theory is not static, formulated separately from and then imposed on the people. Instead, the theory is formed through continual engagement with the social movements and reflection. As this theory continues to develop, it is deliberated on and introduced to the shared analysis of the SAO. The SAO does not develop its perspective and keep it to itself. It continually engages in spreading its ideas through a tapestry of educational initiatives and propaganda efforts to grow the social movements it aids and to popularize anarchism. The continual engagement with social movements comes from “social insertion”. Social insertion is the strategy of influencing social movements to take on revolutionary anarchist characteristics by direct and explicit contact between the SAO and the social movements. As stated by FARJ, the function of the SAO is to “influence the social level as much as possible, causing it to function in the most libertarian and egalitarian way possible” through which “we understand it to be possible to build the popular organisation and, increasing its social force, reach the final objectives.” (FARJ). It is towards the carrying out of this revolutionary project that the SAO is structured the way it is.

The communalist organization as described by Bookchin and Biehl has many internal similarities to the those of the SAO. Like the SAO, the communalist organization is characterized by a decentralized and democratic structure, reflecting the municipal nature of the popular organization it would develop. The communalist organization would be “a well-informed, carefully structured organization, if possible, with neighborhood branches.” (Bookchin, Free Cities). The communalist organization, in Bookchin’s vision, would find its authentic origin in the study group which seeks to engage in the serious examination of communalism, the legacy of liberatory movements, and local issues. It is from this study group that the communalist organization forms its ideological and programmatic coherence. As Bookchin writes “the organization’s goals should be carefully formulated into a concrete program, based on communalist principles, that consistently demands the formation of policy-making municipal popular assemblies” (Bookchin, Free Cities). The development of this shared analysis would be the springboard to action, but like the SAO, it would not be a static body of theory, but rather one informed by the organization’s experience in the movement. For such an organization “education will be ongoing and will doubtless continue throughout the life of the movement” (Biehl). The communalist organization’s principal objectives would be to create a democratic political culture and institutions of the people through a variety of methods. Towards this end, it would insert itself into the local struggles, remaining in contact with the grassroots in order to “escalate cries for reforms into radical demands, seeking to expand every civil and political right of the people by creating the institutional power to formulate decision-making policies and see to their execution.” (Bookchin, Free Cities). The tactics it uses in pursuit of this development, especially vigorous public education initiatives, forums, propaganda campaigns, mobilizing for direct action, etc would largely be similar to those of the SAO. Where the two diverge is on the role of local electoral politics in empowering the popular organization.

For the SAO, the question of how the popular organization would be empowered ultimately resolves in direct action and its own independent fighting organs. Empowerment is to be achieved through purely extralegal means. This is a common position among revolutionary anarchists. Communalists differ most significantly here in that it is a tendency more flexible in its methods for empowering the popular organization that would be the basis of its political project. For communalists, the objective is to create and empower popular assemblies at the municipal level, confederate those assemblies over regional, national, and international lines, and confront the nation state and capital when it becomes possible to do so. The communalist organization, like the SAO, one to engage in direct action and extralegal methods to empower assemblies. The creation of its own independent fighting organizations is also at the core of the ideology. What distinguishes communalism is that it also seeks the legal empowerment of these popular assemblies through the alteration of municipal charters where they do exist, and the creation of them where they don’t. In essence, they seek to make popular assemblies legitimate structures that would take legislative power away from statist municipal governments by whatever means are most suited to that goal. This leads to communalism’s most controversial tactic, the running of candidates for municipal office in order to change municipal charters to give legislative power to popular assemblies. Bookchin writes in no uncertain terms that “the new communalist organization should expressly seek to be elected to municipal positions with a view to using charter or extralegal changes to significantly shift municipal power from existing state-like and seemingly representative institutions to popular assemblies as embodiments of direct democracy.” (Bookchin, Free Cities). Direct action and other extralegal tactics would be used to make these demands met, but at the core, the institutional empowerment of these popular institutions in ways beyond those that can be immediately manifested by grassroots organizing alone is the purpose of such an approach.

Despite differences in approaches to the question of how popular organizations can be empowered, it’s clear that communalism and especifismo have key similarities in how they conceive of political organization. Both tendencies draw on the long history of partial successes and failures in historical liberatory movements and personal experience to develop their theory. Communalism in particular was largely developed as a consequences of Murray Bookchin’s comprehensive study of the conditions that led to failure for the libertarian segments of revolutions during the revolutionary era in Europe and North America. Each tendency reflects contemporary developments in the organizational tradition within libertarian socialism, and consequently are criticized by anti-organizational anarchist currents. These especifismo and especially communalism are critiqued as essentially statist and reflective of outdated theories of social change. These critics argue that an emphasis on formal and mass organization is a barrier to the spontaneous insurrectionary action that they believe is the true vehicle of liberatory change. Are these criticisms fundamentally correct? Is there, other than implementation, a way to examine whether or not the conclusions that led to the development of communalist politics were basically sound? Furthermore, can we build on them to develop a more robust communalist strategy? I believe Aric McBay’s “Full Spectrum Resistance” which examines the causes of success and failure for resistance movements may provide valuable insights on that front. Part 2 will examine how the communalist approach compares to Aric McBay’s conclusions in “Full Spectrum Resistance”.

“Whether the twenty-first century will be the most radical of times or the most reactionary — or will simply lapse into a gray era of dismal mediocrity — will depend overwhelmingly upon the kind of social movement and program that social radicals create out of the theoretical, organizational, and political wealth that has accumulated during the past two centuries of the revolutionary era.”

(Bookchin, Social Ecology and Communalism)

Works Cited

“About the Platform.” The Anarchist Library, theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-and-nestor-makhno-about-the-platform.

Biehl, Janet. Politics of Social Ecology. Black Rose Books Ltd., 2017.

Bookchin, Murray. Free Cities. 2008. Pluto Press, 18 Jan. 2011.

—. Social Ecology and Communalism. Edinburgh ; Oakland, Ak Press, 2007.

—. The next Revolution : Popular Assemblies and the Promise of Direct Democracy. Brooklyn, Ny, Verso, 2015.

—. The Third Revolution / 3. London, Cassell, 2004.

—. The Third Revolution. Volume One, Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era. London ; New York, Cassell, 1996.

—. Urbanization without Cities : The Rise and Decline of Citizenship. Montréal ; New York, Black Rose Books, 1992.

FARJ. Social Anarchism and Organisation. Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro – FARJ, 2008, theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchist-federation-of-rio-de-janeiro-social-anarchism-and-organisation.

Makhno, Nestor, et al. The Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. Radical Reprints, 31 Mar. 2022.

Malatesta, Errico. “Anarchism and Organization.” The Anarchist Library, 1897, theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchism-and-organization.

Nestor Ivanovich Makhno, and Alexandre Skirda. The Struggle against the State & Other Essays. Edinburgh, Ak Press, 1996.