This document from their new member packet explains the type of group that Wild Rose Collective is, and gives some background on the ideas.
What is a specific anarchist group?
The term ‘specific anarchist group’ could be defined as a formal anarchist organization that seeks unity in their theory, outlook, tactics and action. It strives to be heavily involved in larger social movements, pushing their militancy and advocating their independence from co-opting forces, such as the state, capital and the authoritarian/reformist left.
How is it different from other contemporary anarchist groups?
Differing from many contemporary North American anarchist groups, it sees clearly defined, explained and agreed upon structure as necessary for effective action and equitable power distribution.
Rather than individuals within the group having little shared outlook, working on separate, smaller projects and making efforts without coordination, the ‘specific anarchist group’ attempts to bring together militants that have a strong level of agreement and direct their activity in a concerted fashion.
It does this to maximize the potential for effective action and to prevent burnout. The whole or majority of the group carries out activity, instead of relying on a few individuals, as is somewhat common in looser, more informal groupings.
How is it similar to other contemporary anarchist groups?
Throughout the history of anarchism, there have been many examples of groups that followed these principles of organization. More recently though, the platformist, especifista, and some anarcho-syndicalist currents come the closest to our conception.
Platformism gets its name from the The Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists, a pamphlet written in 1926 by a group of Russian and Ukrainian anarchists in exile. It attempted to address the failure of anarchists during the Russian Revolution, which they chalked up to disorganization.
Some of the platform’s key points include
Tactical Unity – “A common tactical line in the movement is of decisive importance for the existence of the organisation and the whole movement: it avoids the disastrous effect of several tactics opposing each other; it concentrates the forces of the movement; and gives them a common direction leading to a fixed objective.”
Theoretical Unity – “Theory represents the force which directs the activity of persons and organisations along a defined path towards a determined goal. Naturally it should be common to all the persons and organisations adhering to the General Union. All activity by the General Union, both overall and in its details, should be in perfect concord with the theoretical principles professed by the union.”
Collective Responsibility – “The practice of acting on one’s personal responsibility should be decisively condemned and rejected in the ranks of the anarchist movement. The areas of revolutionary life, social and political, are above all profoundly collective by nature. Social revolutionary activity in these areas cannot be based on the personal responsibility of individual militants.”
Federalism – “Against centralism, anarchism has always professed and defended the principle of federalism, which reconciles the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause.”
It’s effects were not felt for many years after its publishing. Outside of a few French groups in the 1950s, there weren’t any organizations who directly identified with the document. This changed in the late 1990s and early 2000s with the emergence of NEFAC and others around the world. Today it is a significant current in the North American and European anarchist movements.
Especifismo emerged in South America separate from the influence of platformism. In the 1950s, the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) was the first to promote the concept, which has been summarized as:
The need for specifically anarchist organization built around a unity of ideas and praxis.
The use of the specifically anarchist organization to theorize and develop strategic political and organizing work.
Active involvement in and building of autonomous and popular social movements (which is sometimes is called ‘social insertion’)
Today there are a number of organizations in South America which identify with this current, such as the Federação Anarquista Gaúcha and Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. As these groups establish ties with each other, others have popped up in a variety of South American and Central American countries.
Anarcho-Syndicalists have also often found the need for their own political organizations. In the past this sentiment has expressed itself in what has been called ‘dual-organization syndicalist’ groups such as the Turin Libertarian Group of 1920s Italy or the Friends of Durruti of 1930s Spain. Both saw their involvement in the unions to battle more moderate elements and the bureaucracy.
Today, the Workers Solidarity Alliance and numerous International Workers Association affiliated groups follow in this tradition, although their scope has expanded from mainly concentrating their efforts within the unions.
How does this look in practice?
Ideally, the specific anarchist group would be made up those who share agreement on a number of key issues on organization, tactics and politics. The group should serve as a space and structure for members to strategize, discuss, plan and educate themselves.
If not already involved in wider movements, this should be done in a concerted effort. This effort will not be to seize positions of decision making power, such is the strategy of much of the authoritarian left. Instead, this effort should be to create an anarchist pole within the movements, to advocate widening and intensifying struggles that come up and to fight co-opting forces that try and steer things in a reformist or reactionary manner.
Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)
Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis
Our Conception of Anarchist Organisation by Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro
Especifismo: The Anarchist Praxis of Building Popular Movements and Revolutionary Organization in South America by Adam Weaver
Taken from Wild Rose Collective's site
If in the 30s FOD found
If in the 30s FOD found themselves in a struggle against moderate elements and bureaucracy, in this century, many that see themselves in this tradition seek to morally support and cheerlead the moderate, bureaucratic and reformist wings of syndicalism. I would find this amusing if it weren't such an annoying display of faulty logic.
can you explain more what you
can you explain more what you mean?
I mean both the platformists
I mean both the platformists who openly advocate Trotskyist strategies of entrism into mainstream unions, even taking positions in the union bureaucracy and those who advocate the compromising actions of some unions which participate in class collaborationist institutions, often accepting state or company funds in the course of their syndical activity. Or find acceptable other actions such as entrance into political institutions (participating in elections).
so you say Wild Rose
so you say Wild Rose Collective is going the same path because this is generally what especifismo is?
No, I did not say that. I
No, I did not say that. I have no knowledge of their collective and wish them luck and hope they stay away from all that shit. But I have found that many people who are anarcho-communists looking for organized form of anarchism turn to platformism and then find themselves entering into relations of solidarity with others who are dogmatically fixed on entrism and relativizing the current reformist actions of certain syndicalist unions. Those people are not thinking consistantly, so it is worth bringing up the topic to encourage more critical thinking about this among anarcho-communists who seem to have good intentions.
Quote: I mean both the
From Wikipedia: Entryism (or entrism or enterism) is a political tactic by which an organisation or state encourages its members or agents to infiltrate another organisation in an attempt to gain recruits, or take over entirely. In situations where the organisation being "entered" is hostile to entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are, in fact, an organisation in their own right.
I don't know of any platformist organization (at least in the English speaking work, which is my own limitations I admit) that advocates entering unions secretly in an attempt for the primary reason of recruitment to the political organization or to take over the union. Sounds like a caricature from American insurrectionaries/post-left anarchists. I'll admit, certain posters from a certain UK platformist group have expressed opinions coming worringly close to this, but whether that is their organizational practice in reality, I'm not sure. That's also the only organization, out of many, that I could think of.
And which platformist group specifically advocates taking executive positions?
You have a point here. I think contemporary platformism (is there any other kind really) elevates pragmitism to a principle that I entirely disagree with.
Like electoral state elections?
Don't play linguistic games.
Don't play linguistic games. If you have a platformist group with multiple members in the executive of a union, then they advocate it.
I have heard quite a number of people in the English speaking world talk about entering the unions to "influence" and eventually "take over" the union, You can find such discussions also on the internet - unfortunately I am too busy now to search.
None of our members have
None of our members have executive positions in any union. As it says in the article above, our goal is not "to seize positions of decision making power."
Judging platformist and especifista groups across the world by the internet debates of a couple of L&S members won't necessarily give you an accurate picture.
PDF made by Zabalaza Books
PDF made by Zabalaza Books added