Specifism

[The Feral Underclass]

Do people know much about Specifism?

Specifism is a form of platformism developed in Latin America.

Here is a good article that explains it. It does require you having to a read an article, but I'm sure you can all manage.

Specifism explained: the social and political level, organisational dualism and the anarchist organisation (http://libcom.org/blog/specifism-explained-social-political-level-organisational-dualism-anarchist-organisation-09)

Thoughts would be welcome.

[The Feral Underclass]

Here is a more basic outline: Specifism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especifismo)

[The Feral Underclass]

With the bankruptcy of Leninism, the disorganisation of current anarchism and the defeatism of the so-called post left, specifism is the birth of a new methodology in the UK.

You people should pay attention to it.

[Art Vandelay]

What is your opinion on social insertion?

[blake 3:17]

Sounds pretty good and maybe a possible new current worth collaborating with.

Most of the really good anarchists I know are very much movementists, and involved in the "social" while refraining from the "political". I know there are some differences in the local milieu but I'm not close enough to grasp them or sort out all the differences. The anarchists I've had the most contact with in the last couple of years have tended towards syndicalism and while being quite good on anti-oppression issues have really down played challenging the State. The anarchists that actually organize demos and actions tend to oppose the State and austerity measures.

I'm not so sure what the difference is in theory.

[Comrade Jandar]

Social insertion does not sound all that different from entryism to me.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is your opinion on social insertion?

As a specifist, I think it's necessary, but I think it's also misunderstood. The call that it is the same as entryism a case in point. Entryism is a specific tactic designed to control organisations or initiatives and usually done without the knowledge or agreement of others involved. Social insertion is about militants of a specific anarchist organisation entering struggles and attempting to influence them by building a base willing to fight for radical ideas and tactics. If militants are not prepared to attempt to influence struggles, then how do we expect working class resistance to take on radical characteristics?

[The Feral Underclass]

Social insertion does not sound all that different from entryism to me.

In what way?

[black magick hustla]

With the bankruptcy of Leninism, the disorganisation of current anarchism and the defeatism of the so-called post left, specifism is the birth of a new methodology in the UK.

You people should pay attention to it.

Nothing new under the sun, really. A lot of this ideas have already been theorized in a similar fashion in marxist circles. For example, a lot of traditional left communist types see "bread and butter issues" as class struggle where one should intervene as a representative of a united group. And I don't mean entryism, but groups wanting to influence struggle without setting themselves up as the vanguard party. Has the ICC/ICT stopped being a sect bcause of that? Not really. The "irrelevancy" of anarchism has very little to do with tactics being used. Case in point, there are "anarkismo" types in the US but they are smaller than the i"post-left" insurrectionist elements.

Rather than starting from "ideology" and then trickling down into "social issues", people need to start paying attention to the social formations that are coming out in this period of crisis and theorize about them. Cuz' all the other readymade blueprints of early 20th century struggles are pretty much fossils imho. Kindof with what the operaists in italy did with the italian factory worker and the johnson forrest tendency did with the detroit auto worker. The only ones that seem to be doing so are the communisateurs and to some extent the autonomists, even if it's in a very academic fashion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Nothing new under the sun, really. A lot of this ideas have already been theorized in a similar fashion in marxist circles. For example, a lot of traditional left communist types see "bread and butter issues" as class struggle where one should intervene as a representative of a united group.

Specifism provides a methodology for achieving that. The ICC/ICT might be involved in "bread and butter" issues, but doing what? For what aims and objectives? What strategies are you using? How are they succeeding or failing and how are you modifying them based on those failures or successes? The idea of specifism isn't that you do this work, it's how you do it.


And I don't mean entryism, but groups wanting to influence struggle without setting themselves up as the vanguard party. Has the ICC/ICT stopped being a sect bcause of that? Not really.

What work does the ICC/ICT do?

[Android]

Rather than starting from "ideology" and then trickling down into "social issues", people need to start paying attention to the social formations that are coming out in this period of crisis and theorize about them. Cuz' all the other readymade blueprints of early 20th century struggles are pretty much fossils imho. Kindof with what the operaists in italy did with the italian factory worker and the johnson forrest tendency did with the detroit auto worker. The only ones that seem to be doing so are the communisateurs and to some extent the autonomists, even if it's in a very academic fashion.

I absolutely agree with the first line here.

I find the autonomist/operaist-influenced groups and writers more interesting for that very reason. Most of the communisation writing I have read seems heavily oriented (which is where a lot of the problems I have with it come in, the over-generalisation that it tends to make on stuff like demand struggles) toward the macro-theoretical level (capitalist class relation etc), whereas the operaist stuff analyses the micro-empirical dimensions (labour-process, class composition etc) of the current situation.

It would be interesting to see any work that tries to connect these two kinds of theoretical work.

[subcp]

Specifism provides a methodology for achieving that. The ICC/ICT might be involved in "bread and butter" issues, but doing what? For what aims and objectives? What strategies are you using? How are they succeeding or failing and how are you modifying them based on those failures or successes? The idea of specifism isn't that you do this work, it's how you do it.



What work does the ICC/ICT do?

Here's an example of ICC members engaging in class struggle:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/310/rail-interventions

http://en.internationalism.org/inter/160/verizon-discussion

and the ICT:

http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2012-09-12/our-intervention-within-the-working-class

[The Feral Underclass]

Yeah, but you know...Recently...I mean, I'm not trying to play the prolier than thou card, I'm genuinely interested to know what the ICC is doing. Largely because it will inform a discussion on strategy. And that's really what this is about: The right strategy. Or at least engaging with strategy effectively.

[Android]

Yeah, but you know...Recently...I mean, I'm not trying to play the prolier than thou card, I'm genuinely interested to know what the ICC is doing. Largely because it will inform a discussion on strategy. And that's really what this is about: The right strategy. Or at least engaging with strategy effectively.

I am not sure what the ICC do on a day-to-day basis. In UK it appears not a lot beyond producing their paper and propaganda in general. They do 'intervene' in struggles when they arise as external activists and have participated in initiatives like the short-lived London Education Workers Group in the recent past.

Whatever my criticisms of the ICC maybe. I think their failure to have a activist strategy is not one of them. The class struggle is more complicated that ready made blueprints like anarcho-syndicalism, social insertion etc. In reality communists will have to react to situations like this on an ad-hoc basis given the current weakness of the class, isolation of communists and factors such as the state of political (and non-ideological) networks. Drawing up strategic blueprints does not really contribute all that much to the process of developing those networks and association that are important in struggle. I can understand why its important for the coherence of a group to have such a grand schema, beyond that not sure what it adds to things though.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I don't know, social insertion kind of sounds a lot like entryism. You're going to have to do a better job than what you did of explaining why it isn't entryism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Entryism is the clandestine attempt to enter an organisation and take control of it. Social insertion is not that. Social insertion is about participating within social movements and using a specific anarchist organisation to influence ideas and tactics. You don't enter an organisation secretly to take control of it. You participate within social movements to openly influence them.

I'm not sure how else I can explain it...

People should read this: Social anarchism and organisation (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14067)

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not sure what the ICC do on a day-to-day basis. In UK it appears not a lot beyond producing their paper and propaganda in general. They do 'intervene' in struggles when they arise as external activists and have participated in initiatives like the short-lived London Education Workers Group in the recent past.

What I want to know is what the purpose of those interventions are and also what their participation means? Does it have a strategic objective and if so what it is? How is that strategy determined, implemented and analysed?


Whatever my criticisms of the ICC maybe. I think their failure to have a activist strategy is not one of them. The class struggle is more complicated that ready made blueprints like anarcho-syndicalism, social insertion etc.

Complicated in what way?


In reality communists will have to react to situations like this on an ad-hoc basis given the current weakness of the class, isolation of communists and factors such as the state of political (and non-ideological) networks. Drawing up strategic blueprints does not really contribute all that much to the process of developing those networks and association that are important in struggle. I can understand why its important for the coherence of a group to have such a grand schema, beyond that not sure what it adds to things though.

What is our objective? If our objective is the working class seizing the means of production, then how do you achieve that? Simply "going with the flow", which is essentially what you're arguing above, achieves what exactly? How does "going with a flow" contribute to achieving your long term objective? What does "ad-hoc basis" even mean, really?

Having a strategic blueprint for your involvement in social movements is absolutely essential if you aim to have any success, otherwise how do you achieve anything? That's not to say that a strategy is set in stone, but that there is a strategy, grounded in day-to-day struggle, that has clear objectives and clear routes to achieving those objectives, that are analysed and changed in accordance with their success of failures.

As revolutionaries it is our task to help build class consciousness and solidarity within the working class. If you don't have a clear understanding of how to do that then you're useless.

[Ravachol]

Entryism is the clandestine attempt to enter an organisation and take control of it. Social insertion is not that. Social insertion is about participating within social movements and using a specific anarchist organisation to influence ideas and tactics. You don't enter an organisation secretly to take control of it. You participate within social movements to openly influence them.

But this isn't unique to specifism right? Insurrectionary anarchism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-the-insurrectional-project)'s ideas (http://www.motarbetaren.se/batko/en_issue2_ch4.php) around the 'autonomous base nuclei (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/o-v-autonomous-base-nucleus)' are kind of similar.

[The Feral Underclass]

The idea isn't unique, but the methodology is.

I'll need to read those links before I can comment on them.

[Android]

TAT:

What I want to know is what the purpose of those interventions are and also what their participation means? Does it have a strategic objective and if so what it is? How is that strategy determined, implemented and analysed?
You would have to ask them. And a business plan approach to communist politics does not really interest me at all.

Complicated in what way?
My point here was that class struggles are influenced by various factors (pre-existing organisations, networks and associations at the location of the struggle, material conditions, etc) that mitigiated against grand schemas being all that useful or relevant.

I am not suggesting either that it is wrong for communists/anarchists to have specific approaches just to be aware of the limitations of them, and not imprisoned by them.


Simply "going with the flow", which is essentially what you're arguing above, achieves what exactly? How does "going with a flow" contribute to achieving your long term objective? What does "ad-hoc basis" even mean, really?

If I was for 'going with the flow' I would not be a communist would I. I am simply cautioning against the exaggerated role you appear to be allocating to activists/militants ('strategy', 'long term objective' etc) in class struggles and their success.

[Thirsty Crow]

As revolutionaries it is our task to help build class consciousness and solidarity within the working class. If you don't have a clear understanding of how to do that then you're useless.
Which would actually prevent new people from engaging with communist theory and practice, if taken to its necessary outcome of actually shunning people who are deemed not clear on building class consciousness and solidarity.

[The Feral Underclass]

But this isn't unique to specifism right? Insurrectionary anarchism (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-the-insurrectional-project)'s ideas (http://www.motarbetaren.se/batko/en_issue2_ch4.php) around the 'autonomous base nuclei (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/o-v-autonomous-base-nucleus)' are kind of similar.

The problem with these are that at the social level the strategies are not formulated coherently and at the political level the organisation is completely lacking.

[The Feral Underclass]

And a business plan approach to communist politics does not really interest me at all.

But I'm not entirely confident that revolutionary class struggle is really defined on what is of interest to an individual...

If by "business plan" you mean coherent analysis and strategy of how to achieve objectives, then perhaps it is this "lack" of interest that has seen the communist movement consistently fail for decades.


My point here was that class struggles are influenced by various factors (pre-existing organisations, networks and associations at the location of the struggle, material conditions, etc) that mitigiated against grand schemas being all that useful or relevant.

Firstly, you use a term like "class struggles", but you don't define what you mean by this. What is a class struggle? Secondly, when you say "grand schemas" what do you envision this is?

For me, the grand objective of my militancy is the working class seizing the means of production. How do we achieve that?


I am not suggesting either that it is wrong for communists/anarchists to have specific approaches just to be aware of the limitations of them, and not imprisoned by them.

This really doesn't make very much sense. What does being "imprisoned" by an "approach" mean? The only limitation to a strategy is that it doesn't work, in which case you analyse why and create another one.


If I was for 'going with the flow' I would not be a communist would I.

I'm not entirely sure. Without sounding rude, I'm not entirely sure what you are for.


I am simply cautioning against the exaggerated role you appear to be allocating to activists/militants ('strategy', 'long term objective' etc) in class struggles and their success.

But your caution doesn't seem to make very much sense at the moment.

I also reject the premise that I am "exaggerating" anything. All I am doing is saying that in order to achieve an objective you have to understand why and how that is achieved.

The success of "class struggle" is communism. If you think we can get to that without having strategies and long term objectives then I don't really understand how you expect to arrive at this success...

[The Feral Underclass]

Which would actually prevent new people from engaging with communist theory and practice, if taken to its necessary outcome of actually shunning people who are deemed not clear on building class consciousness and solidarity.

I don't see how these things follow each other...

How does helping to build class consciousness and solidarity ultimately mean shunning people are not "clear" on building class consciousness and solidarity?

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see how these things follow each other...

How does helping to build class consciousness and solidarity ultimately mean shunning people are not "clear" on building class consciousness and solidarity?
I wasn't clear enough.
Pronouncing people who're not clear on strategy useless is what I object to. And shunning newcomers to communist T&P is a potential outcome of such a judgement.

You know what, I might be nitpicking here because of word choice so we can drop this (and due to the fact that I don't think that many people are actually clear on how to do what we aim to do - that might as well be since this is a hellishly complicated matter - but I don't think they are useless).

[The Feral Underclass]

I wasn't clear enough.
Pronouncing people who're not clear on strategy useless is what I object to. And shunning newcomers to communist T&P is a potential outcome of such a judgement

You know what, I might be nitpicking here because of word choice so we can drop this (and due to the fact that I don't think that many people are actually clear on how to do what we aim to do - that might as well be since this is a hellishly complicated matter - but I don't think they are useless).

If we, as class conscious revolutionary communists, do not have a clear objective and strategy, as fluid as they maybe, and a way of critically engaging with the world around us, how will the working class? We are useless to our class if we are not prepared and organised.

[Thirsty Crow]

If we, as class conscious revolutionary communists, do not have a clear objective and strategy, as fluid as they maybe, and a way of critically engaging with the world around us, how will the working class? We are useless to our class if we are not prepared and organised.
There's clear and then there's clear.

With regard to objective and a critical methodology, I of course agree. Strategy is a more dirty matter. That's the point. There will be waverings and blind spots almost inevitably. Especially among newer groups founded by communists with much less political experience. I, of course, am speaking from personal experience as well.

But yeah, I can connect with the general sense of your argument.

[Ravachol]

The problem with these are that at the social level the strategies are not formulated coherently and at the political level the organisation is completely lacking.

I don't think any of that really matters but then again I'm not a platformist or specifist (or typical insurrectionary anarchist for that matter).

[The Feral Underclass]

You don't think that you need coherent strategies for your engagement within the class and proper organisation in which to do it?

[Os Cangaceiros]

hehe, I remember when you used to heap shit on Foward Union for being a Platformist. :lol:;)

[The Feral Underclass]

hehe, I remember when you used to heap shit on Foward Union for being a Platformist. :lol:;)

FU was a bad platformist and a bad anarchist.

[black magick hustla]

haha the collective action platform sounds basically like a left communist platform so i was right lol.

[The Feral Underclass]

haha the collective action platform sounds basically like a left communist platform so i was right lol.

Erm, anarchist communists and left communists sharing similar beliefs is hardly news, is it? I am talking about methodology of a programme. The CWO and the ICC's programmes are completely different to Specifist ones

You also failed to answer my questions.

[Android]

TAT:

The success of "class struggle" is communism. If you think we can get to that without having strategies and long term objectives then I don't really understand how you expect to arrive at this success...
Strawman. I am not against a political group having objectives and a strategic orientation per se. Those things make sense for a group to organise and cohere its activity around. I am arguing against the fixation on strategy when we are talking about tiny groups, without any practical relevance for such strategies. For instance, there is a history of social movements and social insertion in Latin America. There is not in Britain.

Firstly, you use a term like "class struggles", but you don't define what you mean by this. What is a class struggle?
I thought it was fairly evident what class struggles are - struggles that emerge from a common situation (i.e. cut off from the means of subsistence).

This really doesn't make very much sense. What does being "imprisoned" by an "approach" mean? The only limitation to a strategy is that it doesn't work, in which case you analyse why and create another one.
OK.

I'm not entirely sure. Without sounding rude, I'm not entirely sure what you are for.
To be honest, I don't really have a model or strategy that I can advocate as the way forward. The group I am member of advocates workplace and territorial groups, with more of an emphasis on the latter.

I also reject the premise that I am "exaggerating" anything. All I am doing is saying that in order to achieve an objective you have to understand why and how that is achieved.
Well you do seem to think that your groups discovery of social insertion will help you overcome the '""lack" of interest that has seen the communist movement consistently fail for decades."

Good luck with that, I am not convinced. This approach is nothing new, I remember when I was around the WSM about 5-6 years ago now, this was all rather popular in that anarkismo scene.

[The Feral Underclass]

Strawman.

If what I am saying is a strawman, it is only because you are not being clear or forthright about your views.


I am not against a political group having objectives and a strategic orientation per se. Those things make sense for a group to organise and cohere its activity around.

You said: "And a business plan approach to communist politics does not really interest me at all." Since you didn't qualify this statement, the only thing I can infer is that you don't really agree with what I am proposing, and since you go on to further criticise long term objectives and strategies I'm not entirely sure how I could form any other opinion.

You are not against long term objectives or strategies, you just aren't interested in them or think they are useful?..Well, I can't really see what the point of that opinion really is. Perhaps I should stop trying to find meaning in what you say...


I am arguing against the fixation on strategy when we are talking about tiny groups, without any practical relevance for such strategies.

How do you form strategies if not out of day-to-day struggle? The nonsense about size notwithstanding, if revolutionary minorities are not to be fixated on strategy for achieving communism, what exactly are they to be fixated with?


For instance, there is a history of social movements and social insertion in Latin America. There is not in Britain.

Precisely! Then we need to begin such a history.


I thought it was fairly evident what class struggles are - struggles that emerge from a common situation (i.e. cut off from the means of subsistence).

Well making assumptions about your views has only led to me being accused of making your views up. I can't seem to win. But it is not evident at all. Phrases like "class struggle" mean different things to different people.

What is a common situation. Give me an example.


To be honest, I don't really have a model or strategy that I can advocate as the way forward. The group I am member of advocates workplace and territorial groups, with more of an emphasis on the latter.

Which group?


Well you do seem to think that your groups discovery of social insertion will help you overcome the '""lack" of interest that has seen the communist movement consistently fail for decades."

It isn't a question of "discovering" specifism, it's a question of reconnecting with the tradition of anarchist communism and looking at how we can move forward in the UK.

I also don't think this is about "interest." It's about implementing things that work. And by work, I mean building a genuine counter-power.

[Thirsty Crow]

I also don't think this is about "interest." It's about implementing things that work. And by work, I mean building a genuine counter-power.
How would you assess and measure the successfulness? I think this is a vital part in any debate and drafting around a coherent strategy. If you leave out a reasonably detailed critical apparatus for sober evaluation, all sorts of problems, which Android is responding to in my opinion, could arise. For instance, persistent rationalizations by the informal leadership centered on the section or a specific body that was most responsible for drafting the strategy in the first place, thus disabling any revision or even a debate on a new orientation.

[The Feral Underclass]

How would you assess and measure the successfulness?

It would depend specifically on what you were doing and what your objective was. Generally speaking, if you have built a solid solidarity network and raised class consciousness, that is a success.


I think this is a vital part in any debate and drafting around a coherent strategy.

I agree.


If you leave out a reasonably detailed critical apparatus for sober evaluation, all sorts of problems, which Android is responding to in my opinion, could arise.

But you evaluate dependent on the struggle you are involved in. I am not talking about a whole encompassing, prescriptive programme that you apply to every struggle. Every struggle is different and has to be evaluated based on its own merits and characteristics.


For instance, persistent rationalizations by the informal leadership centered on the section or a specific body that was most responsible for drafting the strategy in the first place, thus disabling any revision or even a debate on a new orientation.

The Specific Anarchist Organisation is a space for anarchist communist militants to discuss struggles they are involved in and strategies that may apply. It is then up to those militants and the others they are working with to bring forward those strategies, defend them and implement them collectively. Remember, anarchist communist methods and tactics have been shaped and moulded over 150 years of struggle, we know what we are talking about and we shouldn't be afraid to push for strategies that are coherent and militant.

[Thirsty Crow]

I
But you evaluate dependent on the struggle you are involved in. I am not talking about a whole encompassing, prescriptive programme that you apply to every struggle. Every struggle is different and has to be evaluated based on its own merits and characteristics.

Yes, of course that this evaluation should be struggle specific. But in my opinion, it should be more worked out than this (though, that can hardly be done while posting on a forum of course):


Generally speaking, if you have built a solid solidarity network and raised class consciousness, that is a success.How would you assess this network? By the frequency of contact, discussion, number of (informal) members, everything combined?

And the problem of class consciousness is a big one, theoretically and practically. Would it, in this case, depend on the degree of the acceptance of a radical critique of the existing social relations?

By this, I only want to emphasize how the concept of classconsciousness is a slippery one and needs to be worked out in advance actually (not implying that you disagree of course).