Specifism

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was reading the following article on libcom (link below) and have a few questions, if anybody knowledgeable on specifism as praxis could answer them:

https://libcom.org/blog/specifism-explained-social-political-level-organisational-dualism-anarchist-organisation-09

Firstly, is it broadly correct to say that the specifist conception of the 'social level' and the 'political level' broadly correspond to when the likes of Rosa Luxemburg talk of 'economic struggle' and 'political struggle'?

Secondly, in paragraph three the article talks of "visions for social transformation" by "revolutionary minorities". In the same paragraph it is stated that "the political level cannot be purely the expression of propaganda of the ideal". Could somebody talk me through these two statements and how, in practical terms, they are reconciled?

What is a "specific anarchist organisation"? How does it differ, in organisational form and in its over-arching purpose as well as day-to-day activities, from Leninist vanguard organisations? Where does it see itself in relation to the working class as a whole class?

What is "the balance between a healthy relationship of influence within the class and an ideologically coherent communist organisation, while rejecting the vanguardist approach of Leninist groups"? How would a specific anarchist organisation undertake to stay true to the ideals of anarchist communism whilst facing difficulties gaining traction for its ideas at the social level?

Finally, what is meant by the "critical conscience from within"? This seems to be alluding to the position of anarchist communists within the wider working class but it's really rather vague and mystic. Where do anarchist communists who are members of a specific anarchist organisation see themselves in relation to the wider working class? As ordinary workers? Enlightened minorities? Benevolent ideological leaders?

Intellectual help much appreciated :)

[The Idler]

wtf is specifism?

[The Feral Underclass]

wtf is specifism?

Yeah. I mean, any one would think he hadn't supplied a link explaining it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Since I'm probably the only specifist on the board, I'll answer your questions, but I cba right now.

[The Feral Underclass]

The guy who wrote that article is actually a member of the board, but he never posts here. I might try and get him to come and address the thread.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Since I'm probably the only specifist on the board, I'll answer your questions, but I cba right now.

Could you please explain what "from within" and "from without" mean in this quote?

"Whereas Marxists will traditionally look to the fluctuating struggles of the social level and argue the need for a revolutionary leadership from without, specifists argue that anarchist communists fight by acting as a critical conscience from within."

[The Feral Underclass]

Could you please explain what "from within" and "from without" mean in this quote?

"Whereas Marxists will traditionally look to the fluctuating struggles of the social level and argue the need for a revolutionary leadership from without, specifists argue that anarchist communists fight by acting as a critical conscience from within."

Instead of seeking to build leaders from within communities, Marxists traditionally seek to build a political leadership outside of them.

[Thirsty Crow]

Instead of seeking to build leaders from within communities, Marxists traditionally seek to build a political leadership outside of them.
What does that exactly entail?

From what I gather, you're aiming at something like this 1) the communist organization, if it indeed comes from without (for instance, establishing links with a tenants' association in a burrough where there are no active members; obviously, this is "from without"), establishes links with a community with the purpose of "social insertion" leading to 2) formation of intermediary "networks" whereby people from that community are engaged in on a political level and through community organizing and struggle gain the experience of organizing and "leadership".

I don't know if I got it right, maybe you could describe in more detail and explain this dichotomy from without v. from within.

[The Feral Underclass]

The political level is the organisation of communist militants; of a revolutionary minority. It is the infrastructure; the specific anarchist organisation, that maintains and organises the revolutionary minority.

The social level is the struggle or struggles that exist within the framework of capitalism. I.e., anti-cop resistance, social housing, food banks etc.

The political level relates to the social level in so far as it aims to insert the political ideas of the revolutionary minority into those struggles.

That happens by existing within a community, rather than coming into struggle from outside. When you ask "what does that entail", it entails establishing organisations within your community that seek to deal with immediate problems and radicalise community leaders, always aiming to escalate those conflicts according to the political level. This is the class organising itself at the level of being a class, not at the level of being a political entity.

Marxists tend to establish a political organisation and seek to draw everyone under its leadership, imposing that leadership over popular struggles, governing party lines or entering community or popular organisations specifically to assert their leadership.

In contrast, the revolutionary minority doesn't seek to insert leadership, but to use revolutionary communist ideas to create a community of leaders; of people who act as a class in their interest, using communist methods and analysis to gain power.

[The Feral Underclass]

Firstly, is it broadly correct to say that the specifist conception of the 'social level' and the 'political level' broadly correspond to when the likes of Rosa Luxemburg talk of 'economic struggle' and 'political struggle'?

You could frame it like that, but specifically it relates to the separation of the communists' need to establish infrastructure, organisation and political coherency and the continuous and fluctuating struggles of the class.

Political level = the organisation and ideology of the revolutionary minority
Social level = the struggles against capitalism


Secondly, in paragraph three the article talks of "visions for social transformation" by "revolutionary minorities". In the same paragraph it is stated that "the political level cannot be purely the expression of propaganda of the ideal". Could somebody talk me through these two statements and how, in practical terms, they are reconciled?

The first sentences means the ideas and analysis of the revolutionary minority and the second sentence means that the execution of the organisation of communist militants, their ideas and analysis can't simply exist purely on the basis of propaganda -- they must exist in struggle.


What is a "specific anarchist organisation"? How does it differ, in organisational form and in its over-arching purpose as well as day-to-day activities, from Leninist vanguard organisations? Where does it see itself in relation to the working class as a whole class?

The specific anarchist organisation exists as a pole of attraction, not as an entity that seeks direct leadership of the class. There must always be a revolutionary minority that forwards a clear, coherent and non-compromising political position that does not seek to dilute its political line based on populism and opportunism. It must also maintain theoretical and tactical unity, collective responsibility and discipline.

You might find this pamphlet helpful: Social Anarchism & Organisation: Concentric Circles (https://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism-organisation-concentric-circles)


What is "the balance between a healthy relationship of influence within the class and an ideologically coherent communist organisation, while rejecting the vanguardist approach of Leninist groups"? How would a specific anarchist organisation undertake to stay true to the ideals of anarchist communism whilst facing difficulties gaining traction for its ideas at the social level?

This has to be understood in the framework that "the proletariat is the motor of social change and does not require being anything but itself, acting in solidarity against all forces which harass and undermine its interests." That means the class is the organisation.

Instead of attempting to use the Leninist vanguardist approach of "building the party" and using it to co-opt struggles and bring them under that mass party/union central leadership, the approach of communist militants must be one of influence, guidance, defence (of the class) and radicalism, always aware that the class does not need organisation other than itself.

A balance has to be made where the revolutionary minority's relationship within the class is one of, what Bakunin termed, "intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people."


Finally, what is meant by the "critical conscience from within"? This seems to be alluding to the position of anarchist communists within the wider working class but it's really rather vague and mystic. Where do anarchist communists who are members of a specific anarchist organisation see themselves in relation to the wider working class? As ordinary workers? Enlightened minorities? Benevolent ideological leaders?

This is a bizarre question to me. We are all workers, are we not? Our relationship to our class is one in which we seek to liberate ourselves from exploitation and create a communist world, hopefully in unity and solidarity with each other.

We are workers "dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious" who seek to "give expression to their (the working class) instincts, and to organize." We must always be organising -- making plans and putting them into action.

[The Idler]

Revolutionaries 'always escalating conflict' will turn more workers off revolution than on, I guarantee it. Workers have quite enough of conflict without revolutionaries 'always escalating it'.
A political organisation as a pole of attraction is fine, but envisaging a political organisation as an uncompromising minority is fetishing minoritarianism. The mention of theoretical and tactical unity, collective responsibility and discipline also alludes to the worst aspects of cadre organisation.
Not co-opting and not assuming leadership of the class are good ideas, but every class struggle is a political struggle and the separation here simply amounts to abstaining from the class struggle altogether by treating it completely separately as a tool for a minority to gain credibility not a means to revolution.
As for Marxists building a political leadership outside of communities, its not convincing. Marxists generally are members of the working-class, asserting that the most important community for current society is class and the relationship to the means of production. Not any other communities. It's not leadership to assert this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Revolutionaries 'always escalating conflict' will turn more workers off revolution than on, I guarantee it. Workers have quite enough of conflict without revolutionaries 'always escalating it'.
A political organisation as a pole of attraction is fine, but envisaging a political organisation as an uncompromising minority is fetishing minoritarianism. The mention of theoretical and tactical unity, collective responsibility and discipline also alludes to the worst aspects of cadre organisation.
Not co-opting and not assuming leadership of the class are good ideas, but every class struggle is a political struggle and the separation here simply amounts to abstaining from the class struggle altogether by treating it completely separately as a tool for a minority to gain credibility not a means to revolution.
As for Marxists building a political leadership outside of communities, its not convincing. Marxists generally are members of the working-class, asserting that the most important community for current society is class and the relationship to the means of production. Not any other communities. It's not leadership to assert this.

The deluded liberal speaks.


every class struggle is a political struggle

No it isn't, it's an economic struggle. Liberal.

[The Idler]

A certain elasticity must be allowed with these terms and the labels should by no means be considered exclusive. The “social” level, for example, is of course at the same time “political” in that it is a sphere for both the contestation and birth of ideas. Likewise the “political” level is simultaneously “social” in respect to the fact that communist ideas are derived from a historical and materialist analysis of society, and composed of the experiences and lessons of social struggle.

[Bea Arthur]

What would you say to the argument that all this talk of communities without any regard to women's spaces or women's communities is a false universalism, a transparent attempt to impose male privilege on women? Specificism, indeed! Specifically male!!

[The Feral Underclass]

What would you say to the argument that all this talk of communities without any regard to women's spaces or women's communities is a false universalism, a transparent attempt to impose male privilege on women? Specificism, indeed! Specifically male!!

There are certainly women in the community I live in. Mostly Muslim women, but there are many of them.

I don't really understand what the criticism is. If you could elaborate, it might be easier to respond.

[Bea Arthur]

There are certainly women in the community I live in. Mostly Muslim women, but there are many of them.

I don't really understand what the criticism is. If you could elaborate, it might be easier to respond.

What role do women's-only spaces play in these communities? I know from many decades in the trenches that talk of gender-neutral communities or collectives is invariably a cover for patriarchy.

[The Feral Underclass]

What role do women's-only spaces play in these communities? I know from many decades in the trenches that talk of gender-neutral communities or collectives is invariably a cover for patriarchy.

I find it strange that you are asking me, a man, to prescribe the role of women's-only spaces.

The issues you raise are for the women within those communities and not one I feel is particularly appropriate to make pronouncements about.

[Bea Arthur]

I find it strange that you are asking me, a man, to prescribe the role of women's-only spaces.

The issues you raise are for the women within those communities and not one I feel is particularly appropriate to make pronouncements about.

You just made a pronouncement about it, Feral! The pronouncement was that you think women's issues require action only from women! If you are talking about a community of interconnected people, you have to take a position unless you want to opt out of the community altogether.

When women claim their own safe spaces free from male domination and sexism, you either pronounce that you respect it, or you pronounce you don't. Either way, it's a position you as a man have to take!!

You talk about the struggle against patriarchy as pertaining only to women's choices, and not men's choices, in your community. This is a recipe for making a community that is every bit as patriarchal as the loony Lenin cults we see springing up!

[motion denied]

With Bea Arthur, all possible answers are wrong and make you a sexist. There is no way out.

[The Feral Underclass]

You just made a pronouncement about it, Feral! The pronouncement was that you think women's issues require action only from women!

I made no such pronouncement.


If you are talking about a community of interconnected people, you have to take a position unless you want to opt out of the community altogether.

My position is that women's only spaces are a decision for women.


When women claim their own safe spaces free from male domination and sexism, you either pronounce that you respect it, or you pronounce you don't. Either way, it's a position you as a man have to take!!

I think it's fairly easy for you to infer from what I'm saying that if I think women should decide on whether a women's only space exists it means I respect that decision. But for clarity's sake, my view is that if women choose to have a women's only space then that is justified and something I respect and support.


You talk about the struggle against patriarchy as pertaining only to women's choices, and not men's choices, in your community. This is a recipe for making a community that is every bit as patriarchal as the loony Lenin cults we see springing up!

I've made no mention of struggle against patriarchy any where in this thread, so I'm not sure how you have deduced I think struggle against patriarchy pertains only to women's choices and not men's.

[Bea Arthur]

I made no such pronouncement (that I think women's issues require action only from women).

Oh? Then why did you say


The issues you raise are for the women within those communities and not one I feel is particularly appropriate to make pronouncements about.

You, as a man, don't feel it's appropriate to make pronouncements about women's issues. That itself is a pronouncement.


My position is that women's only spaces are a decision for women.

If women are in a community with men, not in their own communities without men, women's decisions relate directly to men's decisions.


I've made no mention of struggle against patriarchy any where in this thread, so I'm not sure how you have deduced I think struggle against patriarchy pertains only to women's choices and not men's.

Yes, your silence on patriarchy exposes you!!

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

What would you say to the argument that all this talk of communities without any regard to women's spaces or women's communities is a false universalism, a transparent attempt to impose male privilege on women? Specificism, indeed! Specifically male!!
Could you explain what you mean by "false universalism"?

[Bea Arthur]

Could you explain what you mean by "false universalism"?

It is the methodology of pretending to speak for all of humanity when your statements are premised on assumptions so sexist that you are obviously only speak on behalf of men and against women.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh? Then why did you say

The only issue you raised was one about the creation of women's-only spaces, to which I responded I thought that was an issue for women to decide upon. That is not the same as me saying "women's issues require action only from women."


You, as a man, don't feel it's appropriate to make pronouncements about women's issues.

No, I don't think it is appropriate for me to make pronouncements about whether women should have women's-only spaces, which was the issue you brought up.


If women are in a community with men, not in their own communities without men, women's decisions relate directly to men's decisions.

It may relate to men's decisions, but it's not a male decision for women to have a women's only space. I'm afraid you can't start an argument and then shift the framework of it when it suits you.

We were talking about women's-only spaces, not all issues relating to women.


Yes, your silence on patriarchy exposes you!!

Odd...You initially accused me of talking "about the struggle against patriarchy as pertaining only to women's choices, and not men's choices, in your community" and when I pointed out that I hadn't mentioned patriarchy you now accuse me of being "exposed", which are two completely contradictory positions.. So which is it? Am I a sexist for talking about it or a sexist for not talking about it?

I should also point out that I made no mention of queer people, people of colour, disabled people, the legalisation of drugs or Santa Clause. What does this expose me as I wonder?

[The Feral Underclass]

It is the methodology of pretending to speak for all of humanity when your statements are premised on assumptions so sexist that you are obviously only speak on behalf of men and against women.

In this particular case, your argument would be based on the premise that struggle against capitalism and the state is not a women's issue, since we are talking about class struggle, which is inextricably a women's issue.

[Bea Arthur]

In this particular case, your argument would be based on the premise that struggle against capitalism and the state is not a women's issue, since we are talking about class struggle, which is inextricably a women's issue.

No, that is your logic. You want to start communities with no reference to the gender dynamic within these communities. When this is brought to your attention, you say you won't make a statement about women's only spaces. Why? Because you feel it's inappropriate for men to comment on it, and only appropriate for women to comment on it.

What's to prevent women from getting the short end of the stick in your specifist communities, where men don't make pronouncments on women's issues and sit on their lazy duffs instead? Nada. Nothing. Except women like me lighting a fire under you!!

[The Feral Underclass]

No, that is your logic.

So your claim is that class struggle is not inextricably a women's issue?


You want to start communities with no reference to the gender dynamic within these communities.

The communities referred to in this thread already exist. They are the ones we live in.


When this is brought to your attention, you say you won't make a statement about women's only spaces. Why? Because you feel it's inappropriate for men to comment on it, and only appropriate for women to comment on it.

Again, I didn't say I wouldn't make a statement about women's only spaces (which I did by saying the decision to form them are for women to make), I said it wasn't appropriate for me to make pronouncements about whether they should exist.


What's to prevent women from getting the short end of the stick in your specifist communities

There's no such thing as a "specifist community," nor is it something any one is advocating for the creation of, which would be impossible anyway, since specifism is a platformist praxis. It's simply an analysis and methodology on organising, not a geographical space.


where men don't make pronouncments on women's issues and sit on their lazy duffs instead? Nada. Nothing. Except women like me lighting a fire under you!!

As I have repeatedly explained, this isn't about making pronouncements about women's issues as some kind of whole, it's about making pronouncements on whether women's-only spaces should exist, which is the only issue you raised.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Oh no, not this troll again.

[The Idler]

With Bea Arthur, all possible answers are wrong and make you a sexist. There is no way out.


Oh no, not this troll again.
Perhaps she's just a 'community always escalating conflict.'
And as communities go, women would be quite a numerous one to not practise social insertion into.