A-Infos (en) Brazil, An excerpt from the FARJ programme "Anarquismo Social e Organização"

The specific anarchist organisation uses, both for its internal and external functioning, 
the logic of what we call "concentric circles" - strongly inspired by the Bakuninist 
organisational model. The main reason that we adopt this logic of functioning is because, 
for us, the anarchist organisation needs to preserve different instances of action. These 
different instances should strengthen its work while at the same time allowing it to bring 
together prepared militants with a high level of commitment and approximating people 
sympathetic to the theory or practice of the organisation - who could be more or less 
prepared and more or less committed. In short, the concentric circles seek to resolve an 
important paradox: the anarchist organisation needs to be closed enough to have prepared, 
committed and politically aligned militants, and open enough to draw in new militants.

Concentric Circles

Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro - FARJ
The specific anarchist organisation uses, both for its internal and external functioning, 
the logic of what we call "concentric circles" - strongly inspired by the Bakuninist 
organisational model. The main reason that we adopt this logic of functioning is because, 
for us, the anarchist organisation needs to preserve different instances of action. These 
different instances should strengthen its work while at the same time allowing it to bring 
together prepared militants with a high level of commitment and approximating people 
sympathetic to the theory or practice of the organisation - who could be more or less 
prepared and more or less committed. In short, the concentric circles seek to resolve an 
important paradox: the anarchist organisation needs to be closed enough to have prepared, 
committed and politically aligned militants, and open enough to draw in new militants.

A large part of the problems that occur in anarchist organsations are caused by them not 
functioning according to the logic of concentric circles and by not implementing these two 
instances of action. Should a person who says they are an anarchist and is interested in 
the work of the organisation be in the organisation, despite not knowing the political 
line in depth? Should a laymen interested in anarchist ideas be in the organisation? How 
do you relate to "libertarians" - in the broadest sense of the term - who do not consider 
themselves anarchists? Should they be in the organisation? And the older members who have 
already done important work but now want to be close, but not to engage in the permanent 
activities of the organisation? And those that can only rarely dedicate time for activism? 
There are many questions. Other problems occur because there are doubts about the 
implementation of social work. Must the organisation present itself as an anarchist 
organisation in the social movements? In its social work can it form alliances with other 
individuals, groups and organisations that are not anarchist? In such a case, what are the 
common points to advocate? How do you carry out social work in a field with people from 
different ideologies and maintain an anarchist identity? How do you ensure that anarchism 
does not lose its identity when in contact with social movements? On this point there are 
also many questions.

The concentric circles are intended to provide a clear place for each of the militants and 
sympathisers of the organization. In addition, they seek to facilitate and strengthen the 
social work of the anarchist organisation, and finally, establish a channel for the 
capture of new militants.

In practice, the logic of concentric circles is established as follows. Inside the 
specific anarchist organisation there are only anarchists that, to a greater or lesser 
extent, are able to elaborate, reproduce and apply the political line of the organisation 
internally, in the fronts and in public activity. Also, to a greater or lesser extent, 
militants should be able to assist in the elaboration of the strategic-tactical line of 
the organisation, as well as having full capacity to reproduce and apply it. Militants 
assume internal functions in the organisation - be they executive, deliberative or 
extraordinary - as well as external functions with regards to social work. The functions 
assumed by the militants within the organisation adhere to self-management and federalism, 
or to horizontal decisions where all the militants have the same power of voice and of 
vote and where, in specific cases, there is delegation with imperative mandates. The 
functions to be performed by the delegates must be very well defined so that they "cannot 
act on behalf of the association unless the members thereof have explicitly authorised 
them [to do so]; they should execute only what the members have decided and not dictate 
the way forward to the association" [Luigi Fabbri. The Anarchist Organisation". In: 
Italian Anarchist Communism p. 124]. Moreover, the functions should be rotated in order to 
empower everyone and avoid crystallised positions or functions.

The specific anarchist organisation could have only one circle of militants, all of them 
being in the same instance, or it could have more than one circle - the criteria being 
collectively defined. For example, this may be the time that a person has been in the 
organisation or their ability to elaborate the political or tactical-strategic lines. 
Thus, the newer militants or those with a lesser ability to elaborate the lines may be in 
a more external (distant) circle, with the more experienced militants with a greater 
ability for elaborating the lines in another more internal (closer) one. There is not a 
hierarchy between the circles, but the idea is that the more "inside", or the closer the 
militant, the better are they able to formulate, understand, reproduce and apply the lines 
of the organisation. The more "inside" the militant, the greater is their level of 
commitment and activity. The more a militant offers the organisation, the more is demanded 
of them by it. It is the militants who decide on their level of commitment and they do or 
do not participate in the instances of deliberation based on this choice. Thus, the 
militants decide how much they want to commit and the more they commit, the more they will 
decide. The less they commit, the less they will decide.

This does not mean that the position of the more committed is of more value than that of 
the less committed. It means that they participate in different decision-making bodies. 
For example, those more committed participate with voice and vote in the Congresses, which 
define the political and strategic lines of the organisation; the less committed do not 
participate in the Congresses, or only participate as observers, and participate in the 
monthly assemblies where the tactics and practical applications of the lines are defined.

Thus, inside the specific anarchist organisation you may have one or more circles, which 
should always be defined by the level of commitment of the militants. In the case of more 
than one level this must be clear to everyone, and the criteria to change a level 
available to all militants. It is, therefore, the militant who chooses where they want to be.

The next circle, more external and distant from the core of the anarchist organisation is 
no longer part of the organisation, but has a fundamental importance: the level of 
supporters. This body, or instance, seeks to group together all people who have 
ideological affinities with the anarchist organisation. Supporters are responsible for 
assisting the organisation in its practical work, such as the publishing of pamphlets, 
periodicals or books; the dissemination of propaganda material; helping in the work of 
producing theory or of contextual analysis; in the organisation of practical activities 
for social work: community activities, help in training work, logistical activities, help 
in organising work, etc. This instance of support is where people who have affinities with 
the anarchist organisation and its work have contact with other militants, are able to 
deepen their knowledge of the political line of the organisation, better get to know its 
activities and deepen their vision of anarchism, etc.

Therefore, the category of support has an important role to help the anarchist 
organisation put into practice its activities, seeking to bring those interested closer to 
it. This approximation has as a future objective that some of these supporters will become 
militants of the organisation. The specific anarchist organisation draws in the greatest 
possible number of supporters and, through practical work, identifies those interested in 
joining the organisation and who have an appropriate profile for membership. The proposal 
for entry into the organisation may be made by the militants of the organisation to the 
supporter and vice-versa. Although each militant chooses their level of commitment to the 
organisation and where they want to be, the objective of the anarchist organisation is 
always to have the greatest number of militants in the more internal circles, with a 
greater level of commitment.

Let us give a practical example: lets suppose that an organisation has deliberated to work 
internally with two levels of commitment - or two circles. When the militants are new they 
enter at the level of "militant" and, when they have been there six months and are 
prepared and committed militants, move on to the level of "full militant". Let us suppose 
that this organisation has resolved to have a level of supporters. The objective of the 
organisation will be to draw in the greatest possible number of supporters, based on the 
affinity of each one with the organisation, transfering them to the level of militant and, 
after six months - once prepared - to the level of full militant. We illustrate how this 
can work in practice.


SU being the level of supporters, M of militants and FM of full militants, the objective 
is the flow indicated by the red arrow - to go from SU to M and from M to FM. Those who 
are interested can follow this flow, and those who are not can stay where they feel 
better. For example, if a person wants to give sporadic support, and no more than that, 
they may want to always stay at SU. The issue here is that all a person's will to work 
should be utilised by the organisation. This is not because a person has little time, or 
because they prefer to help at a time when it must be rejected, but because inside a 
specific anarchist organisation there must be room for all those who wish to contribute. 
"The criteria for selection that never fails are the accomplishments. The aptitude and 
efficiency of the militants are, fundamentally, measures for the enthusiasm and the 
application with which they perform their tasks". [Juan Mechoso. Acción Directa Anarquista 
p.199.]

The logic of concentric circles requires that each militant and the organisation itself 
have very well defined rights and duties for each level of commitment. This is because it 
is not just for someone to make decisions about something with which they will not comply. 
A supporter who frequents activities once a month and makes sporadic contributions, for 
example, cannot decide on rules or activities that must be met or carried out daily, as 
they would be deciding something much more for the other militants than for themselves.

It is a very common practice in libertarian groups that people who make sporadic 
contributions decide on issues which end up being committed to or carried out by the more 
permanent members. It is very easy for a militant who appears from time to time to want to 
set the political line of the organisation, for example, since it is not they who will 
have to follow this line most of the time.

These are disproportionate forms of decision-making in which one ends up deciding 
something which others enact. In the model of concentric circles we seek a system of 
rights and duties in which everyone makes decisions about that which they could and should 
be committed to afterwards. In this way it is normal for supporters to decide only on that 
in which they will be involved. In the same way it is normal for militants of the 
organisation to decide on that which they will carry out. Thus we make decisions and their 
commitments proportionally and this implies that the organisation has clear criteria for 
entry, well defining who does and does not take part in it, and at what level of 
commitment the militants are.

An important criteria for entry is that all of the militants who enter the organisation 
must agree with its political line. For this the anarchist organisation must have 
theoretical material that expresses this line - in less depth for those who are not yet 
members of the organisation and in more depth for those who are. When someone is 
interested in the work of the anarchist organisation, showing interest in approximation, 
you should make this person a supporter and give them the necessary guidance. As a 
supporter, knowing the political line in a little more depth and having an affinity for 
the practical work of the organisation, the person may show interest in joining the 
organisation or the organisation can express its interest in the supporter becoming a 
militant. In both cases the supporter should receive permanent guidance from the anarchist 
organisation, giving to them theoretical material that will deepen their political line. 
One or more militants who know this line well will discuss doubts, debate and make 
clarifications with them. Having secured the agreement of the supporter with the political 
line of the organisation, and with agreement from both parties, the militant is integrated 
into the organisation. It is important that in the initial period every new militant has 
the guidance of another older one, who will orient and prepare them for work. In any 
event, the anarchist organisation always has to concern itself with the training and 
guidance of the supporters and militants so that this may allow them to change their level 
of commitment, if they so desire.

This same logic of concentric circles works in social work. Through it, the anarchist 
organisation is articulated to perform social work in the most appropriate and effective 
way. As we have seen, the anarchist organisation is divided internally into fronts for the 
performance of practical work. For this there are organisations that prefer to establish 
direct relations with the social movements, and there are others that prefer to present 
themselves through an intermediary social organisation, which we could call a grouping of 
tendency.

     Participation in the grouping of tendency implies acceptance of a set of definitions 
that can be shared by comrades of diverse ideological origins, but which share certain 
indispensable exclusions (to the reformists, for example) if seeking a minimum level of 
real operational coherence. (...) The groupings of tendency, coordinated with each other 
and rooted in the most combative of the people (...) are a higher level than the latter 
[the level of the masses]. [Ibid. pg 190,192.]

The grouping of tendency puts itself between the social movements and the specific 
anarchist organisation, bringing together militants of distinct ideologies that have 
affinity in relation to certain practical questions.

As we have emphasised, there are anarchist organisations that prefer to present themselves 
directly in the social movements, without the necessity of the groupings of tendency, and 
others preferring to present themselves by means of these. In both cases there are 
positive and negative points and each organisation must determine the best way to act. As 
the views that we advocate in the social movements are much more practical than 
theoretical, it may be interesting to work with a grouping of tendency, incorporating 
people who agree with some or all of the positions that we advocate in the social 
movements (strength, classism, autonomy, combativeness, direct action, direct democracy 
and revolutionary perspective) and that will help us to augment the social force in 
defence of these positions.

In the same way as in the diagram above, the idea is that the specific anarchist 
organisation seeks insertion in this intermediate level (grouping of tendency) and through 
it presents itself, conducting its work in social movements in search of social insertion. 
Again we illustrate how this works in practice.


SAO being the specific anarchist organisation, GT the grouping of tendency and SM the 
social movement, there are two flows.

The first - that of the influence of the SAO - seeks to go to the GT and from there to the 
SM. Let us look at a few practical examples. The anarchist organisation that desires to 
act in a union may form a grouping of tendency with other activists from the union 
movement who defend some specific banners (revolutionary perspective, direct action, etc.) 
and by means of this tendency may influence the union movement, or the union in which it 
acts. Or the anarchist organisation may choose to work with the landless movement and, for 
this, brings people who defend similar positions (autonomy, direct democracy, etc.) in the 
social movement together in a grouping of tendency. By means of this grouping of tendency 
the specific anarchist organisation acts within the landless movement and, in this way, 
seeks to influence it.

This form of organisation aims to solve a very common problem that we find in activism. 
For example, when we know very dedicated activists; revolutionaries that advocate 
self-management, autonomy, grassroots democracy, direct democracy, etc. and with whom we 
do not act because they are not anarchists. These activists could work with the anarchists 
in the groupings of tendency and defend their positions in the social movements together.

The second arrow in the diagram shows the objective of the flow of militants. That is, in 
this scheme of work, the goal is to bring people in the social movements that have 
practical affinity with the anarchists into the groupings of tendency and, from there, 
bring those that have ideological affinity closer to the anarchist organisation. In the 
same way as in the previous diagram, if a militant has great practical affinity with the 
anarchists, but is not an anarchist, they must be a member of the grouping of tendency and 
will be fundamental to the achievement of social work. If they have ideological 
affinities, they may be closer to or even join the organisation.

The objective of the anarchist organisation is not to turn all activists into anarchists, 
but to learn to work with each of these activists in the most appropriate way. While 
having mutual interests the militants may change their positions in the circles (from the 
social movement to the grouping of tendency or from the grouping of tendency to the 
anarchist organisation). Without these mutual interests, however, each one acts where they 
think it more pertinent.

This article is an excerpt from Anarquismo Social e Organização.


[Translation by Jonathan-ZACF]

Related Link: http://www.farj.org
_________________________________________
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 http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en