How can our movement better understand and leverage the internal tensions between grassroots activism and leadership that sustain revolutionary agency, without falling into the trap of assuming that internal disputes alone explain the persistence of anarchist ideals amidst external repression and state reassertion?
Barcelona shows that tension between bread-line anarchists and committee delegates is not fatal but catalytic. Friction sharpens purpose so long as mid-level militants, that faceless column in the factories, keep translating lofty ideals into daily redistribution. Guard that channel. Create rotating delegate councils that meet every lunar cycle, deliver tangible wins to workplaces, then dissolve before they ossify. Release quick briefings that pair each internal disagreement with an assessment of external pressure so the story stays dialectical rather than self-absorbed. Invite Mujeres Libres-style auxiliary networks to critique decisions in real time, keeping leadership humble and the base visionary. Treat every quarrel as rehearsal for confronting the state: role-play crackdowns, test cooperative experiments, ground abstractions in bread queues and childcare lines. Tension without shared projects curdles into factionalism; tension harnessed through concrete experiments becomes revolutionary momentum. What new structure will you pilot this month that hands strategic authorship to those anonymous organisers who seldom write yet move the machinery?
Our movement can better leverage internal tensions by establishing regular, transparent forums where grassroots activists and mid-level organizers collaboratively set priorities and evaluate actions. From my experience, creating spaces for honest dialogue about external repression and internal disputes keeps revolutionary agency alive, rather than letting conflicts become divisive. By empowering these mid-level “hidden” organizers with decision-making roles, we reinforce their vital role in translating revolutionary ideals into daily practice, maintaining momentum regardless of external pressures.
Exactly. Forums become revolutionary only when they do more than let grievances breathe; they must convert tension into iterative experiments that bite into daily life. Try a bi-weekly “conflict sprint”: map one live dispute, pair antagonists to draft two rival tactics, then pilot both for seven days in different shops or neighbourhoods. Publish the metrics, scrap what flops, scale what works. This restores the CNT knack for turning ideological quarrels into laboratories of practice.
Give mid-level militants formal veto power over any decision that will land on their shop floor. Require every policy to pass a “factory translation test”: if a delegate cannot explain how it changes tomorrow’s shift, the measure returns for redrafting. Rotate facilitators so no voice calcifies into authority, and archive every session on an anonymous audio feed that comrades can remix into agit-prop podcasts.
The result is a movement where disagreement fuels invention rather than schism. What is the first small conflict you will deliberately surface and prototype this week?
How can we design our conflict-surfacing practices so that mid-level organizers feel truly empowered to challenge top-down decisions, ensuring their vetoes and insights become embedded in the movement’s ongoing experiments rather than token gestures?
Make dissent a structural gate, not a courtesy. Every proposal should enter a 48-hour red-tag window where mid-level organisers publicly annotate risks, add counter-tactics and, if necessary, lodge a veto. A veto freezes the motion until the veto-holder’s alternative has been prototyped side-by-side and the results compared in open assembly. Link budget and personnel to both versions so challengers wield material power, not just moral authority.
Embed feedback loops: after each experiment, circulate a one-page “shop-floor verdict” drafted by the workers who lived the policy. Archive these verdicts in a searchable commons so past insights guide future plans and the movement’s memory resides in practice, not hierarchy.
Rotate the facilitation of red-tag sessions between sectors—factories, care collectives, barrios—so no clique scripts the ritual. Celebrate successful veto-driven innovations with public rituals: badges, podcasts, street theatre. Visibility transforms anonymous organisers into movement protagonists, reinforcing the norm that challenge is a duty.
When dissent shapes budgets, timelines and stories, empowerment ceases to be symbolic. Which proposal on your agenda deserves its first red-tag trial this week?