u/ImpossibleEnd4133

I am thinking of the case of the Partido por la Victoria del Pueblo (PVP) in Uruguay, which emerged from the especifist organization Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU). The PVP is now part of the Uruguayan Frente Amplio (Broad Front) political coalition. I am also thinking of Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left) in Chile, a political party created by the OCL (Organización Comunista Libertaria). The OCL was a platformist/especifist organization that became a political party and helped form Chile's Frente Amplio before abandoning it to become independent.

​Are these cases—where especifist anarchists build a political party maintaining anarchist principles and theory but abandon the dogma of anti-electoralism to become politically influential—still forms of anarchism? If not, what ideology do they represent? How can one name this phenomenon?

​To be transparent, as an anarchist and a member of IL, I would theorize that anarchism has historically had tendencies that utilize institutions as a tactical and strategic tool, such as the Spanish libertarian possibilism tendency. Other cases that come to mind are Georges Fontenis and the FCL in France, which participated in elections, and Murray Bookchin's communalist/libertarian municipalist theory, which utilizes elections to achieve libertarian goals. This makes me think that for a long time, there have been anarchist theories and divisions within the ideology that aren't as cut and dried regarding the anti-electoral dogma.

​I have been considering theorizing these deviations through the lens of political theory analysis. I am thinking of calling these anarchist experiences and theories "Institutionalist Anarchism," and categorizing the cases of the PVP and IL as "Post-Especifism," because these experiences are best understood as an evolution and reformation of especifist theory and praxis into a new form of libertarian organization.

I am thinking of the case of the Partido por la Victoria del Pueblo (PVP) in Uruguay, which emerged from the especifist organization Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU). The PVP is now part of the Uruguayan Frente Amplio (Broad Front) political coalition. I am also thinking of Izquierda Libertaria (Libertarian Left) in Chile, a political party created by the OCL (Organización Comunista Libertaria). The OCL was a platformist/especifist organization that became a political party and helped form Chile's Frente Amplio before abandoning it to become independent.

​Are these cases—where especifist anarchists build a political party maintaining anarchist principles and theory but abandon the dogma of anti-electoralism to become politically influential—still forms of anarchism? If not, what ideology do they represent? How can one name this phenomenon?

​To be transparent, as an anarchist and a member of IL, I would theorize that anarchism has historically had tendencies that utilize institutions as a tactical and strategic tool, such as the Spanish libertarian possibilism tendency. Other cases that come to mind are Georges Fontenis and the FCL in France, which participated in elections, and Murray Bookchin's communalist/libertarian municipalist theory, which utilizes elections to achieve libertarian goals. This makes me think that for a long time, there have been anarchist theories and divisions within the ideology that aren't as cut and dried regarding the anti-electoral dogma.

​I have been considering theorizing these deviations through the lens of political theory analysis. I am thinking of calling these anarchist experiences and theories "Institutionalist Anarchism," and categorizing the cases of the PVP and IL as "Post-Especifism," because these experiences are best understood as an evolution and reformation of especifist theory and praxis into a new form of libertarian organization.