💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › nestor-makhno-platform.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:04:20. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Platform Author: Nestor Makhno Date: 20.6.1926 Language: en Source: Retrieved on 2016-10-28 from http://marxists.architexturez.net/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/platform/index.htm Notes: Source: The Dielo Trouda Group Paris. 20.6.1926; Transcribed: by EndPage.com.
It is very significant that, in spite of the strength and incontestably
positive character of libertarian ideas, and in spite of the
forthrightness and integrity of anarchist positions in the facing up to
the social revolution, and finally the heroism and innumerable
sacrifices borne by the anarchists in the struggle for libertarian
communism, the anarchist movement remains weak despite everything, and
has appeared, very often, in the history of working class struggles as a
small event, an episode, and not an important factor.
This contradiction between the positive and incontestable substance of
libertarian ideas, and the miserable state in which the anarchist
movement vegetates, has its explanation in a number of causes, of which
the most important, the principal, is the absence of organisational
principles and practices in the anarchist movement.
In all countries, the anarchist movement is represented by several local
organisations advocating contradictory theories and practices, having no
perspectives for the future, nor of a continuity in militant work, and
habitually disappearing, hardly leaving the slightest trace behind them.
Taken as a whole, such a state of revolutionary anarchism can only be
described as 'chronic general disorganisation'.
Like yellow fever, this disease of disorganisation introduced itself
into the organism of the anarchist movement and has shaken it for dozens
of years.
It is nevertheless beyond doubt that this disorganisation derives from
from some defects of theory: notably from a false interpretation of the
principle of individuality in anarchism: this theory being too often
confused with the absence of all responsibility. The lovers of assertion
of 'self', solely with a view to personal pleasure. obstinately cling to
the chaotic state of the anarchist movement. and refer in its defence to
the immutable principles of anarchism and its teachers.
But the immutable principles and teachers have shown exactly the
opposite.
Dispersion and scattering are ruinous: a close-knit union is a sign of
life and development. This lax of social struggle applies as much to
classes as to organisations.
Anarchism is not a beautiful utopia, nor an abstract philosophical idea,
it is a social movement of the labouring masses. For this reason it must
gather its forces in one organisation, constantly agitating, as demanded
by reality and the strategy of class struggle.
"We are persuaded", said Kropotkin, "that the formation of an anarchist
organisation in Russia, far from being prejudicial to the common
revolutionary task, on the contrary it is desirable and useful to the
very greatest degree." (Preface to The Paris Commune by Bakunin, 1892
edition.)
Nor did Bakunin ever oppose himself to the concept of a general
anarchist organisation. On the contrary, his aspirations concerning
organisations, as well as his activity in the 1st IWMA, give us every
right to view him as an active partisan of just such an organisation.
In general, practically all active anarchist militants fought against
all dispersed activity, and desired an anarchist movement welded by
unity of ends and means.
It was during the Russian revolution of 1917 that the need for a general
organisation was felt most deeply and most urgently. It was during this
revolution that the libertarian movement showed the greatest decree of
sectionalism and confusion. The absence of a general organisation led
many active anarchist militants into the ranks of the Bolsheviks. This
absence is also the cause of many other present day militants remaining
passive, impeding all use of their strength, which is often quite
considerable.
We have an immense need for an organisation which, having gathered the
majority of the participants of the anarchist movement, establishes in
anarchism a general and tactical political line which would serve as a
guide to the whole movement.
It is time for anarchism to leave the swamp of disorganisation, to put
an end to endless vacillations on the most important tactical and
theoretical questions, to resolutely move towards a clearly recognised
goal, and to operate an organised collective practice.
It is not enough, however, to establish the vital need of such an
organisation: it is also necessary to establish the method of, its
creation.
We reject as theoretically and practically inept the idea of creating an
organisation after the recipe of the 'synthesis', that is to say
re-uniting the representatives of different tendencies of anarchism.
Such an organisation, having incorporated heterogeneous theoretical and
practical elements, would only be a mechanical assembly of individuals
each having a different conception of all the questions of the anarchist
movement, an assembly which would inevitably disintegrate on
encountering reality.
The anarcho-syndicalist method does not resolve the problem of anarchist
organisation, for it does not give priority to this problem, interesting
itself solely in penetrating and gaining strength in the industrial
proletariat.
However, a great deal cannot be achieved in this area, even in gaining a
footing, unless there is a general anarchist organisation.
The only method leading to the solution of the problem of general
organisation is, in our view, to rally active anarchist militants to a
base of precise positions: theoretical, tactical and organisational,
i.e. the more or less perfect base of a homogeneous programme.
The elaboration of such a programme is one of the principal tasks
imposed on anarchists by the social struggle of recent years. It is to
this task that the group of Russian anarchists in exile dedicates an
important part of its efforts.
The Organisational Platform published below represents the outlines, the
skeleton of such a programme. It must serve as the first step towards
rallying libertarian forces into a single, active revolutionary
collective capable of struggle: the General Union of Anarchists.
We have no doubts that there are gaps in the present platform. It has
gaps, as do all new, practical steps of any importance. It is possible
that certain important positions have been missed, or that others are
inadequately treated, or that still others are too detailed or
repetitive. All this is possible, but not of vital importance. What is
important is to lay the foundations of a general organisation, and it is
this end which is attained, to a necessary degree, by the present
platform.
It is up to the entire collective, the General Union of Anarchists, to
enlarge it, to later give it depth, to make of it a definite platform
for the whole anarchist movement.
On another level also we have doubts. We foresee that several
representatives of self-styled individualism and chaotic anarchism will
attack us, foaming at the mouth, and accuse us of breaking anarchist
principles. However, we know that the individualist and chaotic elements
understand by the title 'anarchist principles' political indifference,
negligence and absence of all responsibility, which have caused in our
movement almost incurable splits, and against which we are struggling
with all our energy and passion. This is why we can calmly ignore the
attacks from this camp.
We base our hope on other militants: on those who remain faithful to
anarchism, having experienced and suffered the tragedy of the anarchist
movement, and are painfully searching for a solution.
Further. we place great hopes on the young anarchists who, born in the
breath of the Russian revolution, and placed from the start in the midst
of constructive problems, will certainly demand the realisation of
positive and organisational principles in anarchism.
We invite all the Russian anarchist organisations dispersed in various
countries of the world, and also isolated militants, to unite on the
basis of a common organisational platform.
Let this platform serve as the revolutionary backbone, the rallying
point of all the militants of the Russian anarchist movement! Let it
form the foundations for the General Union of Anarchists!
Long Live the Social Revolution of the Workers of the World!
There is no one single humanity
There is a humanity of classes
Slaves and Masters
Like all those which have preceded it, the bourgeois capitalist society
of our times is not 'one humanity'. It is divided into two very distinct
camps, differentiated socially by their situations and their functions,
the proletariat (in the wider sense of the word), and the bourgeoisie.
The lot of the proletariat is, and has been for centuries, to carry the
burden of physical, painful work from which the fruits come, not to
them, however, but to another, privileged class which owns property,
authority, and the products of culture (science, education, art): the
bourgeoisie. The social enslavement and exploitation of the working
masses form the base on which modern society stands, without which this
society could not exist.
This generated a class struggle, at one point taking on an open, violent
character, at others a semblance of slow and intangible progress, which
reflects needs, necessities, and the concept of the justice of workers.
In the social domain all human history represents an uninterrupted chain
of struggles waged by the working masses for their rights, liberty, and
a better life - In the history of human society this class struggle has
always been the primary factor which determined the form and structure
of these societies.
The social and political regime of all states is above all the product
of class struggle. The fundamental structure of any society shows us the
stage at which the class struggle has gravitated and is to be found. The
slightest change in the course of the battle of classes, in the relative
locations of the forces of the class struggle, produces continuous
modifications in the fabric and structure of society.
Such is the general, universal scope and meaning of class struggle in
the life of class societies.
The principle of enslavement and exploitation of the masses by violence
constitutes the basis of modern society. All the manifestations of its
existence: the economy, politics, social relations, rest on class
violence, of which the servicing organs are: authority, the police, the
army, the judiciary. Everything in this society: each enterprise taken
separately, likewise the whole State system, is nothing but the rampart
of capitalism, from where they keep a constant eye on the workers, where
they always have ready the forces intended to repress all movements by
the workers which threaten the foundation or even the tranquillity of
that society.
At the same time the system of this society deliberately maintains the
working masses in a state of ignorance and mental stagnation; it
prevents by force the raising of their moral and intellectual level, in
order to more easily get the better of them.
The progress of modern society: the technical evolution of capital and
the perfection of its political system, fortifies the power of the
ruling classes, and makes the struggle against them more difficult, thus
postponing the decisive moment of the emancipation of labour.
Analysis of modern society leads us to the conclusion that the only way
to transform capitalist society into a society of free workers is the
way of violent social revolution.
The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their
aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of
anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on
the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free
non-statist society of workers under self-management.
So anarchism does not derive from the abstract reflections of an
intellectual or a philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers
against capitalism, from the needs and necessities of the workers, from
their aspirations to liberty and equality, aspirations which become
particularly alive in the best heroic period of the life and struggle of
the working masses.
The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin, Kropotkin and others, did
not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having discovered it in the
masses, simply helped by the strength of their thought and knowledge to
specify and spread it.
Anarchism is not the result of personal efforts nor the object of
individual researches.
Similarly, anarchism is not the product of humanitarian aspirations. A
single humanity does not exist. Any attempt to make of anarchism an
attribute of all present day humanity, to attribute to it a general
humanitarian character would be a historical and social lie which would
lead inevitably to the justification of the status quo and of a new
exploitation.
Anarchism is generally humanitarian only in the sense that the ideas of
the masses tend to improve the lives of all men, and that the fate of
today's or tomorrow's humanity is inseparable from that of exploited
labour. If the working masses are victorious, all humanity will be
reborn; if they are not, violence, exploitation, slavery and oppression
will reign as before in the world.
The birth, the blossoming, and the realisation of anarchist ideas have
their roots in the life and life and the struggle of the working masses
and are inseparably bound to their fate.
Anarchism wants to transform the present bourgeois capitalist society
into a society which assures the workers the products of their labours,
their liberty, independence, and social and political equality. This
other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity
and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these
two ideas develop in perfect harmony.
Libertarian communism believes that the only creator of social value is
labour, physical or intellectual, and consequently only labour has the
right to manage social and economic life. Because of this, it neither
defends nor allows, in any measure, the existence of non-working
classes.
Insofar as these classes exist at the same time as libertarian communism
the latter will recognise no duty towards them. This will cease when the
non-working classes decide to become productive and want to live in a
communist society under the same conditions as everyone else, which is
that of free members of the society, enjoying the same rights and duties
as all other productive members.
Libertarian communism wants to end all exploitation and violence whether
it be against individuals or the masses of the people. To this end, it
will establish an economic and social base which will unite all sections
of the community, assuring each individual an equal place among the
rest, and allowing each the maximum well-being. The base is the common
ownership of all the means and instruments of production (industry,
transport, land, raw materials, etc.) and the building of economic
organisations on the principles of equality and self-management of the
working classes.
Within the limits of this self-managing society of workers, libertarian
communism establishes the principle of the equality of value and rights
of each individual (not individuality "in general", nor of "mystic
individuality", nor the concept of individuality, but each real, living,
individual).
Democracy is one of the forms of bourgeois capitalist society
The basis of democracy is the maintenance of the two antagonistic
classes of modern society: the working class, and the capitalist class
and their collaboration on the basis of private capitalist property. The
expression of this collaboration is parliament and the national
representative government.
Formally, democracy proclaims freedom of speech, of the press, of
association, and the equality of all before the law.
In reality all these liberties are of a very relative character: they
are tolerated only as long as they do not contest the interests of the
dominant class i.e. the bourgeoisie. Democracy preserves intact the
principle of private capitalist property. Thus it (democracy) gives the
bourgeoisie the right to control the whole economy of the country, the
entire press, education, science, art - which in fact make the
bourgeoisie absolute master of the whole country. Having a monopoly in
the sphere of economic life, the bourgeoisie can also establish its
unlimited power in the political sphere. In effect parliament and
representative government in the democracies are but the executive
organs of the bourgeoisie.
Consequently democracy is but one of the aspects of bourgeois
dictatorship, veiled behind deceptive formulae of political liberties
and fictitious democratic guarantees.
The ideologies of the bourgeoisie define the State as the organ which
regularises the complex political, civil and social relations between
men in modern society, and protecting the order and laws of the latter.
Anarchists are in perfect agreement with this definition, but they
complete it by affirming that the basis of this order and these laws is
the enslavement of the vast majority of the people by an insignificant
minority, and that it is precisely this purpose which is served by the
State.
The State is simultaneously the organised violence of the bourgeoisie
against the workers and the system of its executive organs.
The left socialists, and in particular the bolsheviks, also consider the
bourgeois State and Authority to be the servants of capital. But they
hold that Authority and the State can become, in the hands of socialist
parties, a powerful weapon in the struggle for the emancipation of the
proletariat. For this reason these parties are for a socialist Authority
and a proletarian State. Some want to conquer power by peaceful,
parliamentarian means (the social democratic), others by revolutionary
means (the bolsheviks, the left social revolutionaries).
Anarchism considers these two to be fundamentally wrong, disastrous in
the work of the emancipation of labour.
Authority is always dependent on the exploitation and enslavement of the
mass of the people. It is born of this exploitation, or it is created in
the interests of this exploitation. Authority without violence and
without exploitation loses all raison d'etre.
The State and Authority take from the masses all initiative, kill the
spirit of creation and free activity, cultivates in them the servile
psychology of submission, of expectation, of the hope of climbing the
social ladder, of blind confidence in their leaders, of the illusion of
sharing in authority.
Thus the emancipation of labour is only possible in the direct
revolutionary struggle of the vast working masses and of their class
organisations against the capitalist system.
The conquest of power by the social democratic parties by peaceful means
under the conditions of the present order will not advance by one single
step the task of emancipation of labour, for the simple reason that real
power, consequently real authority, will remain with the bourgeoisie
which controls the economy and politics of the country. The role of
socialist authority is reduced in this case of reforms: to the
amelioration of this same regime. (Examples: Ramsay MacDonald, the
social democratic parties of Germany, Sweden, Belgium, which have come
to power in a capitalist society.)
Further, seizing power by means of a social upheaval and organising a so
called "proletarian State" cannot serve the cause of the authentic
emancipation of labour. The State, immediately and supposedly
constructed for the defence of the revolution, invariably ends up
distorted by needs and characteristics peculiar to itself, itself
becoming the goal, produces specific, privileged castes, and
consequently re-establishes the basis of capitalist Authority and State;
the usual enslavement and exploitation of the masses by violence.
(Example: "the worker-peasant State" of the bolsheviks.)
social struggle and the social revolution
The principal forces of the social revolution are the urban working
class, the peasant masses and a section of the working intelligentsia.
Note: while being an exploited and oppressed class in the same way as
the urban and rural proletariats, the working intelligentsia is
relatively disunited compared with the workers and peasants, thanks to
the economic privileges conceded by the bourgeoisie to certain of its
elements. That is why, during the early days of the social revolution,
only the less comfort able strata of the intelligentsia take an active
part in it.
The anarchist conception of the role of the masses in the social
revolution and the construction of socialism differs, in a typical way,
from that of the statist parties. While bolshevism and its related
tendencies consider that the masses assess only destructionary
revolutionary instincts, being incapable of creative and constructive
activity - the principle reason why the latter activity should be
concentrated in the hands of the men forming the government of the State
of the Central Committee of the party - anarchists on the contrary think
that the labouring masses have inherent creative and constructive
possibilities which are enormous, and anarchists aspire to suppress the
obstacles impeding the manifestation of these possibilities.
Anarchists consider the State to be the principle obstacle, usurping the
rights of the masses and taking from them all the functions of economic
and social life. The State must perish, not "one day" in the future
society, but immediately. It must be destroyed by the workers on the
first day of their victory, and must not be reconstituted under any
guise whatsoever. It will be replaced by a federalist system of workers
organisations of production and consumption. united federatively and
self- administrating. This system excludes just as much authoritarian
organisations as the dictatorship of a party, whichever it might be.
The Russian revolution of 1917 displays precisely this orientation of
the process of social emancipation in the creation of the system of
worker and peasant soviets and factory committees. Its sad error was not
to have liquidated, at an opportune moment, the organisation of state
power: initially of the provisional government, and subsequently of
bolshevik power. The bolsheviks, profiting from the trust of the workers
and peasants, reorganised the bourgeois state according to the
circumstances of the moment and consequently killed the creative
activity of the masses, in supporting and maintaining the state: choking
the free regime of soviets and factory committees which represented the
first step towards building a non-statist socialist society.
Action by anarchists can be divided into two periods, that before the
revolution, and that during the revolution. In both, anarchists can only
fulfil their role as an organised force if they have a clear conception
of the objectives of their struggle and the roads leading to the
realisation of these objectives.
The fundamental task of the General Union of Anarchists in the
pre-revolutionary period must be the preparation of the workers and
peasants for the social revolution.
In denying formal (bourgeois) democracy, authority and State, in
proclaiming the complete emancipation of labour, anarchism emphasises to
the full the rigorous principles of class struggle. It alerts and
develops in the masses class consciousness and the revolutionary
intransigence of the class.
It is precisely towards the class intransigence, anti-democratism,
anti-statism of the ideas of anarcho-communism. that the libertarian
education of the masses must be directed. but education alone is not
sufficient - What is also necessary is a certain mass anarchist
organisation - To realise this, it is necessary to work in two
directions: on the one hand towards the selection and grouping of
revolutionary worker and peasant forces on a libertarian communist
theoretical basis (a specifically libertarian communist organisation);
on the other, towards regrouping revolutionary workers and peasants on
an economic base of production and consumption (revolutionary workers
and peasants organised around production: workers and free peasants
co-operatives). The worker and peasant class, organised on the basis of
production and consumption, penetrated by revolutionary anarchist
positions, will be the first strong point of the social revolution.
The more these organisations are conscious and organised in an anarchist
way, as from the present, the more they will manifest an intransigent
and creative will at the moment of the revolution.
As for the working class in Russia: it is clear that after eight years
of bolshevik dictatorship, which enchains the natural needs of the
masses for free activity, the true nature of all power is demonstrated
better than ever; this class conceals within itself enormous
possibilities for the formation of a mass anarchist movement. Organised
anarchist militants should go immediately with all the force at their
disposal to meet these needs and possibilities, in order that they do
not degenerate into reformism (menshevism).
With the same urgency, anarchists should apply themselves to the
organisation of the poor peasantry, who are crushed by state power,
seeking a way out and concealing enormous revolutionary potential.
The role of the anarchists in the revolutionary period cannot be
restricted solely to the propagation of the keynotes of libertarian
ideas. Life is not only an arena for the propagation of this or that
conception, but also, to the same degree, as the arena of struggle, the
strategy, and the aspirations of these conceptions in the management of
economic and social life.
More than any other concept, anarchism should become the leading concept
of revolution, for it is only on the theoretical base of anarchism that
the social revolution can succeed in the complete emancipation of.
labour.
The leading position of anarchist ideas in the revolution suggests an
orientation of events after anarchist theory. However, this theoretical
driving force should not be confused with the political leadership of
the statist parties which leads finally to State Power.
Anarchism aspires neither to political power nor to dictatorship. Its
principal aspiration is to help the masses to take the authentic road to
the social revolution and the construction of socialism. But it is not
sufficient that the masses take up the way of the social revolution. It
is also necessary to maintain this orientation of the revolution and its
objectives: the suppression of capitalist society in the name of that of
free workers. As the experience of the Russian revolution in 1917 has
shown us, this last task is far from being easy, above all because of
the numerous parties which try to orientate the movement in a direction
opposed to the social revolution.
Although the masses express themselves profoundly in social movement in
terms of anarchist tendencies and tenets, these tendencies and tenets do
however remain dispersed, being unco-ordinated, and consequently do not
lead to the organisation of the driving power of libertarian ideas which
is necessary for preserving the anarchist orientation and objectives of
the social revolution. This theoretical driving force can only be
expressed by a collective especially created by the masses for this
purpose. The organised anarchist elements constitute exactly this
collective.
The theoretical and practical duties of this collective are considerable
at the time of the revolution.
It must manifest its initiative and display total participation in all
the domains of the social revolution: in the orientation and general
character of the revolution; in the positive tasks of the revolution, in
new production, consumption, the agrarian question etc.
On all these questions, and on numbers of others, the masses demand a
clear and precise response from the anarchists. And from the moment when
anarchists declare a conception of the revolution and the structure of
society, they are obliged to give all these questions a clear response,
to relate the solution of these problems to the general conception of
libertarian communism, and to devote all their forces to the realisation
of these.
Only in this way do the General Union of Anarchists and the anarchist
movement completely assure their function as a theoretical driving force
in the social revolution.
By the expression 'transition period' the socialist parties understand a
definite phase in the life of a people of which the characteristic
traits are: a rupture with the old order of things and the installation
of a new economic and social system - a system which however does not
yet represent the complete emancipation of workers. In this sense, all
the minimum programmes* (A minimum programme is one whose objective is
not the complete transformation of capitalism. but the solution of
certain of the immediate problems facing the working class under
capitalism.) of the socialist political parties, for example, the
democratic programme of the socialist opportunists or the communists'
programme for the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', are programmes of
the transition period.
The essential trait of all these is that they regard as impossible, for
the moment, the complete realisation of the workers' ideals: their
independence, their liberty and equality - and consequently preserve a
whole series of the institutions of the capitalist system: the principle
of statist compulsion, private ownership of the means and instruments of
production, the bureaucracy, and several others, according to the goals
of the particular party programme.
On principle anarchists have always been the enemies of such programmes,
considering that the construction of transitional systems which maintain
the principles of exploitation and compulsion of the masses leads
inevitably to a new growth of slavery.
Instead of establishing political minimum programmes , anarchists have
always defended the idea of an immediate social revolution, which
deprives the capitalist class of its economic and social privileges, and
place the means and instruments of production and all the functions of
economic and social life in the hands of the workers.
Up to now, it has been the anarchists who have preserved this position.
The idea of the transition period, according to which the social
revolution should lead not to a communist society, but to a system X
retaining elements of the old system, is anti-social in essence. It
threatens to result in the reinforcement and development of these
elements to their previous dimensions, and to run events backwards.
A flagrant example of this is the regime of the 'dictatorship of the
proletariat' established by the bolsheviks in Russia.
According to them, the regime should be but a transitory step towards
total communism. In reality, this step has resulted in the restoration
of class society, at the bottom of which are, as before, the workers and
peasants.
The centre of gravity of the construction of a communist society does
[not?] consist in the possibility of assuring each individual unlimited
liberty to satisfy his needs from the first day of the revolution; but
consists in the conquest of the social base of this society, and
establishes the principles of egalitarian relationships between
individuals: As for the question of the the abundance, greater or
lesser, this is not posed at the level of principle, but is a technical
problem.
The fundamental principle upon which the new society will be erected and
rest, and which must in no way be restricted, is that of the equality of
relationships, of the liberty and independence of the workers. This
principle represents the first fundamental demand of the masses, for
which they rise up in social revolution.
Either the social revolution will terminate in the defeat of the
workers, in which case we must start again to prepare the struggle, a
new offensive against the capitalist system; or it will lead to the
victory of the workers, and in this case, having seized the means which
permit self-administration - the land, production, and social functions,
the workers will commence the construction of a free society.
This is what characterises the beginning of the building of a communist
society which, once begun, then follows the course of its development
without interruption, strengthening itself and perfecting itself
continuously.
In this way the take-over of the productive and social functions by the
workers will trace an exact demarcation line between the statist and
non-statist eras.
If it wishes to become the mouthpiece of the struggling masses, the
banner of a whole era of social revolution, anarchism must not
assimilate in its programme traces of the old order, the opportunist
tendencies of transitional systems and periods, nor hide its fundamental
principles, but on the contrary develop and apply them to the utmost.
We consider the tendency to oppose libertarian communism to syndicalism
and vice versa to be artificial, and devoid of all foundation and
meaning.
The ideas of anarchism and syndicalism belong on two different planes.
Whereas communism, that is to say a society of free workers, is the goal
of the anarchist struggle - syndicalism, that is the movement of
revolutionary workers in their occupations, is only one of the forms of
revolutionary class struggle. In uniting workers on a basis of
production, revolutionary syndicalism, like all groups based on
professions, has no determining theory, it does not have a conception of
the world which answers all the complicated social and political
questions of contemporary reality. It always reflects the ideologies of
diverse political groupings notably of those who work most intensely in
its ranks.
Our attitude to revolutionary syndicalism derives from what is about to
be said. Without trying here to resolve in advance the question of the
role of the revolutionary syndicates after the revolution, whether they
will be the organisers of all new production, or whether they will leave
this role to workers' soviets or factory committees - we judge that
anarchists must take part in revolutionary syndicalism as one of the
forms of the revolutionary workers' movement.
However, the question which is posed today is not whether anarchists
should or should not participate in revolutionary syndicalism, but
rather how and to what end they must take part.
We consider the period up to the present day, when anarchists entered
the syndicalist movement as individuals and propagandists, as a period
of artisan relationships towards the professional workers movement.
Anarcho-syndicalism, trying to forcefully introduce libertarian ideas
into the left wing of revolutionary syndicalism as a means of creating
anarchist-type unions, represents a step forward, but it does not, as
yet, go beyond the empirical method, for anarcho-syndicalism does not
necessarily interweave the 'anarchisation' of the trade union movement
with that of the anarchists organised outside the movement. For it is
only on this basis, of such a liaison, that revolutionary trade unionism
could be 'anarchised' and prevented from moving towards opportunism and
reformism.
In regarding syndicalism only as a professional body of workers without
a coherent social and political theory, and consequently, being
powerless to resolve the social question on its own, we consider that
the tasks of anarchists in the ranks of the movement consist of
developing libertarian theory, and point it in a libertarian direction,
in order to transform it into an active arm of the social revolution. It
is necessary to never forget that if trade unionism does not find in
anarchist theory a support in opportune times it will turn, whether we
like it or not, to the ideology of a political statist party.
The tasks of anarchists in the ranks of the revolutionary workers'
movement could only be fulfilled on conditions that their work was
closely interwoven and linked with the activity of the anarchist
organisation outside the union. In other words, we must enter into
revolutionary trade unions as an organised force, responsible to
accomplish work in the union before the general anarchist organisation
and orientated by the latter.
Without restricting ourselves to the creation of anarchist unions, we
must seek to exercise our theoretical influence on all trade unions, and
in all its forms (the IWW, Russian TU's). We can only achieve this end
by working in rigorously organised anarchist collectives; but never in
small empirical groups, having between them neither organisational
liaison nor theoretical agreement.
Groups of anarchists in companies, factories and workshops, preoccupied
in creating anarchist unions, leading the struggle in revolutionary
unions for the domination of libertarian ideas in unionism, groups
organised in their action by a general anarchist organisation: these are
the ways and means of anarchists' attitudes vis à vis trade unionism.
The fundamental aim of the world of labour in struggle is the
foundation, by means of revolution, of a free and equal communist
society founded on the principle "from each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs".
However, this society will not come about of its own, only by the power
of social upheaval. Its realisation will come about by a social
revolutionary process, more or less drawn out, orientated by the
organised forces of victorious labour in a determined path.
It is our task to indicate this path from this moment on, and to
formulate positive, concrete problems that will occur to workers from
the first day of the social revolution, the outcome of which depends
upon their correct solution.
It is self evident that the building of the new society will only be
possible after the victory of the workers over the bourgeois-capitalist
system and over its representatives. It is impossible to begin the
building of a new economy and new social relations while the power of
the state defending the regime of enslavement has not been smashed,
while workers and peasants have not seized, as the object of the
revolution, the industrial and agricultural economy.
Consequently, the very first social revolutionary task is to smash the
statist edifice of the capitalist system, to expropriate the bourgeoisie
and in general all privileged elements of the means of power, and
establish overall the will of the workers in revolt, as expressed by
fundamental principles of the social revolution. This aggressive and
destructive aspect of the revolution can only serve to clear the road
for the positive tasks which form the meaning and essence of the social
revolution.
These tasks are as follows:
industrial production of the country.
Taking note of the fact that the country's industry is the result of the
result of the efforts of several generations of workers, and that the
diverse branches of industry are tightly bound together, we consider all
actual production as a single workshop of producers, belonging totally
to all workers together, and to no one in particular.
The productive mechanism of the country is global and belongs to the
whole working class. This thesis determines the character and the forms
of the new production. It will also be global, common in the sense that
the products produced by the workers will belong to all. These products,
of whatever category - the general fund of provisions for the workers -
where each who participates in production will receive that which he
needs, on an equal basis for everybody.
The new system of production will totally supplant the bureaucracy and
exploitation in all their forms and establish in their place the
principle of brotherly co- operation and workers solidarity.
The middle class, which in a modern capitalist society exercises
intermediary functions - commerce etc., as well as the bourgeoisie, must
take part in the new mode of production on the same conditions as all
other workers. If not, these classes place themselves outside the
society of labour.
There will be no bosses, neither entrepreneur, owner or state-appointed
owner (as is the case today in the bolshevik state). Management will
pass on this new production to the administration especially created by
the workers: workers' soviets, factory committees or workers' management
of works and factories. These organs, interlinked at the level of
commune, district and finally general and federal management of
production. Built by the masses and always under their control and
influence, all these organs constantly renewed and realise the idea of
self-management, real self- management, by the masses of the people.
Unified production, in which the means and products belong to all,
having replaced bureaucracy by the principle of brotherly co-operation
and having established equal rights for all work, production managed by
the organs of workers' control, elected by the masses, that is the first
practical step on the road to the realisation of libertarian communism.
This problem will appear during the revolution in two ways:
In that which concerns the distribution of consumer goods, the solution
depends above all on the quantity of products available and on the
principle of the agreement of targets.
The social revolution concerning itself with the reconstruction of the
whole social order, takes on itself as well, the obligation to satisfy
everyone's necessities of life. The sole exception is the group of
non-workers - those who refuse to take part in the new production for
counter- revolutionary reasons. But in general, excepting the last
category of people, the satisfaction of the needs of everyone in the
area of the revolution is assured by the general reserve of consumer
goods. In the case of insufficient goods, they are divided according to
the principle of the greatest urgency, that is to say in the first case
to children, invalids and working families.
A far more difficult problem is that of organising the basis of
consumption itself.
Without doubt, from the first day of the revolution, the farms will not
provide all the products vital to the life of the population. At the
same time, peasants have an abundance which the towns lack.
The libertarian communists have no doubt about the mutualist
relationship which exists between the workers of the town and
countryside. They judge that the social revolution can only be realised
by the common efforts of workers and peasants. In consequence, the
solution to the problem of consumption in the revolution can only be
possible by means of close revolutionary collaboration between these two
categories of workers.
To establish this collaboration, the urban working class having seized
production must immediately supply the living needs of the country and
strive to furnish the everyday products the means and implements for
collective agriculture. The measures of solidarity manifested by the
workers as regards the needs of the peasants, will provoke from them in
return the same gesture, to provide the produce of their collective
labour for the towns.
Worker and peasant co-operatives will be the primary organs assuring the
towns and countryside their requirements in food and economic materials.
later, responsible for more important and permanent functions, notably
for supplying everything necessary for guaranteeing and developing the
economic and social life of the workers and peasants, these
co-operatives will be transformed into permanent organs for provisioning
towns and countryside.
This solution to the problem of provisioning permits the proletariat to
create a permanent stock of provision, which will have a favourable and
decisive effect on the outcome of all new production.
In the solution of the agrarian question, we regard the principle
revolutionary and creative forces to be the working peasants who do not
exploit the labour of others- and the wage earning proletariat of the
countryside. Their task will be to accomplish the redistribution of land
in the countryside in order to establish the use and exploitation of the
land on communist principles.
Like industry, the land, exploited and cultivated by successive
generations of labourers, is the product of their common effort. It also
belongs to all working people and to none in particular inasmuch as it
is the inalienable and common property of the labourers, the land can
never again be bought, nor sold, nor rented: it can therefore not serve
as a means of the exploitation of others' labour.
The land is also a sort of popular and communal workshop, where the
common people produce the means by which they live. But it is the kind
of workshop where each labourer (peasant) has, thanks to certain
historical conditions, become accustomed to carrying out his work alone,
independent of other producers. Whereas, in industry the collective
method of work is essential and the only possible way in our times, the
majority of peasants cultivate the land on their own account.
Consequently, when the land and the means of its exploitation are taken
over by the peasants, with no possibility of selling or renting, the
question of the forms of the utilisation of it and the methods of its
exploitation (communal or by family) will not immediately find a
complete and definite solution, as it will in the industrial sector.
Initially both of these methods will probably be used.
It will be the revolutionary peasants who themselves will establish the
definitive term of exploitation and utilisation of the land. No outside
pressure is possible in this question.
However, since we consider that only a communist society, in whose name
after all the social revolution. will be made, delivers labourers from
their position of slavery and exploitation and gives them complete
liberty and equality; since the peasants constitute the vast majority of
the population (almost 85% in Russia in the period under discussion) and
consequently the agrarian regime which they establish will be the
decisive factor in the destiny of the revolution; and since', lastly, a
private economy in agriculture leads, as in private industry, to
commerce, accumulation, private property and the restoration of
capital - our duty will be to do everything necessary, as from now, to
facilitate the solution of the agrarian question in a collective way.
To this end we must, as from now, engage in strenuous propaganda among
the peasants in favour of collective agrarian economy.
The founding of a specifically libertarian peasant union will
considerably facilitate this task.
In this respect, technical progress will be of enormous importance,
facilitating the evolution of agriculture and also the realisation of
communism in the towns, above all in industry. If, in their relations
with the peasants, the industrial workers act, not individually or in
separate groups, but as an immense communist collective embracing all
the branches of industry; if, in addition, they bear in mind the vital
needs of the countryside and if at the same time they supply each
village with things for everyday use, tools and machines for the
collective exploitation of the lands, this will impel the peasants
towards communism in agriculture.
The question of the defence of the revolution is also linked to the
problem of 'the first day'. Basically, the most powerful means for the
defence of the revolution is the happy solution of its positive
problems: production, consumption, and the land. Once these problems are
correctly solved, no counter-revolutionary will be able to alter or
unbalance the free society of workers. Nevertheless the workers will
have to sustain a severe struggle against the enemies of the revolution,
in order to maintain its concrete existence.
The social revolution, which threatens the privileges and the very
existence of the non-working classes of society, will inevitably provoke
a desperate resistance on behalf of these classes, which will take the
form of a fierce civil war.
As the Russian experience showed, such a civil war will not be a matter
of a few months, but of several years.
However joyful the first steps of the labourers at the beginning of the
revolution, the ruling classes will retain an enormous capacity to
resist for a long time. For several years they will launch offensives
against the revolution, trying to reconquer the power and privileges of
which they were deprived.
A large army, military techniques and strategy, capital - will all be
thrown against the victorious labourers.
In order to preserve the conquests of the revolution, the labourers
should create organs for the defence of the revolution, so as to oppose
the reactionary offensive with a fighting force corresponding to the
magnitude of the task. In the first days of the revolution, this
fighting force will be formed by all armed workers and peasants. But
this spontaneous armed force will only be valuable during the first
days, before the civil war reaches its highest point and the two parties
in struggle have created regularly constituted military organisations.
In the social revolution the most critical moment is not during the
suppression of Authority, but following, that is, when the forces of the
defeated regime launch a general offensive against the labourers, and
when it is a question of safeguarding the conquests under attack. The
very character of this offensive, just as the technique and development
of the civil war, will oblige the labourers to create determined
revolutionary military contingents. The essence and fundamental
principles of these formations must be decided in advance. Denying the
statist and authoritarian methods of government, we also deny the
statist method of organising the military forces of the labourers, in
other words the principles of a statist army based on obligatory
military service. Consistent with the fundamental positions of
libertarian communism, the principle of voluntary service must be the
basis of the military formations of labourers. The detachments of
insurgent partisans, workers and peasants, which led the military action
in the Russian revolution, can be cited as examples of such formations.
However, "voluntary service" and the action of partisans should not be
understood in the narrow sense of the word, that is as a struggle of
worker and peasant detachments against the local enemy, unco-ordinated
by a general plan of operation and each acting on its own
responsibility, at its own risk. The action and tactics of the partisans
in the period of their complete development should be guided by a common
revolutionary strategy.
As in all wars, the civil war cannot be waged by the labourers with
success unless they apply the two fundamental principles of all military
action: unity in the plan of operations and unity of common command. The
most critical moment of the revolution will come when the bourgeoisie
march against the revolution in organised force. This critical moment
obliges the labourers to adopt these principles of military strategy.
Thus, in view of the necessities imposed by military strategy and also
the strategy of the counter-revolution the armed forces of the
revolution should inevitably be based on a general revolutionary army
with a common command and plan of operations. The following principles
form the basis of this army':
work of defending the revolution);
revolutionary self-discipline are perfectly compatible, and give the
revolutionary army greater morale than any army of the state);
workers and peasants as represented by the worker and peasant
organisations common throughout the country, established by the masses
in the controlling sectors of economic and social life.
In other words, the organ of the defence of the revolution, responsible
for combating the counter-revolution. on major military fronts as well
as on an internal front (bourgeois plots, preparation for
counter-revolutionary action). will be entirely under the jurisdiction
of the productive organisations of workers and peasants. to which it
will submit, and by which it will receive its political direction.
Note: while it should be conducted in conformity with definite
libertarian communist principles, the army itself should not he
considered a point of principle. It is but the consequence of military
strategy in the revolution, a strategic measure to which the labourers
are fatally forced by the very process of the civil war. But this
measure must attract attention as from now. It must he carefully studied
in order to avoid any irreparable set-backs in the work of protecting
and defending the revolution, for set-backs in the civil war could prove
disastrous to the outcome of the whole social revolution.
The general, constructive positions expressed above constitute the
organisational platform of the revolutionary forces of anarchism.
This platform, containing a definite tactical and theoretical
orientation, appears to be the minimum to which it is necessary and
urgent to rally all the militants of the organised anarchist movement.
Its task is to group around itself all the healthy elements of the
anarchist movement into one general organisation, active and agitating
on a permanent basis: the General Union of Anarchists. The forces of all
anarchist militants should be orientated towards the creation of this
organisation.
The fundamental principles of organisation of a General Union of
anarchists should be as follows:
Theory represents the force which directs the activity of persons and
organisations along a defined path towards a determined goal. Naturally
it should be common to all the persons and organisations adhering to the
General Union. All activity by the General Union, both overall and in
its details, should be in perfect concord with the theoretical
principles professed by the union.
In the same way the tactical methods employed by separate members and
groups within the Union should be unitary, that is, be in rigorous
concord both with each other and with the general theory and tactic of
the Union.
A common tactical line in the movement is of decisive importance for the
existence of the organisation and the whole movement: it removes the
disastrous effect of several tactics in opposition to one another, it
concentrates all the forces of the movement, gives them a common
direction leading to a fixed objective.
The practice of acting on one's personal responsibility should be
decisively condemned and rejected in the ranks of the anarchist
movement. The areas of revolutionary life, social and political, are
above all profoundly collective by nature. Social revolutionary activity
in these areas cannot be based on the personal responsibility of
individual militants.
The executive organ of the general anarchist movement, the Anarchist
Union, taking a firm line against the tactic of irresponsible
individualism, introduces in its ranks the principle of collective
responsibility: the entire Union will be responsible for the political
and revolutionary activity of each member; in the same way, each member
will be responsible for the political and revolutionary activity of the
Union as a whole.
Anarchism has always denied centralised organisation, both in the area
of the social life of the masses and in its political action. The
centralised system relies on the diminution of the critical spirit,
initiative and independence of each individual and on the blind
submission of the masses to the 'centre'. The natural and inevitable
consequences of this system are the enslavement and mechanisation of
social life and the life of the organisation.
Against centralism, anarchism has always professed and defended the
principle of federalism, which reconciles the independence and
initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the
common cause.
In reconciling the idea of the independence and high degree of rights of
each individual with the service of social needs and necessities,
federalism opens the doors to every healthy manifestation of the
faculties of every individual.
But quite often, the federalist principle has been deformed in anarchist
ranks: it has too often been understood as the right, above all, to
manifest one's 'ego':, without obligation to account for duties as
regards the organisation.
This false interpretation disorganised our movement in the past. It is
time to put an end to it in a firm and irreversible manner.
Federation signifies the free agreement of individuals and organisations
to work collectively towards common objectives.
However, such an agreement and the federal union based on it, will only
become reality, rather than fiction or illusion, on the conditions sine
qua non that all the participants in the agreement and the Union fulfil
most completely the duties undertaken, and conform to communal
decisions. In a social project, however vast the federalist basis on
which it is built, there can be no decisions without their execution. It
is even less admissible in an anarchist organisation, which exclusively
takes on obligations with regard to the workers and their social
revolution. Consequently, the federalist type of anarchist organisation,
while recognising each member's rights to independence, free opinion,
individual liberty and initiative, requires each member to undertake
fixed organisation duties, and demands execution of communal decisions.
On this condition alone will the federalist principle find life, and the
anarchist organisation function correctly, and steer itself towards the
defined objective.
The idea of the General Union of Anarchists poses the problem of the
co-ordination and concurrence of the activities of all the forces of the
anarchist movement.
Every organisation adhering to the Union represents a vital cell of the
common organism. Every cell should have its secretariat, executing and
guiding theoretically the political and technical work of the
organisation.
With a view to the co-ordination of the activity of all the Union's
adherent organisation, a special organ will be created: the executive
committee of the Union. The committee will be in charge of the following
functions: the execution of decisions taken by the Union with which it
is entrusted; the theoretical and organisational orientation of the
activity of isolated organisations consistent with the theoretical
positions and the general tactical line of the Union; the monitoring of
the general state of the movement; the maintenance of working and
organisational links between all the organisations in the Union; and
with other organisations.
The rights, responsibilities and practical tasks of the executive
committee are fixed by the congress of the Union.
The General Union of Anarchists has a concrete and determined goal. In
the name of the success of the social revolution it must above all
attract and absorb the most revolutionary and strongly critical elements
among the workers and peasants.
Extolling the social revolution, and further, being an anti-
authoritarian organisation which aspires to the abolition of class
society, the General Union of Anarchists depends equally on the two
fundamental classes of society: the workers and the peasants. It lays
equal stress on the work of emancipating these two classes.
As regards the workers trade unions and revolutionary organisations in
the towns, the General Union of Anarchists will have to devote all its
efforts to becoming their pioneer and their theoretical guide.
It adopts the same tasks with regard to the exploited peasant masses. As
bases playing the same role as the revolutionary workers' trade unions,
the Union strives to realise a network of revolutionary peasant economic
organisations, furthermore, a specific peasants' union, founded on
anti-authoritarian principles.
Born out of the mass of the labour people, the General Union must take
part in all the manifestations of their life, bringing to them on every
occasion the spirit of organisation, perseverance and offensive. Only in
this way can it fulfil its task, its theoretical and historical mission
in the social revolution of labour, and become the organised vanguard of
their emancipating process.
Nestor Makhno, Ida Mett, Piotr Archinov, Valevsky, Linsky
1926