💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › sebastien-faure-the-anarchist-synthesis.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:00:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Anarchist Synthesis Author: Sébastien Faure Date: 1927 Language: en Topics: anarchism without adjectives, communism, France, individualism, syndicalism, synthesis anarchism Source: Retrieved on 7 August 2011 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/20253 Notes: English translation by Nestor McNab, 2011, for the Nestor Makhno Archive
This is, we believe, the first English translation of Faure’s article on
the “anarchist synthesis”, the response by a certain sector of anarchism
to the theories set out in the “Draft Organization Platform for a
General Union of Anarchists” published by the “Delo Truda” group in
France in 1926. We are unsure as to the exact publiction details of this
text (some sources say 1927, others 1928), but this has been translated
using the text given in “Volonté Anarchiste”, No. 12, 1980, Edition du
Groupe Fresnes-Antony de la Fédération Anarchiste.
In France, as in most other countries, three main anarchist currents can
be distinguished, which can be named thus:
It was natural and inevitable that, having reached a certain stage of
development, an idea as vast as anarchism should end up with this triple
manifestation of its existence.
A philosophical and social movement, that is to say one of ideas and
action, that seeks to do away with every authoritarian institution,
would necessarily give rise to those distinctions that obligatorily
determine the variety of situations, environments and temperaments, the
diversity of sources on which the innumerable individual formations and
the prodigious body of events draw nourishment.
Anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism and anarchist individualism,
these three currents exist and nothing and no-one can prevent them from
doing so. Each of them represents a force, a force that it is neither
possible nor desirable to destroy. To be convinced, it is enough to
place oneself — as an anarchist pure and simple — at the very heart of
the gigantic effort that must be made in order to demolish the principle
of authority. One would then become aware of the indispensable
contribution that each of these currents can make to the fight we carry
on.
These three currents are distinct, but do not oppose each other.
I have, therefore, three questions to put:
communists and the anarchist individualists;
anarcho-syndicalists and the anarchist individualists;
anarcho-syndicalists and the libertarian communists.
Here is the first:
“Considering anarchism as social movement and popular action, when the
time comes that anarchism delivers the inevitable and decisive assault
on the capitalist, authoritarian world that we call the Social
Revolution, can it do this without the help of the great masses who are
grouped together in the labour organizations?”
I believe that it would be folly to hope for victory without the
participation in the liberatory uprising — active, efficient, brutal and
persistent participation — of these working masses, who together have a
greater interest than anyone else in social transformation.
I do not say nor do I think, in view of the necessary cooperation in the
period of revolutionary ferment and action, that both the syndicalist
forces and the anarchist forces should already unite, associate, mix
together and form a homogenous, compact entity. But I do think and say,
together with my old friend Malatesta:
“Anarchists should recognize the usefulness and importance of the
syndical movement, they should encourage its development and make it one
of the levers of their action, seeking to ensure cooperation between
syndicalism and the other forces of progress for a social revolution
that results in the supression of classes, total freedom, equality,
peace and solidarity among all human beings. But it would be a dire
illusion to believe, as many do, that the workers’ movement by itself,
by virtue of its very nature, will bring about such a revolution. Quite
the opposite: in every movement based on material, immediate interests
(and a vast workers’ movement cannot be established on any other basis),
the agitation, drive and concerted efforts of men of ideas who fight and
sacrifice themselves for the ideal are essential. Without this leverage,
all movements tend inevitably to adapt themselves to the circumstances,
breed a conservative spirit, a fear of change among those who would seek
to win better conditions; new privileged classes are often created which
attampt to win support and consolidate the status quo that we are
seeking to destroy.
Hence the pressing need for specifically anarchist organizations which,
both inside and outside the syndicates, struggle for the complete
realization of anarchism and seek to sterilize any germ of corruption
and reaction.”
As you see, it is not so much a case of organically linking the
anarchist movement to the syndicalist movement, as linking syndicalism
to anarchism; it is only a question of working for the complete
realization of the anarchist ideal both inside the syndicates and
outside.
So I ask the libertarian communists and the individualist anarchists
what reason of principle or of fact, what essential, fundamental reasons
can they have for opposing anarcho-syndicalism thus conceived and
practised?
Here is the second question:
“As the indomitable enemy of the exploitation by one man of another that
is generated by the capitalist regime, and of the domination of one man
over another that is spawned by the State, can anarchism conceive the
effective and total suppression of the former without the suppression of
the capitalist regime and the pooling (libertarian communism) of the
means of production, transport and exchange? And can it conceive the
effective and total abolition of the latter without the definitive
abolition of the State and all the institutions that result from it?”
And I ask the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarchist individualists [1]
what reasons of principle or of fact, what essential, fundamental
reasons can they have to oppose libertarian communism so conceived and
practised?
Here is the third and final question:
“As anarchism is, on the one hand, the highest and clearest expression
of the individual’s reaction against political, economic and mental
oppression which is brought to bear on him through the authoritarian
institutions and, on the other hand, the firmest and mostprecise
affirmation of the right of every individual to complete fulfilment for
the satisfaction of his needs in every domain, can anarchism conceive
the effective and total realization of this rection and this affirmation
by any means other than an individual culture pursued to the greatest
possible extent towards a social transformation that breaks every cog of
constraint and repression?”
And I ask the anarcho-syndicalists and the libertarian communists for
what fundmental reasons of principle or fact can they object to
anarchist individualism so conceived and practical?
I call on these three currents to join with each other.
From everything that has thus far been said and in particular from the
three questions above, it would appear:
and anarchist individualism, distinct currents but not contradictory —
have nothing that makes them irreconcilable, nothing that puts them in
opposition to each other, nothing that proclaims their incompatibility,
nothing that can prevent them from living in harmony, or even coming
together for joint propaganda and action;
any way or to any degree the total force of anarchism — a philosophical
and social movement envisaged, and rightly so, in all its breadth, but
can and logically must contribute to the overall strength of anarchism;
within that broad, deep social movement that goes by the name of
“anarchism”, whose goal is the establishment of a social environment
that can assure the maximum well-being and freedom to each and every
one;
chemistry is called a compound, that is to say a substance made up of a
combination of various elements.
This particular compound is created by the combination of three
elements: anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism and anarchist
individualism.
Its chemical formula could be S₂C₂I₂.
The proportions of the three elements can vary according to events,
circumstances and the multiple sources that the currents that make up
anarchism spring from. On analysis, experimentation reveals the
proportions; on synthesis, the compound re-forms and and if one element
is missing or lacking, its place may be taken by another. S₃C₂I₁; or
even: S₂C₃I₁; or yet again: S₁C₂I₃; the formula reflects the variable
proportions locally, regionally, nationally or internationally.
Whatever the case, these three elements — anarcho-syndicalist,
libertarian communist and anarchist individualist (S.C.I.) — are made to
combine with each other and, by amalgamating, go to make up what I shall
call “The Anarchist Synthesis”.
anarchist movement?
Having reached this point in my presentation, it must be asked how it is
that, above all in recent years in France particularly, the existence of
these three anarchist elements has not only failed to strengthen the
libertarian movement, but has ended up weakening it.
And it is important that this question, put clearly, be studied and
resolved in an equally clear way.
The answer is simple, but it requires great honesty from everyone,
without exception.
I believe that it is not the existence itself of these three elements —
anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism and anarchist individualism —
that has caused the weakness or, more precisely, the relative weakness
of anarchist thought and action, but only the position they have each
taken towards each other: a position of open, bloody, implacable
warfare.
Each faction has employed equal malice during these harmful rifts. Each
has stooped to distorting the theses of the other two, to reaching
almost ridiculous levels in their statements and negations, and to bloat
or mitigate their basic lines to the point of painting an odious
caricature.
Each tendency has carried out the most perfidious manoeuvring against
the others and has used the deadliest weapons against them.
Had these three tendencies, even in the absence of understanding between
them, been a little less intent on waging war against each other, had
the will to struggle both within the various groupings and without, been
directed towards fighting the common enemy, even separately, the
anarchist movement in this country would, given the right circumstances,
have acquired considerable influence and surprising strength.
But the intestine war of one tendency against another and often of one
individual against another, has completely poisoned, corrupted, ruined
and rendered fruitless everything, including those campaigns should have
seen the hearts and minds of the lovers of freedom and justice group
around our beloved ideas, who are, above all in popular environments,
much less rare that it is often claimed.
Each current has spit, drooled and vomited on its neighbouring currents
in order to smear them and give the impression that it alone was right.
And, faced with the lamentable spectacle of these divisions and the
odious goings-on that they have produced on all sides, our groupings —
all of them alike — gradually lost much of their content and our forces
exhausted themselves instead of joining together for the battle to be
waged against the common enemy — the principle of authority. That is the
truth.
The problem is a big one; but it can, it must be only a temporary
problem — the remedy is close at hand.
Anyone who has read the preceding lines carefully and without any
preconceptions will guess it without any effort: the remedy lies in the
idea of the anarchist synthesis gaining ground and being applied as
quickly and as well as possible [2].
What is the anarchist movement suffering from?
From the fact that the three elements that make it up fight tooth and
nail with each other.
If, by reason of their origin, their nature, their methods of
propaganda, organization and action, these elements are fated to rise up
against each other continually, then the remedy that I am proposing will
be pointless; it will be inapplicable; it will be unworkable; we shall
abstain from trying it and look elsewhere.
On the other hand, if the above opposition does not exist and, even more
so, if the elements — anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian communist and
anarchist individualist — are instead made to join forces and form a
sort of anarchist synthesis, [3] an effort to achieve this synthesis
must be made — and today, not tomorrow.
I have discovered nothing nor am I proposing anything new: Luigi Fabbri
and several Russian comrades (Volin, Fleshin, Mollie Steimer) with whom
I have had discussions over recent days, have told me that attempts of
this nature have been made in Italy, by the Unione Anarchica Italiana,
and in Ukraine, by the Nabat, and that both these attempts have had the
finest results, which only the triumph of fascism in Italy and the
Bolshevik victory in Ukraine have destroyed.
There exist in France, as indeed in many other places, numerous groups
who have already applied and currently apply the concept of the
anarchist synthesis (I shall not name any for fear of omitting some),
groups in which anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian communists and
anarchist individualists work together in harmony; and these groups are
neither the least numerous nor the least active.
These few facts (and I could mention others) show that application of
the synthesis is possible. I am not saying, nor do I think, that it can
be done quickly or without difficulty. Like everything that is still
new, it will come up against misunderstanding, resistance, even
hostility. If we need to remain impassable, we shall so remain; if we
need to resist criticism and malice, we shall resist. We know that it is
the way to a healthy future and we are certain that sooner or later
anarchists will find their way there. That is why we shall not allow
ourselves to become discouraged.
What has been done in memorable circumstances in Italy, Spain and
Ukraine, what is being done in many places in France, can and, under the
pressure of events, will be done throughout the country.
[1] It being understood, as the libertarian communists themselves
“explicitly” stated in Orléans, that within the Libertarian Commune, as
they conceive it, “all forms of association will be free, starting from
the whole colony and including work and individual consumption”.
[2] The expression Anarchist Synthesis should be taken here in to mean a
grouping, association, organisation and understanding of all the human
elements who support the anarchist ideal.
[3] In talking of association and studying whether it is possible and
desirable for all those elements to unite, I could only call this
grouping of forces, this basis for organization, the Anarchist
Synthesis. Quite something else is the synthesis of anarchist theories,
an extremely important subject, which I intend to deal with when my
state of health and circumstances permit me.