đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș freedom-ed-the-international-anarchist-congress.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:58:09. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The International Anarchist Congress Author: Various Authors Date: 1907 Language: en Topics: international, congress, Amsterdam, 1907, organization, syndicalism, general strike, anti-militarism Source: Taken from Original. Freedom, ed. The International Anarchist Congress: Held at the Plancius Hall, Amsterdam, on August 26th-31st, 1907. London: âFreedomâ Office, 1907. The resolutions are taken from: [London?]: Anarchist Congress. Resolutions Passed at the Anarchist Congress Held at Amsterdam, August 24â31, 1907. International Bureau, 1907.
The Congress opened on Monday morning, August 26, 1907, present about a
hundred, including eighty delegates, FUSS AMORĂ presiding. Several
suggestions were at once put forward for the identification of those
present, FRIEDEBERG proposing a list of groups represented, and NACHT
the identification of individuals by mutual acquaintance at the tables.
The latter was adopted and carried out. Discussion of the agenda was
then taken, it having been proposed by several comrades that the item
âAnti-Militarismâ be struck off because the Anti-Militarist Congress was
announced for Friday of that week. Some were inviting the
Anti-Militarist Congress to join the Anarchist Congress for the
discussion of this important matter, others for taking it immediately,
others again for adjourning while the other Congress was sitting in
order that all might attend. The sitting was suspended for ten minutes,
after which it was agreed to make clear the Anarchist views of
Anti-Militarism on the Friday morning, and then to adjourn for the
Anti-Militarist Congress.
Reports of delegates were then called for.
THONAR, for Belgium, described the movement in that country was
awakening to a new activity in sympathy with the rousing of the masses.
The groups were not actually federated, but it had been found necessary
to form a central fund for building up a circulating library and a large
stock of literature. This was carried about the country, and pamphlets
sold broadcast. The central fund was also used for the important work of
helping deserters.
VOHRYZEK, for Bohemia, reported that the movement had been in existence
many years, and that four years ago organisation had been found
necessary. The groups at present numbered about forty-two: they
supported eight newspapers, one of which had a circulation of 12,000,
and they had also published fifty to sixty pamphlets. The most important
work at that time was among the peasants, to whom they were preaching
Syndicalism [1] as a means of emancipation. Anarchism was very wide
spread in the workersâ Syndicates; in fact, the two most important
Syndicates in the country, the Minersâ and the Weaversâ, had an
Anarchist majority, and were conducted on Anarchist principlesâthat is,
by voluntary subscriptions.
SAMSON, for the Dutch Federation of Anarchist Communist groups, gave a
list of many pamphlets published by them, and of six newspapers with an
average circulation of over 1,000. Besides these there were six other
more or less revolutionary organs in the country, one published by
Domela Nieuwenhuis, one Humanitarian Anarchist, one Anti-militarist, one
Syndicalist, one Christian Anarchist, and one for Land Nationalisation
through Direct Action. They found that the best means of propaganda in
the towns was to take a stall in the market and sell literature like
vegetables.
A Dutch comrade, who rose to supplement this report, declared that there
were seventy-two groups in Holland not included in the Federation. He
also maintained that the Federation only supported on out of the six
papers, the other five being run by non-federated groups.
DUNOIS, on behalf of the comrades of French-Switzerland, described the
movement as unorganised in that country up to 1906, when a Congress was
called which resulted in the formation of the present Anarchist
Communist Federation. Every group has a secretary, whose business is
entirely correspondence, and who is constantly in touch with the same
(and the only) âofficerâ of the Federation. The Swiss Anarchists are
finding their chief sphere of action in the Syndicates. They were
influential in the great strike of the chocolate workers, which,
beginning as a sectional strike on behalf of one man, developed into a
general strike of such importance that the police and the army were
useless, and the Government finally had to beg the capitalists to give
in. The comrades enter the Syndicates in order to bring on such strikes
and to push them towards expropriation, and at the same time they
organise among themselves for the success of revolution.
BAGINSKY, for the foreign movement in the United States, began by
remarking that an Anarchist Congress in that country, the politically
freest country in the world, would now be impossible. The movement may
be said to date from the Congress held in 1884, although for some time
it was purely intellectual and middle-class. The condition of the
proletariat was scarcely considered. Attention was called to the
discontent and unrest among them by the action of Czolgosz. He was
absolutely unknown to Anarchists, yet their attempt to discuss his
action, without praising it or blaming it, was used against individuals
and the movement. The organ of the movement, Freiheit, was carried on by
German comrades when Most died, and has at present a circulation varying
from 3,500 to 4,000. The main lines of propaganda are Syndicalism and
the General Strike.
EMMA GOLDMAN, for the American movement, brought a long account of the
situation in the United States, which she thought advisable not to read
as so much time had been taken with reports. (This paper is now being
printed in Mother Earth.) She described how in her three journeys across
the American Continent, visiting twenty-eight States, she found
Anarchists groups all over the country, speaking every language from
Dutch to Japanese. But the purely American movement is very young in
spite of the strong foreign involvement in its midst, the Yiddish
comrades, for example, who recently started a daily paper. More than
anything else the famous Haywood trial has stimulated the purely
American movement, and helped to bring the middle-class Tolstoyans into
touch with the brute facts of the social conditions. Besides Mother
Earth, with a monthly circulation of 3,000 to 4,000, there is the
Demonstrator, published by the Home Colony, and Liberty, which is still
devoted to the individualist side of Anarchism. As to the fighting
organisations of the proletariat, their hope in the Workersâ Federation
is dead. It is now from the Western Minersâ Union that the beginning of
a revolutionary movement may be expected. The East is absorbed in
commercial and political greed, but the essential characteristic of the
West is its revolutionary spirit. Touching on the difficulties of
Anarchist propaganda in the East, she instanced the Criminal Anarchy Law
of New York, under which any person preaching Anarchism is liable to
imprisonment for ten years and 5,000 dollars (ÂŁ1,000) fine, and anyone
letting or allowing a hall to be used for Anarchist meetings can be sent
to prison for two years.
At this point telegrams were read bringing greetings from the Workersâ
Friend Group and Germinal Group of London, and from groups in Denmark,
Westphalia, Geneva, Italy, and Portugal.
RAMUS then gave a report on the Austrian movement, covering the period
from 1894 until to-day. The movement suffered severely for some time
from the crushing severity of the police, and from the malicious
denunciations of the Social Democrats. Anarchists were imprisoned and
expelled for the most absurd trifles, and the opposition sections and
tendencies which arose within and separated themselves from the ranks of
Social Democracy had nothing of Anarchism in them, but competed with the
official party for the conquest of power over the workers. So it came
about that during the period 1899â1904 there was practically no
Anarchist movement among the German Austrians. Since then there has been
a distinct revival, and especially during the past year, which has seen
the formation of numerous groups. These young groups are just about to
publish their own German Anarchist weekly.
LANGE, for Germany, described the movement as federalist, the only way
to arouse interest being through the advocacy of such organisation. Die
RevolutionÀr, with a circulation of 5,000, and Der Anarchist, with
1,800, represented the two lines of propaganda in Germany. But no
revolutionary movement could be looked for in that country while the
power of the Social Democrats remained what it is. It lies like a dead
weight on the people, but there are already plentiful signs of its
coming disruption
ROCKER, for the Jewish movement in England, reported that seven
provincial and four London groups took an active part in the life of the
Jewish Trade Unions, of which there were eleven, regarding always
Syndicalism as a revolutionary means of emancipation. The best known
paper, the Workersâ Friend, had a circulation of 2,500, and had been
clearly Anarchist for sixteen years. Another more popular paper was
Germinal, printed in 48 pages, with 4,000 copies as an average issue.
Besides these they trusted a great deal in pamphlets, of which over
30,000 had been sold. Their position was often made difficult by the
fact of their being foreigners, and on account of the exaggerated
prejudice of the English press and public regarding Anarchism.
Nevertheless they had been able to give valuable assistance to Russian
comrades, and now they had solved the difficulty of the constant
visitations of spies by taking two attached houses on a 21 yearsâ lease,
in one of which was a room capable of holding 800 people. The Social
Democratic and the Zionist movements are of very little importance among
the Jews of England.
WALTER, for the English movement proper, reported on the activity of the
Freedom group of London, which continued to publish the monthly paper of
the name (circulation about 1,500), started 21 years ago. The group had
also a good sale of pamphlets, a number being at present in print and
others projected. Another group had been formed for the weekly
publication of the Voice of Labour, circulation about 2,000. The object
of this paper was to infuse the Labour movement with the spirit of
direct action, and it appealed alike to Unionists and non-Unionists.
[Unfortunately, it has since ceased publication owing to lack of
support.] There were also several provincial groups who kept up the old
traditions of street-corner propaganda, and recently an attempt to
organise regional Unions for skilled and unskilled workers had resulted
in what practically amounted to an Anarchist Federation of seven or
eight groups.
ROGDAEFF, for Russia, explained that the movement only became visible in
that country five years ago, groups in Odessa and Bielostock being among
the first, together with that of Ekaterinoslav, now one of the
strongest. There were the widest differences and tendencies with regard
to tactics, the Ural Congress, for instance, admitting Syndicalism,
while the Polish movement was all for secrecy. Taking the country as a
whole, the secret organisations are by far the strongest. Then there are
groups formed for special purposes, for agitation against taxes or
against the Army. The Baltic provinces are particularly strong in
anti-militarist groups. There is also a strong organisation for
propaganda in the Navy. All of these are well supplied with literature
that includes translations of all the best foreign writers. But the
Syndicalist or non-street activities in the towns have been and are very
important. In St. Petersburg and Moscow there are Unions of unemployed,
who force the Government to give them work, and attack the shops if this
is not forthcoming; and at such times there is, of course, an intense
propaganda of wholesale expropriation. In the country also this
principle is at work; in Georgia, for instance, where the village of
Goulgouly became purely Communist and remained so for ninety days.
MUNTZICH described how the work of the Proudhonists and Bakuninists in
Servia and Bulgaria was choked by the advent of Marxism after the
Turco-Russian War. Newspapers have been started in both countries, and
in spite of their short lives they will shortly reappear, for the
movement is distinctly increasing. Also in Dalmatia there is an
Anarchist movement of great promise.
MALATESTA declared that Socialism in Italy was born Anarchist. The
number of Anarchists in some districts is surprising. In Ancona and
Massa Carrara the majority of inhabitants may safely be said to be
Anarchists, and this year has seen a great reaction against the Social
Democracy of the Socialist Party, which reaction has created a new
Syndicalist movement, in which Anarchists are taking part, and which is
in many respects Anarchistic.
The French report was held over for the following day, as it dealt
mainly with the question of organisation. It was agreed that no more
reports should be taken owing to the amount of time necessitated by the
translations.
LANGE presiding.
ANARCHISM AND ORGANISATION.
DUNOIS (France).âThe question of organisation comes first on our agenda
owing to the pressing necessity of an international understanding among
Anarchists. A great change has taken place in the movement during the
last decade. Before that period individual action was considered
sufficient in itself to bring about the emancipation of the people; but
this idea has faded as the movement has come into closer touch with the
workers. It was for want of this intimate contact that the early
Anarchist groups, really no more than groups for social study, became
merely idealistic. The two main causes of this change in France have
been the example of foreign countries and the âaffaire Dreyfus.â The
result of the first was Syndicalism, of the second Anti militarism. At
the same time, and by these means, Anarchism has become a practical
revolutionary theory based on the spontaneous action of the workers. It
is true that there are still a few Individualists in the country who
sear by Rousseau that every possible form of society is bad. But
Anarchism insists on the organisation of society, organisation minus
authority. Even Marx defined it so, looking forward to the
transformation of government into administration. For Anarchism is not
simply Individualist; it is essentially Federalist. It has been said
that there lies a danger to the movement in Syndicalism. We acknowledge
it is so for those who feel it so; but for most of us this danger is
more than compensated by the new world it opens to Anarchist activities,
and by the sight of a new basis of society. We must see to it that this
new basis is Anarchist. We must not remain together, âinitiates.â
Everywhere we see the corporative conceptions of the mass movement
giving way to the class conception. But that is not enough; we must
supply the means and the object to the energised proletariat. And
compare our position with that of the Social Democrats. They receive
inspiration for action in the Syndicates from their party, they feel the
strength of their party behind them, something to refer to as a common
ground of inspiration. In the same way we would gain by federation.
Besides helping each other and keeping the revolutionary spirit alive
and earnest, we have to remember that there can be no revolution without
the mass of the people. Propaganda must still be our first object, and
for this we need federation of all who agree in principles and methods.
His motion read:â
âThe Anarchists assembled in Congress at Amsterdam,
Considering that the ideas of Anarchism and of organisation, far from
being incompatible, as has often been supposed, complete and explain
each other, the whole principle of Anarchism being the free organisation
of productive workers;
That individual action (important as it is, and at certain moments and
in certain countries even of greater importance than collective action)
cannot fill the want of collective action, of united movement;
That the organisation of the militant forces would give new life to the
propaganda, and would help forward the penetration into the working
classes of the ideas of revolutionary federalism;
That organisation founded on identity of interests does not exclude
organisation founded on identity of aspirations and ideas; and
That, without establishing between them any useless, nay, possibly
harmful connection, they have both a specific activity and a
well-defined different but complementary object;
Recommend the comrades in all countries to put on their agenda the
formation of Anarchist groups and federation of groups.â
EMMA GOLDMAN (America).âWe are often accused of a desire to annihilate
society, we are constantly called the enemies of organised society, and
there have been some who, calling themselves Anarchists, have put
forward an ideal of society without organisation. But this merely
destructive conception of Anarchism rests on the fallacy of considering
present society as organised. That is not so. The State is not a social
organisation; it is an organisation born of despotism and maintained by
force, and imposed by force on the masses. Industry is not organised for
the sake of industry, it is simply an exploiting organisation,
exploitation being the basis of profit. The Army is not a social
organisation; it is a cruel instrument of blind force. The Schools are
not organised for education, but everywhere they are still barracks
wherein to drill the human mind into submission to social and moral
spooks, and so facilitate the perpetuation of the present system of
exploitation. For us, organisation is a natural organic growth, and the
test of such organisation must be that it shall increase and liberate
our own individuality, the very contrary of all the so-called
organisation of to-day. Certainly we do not want such an organisation of
non-entities, but an organisation of self-conscious individualities.
Before the morning sitting was closed, THONAR (Belgium), on a point of
order, wished to observe that although this was an Anarchist Congress,
we had voted [on the order of the day]. This was surely most
unreasonable.
MALATESTA (Italy) requested that this matter be at once taken into
consideration as bearing directly on the question of organisation.
MONATTE (France) insisted on the difference between Parliamentary voting
and free voting. The one was an expression of power, the other of
opinion.
CORNELISSEN (Holland) thought it was obvious that any voting in this
Congress left the minority absolutely free. It was simply a convenient
method of grouping and defining different opinions.
MARMANDE (France) did not wish to take up any theoretical discussion on
the point. We want to show each other how we think. If there is a better
means of doing so, we shall discover it.
Other speakers having expressed similar opinions, the matter was allowed
to drop.
ANARCHISM AND ORGANISATION (continued).
CROISET.âIn dealing with this question we have got away from first
principles. We must go back to them. Comrade Dunois seemed to forget
that the first necessity of Anarchism is individual liberty. However
much we may talk about Anarchist Communismâand he (Croiset) was a
confirmed Anarchist Communistâwe cannot get away from the fact that the
principle of life is, âMe first and then the rest.â We do not want any
hypocritical altruism here. Life is always the individual struggle
against necessity, and it is only necessity that forces us to
co-operation. Anarchist Communism means the most advantageous compromise
between individual freedom and necessary organisation. When any form of
organisation or any system of co-operation becomes permanent, it
inevitably becomes despotic.
NACHT was not in sympathy with the previous speaker. He was not only in
favour of Syndicalism as already defined by others, but also of
Anarchist Syndicalism existing alongside the other Syndicalism. He felt
that the merely propagandist groups were entirely useless. He should
make straight for active expropriation.
THONAR (Belgium).âThe Congress itself was a sign of evolution towards
organisation of some kind. The necessity of the moment was to unite all
over the word so that when anything is to be done we could act together.
He declared himself a Syndicalist as well as an Anarchist, in spite of
the Syndicates not being Anarchist. And he did this because he
recognised that the practical and effective movements of the world are
mass movements. We, too, must push forward as a mass movement.
VORHYZEK (Bohemia) could not see that even extreme Individualism
necessitated a denial of organisation. He did not know that the
Individualists wrote against organisationâStirner certainly wrote in
favour of it. He held that the popular saying was true in this as in
everything else: extremes meet. Obviously we must avoid any form of
organisation which might breed authority, but he saw no danger in
federation provided that no executive was appointed or allowed to grow
up. He would like to insist on the necessity of keeping clearly apart
the Anarchist International and the Revolutionary Syndicalist
organisations, while at the same time encouraging every form of mutual
aid between them. He should like to touch on another point by the way.
Possibly the Congress might later on define its opinion of expropriation
as it was at present being practised in Russia. He would like to make
the personal declaration that however much the individual might be
devoted to the cause, he could not consider expropriation for
individualist uses a clean method of life.
GOLDMAN (America).âFifteen years ago there seemed to be an antagonism
between Individualism and Communism; not it is impossible to separate
them. The liberty of the individual depends on individuality. What we
are working towards is a state of society in which social, economic, or
sexual subordination will be impossible. She had known Anarchist groups
in which objections used to be made to the personal habits of
individuals, their manner of dressing or of wearing their hair, or
smoking and so forth. This disappears as we learn how to live together
and to understand the Communist principle of toleration. As to
expropriation, this must be judged entirely according to individual
cases. It would be obviously absurd to strike off a member of a group
because he had been forced to steal for his immediate needs.
The Congress then adjourned till next morning.
LANGE presiding.
ANARCHISM AND ORGANISATION (continued).
MALATESTA.âThe misunderstanding about Individualism and Collectivism is
entirely one of terms. Some of us mean one thing by these words, and
some another; and we do not always use them in the same way. For
himself, he would define two kinds of Individualism. There is that of
the individual who thinks of nobody but himself, of developing his
individuality without consideration of others, or else at their expense;
that is the Individualism of the capitalist and of all
oppressors,âbourgeois Individualism. And there is the Individualism of
others who, for their own happiness, must be assured of the happiness of
others,âwho desire the well-being and integral development of all
individuals; that is the Individualism of the Anarchists. And in order
to realise this, organisation is necessary. True freedom is only in
voluntary organisation. The very reason that we are not free is because
we are not organised and the capitalists are. How can a single
individual peasant free himself? He can only do it by organising with
his fellows.
As to the desirability of organisation in the Anarchist movement itself,
the lack of it is a constant reproach to us. Take only as an instance
what happens when one of us is threatened with imprisonment. Is it the
Anarchists who organise those monster demonstrations which by sheer
weight of public opinion force the authorities to withhold the sentence?
No; we left it to the Freethinkers and the Socialists to liberate
Ferrer. What is wanting among us is primarily the spirit of action. When
that comes we shall organise, and no fear of authority creeping into our
organisations will daunt us. While we do nothing it is only natural that
our organisations fade, but when we see what there is to be done, and
set out to do it, then the International will become a reality. It is
not for propaganda that it is wantedâwith or without international
organisation the propaganda growsâbut we need it for action. Whenever
there is a revolutionary movement anywhere in the world, international
organisation becomes necessary.
(At this point various telegrams of greeting were read, and a letter
from a Chinese delegate expressing his regrets for his enforced absence
through sudden illness.)
RAMUS, though entirely in agreement with those who had spoken in favour
of the principle of organisation, felt more in sympathy with the
viewpoint of Croiset than with that of Dunois. We must not say that only
now do we begin to understand Anarchism; we are simply utilising the
inheritance of the pioneers. An Anarchist International must be a
voluntary association of groups and federations founded on the basis of
freedom for the individual. He wished to protest against the idea that
it should learn and teach âtechnical meansâ for the benefit of the
Syndicalist movement. It must be the means of furthering the propaganda
of Anarchist ideas, for only inasmuch as the Syndicalist movement is a
means to this end does Anarchism concern itself with Syndicalism.
BAGINSKY held it absurd to imagine that individual liberty and
organisation are antagonistic. We do not want Kropotkin only, or Stirner
only, but both at once. We must unite them and Ibsen too. On the other
hand, we cannot regard the State as an organisation; in every
manifestation of itself it proves to be simply an institution for the
application of blind Force. An Anarchist organisation would naturally be
without that force, authority. Nor do we want similarity in our
organisation, but, on the contrary, the greatest possible variety, so
that it may respond to the needs of the greatest possible number of
different individualities.
CORNELISSEN felt strongly that all Anarchist organisations must be
independent of all other organisations. He felt that we had heard too
much of Individualism, and that some comrades carried it so far that the
strongest individual Anarchist would end by becoming a moral despot. The
despotism of personality is a thing we must guard against. We have still
to discover the form of organisation that would leave the individual
free while at the same time safeguarding us against this.
BROUTCHOUX was not so sure of the necessity of isolating Anarchist
organisations. He was proud to say that he was attending the Congress as
delegate of an Anarchist group and a Minersâ Union, which had combined
for that purpose. He did not see why there should have been so much talk
about Individualism and freedom. The liberty of the individual is only
limited by the liberty of others. When two individuals begin to
interfere with each other, there is no liberty for either.
CHAPELIER rose to reply to what Cornelissen had said regarding the
despotism of personality. It was obvious that while there existed men
eminently more active, more intelligent, and more capable than others,
this moral authority would continue. The only way to abolish that
authority is to educate all so that each one may find his special sphere
of activity and freely develop his personal capacities.
SAMSON did not see that the question was so much one of finding a
suitable form of organisation. There would always be discontented
individuals in any form of organisation, but if the organisation is
really busy their discontent will not upset it. Besides, they are always
as free to leave as they were to join.
It was then agreed to close the discussion as the afternoon was required
for a private sitting at which the same question would be treated from
the practical side. The above resolution (Dunois) was carried
unanimously together with the following addition suggested by Vohryzek
and Malatesta:â
âAn Anarchist federation is an association of groups or individuals in
which no one can impose his will or limit the initiative of others. It
has for object to change the moral and economic conditions of present
society, and to this end it employs all adequate means.â
THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL.
As a result of the afternoon sitting, the following resolution was
handed to the press:â
âThe Anarchists (individuals and delegates of groups and federations)
assembled at Amsterdam declare that:
The Anarchist International is constituted.
It is composed of existing organisations, and of individuals, groups,
and federations who shall adhere.
Individuals, groups, and federations shall remain autonomous.
An International Bureau is constituted, composed of five delegates.
The Bureau will found international Anarchist archives, accessible to
all comrades.
It will put itself into communication with Anarchists in all countries,
either directly or through three comrades chosen by the groups or
federations of those countries.
For individual affiliation to the International, the individual must be
identified by an organisation, by the Bureau, or by comrades known to
the Bureau.
The expenses of the Bureau and archives will be covered by the
affiliated federations, groups, and individuals.â
ANARCHISM AND SYNDICALISM.
MONATTE.âBefore dealing with the general question of the relations
between Anarchism and Syndicalism, let us see what is meant by the
latter in France. The revolutionary Syndicates are composed of men who,
while they are by no means all Anarchists, are all
anti-Parliamentarians. The basis of Syndicalist organisation is one
Union for each trade in each locality. These Unions, or Syndicates, are
grouped together locally by the Bourses du Travail, which are
unfortunately subsidised by the municipality. The Syndicates are also
federated nationally by trades, these federations at present numbering
sixty-four, with headquarters usually in Paris. Out of these and the
Bourses du Travail is formed the Confederationâthat is, one delegate
from each Bourse and each national Syndicate. This dual organisation has
been found most effective, and it now remains only to strengthen it by
supplementing the Bourses du Travail by about seventy regional
organisations, thus linking up the whole country. The whole history of
the movement shows the mistrust of the workers for Parliamentary action.
Over and over again the politicians have tried to win them, and for this
reason they were for a long time shunned by Anarchists. But with the
political success of Millerand the atmosphere cleared. Then came the
union of all revolutionists, and the Anarchists shows that they were
organisers. There are still a few Syndicates outside the
Confederationâthe Miners, for exampleâbut they will soon join. The
Syndicalist movement is the workersâ movement, and for that reason alone
all Anarchists should join their Syndicates.
Direct Action is the one principle of Syndicalism, and the strike is the
most important form of action in the Syndicates. Some Anarchists might
say to him: We do not want strikes; we want revolution. But he would ask
them: How is the revolution to come before the workers know their power?
Every strike is a lesson in revolutionary action. A strike is also the
best means of propaganda. Until a great strike aroused that province,
Brittany was the most backward part of France. Since the strike the
number of Syndicates there has grown to over a hundred. To have taken
part in a serious strike brings to each man a total change of mentality.
He must clear up one popular misunderstanding about the movement in
France. It was often imagined that the business of the Confederation was
to order strikes, and that Syndicates could not strike without referring
the question first to the Confederation. This is entirely a mistake. The
Syndicates and their sections are absolutely autonomous and strike when
they think fit, simply advising the Confederation of the fact.
In putting the case for Syndicalism he would point out that the General
Strike, to have any permanent effect, is obviously more complicated an
affair than any merely political revolution. It would have to be carried
out with a clear understanding of what was wanted, and with an absolute
confidence in the organisations. Anarchists had begun to lose confidence
in the coming revolution in France, Syndicalists had restored it. He
would not deny that there were serious dangers in the movement, besides
that most serious one of the subsidising of the Bourses du Travail.
There was the danger of centralisation, which naturally chokes
individual initiative to a certain extent. Here was work for
Anarchistsâand in fighting against this they would find many Socialists
with them. Then there was the danger of officialism. It was inevitable
that the man who had been sitting in a secretaryâs armchair year after
year should begin to take a different view of the movement to what he
did when he was working in the mine or the shop. Every Anarchist in the
Syndicates would naturally oppose this dangerous principle of
re-electing officials. Finally, he would warn Anarchists against joining
Syndicates simply to use them as fields of propaganda. Let them join as
exploited workers pure and simple first, as men of noble opinions after.
LANGE presiding.
ANARCHISM AND SYNDICALISM (continued).
LANGE, in declaring the sitting open, pointed out that while several of
the Dutch daily newspapers were giving good long reports of the
Congress, the current number of VorwÀrts had no mention of it.
A FRENCH COMRADE.âNor has HumanitĂ©!
A BELGIAN COMRADE.âNor Le Peuple!
Amidst much laughter MALATESTA rose to congratulate the Social Democrats
on having adopted a policy of silence in place of their old one of
misrepresentation.
LANGE reminded the Congress that before noon of the next day the three
questions, Syndicalism, the General Strike, and Anti-Militarism, had to
be disposed of.
It was unanimously agreed to take the first two together. The discussion
on Syndicalism and the General Strike was then declared open.
ROGDAEFF was in favour of Anarchists entering their Syndicates. Where
the conditions of the people were different, the movement was naturally
different. It was to be expected, therefore, that strikes would be
fiercer in Russia than in France. The recognition of the class was is
the basis of Syndicalist propaganda in Russia, and the real basis of all
the great strike movementsâeven of those supposed to be politicalâwas
economic. The famous revolt of the âPotemkinâ was in reality a sympathy
strike carried to its logical conclusion of expropriation. The Anarchist
position in the Syndicalist movement should be simply that the workersâ
movement should be cleared of all politicians. At the present time
practically all the Syndicates in Russia are anti-Parliamentarian. The
Government had started the formation of some Syndicates for its own end,
but in the strikes of 1903 things went so far that it had to act against
its own pet organisation. There were very few Anarchists in Russia who
did not sympathise with the Syndicalist movement.
CORNELISSEN felt that Monatte had not spoken as an Anarchist, but as a
Syndicalist. At the same time he agreed with him that there was good
work to be done inside the Syndicates. Besides the dangers already
mentioned, there was that of the Syndicates becoming merely co-operative
and an authority in their trade. Another evil of the movement was shown
in America, where the patriotic influence of the Unions was used in
exciting hatred of the Japanese.
OBERSLAGEN said that Anarchists had been very active in the Syndicalist
movement in Holland, and consequently the movement was in a very hopeful
condition.
MALATESTA expected some comrades would be surprised to hear him speak
against Syndicalism and the General Strike, against a certain conception
of the General Strike, a pacifist conception that seems to be growing
popular among Syndicalists. But first he desired to make it quite clear
that he as much as any one regretted the isolation that is the fate of
Anarchists who do not participate in the Labour movement. In the
propaganda of Anarchist ideas we must, of course, support the mass
movement. He was so far entirely in agreement with previous speakers.
But he felt that the other side of the question had not been fairly put,
so he would limit himself to bringing out what he considered the
essential differences of opinion between Anarchists and Anarchist
Syndicalists. He had himself been such a strong advocate of entering the
Syndicates that he had even been accused of being a Syndicate-maker.
That was all very well at one time, but now we are confronted with
âSyndicalism,â the doctrine. He would have nothing to say against it if
he could believe that Syndicalism alone could, as was claimed for it,
destroy Capitalism. But who could expect to overthrow Capitalism while
remaining a servant of capitalist production? Together with a solution
of the unemployed problem, they might do it; but the fact of the matter
was that as the Syndicalist organisation grew nearer and nearer to
perfection, the number of unemployed grew greater and greater.
Certainly, Syndicalism in this way can emancipate a part of the workers,
but not all. It is only too obvious that the Syndicates make a serious
division of the workers, and often enough without doing any harm to the
capitalists.
Do not let us make any mistake about what we mean by âsolidarity of the
workers.â It is often used as if there existed some natural economic
solidarity among the exploited workers. But this class solidarity even
is only an abstraction. The material fact of life under existing
conditions is the personal antagonism between all workers. Solidarity is
an aspiration, and in that alone lies its importance to the workers. It
is an aspiration that is capable of transforming the economic conditions
of a nation, for the differences of economic conditions are not due to
financial causes, but to the varying spirit of the people in the
different countries. Indeed we may as well confess at once that the
purely economic struggle is not sufficient; it must be based on an
intense moral struggle, for changes in economics conditions soon
readjusted themselves where the moral conditions of the people remain
unaffected.
Of one point about Anarchists in Syndicates he was quite certain,âthat
no Anarchist could take an official position in a Syndicated without
placing himself in a false position. Indeed, he was not sure whether
even the plain Anarchist member of a Syndicate would not before many
years find himself in a false position, for he was only accepted until
the Syndicates bocame really strong, and then he would be asked to go.
He did not see why France should consider herself in a novel condition;
English Trade Unionism began in just the same revolutionary tone, and
look at it now!
He should like, in passing, to clear up a misunderstanding of terms. He
often heard political action referred to as if it involved
Parliamentarism. This was a great mistake. What, for example, was
Bresciâs act? Was it economic? No; it was political. Marx was
responsible for this confusion. He approached the whole question from
the economic viewpoint, and sometimes almost takes it for granted that
the peasant enjoys paying rent to his landlord. This is manifestly
absurd. No peasantâand no other worker for that matterâlikes paying
rent; he does so simply because of the forceâthe political forceâthat is
behind the landlord.
He now came to the General Strike. What he objected to was the idea, so
freely propagated by some Syndicalists, that the General Strike can
replace insurrection. Some people fondly cherish the idea that we are
going to starve the bourgeoisie. We should starve ourselves first. Or
else they go so far as to admit that the General Strike involves
expropriation. But then the soldiers come. Are we to let ourselves be
shot down? Of course not. We should stand up to them, and that would
mean Revolution. So why not say Revolution at once instead of General
Strike? This might seem only question of words, but it goes deeper than
that. The advocates of the General Strike make people think they can do
things without fighting, and thus actually spoil the revolutionary
spirit of the people. It was propaganda of this kind that brought about
such illogical positions as that taken up by the strikers recently at
Barcelona, where they did fight the soldiers, but at the same time
treated with the State. This was because they were under the delusion
that it was only an economic question.
He considered that some of the pamphlets published on the General Strike
did nothing but harm. In the first place, it was a fallacy to base their
arguments, as some of them do, on a supposed superabundance of
production. Not being much of a hand at statistics himself, he once
asked Kropotkin what was the real position of England in this respect,
and he was told that England produces enough for three months in the
year only, and that if importations were stopped for four weeks
everybody in the country would die of starvation. The modern
possibilities of transport make it undesirable for capitalists to
accumulate food. It was estimated that London was never provisioned for
much over three days, in spite of all her warehouses.
In dealing with this question of the General Strike we must begin by
considering the necessity of food. This is a more or less new basis for
the conception. A peasant strike, for instance, appeared to him as the
greatest absurdity. Their only tactics were immediate expropriation, and
wherever we find them setting to work on those lines it is our business
to go and help them against the soldiers. And then he had read somewhere
that we ought to go and smash the railway bridges! He wondered whether
the advocates of such foolishness ever realised that corn has to come
the same way the cannons come. To adopt the policy of neither cannons
nor corn is to make all revolutionists the enemies of the people. We
must face the cannons if we want the corn.
Let us realise that the General Strike is only one means of fighting the
capitalists, and let us find out how it works in practice, how really to
use it. If the Governments have perfected the arms of repression, we
must set to work to perfect those of revolution. We need more knowledge;
we want new methods of fighting; we need a technique militaire. In his
own early days when hey talked about the General Strike for the first
time, every man had his own rifle and revolver, his plan of the town, of
the forts, arsenals, prisons, Government buildings, and so forth.
Nowadays nobody thinks of these things, and yet they talk on glibly
about revolution. Look at what happened in South Italy. The Government
shot down peasants by the hundred, and the only soldier that was hurt
fell off his horse by accident. (it was this massacre that made Bresci
take extreme action. He believed a telegram which was sent him from Rome
saying that the King himself had ordered the soldiers to shoot without
mercy.)
If we talk about revolution, then, let us at least be prepared for it.
Unfortunately, the fight must be brutal. He would like to think
otherwiseâbut how could it be? We cannot let ourselves be killed. These
are a few of the things he would recommend the comrades to ponder and
discuss.
BROUTCHOUX thought the two tendencies were now clear. He was himself of
opinion, and he was delegated by Anarchists of the opinion, that
Syndicalism was in itself enough to break up Capitalism. Anarchism is a
question of opinion; Syndicalism is a party of material interests. He
wished, moreover, to point out that if we did not want the Syndicates to
support the Social Democrats, we must join and use our influence to the
fullest extent. All workersâopinions apartâshould enter the Syndicates.
FRIEDEBERG expressed himself in favour of Syndicalism as a means of
direct action. Anarchists should enter the neutral (non-political)
Syndicates, and where these do not exist, should set to work organising
them.
VOHRYZEK considered Syndicalism only one form of economic action. He was
very doubtful of the utility of some of the agitations carried on by the
Syndicates. For instance, what was the use of agitating for higher wages
when the cost of living automatically rises with any increase of cost of
production?
RAMUS felt that the two extremes of the question had been fully
represented by Monatte and Malatesta. The fact that Monatte treated the
question entirely from the Syndicalist viewpoint proves that there is a
danger of Syndicalism absorbing and stifling Anarchismâin France, at any
rate.
MONATTE contended that the cost of living does not increase in
proportion to the rise of wages. He could not agree with Malatesta as to
the necessity of Anarchists refusing to take official positions in the
Syndicates. Such positions were a tremendous help in propaganda. Nor was
the talk of the General Strike addressed to the gallery, as had been
suggested. Syndicalists were in earnest all right. A General Strike will
never be made with their hands in their pockets. They knew it was no
simple, easy matter; but they held that life in the Syndicates will give
the necessary technical training and organisation.
The following resolutions were then read and accepted, approximately the
same amount of support being given to all three:â
(a) SYNDICALISM.
âThe Anarchists assembled at Amsterdam, consideringâ
That the present condition of society is characterised by the
exploitation and slavery of the producing masses, thus causing an
unavoidable antagonism of interests between them and those who profit by
their labour;
That the Syndicalist organisation founded on the basis of economic
resistance and revolt, all questions of political doctrine put aside, is
the specific and fundamental organ of this conflict between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie and all bourgeois institutions;
That it is desirable for a revolutionary spirit to be infused into this
organisation in order to guide it towards the expropriation of the
capitalists and the suppression of all authority;
That none but the workers themselves being able to expropriate and take
collective possession of the instruments and produce of labour, the
Syndicate will eventually transform itself into a productive group, thus
having in itself the living germ of the society of to-morrow;
Advise the comrades in all countries, without forgetting that Anarchist
action cannot be entirely contained within the limits of the Syndicate,
to take an active part in the independent movement of the working
classes, and to develop inside the Syndicates the ideas of revolt,
individual initiative, and solidarity, which are the essence of
Anarchism.â
(b) THE GENERAL STRIKE.
âThe Anarchists assembled at Amsterdam declare that the General Strike
with Expropriation is a remarkable stimulus to organisation and the
spirit of revolt when advocated as the manner in which the total
emancipation of the proletariat can be accomplished.
The General Strike is not to be confounded with the political General
Strike, which idea is nothing but an attempt of the politicians to use
the General Strike for their own ends.
By the extension o strikes to whole localities, districts, or trades,
the working class moves towards the General Strike with Expropriation,
which will mean the destruction of society as it now exists and the
expropriation of all the instruments and means of production.â
(c) SYNDICALISM AND THE GENERAL STRIKE.
âThe International Anarchist Congress considers the Syndicates as
organisations fighting in the class war for the amelioration of the
conditions of labour, and as unions of productive workers which can help
in the transformation of capitalist society into Anarchist Communist
society.
The Congress also, while admitting the eventual necessity of the
formation of special revolutionary Syndicalist groups, recommends the
comrades to support the general Syndicalist movement.
But the Congress considers it the duty of Anarchists to constitute the
revolutionary element in these organisations, and to advocate and
support only those forms of direct action which have in themselves a
revolutionary character, and tend in that manner to alter the conditions
of society.
The Anarchists consider the Syndicalist movement as a powerful means of
revolution, but not as a substitute for revolution.
They recommend the comrades to take part in a General Strike even if
proclaimed with the aim of capturing the political power, and to do all
they possibly can to make their Syndicates put forward questions of
economic rights.
The Anarchists further think that the destruction of capitalist and
authoritarian society can only be realised through armed insurrection
and expropriation by force, and that the use of the General Strike and
Syndicalist tactics ought not to make us forget other means of direct
action against the military power of governments.â
LANGE presiding.
ANTI-MILITARISM.
MARMANDE thought this was a subject on which we were all entirely
agreed, so we could briefly define our position towards the general
Anti-Militarist Congress then opening. Anarchists had been largely
instrumental in starting the agitation, and had always recognised the
value of desertion and propaganda with revolutionary action inside the
army.
MALATESTA would like to point out the difference between Anarchists and
some other Anti-Militarists. Some of the latter take simply the
financial or economic viewpoint of the agitation; others would like to
abolish armies but not the police.
The following resolution was then accepted unanimously without further
discussion:â
âThe Anarchists, desiring the integral emancipation of humanity and the
absolute liberty of the individual, are naturally the declared enemies
of all armed force in the hands of the State,âarmy, navy, or police.
They urge all comrades, according to circumstances and individual
temperament, to revolt and refuse to serve (either individually or
collectively), to passively and actively disobey, and to join in a
military strike for the destruction of all the instruments of
domination.
They express the hope that the people of all countries affected will
reply to a declaration of war by insurrection.
They declare it to be their opinion that the Anarchists will set the
example.â
This practically closed the Congress, Saturday morning being devoted to
private sitting. In the afternoon, a short discussion on a resolution
presented by CHAPELIER took place, in which he advocated Esperanto for
Anarchist international communications. The following resolution was
finally accepted without opposition:â
âThe Congress expresses the hope that all Anarchists will study the
problem of an international language.â
The Congress then closed with regrets that no time had been found
available for the discussion of other subjects on the agendaâAlcoholism,
Productive Associations, and the Integral Education of Children.
24â31, 1907
We publish herewith the resolutions approved by the Anarchist Congress
held in Amsterdam (August 24â31, 1907) at which the ANARCHIST
INTERNATIONAL was constituted.
For those who are used to consider Congresses as legislative bodies that
can dictate to the members of a party the official doctrine and the
methods which should be used, it will seem strange that more than one
resolution, more or less different between themselves, were taken on one
and the same subject. But for the comrades, this will look nothing but
quite natural.
The Amsterdam Congress, being a Congress of Anarchists, could not, and
should not, have had the pretension of making laws for others: he simply
desired to express the opinions of the comrades present, as well as of
the groups represented, and to propose these opinions to the discussion
and, possibly, the approbation of all anarchists.
It might have occured that radically contradictory opinions should have
manifested themselvesâthey would, all, have an equal right to
publication and discussion. As a matter of fact, there was, as will be
seen by the resolutions, no other difference than the more or less great
importance which each member attributed to some method or other of
action or propagandaâso that many congressists could, without
contradiction, equally vote for the different resolutions. And it was
that fact of fundamental agreement which persuaded all of us that it was
necessary to establish between ourselves a permanent bond which, without
diminishing anyoneâs liberty, facilitates our relations and our
co-operation in the common work.
We hope that all comrades will decide in the same direction.
The anarchists, meeting in Amsterdam, Consideringâthat the idea of
anarchy and of organisation, far from being contradictory, as sometimes
pretended, complete and explain each other, the principle of anarchy
residing in the free organisation of the producers;
that individual action, however important it may be, could not be
sufficient without common action, just as common action could not be
sufficient without individual action;
that organisation of the militant forces would give a new impetus to the
propaganda and could only hasten the penetration of the ideas of
revolutionary federalism in the working class;
that the workersâ organisation, based upon identity of interests, does
not exclude organisation based upon identity of aspirations and ideas;
Are of opinion that the comrades of all countries should discuss, as a
matter of vital importance, the creation of anarchist groups and the
federation of the groups already in existence.
The anarchist federation is an association of groups or individuals,
where no one can either impose his will or diminish the initiative of
others. It has, in the present society, the concrete duty of changing
all the moral and economical conditions, and in this direction, it
supports the struggle by all adequate means.
The anarchists (federations, groups represented and individuals) having
met in Amsterdam, declare the Anarchist International constituted.
It will comprise the organisations already existing, the groups and
individuals who will adhere later on.
The individuals, groups and federations remain autonomous.
An International Bureau is instituted. It will be composed of 5 members.
In case on of the members of the I.B. finds himself in absolute
impossibility of fulfilling his duty, the remaining members, by a
unanimous agreement, will have to replace him by another comrade.
The Bureau has, for its duty, the creation of international anarchist
archives accessible to all comrades.
The Bureau gets into communication with the anarchists of different
countries, either directly, or through 3 comrades chosen by the
federation or groups of the countries in question.
To be members of the International as individuals, the comrades will
have to be identified, either by an organisation, by the Bureau, or by
comrades known to the Bureau.
The expenses of the Bureau and archives should be covered by the
adhering federations, groups or individuals.
Three copies of each publication (journals and pamphlets) should be sent
to the International Bureau (Archives) who will place them, if necessity
arises, at the disposal of federations, groups or individuals who might
want them as documents
Consideringâthat the present legal and economical rĂ©gime is
characteristic of the exploitation and slavery of the great mass of
producers, and determines between them and those who reap the benefit
from the present régime, and antagonism of interests absolutely
irreducible which gives rise to the class-struggle;
that the syndicalist organization uniting the resistances and the
revolts on the economic ground, without doctrinary preoccupations, is
the specific and fundamental organ of this struggle of the proletariat
against the middle-class and all the bourgeois institutions;
that it is necessary that a revolutionary spirit, always more daring,
should direct the efforts of the syndicalist organization in the path of
capitalist expropriation and the suppression of all power;
that the expropriation and the taking collective possession of the
instruments and the products of labour, being only able to be
accomplished by the workers themselves, the syndicate is called upon to
transform itself into a producing group, and is therefore, in the
present society, the living nucleus of to-morrowâs society;
The anarchists recommend the comrades of all countries, without leaving
out of sight that anarchist action is not entirely contained within the
limits of the syndicate, to actively participate in the autonomous
movement of the working class and to develop, in these syndicalist
organisations, the ideas of revolt, individual initiative and
solidarityâwhich are the essence of anarchism.
The International Anarchist Congress considers the syndicates as
fighting organisations in the struggle with a view of bettering the
conditions of labour, as well as unions of producers being able to help
to the transformation of the capitalist society in an anarchist
communist society.
Thus, the congress admitting the eventual necessity of creating separate
revolutionary syndicalist organisationsârecommends the comrades to
support the general syndicalist organisations to which all the workers
of one industry are equally admitted.
But the congress considers as the duty of anarchists, to constitute, in
these organisations, the revolutionary element and to propagate and
support only those forms and manifestations of âdirect actionâ (strikes,
boycott, sabotage, etc.) which carry, in themselves, a revolutionary
character and lead to the transformation of the society.
The anarchists consider the syndicalist movement and the General Strike
as powerful revolutionary means, but not as substitutes to the
Revolution. They recommend also to the comrades, in case a general
political strike is proclaimed, to go out in strike, but invites them,
in the same time, to induce the syndicates who are under their influence
to voice their economic claims.
The anarchists think that the destruction of the capitalist and
authoritary society can only be realised by armed insurrection and
violent expropriation, and that the use of the more or less general
strike and the syndicalist movement must not make us forget the more
direct means of struggle against the military force of governments.
The anarchists, meeting in Amsterdam, Consideringâthat the idea of
anarchy and of organisation, far from being contradictory, as sometimes
pretended, complete and explain each other, the principle of anarchy
residing in the free organisation of the producers;
that individual action, however important it may be, could not be
sufficient without common action, just as common action could not be
sufficient without individual action;
that organisation of the militant forces would give a new impetus to the
propaganda and could only hasten the penetration of the ideas of
revolutionary federalism in the working class;
that the workersâ organisation, based upon identity of interests, does
not exclude organisation based upon identity of aspirations and ideas;
Are of opinion that the comrades of all countries should discuss, as a
matter of vital importance, the creation of anarchist groups and the
federation of the groups already in existence.
The anarchist federation is an association of groups or individuals,
where no one can either impose his will or diminish the initiative of
others. It has, in the present society, the concrete duty of changing
all the moral and economical conditions, and in this direction, it
supports the struggle by all adequate means.
The class-war and the emancipation of the proletariat are not identical
with the ideas and aspirations of anarchism which desiresâover and above
the immediate aspirations of classesâthe economic and moral emancipation
of the human personality, the society without authority, and not a new
powerâthe power of the majority over the minority.
Anarchism considers nevertheless, the abolition of class-oppression, the
suppression of the economic dependancy of the majority of human beings,
as an absolutely necessary and essential step on the path to the final
object.
Anarchism must however be opposed to the struggle for the emancipation
of the working class being conducted by certain means contradicting the
idea of anarchism and being an obstacle to the precise object of this
movement. Anarchism is therefore opposed to engage the struggle by the
methods propagated by the marxist socialism, i.e., by parliamentarism
and by a corporative syndicalist movement having only in view the
bettering of the conditions of the working classâthese two methods being
only able to help to the development of a new bureaucracy, of an
intellectual authorityâmay it be patented or notâand to lead to the
oppression of the minority by the majority. The anarchist methods for
the suppression of the class-oppression being only those that derive
directly from the affirmation of the individual personality: âdirect
actionâ and the ânon-consentâ of the individualâi.e., the active and
passive individuality either of one person, or of a whole mass
penetrated with a common will.
The Anarchist Communist Congress rejects, therefore, the strike for
political rights, (Politischer Massenstreik) the object of which is
inacceptable to anarchism, but recognises, in the revolutionary general
strike, i.e. in the refusal to work of the whole proletariat as class,
the means capable of disorganising the economic structure of the present
society, and of emancipating the proletariat from the wage-slavery. To
realise the General Strike, the penetrations of the syndicates by the
anarchist idea must be considered as indispensable. A syndicalist
movement imbued with the anarchist spirit can, by means of a
revolutionary general strike, destroy the class oppression and open the
path to the final object of anarchismâthe accession of a society without
any authority.
The Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam declares that the expropriating
general strike is a remarkable stimulent to the organisation and the
spirit of revolt in the present society, and it is the form under which
can be accomplished the integral emancipation of the proletariat. The
General Strike cannot be confounded with the Political General Strike
(Politischer Massenstreik) which is nothing else but an attempt of the
politicians to divert the general strike from its economic and
revolutionary ends.
By strikes generalised to localities, to regions, or to entire
professions, one will progressively raise the working class until it
will come to an expropriating general strike which will comprise the
destruction of the present date of society and the expropriation of the
means of production as well as of the products.
The anarchists desiring complete liberty of all individuals, the
integral emancipation of humanity, are naturally, essentially, the
outspoken enemies of any armed force in the hands of the State (army,
police, magistracy etc.). They engage the comrades,âand in general all
men aspiring for libertyâto struggle by all possible means, according to
their temperament and the circumstancesâindividual revolt, refusal of
military service, individual or collective, passive or active
disobedience,âfor the radical destruction of all instruments of
domination.
They express the hope that all nations concerned will answer by an
insurrection to any declaration of war.
They declare that the anarchists should give the example, the more so
that they spread these ideas in the syndicates.
The representatives of the Anarchist Communists of Russia, N. Rogdaeff
and Wl. Zabrejnev propose the congress to accept the following
resolution:â
The congressâconsidering
more noticed that the russian peopleâthe artisan and the peasentâwill
never be satisfied by the conquest of a vain political liberty. It
requires the complete suppression of the economical and political
slavery and employs these means of struggle which were always propagated
by the anarchists as the only efficient. The russian people does not
expect anything from above, but rises to arrive to the realisation of
his demands by new direct action.
importance, but that the near future of the international proletariat
depends on it.
its privileges so as to retard the moment of its destruction, and that
it has given its moral and material help to the greatest support of the
reactionâto the government of the tsar which it has helped with money
and ammunition against the will of the Russian people; that at the
critical moment it is always ready to support them with its guns and
rifles (as it is the case with the Austrian and German governments);
the struggle lead by the Russian people, as well as over all brutalities
of the autocracy.
The congress recognizes that: The proletarians of all countries must
oppose the most energetic action of which the Workers Anarchist
International is capable against all the agressions of the Yellow
International composed of united capitalists and governments of all
sorts: monarcho-constitutional or republican-democratic; by this action
they will prove their solidarity to the Russian proletariat in revolt.
In their own interests, they must categorically refuse to take part in
anything that might stifle the strikes and insurrections in Russia.
Never should the foreign proletariat in uniform lend his hand to
whatever action against his russian brother.
If the industrial proletariat, at the moment of a strike in Russia,
could not have the possibility of declaring a general strike in the
corresponding industry because of local conditions, he should then take
up all other means of struggleâthe sabotage, the destruction or
deterioration of products sent to the common enemy, the destruction of
railway lines, ships etc. The congress recommends persistently all those
who are of his opinion, the largest propaganda in favour of all means by
which one could help and support the Russian Revolution.
The Congress recognizing the utility of an international method of
communication, declares itself incompetent to judge on the proposed
international language (Esperanto), but proposes to the comrades who are
able to do so, to study the question.
The Congress has also passed the following resolution:â
The Congress ascertains that the Republican Government acts towards the
working men as all governments have never ceased to act.
Sends his fraternal greetings to comrades Yvelet, Marek, LĂ©vy, Bousquet,
Corton, Lorulot, Berthet, Clementine, Delmott, Gabrielle Petit; to the
twelve antimilitarists now detained in Paris and to all Comrades who are
in the Republican jails.
The Congress sends, in the same time its hearty salutations to all the
defenders of liberty who are in the prisons of the Worldly Capitalism
and invites the International Bureau to defend and support all our
imprisoned friendsâas one of the first acts of its labours.
The International Bureau being unable 1) to know all anarchists of all
countries who wish to become members of the International, 2) to loose
too much time in trying to enquire about the always increasing number of
groups and comrades desiring to join the Internationalâ
Notifies all comrades, groups, and federations wishing to join the A.I.,
that no account will be taken of any letter from comrades seeking
adhesion unless it contains a recommendation or an introduction of the
comrade or group in question signed by a group already belonging to the
A.I. or by a comrade known to the Bureau.
The comrades will readily understand why the Bureau felt compelled to
publish the above note.
[1] This expression is used throughout as being less cumbersome than
âRevolutionary Trade Unionism.â