💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › gregory-petrovich-maximoff-constructive-anarchism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:38:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Constructive anarchism Author: Grigori Petrovitch Maximov Date: 1927 Language: en Topics: platform, platformism, the platform, anarcho-syndicalism Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-03 from https://libcom.org/library/constructive-anarchism-debate-platform-g-p-maksimov
The development of anarcho-syndicalist ideas on working class
organisation and the revolutionary struggle for the libertarian
reconstruction of society, from the 1^(st) International to the 1930’s.
A defence of Anarcho-syndicalism against ‘Platformism’ and ‘Synthetical’
anarchism.
Contrary to what one might have expected from the key role of Russians
in the early history of the doctrine of revolutionary anarchism, Russian
anarchism disappeared from the scene soon after the death of Bakunin and
did not reappear until the 1905 revolution. Thus when anarchism did
reappear in Russia there were formidable competitors already on the
scene: the social democrats of Bolshevik, Menshevik and intermediate
tendencies and the socialist revolutionaries. Both of these parties had
consolidated themselves some years earlier, out of movements and
tendencies which themselves had roots in the revolutionary movement of
the 1870’s and 1880’s. Both of them had natural constituencies — the
workers in the one case and the peasants in the other (although these
were not completely separate groups) — into which revolutionary
anarchism would have to make inroads to succeed. Thus anarchism had an
even more unfavourable outlook than that other unsuccessful late
starter, Russian liberalism, which at least could look to an
influential, if narrow, natural support base amongst the better-off
intelligentsia, commercial and industrial middle classes and enlightened
nobility. It is no accident then that the two best known anarchist
chroniclers of the Russian revolution came to anarchism from other
movements after the 1905 revolution — Arshinoff from bolshevism — and
Voline from the Socialist Revolutionaries — and it is also no accident
that both of them conceived revolution in the most extreme terms
possible. With its natural terrain already occupied by other movements,
extremism was really all Russian anarchism had to offer. At times of
revolutionary excitement this could lead to a rapid growth in the
movement but if, as in 1917, the larger and more established
revolutionary groups adapted their own agitation to the mood of the
masses their rapid growth would swamp the anarchists.
By themselves these factors would have ensured that the anarchist
movement remained small — in 1917/18 it numbered perhaps 10,000 with
Syndicalist delegates representing perhaps 75,000 workers at trade union
and factory committee conferences — but other factors were also at work
to make it weaker yet. From the start there was a division between
individualists and communists within anarchism but this division had a
rather different meaning under Russian conditions from what it would
have today or elsewhere then. The individualists tended towards “terror
without motive” whilst the left-wing of the Anarcho-communists endorsed
expropriation by armed detachments but the difference was not great and
in anti-state insurrectionary propaganda the two could easily run
together. The difference between the two was over the organisation (or
lack of it) of future society but not necessarily in the understanding
of revolution or at least its destructive phase. Since also the Russian
anarcho-communists remained at the level of agitation and propaganda
amongst the masses rather than rising to the level of organisation of
the masses (Russia could only acquire a Syndicalist movement after the
February revolution) the organisational forms of Russian anarchism —
small groups and circles – did not make for differentiation between
individualism and Anarcho-communism.
In this situation the impact of the revolution could only be to further
disintegrate a movement that was never integrated or coherent. Once the
revolution was underway propaganda for construction would have to take
over from demands for destruction if anarchism was to have any influence
at all. This necessitated clearly distinguishing between individualism
and communism. However at the same time there arose — for
non-individualists the question of tactics and strategies in an ongoing
revolution. This led to a clear separation between the
anarcho-communists with their focus on the problem of organising the
consumption of the “masses,” and the Syndicalists with their focus on
the problems of the revolutionary fighting and post-revolutionary
productive organisation of the “workers.” Anarcho-communism, lacking any
clear tactical or strategic bases, then split between simple armed
opposition to everything “statist” and collaboration with (and
subordination to) the bolshevik party. Anarcho-syndicalism, more
coherent in its organisational, tactical and post-revolutionary ideas
than the other variants, also faced problems with the emergence of the
factory committees which had no place in the original syndicalist scheme
of things, but these problems were at least surmountable within its own
universe of ideas. Despite this syndicalism was born and fated to remain
a minority tendency in a trade union movement dominated by Mensheviks
and a factory committee movement with strong links to the bolsheviks.
Within the sad chronicle of Russian anarchism only one episode stands
out: that of the Makhnovist movement in the Ukraine (1918–1921). The
anarchist-led partisans achieved brilliant military successes against
the Germans, Ukrainian nationalists and White armies and for a long
period withstood the attacks of the Red Army when the latter turned on
them. Behind the partisan lines the anarchists tried to spark off an
independent social and political organisation of the liberated areas and
to re-organise the anarchist movement. (ultimately both these attempts
were to fall: the war of movement prevented the consolidation of base
areas and the Anarcho-syndicalists remained aloof from the projected
unification of the anarchist movement. The insurrectionary army remained
the dominant factor in the situation.)
It is hardly surprising that reflection on the complete political
failure of Russian anarchism in general and the relative military
success of its Ukrainian wing in particular should have led some
anarchists towards a demand for tighter and more disciplined
organisation. Nor is it surprising that amongst the protagonists of such
organisation should be the leader and the chronicler of the Ukrainian
movement. The unfortunate thing was that faced with two successful
examples — the bolshevik party and the anarchist army — Arshinoff,
Makhno and their group produced an organisational platform and politics
incorporating the main features of both. This alienated the
anarcho-syndicalists, who were organisationally serious but with totally
different organisational and political conceptions, and who in any case
had their own international organisation, the I.W.A. (International
Workers Association) and it failed to attract the anarcho-communists who
could not fail to perceive the bolshevism implicit in the organisational
and political prescriptions. The drafters of the platform had fallen
into the error of believing that organisational forms were merely a
technical matter and that the politics of an organisation were governed
by its explicit aims, often their opponents fell into the obverse error
of believing that all organisational forms (i.e. all formal
organisation) were politically statist.
The major focus of criticism of the “Platform” was directed against what
was labeled “Syntheticism.” The “Synthesis” or “Synthetical Declaration
of Principles” was commissioned from Voline by the Nabat (Tocsin)
Anarchist Confederation of the Ukraine (1918–1920). It was an attempt to
provide a framework within which the different types of anarchist
(syndicalists, communists, individualists) could co-operate.
In answer to the publication of the “Platform,” Voline, along with other
“Nabat” militants who survived the Bolshevik terror, by going into
exile, published in 1927 what became known as “The Reply.” This document
remains as the major attack on “Platformism” by the “Synthesis”
anarchists.
Meanwhile the anarcho-syndicalists who went into exile, did not remain
aloof from this “debate.” The most detailed criticism of the “Platform”
as well as the deficiencies in the “Reply” were made by G. P. Maximoff
in the pages of ‘Golos Truzhenika’. It was later collectively published
with the title “Constructive Anarchism.” This thorough analysis by
Maximoff (besides clearly stating the clear differences between
anarcho-syndicalism and platformism is of value also for its elaboration
of the development of the constructive program of anarcho-syndicalism
from within the 1^(st) International up till the reformation of the
I.W.A. in 1922.
The main purpose of this pamphlet is to republish the ideas expressed in
Maximoff’s long article. However, so that a new generation can examine
all sides of this critical debate in the history of revolutionary
anarchism, we have decided to include the other primary documents: “The
Platform” itself and “The Reply.” To indicate how the debate extended
beyond the Russian exiles. also included is Malatesta’s important
analysis of anarchist organisation and his subsequent exchange of views
with Makhno.
The debate on the Platform was not restricted to these primary documents
published together here for the first time in English. Other writings of
importance were:-
Confusionistes de l’Anarchisme” (Paris, 1927), “Anarklizm i Diktatura
Proletariata” (Paris, 1931)
“Solidaridad Obrera” in 1932 by Alexander Schapiro, the then general
secretary of the IWA, his position against the Platform was very similar
to that of Maximoff.
Synthese” and “Le Vertable Revolution Sociale.”
anarchists wrote important and influential articles. Particularly worthy
of republishing would be those of Luigi Fabbri, Camillo Berneri, Max
Nettlau and Sebastien Faure. In France, Faure became after Voline the
most important theoretician of “Synthetical” anarchism.
A useful follow up volume to the documents published here would contain
the best of the above. Regrettably none have as yet been translated into
English. Also useful would be a history of organisations founded on
“Platformist” principles.
Before we examine the principles of Anarcho-syndicalism, it is necessary
to summarise briefly the development of international Anarchism since
the war,[1] and to consider its present situation.
The Imperialist war, the rise and decline of the Great Russian
revolution, the uprisings in Central European countries, and the
intensification of the class struggle in other lands, obliged Anarchists
to investigate more thoroughly the true character of social revolution
and the practical means needed for its realisation. In the pages of
Anarchist and Revolutionary Syndicalist publications in all countries
the problems of construction, tactics and organisation were discussed
with increasing frequency. Unfortunately, these problems were only
stated; they were not resolved. And only relatively few of the
fundamental questions were actually answered.
The first practical attempt to deal with the question of organisational
forms in the social revolution must be found in the formation of the
International Workingmen’s Association of 1921 — the International of
Revolutionary Syndicalist Trade Unions. From that moment,
Anarcho-syndicalism became an organised international factor. The
International Workingmen’s Association adopted the philosophy of
Anarchist Communism, and, in addition to devoting itself to day to-day
efforts in the interests of the world proletariat, it strove, from the
first day of its existence, to find solutions to all those questions
which face, both now and in the future, the exploited masses in their
struggle for full liberation.
Nevertheless, despite these considerations and despite the fact that the
International Workingmen’s Association was a direct heir of the First
International, continuing the work of the Jura Federation and of Michael
Bakunin, its emergence was not welcomed unanimously in Anarchist
circles. A group of Russian anarchist emigres, for instance, decided to
establish, along similar lines to the International Workingmen’s
Association, a new organisation called the General Association of
Anarchists. And three years ago, in 1927, the “Group of Russian
Anarchists Abroad” submitted to the international Anarchist movement a
“Project for an Organisational Platform of a General Association of
Anarchists,” which attempted to resolve the various problems on a
different level from the International Workingmen’s Association. This
attempt aroused natural interest in Anarchist circles, and it is still
being propagated in the publications of that group.
Before reviewing the fundamental principles of our own program, it is
necessary to discuss this “Platform” in greater detail, as well as the
“Reply” which was made to it by “several Russian Anarchists.” We shall
scrutinise these two pronouncements of Anarchist thought, not from love
of controversy, but only in order to render more precise our attitude
towards those positive organisational and tactical issues which today or
any day might arise in their full magnitude in Russia itself and in
other countries as well. In addition, the “Platform” and the “Reply” to
it are both filled with every kind of distortion of Anarchist concepts,
and to ignore these distortions would amount to moral transgression
against the Anarchist movement. It is hoped that the considerable space
which will be devoted in this study to a criticism of these matters will
be found justified by the above considerations.
It is not within the scope of this study to examine the development of
Anarchist thought. My task is practical. After analysing the living and
concrete Anarchist movement from the moment of its inception to the
present day, I shall attempt to determine its shortcomings, errors and
ambiguities in theory and tactics. And further, on the basis of
historical experience, I shall propose for consideration methods which,
in my view, could help our movement in the struggle towards the
realisation of its program.
Thought precedes movement. Every act and every movement of the
individual, unless it is either mechanical or instinctive, is the result
of premeditation, of thought. Before he acts, man thinks about the act —
no matter whether the period of thought is brief or long — and only
after this labour of the mind does he take steps to transform thought
into reality. The same process can be observed in the intricate organism
of human society.
In this complex social organisation, as well, the idea precedes the
action. And for that reason the history of ideas does not coincide in
time with the history of the movements which serve these ideas. Thus,
the history of Anarchist and Socialist ideas can be traced back to
antiquity, but the history of the Anarchist and Socialist movements
begins only in the sixties of the last century, with the organisation of
the International Association of Workers, or, as it is now commonly
called, the First International. To that time I ascribe the beginning of
the mass movement of Anarchist workers, and with it I begin the
examination and analysis of the movement which we all serve according to
our understanding and ability.
A study of the mistakes of the past will help us to avoid repeating them
in the present and the future. The courage to admit mistakes, and the
ability to discover their real causes are signs of a living spirit and a
clear, open mind. If a movement shows evidence of these vital qualities,
it is indeed healthy and strong, and it has a role to play in the
future. Let us try then, within the limits of our ability, to serve the
movement in this way. Inspired by this purpose, let us begin the
examination of our movement which grew, as already indicated, out of the
International Association of Working Men (First International).
What manner of Association was that? When, how and why did it emerge?
The First International itself is not my subject, and I shall sketch its
history only to the extent needed for the consideration of the Anarchist
movement, whose early development was inextricably linked with it. For
this reason I shall limit my examination to one fraction of the
International, the group known as the “Federalists” or the
“Bakuninists.”
The cornerstone of the International was laid during the International
Exhibition of 1862 in London, and the Association itself was actually
founded at the famous meeting in St. Martin’s Hall in London on
September 23, 1864. That meeting elected a provisional committee of
organisation, which in time became the General Council of the
International. The Committee elaborated the Declaration of the
International and its provisional statutes. These statutes were edited
by Karl Marx who, though a member of the committee, played a very
passive part in the formation of the International.
Under the influence of propaganda, sections of the International were
formed in several Western European countries. Many of their members had
only the vaguest and most confused notions of the aims and purposes of
the Association. And, because they included considerable numbers of the
radical intelligentsia, these sections frequently cooperated with the
radical political parties. Thus, the first adherent of the International
in Switzerland, Dr. Coullery, pursued a program of neo-Christianity and
his newspaper had a fairly extensive readership. A similar situation
arose in France. In short, the sections of the International were,
ideologically speaking, a motley and mutually contradictory collection,
and only in time were they moulded into a conscious and active social
force.
The First Congress of the International was scheduled to take place
during 1865, in Brussels, but it was called off because of a new Belgian
law which discriminated against foreigners. In its place, a conference
was called in London for the 25^(th) to 29^(th) of September of the same
year. At this conference the delegates from France were all Proudhonists
— Tolain, Fribourg, Limousin and Varlin — later a member of the Paris
Commune. Caesar de Paepe came from Belgium, Dupleix and J. P. Becker,
one-time participant in the Dresden uprising, from the French and German
speaking parts of Switzerland respectively. Among the emigrants, who
represented no specific sections, there were Dupont, Le Lubez, Herman
Jung and Karl Marx. This conference considered labour problems
primarily, but it also touched on questions concerning international
politics, and it decided to call the first Congress of the International
in Geneva for the fall of 1866.
This Congress took place from September 3^(rd) to the 8^(th), and was
attended by 65 delegates — sixty of them representing national sections
and five from the General Council. Most of these delegates were Swiss
and French. Since this Congress is of the greatest importance in the
history of the Anarchist and Socialist movements, I shall review its
agenda and resolutions.
The agenda is most interesting, and to this day the issues placed before
the consideration of the Congress have not lost their concrete
significance, not only for the modern labour movement in general, but
for the Anarchist movement in particular, whose attitudes on these
issues were responsible for the division of the International into
divergent factions. This agenda consisted of the following items:
Capitalism by the organisation of unions.
Europe by means of the establishment of a series of separate states
based on self-determination. (The reconstruction of Poland on democratic
foundations).
evolution of nations.
The most important achievement of the Congress was, of course, the final
ratification of the statutes of the International, which will be
examined below. First, however, I shall examine the resolutions on
several issues which, in my opinion, continue to be vital for the
Anarchist movement as a whole.
There is no unanimity among Anarchists on the question of labour’s
struggle against capital. They differ in particular on the issue of
unifying the efforts of the working men and their fight against the
exploiters. And this variation in attitudes towards labour unions is the
main issue dividing the Anarcho-communist camp into two major fractions
— the Anarcho-communists pure and simple and the Anarcho-syndicalists
Those present-day Anarchists who are Syndicalist do not believe that
labour associations could be the nucleus of a future society by
developing into federations of producers and stateless communes. The
Anarcho-syndicalists, on the other hand, hold that only rank-and-file
labour organisations are capable of providing the initial element in the
structure of new society, in which a federal International of producers’
associations will take the place of government.
Further, many Anarchists consider the Trade Union fight for everyday
interests to be petty, worthless and even harmful; they call it a
negligible, penny-wise policy which only serves to deflect the attention
of the workers from their main task, the destruction of capital and the
state. The Anarcho-syndicalists, on the other hand, view the everyday
struggle of the working classes as of tremendous importance. They
believe that the reduction of hours of work is a great blessing since,
after a long working day, the worker is so weary that he had no time or
energy for social problems or communal issues; he knows only one need —
physical rest. A long working day, indeed, transforms him into a toiling
animal. The same importance is attached by the Anarcho-syndicalists to
the increase of wages. Wherever wages are low, there is destitution;
where there is destitution, there is ignorance, and an ignorant
pauperised worker cannot be a Revolutionist, because he has no
opportunity to realise or appreciate his human dignity, and because he
cannot understand the structure of exploitation that oppresses him.
How did the Anarchists of the First International react to these issues?
The First Congress of the International passed a resolution saying that
“at the present stage of production workers must be supported in their
fight for pay increases.” Further, the Congress noted that the ultimate
aim of the labour movement is “destruction of the system of hired
labour” and it therefore recommended a serious “study of economic ways
and means to achieve this goal, founded on justice and mutual aid.”
The second Congress of the International, held in Lausanne in 1867;
accepted the same resolution. The third Congress, meeting in Brussels,
from September 6^(th) to 13^(th), 1868, debated the question of strikes,
of federation between labour associations and of the establishment of
special Coordination Councils whose task it would be to determine
whether a given strike was either legal or useful. The Congress then
passed a resolution saying:
“This Congress declares that the strike is not a weapon for the full
liberation of the worker, but that it is frequently rendered necessary
in the struggle between labour and capital in modern society; it is
essential therefore to subject strikes to certain rules so that they be
called at propitious times only, and with the assurance of competent
organisation.
“As to the organisation of strikes, it is essential that labour unions
of resistance exist in all trades, and that these unions be federated
with all other labour unions in all countries ...
“To determine the timeliness and legality of strikes, a special
commission composed of Trade Union delegates should be established in
every locality.”
On the issue of the reduction of working hours, the Congress declared
that “the reduction of working hours is a primary condition for every
improvement in the position of the workers, and for that reason this
Congress has decided to begin agitation in all countries for the
realisation of this aim by constitutional means.”
At the fourth Congress of the International in Basel during September
1869 — it was the penultimate Congress — the French delegate, the
carpenter Pindy, read a paper on the issue of labour unions of
resistance (as Trade Unions were called in those days) in which he
incidentally expressed thoughts which later became basic to French
Revolutionary Syndicalism, and which have since been stressed
continually by those Anarchists who now call themselves
Anarcho-syndicalists. Pindy said that, in his view, labour unions must
join with each other in local, national and, finally, international
federations. In the future society, too, the Trade Unions would have to
unite in free communes, headed by Councils of deputies from the Unions.
These Councils would regulate relations between the various trades and
would take the place of contemporary political institutions. The
Congress carried a resolution proposed by Pindy, which stated that the
unions must, “in the interests of their branch of industry, gather all
essential information, consider common problems, conduct strikes and
concern themselves with their successful conclusion until such time as
the system of hired labour is replaced by the association of free
producers.” Such, according to the records of all the Congresses, was
the ideological viewpoint on the labour issue of the Anarchists who
participated in the First International.
But the International was not an organisation dominated by Anarchists.
It included Marxists, Blanquists and Proudhonist-mutualists, plain
Socialists and even radical Democrats. How then can one ascribe the
program of the International to the Anarchists of those days? The mere
fact of their membership in the International is not sufficient, since
they could have been in the minority and have dissented from the
viewpoint of the resolutions which were adopted. The question is
justified, although not completely so, since, had the Anarchists not
agreed with resolutions. there would have been some evidence of their
protest at the Congresses themselves and later in their press, a method
used by them whenever they differed from the opinion of the General
Council in London. However, there exists a great deal of additional
material which shows that, until the Hague Congress, the Anarchists
accepted the program of the International in full.
One has only to refer to the works and letters of Bakunin. His
pamphlets, “The Policy of the International,” “The Organisation of the
International,” “Universal Revolutionary Union,” as well as a number of
others, prove this contention clearly and convincingly. But, to make the
matter more certain, one should not rely on Bakunin’s pamphlets alone,
but should also consider the following quotations from the documents of
the Jura Federation, which then headed the theoretical and practical
Anarchist movement, as well as several quotations from the program which
Bakunin drew up for the “Social-Democratic Alliance.”
How is the program of the Alliance related to the issue of the labour
movement under discussion here? Paragraph 11 states that land, like all
other capital, is a tool of production which must become the collective
property of society as a whole, to be utilised only by the working
people, i.e. the industrial and agricultural associations of the
workers.” Paragraph V contains a thesis which is still a part of the
fundamental principles of modern Anarcho-syndicalism, but which is
denied by many Anarcho-communists It takes up the question — what is to
replace the existing State? — and makes the following declaration: “The
Alliance recognises that all modern political and authoritarian states,
limited increasingly to the simple administrative functions essential to
society, must dissolve into an international union of free agricultural
and industrial associations.”
The Congress of the Romance Federation at Chaux-Le-Fonds in 1870 passed
a resolution which has remained valid to this day, at least for the
Syndicalist fraction of Anarchist Communists, and which deserves to be
quoted in full:
“Considering the fact that the full liberation of labour is possible
only in conditions of the transformation of the existing political
structure, which is sustained by privilege and power, into an economic
society founded in equality and freedom, and that every government or
political state represents only the organisation of bourgeois
exploitation whose expression is juridical law, and that any
participation of the working class in bourgeois governmental politics
can result only in the strengthening of the existing structure which in
turn would paralyse the revolutionary activities of the proletariat, the
Congress of the Romance Federation recommends to every section of the
International the repudiation of all activities seeking social
reorganisation by means of political reforms. It suggests instead the
concentration of all efforts on the creation of federated trade unions
as the only weapon capable of assuring the success of the social
revolution. Such a federation would be labour’s true representative, its
parliament, but it would be independent and completely outside the
influence of political government.”
As to the forms of a future society, the Jura sections of the
International visualized them in the same light as did Bakunin and as
the present-day Anarcho-syndicalists still do. In the newspaper,
“Solidarity” of August 20, 1870, in an article entitled “Geographical
Unification,” we read: “In the future Europe will not consist of a
federation of different nations, politically organised in republics, but
of a simple federation of labour union without any distinction according
to nationality.” This, then, was the labour program of the Anarchist
movement from the formation of the International until the
disintegration of the Jura Federation in 1880 when, at its last
Congress, its sections accepted the title of Anarchist-Communism.
An analysis of the labour program of the International and its practical
application leads inevitably to one fundamental flaw which fatally
affected the development of the Labour movement. This flaw was the
discrepancy between theory and practice. We have seen that the
International had declared the economic liberation of the workers to be
the goal of the labour movement, and the labour unions to be its basis.
The natural and logical conclusion would have been for the International
to be constituted on the principle of the federation of Labour Unions
organised according to trades. Instead, it was founded on the
association of sections composed of all kinds of different elements. The
entire blame for this cannot of course be placed on the International;
the absence of historical experience, and the specific conditions in
which the association was forced to exist and develop, are clearly
understandable reasons. Yet the fact remains that the sectional
organisation of the International was undoubtedly one of the main
reasons for the downfall and disintegration of that magnificent
organisation. The modem Anarchist movement has benefited from its
historic experience, and the second International Workingmen’s
Association, founded in Berlin in 1922, was built on the principle of
the unification, not of sections, but of the industrial associations in
various countries.
The sectional structure of the International and of its federations
fatally reacted on the Anarchist movement in its pure form. What
happened was that, when the Anarchists, after the split in the
International, organised themselves into a Federalist International,
they exchanged the sections for groups, and, because of the decline of
the organisation, they did not realise that in this way they exchanged a
mass labour movement, permeated with the Anarchist spirit, for a simple
movement of Anarchist groups which had little organic contact with the
labour movement.
In time the estrangement became increasingly more evident. Anarchism
began to lose its practical foothold and turned more and more towards
theory. As a result the movement was joined by people who were little,
or not at all, connected with the working classes. They were idealists
who sincerely sought the liberation of the proletariat but, not having
been seasoned in the revolutionary struggle, and seeing the desired
liberation unfulfilled during the expected period, they became
disillusioned with group efforts, using weapons which might more
effectively hasten the desired results. It is in this psychology that we
must seek the roots of the Syndicalist attitudes which, I am deeply
convinced, have done Anarchism a great deal of harm and have hindered
its progressive growth as a mass labour movement.
I will continue now the discussion of other problems which were under
constant consideration in the International in general, and its
federalist sections in particular. I have not available the resolutions
of the first Congress on all the items of its agenda. But, since the
majority of these issues were also discussed during subsequent
Congresses, it is possible, by reference to their records, to outline
the program of the International concerning these questions.
Before, however, beginning our exposition of the program, one very
important question on the agenda of the second Congress should he dealt
with, particularly since it amplifies and clarifies the Labour program
already discussed. It is the question which has not only retained its
urgency for our own days, but which also forms the basic obstacle to
unity in the Anarcho-communist movement, as well as a target for
socialist attacks in the dispute over the dictatorship of the
proletariat.
The question was formulated in this manner:
“Would not the efforts of the Labour associations for the liberation of
the fourth estate (the proletariat) lead to the creation of a new class
— the fifth estate — whose position under Socialism might be even more
terrible than the position of the proletariat under Capitalism?.”
The fact that such a question was raised at all is in itself
significant. It shows, firstly, the great maturity in socialist thought
of the members of the International and, secondly, it points to their
sense of responsibility and caution concerning the solution of complex
social problems. This question, I believe, arose within the
International partly because some members were propagating the idea of
the dictatorship of the proletariat, with which a majority did not
agree. The prophets of dictatorship thus made the Internationalists
aware of the possibility that the new society, constructed on the thesis
of the replacement of the State by Labour Unions, might create
conditions in which the proletariat would become the ruling class
suppressing other classes — for instance, the peasantry. The Congress
did not deny such a possibility; it seemed actually to admit it, but,
having no alternative, it could only recommend methods which might more
or less counteract the possibility of results so undesirable from the
viewpoint of true socialism. The Congress passed a resolution in which
it stated that, to avoid the formation of a new exploiting hierarchy, it
would be necessary for labour unions to be permeated with the ideals of
mutual aid and solidarity and for the proletariat to be convinced that a
social upheaval must lead to justice and not the creation of new
privileges, even for their own class.
At a time when Anarchist thought was being moulded by living experience
as a movement of the working masses, such doubts were normal and fully
justified, and the decision of the Congress was perfectly natural. When
Capitalism had not yet entirely matured and the labour organisations had
only begun to function on a revolutionary basis, the members of the
Congress could have come to no other decision than to attempt to raise
the level of consciousness in the working masses. The need for this
remains, today, as strong as ever. But it is no longer the only need.
Now Anarchist thought has become mature and it must, moreover, operate
in conditions utterly different from the economic circumstances of those
days. Today the question outlined above can arise only for the State
Socialists, who strive to establish a class dictatorship in the form of
a class State. For Anarchists, who aim at the destruction of the State
and its replacement by the federations of productive associations, the
question is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because Anarchism, organising
society in this manner, involves the entire adult working population in
the productive associations, independent of their former social
positions, i.e. the classes are destroyed at once and hence there can be
no question of class rule. However, a different problem could be raised
now: would not the Communist organisation of society result in the
suppression of the individual in a more severe form than under
Capitalist individualism?
The question is justified and we cannot deny such a possibility
entirely. But society will discover, I believe, sufficiently effective
means to prevent the materialization of this possibility. As to the
problem of class rule, the Anarcho-communists and the
Anarcho-syndicalists differ sharply on this issue. The former insist,
obviously in error, that syndicalization would lead to class rule, i.e.
to dictatorship. Yet they themselves have nothing to offer in place of
the danger they foresee.
To turn to the remaining issues, apart from the labour unions,
co-operation in all its forms was a burning issue in the days of the
First International, and at the various Congresses a good deal of
attention was paid to this movement. The agenda of every Congress
contained items either on co-operatives in general or on specific
aspects of the movement. At the first Congress, for instance, the
following items were discussed: co-operatives, organisation of
international credit, mutual aid societies. At the second Congress: how
the working classes could utilise, for the purpose of their liberation,
the savings deposited in bourgeois and governmental financial
institutions. At the third Congress — credit.
Such insistence shows the extent to which the international proletariat
of those days was interested in the issue of co-operatives. In our times
because of Anarchist efforts to develop positive and practical programs,
this question is once again on the agenda. For that reason it is
important to learn how it was resolved by our illustrious predecessors.
The decisions of the first Congress concerning this question are not
available. At the second Congress, on the question of workers’ savings,
Charles Longuet reported in favour of organising a Proudhonian-Mutualist
system of credit with national labour banks which would provide
interest-free loans to the workers. Eccarius suggested that the working
co-operatives of artisans and the labour unions should use their capital
for the organisation of productive associations. The third Congress
accepted these proposals in resolutions recommending the establishment
of people’s banks which would provide the labour organisations with
capital.
The English section reported on co-operatives. Without denying the
usefulness of co-operative organisations, it indicated a dangerous
tendency noticeable in a majority of such bodies in England, which were
beginning to develop into purely commercial and capitalist institutions,
thus creating the opportunity for the birth of a new class — the working
bourgeoisie. Following this report the Congress passed a resolution
recommending that the main purpose of the co-operatives should be kept
constantly alive — “to wrench from the hands of private capitalists the
means of production and to return them to their lawful owners, the
productive workers.”[2] This, then, was the viewpoint of the
International. It paid due respect in this matter to the Proudhonian and
Owenite utopias, which to this day are advocated by the
social-cooperators and by some Anarchists.
There is no doubt, of course, that co-operatives are most useful
institutions. For Anarchists to work in mass co-operatives is as
necessary and as useful as to work in trade unions. But this does not
mean that co-operation is the magic wand by which the Capitalist
structure can be changed into Anarchist Communism. Many
Internationalists actually believed that, and hence arose their
enthusiastic attitude towards co-operation. Others, like Bakunin, were
more far-sighted, realising the great positive part that co-operatives
would play in the future structure of the new society, but looking upon
them at the present stage with indifference, “The experience of the past
twenty years,” Bakunin wrote, “a unique experience which reached its
widest scope in England, Germany and France, has proved conclusively
that the co-operative system, while undoubtedly containing the essence
of the future economic structure, cannot, at the present time under
present conditions, liberate or even improve to any considerable extent
the living standards of the working people.” The latter part of
Bakunin’s statement has been verified by experience, while the first is
just beginning to be confirmed.
Many Anarchists in Spain to this day, if not the majority here, take an
uncompromisingly hostile attitude towards co-operatives, and they thus
commit the same unpardonable error as did the Russian Anarchists in the
period of 1905–6. It is not possible to propose some kind of
Anarcho-Cooperativism, but one cannot deny the usefulness of
co-operatives to the working population. And apart from all this, one
must not forget that co-operatives, e.g. the Christian or workers’
co-operatives, are mass organisations, and hence provide a tremendous
field for Anarchist propaganda and cultural activity. We should also
remember the viewpoint of Bakunin, quoted above, that co-operatives
contain the essence of the future economic structure. That is
undoubtedly so and, in view of that fact alone, it is not advisable to
repeat the errors of the past.
The problem of education, too, was often on the agenda of the Congresses
of the First International. The third Congress adopted a resolution on
this issue, while the fourth left the discussion of the problem to the
following session. Recognising that at the present time the organisation
of rational education was impossible, the Congress “invited its sections
to organise public courses with a program of scientific, professional
and integral education, so as to complement at least partially the
totally inadequate education available to workers at present.” The
Congress considered the reduction of working hours a preliminary and
essential condition. In one of his later articles, “Comprehensive
Education,” Bakunin agreed fully with this resolution. This article, as
well as various other papers on this subject, and particularly the works
of Robin, laid the foundation for the theory of free labour education
which is today accepted by all cultured people. And for that the
International deserves much credit. A resolution of the second Congress
excluded the State from the sphere of education and assured full freedom
to education, and instruction. The interference of the State was to be
permitted only when the father of the child could not provide the funds
needed for its education.
As to Statehood itself, the International began to repudiate it
definitively only after the seceding sections had organised themselves
into the Federalist International. Until that secession, it could not
decide finally to dissociate itself from this pernicious concept; this
irresolution, of course, would not have been maintained without the
influence of Marx, although the Anarchists themselves were at first none
too clear on the subject, if not in principle, at least in form.
As for the political struggle, the International — right up to the split
at the Hague Congress in 1872 — stood against activity on parliamentary
and political party lines. At the Lausanne Congress it adopted a
resolution which said that “since the absence of political freedom in a
country presents an obstacle to the social enlightenment of the people
and the liberation of the proletariat, the Congress declares: (1) that
the social liberation of the workers is indivisible from their political
liberation and (2) that the establishment of political freedom is the
first, and unconditional necessity in each country.”
While it carried such a resolution, the Congress nevertheless reacted
negatively to participation in the political struggle; instead it
continued to function on an economic plane alone. And when Marx and his
followers at the Hague Congress decided to add to the statutes a
resolution concerning the political activities of the working classes,
the split occurred. The Anarchists and their followers preferred to
stand on their old position, and to advocate gaining political freedom
by means of the economic struggle.
One further question remains to be discussed — that of land ownership.
Thereafter, we shall be able to turn to an analysis of the fundamental
theses of the International and its statements of principle as expressed
in the Preamble to the Statutes, as well as to an examination of its
organisational concepts. The question of land ownership was considered
at the Basel Congress in 1869, the fourth Congress — the only one at
which Bakunin was present. In face of opposition by the Marxists, this
Congress carried a resolution on the socialisation of land and the
abolition of the right of inheritance. As to the first question, the
International voted for the abolition of private ownership and the
establishment of collective ownership in land. When, however, it came to
considering the methods of organising agriculture, the Congress had no
unified views. On this second question a majority of thirty-two, against
twenty-three Marxists, voted for Bakunin’s resolution whose concluding
sentence read: “The Congress votes for the complete and radical
abolition of the right of inheritance, considering this to be one of the
essential conditions for the liberation of labour.” This was the first
collision of the two trends in the International, which were represented
by the personalities of Bakunin and Marx.
Now let us examine the statutes of the International. Its entire
philosophy and all its fundamental principles, accepted as articles of
faith by all convinced Socialists of the world to this day, are
expressed in the Preamble to these Statutes. The declarations are
indisputable and their formulation is concise, admirable and expressive.
They are:
classes themselves.
struggle for class privileges and monopolies but for the establishment
of equal rights and obligations for all and for the abolition of all
class rule
production, which are the source of life, is the cause of serfdom in all
its forms, of social misery, spiritual degeneration and political
dependency.
political movements must be subordinated.
unsuccessful because of a lack of solidarity among the workers of
various trades in each country, and because of the absence of brotherly
unity and organisation among the working classes of different countries.
problem involving all countries where the modern structure exists, and
its solution depends on practical and theoretical co-operation among the
more progressive countries.
regeneration in the more industrialised countries of Europe, issues a
solemn warning against a falling back into the old errors and calls
immediately for the unification of all movements which, so far, have
been divided.
International, recognise truth, justice and morality as the basic
principles for their behaviour towards each other and towards all
peoples without difference of race, creed or nationality.
not only for themselves but for all who fulfil their obligations. There
are no rights without obligations; there are no obligations without
rights.
Such was the program of the International — the philosophy of the mass
labour movement which has not been rejected to this day by a single
Anarchist, and which lies at the root of the teachings of Bakunin, of
the Jura Federation and of Kropotkin. The same is not true of the
Marxists, who soon departed from certain concepts of the International.
The first to do so was Marx himself, and in that way he was responsible
for the split in the International.
What were the organisational principles of the International? Their
examination will conclude this outline of its program, and of the
program of the Anarchist-Collectivists, i.e. the Bakuninists. The
statutes of the International, accepted at the first Congress, assigned
no administrative rights to the General Council. The only right assigned
to it was that to change the location of the following Congress, but not
its schedule. The Council, therefore, was not the central administrative
organ but only a liaison and correspondence bureau and its members were
elected by the Congress. The individual sections were independent of the
Council and had the right to their own programs and constitutions, as
long as these were not in contradiction with the general principles of
the adopted statutes. Each section had the right to elect, from among
its members, correspondents to the General Council of the organisation,
and it paid dues according to its membership to cover the expenses of
the Council. Finally, each section had the right to send one delegate to
the Congress, irrespective of the number of its members, but sections
counting more than 500 had the right to send additional delegates for
each 500 members. Each delegate to the Congress, however many sections
he might represent, had one vote.
It is interesting to note that, at the fourth Congress, there was
evidence, on the one hand, of a tendency to adapt the structure of the
International to the imagined structure of the future society, while, on
the other hand, the Congress, under Bakunin’s leadership, assigned
administrative authority to the General Council. Ironically, it was by
using this new authority at the following Congress that Marx managed to
settle accounts with Bakunin himself and his friends.
On the question of permitting the existence of chairmen in labour
institutions and organisations, the Congress adopted the following
resolution:
“Whereas it is unworthy for a labour organisation to retain in its midst
a monarchist and authoritarian principle by permitting the existence of
a chairman (even if the latter has no powers), the Congress invites all
sections and labour organisations who are members of the International
to abolish the concept of chairmanship in their midst.”
At the same time another resolution, for which Bakunin and his friends
voted, assigned to the General Council great administrative powers. The
illogicality of the Anarchists on this point can be explained by the
fact that Bakunin believed the Council to be more revolutionary than
many of the sections. The powers granted by this resolution were as
follows:
“The General Council has the right to accept sections into the
International, or to refuse acceptance until the next general Congress.
The General Council has also the right to close down or to dissolve old
sections.
“In case of conflict between individual sections of whatever country,
the General Council is appointed arbiter until the next Congress which
alone has authority to make a final decision.”
In the course of three years, the Council abused these rights to such an
extent that it aroused strong protest on the part of many sections which
were prepared to abolish the General Council altogether. Some of them
went even further; they denied the need for any statutes in the
organisation as a whole. Bakunin’s reaction to this tendency is rather
interesting. In a letter to Albert Richard, he remarked:
“You write, my dear friend, that you are an enemy of all constitutions
and you maintain that they are good for nothing but the diversion of
children. I do not fully share your views on this point. Superfluous
regimentation is loathsome indeed, and I believe, as you do, that
‘responsible people’ must themselves mark out a course for their
behaviour and must not deviate from it.
“However, let us agree on one thing. To assure some unity of action, in
my view essential even among the most responsible of men who strive for
one and the same goal, certain conditions and certain specific rules,
equally binding on all, are required. There must be agreements and
understandings, frequently renewed. Otherwise, if everyone were to act
only according to his own judgment, even the most earnest men could, and
surely would, come to a point when, with the best of intentions, they
would actually hinder and paralyze each other. The result would be
disharmony instead of the harmony and calm to which we all aspire. We
must know how, when and where to find each other, and to whom to turn so
that we may get the co-operation of all. A small unit, well organised,
has greater value than one that is larger, but disorganised and
ill-adapted.”
Thus, on the issue of organisation, Bakunin and the Anarchists
committed, and tolerated, an unforgivable mistake — a retreat from
fundamental federalist principles. And the sad results were not slow in
making their appearance. This experience proves that one must not
sacrifice fundamental principles even in the interests of realising the
best intentions.
If we add to the exposition already given the declaration adopted by the
Bakuninists when they established the Federalist International at the
Congress of St. Imier, a full account will have been given of the
Anarchist movement in the days of the First International, both before
and after the cleavage in that organisation.
The text of this declaration will be quoted below. First, however, we
should discuss the resolutions of the Congress. This is essential
because the resolutions and declaration together form the program on
which the Anarchists conducted their activities after the rift in the
International and until the decline of its Federalist section, i.e.
until 1879 and a little beyond.
The first resolution was concerned with organisational principles. It
stated that the autonomy and independence of labour federations and
sections was a fundamental condition for the liberation of the workers.
Further, the resolution granted the Congress no lawgiving and executive
rights, conceding an advisory role only. The resolution also rejected
the idea that a minority must submit to the views of the majority. The
second resolution maintained that, in case of an attempt upon the
freedom of a federation or section by the majority of any Congress, or
by a General Council established by that majority, all other federations
and sections must declare themselves in solidarity with the attacked
organisation.
The fourth resolution dealt with the framework for “the resistance of
labour,” i.e. the economic struggle of the proletariat. This resolution
postulated the impossibility of achieving any substantial improvement in
the living standards of the workers under Capitalism; it considered
strikes important weapons in the struggle, but had no illusions about
their economic results.
Strikes, to the Federalists, were a means of intensifying the cleavage
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The third resolution, which
I regard as the Declaration. really represents the program of the
organisation, and for that reason it will be quoted in full.
“Whereas the attempt to force on the proletariat a uniform political
program and tactic, a single way to full social liberation, is as absurd
as the claims of reaction; whereas no one has the authority to deny the
autonomous federations and sections their unquestionable right to decide
independently and to employ the political tactics they consider most
suitable. and believing that any such attempts at denial would lead
tragically to the most outrageous dogmatism; whereas the aspirations of
the proletariat can have no purpose but the construction of
unconditionally free economic organisations and federations, based on
equality and the labour of all and entirely independent of all political
government; whereas these organisations and federations can be the
result only of the unflinching action of the proletariat itself, the
trade unions of artisans and the autonomous communes; whereas every
political organisation can be the organ of domination for the benefit of
one class only, rather than for the masses as a whole, and whereas the
proletariat, if it decided to seize power, might itself become the
ruling and exploiting class, the Congress, meeting at St. Imier,
declares:
the proletariat;
power for the realisation of such destruction can be only a new betrayal
and would prove as dangerous for the proletariat as all other
governments existing at the present time;
revolution, proletarians of all lands must establish the solidarity of
revolutionary action free from all bourgeois politics.”
With this resolution I am concluding my examination and analysis of the
Anarchist movement in its first period. I trust that I have succeeded in
emphasizing, not all, but the most significant positive and negative
features, achievements and failures of the movement in the days of the
First International. It is apparent that the general character of the
movement is very similar to that current in contemporary Anarchism which
has developed under the name of Anarcho-syndicalism. Many of its basic
principles lay at the root of the so-called Romance Syndicalism, which
is undoubtedly the immediate heir of the First International, although,
of course, it grew in different historic and economic conditions, which
resulted in some inevitable differences between these two tendencies in
the labour movement.
Almost simultaneously with the development in the West of the
International, an analogous movement emerged and unfolded at the
opposite end of Europe, in Russia. It differed from the International in
the same way as the historical and economic conditions varied. In
Europe, owing to the evolution of Capitalism, the proletariat was
already an established fact. In Russia, however, the proletariat was
then only in its infancy, and many observers doubted whether Russia
would develop a proletarian class at all, since they saw the path of
economic development there as entirely different from that of Western
Europe.
Russia in those days was an enormous peasant ocean, and for that reason
the revolutionary elements based their activities primarily on the
peasantry. They gave the proletariat little thought. Similarly,
political conditions differed sharply from those of Western Europe.
There political liberties already existed. Whereas in Russia, after the
short lived “liberalism” of Alexander II had come a dark, oppressive era
of Asiatic despotism. In addition, the peasants themselves had only a
few years previously ceased to be actual serfs.
In such circumstances, a revolutionary organisation emerged among young
people who had originally banded together in small cultural groups, and
it was they who were responsible for the most magnificent and heroic
epoch of the Russian revolutionary movement. This movement is known by
the name of “Populism” (Narodichestvo — the movement of “going to the
people” or “Zemlovolchistvo” — combining the words “Zemlya” (Land) and
“Volya” (Liberty), the name of their organisation and publication, Land
and Liberty. Later, the movement was also called “Narodnovolchistvo”
(Populist Socialism).
The history of this movement is complex and colourful, but we
unfortunately cannot dwell on it, since it would take us too far afield
from the main theme. For that reason we shall restrict ourselves only to
an examination of the program and the tactical bases of the movement. In
the beginning, two tendencies fought each other within this movement —
the Lavrovists and the Bakuninists. But the struggle did not last long.
The Bakuninists soon became the dominant element, and Anarchism became
the program. It is this Anarchism that we shall examine. This is not an
easy task since, so far, there exist no general reviews, no historical
researches or summaries on this question. It is therefore necessary to
utilise scattered and fragmentary facts, memoirs and newspapers of that
period.
The first Anarchist organ in the Russian language was published in 1868,
not in Russia, but abroad. Its name was “Dielo Truda,” and its editor
was Bakunin. From its second issue, however, it fell into the hands of
Nicholas Utin, and ceased henceforth to be Anarchist. Since this
publication was not particularly important for the Russian movement,
which began its development several years later, we shall not discuss
it. The first Russian anarchist organ on Russian territory was the
magazine “Natchalo” (Beginning) which ceased publication with its fourth
issue. It was followed by the publication “Zemlya i Volya” (Land and
Liberty), which played a tremendously important part in the Russian
revolutionary movement, and this we shall discuss.
All revolutionary activity in the seventies of the last century was
based on one — in my view — mistaken view of the Russian people — an
idea still held to this day by many Anarchists. This idea was that
Anarchist tendencies were natural to the Russian people. In the first
issue of “Natchalo” we read: “The Russian people, because of specific
historic conditions, are Anarchist-minded, they have not yet, as have
other nations, adopted statist ideas and bourgeois instincts. Despite
the principle of private property, which is sanctified by law, they
demand a general redistribution of land and, notwithstanding their age
old Tartar yoke of state and feudalism, they still dream of a life free
and unfettered. Their philosophy of life is expressed and represented by
the formula ‘Land and Liberty’ — a formula that is fundamentally
socialist.”
It was on this premise that the movement based its entire program and
its tactical efforts. Since the people could expect nothing from the
government, “they had only one escape from their serf-like destitute
existence, violent overthrow of the existing order in the form of a
social revolution.” The struggle of the Russian people would expand into
a whole series of revolts, both now and in the future, and the
Revolutionaries would decide their own attitude towards the revolts.
There could, of course, be no other attitude than, that of approval. And
the logical conclusion was — to go among the people and arouse and
prepare them for rebellion. Local outbreaks, multiplying and spreading,
would grow into one tremendous rebellion — the social revolution which
would make possible the realisation of the following program:
established by means of the free association of autonomous communes
without any coercion by a central authority.
people.
the federated village communes and the Trade Unions.
conscience, speech, scientific research, association and meetings.
The Revolutionaries believed that the realisation of this program was
within sight; events were moving quickly and Socialists must prepare
themselves for the future. Like the Internationalist in Europe, which
considered the Trade Unions to be the economic organisations which would
take the place of government, the Russian populists put forward the
village commune, the ‘Obschtchina’. “The village commune,” they said,
“which, is a form of economic association evolved in the process of
Russian history, contains within itself the seeds of the destruction of
the State and the bourgeois world.” Hence the demand for a federation of
village communes.
Revolutionary reality soon led to armed resistance to the government, to
terrorism; and the going to the people to disillusionment with the
economic struggle and the peasantry. Some revolutionaries, indeed, began
to push the social revolution into the background, while they emphasized
constitutional demands.
The same thing that had happened in the International was happening in
Russia. The proposition of a political program and a tactic of political
struggle led to a cleavage, which destroyed the entire movement despite
the brilliant and fascinating political fireworks to which the party of
“Narodnaya Volya” (The People’s Will) gave expression in its titanic
terrorist struggle. The split occurred in the middle of 1879, and by
1882 the movement was already crushed and strangled.
The first two periods in the development of Socialism and Anarchism —
periods of “utopian” and “scientific” Socialism — were followed at the
end of the Nineteenth Century by the era of constructive Socialism.
Until that time all attempts to consider the form of the future society,
and all questions related to its structure, had been branded
sarcastically as premature and Utopian.
It is, however, worth noting that Bakunin himself had been concerned
with the problem of construction, in the belief that one must not
destroy the Old without having at least a basic plan for the New. The
principal factors in the process of construction, in Bakunin’s view,
would be the International of industrial communes, supplemented by
agricultural associations.
The advent of the Paris Commune forced people to pay even more attention
to the constructive aspects of Socialism. And, during the entire period
of its existence, the first International was at work clarifying the
tasks of the future society. At its Brussels Congress in 1874, the
delegates discussed reports by the Jura Federation and by César De Paepe
on “public services in the future society.” The report of César De Paepe
embraced not only all the issues formulated in the “Platform” — fifty
years later — but also a number of others which are missing in the
“Platform,” yet which should not be ignored.
Revolutionary Syndicalism was born at the end of the Nineteenth Century.
Its appearance in, the arena of history marks a great victory for the
constructive tendencies of Anarchism. A number of Anarchists, who had
been active in the Syndicalist movement, welded together the futures of
the two movements, and under their influence Syndicalism absorbed
increasingly the ideas of Anarchist Communism and Federalism, so that it
could no longer be called anything but Anarcho-syndicalism. For
instance, the book by Pataud and Pouget, “How to Achieve the Social
Revolution,” was written from the Anarchist viewpoint — an opinion,
incidentally, verified by Peter Kropotkin’s account of book.[3]
From the beginning of the twentieth century, most Russian Anarchist
publications issued abroad — like “Bread and Freedom” (Khlieb i Volya)
and the pamphlets connected with it; like “The Stormy Petrel”
(Burevestnik), “The World of Labour” (Rabotchi Mir), “The Voice of
Labour” (Golos Truda) , paid a good deal of attention to constructive
Anarchism.
With the Russian Revolution of 1917, problems of construction began to
dominate thought in Anarchist circles not only in Russia, but everywhere
else in the world. The first among them to pursue the line of
constructive Anarchism were the Anarcho-syndicalists. The pages of their
publications (“Voice of Labour,” “Free Voice of Labour,” “World of
Labour” and others) were filled with articles on this subject. They
carried a bold campaign against the chaotic, formless, disorganised and
indifferent attitude then rampant among the Anarchists — a standpoint
which aroused a great deal of hostility towards them.
The first two conferences of the Anarcho-syndicalists in 1918 set forth
clearly and in considerable detail the political and economic
characteristics of the first stages of the new social structure.[4] The
“Northern Regional Congress of Anarchists which met soon after the first
conference of the Anarcho-syndicalists, formulated its own program on
that subject.[5] And, the first conference of “Anarchist Organisations
in the Ukraine” (NABAT), which met in the interval between the first and
second conferences of the Anarcho-syndicalists, considered all the
points postulated almost ten years later in the “Platform’ of 1927.[6]
And in the same year of 1918, “The First Central Soviet Technical
School” issued a declaration covering the ground of the question’s which
are now still under discussion. The conference of NABAT in 1919 again
undertook the elaboration of organisational and structural questions.[7]
And a proclamation of the “Anarcho-universalists” in 1921 suggested
answers to all fundamental problems of construction and activities in
the first structural period.[8]
Apart from these collective efforts to solve the problems of
construction, individuals like Peter Kropotkin attempted to visualize
the future society. During 1918, in “Bread and freedom.” Kropotkin
described the character of a future city Commune, and, as a result of
the experiences of the Russian Revolution, he raised a number of vital
questions and theses new to Anarchists.[9] His statement “We are not so
rich as we thought” takes Anarchism into the field of a “complementary
idea,” since the issue is no longer that “in destroying I shall create,”
but “in creating I shall destroy.” Moreover, Kropotkin’s “Modern
Anarchism,”[10] was of equally great importance and provided a stimulus
to thought in the direction of constructive planning.
This work of constructive planning, begun in Russia. soon spread over
the frontiers and flooded the entire Anarchist world. The German
Anarcho-syndicalists paid and continue to pay a great deal of attention
to the problems of construction. Their publication “Der Syndikalist”
carried many articles discussing the creative tasks of the Revolutionary
proletariat.[11] The conferences and meetings of the International
Workingmen’s Association concerned themselves particularly with
organisational and structural problems. And at almost all the national
conferences of the Anarcho-syndicalists, or Revolutionary Syndicalist
organisations in Western Europe, these questions were continually on the
agenda. For instance, at the Berne conference called on September 16,
1922, to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the Congress at St.
Imier, the following questions were debated:
creation of new authority.
Bertoni, Malatesta, Fabbri and many other comrades participated in this
discussion.
Then there were the efforts of the Russian Anarcho-syndicalists and
Anarchists abroad. The “Rabotchi Put,” published in Berlin, was devoted
almost exclusively to the issues of construction. In the pages of “Golos
Truzhenika” (Voice of the Working Man), publication of the IRM, these
issues were discussed both editorially and by contributing Anarchist
comrades. The same is true of the “Arbeiterfreund” (Friend of Labour),
published in Paris.
Many other publications were almost entirely concerned with finding
solutions to the problems of building a new society after the social
revolution. There were the journal “La Voix du Travail” (The Voice of
Labour) in Paris,[12] “Syndicalisme,” organ of the Syndicalist
organisation of Sweden, under the editorship of the Anarchist Albert
Jensen, “Die Internationale,” publication of the German
Anarcho-syndicalists, edited by Augustin Souchy, the weekly, “La
Protesta,” of the Argentine Anarchists, and others, while it is of
course impossible to enumerate the many individual articles covering
these problems.
Such, then, was the temper of the times. The very air was filled with
ideas of an organisational and constructive nature. And the “Platform”
issued by “A Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad” in 1927 was therefore
not a cause, but a result of the agitated state of Anarchist minds. It
is thus all the more surprising that this “Platform” should have been
credited with all kinds of achievements for which it was not
responsible.[13]
The “Platform” was thus one of many products in the Anarchist world of
the process of intellectual fermentation after the first World War, and
in particular after the Russian Revolution. It is, however, possible to
state at once that the crystallization of this process into a “Platform”
was of a rather formless kind. Both by its manner of stating the
questions, and by its method of solving them, the “Platform” was
incapable of providing a unifying leadership either for the Anarchist
movement in general or for the Anarcho-communist groups in particular.
Even if one were to admit that the Anarcho-communists could have become
united on such a program, the unity would have been broken on the very
first attempt to deal with the omissions in which the “Platform”
abounds. For its constructive part is so primitive that it attacks only
such problems as production, food supply, land and the protection of the
Revolution, and it ignores the problems of transportation (particularly
the free movement of people), statistics, living conditions, religion,
education, family, marriage, sanitary and hygienic services, forestry,
roads and highways, shipping, crime and punishment, labour and health
insurance, and many others, including questions arising out of the
general situation of a revolutionary country encircled by international
capitalism.
The “Platform” suffered from yet another important failing: confusion.
To take one instance, the authors, realising the impossibility of the
simultaneous communisations of industry and agriculture, and the
retardedness of the latter in comparison with the former, drew no
conclusions from this realisation and made no attempt to determine the
relationship which must, of necessity arise between socialised industry
and private-capitalist land management. Yet a good many problems
concerning trade, finance, banks, etc. would develop from this admitted
co-existence.
This confusion becomes even more apparent when the authors of the
“Platform” declare: “It is significant that, despite the power, logic
and irrefutability of the Anarchist idea, despite the solidity and
integrity of Anarchist positions in the social revolution ... despite
all this the Anarchist movement has remained weak, and in the history of
the working class struggle it has been but a trivial fact, an incident,
never a dominant factor.”
It is interesting to note that the incredible confusion and absurdity of
this collection of principles and arguments went unnoticed by those
Anarchist publications which were primarily concerned with the problems
and arguments presented by the “Platform.” Yet, even on first reading,
the “truths” proclaimed by the “Platform” are transparent in their folly
and their almost comical inconsistencies. Let us classify these “truths”
under their most important headings.
is the number of its adherents, the depth and extent of sympathy it
commands. Accordingly, the power of an idea is indissolubly bound with
the strength of the movement serving this idea. Where there is strength
— there can be no weakness. If Anarchism is strong, then it is not weak.
The authors of the “Platform.” however, managed to maintain that
Anarchism is both strong and weak, that water can at once be hot and
cold! They confused vitality with power.
make four. It is an accepted truth. Hence, the acceptance of an axiom
implies general agreement. Since, in the opinion of the “Platform,”
Anarchism is irrefutable, it is thus automatically generally accepted.
If so, it could never have been just a “trivial fact,” as the “Platform”
insists, but a powerful factor!
demonstrated, its concepts must perforce be definitive and clear. Is it
not then time to stop chastising Anarchism for “incessant vacillations
in the sphere of the most elementary questions of theory and tactics”?
If, however, these vacillations are a fact, then Anarchism is as yet
ambiguous and not distinguished either by logic or clarity. Logic and
vacillations are not consistent with each other.
would contradict the supposedly existing vacillations. If Anarchist
positions in the social Revolution are marked by both integrity and
solidity, then why all this hue and cry? And, on the other hand. how
could “solidity and integrity” call forth not one, but several programs
in which the Anarchist theses of social Revolution are not identical
and, in fact, often differ sharply? But if the authors of the “Platform”
express such deep anxiety over the need for an organisation which might
“determine a political and tactical course for Anarchism,” it shows,
indeed, their conviction that there does not yet exist full “solidarity
and integrity” in the Anarchist program. Why, then, do they state the
opposite?
The repudiation of logic and common sense in the “Platform” is no less
significant than the pseudo truths proclaimed by its authors, But all,
contradictions and repudiations have one common origin: ignorance of the
history of our movement, or, more correctly, the notion that the history
of our movement was ushered in by the “Platform” ... and that chaos and
ignorance reigned before its proclamation. To these self-proclaimed
“pioneers,” Anarchism in the days of the First International, when it
had captured the labour movements in a number of countries, was only a
“trivial fact,” an accidental episode. Anarchism in the Latin countries,
where for long years the Anarchist viewpoint prevailed, was but an
incident, without any significance. Anarchism in those countries where
the revolutionary Syndicalist organisations are well developed, directly
or indirectly under the influence of Anarchist ideas, is not considered
by the authors of the “Platform” a worthwhile factor in the growth of
the labour movement ... again, it is only a “trivial fact, an episode.”
This type of evaluation of all pre-“Platform” Anarchism is too narrow
and ludicrous to be discussed at length. However painful it may be for
the authors of the “Platform,” the Anarchist movement existed long
before they had made their appearance.
The “Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad” emerged in the role of
physician to the ailing Anarchist movement. None would dispute the fact
that the movement was indeed suffering from “general chronic
disorganisation.” All were agreed on the symptoms; but there were
considerable disagreements as to the fundamental causes of the ailment,
as well as the cures which would logically follow a determination of
these causes.
The authors of “Platform,” for instance, considered a number of causes,
the most important of which was the “absence in the Anarchist world of
organisational principles and organisational relationships.” Yet, in the
introduction to the “Platform,” they pointed out that this absence was
not itself a cause, but merely the result of another cause! They
maintained that “disorganisation itself is rooted in distortions of an
ideological nature, in the falsified concept of the personal element in
Anarchism and its identification [whose — Anarchism’s or that of the
concept of the personal element?] with irresponsibility.” When one
attempts to unravel the unruly mass of syllogisms on cause and effect,
the conclusion is inevitable, deriving as it does from the position of
the “Platform” itself, that the most important reasons for the
disorganisation in the Anarchist movement are the “distortions of an
ideological nature.”
This conclusion, however, turns out to be quite inconclusive, for the
“Platform” also maintains that in Anarchism there are “incessant
vacillations in the most important questions of theory and tactics.” If
that is true, how then can any kind of “organisation” or “organisational
relationship” be expected? They only become possible when the
vacillations have ceased or, at least, when they have ceased to act on a
large (or even “incessant”) scale.
Unraveling further the theses of the “Platform,” we come to the logical
conclusion that the real cause of “the general chronic disorganisation”
is indeed the “vacillations in the most important questions of theory
and tactics,” and that all other failings are no more than consequences
of this cause. It may be that the authors of the “Platform” had intended
somewhat different results. But, having been caught in the labyrinth of
contradictions where cause and effect become confused, they concluded
with a hotchpotch of words that can inspire little serious attention.
And if, in turn, the “several Russian Anarchists” had attempted in their
“Reply” to conduct a really serious analysis of the causes of the
deficiencies in the Anarchist movement, then they would not have rushed
in with their declaration of “disagreement” with the conclusions of the
“Platform.” For, in the final analysis, we find that the fundamental
failing indicated by the “Platform,” namely “the incessant vacillations
in the most important questions of theory and tactics,” is also brought
forward by the “Reply,” “Obscurity in a number of our fundamental
ideas,” is the way the authors of the “Reply” express it. The difference
is in formulation, not in essence. For, if in Anarchism there are indeed
“vacillations” or “obscurity,” then surely neither program, tactics nor
organisation can be erected on such insecure foundations. Yet, while the
“Platform” simply ignores the vacillations and attempts to build on the
shaky foundations, the “Reply” believes more logically that the
“establishment of a serious program and organisation is impossible
without first achieving the liquidation of theoretical vacillations.”
(Page 5).
In addition to the “obscurity of our fundamental ideas,” the “Reply”
lists a number of other reasons for the deficiencies in the Anarchist
movement, “Difficulty of gaining acceptance for Anarchist ideas in
contemporary society,” “the intellectual level of the present-day
masses,” “cruelty and total repression,” “conscious Anarchist rejection
of demagoguery,” “refusal by Anarchists to use artificially-erected
organisations and to impose artificial discipline.”
We agree that the deficiencies in the Anarchist movement may be caused
by the above-mentioned “fundamental” causes. The first three, however,
are external factors; they function outside the movement and can only
temporarily retard its growth. But it seems hardly possible that there
are greater difficulties today in the path of disseminating our ideas
than, say, fifty years ago. It is equally difficult to believe that the
“intellectual level of the present-day masses” can be lower than in
“pre-war” time; on the contrary, it seems certain that the intellectual
level of the masses has risen considerably in comparison with the past.
Or can it be that the authors of the “Reply” believe Anarchism to be
more easily acceptable by the backward masses? Generally speaking, in
any case, all these factors react equally on other Socialist ideologies,
and yet among them the picture is different from that in our movement.
The same can be said about “repression.” There were repressions in
earlier days as well, and they were used not only against the
Anarchists. The German Anarcho-syndicalists always walked a path of
thorns, particularly during the war, yet today they are incomparably
stronger than they were before the war. It is strange to maintain that a
struggle fought by a conscious revolutionary movement and necessarily
evoking repression should now be considered a reason for the weakness of
the movement.
To consider the “rejection of demagoguery” a cause of weakness is to
admit indirectly, that demagoguery is a real source of power. And if the
“Reply” considers the “conscious rejection of demagoguery” a source of
weakness, then indeed there can be only one conclusion: to turn to
demagoguery and thus become strong. It is now however known generally
that, though demagoguery may assure temporary successes, it has never
yet assured permanent power for those who use it. On the contrary, the
final result has always been tragic. The Bolshevik experience on this
score should be conclusive enough. And even in the Anarchist movement
itself, the “conscious rejection of demagoguery” has not always been
predominant. The Gordin manifestoes in the years 1917–18 are an
interesting example of demagoguery. The article “Social Democracy in the
Viennese Events” (Dielo Truda No. 28) also confutes the statement of the
“Reply.”
And as for the last cause of the weakness of the movement suggested by
the “Reply,” namely, the “refusal by Anarchists to use artificially
erected organisations and to impose artificial discipline,” surely the
authors of the “Reply” could not have realised what they were saying.
Did they not themselves maintain that all artificial methods resulted
only “in the temporary strength of political parties,” a force “futile
in substance?” Should the Anarchist movement, then, deny its own
rejection, based on principle, and try to become strong in this manner?
But if such artificial means are only “temporary” and “futile in
substance,” then their rejection should not be considered a source of
weakness. Whence all this confusion?
Thus the conclusion is inevitable that, of all the causes advanced by
the “Reply,” only one remains intact — the same as that suggested by the
“Platform” — “obscurity in a number of our fundamental ideas.”
To maintain, after Bakunin and Kropotkin, that Anarchist ideas are
obscure is, to say the least, naive. If the authors of the “Platform”
and the “Reply” had chastised the vacillations of individual Anarchists
or individual obscure Anarchist minds, one could have agreed with them.
But it is impossible — by the expedient process of shifting the burden
from sick on to healthy shoulders — to claim obscurity for fundamental
Anarchist ideas.
What ideas does the “Reply” consider obscure?
Firstly there is the Conception of Social Revolution. Yet we need only
turn to Bakunin to find in his writings a perfectly clear and definitive
exposition of the meaning of Social Revolution, its manifestations and
the road it must travel. Whoever has read his formulations, can no
longer speak of obscurity in the Anarchist “conception of the Social
Revolution.” Similarly, Bakunin provided us with a terse interpretation
of the problem of violence, the forms it can take, its use and its
limitations.
Even more conclusive is the existing evidence that there was no
obscurity in the Anarchist conception of Dictatorship, as claimed by the
“Reply.” In fact this issue was clarified particularly by the debates
between Bakunin and Marx: and the reader might do well to take up the
works of Bakunin, particularly his essays on “The State and Anarchy,” as
well as “The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution.” Bakunin
also wrote at great length on the question of “The Creativity of Masses
and of Organisations.”[14]
The only aspect of the problem that remained unclarified was how to
proceed during the “Transition Period.” It is true that this question
has not yet been settled in Anarchist thought, even though Bakunin
himself had recognised its importance. But it is not part of the
theoretical program of Anarchism. It is, rather, a technical,
methodological question connected with the practical procedures to be
utilised in the establishment of Anarchist Communism.
Thus, we are forced to conclude that the reasons for the weakness of the
Anarchist movement and for its disorganised condition are neither the
“obscurity in a number of our fundamental ideas” on which the “Reply”
insists, nor the “incessant vacillations in the most important questions
of theory and tactics,” nor the “distortions of an ideological nature”
as the “Platform” maintains.
The weakness of the movement, in short, is not the result of the
theoretical ambiguity of Anarchism as a socio-political and
philosophical theory. The causes have to be sought on another level
altogether; they have nothing in common with the fundamental concepts of
Anarchism.
---
Socialism, like Anarchism, passed through a phase of uncertainty,
division and formlessness. That was during a period when its
protagonists strove, as the authors of the “Platform” now do, for
complete unity and uniformity in program and tactics. When such general
uniformity proved impossible and even dangerous, there began a process
of disintegration and a breakup of Socialism into different factions.
Separate parties emerged, with divergent theories, tactics and
activities. And that moment ushered in the evolution of Socialism as a
real force in the practical realisation of its ideals.
It is our deep conviction that Anarchism, too, must undergo a similar
evolution. The uniformity for which both the “Platform” and the “Reply”
strive, each in its own way, is not possible. The result would not be
Anarchism, but Anachronism.
The process of the division of Anarchism into factions has been slow.
Sufficient time has not yet elapsed for the various sections to
crystallize into large and well-defined collective units. Such is the
case with Anarcho-communism, which has already split into
Anarcho-communism and Anarcho-syndicalism. We exclude discussion here of
Anarcho-individualism, which is a typically bourgeois philosophy and is
therefore beyond our purview.
An example of logical unification is the International Workingmen’s
Association — the Anarcho-syndicalist International which became
possible after the formation in individual countries of homogenous
national organisations based on the fundamental theoretical and tactical
concepts of Anarchism. All organisations, on joining the International
Working Men’s Association, accepted the program and the principles of
the Anarcho-Syndicalist International, but at the same time its
federalist concept gave each individual organisation the opportunity to
develop its own program, in conformity with the situation in the country
concerned. For the Anarchist movement to live and grow this must remain
the guiding principle of organisation.
One of the reasons for the weakness of the Anarchist movement is to be
found, therefore, in the still uncompleted process of the division of
Anarchism into clearly defined fractions, groups or “parties.” If this
seems paradoxical, it is nevertheless a reality.
The second reason for the weakness of the Anarchist movement is its
inability to adapt itself to the realities of life, which limits its
activities exclusively to propaganda. Such an activity can occupy only a
few people, for the majority, particularly the rank-and-file members,
soon lose interest in pure propaganda. It degenerates into dialectics,
into the constant repetition of formulae, or else into apathy,
disillusionment and, finally, defection.
Man requires contact with reality; he cannot exist long in mid air. This
natural need for activity drives dynamic men to all kinds of deformed
“practical” activities; to bomb-throwing in France or unmotivated terror
and expropriation in Russia. And how does the rank-and-file Anarchist
keep active? He rejects the Parliamentary struggle; he rejects
participation in municipal affairs. For many comrades the Trade Unions
are not sufficiently revolutionary since they concern themselves with
petty fights, and are therefore a danger to Anarchist “purity,” while in
the Co-operatives these comrades see a bourgeois institution with
exploitative tendencies. And all the time the Anarchist groups remain
small. The Anarchist must perforce act within a “Torricellian vacuum”;
he must be satisfied with voluble debates, with the distribution of
pamphlets, newspapers and leaflets; he must keep silent on daily issues
— and keep his eyes, while rejecting the world about him, on the final
goal towards which the path is still only an abstract concept. Indeed,
wherever the larger masses think in concrete terms, Anarchists seem bent
on instilling abstractions into them.
What is missing in our movement is a basis of realism, the ability to
adjust theory to the practical needs of the workers. That lack, however,
is being met by the Syndicalist fractions of Anarchism.
Anarcho-syndicalism has expanded the sphere of activity of its members;
it has established institutions concerned with the material struggle and
with everyday activities. That is the explanation for its success in
comparison with Anarcho-communism, in all the countries where it has
taken root. And if Anarcho-syndicalism will continue to extend the
horizons of public activity for its members, to create more of its own
institutions, then its success will grow in the same measure.
The theoretical section of the “Platform” contains nothing original.
Despite the “incessant vacillations” and the “distortions of an
ideological nature,” the authors of the “Platform” present the same
theory of Anarchism with the single difference that a number of
“distortions of an ideological nature” are introduced by the authors
themselves.
Thus, under the heading The Class Struggle, its Role and Significance,
they say that “in the history of human societies the class struggle has
always proved the main factor in determining their form and structure.”
(page 7). This is a generally accepted truth — only the other way round!
It is not the class struggle which determines the form of a society, but
the economic structure of a society which determines the form of its
class struggle. Society is not the result of a class struggle, but the
opposite: the class struggle is the result of the economic structure of
society. Accordingly, the other assertion by the authors of the
“Platform” that the “socio-political structure of every country is first
of all the product of the class struggle” (page 8) sounds rather
ridiculous, since — even though the class struggle influences the
structure of society — it certainly does not determine it. This
theoretical folly, besides misrepresenting Anarchist philosophy, brings
the authors of the “Platform” to a new absurdity when they talk of the
“universal significance of the class struggle in the life of class
societies” (page 8) — a statement doubtless motivated by a desire to
define their opposition to those tendencies in Anarchism which reject or
minimize the class struggle.
If, in actual fact, the class struggle were universal, then it would
undoubtedly have been not merely the most vital, but the only factor in
the evolution of society. Anarchism does not admit such a monistic
principle. The class struggle influences many aspects of life in
contemporary society, but this does not mean that it has the universal
significance ascribed to it by the “Platform.”
The authors of the “Platform,” indeed, juggle rather foolishly with this
phrase, “the class struggle.” Thus, on page 9, they declare triumphantly
that “the class struggle, springing out of serfdom and the age-old
desire of the working people for liberty, imbued the ranks of the
oppressed with the ideal of Anarchism.” Previously it had always been
understood that the class struggle was the result of the unequal
distribution of material wealth which arose from the capitalist economic
system; serfdom and the desire for liberty are certainly not responsible
for a phenomenon of such comparatively recent appearance as the class
struggle. But the authors of the “Platform” do not take into
consideration either the historical facts of social evolution or the
anarchist theory as stated by Bakunin, Kropotkin and their followers.
Furthermore, the “revisions” which the Platform proposes are difficult
to reconcile with logic. Thus, under the heading “The necessity for
Violent Revolution,” we find the following statement: “Progress in
modern society, namely, the technical development of capital and the
perfection of its political system, strengthens the position of the
ruling classes and makes the struggle against them more difficult. Thus
progress postpones the decisive moment for the liberation of labour”
(page 8). Such an obviously foolish statement should logically have
forced the authors of these original thoughts to change the heading of
this chapter to: “The Necessity for the Violent Halt of Progress in
Modern Society.” For their contention is that, if progress continues,
the time for the liberation of labour is automatically pushed farther
and farther away. And since the liberation of labour is our goal, we
must do away with progress.
Kropotkin viewed the connection between progress and the struggle for
liberation in an entirely different light. Analysing the life of
society, he found that, with progress-technical, spiritual and otherwise
— communistic habits arise among men and liberty is therefore brought
nearer. But it would apparently be wrong to seek in Kropotkin an
explanation of the contradictions and absurdities of the “Platformists,”
who appear to believe that the realisation of Anarchism is closely bound
with a return to the most primitive social economy. We should like to
suggest to these authors that they write off the technically developed
countries and move — with their “Platform” as baggage — to Abyssinia and
Baluchistan.
The theoretical lapses of these half-baked philosophers of Anarchism are
not absent from their other chapters. When they define Anarchism itself
(chapter entitled “Anarchism and Anarchist Communism”), the authors of
the “Platform” see in it the aspiration to “transform the present
bourgeois capitalist society into one which would assure to the working
people their freedom, independence, social and political equality and
the fruits of their labour” (page 9). Here the authors introduce another
“revision” into the fundamental concepts of Anarchist Communism,
replacing the principle “to each according to his needs” by a new slogan
— “to each according to his labour.” Why this substitution? For, if
society assures the working man only the fruits of his labour and not
the satisfaction of his needs, then inequality will remain. One man may
produce more than he needs and hoard his surplus, while another may not
be capable of producing enough for his maintenance. Once again there
would be the rich, owning capital, and the poor who have less than the
minimum required for life. The result would be the same economic
inequality as we know today. And, wherever there is inequality, there
can be no talk of freedom, of independence, of social and political
equality. Indeed, none of these can possibly result from the slogan “to
each according to his labour.” And even though the authors of the
“Platform” call Anarcho-communist the society they would erect on the
principles they propose, it would in reality be neither Anarchist nor
Communist.
To be sure, they conclude the above-mentioned chapter with the
elementary truth that the goal of Anarchist Communism is actually “from
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” But they
interpret this truth “in their own way,” meaning, assurance to the
working man of “the fruits of his labour.” To equate these two
propositions — that again is proof of ignorance of the fundamental
tenets of Anarchism.
But to continue. The chapter “Rejection of Democracy” opens with the
following categorical imperative: “Democracy is one of the forms of
bourgeois capitalist society” (page 11). It is obvious that the authors
of the “Platform” have lumped together contemporary parliamentary
democracy and democracy as such. Anarchism is, in the final analysis,
nothing but democracy in its purest and most extreme form. Yet the
Platformists categorically reject democracy, without understanding
either its nature or its substance. They state, for instance, that
“democracy leaves untouched the principle of private property.” Present
day democracy? Yes. Anarchist democracy? Of course not. It is essential
to determine the true character of democracy in contrast to its
perversions — a process which is completely ignored by the authors of
the “Platform,” as a result, once again, of their chronic ignorance.
We shall not dwell on the less important “revisions” of these confused
“theoreticians.” There are too many, and it would be boring to list them
all. Let us turn instead to the process by which the authors of the
“Platform” claim to put into practice their fundamental theoretical
principles. But, before doing so, it might be useful to point out that
the comrades who wrote and signed the “Reply of some Russian Anarchists
to the Organisational Platform” believed that their own attitude towards
Social Revolution “does not differ from the brief expression of
viewpoint in the “Platform” , and that such chapters of the “Platform”
as “Anarchism and Anarchist Communism,” “Rejection of Democracy,”
“Rejection of State and Authority,” “which are no more than extremely
concise summaries of Anarchist concepts that have long been established
and clarified, do not arouse any substantial objections on our part.”
We take cognizance of this frank admission by the authors of the
“Reply.” The level of ignorance in our ranks is evidently lower than we
had assumed!
The “General Association of Anarchists,” the “Ideological Collective”
whose need is stressed by the “Platform,” appears in the final analysis,
and particularly in view of supplementary explanations which were
published in the pages of “Dielo Truda,” to be nothing else than an
Anarchist Party — and quite a centralized Party at that. The role of
this Anarchist Party, which incidentally does not differ greatly in the
question of leadership from the Bolshevik Party, is disguised in the
“Platform” under the concept of “ideological leadership.”
There is nothing anti-Anarchist in a “Party” organisation as such. Both
Bakunin and Kropotkin spoke frequently of the need for organising an
Anarchist Party, and to this day the organisation of the Scandinavian
Anarchists is known as a Party. Party does not necessarily mean power,
or the ambition to run the State. The issue is not in the name, but in
its content, in the organisational structure of the Party, in the
principles on which it is founded.
What goal does the “Platform” place before the Russian Anarcho-communist
Party? The realisation of an Anarcho-communist society. And that,
without a doubt, is Anarchism to the full. But what organisational
principles are laid down to determine the relationship between
individual members and the Party as a whole, between the Party and the
masses, and mass organisations in particular?
The “Platform” declares unequivocally that the main principle is that of
Federalism (page 30). But, as the “Reply” correctly points out, “the
authors of the ‘Platform’ too frequently resort to Parliamentary
interpretations for a number of fundamental Anarchist principles which,
as a result of these interpretations, retain only the external shell,
hiding an entirely different content.” And these parliamentary
interpretations emphasize the centralized character of the “Platform’s”
Federalism. Nothing, indeed, remains of Federalism but the title in this
democratic centralism which would be characteristic of any other
political Party.[15]
The “Platform” states the generally known fact that “Anarchism has
always advanced and defended Federalism, which combines the independence
of persons and organisations with their initiative and service in the
common cause” (page 30). However, when the “Platform” is obliged to
determine the “federalist character of the Anarchist organisation,” it
transpires that it is demonstrated not by the autonomy of groups and
group associations, but only by an “assurance for each member of the
organisation ... of independence, the right to vote, personal freedom
and initiative” (page 31).
It seems, then, that the Anarcho-communist Party would desist from
jailing anyone who joined it! The prerogatives, obviously, are very
enticing. And, in fact, the members of the Organisation are given a
chance at initiative — but apparently only members, not groups or
associations. Yet even this initiative has a special character — the
“Platformist” character. Each organisation (i.e. association of members
with the right to individual initiative) has its secretariat which
fulfils and directs the ideological, political and technical activities
of the organisation (“Platform,” page 31). In what, then, consist the
self reliant activities of the rank and-file members? Apparently in one
thing: initiative to obey the Secretariat and to carry out its
directives. Moving up the ,hierarchical ladder, “for the co-ordination
of the activities of all organisations,” (i.e. all the secretariats), “a
special organ known as the Executive Committee of the Organisation,” is
to be established.
What is the task of this Committee? “The ideological and organisational
guidance of the activities of the associations in accordance with the
common ideology and common tactics of the Association” (page 31). Where,
in this plan, does autonomy appear? Many Western European patriotic
Parties are based on a far greater freedom for their component sections
than the projected Anarcho-communist Party, which seems to rely
exclusively on the activities of a bureaucratic secretariat.
In his oppositionist program, the Bolshevik Sapronov, while speaking of
the structure of the Communist Party, described it as follows: “The cell
is subordinate to the secretary; the secretaries of the cells are
subordinate to the secretary of the Party Committee, in whose hands is
the control of the Committee. The secretaries of local Committees are
subordinated to the General Secretary to whom, in fact, the Central
Committee is responsible.”
The reader will have little difficulty in perceiving that the Party
structure of the Russian Bolsheviks and that of the small handful of
Russian Anarchist-communists abroad are in fact the same. There is no
doubt that the results would also be the same. If, according to the
statements of the “Sapronovites,” the Russian Communist Party “is at
present more than ever divided into the ‘leaders’ who are intimately
linked with the apparatus, and the ‘ranks’ who have been deprived of all
Party rights,” then the same development would inevitably take place in
any other Party, including the Russian Anarcho-communist Party, if it
were constructed on the principle of the “apparatus.”
What, then, will be the relationship of this Anarcho-communist Party,
which grants personal freedom to its members, to mass manifestations?
The authors of the “Platform” believe, firstly, that the masses are
incapable of “maintaining the direction of the Revolution,” despite the
fact that they have “joined in social movements and live by profoundly
Anarchist tendencies and slogans,” because “these tendencies and slogans
are fragmentary, unassembled into a specific system and lacking in an
organised directive force ... This directive force can be found only in
an ideological collective, specifically identified as such by the masses
[too much emphasis, it seems, is put on ideology and organisation!].
Such a collective will be the organised Anarchist groups [why not the
groups of the masses themselves who, according to this theory, live by
‘profoundly Anarchist tendencies and slogans?’] and the organised
Anarchist movement [i.e. the Party].” The Anarcho-communist Association
(i.e. the Party) “will have to provide initiative and participate fully
in every phase of the social revolution ... ”
The Anarchists (i.e. Party) will have to give precise answers to all
questions, to link the solution of these questions to the general ideas
of Anarchism, and to use all their energy in realising them. In this
way, the General Association of Anarchists (i.e. the Party) and the
Anarchist movement “would be fulfilling their complete ideological
guiding role in the Social Revolution” (page 16).
It is inevitable that he who accepts the principle of full participation
in all phases of the social Revolution, and who is bent on the
fulfillment of this ideal, cannot — and will not — limit himself to
ideological guidance. By the force of circumstances he will be obliged
to administer every kind of practical activity as well. It is useless to
blind oneself or other people to this fact: the “Platform” places its
Party on the same height as the Bolsheviks do, i.e. it places the
interests of the Party above the interests of the masses, since the
Party has the monopoly of understanding these interests. This
Bolshevik-type attitude is revealed even more clearly in the
relationship of the “Platform” to Syndicalism.
The new Anarchist evangelists begin history with themselves. Until they
appeared in the arena, there was only chaos and no solid ground. “We
consider the entire period previous to our own day, when Anarchists
joined in the movement of revolutionary Syndicalism as individual
workers and preachers, as a time of primitive attitudes to the Trade
Union Movement” (page 19). This is seriously stated when the second
International Working Men’s Association is already in existence, uniting
hundreds of thousands of revolutionary and Anarcho-syndicalist workers
in all the countries of Europe and America.
But how does the “Platform” itself express its non-primitive
relationship to the Trade Union movement? The answer is simple; it is a
typically Bolshevik attitude, of the kind which has been fought by the
entire international Syndicalist and Anarcho-syndicalist movement ever
since the establishment of the Comintern.
The Bolsheviks strive for the Bolshevization of the Trade Union
movement. The “Platformists” strive for its Anarchization. Both consider
this possible through the inevitable connection between the Trade Union
movement and the organisation of the Anarchist (for the Bolsheviks — the
Bolshevik) forces outside that movement, i.e. the Party. Both are
convinced that “only by the existence of this connection is it possible
to prevent in it [i.e. in revolutionary Syndicalism] a development of
tendencies towards opportunism.” They thus believe that the Trade Unions
must be under the guardianship of the Party, which itself can apparently
never become opportunistic, but will always remain revolutionary. The
“Platformists” have evidently not yet learned that the fate of all
political parties is to become opportunistic.
The Bolsheviks and the “Platformists” both advocate identical methods
for conquering the Trade Unions; i.e. cells within the Trade Unions,
whose activities are subordinated to an outside organisation of the
party. “Anarchist groups in industrial plants, attempting the creation
of Anarchist syndicates, struggling in the revolutionary syndicates for
the preponderance and ideological [only ideological?] guidance of
Anarchist thought, directed in their activities by the general Anarchist
Association [read Party] to which they belong — that is the real meaning
and form of Anarchist relations with revolutionary syndicalism and the
Trade Union movement” (page 20). It is not clear why this meaning and
“form” should be called Anarchist, when every worker, even today, knows
full well that they are really Bolshevik! In confirmation, one has only
to add the following extract:
“We must come into the Trade Union movement as an organized force [i.e.
Party], be responsible to the general Anarchist organisation [i.e. to
the Party, NOT THE TRADE UNION] for the work done in the syndicates, and
be controlled by this organisation” (page 20).
The reader will have little difficulty in perceiving that all this was
copied from the Bolshevik program. And in raising the question of the
relationship between the Anarchist Association and the Syndicates,[16]
the authors of the “Platform” replied in no less Bolshevik strains: “To
join the Unions in an organised way means to join them with a definite
ideology, with a definite plan of action, which all Anarchists, working
in the Syndicates, must strictly conform to.”
In other words, Anarchists are to join the Trade Unions with readymade
recipes and are to carry out their plans, if necessary, against the will
of the Unions themselves. Once again, this is a faithful copy of
Bolshevik tactics; the Party is a hegemony, the Trade Union is
subordinated to the organisation. As for the contention that the future
Anarcho-syndicalist Party would limit itself to ideological guidance, we
must never forget that behind ideas there stands a living reality — the
men who represent these ideas. Thus, ideological guidance will always
develop a physical and concrete form. There are several such forms; we
will point out the main ones. The Party form, which can vary, like
states, from monarchy and unlimited dictatorship to a broad
representative democracy. The Federative Form, adopted fully by the
second International Working Men’s Association, i.e. the International
of revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalists: this form is the sketch of the
future society which, from the first day of the social Revolution, would
be filled in with solid detail. The “Platformists” chose the first form.
They went in a direction which, after our experience of the Bolshevik
Party, should have been rejected by all.
The authors of the “Reply,” on the other hand, went to the opposite
extreme: they ignored completely the question of guidance and thus put
themselves in an unnatural position, in which no-one can remain for any
length of time. “Anarchists everywhere must be fellow workers and
comrades to the masses and the Revolution, but nothing more.” (Reply,
page 16). This, in its turn, is too naive and childish an interpretation
of the role of Anarchism. If one shies away from all guidance in action
and struggle, for fear of standing out from the general mass of the
people, and is satisfied always with equality on the level of
mediocrity, then logically it would be better not to mingle with the
masses at all, but to wait until these masses — all together, as a
“mass” — ask for help. And nothing less than the “all together” will do,
for, according to the authors of the “Reply,” an impassable gulf exists
between the masses and the individual; the relations between the masses,
which seem to be regarded as some kind of monolithic body, and the
individual are established in such a way that he who stands out, whoever
he may be, commits a crime.
“We do not charge the Anarchists with the mission of guiding the masses,
but believe that their calling is to help the masses, insofar as the
latter are in need of such help,” say the authors of the “Reply” (page
13). These are empty words, pleasing to all those who have never been
able to show any sign of initiative. For it is clear, after all, that
the “‘masses” will never ask anyone for help. One must go into the
masses oneself, work with them, struggle for their soul, and attempt to
win it ideologically and give it guidance.
Indeed, the authors of the “Reply” themselves involuntarily reach the
conclusion of the necessity for Anarchist work among the masses without
waiting for their call to help. “In mass organisations of a
socio-economic character, the Anarchists — as part of the masses — will
work, build and create together with the latter. A tremendous field of
direct ideological and social creative activity opens up for them here
and they must do this work in comradely fashion, without placing
themselves into positions above other members of the free masses.”
All this is said so kindly that one must search with tenderness for the
unknown and non-existent “masses” painted by the authors of the “Reply.”
Obviously accustomed to viewing Anarchism in an abstract manner, they
continue to look at everything else in the same way. To them the
“masses” are of some uniform, chemically pure and benevolent substance.
Such masses are nowhere to be found. The “masses” are too varied and
different to be assessed according to some easy and superficial formula.
While working in their midst, it is inevitable that some men will rise
above them; in fact, the “masses” themselves elevate their leaders, and
not because of their passivity. The Anarchists, however, must limit
themselves to “free and natural ideological and moral influence on their
environment.” But if they did that, they would inevitably — if they were
successful in their work — become the leaders of the “surrounding
environment,” i.e. the “masses,” in free, natural, ideological and moral
leadership.
The question is not the rejection of leadership, but making certain that
it is free and natural. Even in an Anarchist society, the “masses” will
always be led by “one or other political ideological group.” But this
does not mean, as the authors of the”Reply” believe, that the masses
might he unable to act freely and creatively under favourable
conditions.
One of the painful questions among Anarchists is that of the “Transition
Period.” The authors of the “Platform” also considered it and declared
that it is a “definite phase in the life of a people characterized by
the breakup of the old structure and the establishment of a new economic
and political system which, however, does not yet involve the full
liberation of the working people” (p. 17). In view of this attitude, the
“Platform” passes over this Transition Period as a non-Anarchist
phenomenon. It is non-Anarchist because it is “not the Anarchist society
which will emerge as a result of the social Revolution, but some ‘X’,
still containing elements and remnants of the old Capitalist system.”
(page 17). What elements are these? “The principle of State enforcement;
private property in tools and means of production, the hiring of labour,
etc.” Instead of all these evils, the “Platform” insists on a perfect
social Revolution which would establish with one blow a social order
containing no sign of the survival of elements from the old society.
Are there actually people in our ranks who regard such a vision as
practical? We, for one, consider it entirely impossible.
The authors of the “Platform” themselves continue, with their habit of
saying one thing and meaning another, that “the Anarcho-communist
society in its final stage will not be established by the force of a
social upheaval alone” (page 21). The logical assumption from this
statement would be that, for the final formation of the
Anarcho-communist society, a certain period of time is needed, i.e. a
Transition Period. And the “Platform” declares this directly: “Its
realisation (society’s) will present a more or less lengthy
social-revolutionary process, directed by the organised forces of
victorious labour along definite lines.” (page 21).
A process is a function of time, and the time during which this process
continues “is a transitional time,” characterized by a series of
concrete tasks designed to help the new society approach its ideal
architectural perfection, and to imbue it with Anarchist life. These
concrete tasks — even those proposed by the “Platform” — again assert
the inevitability of a transitional period, which was proposed by the
Russian Anarcho-syndicalists as far back as 1918.
“Only the workshop of producers,” the “Platform” says, “belonging in its
entirety to all working people and to none individually ... The products
form a common food fund for the workers, from which each participant in
the new industry will receive all his necessities on the basis of full
equality. The new system of production will destroy completely the
concepts of hiring and exploitation ... There will be no bosses ... This
is the first practical step towards the realisation of Anarchist
Communism” (pages 22–23). And they call that the “first step”! The
authors of the “Platform” evidently confuse the ninth month of pregnancy
with the first. They themselves had already stated that the principle
“to each according to his needs” would be preceded by a concept of
expediency — once again a transitional measure.
The “Platform” failed completely in the question of solving the agrarian
problem. In industry it proposed Communism, and in agriculture an
individual economy with rights of ownership to the products of the
economy; in other words, the need for an exchange of goods with the city
would continue until the great masses of the peasantry embraced
Communism in production and distribution.
Again, this process is perforce lengthy; a number of measures will have
to be taken to speed the process. The objections of the “Platform” and
other Anarchists to the Transitional period are a tribute which our
comrades pay to the relics of those days when Anarchists thought little,
if at all, about the nature, meaning and process of social upheavals.
But as soon as Anarchists descended from the cloudy heights to the
sinful, practical, materialistic earth, they had, willy nilly, to be in
favour of the Transitional period. And those who continue to speak and
write against it do this only to clear their hardened consciences.
The constructive section of the “Platform” is distinguished by its
primitiveness. The construction of the new Anarchist society is limited
to production and consumption, as if social organisation could be
reduced to these functions alone. Such a backward conception, borrowed
from the infancy of revolutionary Syndicalism, is an evidence of the
inability of the authors of the “Platform” to come to grips with a truly
constructive program.
Revolutionary Syndicalism, known today as Anarcho-syndicalism, has long
since advanced — primarily under the influence of the experiences in
Russia — from such a simplified outlook on the construction of the
future society. Yet the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad, who
conceived the “Platform,” now expound this primitivism as something new.
However, let us see how the “Platform” attempted to solve the main
issues arising out of the new structure.
Production: The “Platform” is concerned primarily with the
administration of production, rather than its functioning. And even the
form of administration is sketched rather childishly: factory and plant
Committees as the local subordinate form of administration; unification
of these committees on city, provincial and national levels. And that is
all.
Such a scheme of administering production in no way resembles the “one
workshop” (administration by industry); instead it throws together all
the factories, plants and workshops in various branches of production.
According to the “Platform” all factory and plant Committees of
innumerable branches of production in any city must unite and establish
the machinery for administering the production process in the given
city. But let them try to get production into working order, when the
industrial undertakings are united in the territorial principle and are
thrown together without any connection between them on the industrial
level! It will be nothing less than chaos and destruction! And that is
the only concrete proposal made by the authors of the “Platform” in the
sphere of the organisation of production. Everything else comes down to
the usual loud phrases which are meaningless in reality.
At the same time the “Platform” is silent on many concrete issues
resulting from the practical organisation of labour and production.
Thus, for instance, they declare that the middle classes and the
bourgeoisie will have to perform physical labour, but they ignore the
question of whether the social Revolution can afford to entrust jobs to
the middle classes, and to the proletariat in those institutions and
branches of production which will be destroyed by the social Revolution.
The Russian Revolution was unable to cope with this problem. How could
the kind of Revolution postulated by the authors of the “Platform” cope
with it? On that point the “Platform” is silent.
Provisions. Here too there is nothing new or fresh. The “Platform”
repeats the old Anarchist and Anarcho-syndicalist views. The only
novelty is the principle of expediency in the distribution of food, a
principle taken over from the Bolsheviks. Physical labourers are many;
those doing highly qualified intellectual work (administrators,
organisers, scientists, poets, etc.) are few. In times of need the
former can be limited to the necessary minimum of food, and even less;
and the latter — get higher rations! This principle is not only immoral,
but in practice it is far from being expedient, since it establishes
inequality in the most fundamental aspect of life and thus creates
discontent and hostility.
As to the organisational aspect of the distribution of food, it has been
pointed out repeatedly by the Anarcho-syndicalists of Russia that, both
during the Revolution and the Transition Period, the cooperatives
provide the most suitable means.
Land. Here the “Platform” is completely bankrupt and satisfied with
general phraseology. It rejects the immediate communisation of the
agricultural economy and retains the present peasant structure without
any changes. It notes correctly that a “private agrarian economy, like
private industrial enterprise, leads to trade, to the accumulation of
private property and the creation of capital” Well said! But to say this
and then consciously leave private farming intact is tantamount to
destroying all Anarchist concepts. The “Platformists” state that in this
manner they are creating some “X,” some “unknown quantity,” and the
identity of this “X” is not difficult to envisage: it will mean the
creation of an Anarcho-communist “NEP.” Such a transitory structure is a
far cry from the Transition Period envisaged by the Russian
Anarcho-syndicalists, and is very close to the structure of Capitalism.
And still they claim that they are opposed to a Transition Period!
Protection of the Revolution: All are agreed that the social Revolution
will be forced to defend itself. The question is: how should one
organise this defence? The authors of the “Platform” pick out their
answer from the precepts of the Bolsheviks. The latter organised, in the
early days of the Revolution, partisan (Red Guard) detachments, later a
volunteer Army, and they finally ended up with a standing army and
compulsory military service for the entire population. The “Platform”
goes through the same stages.
Anarchist principles bind the authors of the “Platform” to voluntary
formations, i.e. Partisan detachments. But, they say, civil war would
demand the “unification of plans of operations and unification of the
general command.” And thus, in the first period of the Revolution, as
with the Bolsheviks, there are to be Partisans. In the second period,
“when the Bourgeoisie will attack the Revolution with their reorganised
forces,” there is to be an Army, again as with the Bolsheviks.
Apparently it will have all the colours of the Bolshevik rainbow: both
its class character and its voluntary service, its revolutionary
discipline (which in practice is always straight military discipline),
finally subordination of the Army to a unified organisation for the
entire country. all of which have already been demonstrated by the
Bolsheviks. The issue of the Protection of the Revolution is resolved by
the “Platform” in a typically Statist manner; to have a free hand
towards the people whose guardians they are, maintained with the help of
the Army, subordinated to the highest authorities only.
The solution to the problem of the protection of the Revolution lies
only in the principle of the general mobilization of the working people.
as proposed by the Russian Anarcho-syndicalists.
We have come to the end of our criticism of the “Platform.” No
conclusions will be drawn. Let the readers, who have studied the
“Platform,” the “Reply” and the program of the Russian
Anarcho-syndicalists propounded here, draw their own conclusions.
The program of the Russian Anarcho-syndicalists referred to at the very
end of text was published as Part II in the original english edition.
This ‘Program of Anarcho-syndicalism’ has already been published
separately as Rebel Worker Pamphlet #4 by Monty Miller Press.
writings. Glencoe 1953. 434pp
Long out of print:
Also much remains to be translated from his voluminous writings in
Russian. Of particular interest are the following :
Anarcho-syndicalist Congresses during the Russian Revolution
collection of essays on Kropotkin compiled by Maximoff and containing
his important long essay ‘Kropotkin & Syndicalism’.
A brief biography of Maximoff by Sam Dolgoff is contained in the
Cienfuegos edition of ‘The Guillotine at Work’. See also ‘My Social
Credo’.
[1] The First World War of 1914–18.
[2] The Fourth Congress, because of a lack of time, did not consider the
question of credit
[3] Foreword to “Bread and Freedom” by Peter Kropotkin.
[4] See “Instead of a Program,” 1922, Berlin, Publications of the
Foreign Bureau.
[5] See “Resolutions,” 1918, Publications of the Secretariat.
[6] See “Declaration and Resolutions’, 1922; Argentina. “Resolutions of
the first Congress 1919. publications NABAT.
[7] See Declaration, 1918, publication of First Central Sovtech School.
[8] See Declaration of the Moscow organisation of Anarcho-universalists,
to the 8^(th) Session of the Soviets, Moscow, 1921.
[9] See Kropotkin’s foreword to “Bread and Freedom,” 1919, Moscow,
Publication “Golos truda.”
[10] See Labour’s Path (Rabotchi Put).
[11] See also the pamphlet by Rudolph Rocker and Barvota.
[12] Organ of the MlR, later organ of the Revolutionary Syndicalist
Confederation of labour in France.
[13] Particularly interesting in this connection is an article by M.
Korn in “Dielo Truda” (No. 29, 1928) extravagantly praising the
achievements of the “Platform.” In the opinion of Comrade Korn, “the
program has inspired our groups ...” In reality, of course, it was the
inspiration in our groups which called forth the “Platform.” Further,
Comrade Korn believes that the “Platform”: “raised a number of
fundamental questions...” Yet it was obvious that all the questions — as
well as many others — had been formulated long before the “Platform’s”
proclamation. Continuing his extraordinary series of discoveries,
Comrade Korn considers that the “Platform”: “placed squarely before
every Anarchist the issue of responsibility for the fate of the movement
in the sense of its practical influence on the future path of events
...” It is not, of course, very difficult to raise questions without
answering them. And even these questions had already been raised by
Anarcho-syndicalists in Russia and abroad at a time when the most
imminent authors of the “Platform” were either indifferent to the issues
involved or had only begun to learn, after their arrival abroad, the
first lessons of personal and collective responsibility to the movement.
[14] Collection of essays by Bakunin published by the
Anarcho-syndicalist Publishing House, “Golos Truda,” Moscow (five
volumes).
[15] See, concerning these “Interpretations,” the answers of the
“Platformists” to the questions put them by M. Korn (“Dielo Truda” No.
18). the article by G. Graf (“Dielo Truda, No’s 22–24) and the “Reply”
(“Dielo Truda”) No. 28) professing amazement on the part of the authors
of the “Platform” that no-one understands them.
[16] See article by M. Korn, “Dielo Truda,” No. 18.