💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › maurizio-antonioli-the-international-anarchist-congress… captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:27:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The International Anarchist Congress
Author: Maurizio Antonioli
Date: 1978
Language: en
Topics: congress, international, Amsterdam, anarcho-syndicalism, 1907, history
Source: Retrieved on 17th October 2021 from http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/press/pamphlets/sla-5/index.htm
Notes: Pamphlet No. 5 in the Studies for a Libertarian Alternative series, published in 2007 by the Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici. Translation by Nestor McNab. Italian original, “Dibattito sul sindacalismo: Atti del Congresso Internazionale anarchico di Amsterdam (1907)”, published by CP Editrice, Florence 1978.

Maurizio Antonioli

The International Anarchist Congress

Preface

This is the story of the International Anarchist Congress that was held

at the Plancius Hall in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, from 26 to 31 August

1907. The previous anarchist congress had been back in 1881 in London

and was an attempt to re-launch the old International, though it

inaugurated the age of “anarchist terrorism”, moving the anarchist

movement away from the masses of the working people.

The period between 1881 and 1907 saw huge changes within the workers’

movement. By then, however, the anarchists had placed themselves firmly

outside the sphere of labour, though some comrades did remain close to

the workers. When the anarchist movement eventually understood that it

had to put an end to its isolation, the result was the calling of an

international congress to be held in Amsterdam which was to deal with

the most important issues of the day: the attitude of anarchists to the

new phenomenon of syndicalism and the question of anarchist

organization.

In the introduction to the 1978 book “Dibattito sul sindacalismo: Atti

del Congresso Internazionale anarchico di Amsterdam (1907)”, labour

historian Maurizio Antonioli examines the process that led to the

Amsterdam Congress and its significance both within the labour movement

and the anarchist movement. Antonioli then goes on to compile the

various reports in anarchist journals of the time, producing what is

possibly the most complete record of the Congress and the debates that

lasted six days. We present here Antonioli’s introduction together with

a slightly abridged version of the rest of the book, having omitted some

of the lesser debates and introductory speeches. With time we hope to

include these also. The footnote numbers are those in the original text.

Anarchism and/or Syndicalism

The revolutionary socialist Congress in London (July 1881), which

gathered together the few remaining anti-authoritarian elements of the

International who were spread around the world [1], was the last

anarchist attempt to “get the old International back on its feet in some

way” [2]. There would be no further efforts, thanks to the fact that the

choice of “illegality” as the only possible method of struggle

(justified as it may have been by the circumstances) removed any

possibility for the revolutionary minorities, who were more and more

convinced of the imminence of a direct clash, to maintain organic links

with the mass organizations that were consolidating themselves

throughout most parts of Europe.

“The deliberations in London”, wrote Gino Cerrito [3], “... officially

inaugurated the era of anarchist terrorism, which (...) completed the

transformation of groups into sectarian organizations, at times being

reduced to individuals having casual contact with each other, and moving

the Anarchist Movement away from the masses of the people, who therefore

remained under the exclusive leadership of the legalitarians”.

Within the space of a few years, and partly as a result of harsh

government repression (which indeed had been the principal reason for

the London decisions), the anarchist movement had practically signed its

own death warrant as an organized movement. Though anarchism did

maintain an unarguable vitality in many countries, almost everywhere —

except for Spain — “the sense of organizational continuity, of

international relations (...), of a coherent revolutionary strategy” [4]

had been lost. Neither did certain isolated attempts, such as the one by

Malatesta in 1884 [5], seem able to change this tendency and re-launch

an internationalist movement closer to the original one.

When, in the late 1880s and early 1890s — and not without some

perplexity, contradictions and clashes — a new International did finally

give form to the “nostalgia” for the old IWMA which was so prevalent in

European socialist circles, anarchists were reduced to the role of more

onlookers. To the extent that, having put aside every alternative hope,

the only solution that could be seen — at least by those fringes that

had survived the anti-organizationalist storm and tenaciously hung on to

the Saint Imier tradition — seemed to be that of carving out a place in

the new organizations by making the most of its still decidedly “mixed”

nature.

As is well known, the various attempts — Brussels (1891), Zurich (1893)

and London (1896) — came to no good. The majority at these congresses

voted for the exclusion of the anarchists, though with sizeable

minorities and for various reasons. However, despite the lack of success

as far as the objective was concerned, these efforts to return to the

international circuit were not without positive results. Contacts were

renewed, debate was stimulated, ideas, discussion points and forms of

struggle circulated (a typical example being the general strike) and the

possibility was mooted of alliance with other revolutionary forces. As

Christiaan Cornelissen recalled years later [6], Zurich and London had

not just meant defeat for anarchists, they were also an opportunity to

meet up, “dans l’ombre du Congrès ouvrier socialiste”.

That was no small matter, especially if one considers that those were

the years of the height of the terrorist boom and of illegalism, and

anarchism was caught in the grip of a massive government

counter-offensive that culminated in the International Anti-Anarchist

Conference in Rome in 1898 which saw the participation of Europe’s main

powers, with the exception of Great Britain and Switzerland.

In fact, notwithstanding the “terrorist” nature of the period — and this

was the idea that bourgeois (and not only) public opinion had of

anarchism — it was in the 1890s that the first symptoms of a change

within the movement began to be seen. There began to be felt the “need”

for a programmatic and operational agreement among socialist anarchists

[7] in order to “put an end to the isolation which anarchists in certain

countries [had] placed themselves and to the separation from the masses

of the people” [8]. Not only in France, but also in Italy and the

Netherlands, there was a growing tendency towards a constant,

non-instrumental presence in the rapidly-growing labour organizations.

It is not easy to establish the reasons for this evolution. Perhaps it

was the repeated exclusion from the Congresses of the International [9],

the urgent need to counteract the rebellious, anti-organizationalist

wave with something more solid [10], the heightening social and

political tension in many countries, perhaps one or other (or all) of

these had sparked off the desire to recompose the movement and, at the

same time, to develop a project for it.

In 1900, when Bresci’s assassination of Italy’s King Humbert I brought

to a close (at least in Europe) the “classic” phase of the individualist

act, the turning point had been reached. The clearest sign was the

calling by French libertarians with syndicalist leanings of an

International Revolutionary Workers’ Congress in Paris, from 19–23

September 1900. As the organizing committee’s circular-letter clarified,

“there is a general revolutionary and anti-parliamentary tendency

developing among the workers, and it seems useful that the trade unions

which are rejected by social democracy can debate the questions which

affect the proletariat in general” [11]. Despite the general tone and

the assurances of the “worker” nature of the initiative, which was not —

as Delesalle [12] said — an attempt to hold “a little anarchist

parliament”, the congress had a definite anarchist flavour, both in its

agenda and in its participants [13]. But the Paris of the International

Exposition was due to host a great many events that year: from 5–8

September, the Congress of the Fédération des Bourses; from 10–14

September, the National Corporative Congress (CGT); from 17–18

September, an International Corporative Congress promoted by the

Fédération des Bourses and the CGT in open contrast to the Socialist

International, whose congress was due to open in Paris on 24 September.

And it was not by chance that the Revolutionary Workers’ Congress (later

known as the International Anti-Parliamentary Congress, lest there be

any doubt about its nature) was set to occur between the International

Corporative Congress and the Congress of the International. The aim was

clear, at least as far as the organizers were concerned: to involve the

delegates of the first Congress and to boycott the second, or at the

very least to raise the “anarchist” question again under another guise —

that of the autonomy of the labour organization from political

organizations. However, only a few days before it was due to open, the

Anti-Parliamentary Congress had to be called off as a result of the ban

placed on it by the Waldeck-Rousseau government.

We have no way of knowing what the effects of the congress would have

been, though leaving aside the intended participation of elements from

Romania, Belgium, Bohemia and so on, it would most likely have been

limited to France and the emigrant groups there (Italians, Russians,

etc.). In any event, the International Corporative Congress, attended by

only a few English, French, Italian and Swiss delegates, did not appear

to meet with any great success either.

But apart form the outcome, even the will to get together for a wide

debate on a “worker” basis was in itself an important fact. It was

evidence that, on the one hand, the isolation was coming to an end and,

on the other hand, wide sectors of the anarchist movement were rapidly

moving back to class-struggle positions.

The failed Paris congress appeared not to have produced any effect,

seeming only to act as an indication of a developing tendency. But it is

extremely difficult to follow the lines of propagation within the

movement of certain impulses and to establish exactly who or what was

responsible for it. It is clear, though, that powerful ideas such as the

general strike, which was to have been the focus of one particular

debate in Paris (we are in possession, in fact, of the report which was

to be presented)[14], were beginning to spread and take root among

libertarian circles both in France and elsewhere. As early as 1900–01,

through emigrant channels and the best-known newspapers, numerous

anarchist groups (some of whom were often declaredly

anti-organizationalist) throughout Europe and the Americas were starting

to focus their attention on an objective which the notable expansion of

labour organizations, added to a new aggressiveness, appeared to put

within easier reach than the traditional insurrectional explosion.

In any event, the new century (at least from 1902–03 on) did seem to

offer anarchists objective possibilities for a revival on an

international level, though there were variances in the speed of growth

in the various national movements as each had to adapt to the

peculiarities of its own context. Undoubtedly the stimulus of greater

homogeneity in the policies of the socialist parties produced, by way of

response, a homogeneous opposition within those forces who were not

prepared to accept those policies. It was above all, however, the

beginning of a cycle of struggles involving almost all of Europe which,

despite rapidly fluctuating fortunes, influenced the composition of the

anarchist movement. A movement which, by the way, had never divided

itself according to geographic location. But due to its very instability

— a result of government repression, internal fluctuations and the

continually-changing militant personnel — it had split into factions,

currents which regularly appeared in various places, sometimes due to

external influences, but which at other times had developed

spontaneously.

This is not the place to deal with the internationalization of the

anarchist movement. To this day we lack the means with which to do so,

there are gaps which are too great to fill, and thus far there have been

no comparative studies on the matter. Nonetheless, it is certain that in

those years the conditions for such a phenomenon were developing, modest

as it may have been in size (given the non-central role played by

anarchism); it could by no means be compared to the period of the First

International.

It is, though, legitimate to think that in 1906, when the idea of

building an Anarchist International was once again gaining ground, it

was not simply a coincidence or the fancy of a few groups who felt like

taking a risk.

The first proposal to create a Libertarian International, which would be

able to connect and coordinate the movements in the various countries,

was put forward during the second congress of the Groupement Communiste

Libertaire in Belgium, held at Stockel-Bois on 22 July 1906 [15]. The

idea was immediately adopted on the following 23 September, during the

second general assembly (in Utrecht) of the Federatie van

Vrijheidlievende Kommunisten in the Netherlands, which proposed an

international congress, to be held in Amsterdam the following year [16].

In order to prepare the way for such an initiative, publication of a

“Bulletin de l’Internationale Libertaire” was commenced in Herstal, near

Liege, under the editorship of Georges Thonar, secretary of the

Groupement. The appeal launched in the first issue in October [17]

confirms our previous impression:

“Although a large number of libertarians have been thinking about the

creation of an international organization for quite some time now, it

cannot be denied that this tendency — at least in certain countries — is

currently stronger than ever before.

We are firm believers in the idea and we rejoice to see the progress it

is making each day. We have decided that discussions are no longer

enough, that we will not be content with the purely theoretical

propaganda of the ideal, that we will resolutely plant the embryo of

this International which will surely develop into something good — that

much we can say. So it is settled; the Libertarian International will be

created within a few months.”

The timescale involved left little room for manoeuvre. A month later,

the Dutch federation announced that the congress would take place the

following July or August (the choice was to fall on August) and made it

quite clear that their objective (their main, if not only, one) was the

“organization of an international libertarian association” [18].

But why was the drive to “create” an International coming from the

Belgians and the Dutch (other than it being a sort of “vocation” for the

Belgians, who were also heavily involved in the early days of the Second

International)? Why were movements in places which most historians had

always considered peripheral to anarchism’s epicentre, not to mention

the fact that they were countries with huge social democratic

tendencies, the first to do anything concrete regarding international

organization? The answer is not a simple one and would require a

thorough analysis of the anarchist movement of the two countries,

something which is not possible. But it must be said, contrary to what

is commonly thought, that both Belgium and the Netherlands — and above

all the Netherlands — were in reality anything but peripheral at the

time, when compared to the “classical” zone of anarchism — Spain, France

and Italy.

We can hazard one or two hypotheses. In both countries, the libertarian

tradition had deep roots going back to the early years of the old

International. In both countries anarchist federalism had a long history

of local and regional autonomy. Both contained some of the most

important ports in Europe and the importance of sailors in the spreading

of propaganda cannot be underestimated. Both countries formed a cushion

between great powers and were home to a deep pacifist tradition which

was the basis for active anarchist anti-militarism. Neither should it be

forgotten that Amsterdam was the seat of the International

Anti-Militarist Association (Internationaal Anti-militaristische

Vereeniging), formed in 1904 thanks to the drive and untiring activity

of Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, one of the few European social

democratic leaders to pass over to anarchism. Nor that in Belgium, the

natural place of refuge for French deserters, anti-militarist agitation

in 1906 had reached intense levels, above all in the pages of the

aggressive “L’action directe” newssheet, directed by Henri Fuss-Amoré

[19].

Belgium and the Netherlands, indeed, were among the first countries to

have national anarchist federations (a decidedly relevant fact, even

though they were never huge) and to organize union opposition to

reformism through separate organizations — the old

Nationaal-Arbeids-Sekretariaat (founded in 1893 by Cornelissen and

formerly the only union in the country, but later abandoned by the

reformists) and the “tiny” CGT of the Liege region. Yet again, it was

the Dutch who proposed, first in 1909 and again in 1913, the formation

of a revolutionary syndicalist International.

Naturally, the importance of the Belgian and Dutch movements must not be

exaggerated. By force of things, they operated on a rather limited

level, both in their physical range of action and in their “political

wavelength”, and they were in reality dependent, ideologically speaking,

on the French movement. But they must have reached a level of

de-provincialization and maturity which would allow them to organize

successfully such an initiative (something which would have been

unthinkable, for example, for the Italians).

The proposal, nonetheless, was greeted with a crescendo of adherents and

neither the isolated reservation of individualists and

anti-organizationalists nor the scepticism of other (such as Jean Grave)

were enough to throw the validity of the initiative into crisis. It was

a tangible sign of the extent to which anarchist circles felt the

pressing need to bring back an international dimension to anarchism.

Above all, the need was felt to do away with the isolation of groups, to

have an exchange of information, to find out how the movements in the

various countries were getting on. “With our brothers beyond our

borders”, complained one anonymous piece in “Bulletin de

l’Internationale Libertaire” [20], “we have only purely theoretical

relations. We barely know that they exist”.

But obviously, this was not the only problem. It was not just a

“letterbox” that was needed. There was also a need for a motor,

something which would be able to stimulate growth in the movement, to

launch and coordinate initiatives in the struggle, to facilitate

widespread agitation, solidarity campaigns and, why not, the spark of

revolution.

In the space of a few weeks the Amsterdam congress became a reality. The

first to announce their participation were the Bohemians (the Česká

Anarchistická Federace and its journal “Nova Omladine”, the Czech

section of the Anti-Militarist International and the journal “Matice

Svobody”), closely followed by the Anarchistische Föderation

Deutschlands and numerous German-language journals (“Der Revolutionär”,

“Der freie Arbeiter”, “Der Anarchist”, “Die freie Generation”). These

were followed by the Jiddisch-Sprechende Anarchistische Föderation and

the newly-constituted Fédération Communiste-Anarchiste de la Suisse

Romande. Italian groups like the Federazione socialista anarchica del

Lazio and the journals “Il Pensiero”, “La Gioventù Libertaria” and “La

Vita Operaia” announced their intention to attend. Finally, there were

adhesions from various periodicals and individuals from Algeria,

Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, the USA, Great Britain, France, Greece,

Argentina, Russia, Tunisia, Spain Portugal, Brazil and elsewhere.

In early 1907, Amédée Dunois set up a propaganda group for the congress

[21] in Paris. In April, the “Bulletin” recorded nine other such groups,

in Amsterdam, Portalegre (Portugal), Bari and Naples (Italy), New York,

London, Porto Alegre (Brazil), Buenos Aires, Berlin and Notre-Dame de

Lourdes (Canada) [22].

The initiative of the congress also seemed to elicit a new

pro-organization drive in several countries. The Italians in the

Federazione socialista anarchica del Lazio met in Rome on 25 March 1907

and called a national congress for the following June in order to create

an organization with a wider territorial reach [23]. The Portuguese

group, Conquista do Pão, announced in the same period a congress to be

held in Lisbon following the Amsterdam congress [24]. The Russians, too,

were planning the formation of an Anarchist Federation, according to

“Der freie Arbeiter” [25].

The quick reaction from large sectors of international anarchism was

not, however, matched by an adequate liveliness and wealth of debate in

preparation for the congress. This was perhaps what Georg Herzig was

referring to on the eve of the congress, when he spoke of a lack of

enthusiasm and of “émulation préliminaire” [26]. In fact, while most

libertarian newspapers provided news on the preparatory phase,

publishing appeals and messages from the organizing committee, very few

printed articles which dealt specifically with the questions that the

congress would deal with.

In fact, it was limited to constant, but never more than superficial,

worries of a practical nature. From the very start, the Dutch made it

clear that they wanted to address “practical matters” [27], while the

Brazilians of “A Terra livre” expressed their fear that there would be a

slide into academe “without addressing anything concrete and practical”

[28]. This was also the view of the Italians from “La Gioventù

Libertaria”, who underlined the need to “discuss the best form of

action, instead of wasting time on theoretical speechifying and

word-mongering” [29], and of the Belgians who, in the words of Henri

Fuss-Amoré, repeated that they were “coming to Amsterdam not just to

talk but to organize” [30].

But mostly it was a matter of general will to do something, never going

beyond a certain point. In effect, the circular sent out by the

organizing committee at the end of 1906, signed by Lodewijk, Thonar,

Frauböse, Vohryzek and Knotek, Shapiro — in other words the secretaries

of the main (and only) national organizations — already outlined a

precise discussion plan: “In recent years, libertarian and anarchist

communist principles and tactics have taken on a new light. Without

wishing to anticipate the agenda, which is yet to be finally decided by

the groups, we wish to say that direct action has been so strongly and

consciously adopted in so many countries, by reason of the influence of

our comrades, testimony to the progress our ideas are making within

workers’ circles, that discussion of the problems it raises would

already of itself justify the calling of an international congress”

[31]. Basically what they were saying was that if a congress was being

seen as a good idea, it was because anarchism in recent years had

re-discovered its vitality thanks to its use of direct action and

therefore, in the terminology of the times, thanks to revolutionary

syndicalism and syndicalist practice. Thus, Herzig was not wrong to

speak of a circular promoting “syndicalist propaganda” [32]. The problem

of syndicalism, therefore, was already looking like it would be the

major point of the Congress.

And yet, despite this one gets the impression reading the anarchist

press during the period leading up to the congress that there was some

reticence on the question. Perhaps it was the fear of influencing the

outcome of the initiative, by colouring it too much, that led a

prominent “syndicalist anarchist” like Fuss-Amoré to insist on the

“anarchist” rather than the “workerist” nature (unlike Delesalle in

1900) of the congress (where “workerist” simply meant syndicalist)[33]?

Why did Cornelissen, who had even tried to bring Pouget and Yvetot to

Amsterdam and had then “fallen back” on Monatte [34], also seem to be

minimizing the problem [35]? Why then did the polemic that was to emerge

during the congress, and even more so after the congress, not also

emerge beforehand? The fact that Herzig caught a whiff of “syndicalist

propaganda” in the initial call for the congress and that the Fédération

Communiste-Anarchiste de la Suisse Romande interpreted the new

International being set up as an “Anarchist Syndicalist” International

[36] was not entirely insignificant.

The only one to intervene on this subject, and who did so with great

clarity, was Amédée Dunois, between December 1906 and July 1907. Dunois’

argument began with the awareness of the existence of two distinct

currents within anarchism: “a certain type of theoretical anarchism,

dealing in abstract generalizations” — the sort of anarchism that, for

example, in the spring of 1906 opposed the fight for the eight-hour day

[37] — that he described as “pure”, and the “workerist anarchism” which,

“without ever abandoning the firm ground of concrete reality, devoted

itself consistently to the organization of the proletariat in the light

of the economic revolt, otherwise known as the class struggle”. This

second sort, though, was not, in Dunois’ eyes, simply one of the

varieties that anarchism seemed to have split into, but the true and

authentic interpretation of “revolutionary anti-authoritarian

communism”, the continuation of the collectivism of the Bakuninist

International which, lost in the reactionary storm that followed the

Commune and the “individualist” wave of the Nineties, had reappeared at

the time of the first showings of revolutionary syndicalism, the

“practical” aspect of anarchism [38].

It was therefore necessary to push aside all those non-genuine (not to

mention anachronistic) forms of anarchism, and ensure that anarchism

could root itself solidly in the class organizations and become a

vanguard for the workers’ movement, whose task would not be to direct

the movement, “but to understand it, to inspire it and to light up the

darkness of its future” [39].

All this did not mean that it would be superfluous for there to be “an

opinion group”, “a particularly ideological movement”, in other words a

specific movement, distinct from the workers’ organizations. On the

contrary. Dunois was convinced that syndicalism in itself was not

sufficient, and was proposing the setting-up of a network of anarchist

groups (and therefore with a precise ideological position) which would

be able to fulfil the particular function of the vanguard without in any

way damaging the autonomy of the workers’ organizations [40].

Dunois’ articles were forceful enough to be seen even as being somewhat

provocative. But even they did not elicit any response. But then, apart

from a certain exclusivist tone, there was nothing in them that was not

shared by a large part of the movement. For some time already, both in

Italy (above all through the work of Luigi Fabbri) and in France

(Caughi, Pierrot, Goldsmith), the continuity between the Bakuninist

International and revolutionary syndicalism was being openly stated

[41]. Even Kropotkin had supported this idea [42] just before the

Congress opened. If anything, the polemics were centred on those forms

of syndicalism of Marxist origin (Leone, Labriola, etc. in Italy and

Lagardelle in France) that denied any connection between syndicalism and

anarchism. Certainly, Dunois seemed to give great priority to union

organization over specific organization, but then even Fabbri agreed

[43] and Bertoni and Pierrot were not far off sharing the notion [44].

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can make out a series of

differences in the various trends, which existed not so much in what was

said, but in what was not said. If we take into account his later

development, Dunois probably considered it of secondary importance, even

though he did not question the ideological aspect, whose continuity and

survival was a matter for the opinion groups. What, then, was

responsible — above all in France — for that revival of anarchist

“spirit” on which everyone was agreed? Certainly not the simple, but

consistent, input of those “historic” militants. More than anything

else, it was the fact that an increasing number of workers’

organizations were adopting libertarian practices in the struggles

(rejection of mediation, class autonomy, anti-institutionalism, and so

on), and what was known as direct action. Basically, anarchism could

only bring about anarchy if it became an essential element of the

workers’ condition and behaviour and not because of any intrinsic value.

At this point it was difficult to think that someone like Fabbri, or

Bertoni, or even Kropotkin, could be in agreement.

In reality, a position like Dunois’ found its justification in a precise

reading of the political situation at the time, even though it was

perhaps overly reliant on this. Why was anarchism in those years

apparently going through a renaissance? For a series of reasons, but

above all because of the general international situation, which saw what

was basically a favourable economic situation with a working class on

the attack matched by an increasingly unstable political situation.

As a matter of fact, with the new century and in particular after

1902–03, the quality of the workers’ struggles became markedly bitter.

Maybe it was the awareness of a new strength (the massive expansion of

the unions) that had sparked off a wave of demands that was without

precedent. This wave affected almost every European nation over a period

of time with general strikes and mass strikes. Whether the strikes were

for universal suffrage (as in Belgium and Sweden), or to defend civil

servants’ freedom to strike (as in the Netherlands), or in order to

protest outrages against the proletariat (as in Italy), such strikes

soon ended up turning into direct clashes with the State. This was to

lead to a progressive increase in antagonism between the workers and the

State.

Then, in 1905, with the events in Russia reminding everyone in Europe

that something which seemed to have survived only in the hearts of the

few — revolution — was, after all, possible and with the rising risk of

war in the wake of the first Moroccan crisis, the level of the clash

rose precipitously. Anti-militarism, too, became an increasing element

of the agitation. Once again the State was seen as one and the same

thing as the class enemy.

This explains the spread of that anarchist “spirit” we mentioned

earlier, and of the recovery in pro-organization anarchism. Indeed it

was no coincidence that the German, Czech, Belgian and Dutch national

federations were born after the Russian Revolution in 1905 and that,

generally speaking, the revolutionary syndicalist organizations (the

Česká Federace Všech odboru, the Belgian CGT and the Fédération des

Unions Ouvrières de la Suisse Romande) were established before these.

From all this, it could be deduced that the growth of the anarchist

movement was in some way dependent on the general situation. It was the

radicalization of the workers’ movement that had given anarchism a

breath of life and not vice versa. But such a radicalization took place

also (not only, obviously) thanks to the instruments of struggle that

syndicalist practice offered, in particular the general strike, whose

enormous charge of spontaneity — only barely controllable by the

centralist type of organization — was able to throw

Second-Internationalist socialist strategy into crisis. This led to the

conclusion drawn by certain sectors of the movement, that anarchism had

to be syndicalist or else risked extinction.

As we said before, however, none of this came to light before the

Congress, which opened in a climate of apparent unity.

It is pointless to deal here with everything that was said at the

Congress, documented as it is in the following report. We will limit

ourselves to the matter of syndicalism.

It is well-known from contemporary historiography, in particular French,

from Maitron’s by now classic work [45] to the recent “Colloque du

Creuzot” [46], that the Amsterdam Congress marked the decisive

separation between “orthodox” anarchism and a syndicalism that no longer

had anything anarchist about it. This vision allowed Rolande Trempé to

imagine Malatesta of all people saying to Monatte: “You are no longer an

anarchist” [47].

It is an interpretation which in reality provides little comfort.

Monatte’s speech was certainly entirely wrapped up in the question of

syndicalism, a sort of hymn to syndicalism and the CGT. But it was the

same Monatte who, during the next debate, stated “Like everyone else

here, our final goal is anarchism” and who several times reaffirmed the

validity of “his” anarchism. As for Malatesta, he actually declared in

an article that was published in various journals and appended as a

preface to Fabbri’s congressional report [48]: “I am convinced, ...,

that Monatte and the ‘young’ group are sincerely and profoundly

anarchist as much as any ‘bearded old comrade’”.

But, more so than Monatte’s speech, which often avoided the problem, it

was Dunois’ report on organization that was fundamental. In fact, it

should not be forgotten that he was on the receiving end of most of the

pre-congress attacks and the post-congress polemics. With regard to the

problem of specific organization (a central element, as would become

clear later, too), Dunois went on from what had been said in previous

articles. But he did introduce a new element by speaking of

“syndicalists” who were “hostile — or at least indifferent — to all

organization based on an identity of aspirations, sentiment and

organizations” and of “syndicalist anarchists”, amongst whom he included

himself, “who willingly assigned first place in the field of action to

the workers’ movement” (without however rejecting a “specifically

anarchist movement”) with “its own action, to be carried out directly”.

It is true that he then tried to reduce the difference to a

misunderstanding by the former of the latter (“This is how the

syndicalists talk. But I do not see where their objections are valid

against our project to organize ourselves. On the contrary, I see that

if they were valid, they would also be against anarchism itself, as a

doctrine that seeks to distinguish itself from syndicalism and refuses

to allow itself to be absorbed”). But it is equally true that his

position was not an isolated case. In fact, it was just what Fabbri had

been sustaining for some time (Fabbri had often republished Dunois’

articles in “Il Pensiero” and was alone in publishing Dunois’ report,

again in “Il Pensiero”). Neither was it far from the thinking of Bertoni

and Wintsch, who in 1913–14 were to be syndicalism’s harshest critics

[49].

In fact, we can say that the viewpoints of the French syndicalist

anarchists, the Fédération Communiste-Anarchiste from francophone

Switzerland and the Italians from the Federazione Socialista anarchica

were to all intents and purposes identical.

If anyone’s position could be described as somewhat “anomalous” it was

Malatesta, who was closer to the English-speaking comrades. On the

problem not so much of organization as of the attitude to take towards

the anti-organizationalists, Malatesta differed sharply from the

syndicalist anarchists and those favourable to syndicalism. As a

dyed-in-the-wool pluralist, he fought hard for the “party”, combating

the strictest forms of individualism, but he was prepared to accept a

certain opening towards the anti-organizationalist communists. This was

demonstrated by one of his speeches, where he sought to minimize the

differences as being misunderstandings caused by words (“Enough arguing;

let us stick to deeds! Words divide but action unites”), something with

which Fabbri, for example, declared himself to be in disagreement [50].

The simple fact is that while Malatesta tried above all to protect the

unity of the anarchist movement, others were more than willing to do

without certain elements if it meant saving the unity of the

revolutionary workers’ movement. The unifying power of action was

something that the syndicalists too could see, but who to unify —

anarchists? Why not the proletariat instead?

And just what was the basic difference between Malatesta and Monatte?

Malatesta was by no means anti-syndicalist. He declared that he was

(and, in fact, had always been) “a supporter of the unions” and he

constantly encouraged anarchists to join the workers’ organizations.

Neither had he ever dreamed of “damaging” the autonomy of the labour

organizations (another point on which he agreed with the syndicalists).

Certainly, Malatesta was insistent that the general strike was

insufficient as the definitive weapon and underlined the need for an

insurrection, for armed defence, which would run parallel to and

continue after any eventual paralysis of the production. But, after the

Russian Revolution and the various other experiences of general strikes,

was there anyone who thought that “downing tools” would be enough to

achieve a social revolution?

Nor were the dangers of corporativism minimized by Dunois or by Monatte.

In fact, it was in order to limit them, to neutralize them, that the

organic participation of anarchists was required. It is true that

“syndicalist anarchists” seemed inclined not to reject so-called

fonctionnarisme, or at least not to reject it a priori, whereas

Malatesta was, on that point, rigidly intransigent (but then so was

Bertoni...). But was this enough to divide the two sides?

Undoubtedly there was a difference, and a deep one at that. And to some

extent we have already established what it was. It lay not so much in

the choice between syndicalism as an end or means, which was later to

become an integral part of the polemics within the anarchist movement.

Monatte, while refusing to see “in the organized proletariat merely a

fertile terrain for propaganda” and reducing it “to a simple means”

(Malatesta was clearly referring to the practice of syndicalism, not to

the organized proletariat, though not if it meant merely a mass to be

manoeuvred), was by no means questioning anarchy as an end, as we

stressed above.

The nub of the matter lay elsewhere. Malatesta could not share the idea

that anarchism had to be practically reborn continually within the

process of the workers’ emancipation, that it was in other words “stuck”

to the history of the class struggle. The terrain of the class struggle,

as understood by the syndicalist anarchists, seemed too narrow to him.

And anyway, as he himself explained, he did not believe in the existence

of classes “in the proper sense of the term”, nor in the existence of

“class interests”. The starting point of the struggle of the exploited

must not and could not be shared class interests, even “ideal” identity

with the aim of a “complete liberation of humanity, at present in

servitude, from the economic, political and moral point of view”.

Whereas the basis of the anarcho-syndicalist vision was production,

society tied to the factory and the working class as a world of its own

with its own specific existence, Malatesta based his own political

vision on the mechanism for the reproduction of power, on the choice

between freedom and authority.

It has to be said, though, that such complexity escaped most of the

participants at the congress. Some saw in the Malatesta-Monatte clash

nothing but the re-emergence of traditional insurrectionalism over the

general strike. Others crystallized their attention on the problem of

ends and means, emphasizing that it was anarchism which had to gather

syndicalism within it and not the other way around. Yet others limited

themselves to seeing only Malatesta’s criticism of corporativism, of the

potential “conservatism” of the unions. Few understood the true nature

of the clash. Malatesta himself confirmed this impression [51]: “On

these questions, as expounded by Monatte and I, there followed a debate

which was most interesting, however much smothered by a lack of time and

by the tiresome need for translation into many languages. It ended with

the proposal of various resolution, but I do not believe that the

differences in the tendencies were well defined; in fact, a great deal

of penetration is required to understand them and, indeed, most of those

present did not do so and voted nonetheless on the various resolutions.

Which, of course, does not deny the fact that two quite real tendencies

have appeared, however much the difference exists for the most part in

predicted future developments rather than in the present intentions of

the comrades”.

Fabbri, too, contributed at the time by way of a letter of clarification

to “La Protesta Umana” [52], minimizing the divergence and reporting how

Malatesta believed that “if two tendencies did emerge from the congress

on syndicalism, it was so barely perceptible that it would be hard to

define them concretely into two agendas; and that in any event the

difference lay in a diversity of theoretical appreciation and not in any

real difference”.

If we believe what Malatesta says then that was clearly not the case.

But that is not what matters. The essential point is that the difference

struggled to come to light and perhaps some would have preferred it not

to. If proof be needed, we only have to see the attitude of Bertoni, who

was later to become one of the fiercest “Malatestans”. In a long article

of his serialized in “Le Réveil socialiste-anarchiste” [53], Bertoni

(who was from the Italian-speaking Ticino canton in Switzerland)

confessed that he did not understand Malatesta’s position on the

reformist nature of trade unions and saw it as being dangerously close

to that of the “politicians of socialism”, tending to exploit the trade

union for the good of the party.

The situation would probably have remained static if, on the part of the

anarcho-syndicalists, Dunois (who else?) had not pushed the matter.

Despite the series of misunderstandings that we have just seen, the

syndicalist anarchists had clearly understood that they had been unable

to steer the Congress towards “workerist anarchism”. The bloc which

formed around Malatesta was, all told, decidedly in the majority. It was

at this point that the attack on “traditional” anarchism took a much

harsher turn.

One month after the Congress, while “Les Temps Nouveaux” was publishing

Malatesta’s first article, a long piece by Dunois appeared in “Le Réveil

socialiste-anarchiste” in which he pulled no punches in his criticism of

Malatesta (though he did admit: “Malatesta is infinitely closer to us

syndicalists than many of those who gave him their votes”), he repeated

quite explicitly that anarchism and syndicalism were one and the same

thing, and indicated the road anarchism should take: “It must, finally,

stop trying to divide itself ‘between the bourgeois sky and the

working-class earth’, to paraphrase Bakunin’s neat expression, and

become once again what, frankly, it should never have ceased being. In

other words, it must become workerist anarchism again (...) It is from

within that anarchism will be able to clarify, to enliven, to fertilize

the workers’ movement, the workers’ practice. I do not see it going so

far as to direct it, nor even to influence it from without (...)

Anarchism must boldly penetrate the workers’ movement, mingle closely

with its life, its daily activity, with its struggles, defeats or

victories -, let it take its share of tasks and common responsibilities,

let it impregnate the whole spirit and feelings of the working class, —

and thus, only thus, will it find the strength to achieve all its

revolutionary mission” [54].

And Dunois did not stop there. In a later article in the “Pages Libres”

journal [55], he spoke openly of a crisis within anarchism, due to the

fact that “so many vainly cling to old formulae”, while “the minority

(has) boldly allied itself to revolutionary syndicalism”, defined as a

new philosophy, “a launching platform for a whole army of brilliant

thinkers and intellectuals, but... merrily unencumbered with the

experience and consciousness of a proletariat eager for well-being and

freedom” [56].

It was not a question, though, of changing opinion and moving from

anarchism to revolutionary syndicalism, since “revolutionary syndicalism

is anarchism — but a regenerated anarchism, refreshed by the breeze of

proletarian thought, a realistic and concrete anarchism which is no

longer satisfied, as was the old anarchism, with abstract negations and

statements, a workerist anarchism which trusts in a working class

strengthened by the struggle over the years, and no longer solely in its

initiates, for the realization of its dreams”.

While Malatesta, linear and consistent in his defence of the anarchist

movement’s unity, had sought not to worsen the divide when noting the

divergence, Dunois preferred not to “camouflage” the “theoretical and

practical conflict”. “In Amsterdam, traditional anarchism saw workerist

anarchism ranged against it for the first time. And there will be other

occasions to follow this first meeting. But traditional anarchism,

enveloped in its mantle of idealism which tomorrow will be its shroud,

is as half-dead as the other is alive”.

As we can see, there were no half measures. For Dunois, the anarchist

movement was at a crossroads: either it must accept the positions of

“workerist anarchism” or it would die, or at the very least vegetate in

a state of continual crisis. But at the very same time, Malatesta was

exploring the question of anarchism and/or syndicalism in an article

published in “Freedom” and again in “Les Temps Nouveaux” and other

papers [57], going so far as to state: “The fault of having abandoned

the workers’ movement was most damaging for anarchism, but at least it

was left with its distinctive characteristics. The error of confusing

the anarchist movement with syndicalism will prove to be a serious one.

In other words, the “purity” of the ideal first and foremost.

In late 1907 and early 1908, the respective positions seemed to have

been clearly laid out. And yet it can be said that they provoked no

particular reaction in anarchist circles. The problem of “syndicalism”

continued to be discussed more or less everywhere, but without anything

much new being said. The articles by Malatesta and Dunois did not seem

to have exerted much influence, or rather, they did not seem to have

moved the debate on to any extent. In France, Charles-Albert and Jean

Grave recommenced their old criticism of syndicalism [58], whereas in

Italy, various articles in “L’Alleanza Libertaria” (a new journal which

emerged from the Congress of Rome) mostly followed the pre-Amsterdam

line [59] of prudent, if open, support for syndicalism. The same could

be said for French-speaking Switzerland, where “Le Réveil

socialiste-anarchiste” firmly placed itself half-way between Dunois and

Malatesta [60]. In Germany, “Der Revolutionär” hosted a reasoned debate

between certain elements for and against syndicalism [61]. In Russian

emigrant circles the clash between the tendencies went on as openly as

before [62].

So, no exaggerated responses. In fact, even the distancing of the French

syndicalist anarchists (but not all) was gradual. Their main worry was

not so much clashing with other anarchists as trying to form a unitary

front with the other tendencies within syndicalism. In early 1908, there

appeared in Paris “L’action directe”, designed as an attempt to bring

together elements of varying origin — pure syndicalists, syndicalist

socialists, syndicalist anarchists, as Monatte himself wrote (apart from

him, the other collaborators included Griffuelhes, Merrheim, Pouget,

Delesalle, Lagardelle, Dunois and Cornelissen)[63]. Then, towards the

end of 1908, Dunois contributed to the “Bulletin de l’Internationale

Anarchiste” in his capacity as member of the International itself,

though by this stage, as he himself confessed, he was increasingly led

to believe that specific groups were “pointless and superfluous” [64].

By 1909–10, the process of breaking away could be said to be complete.

Most of the anarcho-syndicalists, apart from some isolated cases, had

either returned to positions close to those of Malatesta (Fabbri or

Bertoni, for example) or had definitively opted for syndicalism without

any further specification. When, in 1909, Monatte founded “La Vie

Ouvrière”, amongst the initial nucleus of the journal were Dunois,

Fuss-Amoré and Léon Clément, to name just those who participated in the

Amsterdam Congress (in effect, Clément had only sent in his report).

Cornelissen was by now thoroughly occupied with editing the “Bulletin

international du movement syndicaliste”. Only later, after the First

World War, would anarcho-syndicalism once again be spoken of as a

phenomenon at international level.

Despite all the contradictions, the misunderstandings, the silences and

the incomprehension that we have highlighted, the Amsterdam event had,

and still has, important repercussions (repercussions which were not as

immediate as Malatesta had predicted) on the anarchist movement.

Amsterdam did not lead to the definitive liquidation of “traditional”

anarchism as the syndicalist anarchists had hoped, in order that

anarchism could regain its leading role in the process of the

proletariat’s emancipation.

Establishing whether their alternative would have met with greater

success, or at least attempting to establish it, would be outside the

scope of this work. One thing, though, does emerge from a close analysis

of the goings on which provide the backdrop to the Amsterdam Congress:

it is no longer possible to limit ourselves to accepting uncritically

the lines of the Monatte-Malatesta clash, on the basis of what is

frequently distorted tradition or historiography. If we look as

Amsterdam in its true context, taking into consideration the situation

at the time this initiative came about, we can find many answers to the

questions that the history of the anarchist movement continues to throw

up.

Maurizio Antonioli

Translation by Nestor McNab, 2007.

The International Anarchist Congress

held at the Plancius Hall in Amsterdam, 26–31 August 1907

First session – Monday 26 August – Morning session

The session opened at nine o’clock with Henri Fuss nominated as

chairman. The agenda is discussed.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis points out that the International

Anti-Militarist Association, of which he is general secretary, will have

its 2^(nd) Congress on Friday and proposes that the Anarchist Congress

take part, in lieu of its own discussion of anti-militarism. He is

supported in this by Raphaël Friedeberg, Pierre Ramus, Max Baginsky and

Emma Goldman. The proposal is vigorously opposed by Errico Malatesta and

René de Marmande and a counterproposal is put forth requesting that the

agenda be adhered to. Following lengthy discussions, the proposals are

put to a vote, with Malatesta’s winning 38 votes against 33 for the

Domela-Friedeberg motion. Malatesta’s proposal is therefore adopted.

Second session – Monday 26 August – Afternoon session

This session is devoted to the reports on the state of the anarchist

movement in Belgium, Bohemia, the Netherlands, Romandy (Francophone

Switzerland), the USA and Vienna (Austria).

Third session – Monday 26 August – Evening session

More reports on the state of the movement, from Germany, London’s Jews,

Russia, Serbia, Italy and Britain.

Fourth session – Tuesday 27 August – Morning session

The session begins at nine o’clock. Rudolf Lange is nominated as

chairman of the congress, with Christiaan Cornelissen and R. de Marmande

as adjutants.

First on the agenda is “Syndicalism and Anarchism”. But as one of the

speakers, comrade Turner, has not yet arrived [65], Congress decides to

deal with the topic “Anarchism and Organization” instead. Amédée Dunois

takes the floor.

AMÉDÉE DUNOIS:[66] It is not long since our comrades were almost

unanimous in their clear hostility towards any idea of organization. The

question we are dealing with today would, then, have raised endless

protests from them, and its supporters would have been vehemently

accused of a hidden agenda and authoritarianism.

They were times when anarchists, isolated from each other and even more

so from the working class, seemed to have lost all social feeling; in

which anarchists, with their unceasing appeals for the spiritual

liberation of the individual, were seen as the supreme manifestation of

the old individualism of the great bourgeois theoreticians of the past.

Individual actions and individual initiative were thought to suffice for

everything; and they applauded “Enemy of the People” when it declared

that a man alone is the most powerful of all. But they did not think of

one thing: that Ibsen’s concept was never that of a revolutionary, in

the sense that we give this word, but of a moralist primarily concerned

with establishing a new moral elite within the very breast of the old

society.

In past years, generally speaking, little attention was paid to studying

the concrete matters of economic life, of the various phenomena of

production and exchange, and some of our people, whose race has not yet

disappeared, went so far as to deny the existence of that basic

phenomenon – the class struggle – to the point of no longer

distinguishing in the present society, in the manner of the pure

democrats, anything except differences of opinion, which anarchist

propaganda had to prepare individuals for, as a way of training them for

theoretic discussion.

In its origins, anarchism was nothing more than a concrete protest

against opportunist tendencies and the authoritarian way of acting of

social democracy; and in this regard it can be said to have carried out

a useful function in the social movement of the past twenty-five years.

If socialism as a whole, as a revolutionary idea, has survived the

progressive bourgeoisation of social democracy, it is is undoubtedly due

to the anarchists.

Why have anarchists not been content to support the principle of

socialism and federalism against the bare-faced deviations of the

cavaliers of the conquest of political power? Why has time brought them

to the ambition of re-building a whole new ideology all over again,

faced with parliamentary and reformist socialism?

We cannot but recognize it: this ideological attempt was not always an

easy one. More often than not we have limited ourselves to consigning to

the flames that which social democracy worshipped, and to worshipping

that which burned. That is how unwittingly and without even realizing

it, so many anarchists were able to lose sight of the essentially

practical and workerist nature of socialism in general and anarchism in

particular, neither of which have ever been anything other than the

theoretical expression of the spontaneous resistance of the workers

against the oppression by the bourgeois regime. It happened to the

anarchists as it happened to German philosophical socialism before 1848

– as we can read in the “Communist Manifesto” – which prided itself on

being able to remain “in contempt of all class struggles” and defending

“not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human

Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who

exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy”.

Thus, many of our people came back curiously towards idealism on the one

hand and individualism on the other. And there was renewed interest in

the old themes of ’48 of justice, liberty, brotherhood and the

emancipatory omnipotence of the Idea of the world. At the same time the

Individual was exalted, in the English manner, against the State and any

form of organization came, more or less openly, to be viewed as a form

of oppression and mental exploitation.

Certainly, this state of mind was never absolutely unanimous. But that

does not take away from the fact that it is responsible, for the most

part, for the absence of an organized, coherent anarchist movement. The

exaggerated fear of alienating our own free wills at the hands of some

new collective body stopped us above all from uniting.

It is true that there existed among us “social study groups”, but we

know how ephemeral and precarious they were: born out of individual

caprice, these groups were destined to disappear with it; those who made

them up did not feel united enough, and the first difficulty they

encountered caused them to split up. Furthermore, these groups do not

seem to have ever had a clear notion of their goal. Now, the goal of an

organization is at one and the same time thought and action. In my

experience, however, those groups did not act at all: they disputed. And

many reproached them for building all those little chapels, those

talking shops.

What lies at the root of the fact that anarchist opinion now seems to be

changing with regard to the question of organization?

There are two reasons for this:

The first is the example from abroad. There are small permanent

organizations in England, Holland, Germany, Bohemia, Romandy and Italy

which have been operating for several years now, without the anarchist

idea having visibly suffered for this. It is true that in France we do

not have a great deal of information on the constitution and life of

these organizations; it would be desirable to investigate this.

The second cause is much more important. It consists of the decisive

evolution that the minds and practical habits of anarchists have been

undergoing more or less everywhere for the last seven years or so, which

has led them to join the workers’ movement actively and participate in

the people’s lives.

In a word, we have overcome the gap between the pure idea, which can so

easily turn into dogma, and real life.

The basic result of this has been that we have become less and less

interested in the sociological abstractions of yore and more and more

interested in the practical movement, in action. Proof is the great

importance that revolutionary syndicalism and anti-militarism, for

example, have acquired for us in recent years.

Another result of our participation in the movement, this too very

important, has been that theoretical anarchism itself has gradually

sharpened itself and become alive through contact with real life, that

eternal fountain of thought. Anarchism in our eyes is no longer a

general conception of the world, an ideal for existence, a rebellion of

the spirit against everything that is foul, impure and beastly in life;

it is also and above all a revolutionary theory, a concrete programme of

destruction and social re-organization. Revolutionary anarchism – and I

emphasise the word “revolutionary” – essentially seeks to participate in

the spontaneous movement of the masses, working towards what Kropotkin

so neatly called the “Conquest of Bread”.

Now, it is only from the point of view of revolutionary anarchism that

the question of anarchist organization can be dealt with.

The enemies of organization today are of two sorts.

Firstly, there are those who are obstinately and systematically hostile

to any sort of organization. They are the individualists. There can be

found among them the idea popularized by Rousseau that society is an

evil, that it is always a limitation on the independence of the

individual. The smallest amount of society possible, or no society at

all; that is their dream, an absurd dream, a romantic dream that brings

us back to the strangest follies of Rousseau’s literature.

Do we need to say and to demonstrate that anarchism is not

individualism, then? Historically speaking, anarchism was born, through

the development of socialism, in the congresses of the International, in

other words, from the workers’ movement itself. And in fact, logically,

anarchy means society organized without political authority. I said

organized. On this point all the anarchists – Proudhon, Bakunin, those

of the Jura Federation, Kropotkin – are in agreement. Far from treating

organization and government as equal, Proudhon never ceased to emphasise

their incompatibility: “The producer is incompatible with government (he

says in the “Idée générale de la Révolution au XIXe siècle”),

organization is opposed to government”.

Even Marx himself, whose disciples now seek to hide the anarchist side

to his doctrine, defined anarchy thus: “All Socialists understand by

Anarchy the following: that once the goal of the proletarian movement –

the abolition of classes – is reached, the power of the State – which

serves to maintain the large producing majority under the yoke of a

small exploiting minority – disappears and the functions of government

are transformed into simple administrative functions”. In other words,

anarchy is not the negation of organization but only of the governing

function of the power of the State.

No, anarchism is not individualist, but basically federalist. Federalism

is essential to anarchism: it is in fact the very essence of anarchism.

I would happily define anarchism as complete federalism, the universal

extension of the idea of the free contract.

After all, I cannot see how an anarchist organization could damage the

individual development of its members. No-one would be forced to join,

just as no-one would be forced to leave once they had joined. So what is

an anarchist federation? Several comrades from a particular region, from

Romandy for example, having established the impotence of isolated

forces, of piecemeal action, agree one fine day to remain in continual

contact with each other, to unite their forces with the aim of working

to spread communist, anarchist and revolutionary ideas and of

participating in public events through their collective action. Do they

thus create a new entity whose designated prey is the individual? By no

means. They very simply, and for a precise goal, band together their

ideas, their will and their forces, and from the resulting collective

potentiality, each gains some advantage.

But we also have, as I said earlier, another sort of adversary. They are

those who, despite being supporters of workers’ organizations founded on

an identity of interests, prove to be hostile – or at least indifferent

– to any organization based on an identity of aspirations, feelings and

principles; they are, in a word, the syndicalists.

Let us examine their objections. The existence in France of a workers’

movement with a revolutionary and almost anarchist outlook is, in that

country, currently the greatest obstacle that any attempt at anarchist

organization risks foundering on – I do not wish to say being wrecked

on. And this important historical fact imposes certain precautions on

us, which do not affect, in my opinion, our comrades in other countries.

– The workers’ movement today, the syndicalists observe, offers

anarchists an almost unlimited field of action. Whereas idea-based

groups, little sanctuaries into which only the initiated may enter,

cannot hope to grow indefinitely, the workers’ organization, on the

other hand, is a widely-accessible association; it is not a temple whose

doors are closed, but a public arena, a Forum open to all workers

without distinction of sex, race or ideology, and therefore perfectly

adapted to encompassing the whole proletariat within its flexible and

mobile ranks.

Now, the syndicalists continue, it is there in the workers’ unions that

anarchists must be. The workers’ union is the living bud of the future

society; it is the former which will pave the way for the latter. The

error is made in staying within one’s own four walls, amongst the other

initiates, chewing the same questions of doctrine over and over again,

always moving within the same circle of ideas. We must not, under any

pretext, separate ourselves form the people, for no matter how backward

and limited the people may be, it is they, and not the ideologue, who

are the indispensable driving force of every social revolution. Do we

perhaps, like the social democrats, have any interests we wish to

promote other than those of the great working mass? Party, sect or

factional interests? Is it up to the people to come to us or is it we

who must go to them, living their lives, earning their trust and

stimulating them with both our words and our example into resistance,

rebellion, revolution? –

This is how the syndicalists talk. But I do not see how their objections

have any value against our project to organize ourselves. On the

contrary. I see clearly that if they had any value, it would also be

against anarchism itself, as a doctrine that seeks to be distinct from

syndicalism and refuses to allow itself to become absorbed into it.

Organized or not, anarchists (by which I mean those of our tendency, who

do not arbitrarily separate anarchism from the proletariat) do not by

any means expect that they are entitled to act in the role of “supreme

saviours”, as the song goes. We willingly assign pride of place in the

field of action to the workers’ movement, convinced as we have been for

so long that the emancipation of the workers will be at the hands of

those concerned or it will not be.

In other words, in our opinion the syndicate must not just have a purely

corporative, trade function as the Guesdist socialists intend it, and

with them some anarchists who cling to now outdated formulae. The time

for pure corporativism is ended: this is a fact that could in principle

be contrary to previous concepts, but which much be accepted with all

its consequences. Yes, the corporative spirit in tending more and more

towards becoming an anomaly, an anachronism, and is making room for the

spirit of class. And this, mark my words, is not thanks to Griffuelhes,

nor to Pouget — it is a result of action. In fact it is the needs of

action that have obliged syndicalism to lift up its head and widen its

conceptions. Nowadays the workers’ union is on the road to becoming for

proletarians what the State is for the bourgeoisie: the political

institution par excellence; an essential instrument in the struggle

against capital, a weapon of defence or attack according to the

situation.

Our task as anarchists, the most advanced, the boldest and the most

uninhibited sector of the militant proletariat, is to stay constantly by

its side, to fight the same battle amongst its ranks, to defend it

against itself, not necessarily the least dangerous enemy. In other

words, we want to provide this enormous moving mass that is the modern

proletariat, I will not say with a philosophy and an ideal, something

that could seem presumptuous, but with a goal and the means of action.

Far be it from us therefore the inept idea of wanting to isolate

ourselves from the proletariat; it would be, we know only too well,

reducing ourselves to the impotence of proud ideologies, of abstractions

empty of all ideal. Organized or not organized, then, the anarchists

will remain true to their role of educators, stimulators and guides of

the working masses. And if we are today of a mind to associate into

groups in neighbourhoods, towns, regions or countries, and to federate

these groups, it is above all in order to give our union action greater

strength and continuity.

What is most often missing in those of us who fight within the world of

labour, is the feeling of being supported. Social democratic

syndicalists have behind them the constant organized power of the party

from which they sometimes receive their watchwords and at all times

their inspiration. Anarchist syndicalists on the other hand are

abandoned unto themselves and, outside the union, do not have any real

links between them or to their other comrades, they do not feel any

support behind them and they receive no help. So, we wish to create this

link, to provide this constant support; and I am personally convinced

that our union activities cannot but benefit both in energy and in

intelligence. And the stronger we are – and we will only become strong

by organizing ourselves – the stronger will be the flow of ideas that we

can send through the workers’ movement, which will thus become slowly

impregnated with the anarchist spirit.

But will these groups of anarchist workers, which we would hope to see

created in the near future, have no other role than to influence the

great proletarian masses indirectly, by means of a militant elite, to

drive them systematically into heroic resolutions, in a word to prepare

the popular revolt? Will our groups have to limit themselves to

perfecting the education of militants, to keep the revolutionary fever

alive in them, to allow them to meet each other, to exchange ideas, to

help each other at any time?

In other words, will they have their own action to carry out directly?

I believe so.

The social revolution, whether one imagines it in the guise of a general

strike or an armed insurrection, can only be the work of the masses who

must benefit from it. But every mass movement is accompanied by acts

whose very nature – dare I say, whose technical nature – implies that

they be carried out by a small number of people, but the most

perspicacious and daring sector of the mass movement. During the

revolutionary period, in each neighbourhood, in each town, in each

province, our anarchist groups will form many small fighting

organizations, who will take those special, delicate measures which the

large mass is almost always unable to do. It is clear that the groups

should even now study and establish these insurrectional measures so as

not to be, as has often happened, surprised by events.

Now for the principal, regular, continuous aim of our groups. It is (you

will by now have guessed) anarchist propaganda. Yes, we will organize

ourselves above all to spread our theoretical ideas, our methods of

direct action and universal federalism.

Until today our propaganda has been made only or almost only on an

individual basis. Individual propaganda has given notable results, above

all in the heroic times when anarchists were compensating for the large

number they needed with a fever of proselytism that recalled the

primitive Christians. But is this continuing to happen? Experience

obliges me to confess that it is not.

It seems that anarchism has been going through a sort of crisis in

recent years, at least in France. The causes of this are clearly many

and complex. It is not my task here to establish what they are, but I do

wonder if the total lack of agreement and organization is not one of the

causes of this crisis.

There are many anarchists in France. They are much divided on the

question of theory; but even more so on practice. Everyone acts in his

own way whenever he wants; in this way the individual efforts are

dispersed and often exhausted, simply wasted. Anarchists can be found in

more or less every sphere of action: in the workers’ unions, in the

anti-militarist movement, among anti-clericalist free thinkers, in the

popular universities, and so on, and so forth. What we are missing is a

specifically anarchist movement, which can gather to it, on the economic

and workers’ ground that is ours, all those forces that have been

fighting in isolation up to now.

This specifically anarchist movement will spontaneously arise from our

groups and from the federation of these groups. The might of joint

action, of concerted action, will undoubtedly create it. I do not need

to add that this organization will by no means expect to encompass all

the picturesquely dispersed elements who describe themselves as

followers of the anarchist ideal; there are, after all, those who would

be totally inadmissible. It would be sufficient for the anarchist

organization to group together, around a programme of concrete,

practical action, all the comrades who accept our principles and who

want to work with us, according to our methods.

Let me make it clear that I do not wish to go into specifics here. I am

not dealing with the theory side of the organization. The name, form and

programme of the organization to be created will be established

separately and after reflection by the supporters of this organization.

GEORGES THONAR: I wish to associate myself with everything Dunois has

just said on the problem of organization and I will abstain from

speaking, though not without first making a statement.

Yesterday, we closed the long discussion which arose from the proposal

by Domela Nieuwenhuis with a vote. I voted, despite being opposed to any

vote, as it seemed to me that the matter under discussion was not

important. Many here were surely in a similar situation. I am simply

asking Congress to declare today that it acted unreasonably and to agree

to act more wisely henceforth.

Thonar’s words create a minor incident. Some participants applaud

noisily, while lively protests are also to be heard.

ERRICO MALATESTA: The problem of the vote that Thonar raises is of

course part of the question of organization that we are discussing. Let

us discuss the problem of the vote, then; as far as I am concerned, I

can see nothing inconvenient in it.

PIERRE MONATTE: I cannot understand how yesterday’s vote can be

considered anti-anarchist, in other words authoritarian. It is

absolutely impossible to compare the vote with which an assembly decides

a procedural question to universal suffrage or to parliamentary polls.

We use votes at all times in our trade unions and, I repeat, I do not

see anything which goes against our anarchist principles.

There are comrades who feel the need to raise questions of principle on

everything, even the smallest things. Unable as they are to understand

the spirit of our anti-parliamentarianism, they place importance on the

mere act of placing a slip of paper in an urn or raising one’s hand to

show one’s opinion.

CHRISTIAAN CORNELISSEN: Voting is to be condemned only if it binds the

minority. This is not the case here, and we are using the vote as an

easy means of determining the size of the various opinions that are

being confronted.

RENÉ DE MARMANDE: It is not possible to do without the vote, even in

this way. If we decide not to vote after every debate, how will we know

the opinion of the Congress or how many currents of opinion there are in

the Congress?

Fifth session – Tuesday 27 August – Afternoon session

Comrade H. Croiset from Amsterdam, representing the individualist

tendency at the Congress, takes the floor.

HYNAN CROISET: What matters first and foremost is to provide a

definition of anarchy that will serve as a basis for my contribution. We

are anarchists in the sense that we want to establish a social state in

which the individual will find a guarantee of his total liberty, in

which everyone will be able to live their lives fully; in other words,

in which the individual will be allowed, without restriction of any

sort, to live his own life and not, as today, the lives of others, by

which I mean the life imposed on him by others.

My motto is: Me, me, me… and then the others!

Individuals need associate only when it is clear that their individual

efforts cannot allow them to reach the goal alone. But the group, the

organization, must never, under any pretext, become a constriction for

those who have freely joined. The individual is not made for society. On

the contrary, it is society that is made for the individual.

Anarchy seeks to enable every individual to develop all his faculties

freely. Organizations, however, have the inevitable result of limiting

the freedom of the individual to a greater or lesser degree. Anarchy is

therefore contrary to any permanent system of organization. For the vain

ambition of becoming practical, anarchists have reconciled themselves to

organization. They have embarked on a slippery slope. Sooner or later

they will reconcile themselves to authority itself – just like the

social democrats.

Anarchist ideas must preserve their ancient purity, instead of trying to

become more practical. Let us return to the ancient purity of our ideas.

SIEGFRIED NACHT: I will not follow Croiset onto the terrain where he has

ventured. What seems to me to require clarity above all is the

relationship between anarchism, or more exactly anarchist organizations,

and the workers’ unions. It is in order to facilitate the task of the

latter that we, as anarchists, must create special groups for

preparation and revolutionary education.

The workers’ movement has a mission of its own, which arises out of the

living conditions that today’s society imposes on the proletariat: this

mission is the conquest of economic power, the collective appropriation

of all the sources of production and of life. Anarchism too has the same

aspiration: but it would not be able to bring it about with only its

ideological propaganda groups. Valid as it may be, our theory does not

penetrate among the people and it is above all through action that the

people can educate themselves. Little by little, action will give them a

revolutionary mentality.

The ideas of the general strike and direct action exert a great

attraction on the consciousness of the working masses. In the future

revolution, these masses will in some form or other constitute the

infantry of the revolutionary army. Our anarchist groups, specialized in

technical matters will, so to speak, form the artillery which, though

less numerous, is no less necessary than the infantry.

THONAR: Communism and individualism are equal and inseparable within the

complex whole of the anarchist idea. Organization, joint action, is

indispensable to the development of anarchism and does not contradict

its theoretical premises. Organization is a means, not a principle; but

it follows that in order to be acceptable it must be constituted in a

libertarian way.

Organization proved useless when we were just a tiny number of

anarchists who knew each other and frequented each other regularly. We

have become a legion and we must take care not to disperse our forces.

So let us organize ourselves, not just for anarchist propaganda, but

also and above all for direct action.

I am not at all hostile to syndicalism above all when it is of a

revolutionary tendency. But workers’ organization is not anarchist and

consequently we will never be completely ourselves within it: our

activity can never be totally anarchist. Thus the need to create

libertarian groups and federations, founded on the respect for the

freedom and initiative of each and everyone.

KAREL VOHRYZEK: It is as an individualist that I wish to defend the

cause of organization! It is impossible to demand that anarchism cannot

allow organization by reason of its principles. Not even the most

dyed-in-the-wool individualist condemns the association of individuals

outright.

Saying, as sometimes is said, either Stirner or Kropotkin, thereby

opposing these two thinkers, is wrong. Kropotkin and Stirner cannot be

opposed against each other: they expounded the same idea from different

points of view. That is all. And the proof that Max Stirner was not the

crazed individualist that he is made out to be is that he pronounced

himself in favour of “organization”. He even dedicated a whole chapter

to the association of egoists.

As our organization has no executive power it will not run contrary to

our principles. In the workers’ unions we defend the economic interests

of the workers. As for the rest, we must be a distinct group and create

organizations on a libertarian basis.

EMMA GOLDMAN: I, too, am in favour of organization in principle.

However, I fear that sooner or later this will fall into exclusivism.

Dunois has spoken against the excesses of individualism. But these

excesses have nothing to do with true individualism, as the excesses of

communism have nothing to do with real communism. I set out my point of

view in a report whose conclusions tend more or less to absorb the

individuality of the individual. This is a danger that must be foreseen.

I, too, will accept anarchist organization on just one condition: that

it be based on the absolute respect for all individual initiatives and

not obstruct their development or evolution.

The essential principle of anarchy is individual autonomy. The

International will not be anarchist unless it wholly respects this

principle.

PIERRE RAMUS: I am in favour of organization and of all efforts we may

make in that regard. Nevertheless, the arguments presented in Dunois’

report do not seem to me to be qualitatively acceptable. We must

endeavour to return to anarchist principles as they were set out by

Croiset a short while ago, but at the same time we must systematically

organize our movement. In other words, individual initiative must rest

on the strength of the collective and the collective must find

expression in individual initiative. But in order for this to happen in

practice, we must keep our basic principles intact. As for the rest, we

are far from creating anything new. In reality, we are the immediate

successors of those who stood with Bakunin against Marx in the old

International Workingmen’s Association. We are not bringing anything new

and we can only give our old principles new life and encourage the

tendency to organization everywhere.

As for the aim of the new International, it must not act as an auxiliary

force of revolutionary syndicalism. It must occupy itself with the

propaganda of anarchism in its entirety.

Sixth session – Tuesday 27 August – Evening session

The session opens at eight-thirty. A large public throngs the hall and

comrade I.I. Samson, of his own initiative summarizes the events of the

day. Malatesta then takes the floor, to talk about organization.

MALATESTA: I have listened attentively to everything that has been said

before me on the problem of organization and I have the distinct

impression that what separates us is the different meaning we give

words. Let us not squabble over words. But as far as the basic problem

is concerned, I am convinced that we are in total agreement.

All anarchists, whatever tendency they belong to, are individualists in

some way or other. But the opposite is not true; not by any means. The

individualists are thus divided into two distinct categories: one which

claims the right to full development for all human individuality, their

own and that of others; the other which only thinks about its own

individuality and has absolutely no hesitation in sacrificing the

individuality of others. The Tsar of all the Russias belongs to the

latter category of individualists. We belong to the former.

Ibsen writes that the most powerful man in the world is the one who is

most alone! Absolutely absurd! Doctor Stockmann himself [67], whom Ibsen

has pronounce this maxim, was not even isolated in the full sense of the

word; he lived in a constituted society, not on Robinson’s island. Man

“alone” cannot carry out even the smallest useful, productive task; and

if someone needs a master above him it is exactly the man who lives in

isolation. That which frees the individual, that which allows him to

develop all his faculties, is not solitude, but association.

In order to be able to carry out work that is really useful, cooperation

is indispensable, today more than ever. Without doubt, the association

must allow its individual members full autonomy and the federation must

respect this same autonomy for its groups. We are careful not to believe

that the lack of organization is a guarantee of freedom. Everything goes

to show that it is not.

An example: there are certain French newspapers whose pages are closed

to all those whose ideas, style or simply person have the misfortune to

be unwelcome in the eyes of the editors. The result it: the editors are

invested with a personal power which limits the freedom of opinion and

expression of comrades. The situation would be different if these

newspapers belonged to all, instead of being the personal property of

this or that individual: then all opinions could be freely debated,

There is much talk of authority, of authoritarianism. But we should be

clear what we are speaking of here. We protest with all our heart

against the authority embodied in the State, whose only purpose is to

maintain the economic slavery within society, and we will never cease to

rebel against it. But there does exist a simply moral authority that

arises out of experience, intelligence and talent, and despite being

anarchists there is no-one among us who does not respect this authority.

It is wrong to present the “organizers”, the federalists, as

authoritarians; but it is equally quite wrong to imagine the

“anti-organizers”, the individualists, as having deliberately condemned

themselves to isolation.

For me, I repeat, the dispute between individualists and organizers is a

simple dispute over words, which does not hold up to careful examination

of the facts. In the practical reality, what do we see? That the

individualists are at times “organizers” for the reason that the latter

too often limit themselves to preaching organization without practising

it. On the other hand, one can come across much more effective

authoritarianism in those groups who noisily proclaim the “absolute

freedom of the individual”, than in those that are commonly considered

authoritarian because they have a bureau and take decisions.

In other words, everyone organizes themselves – organizers and

anti-organizers. Only those who do little or nothing can live in

isolation, contemplating. This is the truth; why not recognize it.

If proof be needed of what I say: in Italy all the comrades who are

currently active in the struggle refer to my name, both the

“individualists” and the “organizers”, and I believe that they are all

right, as whatever their reciprocal differences may be, they all

practise collective action nonetheless.

Enough of these verbal disputes; let us stick to action! Words divide

and actions unite. It is time for all of us to work together in order to

exert an effective influence on social events. It pains me to think that

in order to free one of our own people from the clutches of the hangman

it was necessary for us to turn to other parties instead of our own.

Ferrer would not then owe his freedom to masons and bourgeois free

thinkers, if the anarchists gathered together in a powerful and feared

International had been able to run for themselves the worldwide protest

against the criminal infamy of the Spanish government.

Let us ensure that the Anarchist International finally becomes a

reality. To enable us to appeal quickly to all our comrades, to struggle

against the reaction and to act, when the time is right, with

revolutionary initiative, there must be an International!

Seventh session – Wednesday 28 August – Morning session

The session opens shortly after nine o’clock. First comrade R. Lange is

confirmed in his role as chairman. The, following the Dutch and German

translations of Malatesta’s speech, the correspondence is read, above

all a letter from comrade Tsumin who writes from Paris to excuse himself

for not taking part in the Congress for health reasons. The discussion

on organization begun the previous day is once more taken up.

MAX BAGINSKY: An error that is too often made is believing that

individualism rejects organization. The two terms are, on the contrary,

inseparable. Individualism more specifically means working for inner

mental liberation of the individual, while organization means

association between conscious individuals with a goal to reach or an

economic need to satisfy. We must not however forget that a

revolutionary organization requires particularly energetic and conscious

individuals.

The accusation that anarchy is destructive rather than constructive and

that accordingly anarchy is opposed to organization is one of the many

falsehoods spread by our adversaries. They confuse today’s institutions

with organization and thus cannot understand how one can fight the

former and favour the latter. The truth is, though, that the two are not

identical.

The State is generally considered to be the highest form of

organization. But is it really a true organization? Is it not rather an

arbitrary institution cunningly imposed on the masses?

Industry, too, is considered an organization; yet nothing is further

from the truth. Industry is piracy of the poor at the hands of the rich.

We are asked to believe that the army is an organization, but careful

analysis will show that it is nothing less than a cruel instrument of

blind force.

Public education! Are not the universities and other scholastic

institutions perhaps models of organization, which offer people fine

opportunities to educate themselves? Far from it; school, more than any

other institution, are nothing more than barracks, where the human mind

is trained and manipulated in order to be subjected to the various

social and mental phantoms, and thus rendered capable of continuing this

system of exploitation and oppression of ours.

Instead, organization as we understand it is something different. It is

based on freedom. It is a natural, spontaneous grouping of energies to

guarantee beneficial results to humanity.

It is the harmony of organic development that produces the variety of

colours and forms, the combination that we so admire in a flower. In the

same way, the organized activity of free human beings imbued with the

spirit of solidarity will result in the perfection of social harmony,

which we call anarchy. Indeed, only anarchy makes the non-authoritarian

organization of common interests possible, since it abolishes the

antagonism that exists between individuals and classes.

In the current situation, the antagonism of economic and social

interests produces an unceasing war between social units and represents

an insurmountable obstacle on the road to collective well-being.

There exists an erroneous conviction that organization does not

encourage individual freedom and that, on the contrary, it causes a

decay of individual personality. The reality is, however, that the true

function of organization lies in personal development and growth.

Just as the cells of an animal, through reciprocal cooperation, express

latent powers in the formation of the complete organism, so the

individual reaches the highest level of his development through

cooperation with other individuals.

An organization, in the true sense of the word, cannot be the product of

a union of pure nothingness. It must be made up of self-conscious and

intelligent persons. In fact, the sum of the possibilities and

activities of an organization is represented by the expression of the

single energies.

It follows logically that the greater the number of strong,

self-conscious individuals in an organization, the lesser the danger of

stagnation and the more intense its vital element.

Anarchism supports the possibility of organization without discipline,

fear or punishment, without the pressure of poverty: a new social

organism that will end the terrible struggle for the means of

subsistence, the vicious struggle that damages man’s best qualities and

continually widens the social abyss. In short, anarchism struggles for a

form of social organization that will ensure well-being for all.

The embryo of the this organization can be found in the type of

syndicalism that has freed itself from centralization, bureaucracy and

discipline, that encourages autonomous, direct action by its members.

DUNOIS: I must point out that while I tried to bring the discussion from

the lofty heights of vague, abstract ideas down to the concrete, precise

and humbly relative ideas of the earth, Croiset has, on the contrary,

sent it back up to the heavens, back to metaphysical heights where I

refuse to follow.

The motion I propose for adoption by Congress is not inspired by

speculative ideas on the right of the individual to full development. It

is based on completely practical considerations regarding the need to

organize, to bring greater solidarity to our propaganda and struggle.

At this point, Dunois reads the motion, whose slightly modified text can

be found below.

CORNELISSEN: Nothing is more relative than the concept of the

individual. Individuality in itself does not exist in reality, where it

is always limited by other individualities. The individualists too often

forget these real limits and in fact the great benefit of organization

will be to make the individual aware of those limits by allowing him to

get used to conciliating his right to personal development with the

rights of others.

BENOÎT BROUTCHOUX: My experience as a revolutionary militant has

definitely taught me that organization is still the most effective means

to prevent that fetishism which is too often applied with regard to the

person by certain agitators, which confers on them an authority that is

actually extremely dangerous. You may know that in Pas-de-Calais we have

a powerful miners’ organization. Well, no-one would find amongst us even

the slightest trace of authority or authoritarianism. Only our enemies

can claim otherwise and denounce, for example, something resembling a

constituted authority in the form of the secretaries of our union

branches.

GERHART RIJNDERS: Neither am I hostile to organization. In fact, there

is not one anarchist who is against it, underneath it all. Everything

depends on the way in which the organization is conceived and set up.

What we must avoid above all are personalities. In Holland, for example,

the existing Federation far from satisfies everyone; but it is also true

that those who do not approve can simply choose not to join.

ÉMILE CHAPELIER: I would ask that speeches be a little shorter and to

the point. Since Malatesta’s speech yesterday evening, which dealt

thoroughly with the matter, not one new argument for or against

organization has been produced. Before talking about authority and

liberty, we should agree on the meaning of these words. For example,

what is authority? If it is the influence that men of real ability

exercise in a group, then I have nothing to say against it. But the

authority that we must avoid at all costs is the authority which arises

from the fact that some comrades blindly follow one man or another. This

is a danger and in order to avoid it I would ask that the organization

to be created be without leaders and general committees.

GOLDMAN: As I have already said, I am in favour of organization. I would

just like Dunois’ motion to affirm the legitimacy of individual action

explicitly, alongside that of collective action [68]. I am therefore

presenting an amendment to the Dunois motion.

Goldman reads her amendment which, after being accepted by Dunois, is

later added to the latter’s motion in an abbreviated form.

ISAK SAMSON: Here in Holland there is a Federation of Libertarian

Communists to which I belong. Undoubtedly, as comrade Rijnders was

saying a short while ago, many comrades have refused to join. For

reasons of principle? No, for reasons that are exclusively personal. We

do not exclude, nor have ever excluded, anyone. Let them come to us,

then, if they want to. In fact, I do not hide from the view that,

whatever the form of organization, they will always be malcontent. They

are so by nature and we should not worry too much about their criticism.

VOHRYZEK: The Dunois motion says nothing about what the nature of the

anarchist organization should be; I therefore ask that it be completed

by means of an addition specifying this, an addition that Malatesta has

agreed to sign with me.

Vohryzek reads the addition, which can be found below. The discussion

ends. The motions presented are now voted on. There are two: firstly,

the Dunois motion, slightly amended by Goldman and completed by Vohryzek

and Malatesta; the second is the motion presented by comrade Pierre

Ramus.

DUNOIS MOTION:

“The anarchists meeting in Amsterdam, 27 August 1907,

considering that the ideas of anarchy and organization, far from being

incompatible as is often stated, complement and clarify each other, as

the very principle of anarchy lies in the free organization or

producers;

considering that individual action, important as it may be, cannot make

up for the lack of collective action of a combined movement, to the same

degree that collective action cannot make up for the lack of individual

action;

considering that the organization of militant forces would ensure new

development of propaganda and could only accelerate the penetration of

the ideas of federalism and revolution into the working class;

considering that workers’ organization, based on common interests, does

not exclude an organization based on shared aspirations and ideas;

are of the opinion that comrades from every country should proceed to

form anarchist groups and federate the groups once they have been

formed.”

VOHRYZEK-MALATESTA ADDENDUM:

“The Anarchist Federation is an association of groups and individuals in

which no-one can impose his will nor belittle the initiative of others.

Its goal with regard to the present society is to change all the moral

and economic conditions and accordingly it supports the struggle with

all appropriate means.”

RAMUS MOTION:

“The Anarchist Congress at Amsterdam proposes that the groups from all

countries unite in local and regional federations, according to the

various geographical divisions.

We declare that our proposal is inspired by the very principles of

anarchism, as we cannot see the possibility of initiative and individual

action outside the group, which, founded according to our wishes, only

provides a practical terrain for the free expansion of all

individuality.

The federative organization is the most suitable form for the anarchist

proletariat. It unites existing groups into an organic whole that grows

through the addition of new groups. It is anti-authoritarian. It does

not allow for any central legislative power which can make obligatory

decisions for the groups and individuals, who have the right to develop

freely within our common movement and to act in an anarchist and

economic sense without any orders or obstacles. The federation does not

exclude any group and every group is free to leave with any funds it has

paid over or to join again, whenever it considers it necessary.

We likewise recommend that our comrades form groups according to the

needs of their respective movements and not forget that the strength of

the national or international movement depends on its constitution on an

international level, as the means of emancipation can only derive from

combined international action.”

Comrades of all countries, organize yourselves in autonomous groups and

unite in an International Federation: the Anarchist International.

Following the reading of the French, Dutch and German motions, a vote is

taken. The Dunois motion obtains 46 votes, the Vohryzek addendum, 48.

Against, only one hand is raised against the motion, none against the

addendum which thus obtains the unanimity of votes.

The Ramus motion is then put to the vote immediately, obtaining 13 for

and 17 against. Many of those in attendance declare that they are

abstaining as the Ramus motion adds nothing to the one already voted on.

The report published in “Pages Libres” underlined the importance of the

voting at the Congress:

“The Amsterdam resolution is not without importance: now it will no

longer be possible for our social-democratic enemies to invoke our old

hatred of any sort of organization in order to banish us from socialism

without any further trial. The legendary individualism of anarchists has

been publicly put to death in Amsterdam by the anarchists themselves,

and all our enemies’ bad faith will not be able to resuscitate it” [69].

It will be seen nonetheless that both in the preceding discussions and

in the motions presented thus far, organization was dealt with only from

a theoretical point of view. There still remained to make decisions of a

practical nature, to create the Anarchist International. That was the

task of the next session.

Eighth session – Wednesday 28 August – Afternoon session

This was a private session. The press was forewarned that it would not

be admitted and did not turn up. Apart from those attending the congress

– and a roll was called by nationality in order to avoid gate-crashers –

only a small number of observers was present in the hall, amongst whom

Fritz Kater, president of the Freie Vereinigung deutscher Gewerkschaften

who had been following the Congress proceedings for two days from the

ranks of the German delegates, and several comrades from Amsterdam known

to the organizers.

At the start of the session the organizing committee of the Congress

presented its financial report, from which it could be seen that

expenses had exceeded the funds in hand and a deficit of around 250

francs was foreseen. After a short exchange of views, it was decided to

have a collection among those in attendance at the end of the session

and that an appeal for solidarity to comrades from every country would

be made as soon as possible by the Congress’ treasurer (J. De Bruijn) to

all anarchist newspapers.

As Congress decided that the report of this session could not be

published in detail, we must limit ourselves to a brief glance. All were

in agreement regarding the usefulness of establishing international

relations among anarchists but opinion was somewhat divided on the best

ways to establish those relations. Many delegates spoke during the

discussion: Georges Thonar, Henri Fuss, Chapelier, Malatesta, Fabbri,

Ceccarelli, Monatte, Zielinska, de Marmande, Broutchoux, Walter,

Wilquet, Nacht, Samson, Cornelissen, Rogdaev, Vohryzek, Lange and

Friedeberg.

Thonar requested that the International be made up of national and

regional federations each gathering a certain number of local sections;

the federation would correspond directly with each other through trusted

persons. Fuss replied to this, saying that rather than go into such

detail, Congress should limit itself to creating a correspondence bureau

with the task of linking the various national movement. Vohryzek raised

the problem whether or not to accept isolated individuals as members and

asked that they be accepted only upon presentation. Nacht supported the

idea that the delegates of existing organizations should begin by making

arrangements amongst themselves and later presenting Congress with a

definite plan for the International.

Lange proposed the creation of an International Bureau of Correspondence

of five members, based in London with the task of acting as intermediary

between the groups and this proposal, as will be seen, was accepted by

Congress. Then Friedeberg asked that the Bureau remain in permanent

contact with the groups and set up the archives of international

anarchism with the newspapers and written reports that it would receive.

Emma Goldman opposed the idea of a Bureau of Correspondence. She thought

that the expenses that a Bureau would incur would be better spent on the

publication of an international Bulletin, the costs of which the

American comrades agreed to bear. At this point Cornelissen replied that

in effect the Bulletin seemed most useful but that it would best be

published by the International Bureau.

At a certain point the chairman, Lange, announced that several concrete

proposals had been deposited on his desk during the course of the

discussions. The proposals came from comrades Vohryzek, de Marmande,

Friedeberg, Lange, Nacht, Fabbri, Fuss, Broutchoux and Samson and, far

from being incompatible, complemented each other. It was then proposed

to fuse all the proposals into one and the session was suspended in

order to do this.

The session recommenced after half an hour. Vohryzek, de Marmande,

Friedeberg and the others had come to agreement on the following text

which obtained 43 votes against 6 when submitted for approval to

Congress:

“The anarchists (federations, represented groups and individuals)

gathered at the Congress of Amsterdam declare the “Anarchist

International” hereby founded.

It is made up of the existing organizations and the groups and single

comrades that may join successively. The individuals, groups and

federations shall remain autonomous.

An international bureau to be composed of 5 members is hereby

established. This bureau shall have the task of creating an

international anarchist archive, accessible to comrades.

It shall establish relations with anarchists from the various countries,

both directly and through the mediation of three comrades chosen by the

federations and groups from the countries involved.

In order to join the International on an individual basis, comrades must

first be vouched for by an organization, by the bureau and by other

comrades known to him.

The expenses incurred by the bureau, archive, etc., shall be covered by

the federations, groups and individual members.”

For their part, Baginsky, Goldman and Ramus presented the following

motion, which obtained only 4 votes:

“The Anarchist International Congress declares the International to be

founded. This International will not have a central bureau. Its

functions will be ensured in the following way: the federations, groups

and movements of an anarchist tendency in every country shall

individually or collectively elect two correspondents whose names and

addresses shall be published in every issue of international anarchist

periodicals. These correspondents, according to the instructions

received from their groups and federations, shall remain in constant

contact with the correspondents from other countries. The publication of

an International Bulletin is hereby established.”

And thus came about the founding of the Anarchist International that so

many comrades in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Bohemia had been

looking forward to for so long. On the announcement of the result of the

vote, unanimous applause broke out. It was seven o’clock and the session

drew to a close with the singing of “The Internationale”.

Ninth session – Wednesday 28 August – Evening session

At 9 o’clock the large Plancius Hall is literally packed. Lange declares

the session open. On the agenda is the discussion of the following

point: “Syndicalism and Anarchism”. Comrade Pierre Monatte from Paris, a

committee member of the Confédération Générale du Travail, takes the

floor as the first speaker.

MONATTE: My aim is not to offer a theoretical exposition of

revolutionary syndicalism but to demonstrate it to you at work and thus

to let the facts speak for themselves. Revolutionary syndicalism, unlike

socialism and anarchism which came before it, has found a place for

itself more through action than through theory and it must be sought in

action rather than in books.

One would need to be blind not to see all that anarchism and syndicalism

have in common. Both have the aim of the complete destruction of

capitalism and the wage system by means of a social revolution.

Syndicalism, which is the proof of a reawakening in the workers’

movement, has reminded anarchism of its worker origins; and indeed

anarchists have contributed in no small way to dragging the workers’

movement along the revolutionary path and popularizing the idea of

direct action. So, syndicalism and anarchism have reacted to each other,

to the greater benefit of each.

It is among the ranks of the Confédération Générale du Travail in France

that revolutionary syndicalist ideas have taken form and developed. The

Confederation occupies a place all of its own within the international

workers’ movement. It is the only organization that, while declaring

itself openly revolutionary has no links with political parties, even

the more advanced ones. In most other countries, social democracy plays

the leading role. In France, the CGT leaves the socialist party in its

wake, thanks to its sheer numbers and the influence it exerts: it

expects to represent alone the working class and has openly rejected all

the advances made to it over recent years. Its autonomy is its strength

and it intends to remain autonomous.

This attitude of the CGT of refusing to deal with parties has led its

exasperated enemies to label it anarchist. But nothing is further from

the truth. The CGT is a wide grouping of syndicates and workers’ unions

and has no official doctrine. All doctrines are represented within it

and are equally tolerated. The confederal committee does contain a

number of anarchists, who meet and cooperate with socialists, the

majority of whom – it is worth emphasizing – are no less hostile than

the anarchists to the idea of agreements between the unions and the

socialist party.

The structure of the CGT is worth describing. Unlike so many other

workers’ organizations it neither tends to centralize nor is it

authoritarian. The confederal committee is not, as our rulers or

reporters from the bourgeois press imagine, a managing committee uniting

legislative and executive powers: it is free of all authority. The CGT

is governed from below upwards; the union has no master other than

itself; it is free to act or not to act; no external will interferes or

influences its activity.

The basis of the Confederation is the syndicate. But the syndicate

itself does not join the Confederation directly; it does so only through

its corporative (trade) federation on the one hand, and its Bourse du

Travail on the other. The Confederation consists of the union of

federations and bourses.

The life of the Confederation is coordinated by the confederal committee

which is made up of delegates from both the bourses and the federations.

Some of its members go on to form commissions which function in parallel

– the newspaper commission (“La Voix du Peuple”), the control commission

dealing with financial matters, and the strikes and general strike

commission.

Only congress has the power to deliberate collective matters. Every

syndicate, no matter how weak, has the right to be represented by a

delegate of its own choosing.

The Confederation’s accounts are rather modest. Less than 30,000 francs

a year. The continuous agitation that arose from the great movement of

May 1906 [70] for the 8-hour day did not cost more than 60,000 francs.

Such a small figure provoked great surprise amongst journalists when it

was announced. What? The Confederation was able to support months and

months of intense workers’ agitation with just a few thousand francs?

The fact is that French syndicalism, while poor on a financial level, is

rich in energy, dedication and enthusiasm, and these are riches that are

hard to become slaves to.

But the French workers’ movement has not become what it is today without

effort and time. Over the last thirty-five years – since the Paris

Commune – it has gone through various phases. The idea of the

proletariat, organized into “resistance societies”, being the agent of

the social revolution was the idea that lay at the heart of the great

International Working Men’s Association founded in London in 1864. The

International’s motto was, you will recall, “the emancipation of the

workers will be the task of the workers themselves”, and it is still our

motto, all of us, the promoters of direct action and enemies of

parliamentarianism. The ideas of autonomy and federation, so popular

amongst us, once inspired all those in the International who rose up

against the abuse of power by the general council and who took sides

with Bakunin after the Hague congress. Furthermore, even the idea of the

general strike, so popular today, is an idea from the International,

where its innate power was first understood.

The defeat of the Commune sparked off a terrible reaction in France. The

workers’ movement suffered a brusque decline once its militants were

killed or forced into exile. The workers’ movement, however, found its

feet again after a few years, at first slowly and timidly, later to grow

more and more courageous. A first congress was held in Paris in 1876

[71] and was entirely dominated by the peaceful spirit of the

cooperativists and the mutualists. At the following congress [72], some

socialists spoke up regarding the abolition of the wage system. Finally,

in Marseilles in 1879 [73] the new arrivals triumphed and gave the

congress a markedly socialist and revolutionary character. However,

there quickly arose differences between the socialists of different

schools and tendencies. In Le Havre [74], the anarchists withdrew,

unfortunately leaving the field open to the supporters of minimum

programmes and the conquest of power. Left alone, the collectivists also

ended up in disagreement. The struggle between Guesde and Brousse

destroyed the nascent workers’ party, leading to a full-scale split

[75].

But neither the Guesdists nor the Broussists (who were to be split again

some time later by Allemande)[76] were able to speak for the proletariat

any more. The proletariat, quite rightly indifferent to the polemics

raging between the various schools of thought, had transformed its

unions into what it now called syndicates. Left to their own devices, in

safety – thanks to their weakness and the jealousies of the various

cliques – the syndicalist movement gradually acquired strength and

confidence. It grew. In 1892, the Fédération des Bourses was formed

[77]. Since its inception in 1895 [78], the Confédération Générale du

Travail has placed much emphasis on maintaining its political

neutrality. In the meantime, a workers’ congress in 1894 (in Nantes) had

voted for the principle of the revolutionary general strike [79].

This is the age when many anarchists, having finally realized that

philosophy alone is not enough to make a revolution, entered the

workers’ movement, which the more perspicacious saw offered the best

hopes. Fernand Pelloutier was the man who, more than anyone else,

embodied this evolution of the anarchists [80].

All the later congresses tended to sharpen the division between the

organized working class and politics. In Toulouse in 1897 [81], our

comrades Delesalle and Pouget had what are known as the tactics of

boycott and sabotage adopted. In 1900, the newspaper “La Voix du Peuple”

was founded with Pouget as its chief editor [82]. The CGT overcame its

initial difficulties and demonstrated its growing strength more and more

every day. It was becoming a force which both the governments and

socialist parties had to deal with.

The new movement was then subjected to a ferocious assault by the

government, supported by all the reformist socialists. Millerand, who

was now a government minister [83], tried to regiment the syndicates and

turn every Bourse into a branch of his ministry. He had hired agents

working for him within the organizations and trusted militants were the

object of attempts to corrupt them. It was a dangerous time. The danger,

however, was averted thanks to the agreement between all the

revolutionary factions – anarchists, Guesdists and Blanquists. And once

the danger was over the agreement remained. Strengthened after 1902 with

the influx of the Fédération des Bourses [84], an event which created

workers’ unity, the Confederation today draws its strength from itself;

and it is from this pact that revolutionary syndicalism was born, a

doctrine which makes the syndicate the organ and the general strike the

instrument of social transformation.

However – and I would call the attention of all the non-French comrades

to this extremely important point – neither the achievement of workers’

unity nor the coalition of revolutionaries could alone have brought the

CGT to its present strength and influence if we had not remained true,

in our union practice, to the basic principle that in effect excludes

syndicates of opinion: one single syndicate in each town for each trade.

The consequence of this principle is the political neutrality of the

syndicate, which cannot and must not be anarchist, nor Guesdist, nor

Allemandist, nor Blanquist, but simply of the workers. Differences of

opinion, often subtle and artificial, fall into the background in the

syndicate, enabling agreement. In practice, interests prevail over

ideas: all the polemics between the various schools and sects cannot

eliminate the fact that the workers, who are all equally subject to the

laws of the wage system, have identical interests. And this is the

secret of the agreement reached between them, which makes syndicalism so

strong and which allowed it at the Congress of Amiens last year to state

proudly that it was sufficient unto itself [85].

My contribution here would be decidedly incomplete if I did not

demonstrate the means that revolutionary syndicalism counts on to

achieve the emancipation of the working class.

These means can be summed up in two words: direct action. But what is

direct action?

For a long time, under the influence of the socialist schools of thought

and in particular the Guesdist school, the workers entrusted the task of

satisfying their demands to the State. Remember the workers’ marches led

by socialist deputies, delivering the fourth estate’s petitions to the

public powers! Given that such methods of action brought bitter

disappointment, it gradually came to be thought that the workers could

only obtain those reforms that they were able to impose by themselves;

in other words, that the motto of the International that I previously

mentioned should be understood and applied as rigorously as possible.

Doing things oneself, depending on oneself alone – that is direct

action. But this naturally takes on different forms.

Its main form, or rather its most noticeable form, is the strike. A

double-edged sword, it was said recently: a solid and well-tempered

sword, we say and one which can strike at the heart of the bosses if

ably handled by the worker. It is through the strike that the working

masses enter the class struggle and familiarize themselves with the

notions that arise therefrom; it is through the strike that they receive

their revolutionary education, measure up their strength against the

strength of their enemy capitalism, gain trust in their own power and

learn to be audacious.

Sabotage is no less valuable either. It works along these lines: bad

work for bad pay. Like the strike, it has always existed, but it has

only acquired its revolutionary significance in recent years. The

results achieved by sabotage are already notable. Where strikes have

proved useless, sabotage has managed to break the bosses’ resistance. A

recent example: the sabotage that followed the strike and defeat of the

Parisian building workers in 1906. The building workers went back to

their sites determined that their peace with the bosses would be more

terrible than their war. And so, tacitly and unanimously in agreement,

they began to slow production down; as if by chance, sacks of plaster or

cement were found to be ruined, etc., etc. This war is still continuing

today and, I repeat, the results have been impressive. Not only have the

bosses often had to concede, but the construction workers have come out

of this campaign much more conscious, more independent, more rebellious.

But if I dealt only with syndicalism as a whole, forgetting to mention

its particular manifestations, what sort of apology would that be! The

revolutionary spirit in France was dying, year after year it languished.

Guesde’s revolutionism, for example, was only in words or, worse still,

for the benefit of elections and parliament; the revolutionism of

Jaurès, on the other hand, went even further: it was simply, and openly,

ministerial and governmental. As for the anarchists, their revolutionism

had taken refuge in the lofty heights of the ivory tower of

philosophical speculation. But it was amongst all these défaillances, in

fact because of them, that syndicalism was born; the revolutionary

spirit came alive again, became renewed at contact with it, and the

bourgeoisie, for the first time since anarchist dynamite had hushed its

grandiose voice, the bourgeoisie trembled!

It is important, then, that the syndicalist experience of the French

proletariat be of use to the proletariat of every country. And it is the

task of anarchists to ensure that this experience begins again

everywhere there is a working class that is struggling for its own

emancipation. Instead of opinion-based syndicalism, which gave rise to

anarchist trade-unions in, for example, Russia and to Christian and

social-democratic trade unions in Belgium and Germany, anarchists must

provide the option of French-style syndicalism, a neutral – or more

precisely, independent – form of syndicalism. Just as there is only one

[working] class, so there should be only one single workers’

organization, one single syndicate, for each trade and in each town.

Only on this condition can the class struggle – no longer facing the

obstacle of arguments between the various schools of thought and rival

sects on every point – develop to its fullest extent and have the

greatest possible effect.

The Congress of Amiens proclaimed that syndicalism is sufficient unto

itself. Now I know that this word has not always been completely

understood, not even by anarchists. But what does it mean, if not that

the now mature working class finally intends to be sufficient unto

itself and not to entrust its emancipation to anyone other than itself?

What anarchist could object to such a clearly-expressed will for action?

Syndicalism does not waste time promising the workers heaven on earth.

It asks them to conquer it and assures them that their action will not

be entirely in vain. It is a school of will, of energy, of fruitful

thought. It opens new hopes and prospects to anarchism, too long closed

in on itself. Let anarchists embrace syndicalism, then; their work will

be all the more fruitful, their strikes against the social regime all

the more decisive.

As with every human endeavour, the syndicalist movement is not without

its faults, but far from wishing to hide them, I believe it is useful to

remember them constantly so that we can act to overcome them.

The most important is the tendency of individuals to entrust the task of

struggle to their syndicates, to the Federation, to the Confederation,

to rely on collective strength when their individual energy would be

enough. By constantly appealing to the will of the individual, to his

initiative and his daring, we anarchists can react vigorously against

this negative tendency to resort continuously to the collective strength

for small and large matters alike.

Syndicalist fonctionnairisme, furthermore, provokes lively criticism

which, it must be said, is often justified. It can and does happen that

some militants no longer fulfil their function in order to fight in the

name of their comrades, but in order to make a living. But we must not

deduce from this that the trade union organizations must do without

officials. Many organizations cannot do without them. But they are a

necessity whose defects can be corrected by an ever-vigilant spirit of

criticism.

Tenth session – Thursday 29 August – Morning session

The session opens at nine-thirty. It is decided that the chairman shall

remain unchanged until the end of the Congress. After the translations

of Monatte’s speech into Dutch and German, Friedeberg speaks to observe

that all the main European papers have published reports on the

Anarchist Congress with the exception of the social-democrat papers.

These papers, most notably “Vorwärts”, have observed the most religious

silence; they undoubtedly prefer to entertain their readers with the

diplomatic farce currently being played out in the Hague!

MALATESTA: Rather than regret this unanimous silence, I would be happy

about it, personally speaking. In the past, every time the

social-democratic press has dealt with anarchists it has been to slander

them. Now it says nothing: that at least is a step forward.

But Monatte did not want “L’Humanité”, the French socialist paper, and

“Vorwärts”, the rich and powerful “central organ” of German social

democracy, to be placed on the same level. “L’Humanité” was poor and had

no correspondents in Amsterdam. Monatte was convinced that this was the

only reason for the silence on the part of “L’Humanitè” [86].

MALATESTA: Time is passing and we are still far from having got through

our too-full agenda. We still have three important problems to discuss:

“Syndicalism and Anarchism”; “The economic general strike and the

political general strike”; “Anti-militarism and Anarchism”, not to

mention many questions of secondary importance. As it is difficult to

separate syndicalism from the general strike, I would ask that in order

to save time, they be discussed together.

It is decided that the questions of syndicalism and the general strike

be unified under the title “Syndicalism and the General Strike” and that

the discussion take place in the afternoon.

Comrade Nikolai Rogdaev takes the floor to speak about “The Russian

Revolution”. Rogdaev speaks in Russian and most people attending the

Congress do not understand him [87]. Everyone’s eyes, however, are fixed

on that pale youth in whose eyes burn a strange flame. And everyone can

guess at what he is saying. He speaks about the struggle in which

Russian anarchists (including himself) are engaged against murderous

czarism; he recalls the revolts and the martyrs, the suffering and the

executions, all the enormous drama that is being played out in Russia

only to be met with the indifference of Europe.

At this point, Siegfried Nacht raised an incident. He accused comrade

Croiset of having given information to some bourgeois journalists from

Amsterdam the previous evening on yesterday’s private session. He

suggested that Croiset give some public explanation.

Nacht’s words provoked great emotion throughout the assembly. It was not

known what information Croiset had provided and it was feared that it

could possibly be damaging to some delegates (in particular the Germans)

once they returned to their countries.

But Croiset rose and asked to speak. He was pale. His defence,

alternately in Dutch, German and French, was listened to in silence.

CROISET: What Nacht says is in effect true, I realize that with deep

regret. I am worthy of your reproach, and I accept it a priori, a result

of my guilty thoughtlessness. I wish only to protest vehemently one

expression used by Nacht. He says that he “surprised” me. Only one who

hides can be surprised. However, it was during the course of yesterday’s

public meeting that I spoke to the journalists. I would add that the

information given cannot compromise any of our comrades.

MALATESTA: While I deplore comrade Croiset’s thoughtlessness, I would

ask Congress to continue with the agenda before it.

The majority shared Malatesta’s point of view and formally reproached

Croiset. It should be added that some of those present, represented by

Chapelier, were contrary to this reproach, given Croiset’s apology and

the practically inexistent damage.

Eleventh session – Thursday 29 August – Afternoon session

As soon as the session opened, Emma Goldman read out a resolution in

support of the Russian Revolution proposed by comrades Rogdaev and

Vladimir Zabrezhnev together with Goldman, Cornelissen, Baginsky, Pëtr

Munžič, Luigi Fabbri and Malatesta. The resolution was unanimously

passed.

Discussion of the general strike and syndicalism then resumed. The first

to speak was Christiaan Cornelissen.

CORNELISSEN: I do not believe that any anarchist could object to

Monatte’s speech. However, it should be agreed that he spoke solely from

the point of view of a syndicalist militant and that from an anarchist

viewpoint his speech requires completion.

Anarchists, we must support both syndicalism and direct action, but on

one condition: that their goal be revolutionary and that they do not

cease to aim at transforming today’s society into a communist and

libertarian society.

We cannot hide from the fact that neither syndicalism nor direct action

are always, necessarily revolutionary. It is possible to use them for

conservative, even reactionary, ends. Thus the diamond workers of

Amsterdam and Antwerp have greatly improved their working conditions

without resorting to parliamentary means, by the sole use of direct

syndicalist action. And what do we see now? The diamond cutters have

made a sort of closed caste of their corporation, around which they have

built a Chinese wall. They have limited the number of apprentices and

they oppose ex-cutters returning to the trade once they have left.

Certainly we cannot approve of such practices!

And neither is this a Dutch speciality. In England and in the United

States, the unions have often practised direct action. They have used

direct action to create a state of privilege for their members; they

prevent foreign workers from working even when they are members of

unions; and lastly, being made up of “qualified” workers, they have at

times opposed the movements of manual labourers, of “unqualified”

workers. We can approve of none of this.

Similarly, we cannot approve of the attitude of the French and Swiss

typographers who refuse to work with women. There is at present a threat

of war between the United States and Japan, but the fault lies not with

the American capitalists and bourgeoisie, who would draw even greater

benefit from exploiting Japanese workers than American workers. No, it

is the American workers themselves who are sparking off the war by

violently opposing the importation of Japanese manpower.

Finally, there are also other forms of direct action that we must never

cease to combat: for example, those that seek to oppose the introduction

of machinery (linotypes, hoists, etc.), in other words the improvement

of production through the improvement of the tools of production.

I intend to condense these ideas into the form of a motion that will set

out which forms of syndicalism and direct action anarchists can support.

Comrade Malatesta immediately takes the floor and replies to Monatte

with one of his most vigorous speeches. From the moment the old

revolutionary begins to speak, with the down-to-earth eloquence and

frankness so appreciated by all, silence falls on the hall.

MALATESTA: I wish to state straight away that I will only deal here with

those areas in which I am in disagreement with the previous speakers,

and in particular Monatte. Otherwise I would be needlessly inflicting

you with pointless repetition, something which we can allow ourselves to

do at a rally, for example, faced with a hostile or indifferent

audience. But here we are amongst comrades and I am sure that on hearing

me criticize what there is to be criticized in syndicalism none of you

will be tempted to take me for an enemy of organization and workers’

action; were that to happen it would mean you do not know me very well!

The conclusion arrived at by Monatte is that syndicalism is a necessary

and sufficient means for social revolution. In other words, Monatte has

declared that syndicalism is sufficient unto itself. And this is, in my

opinion, a radically erroneous doctrine. The aim of my speech is to

counter this doctrine.

Syndicalism, and more precisely the workers’ movement (the workers’

movement is a fact that no-one can ignore, whereas syndicalism is a

doctrine, a system, and we must avoid confusing them), the workers’

movement, I repeat, has always found in me a staunch, but not blind,

defender. It is because I see it as a particularly favourable terrain

for our revolutionary propaganda and at the same time a point of contact

between the masses and ourselves. I do not need to insist on this point.

It must be admitted that I have never been one of those anarchist

intellectuals who benevolently walled themselves up in the ivory tower

of pure speculation once the old International disappeared; that I have

never stopped fighting that attitude of haughty isolation wherever I

have found it, be it in England, Italy, France, or elsewhere, nor

pushing comrades back to the path that the syndicalists, forgetting a

glorious past, call new, but that the first anarchists had already

established and followed within the international.

I want anarchists to enter the workers’ movement today, as they did in

the past. I am a syndicalist, in the sense of being a supporter of the

syndicates, today as I was in the past. I do not demand anarchist

syndicates that would immediately justify social-democratic syndicates,

or republican, or royalist or others which would at best be able to

divide the working class more than ever. I do not even want red

syndicates, because I do not want yellow syndicates. On the contrary, I

want syndicates that are open to all workers without distinction of

opinions, absolutely neutral syndicates.

So then, I am for the greatest possible participation in the workers’

movement. But I am for it above all in the interest of our propaganda,

whose range of action would be considerably increased. It is just that

this participation cannot result in our renouncing our dearest ideas. In

the syndicates we must remain as anarchists, with all the force and

breadth of the term. The workers’ movement is nothing more than a means

– albeit obviously the best of all the means at our disposition. But I

refuse to take this means as an end, and I would reject it if it were to

make us lose sight of the other elements of our anarchist ideas, or more

simply our other means of propaganda and action.

The syndicalists on the other hand teach us to make an end of the means,

to take the partial for the whole. That is how in the minds of some of

our comrades syndicalism is about to become a new doctrine, threatening

the very existence of anarchism.

Now, even if it is reinforced by the pointless use of the adjective

revolutionary, syndicalism is and always will be a legalitarian,

conservative movement with no other possible goal – at best – than the

improvement of working conditions. I need go no further for proof than

the example offered by the great North American unions. Having presented

themselves as radically revolutionary, at a time when they were still

weak, once they grew in size and wealth these unions these unions became

markedly conservative organizations, solely occupied with creating

privileges for their members in the factory, workshop or mine, and are

much less hostile to the bosses’ capitalism than the non-organized

workers, that ragged proletariat so maligned by the social democrats!

Now, this continually-growing proletariat of the unemployed, which

counts for nothing with syndicalism, or rather which counts only as an

obstacle, cannot be forgotten by us anarchists and we must defend it

because it is subjected to the worst sufferings.

Let me repeat: anarchists must enter the workers’ syndicates. Firstly,

in order to carry out anarchist propaganda; secondly, because it is the

only means that can provide us with groups that will be in a position to

take over the running of production come the day; furthermore, we must

join in order to counteract to the best of our abilities that detestable

state of mind that leads the unions to defend only particular interests.

The basic error of Monatte and of all revolutionary syndicalists, in my

opinion, derives from an overly simplistic conception of the class

struggle. It is a conception whereby the economic interests of all

workers – of the working class – are held to be equal, whereby it is

enough for workers to set about defending their own particular interests

in order for the interests of the whole proletariat against the bosses

to be defended.

The reality is very different, in my view. The workers, like the

bourgeoisie, like everyone, are subject to the law of universal

competition that derives from the system of private property and that

will only be extinguished together with that system.

There are therefore no classes, in the proper sense of the term, because

there are no class interests. There exists competition and struggle

within the working “class”, just as there does among the bourgeoisie.

The economic interests of one category of worker are implacably in

contrast with those of another category. And indeed we sometimes see

some workers much closer, economically and mentally, to the bourgeoisie

than to the proletariat. Cornelissen gave us some examples of this fact

here in Holland. And there are others. I need no remind you that workers

very often use violence during their strikes... against the police or

the bosses? No, against the scabs who too are exploited and even more

unfortunate, while the workers’ true enemies, the only real obstacle to

social equality, are the police and the bosses.

However, moral solidarity between proletarians is possible, if economic

solidarity is not. Workers who limit themselves to the defence of their

corporative interests will not know what it is, but there will come the

day when the shared will to transform society will make new men of them.

In today’s society, solidarity can only be the result of sharing a

common ideal. It is the task of anarchists to incite the syndicates to

the ideal, guiding them little by little towards the social revolution –

at the risk of damaging those “immediate gains” which they are so fond

of today.

One can no longer deny that union action carries risks. The greatest of

these risks certainly lies in militants accepting official positions in

the unions, above all when they are paid positions. As a general rule,

the anarchist who accepts permanent, paid office within a union is lost

to propaganda, and lost to anarchism! He becomes indebted to those who

pay him and, as they are not anarchists, the paid official who finds

himself torn between his own conscience and his own interests will

either follow his conscience and lose his position or else follow his

interests and so, goodbye anarchism!

The official is a danger to the workers’ movement, comparable only to

parliamentarianism: both lead to corruption and from corruption to death

it is only a short step.

Now, let us move on to the general strike. As far as I am concerned, I

accept the principle and promote it as much as I can, and have done so

for several years. The general strike has always struck me as an

excellent means to set off the social revolution. However, let us take

care to avoid falling under the dangerous illusion that the general

strike can make the revolution superfluous.

We are expected to believe that by suddenly halting production the

workers will starve the bourgeoisie into submission within a few days.

Personally speaking, I can think of nothing more absurd. The first to

starve to death during a general strike will not be the bourgeoisie who

have all the accumulated produce at their disposal, but the workers, who

only have their labour to live on.

The general strike as it is described to us is a pure utopia. Either the

workers, starving after three days of striking, will go back to work

with his tail between his legs and we add yet another defeat to the

list, or he will decide to take the products into his own hands by

force. And who will try to stop him? Soldiers, gendarmes, the

bourgeoisie itself, and the whole matter will be necessarily decided

with rifles and bombs. It will be an insurrection and victory will lie

with the strongest.

So then, let us prepare for this inevitable insurrection instead of

limiting ourselves to exalting the general strike as if it were a

panacea for all evils. And please do not raise the objection that the

government is armed to the teeth and will always be stronger than the

insurgents. In Barcelona in 1902, the army was not so numerous [88]. But

there had been no preparation for armed struggle and the workers, who

did not understand that political power was their real enemy, sent

delegates to the governor to ask him to get the bosses to give in.

Furthermore, the general strike, even taken on the level of what it

really is, is still a two-edged sword that must be used with prudence.

The subsistence services would not be able to cope with a prolonged

stoppage. It will be necessary to take control of food supplies by

force, and straight away – without waiting for the strike to turn into

insurrection.

Rather than inviting the workers to stop working, what we should be

doing is asking them to go on working, but for their own benefit. Unless

that happens, the general strike will soon become a general famine, even

if we were strong enough to commandeer all the produce in the warehouses

straight away. The idea of the general strike has its origins in a

completely erroneous conviction: the conviction that humanity could

consume the produce accumulated by the bourgeoisie for months and years

without having to produce anything. This conviction inspired the authors

of two propaganda pamphlets published about twenty years ago: “Les

produits de la Terre” and “Les produits de l’Industrie” [89], pamphlets

that have done more harm than good in my opinion. Today’s society is not

as rich as is thought. In one piece, Kropotkin showed that if there were

to be a sudden interruption in production, England would survive for

only one month, and London no more than three days. I am fully aware of

the phenomenon of overproduction. But every overproduction is

immediately corrected by crises that quickly restore order to industry.

Overproduction is always temporary and relative.

But it is time to conclude. I used to deplore the fact that comrades

isolated themselves from the workers’ movement. Today, I deplore the

fact that many of us are going to the opposite extreme and allowing

ourselves to be absorbed by that movement. Once again I repeat, workers’

organization, the strike, the general strike, direct action, the

boycott, sabotage and armed insurrection are all simply means. Anarchy

is the goal. The anarchist revolution that we want goes far beyond the

interests of one class: what is proposed is the complete liberation of

humanity, which is currently in a state of servitude, from an economic,

political and mental point of view. So, let us be wary of any

unilateral, simplistic means of action. Syndicalism, an excellent means

of action because of the worker forces it places at our disposal, cannot

be our only goal. And even less so should it allow us to lose sight of

the only goal that is worth the effort: Anarchy.

Twelfth session – Thursday 29 August – Evening session

The session begins towards nine o’clock with the Dutch translation of

Malatesta’s speech, after which the discussion continues.

FRIEDEBERG: As I agree with Malatesta on the question of the

relationship between anarchism on the one hand and syndicalism and the

general strike on the other, I would be wasting Congress’ time if I

spoke at any length.

Like Malatesta, I do not believe that anarchism gives itself the sole

objective of emancipating one class, however interesting it may be, but

the whole of humanity, without distinction of class, sex, nationality or

race. Keeping all anarchist action within the boundaries of the

working-class movement means, in my opinion, doing grave injustice to

the essential and profound characteristic of anarchism.

I set before the chair a motion inspired by this idea and submit it to

the approval of Congress.

FUSS: I would point out to Malatesta that there are still some

anarchists who, for all their involvement in the workers’ movement,

remain no less faithful, and declaredly so, to their convictions. The

truth is that they find it impossible to view the organized proletariat

as merely fertile terrain for propaganda. Far from considering it a

simple means, they attribute to it its own value and wish for nothing

more than to be the vanguard of the army of labour on the march towards

emancipation.

We struggle against the bourgeoisie, that is to say against capital and

against authority. This is the class struggle; but unlike political

struggles, it takes place essentially on the economic terrain, around

those factories which will one day have to be taken over. We are no

longer living in times when the revolution means taking over a few town

halls and decreeing the new society from a balcony. The social

revolution we are working towards will mean the expropriation of a

class. The combat unit is therefore not as in the past an opinion group,

but a trade group, workers’ union or syndicate. The latter is the most

appropriate organ of the class struggle. But it is essential that it be

progressively guided towards the appropriating general strike and that

is what we invite comrades in every country to do.

SAMSON: Among the means of workers’ action recommended both by

syndicalists and anarchists, sabotage occupies a leading role. However,

I feel obliged to point out certain reservation in its regard. Sabotage

does not fulfil its aim; it seeks to damage the boss, but instead it

damages those who use it and, at the same time, sets the public against

the workers.

We must seek to perfect the working class with all our strength; but I

believe that sabotage works against this objective; if it only damaged

machinery, it would not be such a bad thing, but it damages above all

the professional morality of the worker and for this reason I am against

it.

BROUTCHOUX: I am far from sharing Malatesta’s fears regarding

syndicalism and the workers’ movement. As I have already said, I belong

to a miners’ union which is totally won over to revolutionary ideas and

methods. This union has supported energetic, violent strikes which have

not been forgotten – and will support others in the future; in our union

we know only too well what the hypocritical tactics of conciliation and

arbitration preached by the apostles of social peace lead to, and we

believe only in struggle, in violent demands and in revolt. The

evolution taking place amongst us in workers’ circles seems to me to

give lie formally to Malatesta’s theories.

VOHRYZEK: I am hoping to propose a specific motion on the political

general strike to Congress. The idea of this general strike is gaining

ground day by day in the German countries, especially since the social

democrats have made it their own, no doubt believing they can thus

damage the economic general strike supported by the anarchists.

Anarchist must oppose the propaganda in favour of a strike destined not

to put an end to the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie,

but to safeguard the institution of universal suffrage under threat from

the government or to conquer political power.

Nonetheless, if such a strike broke out, anarchists would have to take

part in order to push the workers firmly in the direction of revolution

and to instil the movement with the goal of economic demands.

RAMUS: While comrade Monatte may have justified in advance all the

reserves that Malatesta later expressed by speaking from an exclusively

revolutionary syndicalist point of view, I can only associate myself

fully with Malatesta.

It seems absolutely essential to me that we never lose sight of the fact

that syndicalism, the general strike and direct action with all its

various forms cannot be considered as anything but truly anarchist means

of action. Syndicalism can be said to be contained within anarchism; but

it would be wrong to say that syndicalism contains anarchism.

The great merit of syndicalism, of union action, essentially consists in

opposing bourgeois parliamentarianism in practice, something which is

evident. But just as I cannot look at the general strike as a surrogate

of the social revolution, I cannot admit that syndicalism is sufficient

unto itself, as the syndicalists do. Anarchism has already provided it

with all its weapons of war; when it has also received a philosophy and

an ideal only then will we admit that syndicalism is sufficient unto

itself. And it will be sufficient unto itself because it will have

become... anarchism!

In closing let me say this: we are anarchists first and foremost, then

syndicalists. But never the opposite.

It is past midnight when comrade Ramus finishes his speech. Those

present at the Congress are very tired and the atmosphere in the hall

has gradually become more and more heated and agitated. There is a

general desire to bring the debate on syndicalism to a close at any cost

and Dunois vainly requests that Monatte’s reply be postponed to the next

day.

MONATTE: Listening to Malatesta this evening as he bitterly criticized

new revolutionary ideas, I thought I was hearing an echo from the

distant past. Malatesta’s best response to the new ideas, whose brutal

realism frightens him, is to drag up the old ideas of Blanquism that

once led us to believe that the world could be renewed by means of a

triumphant armed insurrection.

Furthermore, the revolutionary syndicalists here this evening have been

widely reproached for sacrificing anarchism and the revolution to

syndicalism and the general strike. Well then, I can personally tell you

that our anarchism is worth just as much as yours and we have no

intention whatsoever of hauling down our flag, just like you. Like

everyone else here, anarchism is our final goal. It is just that as the

times have changed, we too have changed our conception of the movement

and the revolution. Revolution can no longer be carried out as it was in

’48. As for syndicalism, while it may in practice have given rise to

errors and deviations in some countries, experience will stop us from

repeating them. Instead of criticizing syndicalism’s past, present and

even future defeats from on high, if anarchists became more closely

involved with its work, the dangers that syndicalism can hide will be

averted for ever.

THONAR: Despite what Monatte says, there are no young or old people here

defending new ideas or old ideas. Many young people, and I am one of

them, glory in not abandoning one iota of anarchist ideas, which are

safely sheltered from the ravages of the storm.

If anything, I believe that there are simply differences of judgement

between the “young” on one side and the “old” on the other, differences

which are not enough to divide the anarchist army into two rival camps.

The session came to a close at one o’clock in the morning.

Thirteenth session – Friday 30 August – Morning session

It is nine o’clock when Lange, who has remained as chairman, declares

the session open. The debate on syndicalism and the general strike is

finished and there remains only to vote on the various motions that have

been presented, before moving on to the subject of anti-militarism.

Comrade Aristide Ceccarelli, though, asks to say a few words on the

Argentinean workers’ and anarchist movement. He takes the floor.

ARISTIDE CECCARELLI: For some years now in Argentina a strong workers’

movement has been developing. There exists a group of militants who

describe themselves as syndicalist. But, like the Italian syndicalists

whom they greatly resemble, they have not renounced the methods of

parliamentarianism; the only ones to carry out any serious work within

the working class along revolutionary lines are the anarchists. It can

be said that almost all the organization in the Federación Obrera

Regional Argentina [90] show libertarian tendencies; and many of these

carry out anarchist propaganda directly. The recent Argentinean workers’

congress, described as a unification congress [91], approved with a

large majority the proposal made to the unions to contribute to the

propaganda of anarchist communism.

Ceccarelli goes on to outline the miserable state of the Argentinean

workers and ends by declaring that he is authorized to propose the

anarchist congress vote on a resolution aimed at impeding as much as

possible European emigration to a country where, as much if not more

than any other, there is neither bread nor freedom.

Errico Malatesta and several other delegates then observe that the

resolution proposed by Aristide Ceccarelli merits special discussion,

which congress cannot engage in at the moment as it must first finish

dealing with the matter of syndicalism.

Without deliberating on the problem raised by Ceccarelli, it is decided

to move on to the vote on the motions relating to syndicalism and the

general strike, of which there are four.

FIRST MOTION: CORNELISSEN – VOHRYZEK – MALATESTA

“The International Anarchist Congress considers the Syndicates as both

fighting organizations in the class struggle for the betterment of

working conditions and as unions of producers that can serve in the

transformation of capitalist society into an Anarchist Communist

society.

Thus Congress, while recognizing that it may be necessary to create

special revolutionary Syndicalist groups, recommends that comrades

support the general Syndicalist organizations which are open to all the

workers of the same category.

But Congress considers that it is the function of Anarchists to

constitute the revolutionary element in these organizations and to

propagate only those forms and manifestations of direct action (strikes,

boycotts, sabotage, etc.) that are inherently revolutionary and aimed at

transforming society.

Anarchists consider the Syndicalist movement and the general strike as

powerful revolutionary means, but not as substitutes for revolution.

They also recommend that in the event of the proclamation of a General

Strike for the conquest of political power, comrades participate in the

strike but at the same time seek to use their influence to encourage the

Syndicates to push their economic demands.

Anarchists think that the destruction of capitalist, authoritarian

society can only come about through armed insurrection and violent

expropriation, and that use of the strike, more or less general, and the

Syndicalist movement must not allow us to forget more direct means of

struggle against the military might of governments.”

This motion is signed not only by its authors, but also by comrades

Wilquet, Goldman, de Marmande, Rogdaev and Knotek, and is passed with 33

votes for and 10 against.

SECOND MOTION: FRIEDEBERG

“The class struggle and the economic emancipation of the proletariat are

not identical to the ideas and aspirations of Anarchism, which go beyond

the immediate aspirations of classes and are aimed at the economic and

moral liberation of all humans, at an environment free from authority

and not at a new power, that of the majority over the minority.

Anarchism, however, sees in the elimination of class oppression, in the

disappearance of economic inequalities, an absolutely necessary and

essential stage towards the achievement of its final goal. Anarchism

must oppose the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat being

waged with means that contradict anarchist ideas and impede the true

goal of Anarchism. Anarchists therefore refuse to wage the struggle

according to the methods of Marxist socialism, that is to say

parliamentarianism and a corporative union movement whose only goal is

the betterment of the proletariat’s conditions, means that imply the

consequential development of a new bureaucracy, of an approved or

unapproved intellectual authority, and the oppression of the minority by

the majority. Anarchist means for the abolition of class oppression can

only be those that arise directly from the affirmation of the individual

person: “direct action” and “individual disobedience” – that is to say

active and passive individualism, both by one person and by a mass,

moving with a collective will.

The Libertarian Communist Congress therefore rejects the strike for

political rights (politischer Massenstreik), whose goal is unacceptable

to Anarchism, but recognizes the economic and revolutionary General

Strike, that is to say the refusal of the whole proletariat as a class

to work, as a fitting means for the disorganization of the economic

structure of today’s society and for the emancipation of the proletariat

from the slavery of the wage system. In order to achieve this general

strike it is essential that the anarchist ideal penetrate the

Syndicates. A Syndicalist movement that is animated by an Anarchist

spirit can, through the revolutionary General Strike, destroy class

domination and open the path to Anarchism’s final goal: the realization

of a society without authority.”

This motion is passed with 36 votes for and 6 against.

THIRD MOTION: DUNOIS

Countersigned by Monatte, Fuss, Nacht, Zielinska, Fabbri, Walter.

“The Anarchists gathered in Amsterdam from 26 to 31 August 1907,

considering

That the current economic and juridical regime is characterized by the

exploitation and enslavement of the mass of producers, and establishes

absolutely irreconcilable opposing interests that make up the class

struggle;

That by solidarizing the resistance and rebellions on the economic

terrain without doctrinaire worries, the Syndicalist organization is the

fundamental specific organ of this struggle of the proletariat against

the bourgeoisie and all the bourgeois institutions;

That it is necessary for an increasingly audacious revolutionary spirit

to guide the efforts of the Syndicalist organization towards the

expropriation of the capitalists and the suppression of all authority;

That as expropriation and the taking of collective possession of the

instruments and produce of labour can only be the task of the workers

themselves, the Syndicate is destined to transform itself into an

association of producers and is therefore the living bud in today’s

society of the future society;

Invite comrades of all countries, without forgetting that Anarchist

action is not limited only to the sphere of the Syndicate, to

participate actively in the autonomous movement of the working class and

to develop within the Syndicalist organizations the ideas of revolt,

individual initiative and solidarity, which are the very essence of

Anarchism.”

This motion is passed with 28 votes for and 7 against. As it contained

nothing regarding the general strike, it was completed by the following

motion:

FOURTH MOTION: NACHT – MONATTE

Countersigned by Fuss, Dunois, Fabbri, Zielinska and Walter.

“The Anarchists gathered in Amsterdam from 26 to 31 August 1907, declare

that they consider the expropriating General Strike as a remarkable

stimulus to organization and the spirit of rebellion in today’s society

and as the form with which the complete emancipation of the proletariat

can be accomplished.

The General Strike cannot be confused with the Political General Strike

(politischer Massenstreik), which is nothing more than an attempt by

politicking elements to deviate the General Strike from its economic and

revolutionary ends.

With the spread of strikes to whole localities, regions or trades, the

working class will progressively rise up and drag itself towards the

Expropriating General Strike, that will include the destruction of

today’s society and the expropriation both of the means of production

and of the produce itself”.

This last motion obtains 25 votes and is consequently passed.

The reader may be rather surprised that these four motions could have

all been passed, given the evident contradictions between them. It

defies the parliamentary norm, but it is a conscious transgression. In

order that the opinion of the majority not suffocate, or seem to

suffocate, that of the minority, the majority presented the single

motions one by one for vote. All four had a majority of votes for. In

consequence, all four were approved.

At this stage it appears that the subject of syndicalism and the general

strike are finally exhausted. But Emma Goldman stands up and announces

that it would be strange for an anarchist congress not to pronounce

itself in favour of the right to revolt, in its widest sense, and reads

the following declaration, countersigned by comrade Baginsky:

“The International Anarchist Congress declares its recognition of the

right of both the individual and the whole mass to revolt.

Congress holds that acts of revolt, above all when they are directed

against representatives of the State and the plutocracy, must be

considered under a psychological profile, being the results of the deep

impression made on the psychology of the individual by the terrible

weight of social injustice.

It could be established, as a general rule, that only the most noble,

most sensitive and most delicate characters are subject to such deep

impressions as to manifest themselves in inward or outward acts of

revolt. From this point of view, acts of revolt are the

socio-psychological consequences of an unacceptable system; and as such,

they must, with their causes and motives, be understood rather than

exalted or condemned.

During revolutionary periods such as in Russia, the act of revolt – even

without considering its psychological nature – has a double goal: it

undermines the very basis of tyranny and excites the enthusiasm of those

who dare not rebel. This is above all the case with terrorist attacks

directed against the most brutal and hateful representatives of

despotism.”

In accepting this resolution, Congress expresses its support for the

individual act of revolt and its solidarity with collective

insurrection.

MALATESTA: As far as I am concerned, I accept the Goldman-Baginsky

declaration. But as it cannot be linked either to the discussion on

syndicalism, which is closed, or to that on anti-militarism, which is

shortly to begin, I propose that it be considered as a simple

declaration of principles and not as an ordinary motion, and that

Congress vote on it as such.

GOLDMAN: Irrespective of how you want to call it, Max Baginsky and I

would above all like Congress to vote on it.

Put to the vote, the Goldman-Baginsky declaration is unanimously

approved.

The discussion on anti-militarism is then opened, but owing to the lack

of time and the fact that the Anti-Militarist Congress has just opened,

it is decided that the anarchists should join the latter congress,

presenting a motion passed by the Anarchist Congress. The motion is

signed by Malatesta, de Marmande, Thonar, Cornelissen, Ramus and Domela

Nieuwenhuis.

MOTION:

“The Anarchists, desiring the integral emancipation of humanity and the

absolute liberty of the individual, are naturally the declared enemies

of all armed forces in the hands of the State – army, navy or police.

They urge all comrades, according to circumstances and individual

temperament, to revolt and refuse to serve (either individually or

collectively), to passively and actively disobey, and to join in a

military strike for the destruction of all the instruments of

domination.

They express the hope that the people of all countries affected will

reply to a declaration of war by insurrection.

They declare it to be their opinion that the Anarchists will set the

example.”

The motion is approved without discussion and the session comes to a

close at midday.

Fourteenth session – Friday 30 August – Afternoon session

This session is held as part of the Anti-Militarist Congress with the

delegate of the Bohemian Anarchist Federation, Vohryzek, being elected

as chairman. De Marmande, who is delegated to speak in the name of the

Anarchist Congress, makes his report on the history and development of

the anti-militarist movement, emphasizing the leading role played by

anarchists. He concludes by putting to the vote the motion approved by

the morning session of the Anarchist Congress and it is passed

unanimously. There follow a series of speakers including Friedeberg,

Rogdaev, Domela Nieuwenhuis, Croiset, Ramus, Goldman and Fabbri.

Fifteenth session – Friday 30 August – Evening session

The session opens towards nine o’clock and is poorly attended, many of

the delegates having remained at the Anti-Militarist Congress. Others

are in a nearby room, at a meeting of revolutionary syndicalists.

The agenda foresees discussion of Alcoholism and Anarchism and Professor

J. Van Rees presents a short report. Discussion of the topic is

postponed until the following day.

[1] The only organization represented at the London Congress was the

Jura Federation. Germans, Austrians, Spaniards, Russians and

Swiss-Germans were represented by emigrants living in London (Vera

Zasulič for the Russians; Malatesta and Merlino for the Italians).

[2] P.C. MASINI, Storia degli anarchici italiani da Bakunin a Malatesta,

Rizzoli, Milan 1969, p. 203.

[3]

G. CERRITO, Dall’insurrezionalismo alla settimana rossa, CP Editrice,

Florence 1977, p. 13.

[4] P.C. MASINI, op. cit., p. 220.

[5] See G. CERRITO, op. cit., p.34 and following; P.C. MASINI, op. cit.,

p.215 and following.

[6]

C. CORNELISSEN, Le Congrès Ouvrier Révolutionnaire et Libertaire

d’Amsterdam (1907), in Almanach de la Révolution pour 1907, La

Publication Sociale, Paris undated (1907).

[7] See F.S. MERLINO, Nécessité et bases d’une entente, Impr. A.

Longfils, Brussels 1892.

[8] From E. Malatesta’s preface to the Italian edition of Merlino’s

above-mentioned pamphlet (Necessità e basi di un accordo, La Popolare

ed., Prato 1892).

[9] This is also the opinion, though limited to France, of R. BRECY, Le

Mouvement syndical en France 1871–1921, Mouton & Co., Paris — La Haye

1963, p. XII.

[10] Readers should need no reminder of the “syndicalist” choice of

Pelloutier and Pouget in reaction to “individual...dynamite”, and

Malatesta’s attempts to contain the rise of illegalism by seeking to

promote the usefulness of the “anarchist party”.

[11] Le Congrès ouvrier révolutionnaire international de Paris 1900, in

“Les Temps Nouveaux” du 31 mars au 6 avril 1900.

[12]

P. DELASALLE, Le Congrès révolutionnaire, in “Les Temps Nouveaux” du 21

au 27 juillet 1900.

[13] The principal questions discussed were: communism and anarchism;

communism and individualism; the general strike; the attitude of

anarchists towards cooperatives, anti-militarism, Semitism, Zionism,

Tolstoyism; the question of women; the various means of propaganda;

organization between revolutionary communist groups from the same

country or from different countries; the attitude of anarchists in the

case of war, uprising or insurrection; the organization of solidarity;

aid funds; publication of an international journal. Participants

included the Étudiants Socialistes Revolutionnaires Internationalistes,

many French libertarian libraries and study groups, some local trade

unions, the newspapers “Le Père Peinard”, “le Libertaire”, “Les Temps

Nouveaux”, the Parisian anti-militarist group, the Parisian Italian

group, Bulgarians, Czechs and Belgians.

[14] “Les Temps Nouveaux” published a special issue with all the

reports.

[15] See “Het Volksdagblad”, 26 juli 1906, for the report on the

congress. Also “Grond en Vrijheid”, august 1906 (Een nieuwe

Internationaal).

[16] See “Grond en Vrijheid”, oktober 1906 (Mededeelingen van de

Federatie van Vrijheidlievende Kommunisten).

[17] Aux Anarchistes, in “Bulletin de l’Internationale Libertaire”,

octobre 1906.

[18] Le Congrès d’Amsterdam, in “Bulletin de l’Internationale

Libertaire”, novembre 1906.

[19] “L’action directe”, edited by Gilly (Hainaut) was noted for its

“workerist anti-militarism”. See “Les Temps Nouveaux”, 7 avril 1906.

[20] Vers l’Internationale, in “Bulletin de l’Internationale

Libertaire”, octobre 1906.

[21] See “Bulletin de l’Internationale Libertaire”, février 1907.

[22] Ibid, avril 1907.

[23] Un Congresso Anarchico Italiano. Appello agli anarchici d’Italia,

in “La Gioventù Libertaria”, 30 marzo 1907.

[24] See “Bulletin de l’Internationale Libertaire”, mai 1907.

[25] See “Der freie Arbeiter”, den 20. April 1907.

[26]

G. HERZIG, Le Congrès d’Amsterdam, in “Le Réveil

socialiste-anarchiste”, 20 juillet 1907.

[27] Le Congrès d’Amsterdam, cit.

[28] L’Internationale Libertaire, in “Bulletin de l’Internationale

Libertaire”, février 1907.

[29] LA G.L., Riflessioni (A proposito del Congresso Internazionale

Libertario di Amsterdam), in “La Gioventù Libertaria”, 23 febbraio 1907.

[30]

H. FUSS-AMORÉ, Groupement Comuniste Libertarie, in “Les Temps

Nouveaux”, 26 janvier 1907.

[31] The circular appeared in most of the anarchist press in

January/February 1907.

[32]

G. HERZIG, cit.

[33]

H. FUSS-AMORÉ, Le Congrès d’Amsterdam, in “Les Temps Nouveaux”, 9 mars

1907.

[34] According to what Monatte wrote, in a long article which dealt with

the founding and life of “La Vie Ouvrière”, in “La Révolution

prolétarienne”, octobre 1959 — janvier 1960 (the comment that interests

us is in the October issue).

[35]

C. CORNELISSEN, cit.

[36] See the note to Rapport sur le movement anarchiste en Suisse

Romande, in “Bulletin de l’Internationale Libertaire”, 29 février 1908.

[37] The reference is to the famous strikes of April-May 1906, promoted

by the CGT in demand of an 8-hour working day.

[38]

A. DUNOIS, Les anarchistes et le movement ouvrier en France, in

“Bulletin de l’Internationale Libertaire”, juillet 1907 (also

published in “Der Freie Arbeiter”, den 31. August 1907).

[39]

A. DUNOIS, Un Congrès anarchiste, in “Les Temps Nouveaux”, 1 décembre

1906 (also published in “Il Pensiero”, 16 gennaio 1907).

[40]

A. DUNOIS, Sur le Congrès d’Amsterdam, in “Les Temps Nouveaux”, 16

février 1907.

[41] In this regard, see my Bakunin tra sindacalismo rivoluzionario e

anarchismo, in Bakunin cent’anni dopo, L’Antistato, Milan 1977, pp.

70–71.

[42]

P. KROPOTKIN, Les Anarchistes et les Syndicats, in “Les Temps

Nouveaux”, 25 mai 1907.

[43] With regard to Fabbri, see my introduction to L. FABBRI,

L’organizzazione operaia e l’anarchia, Crescita Politica Editrice,

Florence 1975.

[44] See for example by Pierrot, Le syndicalisme, in “Les Temps

Nouveaux”, 11 mai 1907 and by Bretoni, Gli anarchici e l’organizzazione

operaia (extract from the report sent to the Rome anarchist congress),

in “Il Pensiero”, 16 giugno 1907.

[45]

J. MAITRON, Histoire du movement anarchiste en France (1880–1914),

SELI, Paris 1951, p. 306.

[46] See “Le Mouvement social”, avril-juin 1977.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Resoconto generale del Congresso Internazionale Anarchico di

Amsterdam, Libreria Sociologica, Paterson 1907, p. 5.

[49] See Bakunin tra sindacalismo rivoluzionario e anarchismo, already

cited.

[50]

L. FABBRI, A proposito del Congresso di Amsterdam. Due parole di

schiarimento, in “La Protesta Umana”, 28 settembre 1907.

[51] See Resoconto generale ..., cit., p.5.

[52]

L. FABBRI, op. cit.

[53]

L. BERTONI, Anarchisme et syndicalisme, in “Le Réveil

socialiste-anarchiste”, 30 novembre 1907 (the article was concluded

in the following 8^(th) August issue).

[54]

A. DUNOIS, Le Congrès d’Amsterdam, in “Le Réveil

socialiste-anarchiste”, 21 septembre — 2 novembre 1907.

[55]

A. DUNOIS, Le Congrès d’Amsterdam et l’anarchisme, in “Pages libres”,

23 novembre 1907.

[56] “Bien-être et liberté” was the motto of the Confédération Générale

du Travail.

[57]

E. MALATESTA, Anarchisme et syndicalisme, in “Les Temps Nouveaux”, 28

décembre 1908.

[58] CHARLES-ALBERT, Après le Congrès, in “Les Temps Nouveaux”, 7

décembre 1907. J. GRAVE, Syndicalisme et anarchie, in “Les Temps

Nouveaux”, 1, 8, 15 février 1908. There is a curious comment by Malato

in “La Guerre Sociale”, du 28 août au 3 septembre 1907, where he talks

about two tendencies, one “objective” and one “subjective”, the former

seeking to change the environment in order to transform the individual,

the latter aiming to perfect the individual. The two tendencies that

appeared, however, do not seem to us to be distinguished in this way.

[59] See for example A. BORGHI, Anarchismo e sindacalismo, in

“L’Alleanza Libertaria”, 1 e 8 maggio 1908; E. SOTTOVIA, L’influenza

sindacalista nel movimento anarchico, ivi, 17 luglio 1908; L. FABBRI,

Come e perché siamo sindacalisti, ivi, 28 agosto 1908, etc.

[60] See L. BERTONI, Anarchisme et syndicalisme, cit.; J. W(INTSCH),

Idéologie du syndicalisme, in “Le Réveil socialiste-anarchiste”, 13 juin

1908.

[61] See the debate entitled Syndikalismus und Anarchismus, between

Luigi (Fabbri) and Karl Holfmann and G. Stine in “Der Revolutionär”, in

the issues of 16 and 20 November and 7 and 21 December 1907.

[62] See P. AVRICH, The Russian Anarchists, University Press, Princeton

1967, p. 81 and following.

[63] The first issue of “L’action directe” came out on 15 January 1908,

the last issue coming out on 3 October of the same year.

[64] See “Bulletin de l’Internationale Anarchiste”, décembre 1908.

[65] Turner had in fact gone to the International Syndicalist

Conference.

[66] Rapporto presentato al Congresso Internazionale Anarchico di

Amsterdam (24–31 agosto 1907), from “Il Pensiero”, 16 novembre 1907.

[67] Malatesta was referring to Ibsen’s play An Enemy of the People

(1882). The figure of Dr Stockmann had been very popular amongst

individualist anarchists and more than one individualist used “Dr

Stockmann” as a pseudonym (for example, Carlo Molaschi). “L’ennemi du

peuple” was also the title of a famous French individualist journal. The

same can be said for the verse tragedy “Brand”. One of the most famous

Swedish libertarian newspapers, founded in 1898 and which became in 1908

the mouthpiece of the young socialists party (of anarchist tendency),

was also called “Brand”. Even today an anarchist periodical of the same

name is published in Sweden.

[68] This proposal by Goldman was made with Berkman in mind.

[69] This is, of course, an entirely biased consideration on the part of

the editor.

[70] In May 1906, 158,000 people were on strike in France in support of

the 8-hour day. See CH. TILLY – EDW. SHORTER, Strikes in France

(1890–1968), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970, pp. 119, 120.

[71] 2–10 October 1876.

[72] Lyons, 28 January – 8 February 1878.

[73] 20–31 October 1879. The congress pronounced itself in favour of the

collectivization of the means of production and was oriented towards “la

federation générale de toutes les corporations”. In Marseilles, the

Fédération du Parti des travailleurs socialistes de France [Federation

of the Party of Socialist Workers of France] was founded.

[74] In November 1880.

[75] There had already been the first signs of dissent between the

Broussists and the Guesdists at the Congress of Rheims (30 October – 6

November 1881), where the Fédération transformed itself into the Parti

des travailleurs socialistes. At the following congress in

Saint-Étienne, which opened on 25 September 1882, the Guesdists walked

out and set up the Parti ouvrier [Workers Party], later to become the

Parti ouvrier français [French Workers Party]. The followers of Brousse

instead founded the Parti ouvrier socialiste révolutionnaire

[Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party], which later became the

Fédération des travailleurs socialistes de France [Federation of

Socialist Workers of France].

[76] In 1890 the possibilist left wing led by Jean Allemande formed a

party which took the old name Parti ouvrier socialiste révolutionnaire.

[77] Saint-Étienne Congress, 7–8 February 1892.

[78] Limoges Congress, 23–28 September 1895.

[79] 17–22 September 1894.

[80] Pelloutier (1867–1901) was secretary of the Fédération des Bourses

du Travail from 1894 and a supporter of anarchists joining the

syndicates.

[81] 20–25 September 1897. The Congress proclaimed the general strike to

be “synonymous of revolution”.

[82] “La Voix du Peuple” was the mouthpiece of the CGT and began

publication on 10 December 1900. The pre-war series ended on 3 August

1914, when hostilities broke out. Émile Pouget (1860–1931), who had been

behind the old “Père Peinard” journal, was its chief editor until 1909.

His place was taken by Yvetot (1909–1912), who was in turn succeeded

until 1914 by Dumoulin.

[83] In 1898 Alexandre Millerand, an independent socialist, accepted the

post of Minister of Industry and Trade in the Waldeck-Rousseau cabinet.

[84] Montpellier Congress, 22–27 September 1902 (13^(th) national

corporative congress and 7^(th) CGT congress).

[85] 8–16 October 1906.

[86] In actual fact, “L’Humanité” did carry news from the agencies in

its 28 and 29 August issues.

[87] Cf. Appendix to Dibattito sul sindacalismo. Atti del Congresso

Internazionale anarchico di Amsterdam (1907), edited by Maurizio

Antonioli, Florence 1978.

[88] Malatesta was referring to the general strike which broke out in

Barcelona that year.

[89]

M. Nettlau (Bibliographie de l’anarchie, Brussels-Paris, 1897, p. 70)

attributes both pamphlets, which came out in 1885 in Geneva and 1887

in Paris respectively, to Élisée Reclus and an anonymous helper. In

the report carried by “Publication Sociale” a note attributes them

only to Reclus’ helper.

[90] On 25 May 1901 in Buenos Aires, the Federación Obrera Argentina

[Argentinean Workers Federation] was founded as a union central that was

“autonomous” from the political parties. It was strongly federalist and

influenced by anarchists. For this reason, the socialist opposition

which was contrary to the general strike and to direct action, set up

the Unión General de Trabajadores [General Union of Workers] in March

1902. The 4^(th) congress of the FOA (held in Buenos Aires from 30 July

to 2 August 1904), decided to add the term Regional to the name, thereby

creating the FORA.

[91] In March 1907 in Buenos Aires, the FORA and the UGT met in congress

in an attempt to merge. The operation failed thanks to the intransigence

of the anarchist delegates who announced that they were in favour of an

organization oriented towards “libertarian communism”, obtaining a

majority. This attitude of “non-neutrality” was harshly criticized by

Luigi Fabbri (see his article Una spiegazione necessaria) in the 7 May

issue of “La Vita Operaia”. The article was republished in “La Protesta”

on 7 July and in “L’Acción Socialista” on 16 July.